COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT IMPACT ASSESSMENT Accompanying the document Commission legislative proposal for a revision of Directive 2000/9/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 March 2000 relating to cableway installations designed to carry persons
Date: 2014-03-27
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: European standard, cable transport, carriage of passengers, marketing standard, safety standard, technical standard













EUR-Lex - 52014SC0116 - EN











|



52014SC0116

COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT IMPACT ASSESSMENT Accompanying the document Commission legislative proposal for a revision of Directive 2000/9/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 March 2000 relating to cableway installations designed to carry persons /* SWD/2014/0116 final */









COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT
IMPACT ASSESSMENT
Accompanying the document
Commission legislative proposal
for a revision of Directive 2000/9/EC of the European Parliament and of the
Council of 20 March 2000 relating to cableway installations designed to carry
persons
Disclaimer:
This report commits only the Commission's services involved in its preparation
and does not prejudge the final form of any decision to be taken by the
Commission.
TABLE OF
CONTENTS
              Executive Summary Sheet  3
1.               Procedural
issues and consultation of interested parties  5
1.1.           Identification  5
1.2.           Organisation
and timing   5
1.3.           Consultation
and expertise  5
1.4.           Scrutiny
by the Commission Impact Assessment Board  6
2.               Context  7
2.1.           The
Cableways Directive  7
2.2.           Implementation
of the Cableways Directive 2000/9/EC   10
2.3.           Alignment
to the New Legislative Framework   10
2.4.           Overview
of the market for cableway installations  11
2.5.           Overview
of the Cableways operating sector in Europe  14
3.               Problem
definition  15
3.1.           Difficulty
to clearly identify certain installations as cableways  15
3.2.           Distinction
between safety components, subsystems and infrastructures  19
3.3.           Conformity
assessment procedure for subsystems  21
3.4.           Evolution
of the problems - Baseline scenario   22
3.5.           Alignment
with the New Legislative Framework   23
3.6.           EU
right to act  24
4.               Objectives  24
4.1.           General
policy objectives  24
4.2.           Specific
and operational policy objectives  24
4.3.           Consistency
with other policies and objectives  25
5.               Policy
options  25
6.               Analysis
of impacts  27
6.1.           General
remarks  27
6.2.           Overview
of the relevant impacts and the methodology for their assessment  27
6.3.           Analysis
of relevant impacts  28
6.4.           Mitigation
measures  35
7.               Comparing
the options  35
8.               Monitoring
and evaluation  38
Annex I:
Report from the Commission to the European Parliament and the Council – First
Report on the Implementation of Directive 2000/9/EC relating to Cableways
Installations Designed to Carry Persons  40
Annex II: Impact
Assessment Study Concerning the Revision of Directive 2000/9/EC relating to
Cableways Installations Designed to Carry Persons – Final Report (RPA) 41
Annex III:
Summary Report to EP - XII Standing Committee meeting 25-09-2012  42
Annex VI:
Summary Report to E P - XIII Standing Committee meeting 8-4-2013  44
Annex V:
Stakeholders’ views on the revision of the Cableways Directive  46
               Executive Summary Sheet 
 Impact assessment on the Commission legislative proposal for a revision of Directive 2000/9/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 March 2000 relating to cableway installations designed to carry persons (the Cableways Directive) 
 A. Need for action 
 Why? What is the problem being addressed? 
 In line with the political commitment of the EU legislator the Cableways Directive will be aligned to the New Legislative Framework (Decision No 768/2008/EC). This exercise provides the opportunity to address some difficulties experienced with the implementation of the directive: Difficulty to clearly identify certain installations as cableways: Authorities, notified bodies and manufacturers have had different views whether certain types of installations, namely inclined lifts, small funiculars and equipment designed for leisure and transport purposes comes under the scope of the Cableways Directive and hence have to be manufactured and certified in line with the directive’s requirements and procedures. Difficulty to distinguish between subsystems, infrastructures and safety components and to determine the right conformity assessment procedure: Stakeholders have had different views on whether certain equipment should be considered as subsystem, infrastructure or safety component. Furthermore the directive does not say clearly which type of conformity assessment procedure has to be applied to subsystems. Manufacturers and operators of the installations concerned had to modify the equipment or to undergo further certification which led to extra costs. Furthermore authorities and notified bodies throughout the EU have taken divergent approaches, which led to different treatment of economic operators. In general the problems concern a limited number of cases per year and are not considered to be major problems for the sector as such. Nevertheless the majority of stakeholders consider that further clarification on these issues should be provided. 
 What is this initiative expected to achieve? 
 The overall objectives of this initiative are to (1) provide more legal certainty and facilitate the implementation of the cableways directive (2) favour a fair level playing field for cableways economic operators, and (3) simplify the overall European regulatory environment in the field of cableways installations. 
 What is the value added of action at the EU level? 
 The alignment with the NLF will improve and facilitate the implementation of the legislation and simplify the overall framework of EU product harmonisation legislation. The alignment provides the opportunity to also address the specific problems identified. While the problems are not endangering the general objectives of the Directive addressing them at EU level will avoid diverging approaches taken by the authorities or notified bodies which lead to unequal treatment of economic operators. As the problems are partly rooted in the text of the existing directive, changes can only be carried out by the EU legislator. Therefore effective action can only be taken at EU level. 
 B. Solutions 
 What legislative and non-legislative policy options have been considered? Is there a preferred choice or not? Why? 
 Three policy options have been considered, i.e. 1) the “do nothing” as a baseline option; 2) the “soft law” option as non-legislative alternative consisting of issuing commonly agreed interpretation on the application of the Cableways Directive; and 3) as “legislative” option the amendment of the legal text.  Option 3) combined with option 2) turned out to be the preferred choice to appropriately respond to the “problems” identified. The current uncertainties concerning installations with a double purpose (transport and leisure) and the applicable conformity assessment procedures for subsystems will be clarified by changes in the legislation. The borderline to the Lifts Directive and the distinction between safety components and subsystems will be clarified through further guidance. 
 Who supports which option? 
 A broad consensus exists among the Member States, manufacturers, notified bodies and other stakeholders that the Cableways Directive needs improvements on the issues mentioned above, and in general they have expressed support to simplify and clarify the legislation. A clear majority favours a clarification in the legislation regarding installations that have a dual (transport and leisure) function and the conformity assessment procedures for subsystems. On the possible solutions for the borderline with the lifts directive and the distinction between subsystems, safety components and infrastructures, stakeholders have been largely divided, in particular competent authorities. Manufacturers tend to favour the “soft law” option, while the majority of notified bodies expressed support for the legislative option. 
 C. Impacts of the preferred option 
 What are the benefits of the preferred option (if any, otherwise main ones)?                                 
 The current uncertainties concerning the scope and the applicable conformity assessment procedures will be clarified. Manufacturers will benefit from higher legal certainty by avoiding unnecessary modification and extra certification costs as well as delays in the operation of the installation following a wrongful interpretation of the directive. This will enable easier market access across the EU for safety components and subsystems and encourage manufacturers to invest on advanced product designs and technologies. Furthermore they will benefit from a fair level playing field. The clarifications will also facilitate the work of the market surveillance authorities and notified bodies. While “soft law” can be useful in providing further guidance and explanations, only the legislative option will result in legal certainty. Despite the fact that  the legislative option for the conformity assessment procedures for subsystems entails  some costs not present in the “soft law” option, the legislative option results in higher benefits, in particular in higher legal certainty. By facilitating the practical application of the regulation, the proposed changes also contribute to a high level of quality of cableway installations to the benefit of the health and safety of the users of cableway installations. 
 What are the costs of the preferred option (if any, otherwise main ones)? 
 The costs of the preferred option are of minor significance for manufacturers. The preferred option 3) combined with 2), involving only clarifications in the scope of the Directive, definitions and conformity assessment procedures, would only imply costs for manufacturers who have erroneously not applied the Directive before or have not applied it correctly and now need to make products compliant and/or follow the specific conformity assessment procedures. However, significant positive impacts for the whole sector are expected from improved clarity and predictability as well as a level playing field 
 How will businesses, SMEs and micro-enterprises be affected? 
 The proposed changes will be applicable to all types of businesses. No impacts specific for SMEs and micro-enterprises have been identified, taking into consideration the current market situation in the EU Cableways sector. 
 Will there be significant impacts on national budgets and administrations? 
 The initiative will not have significant impacts on national budgets and administrations. 
 Will there be other significant impacts? 
 The minor changes would improve the readability and clarity of it and are therefore not assumed to have any other significant impacts. 
 D. Follow up 
 When will the policy be reviewed? 
 No specific date for the revision of the policy has been made. 
              
1.           Procedural
issues and consultation of interested parties 
1.1.        Identification 
Lead DG: Enterprise and Industry (ENTR)
Agenda
Planning/WP Reference: 2012/ENTR/004
1.2.        Organisation
and timing
Work on the present Impact Assessment (IA)
report started in 2010 with the launch of a consultation held by the European
Commission services with the competent national authorities and all actors
involved in the Directive’s implementation, namely representatives of industry,
standardisation bodies and notified bodies. The results had been reflected in
the adoption in 2011 of the First Report from the Commission to the European
Parliament and the Council on the implementation of Directive 2000/9/EC
relating to cableway installations designed to carry persons[1], in which a number of
specific problems had been highlighted, with possible solutions to be examined
in view to revising the Directive. The Report represents the starting point for
the revision process.
An impact assessment steering group was
created and met on 30 May 2011 and 11 June 2013. Representatives of SG, DG
MOVE, DG ENV, DG SANCO, DG MARKT, DG TRADE and DG COMP were invited. DG SANCO
and SG participated in these meetings. See also the Roadmap for the initiative
“Legislative amendment of Directive 2000/9/EC on cableway installations designed
to carry persons” (May 2011)[2].
An external study “Impact Assessment Study
Concerning the Revision of Directive 2000/9/EC Relating to Cableway
Installations Designed to Carry Persons” was launched in 2012 and the Final
Report[3]
was delivered in October 2012.
1.3.        Consultation
and expertise
Member States and stakeholders, including manufacturers' organisations, notified
bodies and representatives of standardisation bodies, have been involved in the
IA process from its beginning. In the framework of the Standing Committee under
the Directive regular discussions took place about the functioning of the
Directive and the potential issues that would requires improvements, either
through legislative or non-legislative solutions. Consultations included the organisation
of meetings with the Cableways Advisory Standing Committee, the Cableways Working
Group, the Cableways Member States Market Surveillance Administrative
Co-operation Group (AdCo) and the Cableway Installations Sectoral Group (CSG)
of the European Co-ordination of Notified Bodies. These groups bring together
all relevant stakeholders (national authorities, notified bodies, manufacturers
and user associations). They were actively contributing to the revision process
and members provided written and oral inputs.
Additionally, three specific consultations
have been carried out. The first one took place in the first half of 2010 in
the framework of the preparation of the above mentioned Report from the
Commission to the European Parliament and the Council on the implementation of
the Directive. The second and the third one took place in 2012 as part of the above
mentioned Impact Assessment Study and were carried out by the external
contractor: one relating to the existing situation and the other one on the policy
options. The results have been integrated into the Final Report of the study which
has been presented and discussed in the Cableways Standing Committee meetings
held on 25 September 2012 and 8 April 2013, in which Member States and sectoral
stakeholders had the opportunity to express a number of opinions, contributions
and position papers on the policy options included in the study (see the Summary
Reports to the European Parliament in Annexes III and IV). 
Stakeholders have actively contributed to identify
the issues needing solutions to improve the functioning of the Cableways
Directive. The majority of stakeholders agree with the problems identified.
Regarding the options to address the problems (legislative or “soft law”) a
clear majority favours a legislative solution for clarifying the scope in
relation to equipment that has a leisure function and the conformity assessment
procedure of subsystems. On the possible solutions for the borderline with the
lifts directive and the distinction between subsystems, safety components and infrastructures
stakeholders have been largely divided, in particular competent authorities.
Manufacturers tend to favour the “soft law” option while the majority of
notified bodies expressed support for the legislative option.
In view of the amount of information
collected and the rather technical issues, no open public consultation was
launched, as targeted expertise consultations were deemed more appropriate for
this quite technical initiative. The points of view of the relevant
stakeholders are known by the Commission services, in general all of them
supporting the initiative to revise the Cableways Directive, and have been
taken into due account. For more details on these consultations and
contributions, see Annexes III, IV and V.
1.4.        Scrutiny by the Commission
Impact Assessment Board
The Impact Assessment Board of the European
Commission assessed a draft version of the present Impact Assessment and issued
its opinion on 18/09/2013. The Impact
Assessment Board made several recommendations and,
in the light of the latter, the final impact assessment report:
Clarifies the significance of the
problem, in particular the disparities between the
legal requirements and observed (diverging) implementation approaches followed
by the Member States' authorities, as well as the difficulties that economic
operators encounter in complying with the requirements of the Directive, when
undergoing the conformity assessment procedures; 
Clarifies the
assessment of impacts, by explaining
how the existing issues with the operation of the Directive would be reduced or
eliminated. It also compares in a clearer way the advantages and disadvantages
for the choice of the legal instrument.
Clarifies the position
of both Member States' authorities and economic
operators and explains how the positions of
stakeholders have affected the design of different policy options. A summary of
the positions of stakeholders is annexed to the impact assessment report.
2.           Context
2.1.        The Cableways Directive
The purpose of the Cableways Directive[4] is to establish the
free movement in the internal market of safety components and subsystems of
cableway installations while maintaining a uniform and high level of safety. It
is founded on the principles of the “New Approach”, whereby legislative
harmonisation only provides for the essential requirements of safety, human
health, consumer protection and protection of the environment. Only those
products that meet the essential requirements set out in the Directive may be
placed on the market; the technical specifications of the products concerned
are laid down in European harmonised standards. Compliance with the harmonised
standards confers to the products a presumption of conformity to the essential
requirements set out in the Directive. The application of harmonised standards
is, however, not mandatory, and manufacturers may also choose other technical
solutions, provided that conformity with the essential requirements established
in the Directive is guaranteed in all cases.
While the Directive draws on these general
principles, it also contains specific aspects relating to the characteristics
of cableway installations. Indeed, cableway installations are unique products
adapted to the local conditions and by nature inextricably linked to fixed
infrastructure and mobile machinery. As a result, the Cableways Directive
focuses on the distinction between safety components, subsystems and
installations, and stipulates different arrangements for, on the one hand, the
safety components and subsystems and, on the other, installations. Safety
components and subsystems are subject to the rules on the free movement of
goods and to the conformity assessment and Declaration of Conformity, whereas
fixed installations continue to fall within the Member States’ competence and
are subject to a licence for construction and authorisation for putting into
service which are granted by the competent public authorities.
This distinction between safety components,
subsystems and installations thus reflects the specific nature of cableway
installations compared with other mechanical engineering products. This
distinction also underpins the legislator’s choice to adopt, for cableway
installations, a legislative act specifically designed for the sector.
              
