Cableways Impact Assessment Study - Final Report - saferail.nl

More documents

Recommendations

Info

IA Study Concerning the Revision of the Cableways Directive 6.4 Problem Area D: Conformity Assessment of Subsystems Consultation for this study suggests that there is a lack of clarity with regards to existing legal requirements on conformity assessment of subsystems. However, it has been suggested that notified bodies which account for 90% of the notification market already use assessment modules which suggests that the impacts of Options D2 and D3 on cableway manufacturers, notified bodies and operators would likely be relatively limited. There is no specific evidence of impacts on passenger safety. The main impacts would likely arise from addressing problems posed by legal uncertainty. Due to the non-binding nature of the Application Guide, Option D2 is seen as ineffective in terms of addressing legal uncertainty and it is therefore concluded that benefits of Option D2 are significantly smaller than those arising from Option D3. In conclusion, Option D3 is seen as preferable. 6.5 Problem Area E: Alignment with the NLF (Obligations of Economic Operators) The cableways sector is said to be transparent with no evidence of attempts to place non-compliant products on the market and no or limited imports (perhaps with the exception of cableway ropes). Therefore, both Option E2 and Option E3 appear to be associated with limited benefits at the present time, although it cannot be ruled out that increased competition from outside of the EU might mean that these Options will deliver benefits in the future. In this respect, any potential future benefits from Option E2 are deemed to be relatively minor and Option E3 is seen as enjoying a comparatively higher potential in terms of its contribution to reducing or preventing sales of non-compliant products. These Options would be associated with a minor increase in administrative burden, primarily for importers and distributors. Cost impacts on other stakeholders are assumed to be negligible. With regard to national authorities, these would incur costs arising from transposition of these requirements and changes to existing practices but would also enjoy cost savings from harmonising procedures applied to cableways with those used in other sectors. From the present-day viewpoint, relatively limited impacts appear to be associated with either of the two options. However, should imports of non-compliant cableway products increase in the future, due to its legally binding nature, Option E3 would appear to be the more effective option. Page 124
Risk & Policy Analysts 6.6 Problem Area F: Alignment with the NLF (Criteria for Notified Bodies) Options F2 and F3 may contribute to ensuring that notified bodies have the necessary expertise and experience to carry out high quality assessments of conformity of cableways products. In this regard, it is of note that some stakeholders believe that there are differences in the quality of notified bodies with regard to the level of expertise on cableways products. This is because some notified bodies are rarely, if ever, involved in assessing cableway subsystems or safety components. However, there is no specific evidence of this leading to the approval of dangerous products. The main impacts from these options would arise for the notified bodies, national authorities and for the European Commission. With regard to the notification procedure and challenging the competence of the notified bodies, impacts (costs and benefits) cannot be estimated as they would depend on specific activities and steps taken by the European Commission and national authorities in the future. With regard to compulsory participation in information exchange between notified bodies, those notified bodies that currently do not take part in the notified body reporting system would incur additional costs of doing so. However, these costs are estimated to be negligible. As above, national authorities would incur costs arising from the transposition of these requirements and changes to existing practices but would also enjoy cost savings from harmonising procedures applied to cableways with those used in other sectors. From the cost-effectiveness point of view, Option F3 is seen as preferable to Option F2 as under this option participation in the relevant activities would not be enforceable and would depend on the goodwill of national authorities and notified bodies. 