Seilbahnüberprüfungs Regulation 2013 - 2013 Seilbüv

Original Language Title: Seilbahnüberprüfungs-Verordnung 2013 – SeilbÜV 2013

Read the untranslated law here: http://www.ris.bka.gv.at/Dokumente/BgblAuth/BGBLA_2013_II_375/BGBLA_2013_II_375.html

375. Regulation of the Federal Minister for transport, innovation and technology on the recurring review and the additional checks of lifts (Seilbahnüberprüfungs regulation 2013 - SeilbÜV 2013)

On the basis of § 49 4 cableway Act 2003 (SeilbG 2003), Federal Law Gazette I no. 103/2003, as last amended by Federal Law Gazette I no. 40/2012, is prescribed:

 

Scope, definitions

§ 1 (1) this Regulation applies to the recurring review of cable cars in the scope of annex 1, as well as for additional inspections of cable cars in the scope of annex 2 of this regulation. The obligations incumbent on the cableway companies in accordance with the operating instructions as well as the operating and maintenance attitude guides of the manufacturer are not affected by this regulation.

(2) lifts within the meaning of this regulation which are in sections 2 and 119 para 2 SeilbG 2003 mentioned facilities, with the exception of the ropeway covered by this term without transport or limited public transport and of also including return installations covered by summer toboggan runs.

(3) cable car inspection bodies are within the meaning of this regulation by the Federal Ministry of economy, family and youth for the recurring review of cable cars in accordance with the Federal law on the accreditation of conformity assessment bodies, Federal Law Gazette I no. 28/2012 - accreditation Act 2012, accredited inspection bodies.

(4) competent persons within the meaning of this regulation have 2003 suitability according to § 49 para 2 SeilbG for the recurring review of non-public cable cars.

 

Review obligation

2. (1) has the cable car company to get that its cable cars are subjected to within the time limits pursuant to article 3 of this regulation a recurring review or supplementary checks in a timely manner. Within this period of time held official inspections referred to in § 50 SeilbG 2003, which have been made in the scope of annex 1 of this regulation, replace each due recurring checks. Additional checks are not affected.

(2) for recurring checks, cableway inspection bodies are to be used. When non-public cable cars these recurring checks can be made after the initial implementation also by experts in alternating order with cable car inspection bodies. The manufacturer of the equipment at the cable car review setting can result in tow-lifts with low rope guide.

(3) for additional checks, you are in the section 2 of annex 2 of this regulation to attract established investigator.

 

Review deadlines

3. (1) has the recurring review of cable cars to be carried out at five-year intervals. The deadlines for this review are - as far as not otherwise stipulated in para 2 to 5 - from the day of issuing the operating licence for the funicular to be expected.

(2) for the existing at the time of entry into force of this regulation public funiculars, where SeilbÜV are already a review into the scope of section 1 to 4 and 6 and 7 to annex Seilbahnüberprüfungs Regulation (SeilbÜV 1995), Federal Law Gazette No. 253/1995, by a cable car review body or authority has taken place, the time limits for the recurring checks by the time of the last such review in accordance with expected 1995.

(3) for the existing at the time of entry into force of this regulation non-public cableways, where within five years before that, the time limits for the recurring checks by the time of this review are a review within the meaning of section 1 to 4 and 6 and 7 of the annex to the SeilbÜV in 1995 by a cable car review body or authority has taken place, to be expected.

(4) for the existing at the time of entry into force of this regulation non-public cableways, where within five years before that, no verification within the meaning of section 1 to 4 and 6 and 7 of the annex to the SeilbÜV in 1995 by a cable car review body or authority has taken place, is the first recurring verification after entry into force of this regulation, carry out:



1. when ski lifts with low rope guide, a) that industry-Government have been approved until 31 December 1989, within a year, b) approved commercial Government after December 31, 1989 or pursuant to § 21 tow lift regulation 2004 (SchleppVO 2004), Federal Law Gazette II No. 464/2004, have, been tested within two years, 2 in tow-lifts with high rope guide, a) that industry-Government have been approved until 31 December 1972 , within three years, b) that industry-Government have been approved in the period from January 1, 1973 to 31 December 1981, within four years, c) that after December 31, 1981 industry-Government approved or ropeway authorities granted or SchleppVO, reviewed the 2004 pursuant to § 21, within five years, 3rd in ropeway with transport or limited public transport within two years.

The deadlines for the next recurrent checks are to be reckoned from the date of this review to.

(5) a change in the timing of the recurrent deadlines for the next checks to are to be expected is permitted if this no review period is exceeded. The amendment of this time is to apply for the authority. There are the reasons for the change of the time set out in the application.

(6) the Authority monitors the compliance with the time limits for the recurring checks. The day of the handover of the review report in accordance with section 5, paragraph 1, this regulation on the cable car company is decisive for the verification deadlines.

(7) the deadline for a recurrent inspection can be without effect on the time limit for the next review up to half a year above or below. No check is made within the six months after the due date of the period and also at the latest four weeks before the end of the half year no request for renewal provided the time limit, the authority has the cable car operating pending a review report, which determines the proper condition of the cable car to set.