Scope (Article 1)
The installations covered by the Cableways
Directive are funicular railways, cable cars, gondolas, chairlifts and drag
lifts. 
Table 1 presents types of cableway
installations with their main characteristics: 
 Cableway Installations || Short description || Capacity per carrier || Max pers./ hour || Top line speed 
 Funicular || A wire rope controls the motion of the carriers even though a funicular may travel at ground level or on structurally supported steel tracks. The carriers tend to be large, enclosed and, often, seating is provided. || 400 || 8,000 || 3.5m/s 
 Gondola || Small carriers set at regularly-spaced close intervals continuously circulating with carriers passing around terminal bull-wheels, where are decelerated and carried through the unloading and reloading || 4 to 15 || 3,600 || 6m/s 
 Detachable Chair Lift || The same as gondolas, but the carrier is a multi-passenger open chair with restraining bar and footrest || 2 to 8 || 4,000 || 5m/s 
 Fixed-grip Chair Lift || Multi-passenger carriers circulate between and around terminals at a constant speed || 2 to 8 || 4,000 || 5m/s 
 Aerial Tramway || Large carriers or cabins travelling high above ground || n/a || n/a || n/a 
 Funitel || Special type of passenger cableway which is based on cabins supported by two ropes || 24 || 3,200 to 4,000 || 7.5m/s 
 Combined installations || They unite elements of several cableway types, such as gondolas and chairlifts || n/a || n/a || n/a 
 Drag Lifts (or Surface Lift) || Move skiers by means of an overhead haulage rope with attached towing devices || 1 to 2 || 1,500 || 12m/s 
Table 1 – Types of cableways and main
characteristics
The Directive is applicable to the
installations built and put into service as from 3 May 2004, and to subsystems
and safety components placed on the market as from that date; with regard to
changes to existing installations, i.e. installations built and put into
service before 3 May 2004, the Directive provides that only changes requiring a
new authorisation for putting into service must meet the basic requirements,
whereas other changes do not fall within the scope of the Directive.
The Directive establishes the free movement
of safety components and subsystems in the internal market, and these are,
therefore, subject to an assessment procedure and declaration of conformity
procedure; whereas installations continue to fall within the Member States’
competence and, therefore, each Member State lays down the procedures for
authorising the construction and putting into service of installations located
within its territory. In this sense, clarity and coherence in identifying
safety components and subsystems and installations are crucial in order to correctly
implement the Directive.
The Directive’s scope, under Article 1(6),
excludes lifts within the meaning of Directive 95/16/EC[5], tramways of
traditional construction, rack railways and equipment for use in amusement
parks.
2.1.2.     Essential requirements and
harmonised standards (Articles 2-3 and Annex II)
Essential requirements are set out in the
Directive for the safety of users, workers and third parties, referred to the
design, construction and operation of cableway installations. 
On the basis of the essential requirements
a comprehensive body of standards has been developed in the field of cableways
installations. The standardisation programme – on the basis of the mandate M300
given by the Commission to the European Committee for Standardisation (CEN) and
to the European Committee for Electrotechnical Standardisation (CENELEC) in
2000 – was completed by the responsible CEN Technical Committee 242 (Safety
requirements for passenger transportation by rope) during 2005. There are
currently twenty-three European harmonised standards in the field of cableway
installations: their references are published in the Official Journal of the
European Union[6].
As part of the standardisation mandate from the Commission, the CEN/TC 242 has
launched the first review process for the existing harmonised standards with a
view to modifying and updating them if necessary, to be completed in 2014.
2.1.3.     Safety analysis and safety
report (Article 4 and Annex III)
The Directive provides that all planned
installations shall be subject to a safety analysis which covers all safety
aspects of the system and its surroundings in the context of the design,
construction and putting into service and makes it possible to identify risks that
could occur during operation. The safety analysis is the subject of a safety
report recommending the measures envisaged to deal with any such risks and
including a list of the safety components and subsystems.
2.1.4.     Assessment and declaration
of conformity of safety components (Article 7 and Annexes IV-V) and of
subsystems (Article 10 and Annexes VI-VII)
Before the safety components or the
subsystems are placed on the market, the manufacturer or his authorised
representative established in the European Union must submit these products to
a conformity assessment procedure.
The conformity assessment procedures set
out in the Directive for safety components refer to various modules laid down
in Decision 93/465/EEC[7]
and include the following:
·                        
EC type-examination (Module B),
·                        
Full quality assurance (Module H), and
·                        
Unit verification (Module G);
the production process can be evaluated
via:
·                        
Production quality assurance (Module D),
·                        
Product verification (Module F),
·                        
Full quality assurance (Module H), and
·                        
Unit verification (Module G).
The various modules may be chosen by the
manufacturer or his authorised representative and will always be carried out by
third party bodies, i.e. the notified bodies. Once the conformity assessment
procedure is completed, the manufacturer or his authorised representative
affixes the EC conformity marking and draws up the EC declaration of
conformity.
The conformity assessment procedure set out
in the Directive for subsystems does not, unlike that set out for safety
components, refer to specific modules. The Directive sets out an EC examination
procedure for subsystems, which is carried out at the request of the
manufacturer or his authorised representative by the notified body chosen for
this purpose by the manufacturer or his authorised representative. Once this
procedure is completed, the manufacturer or his authorised representative draws
up the EC declaration of conformity. The Directive does not require the CE
marking for subsystems.
The Cableways Directive stipulates the
safeguard procedure to be followed if a Member State finds that a safety
component, subsystem or even an installation may jeopardise the health or
safety of persons and, if relevant, the safety of property.
2.2.        Implementation of the
Cableways Directive 2000/9/EC
The Cableways Directive entered into force
on 3 May 2000 and became fully applicable on 3 May 2004 in member countries of
the European Economic Area (EEA), i.e. in all Member States of the European
Union as well as in Iceland, Liechtenstein and Norway.
Various actors and organisations are
involved in the management of the cableways directive with the objective to
ensure a uniform application of its requirements throughout the EU. The
co-ordination of implementation is carried out through the Cableways Standing
Committee, chaired by the Commission services. The Standing Committee brings
together the representatives of the Member States, of the European manufacturers
associations, of the European Standardisation Organisation (CEN, CENELEC) and
of the Notified Bodies. The group discusses implementation and interpretation
issues. The Cableways ADCO (Administrative Cooperation) group provides a forum
for national market surveillance authorities in the sector to exchange
information and best practices. Coordination of notified bodies is organised
through the Notified Bodies Group Cableways. The CEN/CENELEC consultants are
key operators in the checking of harmonised European standards. 
An important task of these groups is to
ensure a uniform application of the cableways directive. In addition the
involved parties provide feedback on the functioning of the directive. 
The Commission services have prepared, in
consultation and co-operation with experts and the stakeholders in the sector,
an Application guide to the Directive[8].
The Guide, published in 2006, was developed with the intention of providing all
players involved in the application of the Cableways Directive with a reference
tool, in particular for economic actors wishing to operate in the single market
and for market surveillance authorities. This tool offers, in particular to
economic operators and to market surveillance authorities, practical guidance
on how to implement and comply with the provisions of the Cableways Directive.
In 2011 the Commission presented to the
European Parliament and the Council a report on the implementation of the
Directive. The report concluded that the Cableways Directive has been
successful in achieving the objectives of establishing an internal market for
safety components and subsystems of cableways installations and guaranteeing
high level of safety of cableways installations. At the same time, the report
highlighted a number of specific problems that have been experienced with the
application of the Cableways Directive, that are to be addressed in the
proposed revision of the Directive.
2.3.        Alignment to the New
Legislative Framework 
The whole area of product legislation and
in particular the "New Approach" has recently undergone a horizontal
review that resulted in the adoption of the New Legislative Framework (NLF)[9].
The NLF aims in particular at facilitating compliance of products with the
applicable requirements, to improve the unsatisfactory performance of certain
notified bodies[10]
and to eliminate inconsistencies throughout the legislation making its
application unnecessarily complicated for manufacturers and authorities
The NLF consists of two instruments.
Regulation (EC) No 765/2008 on accreditation and market surveillance[11] (NLF Regulation) has introduced rules on
accreditation[12]
and requirements for the organisation and performance of market surveillance
and controls of products from third countries. It is complemented by Decision No 768/2008/EC establishing a common framework for the
marketing of products[13] (NLF Decision) which is conceived as a “toolbox”
for future legislation providing solutions that can work across all sectors. It
contains model provisions to be commonly used in EU product legislation (e.g.
definitions, obligations of economic operators, notified bodies, safeguard
mechanisms, etc.). 
The three EU institutions involved in the
legislative process, Council, Parliament and Commission have committed
themselves to use the NLF Decision’s provisions as much as possible in future
legislation in order to bring about the maximum of coherence in the regulatory
framework[14].
The NLF was accompanied by an impact assessment[15].
2.4.        Overview of the market for
cableway installations
Cableway installations are mainly a means
of public transport and their safety is therefore vitally important in relation
to both the persons transported and the staff involved in putting these
installations into service and maintaining them. It should also be stressed
that, particularly in mountainous regions, cableway installations are normally
used for tourist purposes and their use plays a crucial economic role.
There are 17,500 cableway installations in Europe[16], which are 60% of the
world total. France, Austria, Italy, Germany and Switzerland are the main
markets, accounting for 50% of European installations[17] 
Between 2001 and 2010, about 3,000 new
cableways have been installed in the world, and most of them have been built in
 Europe (see table 2).
   || 2001 || 2002 || 2003 || 2004 || 2005 || 2006 || 2007 || 2008 || 2009 || 2010 
 Europe || No. of installs || 188 || 190 || 231 || 232 || 243 || 205 || 167 || 137 || 146 || 130 
 % of installs || 72 || 75 || 72 || 70 || 68 || 58 || 61 || 54 || 63 || 58 
 Americas || No. of installs || 37 || 27 || 40 || 55 || 37 || 47 || 46 || 46 || 26 || 28 
 % of installs || 14 || 11 || 12 || 17 || 10 || 13 || 17 || 18 || 11 || 12 
 Others[18] || No. of installs || 36 || 37 || 52 || 43 || 76 || 104 || 63 || 70 || 58 || 68 
 % of installs || 14 || 15 || 16 || 13 || 21 || 29 || 23 || 28 || 25 || 30 
 Total no. of installs || 261 || 254 || 323 || 330 || 356 || 356 || 276 || 253 || 230 || 226 
Table 2 – Worldwide cableways market
evolution 2001-2010[19]
Table 2 shows that emerging tourist markets
have become more important for the cableways sector in recent years. This
suggests that maintaining and increasing competitiveness in those markets would
be of great importance for the European Cableways industry.
Nevertheless, though market percentages
indicate an increasing trend in the share of installations from non-European
manufacturers, their absolute number of installations is quite stable. We
observe an important reduction of new installations in Europe, with the
exception of Eastern Europe. Main reasons for this situation appear to be
linked to the economic situation, to the tourist and ski industry market trends
of the latest years and – finally – to the already high number of existing
installations in Europe. Such trend indicates that in the coming years there
will be increased need to support maintenance of existing European
installations and that a clearer legal framework would be of help to maintain
high security and quality standards. 
The market for cableway installations is
characterised by a high degree of specialisation in the industrial sector. It
is based on professional buyers and operators who choose the cable lift
constructor after launching the procurement procedure by issuing a call for
tenders, whether public or private. European[20]
industry has traditionally held a very strong position on the market for
cableway installations, not only within but also outside the European Union. In
recent years, mergers and acquisitions have led to three large European
industrial groups emerging which have prominent positions on the European and
global markets, currently accounting for between 80% -90% of the global
industry. 
Main companies involved in the cableways
market are Doppelmayr-Garaventa, Leitner and Poma[21][22]. They provide
employment to about 4000 persons in Europe.
In contrast, there are about 30 small and
medium-sized cableway manufacturers in Europe, representing about 10% to 20% of
the total market. In terms of employment, SME roughly account 400 employees, i.e.
approximately 10% of total. In addition, Europe has not less than 80 suppliers
of subsystems and safety components for cableways.
Generally speaking, these SME cableways
manufacturers in Europe appear to be more focussed on drag lifts and chair
lifts, and only some of them are active in the high-end segments of the market
which includes gondolas, funiculars, etc. For many cableways manufacturers, also
installation and maintenance activities account for a significant part of
business: this is applicable mainly for the largest companies but to some
extent also to SME.
By harmonising the conformity assessment
procedures of safety components and subsystems, and by promoting the
establishment of harmonised standards at the European level, the Cableways Directive
has contributed to make economies of scale possible by standardising products:
these opportunities for increased economies of scale have been of benefit to
the EU cableways sector. Above all, however, the
adoption of the Directive has led to an improvement in the positioning and
visibility of the industrial sector concerned as it has proved to be a beneficial
instrument even outside the European Union: in fact, European harmonised
standards and CE-marked products appear to be recognised and accepted in many
non-European export markets (with the exception of North America), in better
conditions than compared to national markings. As such, European manufacturers
have a competitive advantage with regard to exports to third countries.
The increasing importance of non-European
export markets appears to be confirmed by analysing Eurostat databases
concerning import/export values of articles classified under code 84286000.
Although the coding is not totally related to the entire cableways sector it is
a good bias as it includes teleferics, chair lifts, sky-drag and traction
mechanisms for funiculars (see table 3):
Table 3 –
EU27/non-EU27 imports and exports of
cableways-related products [values in M€]
Table 4 summarises the competitive
situation of the Cableways industry:
 Strengths || Opportunities 
 ·         Two main players accounting for 80-90% of the market and global leaders are EU companies ·         Dominance of large companies allows for increased profitability and benefits from economies of scale ·         Ideal historical location near to Alps, which has made the European industry leaders in innovation and development of cableways and resulted in high technical know-how and development of knowledge clusters around the area ·         Good links and integration with companies manufacturing cable car parts ·         Significant investment in R&D and continued innovation ·         High reputation of European harmonised standards globally || ·         Demand for gondolas is increasing ·         The capacity per cable car is rising strongly ·         Trend towards more comfort, less waiting time and faster cable cars ·         Increasing demand for cable cars in urban transportation ·         Growing markets in Eastern Europe, Asia and South America 
 Weaknesses || Threats 
 ·         Total number of new cableways is declining ·         Large number of cableways for skiing purposes installed in new Member States may be second-hand lifts from Alpine countries ·         Very long lifetimes of installations (up to 30 to 40 years) limiting renewal demand ·         Problems in the current regulatory framework (unclear legal situations, divergences in interpretation, possible market distortions) || ·         Long-term downward trend in number of companies may impact on future innovation potential within the sector ·         New manufacturers in local emerging markets (e.g. China, India, etc.) limiting the need for imports of cable cars from EU companies ·         Impact of climate on snow availability and demand for cableways ·         Increased maintenance needs for existing installations 
Table 4 - Summary of the strengths,
weaknesses, opportunities and threats for the European industry
More details on the market situation in the
cableways sector and the impacts of the Cableways Directive on the sector are
provided by the above mentioned Impact Assessment Study carried out by an
external contractor (chapters 2 and 3).
2.5.        Overview of the Cableways
operating sector in Europe
The ski industry is the primary market for
cableways technology and currently accounts for 80% of the business. The
remaining 20% of cableways targets other environments (for instance urban),
though this percentage will probably increase in coming years according to
recent statistics[23].
It is estimated that there are currently
between 1,500 and over 2,200 cableways operators in Europe[24]. The majority of
cableways operators are small, privately owned companies which own one ski
resort, but larger companies which acquire small groups of resorts are
increasing.
The way operators invest has changed during
the last 30 years. Whereas up until the late 1980s resorts invested in new
cableways now they invest in replacement installations which are more
technologically innovative, higher performance and more comfortable[25]. As an example, during
2008 and 2009 in Switzerland a total of € 645 million were invested in
cableways installations and related activities. The higher percentage of those
investments (42% per year) was devoted to replacement cableways and only 6% on
new cableways installations[26].
3.           Problem
definition 
While it is
generally recognised that the Cableways directive has successfully achieved its
main objectives, experience collected throughout the 10 years of implementing
the directive has also allowed identifying some weaknesses in its operation.
Some aspects have been recurrently on the agenda of the various groups involved
in the implementation of the directive or were otherwise brought to the
attention of the Commission by stakeholders. Based on this feedback the
following problems have been identified:

 Uncertainty whether certain
     installations are cableways;
 Unclear distinction between
     safety components and subsystems, and between subsystems and
     infrastructure;
 Different practices in the
     conformity assessment for subsystems.

Apart from the above sector-related issues,
the Cableways Directive has to be aligned to the New Legislative Framework in
the light of the political commitment to ensure better overall coherence of EU
product legislation. It is therefore necessary to incorporate the main elements
of Decision No 768/2008/EC, i.e. definitions and obligations for economic
operators, criteria for notified bodies and conformity assessment procedures.
3.1.        Difficulty to clearly identify certain installations as
cableways
3.1.1.     The problem that requires
action and its underlying drivers
Manufacturers, notified bodies and
competent authorities have experienced difficulties in clearly identifying
certain installations as cableways installations that are covered by the scope
of the cableways directive and hence have to be manufactured, certified and put
into service in accordance with its requirements and procedures.  Authorities
have been confronted with installations that they considered to be subject to
the cableways directive, while the manufacturers of these installations
contested the applicability of the cableways directive and considered that they
are covered by different legal regimes, such as the Machinery Directive or the Lifts
Directive. 
The legal regime applicable has an
important influence on the design and the production of an installation and
manufacturers need to know precisely in advance which regime to follow. The
essential health and safety requirements of the three directives differ from
each other, and so there are also different harmonised standards that are used.
Furthermore, the conformity assessment procedures are different. While under the
Machinery and the Lifts Directive there are conformity assessment procedures
that cover the design, construction and installation, for the Cableways
Directive there are harmonised requirements where the authorization is granted
by the competent national authorities as regards their construction and putting
into service. 
Cases are particularly problematic when the
difference of opinions between authorities on the one hand and manufacturers or
notified bodies on the other hand come to light when an installation is already
installed and “ready” to be approved and there has been no prior consultation
with the authorities. There are also different interpretations and practices
amongst the responsible authorities in the EU. No common line has emerged and
the classification of such installations is dealt with on a case by cases basis
and not on the basis of a clear common understanding of the definition of
cableways. 
Such situations have been experienced with
regard to two types of installations in particular:
v 
Installations that do not only have a transport
function but are also designed for leisure purposes
The Cableways
Directive excludes from its scope “equipment for use in fairgrounds or
amusement parks, for leisure purposes”. However there is new kind of equipment on
the market that has been designed for leisure purposes but also serves as a
means of transport.
An example of
such equipment is the “Wieli system” manufactured by a German company: it
consists of “transporters” or vehicles which are driven uphill on tracks and
wheels by a cable. Passengers are able to alight at intermediate stations (such
as at the top of a hill) where they can undertake other activities such as
skiing, snowboarding, tubing and tobogganing. Passengers can remain in the
vehicles or can return to the vehicle to be transported back to the starting
point by force of gravity. The system also appears to have different uses in
summer and winter, with it being used as a means of transport for skiers etc.
in winter and more as an amusement ride in summer; therefore, the system may be
classified as having a dual function (transport and amusement). The
manufacturer of the Wieli system considered that the Cableways Directive is not
applicable, while the authorities considered it does. The case was discussed by
the Standing Committee which supported the viewpoint of the authorities. 
Similar doubts
can arise with regard to tourist cableways in urban environments or other
installations serving mixed or multiple leisure-transport purposes. Currently
the Wieli system is the only known practical example of an installation with a
dual function.
v 
Small funiculars and inclined lifts
While inclined lifts (lifts inclined at an
angle) fall within the scope of the Lifts Directive 95/16/EC, small funiculars
are subject to the Cableways Directive. Consequently these products have to
comply with different essential requirements and have to be approved in
accordance with different procedures. 
The relationship between the two legislative
texts in this context can be described as follows:
 The relationship between the Cableways Directive and the Lifts Directive 
 Inclined lifts/small funiculars provide a good example of the interplay between the Lifts, Cableways and Machinery Directives: –                         Inclined lifts permanently serving buildings or constructions are subject to the Lifts Directive. The Lifts Directive applies to lifts with guides “inclined at an angle of more than 15 degrees to the horizontal” and thus includes inclined lifts such as those installed alongside an escalator. –                         Small funiculars in outdoor mountain or urban sites are “generally” not covered by the Lifts Directive; rather they are covered by the Cableways Directive and are excluded from the scope of the Lifts Directive. The Guide to application of the Lifts Directive 95/16/EC notes that “the lifts to which the Directive applies are those ‘serving buildings and constructions’. […] Lifting appliances serving similar transport functions but which are installed in outdoor mountain or urban sites are generally not covered by the Lifts Directive. Most such outdoor appliances are covered by Directive 2000/9/EC relating to Cableways. […] Only lifts ‘permanently’ serving buildings and constructions are in the scope of the Lifts Directive”. In other words, in addition to the transport objective, location and permanence are key determinants of whether a lifting appliance falls under the Cableways Directive or the Lifts Directive. The Application Guide to the Cableways Directive also notes that while the exclusion (above) is categorical, “features of certain installations may give rise to some uncertainty, as inclined lifts could also be considered as small funiculars”. For these, the application of the legislation will have to rely on a joint case-by-case examination between the main contractor, the authorities and the manufacturer. 
Despite the guidance provided by the
Application Guide, in practice the distinction between these installations has
proven difficult, in particular where formalised and effective communication
between public authorities and companies is not established at an early stage
of the planning process. The problem is well illustrated by an example referred
to by the UK in a Lifts Working Group meeting in 2010:
The case concerned
an installation which was commissioned as a lift, but following deeper
inspection, was finally considered as a cableway. The installation consists of
a 40 passenger car; it travels on a rail system inclined at 17.5° to the
horizontal. The car travelled between alighting stations at each end of the
incline. There were no intermediate stations.
Evidence
suggested the installation met the traditional interpretation of the Cableways
Directive, but it was not notified as cableway (as required by national regulations),
and further enquiries revealed that the installation had been subject to a
conformity assessment under the Lifts Directive, involving a Notified Body
appointed under the Lifts Directive.
Competent UK authorities concluded that the installation should be considered as a cableway, on the
basis of the following:
- the
structures at the top and bottom of the installation in question are not
“buildings” within the meaning of the Lifts Directive;
- the Lifts
Directive does not take account of the readily available access to the
passenger car travel zone;
- the Essential
Requirements under the Cableways Directive are more relevant and better cater
to the environmental conditions that may compromise the safety of the passenger
/ operators using or working on the installation.
In that
specific case the Lifts Working Group substantially confirmed that the
installation should be considered as a cableway within the scope of the
Cableways Directive. The adaptation of the installation that was finally
considered to be a cableways installation in the UK resulted in extra costs for
the operator of about € 30,000 - 40,000, including extra time for
re-assessment.
The source of this kind of problems is that
the relevant provision concerning the scope of cableway installations and the
scope of the lifts are not entirely clear with a view to these particular
installations and that the guidance developed in this context does not provide
all the necessary elements in order to allow a clear distinction in all cases. In
this respect it has to be noted that the relevant terms and definitions were
drawn up over a decade ago and do not necessarily take into account current
market developments, and especially new types of installations and new
products, components and subsystems, both in traditional and in emerging
markets for transport purpose, leisure, etc. 
In order to address the borderline problem
with the Lifts Directive, a specific ad-hoc working group was created in 2011 with
the task of setting up additional criteria that would ease the finding of
suitable and coherent solutions in the singular cases, and to ensure a coherent
and uniform approach to be followed in similar circumstances. The working group
presented a proposal to amend the Application Guide for the Cableways Directive;
however there was no consensus in the Cableways Standing Committee whether
addressing the issue through guidance is appropriate. Finally some members
favoured a legislative solution in the context of the revision of the Directive
and the alignment to the New Legislative Framework.
As stated in the study,
page 96, a significant proportion of stakeholders addressed the problem of lack
of clarity as to the distinction between inclined lifts and small funiculars. 
 Table 4.1: Do you think that the current definition of cableways in the Directive (Articles 1.2 and 1.3) is too narrow and/or unsuited to market developments?  
   || National Authorities || Notified Bodies 
   || No. of Responses || % of Responses || No. of Responses || % of Responses 
 Yes || 6 || 26% || 2 || 33% 
 No || 17 || 74% || 4 || 77% 
 TOTAL || 23 || 100% || 6 || 100% 
 Table 4.2: Would you support a broader and more general definition of cableway installations, for instance, similar to the definition provided in Recital 1 of the Directive?  
   || National Authorities || Notified Bodies 
   || No. of Responses || % of Responses || No. of Responses || % of Responses 
 Yes || 6 || 27% || 3 || 50% 
 No || 16 || 73% || 3 || 50% 
 TOTAL || 22 || 100% || 6 || 100% 
 Table 4.3: Do you think that it is necessary to clarify the scope of the Cableways Directive as opposed to the Lifts Directive?  
   || National Authorities || Notified Bodies 
   || No. of Responses || % of Responses || No. of Responses || % of Responses 
 Yes || 11 || 52% || 4 || 80% 
 No || 9 || 43% || 1 || 20% 
 Other || 1 || 5% || 0 || 0% 
 TOTAL || 21 || 100% || 5 || 100% 
Source:  RPA (2012)
3.1.2.     Who is affected, in what
ways and to what extent?
Manufacturers of installations, safety
components and subsystems: 
The classification of equipment as cableways
has consequences for the product design as well as for the applicable
conformity assessment procedure. This in turn has impacts on production and
compliance costs for manufacturers. The legal uncertainty makes it difficult
for manufacturers of “grey zone installations” to determine the legal regime
applicable to their equipment and to adapt the design, production and
conformity assessment process accordingly.  It has to be noted that each
installation has its own design and there are no identical installations in two
different Member States. However when discussing the items in the standing
committee or e.g. in the ad-hoc group that worked on the distinction between
lifts and cableways, the authorities had diverging opinions, explaining that
they would have taken different approaches in certifying the same installation.
This demonstrates the uncertainty for economic operators who want to be active
in several EU Member States.
Regarding the borderline with lifts
Directive, the problem has led to market distortion, as authorities and
notified bodies have applied different practices and interpretations,
