Cableways Impact Assessment Study - Final Report - saferail.nl
Cableways Impact Assessment Study - Final Report - saferail.nl Cableways Impact Assessment Study - Final Report - saferail.nl
IA Study Concerning the Revision of the Cableways Directive Summary Based on responses to the questionnaire and information obtained from discussions with stakeholders, it is clear that although some of the generic issues which necessitated the NLF may not be applicable to the cableways sector, there is some recognition and acceptance that some of the NLF provisions could be used to improve the functioning of the Cableways Directive. 4.2.3 Aim of the Intervention The aim of any intervention is to: 1. clarify the obligations of the economic operators (manufacturers, importers, distributors, etc.); 2. update the criteria for notified bodies; and 3. align the safeguard procedure with that given in the NLF. Overall, the intervention is aimed at ensuring the optimal functioning of the internal market and that all consumers can be effectively protected from risks arising from cableways. 4.2.4 Defining the Policy Options Three policy options have been put forward: Option 1 (Baseline): Do nothing; Option 2 (Soft Law): Clarify these issues in the Application Guide to the Directive; and Option 3 (Legislative): Amend the Directive. A comparative review identifying the main differences between the current framework on cableways and the NLF is provided in Annex II to this report. 4.3 Summary of Policy Options A summary of policy options for revision of the Directive or its application guide is provided in Table 4.14. Page 78
Risk & Policy Analysts Table 4.14: Summary of Policy Options Problem area/Issue Problem Area A: Change in the definition of cableways installations/scope of the Directive Problem Area B: Addressing confusion over inclined lifts and small funiculars Problem Area C: Clarifying/amending the definition of safety components, subsystems and infrastructure Problem Area D: Changing conformity assessment of subsystems Problem Area E: Alignment with the NLF: Obligations of Economic Operators Problem Area F: Alignment with the NLF: Criteria for Notified Bodies Problem Area G: Alignment with the NLF: Safeguard Procedure Description of problem to be addressed There may be new kinds of installations which are designed for leisure purposes but may also serve a transport function, i.e. the Directive may be unsuited to market developments or there may be grey zones with regard to its scope The legal distinction between inclined lifts and small funiculars is clearly set out in the Cableways and Lifts Directive but there may be problems with practical application of these provisions The distinction between safety components, subsystems and infrastructure is not always very clear. The absence of a specific conformity assessment module for subsystems has led to divergent practices The Cableways Directive is to be aligned with the NLF, in particular with the NLF Decision (Decision No 768/2008/EC) Option 1 (No change) No change No alignment with the NLF Option 2 (Soft law, i.e. clarification in the Application Guide) Option A2: Amending the Application Guide to: clarify that a broader definition of cableways is available in Recital 1 of the Directive; and further highlight that cableway installations “designed for leisure purposes but also used as a means for transporting people” are in the Directive’s scope Option B2: Providing more extensive guidance in the Application Guide to the Cableways Directive and amending the Application Guide to the Lifts Directive to underscore the importance of companies formally collaborating with the authorities at an early stage of planning and design Option C2: Clarifying the distinction between these terms in the Application Guide, for example, by introducing a non-exhaustive list of safety components Option D2: Amending the Application Guide to recommend using specific conformity assessment modules for the assessment of subsystems Option E2: Including a description of requirements on economic operators as given in Articles R2 to R7 of the NLF Decision into the Application Guide Option F2: Including a description of requirements on notified bodies as given in the NLF Decision into the Application Guide, e.g. reinforcing information and other obligations on notified bodies and the procedure for their notification (Articles R23, R26 and R28) Option G2: Including a description of safeguard measures as given in Articles R31 to R32 of the NLF Decision into the Application Guide, including the two-stage safeguard procedure Option 3 (Legislative change, i.e. amending the Directive) Option A3: Amending the Directive to: adopt Recital 1 into the legally binding text of the Directive; explicitly state that cableway installations “which are designed for leisure purposes, but could also be used as a means for transporting people” are within the Directive’s scope Option B3: Amending the Cableways Directive to explicitly exempt inclined lifts from its scope. Article 1(6) of the Cableways Directive would read: “This Directive shall not apply to: lifts within the meaning of Directive 95/16/EC, including inclined lifts” Option C3: More explicitly exclude series-produced components from the definition of infrastructure and either: Sub-option C3A: introduce a non-exhaustive list of safety components; or Sub-option C3B: define sub-systems Option D3: Amending Annex VII to the Cableways Directive to allow the use of specific conformity assessment modules for the assessment of subsystems Option E3: Amending the Cableways Directive in accordance with Articles R2 to R7 of the NLF Decision Option F3: Amending Article 16 of the Cableways Directive as well as Annex VIII in accordance the NLF Decision, including revising the procedure for notification of notified bodies and reinforcing information and other obligations on notified bodies Option G3: Amending the Cableways Directive in accordance with Articles R31 to R32 of the NLF Decision, including a two-stage safeguard procedure, where noncompliance is initially dealt with at the national level Page 79
- 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 51 and 52: Risk & Policy Analysts Table 2.28:
- Page 53 and 54: Risk & Policy Analysts Table 2.29:
- 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: Risk & Policy Analysts Table 2.34:
- 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: Risk & Policy Analysts Table 4.13:
- 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
IA <strong>Study</strong> Concerning the Revision of the <strong>Cableways</strong> Directive<br />
Summary<br />
Based on responses to the questionnaire and information obtained from discussions<br />
with stakeholders, it is clear that although some of the generic issues which<br />
necessitated the NLF may not be applicable to the cableways sector, there is some<br />
recognition and acceptance that some of the NLF provisions could be used to improve<br />
the functioning of the <strong>Cableways</strong> Directive.<br />
4.2.3 Aim of the Intervention<br />
The aim of any intervention is to:<br />
1. clarify the obligations of the economic operators (manufacturers, importers,<br />
distributors, etc.);<br />
2. update the criteria for notified bodies; and<br />
3. align the safeguard procedure with that given in the NLF.<br />
Overall, the intervention is aimed at ensuring the optimal functioning of the internal<br />
market and that all consumers can be effectively protected from risks arising from<br />
cableways.<br />
4.2.4 Defining the Policy Options<br />
Three policy options have been put forward:<br />
Option 1 (Baseline): Do nothing;<br />
Option 2 (Soft Law): Clarify these issues in the Application Guide to the<br />
Directive; and<br />
Option 3 (Legislative): Amend the Directive.<br />
A comparative review identifying the main differences between the current<br />
framework on cableways and the NLF is provided in Annex II to this report.<br />
4.3 Summary of Policy Options<br />
A summary of policy options for revision of the Directive or its application guide is<br />
provided in Table 4.14.<br />
Page 78