(8) an extension of the deadline for a recurring review about half a year, can be without effect on the time limit for the next check only for no more than another half a year. The extension of this period shall be requested from the authority. In the application are the reasons to set out that a timely review seems to be not possible. The authority has no assessment is made within the other half year pending a review report, which determines the proper condition of the cable car to set cable car operation.

(9) the supplementary checks from cable cars - not otherwise set as far as in paras 10 and 11 - within the in Appendix 2 to this regulation must be stated deadlines. Until at the time of entry into force of this regulation timely carried out additional checks and tests in the scope of section 5 attached to the SeilbÜV 1995 apply when determining the time limits for the supplementary checks with similar test content from the scope than completed.

(10) for which at the time of entry into force of this regulation, existing public cableways, which expired already deadlines for inspections over the SeilbÜV complementary 1995 newly added, have to be carried out these checks within two years after entry into force of this regulation.

(11) for the existing at the time of entry into force of this regulation non-public cableways, which already deadlines for supplementary checks have expired, these checks have to be made within the periods specified in paragraph 4.

 

Scope of review

4. (1) has the recurring review of cable cars to be fixed scope in annex 1 to this regulation. Suspected defects on components outside of the defined scope of the test, on the basis of the review has to carry out additional checks or to cause the cable car review site or the competent person.

(2) in the course of operating approval processes for and tags, as well as checks in accordance with § 50 SeilbG are 2003 carried out functional tests that section 3 correspond to the annex 1 of this regulation, to consider, if they have not more than two years before that occurred the following recurring review. In the same way Z 2, 9 and 18 work equipment Regulation (the regulation), Federal Law Gazette No. 164/2000, as amended by regulation BGBl. during periodic inspections in accordance with article 8, paragraph 1 II are II No. 21/2010, to take into account any functional tests, from one person to § 7 para 3 or 4 AM-VO have been conducted.

(3) further testing of cable cars have where in the annex 2 of this regulation must be specified extent.

(4) access to all cable car installation parts and the documents necessary for the review is the Auditors by the cable car companies during the review to grant.

 

Review report, procedural provisions


§ 5 (1) has the cable car review body or the competent person first orally and within one week after the end of the review in the form of a validation report to communicate the result of recurrent review the cableway companies.

(2) the inspection report referred to in paragraph 1 is to be attached per a copy of review reports on the supplementary inspections carried out since the previous recurrent checking.

(3) a copy of the inspection report referred to in paragraph 1 together with the supplements referred to in paragraph 2 shall submit the cableway companies of the authority within one week after receipt of the inspection report.

(4) the cable car companies by the review referred to in paragraph 1 in his right hand injured, considers himself it can explain the reasons with the presentation of the review report to the authority, which fully or partially refuses the validation result. The authority has to decide administrative decision thereon within six weeks.

(5) the cable car company has to keep the review together with the attached documents referred to in paragraph 2 on duration of the cable car.

 

Rectification

Deficiencies are § 6 (1) as part of a regular review or a supplementary review to hold with suggestions for their rectification in the relevant review report. If they 2003 pose no immediate threat of operation within the meaning of section 91 SeilbG, periods can be granted for redress, taking into consideration the safety of cableway.

(2) is detected during a regular review, that further checks despite deadline not carried out, a cable car operation is not permitted to perform these checks.

(3) defects, 2003 represent an immediate danger of operating within the meaning of § 91 to SeilbG that the respective examiner has promptly in writing to announce the lift companies and the authority. The cable car company has to make on the basis of this announced defects promptly the cableway operating without an official order. The recovery of the cable car operation requires the approval by the authority.

(4) the cable car company has no later than the remedy of the shortcomings identified in the context of the recurring review of cable car review site or the qualified person to communicate the dates established in a comprehensible manner (eg photos, company certificates, test reports) in the validation report.

(5) the cable car review body or the competent person must check the correction of defects identified in supplementary checks in the course of the next recurrent inspection.

(6) can be resolved only through a reconstruction of parts of the cable car system deficiencies, the cable car company has either submitting a building design with the authority to find the cable car-legal building permit for the reconstruction or - in the conditions - the conversion according to the provisions of the Ordinance on permit-free construction of Ropeways (VgBSeil 2006), Federal Law Gazette II No. 287/2006, as amended by regulation BGBl. II Nr 412/2011 , perform.

(7) are defects in the course of a recurring review has been determined, the cable car review body or the skilled person has to monitor the adherence to deadlines for the notices in accordance with paragraph 4 and to check that the correct the deficiencies - if necessary, by checking on the spot. The cable car review body or the competent person has on this to create a final report, which is to specify the manner of the deficiencies and to confirm the proper remedy.

(8) the cableway review body or the competent person has the final report at the latest after one year of regular check - if the expected expense for the remedy of defects in this period beyond the deadlines required to submit to the cableway companies after the longest period - within one week at the latest. A copy of the final report has to present the cable car company of the authority within one week. The cable car company has to keep the final report on the duration of the cable car.

(9) within six weeks after the due date of the final report not presented the authority, it has to suspend the operation of the ropeway pending final report.

 

Except SeilbÜV 1995 and entered into force SeilbÜV into 2013 force

§ 7. The SeilbÜV 1995 occurs at the end of 31 December 2013 override; at the same time the SeilbÜV 2013 enter into force.

Bures