classifying the similar installation as a lift in one Member State and a cableway in a different Member State.
Users of installations: 
Some authorities and stakeholders have
pointed out that the current situation can have negative impacts as well on the
health and safety of users of the installations concerned. The health and safety
requirements of the cableways directive addresses the risks typically
associated to these installations. The conformity assessment procedures ensure
that the manufacturer has taken all measures to address these risks
appropriately. If an installation is wrongfully considered to be outside the
scope of the cableways directive and assessed in relation to other requirements
there is a risk that the installation is not sufficiently safe and accidents
can occur. 
Authorities and notified bodies:
The legal uncertainty also puts authorities
in charge of the implementation of the directive and hence responsible for the
safety of these installations into difficult situations. They often find
themselves in conflict with the manufacturer who will refuse to incur extra
costs resulting from the classification of his equipment as cableways
installation. 
On a general note, however, it has to be
observed that this problem concerns a very limited number of installations. By
today only one manufacturer is known who produces installations that are
clearly designed for a dual purpose (transport and leisure). Similarly there
are not many inclined lifts or funiculars installed per year and only a few
cases raise doubts with regard to the application of the cableways directive.
Out of approximately 120-130[27]
new installations per year, less than 5 cases would be concerned.
The problem only affects new installations.
3.2.        Distinction between safety
components, subsystems and infrastructures
3.2.1.     The problem that requires
action and its underlying drivers
As explained in section 2.1 the Cableways
Directive is based on the distinction between safety components, subsystems,
infrastructure and installations. The distinction between safety components and
subsystems, and between subsystems and infrastructure, has not always been
clear.
·                        
Safety components are defined as “any basic
component, set of components, subassembly or complete assembly of equipment and
any device incorporated in the installation for the purpose of ensuring a safety
function and identified by the safety analysis” (Article 1.5);
·                        
Subsystems are not explicitly defined, but they
are listed in Annex I of the Directive and include items such as cables and
cable connections, drives and brakes, mechanical equipment, vehicles, electro-technical
devices and rescue equipment;
·                        
Infrastructure is specially designed for each
installation and includes the layout, station structures and structures along
the line, and the foundations;
·                        
Installations are defined as “the whole on-site
system, consisting of infrastructure and subsystems” (Article 1.5).
Safety components and subsystems are
subject to the rules on the free movement of goods and to that purpose they are
submitted to the EC conformity assessment procedure and the EC declaration of
conformity. On the other hand, installations continue to fall within the Member
States’ competence and in this respect they are subject to an authorisation
granted by the competent national authorities as regards their construction and
putting into service. In addition, infrastructure is also not subject to free
movement and may have to be tested in multiple Member States. 
In the 2010 consultation the majority of
stakeholders pointed out that the distinction between safety components,
subsystems and infrastructure is not entirely clear. 
The problem has also been mentioned by
companies responding to the consultation carried out by the contractor
producing the IA study. Overall, this does however not
seem to be a major problem for most cableway manufacturers. A company pointed
to components that may often be classed as infrastructure but are in fact
series-produced standardised products (such as line towers); this means that
these components are not subject to free movement and require approval in individual
Member States, thus allegedly presenting an unnecessary burden on cableway
manufacturers. It was further suggested that in order to address this problem,
it might be necessary to revisit the definition of infrastructure given in the
Cableways Directive.[28]
Responses from national authorities and
notified bodies demonstrate a wish for more clarity on this question.
 Table 4.4: Have you experienced problems arising from lack of clarity as to the difference between subsystems and infrastructure?  
   || National Authorities || Notified Bodies 
   || No. of Responses || % of Responses || No. of Responses || % of Responses 
 Yes || 5 || 22% || 2 || 40% 
 No || 18 || 78% || 3 || 60% 
 TOTAL || 23 || 100% || 5 || 100% 
 Table 4.5: Have you experienced problems arising from lack of clarity as to the difference between safety components and subsystems?  
   || National Authorities || Notified Bodies 
   || No. of Responses || % of Responses || No. of Responses || % of Responses 
 Yes || 10 || 45% || 4 || 80% 
 No || 12 || 55% || 1 || 20% 
 TOTAL || 22 || 100% || 5 || 100% 
The problem has similar consequences as the
one experienced with the scope of the directive. Depending on the
classification as safety component, subsystem or infrastructure different conformity
procedures are applicable.[29]At
the moment of approval the choice of the procedure applied by the manufacturer
and the notified body may be put into question by the authority. It has also
been reported that authorities throughout Europe have also taken different
approaches as to what would be the correct classification and hence the
applicable procedure.
3.2.2.     Who is affected, in what
ways and to what extent?
Manufacturers of installations, safety
components and subsystems, notified bodies:
The consequences are similar to those
already described under 3.1.2. The lack of clarity has led to undesirable
consequences for manufacturers and installers with regard to application of
design and construction requirements, in terms of time and costs.
The problem is more widespread than the
problem related to the scope, however according to the study it does overall
not appear to be a major problem for manufacturers. 
3.3.        Conformity assessment
procedure for subsystems
3.3.1.     The problem that requires
action and its underlying drivers
In contrast to safety components, the
Cableways Directive does not provide for a specific conformity assessment
module for subsystems. Annex VII requires notified bodies to check the
subsystems but does not indicate the clear procedural steps to be followed by
the notified bodies. That situation has led to some divergent interpretation
and implementation of the conformity assessment of the subsystems, as there are
differences in applying specific conformity assessment procedures in terms of
time, costs, complexity, etc.; in this sense, divergences in interpretation can
result in legal uncertainty and market distortions.
Furthermore as explained in the Impact Assessment
study on page 106, it appears that the current Directive may be interpreted by
some stakeholders to mean that notified bodies have to perform an on-site check
of how subsystems have been assembled and incorporated into the installation.
It has been noted that it is not feasible for notified bodies that approve
subsystems, which are used in a large number of installations, to carry out
on-site inspections for each installation that includes the relevant subsystem.
Therefore, it has been alleged that in practice on-site inspections are not
carried out. Instead, subsystems are widely assessed by means of conformity
assessment modules that do not require an on-site inspection 
The issue of conformity assessment
procedure for subsystems has been discussed several times at the Cableways
Standing Committee meetings, in particular concerning the possibility to
introduce clearly defined conformity assessment modules also for subsystems.
Most of stakeholders agreed on the need to consider possible modifications to
be inserted into the text of the Directive.
In the meantime, in order to remedy the
situation certain practical solutions have been applied. Notified Bodies have
coordinated their practices in their European Coordination, by issuing specific
Recommendations for Use, as 00.009 “Process oriented procedure for subsystems
conformity assessment / Subsystems, procedure, Module H” (rev. 3, 2010) and
00.010 “EC examination of a subsystem - meaning of completed / Completed,
subsystem, EC examination” (rev. 3, 2010)[30].
This measure has been considered useful, but has not entirely solved  the
problem  according to the opinion of stakeholders expressed in the
consultation. It appears that the guidance/recommendation approach has not
fully convinced operators to abide to a non legally binding rule.
There has been consensus amongst all
stakeholders in the 2010 consultation as well as in the following consultation
that the current provisions of the directive are unsatisfactory as it can be
interpreted in different ways and hence should be reviewed. 
3.3.2.     Who is affected, in what
ways and to what extent?
This problem mainly affects manufacturers
and Notified Bodies.  
Different practices in the conformity
assessment process for subsystems result in different conditions and different
costs for manufactures for placing their products on the market and hamper fair
competition. In the same vein fair competition between notified bodies can be
distorted.
The problem affects new products placed on
the market. 
Data on the significance of the above
mentioned problems can be obtained on the basis of responses to the
questionnaires used in the consultation phases, and of information obtained
from discussions with stakeholders. 45% of the authorities and 80% of notified
bodies responding to the consultation confirmed that they experienced problems
with the distinction between subsystems and safety components. 22% of the
authorities and 40% of the notified bodies have also experienced difficulties
with the distinction between infrastructure and subsystem. 
3.4.        Evolution of the problems -
Baseline scenario
According to the information available, it
is not expected that the above mentioned identified issues and described
problems could be effectively resolved without a specific EU action, in
addition to the efforts already developed by the relevant Commission services,
Member States and stakeholders. In fact, these problems have been often
discussed at the Cableways Committee meetings as well as in other formal and
informal sectoral fora, in particular regarding divergences in interpretation
and their consequences by a practical point of view for market surveillance
authorities, manufacturers and other economic operators. 
As a result, a number of position papers
have been produced and submitted to the Commission services, including
proposals to improve specific aspects of the Cableways Directive within the
framework of the revision process, taking into consideration problems identified
or potentially arising, the different policy options and their impacts.
Looking at the uncertainties on the scope,
in view of the very small number of installations that might be potentially
concerned, taking no action will not endanger the overall objectives of the
directive as such. However leaving the situation unchanged would be a missed
opportunity as under the given circumstances there is no indication that these
problems will disappear. Although there is currently no further operator known
that might place new products with a double – transport and leisure – function
on the market, this case cannot be excluded for the future. Further cases will
occur where due to a lack of previous communication with authorities on the
legal regime applicable economic operators may be forced to adapt their
installation retroactively, incurring considerable additional costs and loss of
income due to the delay in the operation of the installation. Furthermore the
issue of diverging views of authorities will remain unsolved given that today
the application guide does not provide any guidance on criteria to distinguish
inclined lifts from cableways. Hence similar installations will be assessed
differently and economic operators are faced with unequal treatment, preventing
the full achievement of free movement.
Regarding the conformity assessment for
subsystems a cableway manufacturer identified large potential negative cost
impacts if the disparity between legal requirements and practice is not
addressed. These negative cost impacts would be experienced if certain EU
Member States insist that notified bodies carry out on-site inspections on each
subsystem that has been incorporated into an installation.
3.5.        Alignment with the New Legislative Framework

