Cableways Impact Assessment Study - Final Report - saferail.nl

More documents

Recommendations

Info

IA Study Concerning the Revision of the Cableways Directive There is also no lack of trust in the CE mark (see Table 4.10), which in theory could arise, for instance, due to some actors simply affixing the CE marking to their products although these products do not fulfil the conditions for being CE marked. Due to the fact that the major manufacturers of cableways are European manufacturers, there are also no significant difficulties with the tracing of economic operators (or indeed, products). Table 4.10: In your opinion, is there a lack of trust in CE marking of safety components? National Authorities Notified Bodies No. of Responses % of Responses No. of Responses % of Responses Yes 1 5% 1 33% No 20 95% 2 66% TOTAL 21 100% 3 100% Overall, while it is recognised (as shown in Table 4.11) that there are likely to be benefits from clarifying the roles and responsibilities of economic operators in accordance with the NLF, the majority (7 of 10) of national authorities also note that the overall benefits of aligning the Directive with the NLF are unlikely to outweigh the costs incurred (see Table 4.12). Table 4.11: Are there likely to be particular benefits from clarifying the roles and responsibilities of economic operators in accordance with the NLF? National Authorities Notified Bodies No. of Responses % of Responses No. of Responses % of Responses Yes 11 92% 3 75% No 1 8% 1 25% TOTAL 12 100% 4 100% Table 4.12: Are the benefits (or cost savings) from alignment with the NLF likely to outweigh any costs arising from this? National Authorities Notified Bodies No. of Responses % of Responses No. of Responses % of Responses Yes 3 30% 2 50% No 7 70% 2 50% TOTAL 10 100% 4 100% Criteria for Notified Bodies The majority of national authorities do not believe that there are problems with the quality of the notified bodies involved with cableways, although a number of national authorities have identified such problems, as shown in Table 4.13 below. The views of the notified bodies were mixed. From this it can be deduced that while the quality of most notified bodies is high, some believe that there are notified bodies whose level of expertise with regard to cableways is not as high as that of some others. Page 76
Risk & Policy Analysts Table 4.13: In your opinion, are there problems with the quality of certain notified bodies involved with cableways? National Authorities Notified Bodies No. of Responses % of Responses No. of Responses % of Responses Yes 5 29% 1 33% No 12 71% 2 67% TOTAL 17 100% 4 100% In theory, the NLF Decision could still improve the existing Cableways Directive by: revising the procedure for notification of notified bodies: Member States notifying a body must include information on the evaluation of competence of that body. Where competence is demonstrated by an accreditation certificate, a facilitated procedure applies. Where accreditation has not been used to evaluate the competence of a notified body, the notification must comprise the documentation demonstrating how the competence of that body has been evaluated. Other Member States will have the possibility to object to a notification within a certain period; and reinforcing the information and other obligations for notified bodies: Notified bodies must inform notifying authorities about refusals, restrictions, suspensions and withdrawals of certificates and other notified bodies about negative conformity assessment results. They must also perform conformity assessment in a proportionate manner taking due account of the size of an enterprise, the structure of the sector, the complexity of the product technology, etc. Safeguard Procedure The NLF revises the existing safeguard clause procedure. It introduces a two-step procedure which consists of a ‘domestic’ phase and one of information exchange between Member States, and specifies the steps to be taken by the authorities concerned, when a non-compliant subsystem and/or safety component is found. A ‘real’ safeguard clause procedure (i.e. one leading to a Decision at Commission level on whether a measure is justified or not) is only launched when another Member State objects to a measure taken against a subsystem and/or safety component. Where there is no disagreement on the restrictive measure taken, all Member States must take the appropriate action on their territory. Page 77
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: Risk & Policy Analysts Table 2.26:
Page 47 and 48: Risk & Policy Analysts noted that u
Page 49 and 50: Risk & Policy Analysts cableways ma
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 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: Risk & Policy Analysts subject to E
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 and 136: Risk & Policy Analysts 6.2 Problem
Page 137 and 138: Risk & Policy Analysts 6.6 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 157 and 158:
Page 159 and 160:
Page 161 and 162:
Page 163 and 164:
Page 165 and 166:
Page 167 and 168:
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?