6.7 Problem Area G: Alignment with the NLF (Safeguard Procedure) Due to the fact that the safeguard procedure is rarely used in the cableways sector, it has not been possible to provide a detailed assessment of the impacts of aligning this procedure with that given in the NLF. However, most stakeholders support alignment of the safeguard procedure with the NLF and there is some (limited) information suggesting that benefits might be accrued in relation to the avoidance of unnecessary alerts. Due to its legally binding nature, Option G3 is seen as preferable. As above, national authorities would incur costs arising from the transposition of these requirements and changes to existing practices but would also enjoy cost savings from harmonising procedures applied to cableways with those used in other sectors. Page 125
Page 1:
Ref. Ares(2012)1245393 - 22/10/2012
Page 4 and 5:
DISCLAIMER While RPA considers that
Page 6 and 7:
Executive Summary market. In additi
Page 8 and 9:
Executive Summary Page iv
Page 10 and 11:
Table of Contents 4. OPTIONS FOR RE
Page 13 and 14:
Risk & Policy Analysts 1. INTRODUCT
Page 15 and 16:
Risk & Policy Analysts 2. MARKET SI
Page 17 and 18:
Risk & Policy Analysts Figure 2.1:
Page 19 and 20:
Risk & Policy Analysts Austria Acco
Page 21 and 22:
Risk & Policy Analysts It is of not
Page 23 and 24:
Risk & Policy Analysts Western Euro
Page 25 and 26:
Risk & Policy Analysts Japan The sk
Page 27 and 28:
Risk & Policy Analysts Table 2.12:
Page 29 and 30:
Page 31 and 32:
Page 33 and 34:
Risk & Policy Analysts SME). Taken
Page 35 and 36:
Risk & Policy Analysts The industry
Page 37 and 38:
Risk & Policy Analysts From the dat
Page 39 and 40:
Risk & Policy Analysts SMEs In gene
Page 41 and 42:
Risk & Policy Analysts of ski equip
Page 43 and 44:
Risk & Policy Analysts Figure 2.6:
Page 45 and 46:
Page 47 and 48:
Risk & Policy Analysts noted that u
Page 49 and 50:
Risk & Policy Analysts cableways ma
Page 51 and 52:
Page 53 and 54:
Page 55 and 56:
Risk & Policy Analysts There are al
Page 57 and 58:
Risk & Policy Analysts operation of
Page 59 and 60:
Risk & Policy Analysts Other factor
Page 61 and 62:
Risk & Policy Analysts Changes in P
Page 63 and 64:
Page 65 and 66:
Risk & Policy Analysts From Table 2
Page 67 and 68:
Risk & Policy Analysts Price Change
Page 69 and 70:
Risk & Policy Analysts 2.6.4 Summar
Page 71 and 72:
Risk & Policy Analysts Table 3.1: C
Page 73 and 74:
Risk & Policy Analysts 3.3 Impacts
Page 75 and 76:
Risk & Policy Analysts 3.3.4 Impact
Page 77 and 78:
Risk & Policy Analysts 4. OPTIONS F
Page 79 and 80:
Risk & Policy Analysts Box 4.1: The
Page 81 and 82:
Risk & Policy Analysts The details
Page 83 and 84:
Risk & Policy Analysts Overall, sta
Page 85 and 86: Risk & Policy Analysts Option 2 (
Page 87 and 88: Risk & Policy Analysts subject to E
Page 89 and 90: Risk & Policy Analysts Table 4.13:
Page 91 and 92: Risk & Policy Analysts Table 4.14:
Page 93 and 94: Risk & Policy Analysts out in Table
Page 95 and 96: Risk & Policy Analysts Table 5.2: K
Page 97 and 98: Risk & Policy Analysts One example
Page 99 and 100: Risk & Policy Analysts At least two
Page 101 and 102: Risk & Policy Analysts Option A3 (R
Page 103 and 104: Risk & Policy Analysts The cost of
Page 105 and 106: Risk & Policy Analysts requirements
Page 107 and 108: Risk & Policy Analysts may come to
Page 109 and 110: Risk & Policy Analysts Operating Co
Page 111 and 112: Risk & Policy Analysts Innovation a
Page 113 and 114: Risk & Policy Analysts To this end,
Page 115 and 116: Risk & Policy Analysts respondents
Page 117 and 118: Risk & Policy Analysts Innovation a
Page 119 and 120: Risk & Policy Analysts Summary of S
Page 121 and 122: Risk & Policy Analysts Public Autho
Page 123 and 124: Risk & Policy Analysts Is the cab
Page 125 and 126: Risk & Policy Analysts Impact on Co
Page 127 and 128: Risk & Policy Analysts Option F3:
Page 129 and 130: Risk & Policy Analysts However, the
Page 131 and 132: Risk & Policy Analysts 5.3.7 Proble
Page 133 and 134: Risk & Policy Analysts Public Healt
Page 135: Risk & Policy Analysts 6.2 Problem
Page 139 and 140: Risk & Policy Analysts Commision de
Page 141 and 142: Risk & Policy Analysts Kaiser (nd):
Page 143 and 144: Risk & Policy Analysts STRMTG (2012
Page 145 and 146: Risk & Policy Analysts ANNEX 1 Over
Page 147 and 148: Risk & Policy Analysts A1. CONSULTA
Page 149 and 150: Risk & Policy Analysts feedback was
Page 151 and 152: Risk & Policy Analysts ANNEX 2 Revi
Page 153 and 154: Risk & Policy Analysts B2. REVIEW O
Page 155 and 156: Risk & Policy Analysts Table B2.2:
Page 169: Risk & Policy Analysts the NLF, imp
show all

Cableways Impact Assessment Study - Final Report - saferail.nl

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?