One of the reasons for the adoption of the New Legislative Framework (NLF) was
a finding that in many sectors a significant number of products not fulfilling
the requirements set out in the corresponding Directives were placed on the
market (non-compliant products). Some actors were simply affixing the CE
marking to their products, even though these products do not fulfil the
conditions for being CE marked.
Neither consultations with the main
sectoral stakeholders and interested parties, nor the Impact Assessment Study
carried out by an external contractor, could identify evidence on this
behaviour being a problem in the Cableways sector. It appears that the existing
mechanisms are effective in prevention and identification of products that do
not comply with the requirements of the Directive, including the specific
provisions in the case of “innovative safety components or subsystems” laid
down in Article 11(3) which has never been used. In this context, the safeguard
procedure stipulated by the Directive for non-compliant Cableways products, has
never been applied so far.
However, many of the general horizontal problems
identified by the NLF have also been observed in the
context of implementing the Cableways Directive 2000/9/EC, as for example:
·        
complexity in the legal framework with possible
inconsistencies when also other directives have to be taken into consideration;
·        
unclear definitions and obligations of economic
operators;
·        
differences in terms of operation and
application of common criteria in conformity assessment procedures, as well as
in evaluation and monitoring of notified bodies.
The alignment of the
Cableways Directive with the NLF takes place in the light of the political
commitment laid down in Article 2 of the NLF Decision15 to use the
solutions offered by the Decision as consistently as possible in order to
address the overall problems.
The Impact Assessment Report on the
Alignment Package[31]
has already examined in depth the different options to give effect to the NLF
Decision. The options are basically the same for the Cableways Directive. The
report also provided an analysis of the impacts resulting from the measures set
out by the NLF Decision. In view of the horizontal nature of these measures,
the impacts are expected to be the same. For this reason this Impact Assessment
Report will not particularly re-examine these aspects, apart from a reference
to the specific aspects developed in the Impact Assessment Study developed by
an external contractor (see below, 6.4): it is focused on Cableways specific
problems and issues as well as the ways to address them. 
3.6.        EU right to act
The main justification for the action is to
ensure legal certainty and the NLF alignment for the Cableways Directive and
the sectoral stakeholders.
This initiative concerns the proper and effective
functioning of the internal market for products in the field of cableways
installations designed to carry persons. EU action in this area is based on
Article 114 of the TFEU. The aspects addressed in this context are already
regulated by the Cableways Directive 2000/9/EC. This legislation does however not
address the identified problems as effectively as desirable. If actions are
taken at national level to address the problems, they may create obstacles to
the free movement of Cableways products (safety components and subsystems). Due
to the increasing intra-community trade, also the number of cross-border cases
due to the above legal ambiguities is constantly rising. Diverging approaches
taken by the authorities or notified bodies have already led to unequal
treatment of economic operators. Furthermore the problem is partly rooted in
the existing EU legislation. Any changes to the scope and procedures of the
directive must be carried out by the EU legislator. Therefore effective action
can only be taken at EU level.
In terms of the proportionality principle,
policy options to be considered to address the above identified issues will
represent relatively limited changes in the existing legal text of the
Cableways Directive, in direct and strict correspondence to each one of the
issues and not go beyond what is needed to achieve satisfactorily the
objectives of the initiative. In this sense, the revised Directive will leave
the same scope for national decision as the current one; it will set appropriate
transposition and implementation periods and will contribute to remove
obstacles to compliance, on the basis of the improved clarity of the
requirements and elimination of legal uncertainty in interpretation issues.
4.           Objectives 
4.1.        General
policy objectives
The main objective is to improve the
functioning of the internal market for the safety components and the subsystems
of cableway installations, ensuring at the same time a higher level of safety, and
to achieve a level playing field for Cableways economic operators. Another
important objective is simplification, as this initiative aims at clarifying
some major concepts and definitions contained in the text of the Directive,
facilitating therefore its practical application.
4.2.        Specific and operational policy objectives
The following table presents the specific
and operational objectives of the initiative for the revision of the Cableways
Directive related to the general policy objectives indicated above.
 GENERAL || SPECIFIC || OPERATIONAL 
 Better protect the health and safety of users of cableway installations designed to carry persons Achieve a level playing field for Cableways economic operators and ensure free movement of goods   || Ensure sound and uniform application of the Cableways Directive Ensure clarity of legislation and its consistent application through the EU Ensure consistency and flexibility of conformity assessment procedures for all the products in the scope of the Cableways Directive Simplify the European regulatory environment in the field of cableways installations designed to carry persons || Clarify the scope of the Directive, definitions and borderlines with other directives (as Lifts 95/16/EC) Clarify identification and distinction between safety components and subsystems, and between subsystems and infrastructure Provide a selection of clear conformity assessment procedure for subsystems based on NLF modules 
4.3.        Consistency with other policies and objectives
This initiative is in line with the
Commission’s policy on the Single Market (Single Market Act)[32] and Better Regulation
policy, as well as to the Europe’s growth strategy “Europe 2020”[33].
5.           Policy
options
Policy options for the revision of the
Cableways Directive 2009/9/EC have been considered for each of the identified
issues (see 3.1 and 3.2): scope of the Directive, distinction safety
components, subsystems, infrastructures and installations, and conformity
assessment procedure for subsystems. Stakeholders have also been involved in
the design of the options. On the basis of feedback some options were discarded
at an early stage, e.g. enlarging the scope of the cableways directive.
5.1.1.     Scope of the Directive

 Do nothing (baseline).

Option 1 is to
leave the existing situation unchanged. The scope of the Cableways Directive
would not be changed. The existing definitions in the Directive would be
retained, with neither specific clarification as regards installations serving
both leisure and transport purposes, nor further guidance on the scope of the
Cableways Directive with respect to the Lifts Directive.

 Further clarify the scope of the Directive
     in the Application guide (“soft law”).

Option 2 is a
“soft law” option. The Directive would not be changed, but the Application
guide to the Cableways Directive would be used to explain, in a more detailed
way than currently, the product coverage, in particular with a clarification of
the situation relating to lifts inclined at an angle and to equipment for
amusement parks. That is to say, on one hand, retaining the existing legal
definition of cableways but providing in the Application Guide a broader
explanation and clarifying that installations “which are designed for leisure
purposes, but could also be used as a means for transporting persons” are
within the scope of the Directive; and on the other hand, providing more
extensive guidance on the implementation of existing provisions regarding
inclined lifts and small funiculars, as well as on the importance of companies
formally collaborating with the authorities at an early stage of the installation’s
design to determine, on a case-by-case basis, whether it is preferable to
construct an inclined lift or a small funicular.

 Clarify the relevant provisions on the
     scope of the Directive.

Option 3 would
use legislative measures, i.e. the Cableways Directive would be changed.  The
following potential changes were assessed. A) Modify the definition of
Cableways.  The current definition is considered sound.  A huge majority of Member States and stakeholders consider that the definition should not be changed.  The
impact assessment study has not demonstrated value added in changing the
definition of cableways.  Therefore this possibility is not further
considered.  B)  Clarity in Article 1.6 (products to which the provisions of
the Cableways Directive do not apply) that equipment with a dual use, meaning
fairground equipment which is at the same time transport equipment, falls
within the scope of the Cableways Directive.  C) Better define the borderline
case with respect to inclined lifts.  While representatives of Member States and stakeholders support the clarification of the scope of the Cableways
Directive as opposed to the Lifts Directive, the assessment carried out shows
that the required clarification implies changes in the Lifts Directive, in
particular with respect to its scope and related definitions, and not a
legislative modification of the Cableways Directive.  As a result, a
legislative modification of the Cableways Directive in this respect is not
further pursued. 
5.1.2.     Safety components, subsystems,
infrastructures and installations

 Do nothing (baseline).

Option 1 is to
leave the existing situation unchanged. Definitions of the Cableways Directive would
not be changed, and there would be no further clarification of the distinction
between safety components and subsystems, and between subsystems and
infrastructure. The described problems will persist.

 Further clarify the distinction in the
     Application guide (“soft law”).

Option 2 is a
“soft law” option. The Directive would not be changed, but the Application
guide to the Cableways Directive would be used to identify and to make a distinction,
in a clearer way than currently, between safety components and subsystems, and
between subsystems and installations, for example, by introducing a non-exhaustive
list of safety components and/or addressing doubts about concrete products.

 Clarify the relevant provisions the
     Directive.

Option 3 would
use legislative measures, i.e. the Cableways Directive would be changed. The current
definitions in Article 1.5 would be modified and rendered more precise, a
specific definition of “subsystem” with a clear distinction from “installation”,
“infrastructure” and “safety component” could be introduced. The introduction
of an exhaustive list of safety components has also been considered under this
option.
5.1.3.     Conformity assessment
procedure for subsystems

 Do nothing (baseline).

Option 1 is to
leave the existing situation unchanged. Annex VII on assessment of conformity
of subsystems would not be changed, and no specific conformity assessment
module for subsystems will be introduced in the Directive. The described
problems will persist.

 Further clarify in the Application guide
     the conformity assessment procedure for subsystems (“soft law”).

Option 2 is a
“soft law” option. The Directive would not be changed, but the Application
guide to the Cableways Directive would be used to clarify interpretation and
implementation of the conformity assessment of the subsystems. The amendment to
the Application guide would recommend using specific conformity assessment
modules for the assessment of subsystems. 

 Amend the relevant provisions of the
     Directive.

Option 3 would
use legislative measures, i.e. the Cableways Directive would be changed. In
Annex VII of the Directive, the conformity assessment modules specifically
conceived for the subsystems and recommended by the coordination of notified
bodies would be introduced. 
The general view
of stakeholders is that the non-binding nature of the already existing guidance
does not provide enough legal certainty to avoid problems in the future and
that a more formalised solution is needed.  
In any case, these policy options represent
relatively minor changes and they are proportionate to the policy objectives
pursued (see also above 3.6).
6.           Analysis of impacts
6.1.        General remarks
In general terms, this initiative aims at
improving and simplifying the applicable rules of the Cableways Directive, by
clarifying some concepts and definitions contained therein, including the
alignment to the NLF, thus facilitating its practical application. This
initiative is expected to have a positive impact on the sound, consistent and uniform
application of the Cableways Directive through the European Union: in
particular, it will provide legal certainty on whether some products fall or do
not fall within the scope of the Directive, and it will therefore avoid or
limit queries, doubts or conflicts on this issue.
Consultations with Member States and
relevant stakeholders, as well as the Impact Assessment Study carried out by an
external contractor, have found no significant negative economic, environmental
or social impacts if the Cableways Directive were modified in a few elements of
the legislative text and aligned to the provisions of the New Legislative
Framework.
The analysis of impacts will be presented
in two steps. First, the most relevant impacts are identified in chapter 6.2.
In the second step an in-depth analysis of all the policy options will follow
in chapter 6.3. . On the basis of this analysis, the need of mitigating
measures for the most affected parties will be considered (chapter 6.4).
6.2.        Overview of the relevant
impacts and the methodology for their assessment
The following impacts are deemed the most
relevant and therefore have been considered. No environmental impacts are
expected:
Social impact: The social impact consists mainly of benefits to the health and
safety of the users of cableway installations. The
proposed changes are designed to improve the practical application of the Directive.
Providing legal certainty, in particular by ensuring that the cableways safety
provisions are applied to installations for which there existed doubts before, 
and better specifying the obligations of economic operators, through the
alignment to the NLF, is assumed to contribute to an improved level of safety
and quality of cableway installations. As a result, the probability of
accidents or injuries would be reduced. However, it was not possible to
illustrate benefits from a quantitative point of view.
None of the options is expected to have an
impact on employment in the sector. This is explained by the small number of
installations that are actually affected by the problems described. Furthermore
as will be explained in this chapter, the economic impacts of all options are
considered minor and will not have a knock-on effect on employment in the
sector.
Economic impacts: with respect to clarifications in the scope of the Directive and
the implementation of a specific conformity assessment procedure for subsystems,
additional costs should not intervene, because what the changes will provide is
legal certainty to the current situation. The same products are considered to
fall already today within the scope of the Directive; costs would therefore
arise only for those manufacturers who have erroneously not applied the
Cableways Directive. In this context, it needs to be pointed out that the
compliance costs with the Cableways Directive are higher than if a product had
not to ensure this compliance. On the other hand, benefits would occur from
clarification in the scope and conformity assessment procedures for
manufacturers, operators and national authorities, as a result of avoiding
possible mistakes on compliance, conformity assessment and certification, which
have resulted in additional costs and, in some cases, the need for
re-certification.
The assessment of each proposed change is
based on its costs and benefits, where the latter includes improvements in
legal certainty, a fair level playing field for the industry and then health
and quality benefits. It is the result of contributions and consultations
carried out with Member States and stakeholders in the cableway installations
sector: most of the results of such consultations are presented in the Impact
Assessment Study carried out by an external contractor, including a detailed
description and analysis of impacts of the options for the revision of the
Cableways Directive.
6.3.        Analysis of relevant impacts
The analysis of the options and of the
impacts takes into consideration the contributions provided by representatives
of Member States and by stakeholders in the fora in point 1.3 of this report,
as well as the results of the “Impact Assessment Study Concerning the Revision
of Directive 2000/9/EC Relating to Cableways Installations Designed to Carry
Persons”, carried out by an external contractor, in particular in Chapters 5
“Impact assessment of options for revision of the current framework” and 6
“Conclusions: summary of impacts and comparison of policy options”.
6.3.1.     Scope of the Directive

 Do nothing (baseline).

Option 1 is to
leave the existing situation unchanged. This would have no impact, meaning that
the described problems will persist.

 Further clarify the scope of the
     Directive in the Application guide (“soft law”).

Option 2 is a
“soft law” option. In this case, in terms of effectiveness of the measure, it
is possible to foresee a positive impact. The specific objectives of the
revision process would be partly met, through the improvement, to some extent,
of the sound and uniform application of the Cableways Directive. However
guidance is not binding.  It cannot be excluded that unclear legal situations
would remain.  Taking into account the results of the consultation it appears
that the problem would not be completely solved. Regarding efficiency, no
significant costs are expected, because the proposed clarification would just
invite to bring practice in line with the already applicable requirements. Costs
will hence only occur for manufacturers who by mistake have not yet
manufactured and certified their installations in accordance with the Cableways
directive. A positive impact could be envisaged regarding predictability for
manufacturers. In terms of coherence of the measure, a positive impact would be
related to some contribution to better regulation and the Single Market Act.

 Clarify the relevant provisions on the
     scope of the Directive.

Option 3 would
use legislative measures, i.e. the Cableways Directive would be slightly
changed, in Article 1.6 to better clarify that equipment with a dual use of
amusement and transport falls within the scope of the Cableways Directive.  This
change would not modify the Article but just clarify its applicability.  In
this case, in terms of effectiveness of the measure, the specific objectives of
the revision process would be met through the improvement of the sound and
uniform application of the Cableways Directive, as well as of clarity of
legislation and its consistent application through the European Union.
Regarding efficiency, no costs are expected for the same reasons as in Option 2;
costs will only occur for manufacturers who by mistake do not certify their
installations in accordance with the Cableways directive. A positive impact
would come from improved legal certainty for all manufacturers, having to
comply with a clearer set of rules instead of having to deal with different
interpretations in the EU Member States. In terms of coherence of the measure,
a positive impact would relate to the contribution to better regulation, with a
clearer legal situation.  With respect to the possible confusion between
inclined lifts and the small funiculars, the Cableways Directive is clear in
its scope.  As explained in point 5.1.1, a legislative option was not considered
in this case.

 Other impacts.

Regarding
installations designed for a dual purpose (leisure and transport) the case
identified so far was clarified as falling within the scope of the Cableways
Directive.  The study concluded that, as no further systems that would be
included into the scope of the Directive have been identified, it is expected
that the proposed options would have no impacts with regards to consumer
choice, competition, barriers for new suppliers and service providers,
anti-competitive behaviour or the emergence of monopolies and market
segmentation.
Regarding the
situation of funiculars and inclined lifts, it appears that in most cases
companies seek clarification from the authorities as to which of the two
Directives applies to each particular case. However, overall, it seems to be
more common to do so for companies that are (also) active in the cableways
sector than for companies active solely in the lifts sector, which may be
characterised by a comparatively lower level of awareness of the need to
discuss the particularities of each case with the authorities. 
Stakeholders' views
are illustrated in the study at page 95 and show their preference for amending
the Application Guide of both Cableways Directive and Lifts Directive. It is believed
that this will ensure maximum clarity and minimum confusion for all
stakeholders in all Member States as the advice given in both Application
Guides would be consistent. 
It should be noted that stakeholders
(particularly competent authorities) were largely divided over whether 'soft
law' or legislative approach would be the most effective. While no clear view
emerged from national associations of cableway operators that responded to the
consultants, one industry association expressed support for amending the
application guide of both directives
The “soft law”
can contribute to setting lift manufacturers on an equal footing with companies
in the cableways sector, and therefore positive impacts in terms of improved
competition and reduced market segmentation may occur. 
The
manufacturers will know in advance to what procedure they should comply with in
order to avoid unnecessary costs and delays, which is the main problem. 
As neither option
is expected to result in substantive changes, impacts are not expected on the
global competitive position of EU firms, trade barriers and investment flows.
With respect to
operating costs, regarding the “soft law” and the legislative options envisaged
to clarify the situation of installations that serve a leisure and transport
function the study concluded that no such costs would arise as only one company
producing leisure equipment that also has a transport function has been
identified, and a clarification was already provided in this case.
Concerning the
borderline between inclined lifts and cableways, the “soft law” option may
benefit companies that are currently unaware of the need to contact the
authorities as early in the planning process as possible. Considering that this
option seeks to clarify current legislative requirements rather than to modify
them, no additional costs can be expected.
According to the
  UK national authority, should greater clarity be achieved, this would reduce
costs incurred by economic operators and public authorities that arise due to misunderstandings
and dealing with errors. Should cases such as the one experienced in the UK be avoided, significant additional costs could also be avoided as the operator and the
manufacturer in the UK appear to have incurred significant additional costs. As
noted above, benefits from guidance provided under the “soft law” option are
more likely to be accrued by lift manufacturers than cableway manufacturers.
With respect to
administrative burdens on businesses, taking into consideration that the
changes proposed involve clarification of existing requirements, the study has
not identified additional administrative burdens.
One-off costs
With regard to
the costs to public authorities, as the Cableways Directive needs to be aligned
with the NLF, transposition costs would be incurred anyhow and the incremental
transposition costs from the legislative option is minimal. The cost of the
“soft law” option, i.e. changing the Application Guide attributable
specifically is expected to be minimal as the structures (regular meetings of
the most relevant stakeholders such as those of the Standing Committee and of
the Cableway Installations Sectoral Group of Notified Bodies) are already in
place and can easily provide the expertise needed to elaborate proposals to
change the Application Guide.
As far as
running costs for public authorities are concerned, this option should lead to
a reduction in the workload for public authorities. The additional costs of
handling a case where a public authority has to deal with incorrect classification
of an installation have been estimated by one of the respondents at one week’s
worth of personnel costs, amounting to approximately €5,000.
Consumers
and households
On innovation
and research, on consumers and households and with respect to specific regions
and sectors, no impacts are expected as no substantive change is being enacted.
In the area of
public health and safety, three stakeholders pointed to potential improvements
in passenger safety as a result of changes to the current framework; however,
further information on specific problems with passenger safety has not been
provided. As a more general comment, other stakeholders expect no safety
improvements from the policy options proposed.
Conclusion
In conclusion,
as regards installations serving a leisure and transport purpose, a slight
change in Article 1.6 of the Cableways Directive will clarify the current legal
framework. This clarification avoids costs to manufacturers and public
administrations that could result from a wrong assessment of the product both
with respect to its design and the applicable conformity assessment.  As
regards the borderline between lifts and cableways the legislative option in
the Cableways Directive cannot address the problem, whereas clarification in the
guidance documents can be expected to have a positive impact (primarily on
companies in the lifts sector) associated with increased awareness of the need
to obtain formal classification from the authorities at early stage of planning
and development.
6.3.2.     Safety components,
subsystems, infrastructures and installations

 Do nothing (baseline).

The baseline
scenario would have no impact, but the described problems will persist.

 Further clarify the scope of the
     Directive in the Application guide (“soft law”).

For option 2, in
terms of effectiveness of the measure, the application guide could further
clarify the concepts of safety components, subsystems, infrastructures and
installations and thereby meet the objective of improving a sound and uniform
application of the Cableways Directive.  Regarding efficiency, no significant
costs are expected, as the design of the product would not be affected. The
relevant costs relate to the applicable conformity assessment procedure.  In
terms of coherence of the measure, a positive impact would be related to some
contribution to better regulation.

 Clarify the relevant provisions of the
     Directive.

For option 3, in
terms of effectiveness of the measure, a positive impact is foreseen, as the
specific objectives of the revision process would be met through the
clarification of the legislation, the improvement of the sound, uniform and
consistent application of the Cableways Directive throughout the European Union.
Concerning efficiency, more significant costs are expected than under option 2;
however, a the improved legal certainty for all manufacturers operating with
subsystems would have a positive impact on costs as manufacturers  would not
need to potentially face different interpretation in the EU Member States. In
terms of coherence of the legal clarification would contribute to better
regulation.

 Other impacts

A cableways
manufacturer suggested that it is possible that the introduction of a
non-exhaustive list of safety components into the Directive may distort
competition if companies interpret the non-exhaustive list as exhaustive.
However, the study did not find evidence that the proposed options would result
in higher prices due to less competition, the creation of barriers for new
suppliers, the emergence of monopolies or market segmentation.
Nevertheless,
the study has concluded that a legislative option in these areas may be too
prescriptive and therefore reduce the flexibility of manufacturers to develop
new technical solutions.  Should this possibility emerge, competitiveness and
investment by EU manufacturers would be negatively impacted.
On operating
costs, the study could not estimate impacts of introducing a non-exhaustive
list of safety components. There is a risk that products that are not on the
list of safety components start to be certified as subsystems systematically. 
This would have a negative impact on the current system which requires a safety
analysis for assessing safety components.
As regards
administrative burdens for businesses, changes in the legislation would require
that companies familiarise themselves with the new requirements and adapt their
procedures. It was noted that large companies have dedicated members of staff
for compliance issues while small companies have to devote a portion of their
normal working time to these activities (which do not generate any revenue). In
the context of an SME, these costs could be significant; the Director of an SME
cableway manufacturer noted that during the period when the Directive was
initially implemented, he used to spend one working day every week on
familiarising himself with the new requirements.
The time
required to familiarise themselves with the new obligations would depend on the
exact changes to be implemented. Even if these options seek to clarify the
existing requirements rather than implement new ones, the introduction of new
definitions about subsystems and/or a list of safety components would imply
administrative costs.  However, the study could not provide a quantitative
assessment about those costs.
For public
authorities, the costs of transposing any changes implemented under the
legislative option will not be relevant because the Directive would be aligned
to NLF and a transposition would need to take place.  Reducing the need to
provide advice to stakeholders on interpretation of relevant provisions, both
in the legislative or in the “soft law” options is expected to provide cost
savings for public administrations but may subsequently accrue cost savings due
to avoiding problems of interpretation of the relevant terms. The German
authorities expect some increase in administrative burden from both options
associated with providing advice.
Innovation
and research
On innovation
and research, a national authority noted that the legislative option may turn
out to be too prescriptive and could potentially hinder research and
development of new products. From this perspective, it was further argued that
negative impacts on research and development could be avoided under the “soft
law” option. Another public authority stated that an indicative list of safety
components would be useful but a prescriptive list would harm innovation.
Significant
impacts have not been identified for consumers and households, specific regions
and sectors, or in public health and safety.
In conclusion,
it is clear that some stakeholders have faced problems when interpreting the
concepts examined.  The assessment has showed that a legislative option brings
risks in particular related to costs and to innovation, and therefore with a
potential negative impact on competitiveness and SMEs. Given these potential
risks, implementing the “soft law” appears to be the best available option.
6.3.3.     Conformity assessment
procedure for subsystems

 Do nothing (baseline).

This would have
no impact, but the described problems will persist.

 Further clarify in the Application guide
     the conformity assessment procedure for subsystems (“soft law”).

Suggesting the
use of specific modules for conformity assessment in the application Guide
would probably encourage more stakeholders to use it. However it is
questionable whether the current uncertainty would disappear. In fact the
available modules including the recommendations of the notified bodies are
widely known but problems identified are not solved satisfactorily. In
conclusion a limited positive impact could be expected from the soft law option
as the specific objectives and the sound and uniform application of the
Directive would only be partially met. No significant costs for establishing specific
conformity assessment procedures for subsystems are expected. In fact
manufacturers need already now to follow a conformity assessment procedure
which is not clearly defined in the Directive but  involves costs. The costs
are not expected to increase substantially with the introduction of specific
module, as costs for conformity assessment depend mainly on the complexity of
the product. 

 Amend the relevant provisions of the
     Directive.

For option 3, in
terms of effectiveness of the measure, a positive impact is foreseen. The
specific objectives of the revision process would be fully met, through the
improvement of the consistency and flexibility of conformity assessment
procedures for all the products in the scope of the Cableways Directive. In
addition reductions in time, costs and complexity would be obtained as compared
to the current situation.  The conformity assessment for subsystems would
become more transparent, more predictable, providing the same framework for all
interested parties.   On efficiency, no significant costs for establishing
specific conformity assessment procedures for subsystems are expected as the
change would imply replacing existing practices on conformity assessment by a
clear defined procedure.  As already stated, additional costs are more related
to the complexity of the products than to replace existing practices by a clear
conformity assessment module.  In terms of coherence of the measure, a clearer
legal situation will contribute to improved legal certainty for all manufacturers
operating with subsystems.

 Other impacts

The introduction
of a clear defined module will bring all the manufacturers of subsystems under
the same conditions with respect to conformity assessment.  From an internal
market and competition points of view, it would be a positive step.
The changes will
affect only new products placed on the market and it aims to provide
manufacturers more flexibility and choice as regards costs, time and
administrative burdens.
Overall, no
significant impacts on consumer choice, prices, competition, barriers to entry,
monopolies or market segmentation are expected.
The study has
not identified significant impacts with respect to competition, trade and
investment.
With respect to
operating costs, the study has concluded that significant impacts on companies
are not to be expected, because they need already to have a conformity
assessment carried out.
However, one
cableway manufacturer identified large potential negative cost impacts if the
legislative option is not implemented and the disparity between legal
requirements and practice is not addressed. These negative cost impacts would
be experienced if certain EU Member States insist that notified bodies carry
out on-site inspections on each subsystem that has been incorporated into an installation.
Consultation
suggests that the cost of conformity assessment varies depending on the number
of constituent safety components and whether they have already undergone
conformity assessment. As a broad estimate (based on information provided by
cableway manufacturers), the cost of a conformity assessment of a subsystem
ranges from a €5,000 to €20,000. A somewhat lower estimate has been provided by
one notified body which stated that the cost varies with the size of the
installation and the innovation that is embedded in it.  Should an on-site
inspection of the way each subsystem has been incorporated into an installation
be carried out, one stakeholder estimated that these costs would increase to
around €50,000 to €80,000. While it has not been possible to reliably verify
this estimate, it is clear that costs would increase should the requirement to
conduct an on-site inspection be enforced.
The
above-described impacts that could possibly occur under the baseline scenario
(i.e. should certain Member States decide that they wish to enforce the
interpretation of Annex VII that obliges notified bodies to carry out on-site
inspections) might have a large impact on SME cableway and subsystem
manufacturers. A SME cableways manufacturer noted that they certify less than
ten subsystems each year. Applying this to the estimates of the cost of
conformity assessment provided above, suggests a possible increase in annual
certification costs from €50,000 to €200,000 and from €500,000 to €800,000. These
potential costs would be avoided under the legislative option.
As regards SMEs,
in order to avoid increasing their cost burden, it was proposed, as suggested
in the consultation process, that the legislative option ensures that it is not
only Module H but also Module G (unit verification) that is allowed.  This
would allow SMEs to certify bespoke subsystems without significant additional
burden.
From an
administrative burdens point of view, no additional impacts were identified for
both options, conclusion that appears related to the fact that a conformity
assessment procedure needs to be followed already now.
No significant
impacts on public authorities are expected.
Similarly, on
innovation and research or on consumers and households, no impacts have been
identified.
On public health
and safety, competent national authority identified potential benefits but as
no specific problems have been identified, it is not expected that these
benefits would be significant.
Conclusion
The consultation
conducted for this initiative has confirmed problems with lack of clarity as
regards existing requirements. On-site inspections may be required while subsystems
are already assessed by means of conformity assessment modules, some of which
do not require on-site inspections. Therefore, the main impact of the proposed options
would arise in relation to eliminating disparities in legal interpretation and
the lack of legal clarity. In this respect, however, the “soft law” option is
not seen as effective in reducing legal uncertainty and the legislative option
is seen as preferable.
6.4.        Mitigation measures
The magnitude of potentially negative
impacts appears to be null or minimal for all legislative options regarding
efficiency in terms of costs for making products compliant by the manufacturers
of cableways installations. In this sense, no specific mitigation measures have
been considered necessary.  The positive impacts as a consequence of the
improvement of the application of the Cableways Directive, clarification of
legislation and consistency and flexibility of conformity assessment procedure,
suggest that any possible limited negative impacts would be easily compensated.
7.           Comparing the options
On the basis of the assessment carried out
in chapter 6 the policy options “Do nothing” (baseline), “Soft law” (amending
the Application Guide) and “Legislative measure” (amending the Directive) have
been compared 
In view of this analysis the following options
turn out to be the most appropriate and hence preferred options:
Scope of the Directive
A combination of both, the soft law option
and the legislative option, is seen as the most effective and efficient way to
achieve the objective and to address the problem. It will provide clarity to
the legal text and will help manufacturers and authorities to know from an
early stage to which requirements they should comply with and therefore avoid
extra costs.
Based on the responses
received from the stakeholders who participated in the consultation, the
options of amending the Application Guide and legislative change are considered
to be the most suitable in tackling this problem area.
Safety components, subsystems and infrastructures
The soft law option is considered the most
appropriate to tackle the problem, as it will provide flexible guidance (avoiding
unwanted too prescriptive provisions that may result from a legislative
solution in this case)
Conformity assessment procedure
The legislative option is the best option
to address the problem effectively and efficiently.
The consideration of modules for subsystems
will grant consistency in the use of conformity assessment procedures and will
provide more flexibility and choices as regards costs and administrative burden
reduction. 
The following table provides an overview on
the impacts of each option; the preferred options are highlighted in grey
colour.
The magnitude of each impact is assessed
according to the following scale:
++     significant
positive impact
+        minor
positive impact
0        no
impact / baseline
-         minor
negative impact
--       significant
negative impact
   || Effectiveness || Efficiency costs                    benefits || Coherence 
 Scope of the Directive 
 1. Do nothing (baseline) || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 
 2. “Soft law” (amending the Application Guide) || + Sound and uniform implementation of the Cableways Directive will be promoted but it will not make unclear legal situations disappear completely.   || + Additional costs are not foreseen.  The clarifications state the correct interpretation of the current law. || + Benefits may be expected if at least a part of involved manufacturers take knowledge and abide by the provisions of the Application Guide.  A particular uncertainly involving the soft law approach related to the fact that it is mainly addressed to lifts manufacturers. || + Progress in the uniform implementation of the Cableways Directive will contribute to better regulation and Single Market Act, despite the risk that unclear legal situations may emerge in the future. 
 3. Legislative measure (amending the Directive) || ++ The sound, uniform and consistent application of the Cableways Directive will be ensured by the legislative measure from the limited scope it covers.   || + Additional costs have not been identified.  As in the previous option, it is a clarification of an existing legal requirement. || ++ Significant improvement of legal certainty for manufacturers.  Wrong assessment on what legal requirements to comply with will be avoided. || ++ The clear legal situation will contribute to better regulation and Single Market Act. 
 Safety components, subsystems, infrastructures and installations 
 1. Do nothing (baseline) || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 
 2. “Soft law” (amending the Application Guide) || + Soft law would provide flexible guidance, avoiding unwanted too prescriptive provisions that may result from a legislative solution in this case.  Specific objectives of sound and uniform application of the Cableways Directive would be better achieved by the soft law option. || + Additional costs resulting from a soft law approach were not identified || + Benefits are to be expected because a tool will be available for clarifying applicable provisions for manufacturers, notifed bodies and public administrations.  Mistakes and involved costs, in the classification of products are expected to be reduced. || + The clarification provided in the Application Guide will encourage a consensual implementation of the legislation, bringing therefore a positive contribution to better regulation and Single Market Act.  However, it will not grant that unclear legal situations will completely disappear. 
 3. Legislative measure (amending the Directive) || In principle, a legislative measure would provide a more sound and uniform application of the Cableways Directive.  However, the discussions in the working groups and the consultation process have not provided a clear legal text that would avoid further interpretation in the future. || - - There are risks associated to higher costs from a legislative option, including also for innovation. || 0 Benefits were not clearly identified, unless it is assumed that a clear legal text, if available, would improve predictability for manufacturers. || 0 Taking into account the questions raised on the availability of a sound legislative solution, it is questionable whether any positive contribution this solution could provide for better regulation or the Single Market Act. 
 Conformity assessment procedure for subsystems 
 1. Do nothing (baseline) || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 
 2. “Soft law” (amending the Application Guide) || + The promotion of conformity assessment modules in the Application Guide may contribute to partly meet consistency in this area.  However, this approach is not fundamentally different compared to the current situation.  The modules are widely known but identified problems remain. || - Limited costs for establishing specific conformity assessment procedure for subsystems may arise.  A conformity assessment procedure is already required now, therefore additional costs should not be significant.   || 0 It is questionable whether benefits would result from this option.  The current availability of modules has not allowed to promote a completely predictable situation for manufacturers. || 0 Contributions to better regulation and Single Market Act are not clear as the impact of a soft law option is considered to be very limited. 
 3. Legislative measure (amending the Directive) || ++ The consideration of modules for conformity assessment in the law, as it is usually done for products falling under new approach legislation, will grant consistency in the use of conformity assessment procedures in the EU.  The specific objectives will be fully met. || - As for soft law, limited costs for establishing specific conformity assessment procedure for subsystems may arise for the reasons explained above. || ++ A significant improvement of legal certainty and predictability for manufacturers will be achieved. || ++ This option provides a clear legal situation.  It will contribute to better regulation and Single Market Act. 
              
8.           Monitoring
and evaluation
No additional evaluation arrangements will
be introduced beyond what currently exists. The evaluation of the effectiveness
of the legislation will continue to be based on the feedback received through
the various communication and co-operation mechanisms already established
within the framework of the Cableways Directive, i.e.:
–          Cableways Advisory Standing Committee
(CSC) and Cableways Experts Working Group (CWG);
–          Cableways Member States Market
Surveillance Administrative Co-operation Group (Cableways AdCo);
–          Cableway Installations Sectoral
Group (CSG) of the European Co-ordination of Notified Bodies;
–          Technical Committee 242 on
Safety requirements for passenger transportation by rope of the European
Committee for Standardisation (CEN/TC 242).
Additional feedback will be obtained from
the new or expanded cooperation and information exchange mechanisms provided
for by NLF Regulation 765/2008.
These mechanisms will support the efficient
and uniform enforcement of the cableways regulation and can be useful should
problems of non-compliance arise in future.
Monitoring the level of compliance will be
possible via the following indicators:
–          number of products checked;
–          number of non-compliant products
among those checked;
–          type of non-compliance found.
These enforcement indicators will be based
on information provided by the market surveillance authorities via:
–          the RAPEX[34] system;
–          a general database established
under Article 23 of the NLF Regulation 765/2008 for the exchange of information
among the Member States on market surveillance activities and non-compliant
products (ICSMS[35]);
–          the safeguard clause
notification procedures.
Non-compliance will also be detectable
through complaints addressed to the Commission. 
In line with its “Smart regulation” policy[36], the Commission will
evaluate the effectiveness of the revised Cableways Directive within a period
of 5 up to a maximum of 10 years after the date of application of the revised
directive, basing itself on the feedback obtained from the mechanisms set out
above. If specific circumstance so require, the Commission will ask for an
external evaluation report.
               Annex
I: Report from the Commission to the European Parliament and the Council –
First Report on the Implementation of Directive 2000/9/EC relating to Cableways
Installations Designed to Carry Persons
The report to the
European Parliament and the Council on the implementation of the Cableways
Directive 2000/9/EC is available here:
http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=COM:2011:0123:FIN:EN:PDF
              Annex II: Impact Assessment
Study Concerning the Revision of Directive 2000/9/EC relating to Cableways
Installations Designed to Carry Persons – Final Report (RPA)
Final report of the
Impact Assessment study concerning the revision of the Cableway installation
Directive can be found on DG Enterprise and Industry website: http://ec.europa.eu/enterprise/sectors/mechanical/files/cableways/rev-iastudy_en.pdf
              Annex III: Extract from summary
Report to EP - XII Standing Committee meeting 25-09-2012
4.         Revision Process and Alignment of the Cableways Directive
2000/9/EC to the New Legal Framework for New Approach Legislation
Risk & Policy Analysts Ltd., the external contractor in charge
of the preparation of the Impact Assessment Study concerning the revision of
Cableways Directive 2000/9/EC, was invited at the meeting in order to present
the outcome of the work carried out.
The Final Report was submitted by Risk & Policy Analysts Ltd. on
18 September 2012 and distributed to the Committee members in view of the
meeting. The Impact Assessment Study has two Parts. The objective of Part 1 of
the Study is to provide the European Commission with a clear picture of the
cableway sector, its competitiveness, and the impact that the Directive
2000/9/EC had on it. The objective of Part 2 of the Study is to provide the European
Commission with an assessment of the advantages and disadvantages of the
different policy options considered in view of the revision of Cableways
Directive.
The Commission services further explained that the revision of
Cableways Directive 2000/9/EC will concern two main issues: the alignment to
the New Legislative Framework (NLF) for New Approach Legislation, in
particular, to Decision No 768/2008/EC on a common framework for the marketing
of products, and the update of the legislative text, taking into account on the
one hand, the new Comitology provisions of the Lisbon Treaty, and on the other
hand, the experience gathered during the first years of implementation of the
Directive.
The Commission services will prepare the Impact Assessment, which
will accompany the Commission legislative proposal. The Impact Assessment will
be carried out with a view to estimate, for each of the items considered, the
advantages and disadvantages of the different policy options: do nothing,
clarify the issue in the Application Guide to the Directive (Soft Law
approach), and amend the Directive. The Commission legislative proposal is scheduled
in the third Quarter of 2013.
In this respect, the Commission services invited the Committee
members to express their views and submit their comments as regards the
different items identified in view of the alignment of the Directive to the NLF and the update of the legislative text.
5.         State of Play concerning the Application of Cableways
Directive 2000/9/EC
Following a request for clarification made by a Committee member,
the Commission services stated that the issue of the borderline between
Cableways Directive 2000/9/EC and Lifts Directive 95/16/EC, as regards in particular small funiculars and inclined lifts, will
be dealt with in the framework of the revision process of Cableways Directive.
List of participants at the Standing Committee meeting
 Member State || Public Authority 
 Austria || Bundesministerium für Verkehr, Innovation und Technologie 
 Belgium || Service Public Fédéral Economie 
 Bulgaria || State Agency for Metrological and Technical Surveillance - SAMTS - 
 Cyprus || Department of Electrical and Mechanical Services 
 Czech Republic || Ministry of Transport 
 France || Service Technique des Remontées Mécaniques et Transports Guidés (STRMTG ) 
 Germany || Bayerisches Staatsministerium für Wirtschaft, Infrastruktur, Verkehr und Technologie 
 Hungary || Ministry of National Development 
 Italy || Ministero delle Infrastrutture e dei Trasporti 
 Latvia || Ministry of Economics 
 Poland || Transportowy Dozor Techniczny  (TDT)- 
 Romania || Ministry of Economy and Commerce 
 Slovakia || Ministry of Transport, Construction and Regional Development 
 Slovenia || Ministry of Transport 
 Sweden || National Board of Housing, Building and Planning  (BOVERKET) 
 United Kingdom || Health and Safety Executive (HSE) 
 Stakeholders 
 Garaventa AG   
 Leitner AG 
 Pomagalski 
 FIANET 
 CEN/TC 242 Chairman 
 TÜV SÜD Industrie Service GmbH 
 Kontrellstelle IKSS 
 Technical Secretariat of the NB-CSG 
 Risk & Policy Analysts Ltd. 
              Annex IV: extract from summary
Report to EP - XIII Standing Committee meeting 8-4-2013
4. Revision process and alignment of the Cableways Directive
2000/9/EC to the New Legislative Framework 
The Chairperson announced that the Final Report of the Impact
Assessment Study concerning the Revision of Directive 2000/9/EC (CABL-SC/2013/04/28
- Doc. 5), developed by Risk & Policy Analysts Ltd., has been made
available on the Cableways website on EUROPA http://ec.europa.eu/enterprise/sectors/mechanical/documents/legislation/cableways/index_en.htm.
A number of contributions, opinions and position papers on the
possible policy options had been submitted by Member States, Industry
Associations and Notified Bodies, and they have been presented and discussed at
the meeting:
-FR Proposition on the Revision of Directive
2000/9/EC - (CABL-SC/2013/04/28 - Doc. 8)
-AT Opinion on Impacts and Policy Options - (CABL-SC/2013/04/28
- Doc. 
-IT Osservazioni e proposte di modifiche -
(CABL-SC/2013/04/28 - Doc. 10)
-DE Novellierung der EU-Seilbahnrichtlinie (RL
2000/9/EG),  Konzeptpapier
       (CABL-SC/2013/04/28
- Doc. 11)
-OITAF-IARM Position,Comments
and Remarks(CABL-SC/2013/04/28-Docs.12_1and12_2)
-NB-CSG report in view of the Cableways
directive revision-(CABL-SC/2013/04/28-Doc. 3)
The Chairperson confirmed that such contributions, and others from
Member States, stakeholders and interested parties – to be submitted in written
form as soon as possible – will be taken into due consideration in the drafting
process of the Commission legislative proposal for a revised Cableways
Directive and its accompanying Impact Assessment. This work should be concluded
in the third or fourth quarter of 2013.
6. State of play on the application of Cableways Directive 2000/9/EC
The Chairperson confirmed that the issues related to the application
of the Cableways Directive and its borderline with other directives – mainly
the Lifts Directive 95/16/EC – will be addressed within the revision process.
List of Member States attending the Standing Committee meeting
 Member State || Public Authority 
 Austria || Bundesministerium für Verkehr, Innovation und Technologie 
 Belgium || Service Public Fédéral Economie 
 Bulgaria || State Agency for Metrological and Technical Surveillance (SAMTS) 
 Cyprus || Department of Electrical and Mechanical Services 
 Czech Republic || Ministry of Transport 
 France || Service Technique des Remontées Mécaniques et Transports Guidés (STRMTG) 
 Germany || Bayerisches Staatsministerium für Wirtschaft, Infrastruktur, Verkehr und Technologie 
 Hungary || Ministry of National Development 
 Italy || Ministero delle Infrastrutture e dei Trasporti 
 Latvia || Ministry of Economics 
 Netherlands || Ministry of Infrastructure and the Environment 
 Poland || Transportowy Dozór Techniczny (TDT) 
 Portugal || Instituto da Mobilidade e dos Transportes, I.P. 
 Romania || Ministry of Economy and Commerce 
 Slovakia || Ministry of Transport, Construction and Regional Development 
 Slovenia || Ministry of Transport 
 Sweden || National Board of Housing, Building and Planning (BOVERKET) 
 United Kingdom || Health and Safety Executive (HSE) 
 Stakeholders 
 Garaventa AG   
 Leitner AG   
 Doppelmayr Seilbahnen GmbH 
 Pomagalski 
 FIANET 
 CEN/TC 242 Chairman 
 TÜV SÜD Industrie Service GmbH 
 Kontrellstelle IKSS 
 Technical Secretariat of the NB-CSG 
 Risk & Policy Analysts Ltd.   
              Annex V: Stakeholders’
views on the revision of the Cableways Directive
This annex summarises the results
of the consultation carried out the European Commission in 2010 by means of a
questionnaire on the different aspects of the Directive’s implementation that was
sent to competent national authorities, stakeholders and other actors involved
in the Directive’s implementation. , which refers to the problems raised
subject to the revision. 
The results have been taken into
consideration and analysed in the view of identifying the problems that need to
be addressed and designing the most appropriate and preferred policy options.
On the questions regarding the scope of the Directive, there
was a majority consensus among stakeholders, national
authorities and other industry representatives replying
to the consultation that the list of installations excluded from the scope of
the Directive is exhaustive and does in principle not engender interpretative
problems. The majority of respondents also considered that the definitions
determining the scope are sufficiently clear and exhaustive. However it
is was felt necessary to have a better guidance to make a clear demarcation
between current definitions of lifts and cableways. A manufacturer also
highlighted the need to provide clarity for the situations where installations
have a dual use – transport and leisure. 
For the questions related to distinction between safety
components, subsystems and installations, majority of the stakeholders,
national authorities and representative associations were of the opinion that
there is a need to clarify the distinction of these three elements, in
particular the borderline between safety components and subsystems. In the
current interpretation of the Directive, a safety component could sometimes
also be considered a subsystem. 
With regards to the Conformity assessment procedures, the
opinion of the majority of the respondents is that the process for the
assessment of subsystems in Annex VII is not clearly defined. Almost all
stakeholders suggested introducing modules for subsystems as it is laid down
for safety components.
An important stakeholder stated that there is no uniform guideline
within the EU as regards the procedure to apply in case of subsystems and
safety components, which have already been certified and placed on the market,
undergo modifications. Thus, even if no serious problems have arisen so far,
there is the risk that the technical upgrading of existing installations and
repairs will become more difficult in future.
Two further
rounds of consultations have been carried out by the contractor carrying out
the impact assessment study and a summary of stakeholders’ views are provided
with in the various chapters of the study. See http://ec.europa.eu/enterprise/sectors/mechanical/files/cableways/rev-iastudy_en.pdf
              
[1]
Report from the Commission to the European Parliament and the Council - First
Report on the implementation of Directive 2000/9/EC relating to cableways
installations designed to carry persons. COM(2011) 123 final, 16.3.2011
(published on http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=COM:2011:0123:FIN:EN:PDF).
[2]
Published on http://ec.europa.eu/governance/impact/planned_ia/docs/2012_entr_004_cableways_designed_to_carry_persons_en.pdf.
[3]
Impact Assessment Study Concerning the Revision of Directive 2000/9/EC Relating
to Cableway Installations Designed to Carry Persons - Final Report. RPA,
October 2012 (available on http://ec.europa.eu/enterprise/sectors/mechanical/files/cableways/rev-iastudy_en.pdf).
[4]
Directive 2000/9/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 March
2000 relating to cableway installations designed to carry persons, OJ L 106,
3.5.2000, p. 21-48.
[5]
Directive 95/16/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 June
1995 on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to lifts. 
OJ L 213, 7.9.1995, p. 1.
[6]
The most recent publication of references of harmonised
standards in the field of cableway installations appeared in OJ C 51, 4.3.2009,
p. 9: http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:C:2009:051:0009:0011:EN:PDF.
[7]
Council Decision 93/465/EEC concerning the modules for
the various phases of the conformity assessment procedures and the rules for
the affixing and use of the CE conformity marking, which are intended to be
used in the technical harmonisation directives. OJ L 220, 30.8.1993, p. 23.
[8] Application guide to Directive 2000/9/EC of the European Parliament
and of the Council of 20 March 2000 relating to cableways installations designed
to carry persons. European Communities, 2006 (available on http://ec.europa.eu/enterprise/sectors/mechanical/files/cableways/guidecabl_en.pdf).
[9]               http://ec.europa.eu/enterprise/policies/single-market-goods/documents/new-legislative-framework/index_en.htm
[10]             Laboratories and certification or inspection bodies delivering
certificates which are notified to the Commission by Member States.
[11]             Regulation (EC) No 765/2008 of the
European Parliament and of the Council of 9 July 2008 setting out the
requirements for accreditation and market surveillance relating to the
marketing of products and repealing Regulation (EEC) No 339/93, OJ L 218, 13.8.2008, p. 30;
See http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:L:2008:218:0030:0047:EN:PDF
[12]             Accreditation is a tool for the control of the
competence of laboratories and certification/inspection bodies delivering
certificates in the EU
[13]             Decision No 768/2008/EC of the
European Parliament and of the Council of 9 July 2008 on a common framework for
the marketing of products, and repealing Council Decision 93/465/EEC, OJ L218,
13.8.2008, p.82.
See http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:L:2008:218:0082:0128:EN:PDF
[14]             Article 2 of Decision 768/2008 reads: "Subject
matter and scope: This Decision sets out the common framework of
general principles and reference provisions for the drawing up of Community
legislation harmonising the conditions for the marketing of products
("Community harmonisation legislation"). Community harmonisation
legislation shall have recourse to the general principles set out in this
Decision and to the relevant reference provisions of Annexes I, II
and III. However, Community legislation may depart from those general
principles and reference provisions if that is appropriate on account of the
specificities of the sector concerned, especially if comprehensive legal
systems are already in place". 
[15]             See SEC 2007(173)
http://ec.europa.eu/governance/impact/ia_carried_out/docs/ia_2007/sec_2007_0173_en.pdf
[16]             Western Europe and the Alps
[17]              International Organisation for Transportation by Rope
(OITAF)
[18]             Asia&Pacific, Eastern Europe, Central Europe and Central Asia & others
[19] Impact Assessment Study Concerning the Revision of Directive
2000/9/EC Relating to Cableway Installations Designed to Carry Persons, page i
– RPA – October 2012
[20]             EU 28 plus Switzerland
[21]             Poma and Leitner belong to the same group, but their
brands are independent.
[22] More details can be found in the Impact Assessment Study Concerning
the Revision of Directive 2000/9/EC Relating to Cableway Installations Designed
to Carry Persons, pages 24-27 – RPA – October 2012
[23] Impact Assessment Study Concerning the Revision of Directive
2000/9/EC Relating to Cableway Installations Designed to Carry Persons, pages
13-14 – RPA – October 2012
[24] FIANET, 2012
[25] Domaines Skiables de France, 2011b
[26] Remontées
Mécaniques Suisses,2010
[27] Number of new installations in 2010
[28] Impact Assessment Study Concerning the Revision of Directive
2000/9/EC Relating to Cableway Installations Designed to Carry Persons, page 70
– RPA – October 2012
[29] As the applicable essential requirements remain the same for all
types of cableway products, the different classification does not have a major
impact on the product design as would be the case if they come under another
directive.
[30] NB-Cableways Agreed Recommendations for Use (RfUs) : http://ec.europa.eu/enterprise/sectors/mechanical/files/cableways/cablrfus_en.pdf
[31]
SEC 2007(173): http://ec.europa.eu/governance/impact/ia_carried_out/docs/ia_2007/sec_2007_0173_en.pdf.
[32] See http://ec.europa.eu/internal_market/strategy/index_en.htm
[33] Europe 2020: http://ec.europa.eu/europe2020
[34] EU Rapid Alert system for exchange of information between the EU
Member States and the Commission on dangerous consumer and non-consumer
harmonised products: http://ec.europa.eu/consumers/safety/rapex/index_en.htm.
[35] Data Exchange system on market surveillance between the market
surveillance bodies in Europe: https://www.icsms.org.
[36] http://ec.europa.eu/enterprise/policies/smart-regulation/index_en.htm.