Bijlagen bij SWD(2013)466 - Controle van het Europees regelgevend kader voor typegoedkeuring van motorvoertuigen

Dit is een beperkte versie

U kijkt naar een beperkte versie van dit dossier in de EU Monitor.

dossier SWD(2013)466 - Controle van het Europees regelgevend kader voor typegoedkeuring van motorvoertuigen.
document SWD(2013)466
datum 12 november 2013
agreement with the Secretariat General - the internal market legislation for the type-approval of motor vehicles for this pilot exercise.

The aim of this Commission Staff Working Document is to provide a synthesis of the evidence which could be obtained through analytical research and stakeholder consultation for the Fitness Check on the legal framework for the type-approval of motor vehicles.

The type-approval legal framework in the automotive sector covers three categories of vehicles: motor vehicles and their trailers, motorcycles (two and three-wheelers as well as certain quadri-cycles), and agricultural or forestry tractors (see fig. 1). The scope of this fitness check pilot exercise is limited to the legal framework for the type approval of the first category of vehicles (motor vehicles and their trailers) since the legal framework for the two other vehicle categories has been very recently the subject of a major overhaul.

The legal framework for the type approval of motor vehicles aims at facilitating the free movement of automotive products in the internal market by laying down common requirements designed to achieve environmental and safety objectives. It is based on a system of whole-vehicle type-approval which allows manufacturers to have a vehicle "type" approved in one EU Member State and then to market new vehicles of that type in all other EU Member States without further tests. The framework deals with a multitude of detailed technical requirements for different vehicle systems and components and these requirements are frequently modified to adapt them to technical progress while at the same time aimed at minimising the regulatory burden on industry.

i

http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=COM:2010:0543:FIN:EN:PDF

http://ec.europa.eu/atwork/programmes/docs/cwp2010 en.pdf

2

Although this legal framework provides for an obligatory whole vehicle type-approval for EU internal market purposes (EU WVTA), it allows Member States also to apply, in a limited number of specific cases, a national approval system for certain vehicle categories in particular niches, however with subsequent limitations for the free circulation of the vehicles approved according to these national schemes.

The legal framework contains several separate legislative acts laying down harmonised technical requirements for the type-approval of individual parts and characteristics of a vehicle (referred to as implementing Regulations in fig 1).

Basic Directives (100)

PAST

Framework Dir.for Type Approval (all motor vehicles incl. HDV & buses)

General Safety / TyresReg.

Impl. Reg.ot UNECE ReE

Pedestrian _

protection | anP1-E

Hydrogen

Euro VI i-

Impl. Res

Regulation I___i

Euro 5 & 6 _

Regulation ImPL

MAC Dir. I ^g-

[Recycl ability Directive | impi. Keg

Tractors

Scope of the fitness check pilot

PRESENT

Fig. 1: Legal framework for the approval of wheeled vehicles

The scope of the fitness check for this legal framework encompasses the following main pieces of legislation of relevance for the type approval of motor vehicles (see also the box in figure 1):

3

• Framework Directive 2007/46/EC for the approval of motor vehicles and their

trailers, and of systems, components and separate technical units intended for such vehicles.

The Framework Directive is the current cornerstone of the legal framework for the type-approval of motor vehicles, and entered into force on 29 April 2009. A phased implementation schedule for its requirements is provided until 2014, with different implementation dates depending on the vehicle categories and requirements concerned. The EC type-approval system put in place by the Directive aims at ensuring that new vehicles placed on the market in the EU are in conformity with the safety and environmental performance requirements set out to achieve the objectives of improving road safety and environmental protection. Type-approval is based on the principle that manufacturers must issue a certificate of conformity for each of the vehicles they manufacture, attesting that these vehicles have been produced in conformity with the approved type, as a condition for their free movement in the EU.

The Directive is based on the principle of total harmonisation. EC type-approval procedures are compulsory and replace the national procedures with which they have co-existed until the entry into force of the Framework Directive. The type-approval process has therefore become noticeably simpler for vehicle manufacturers. It suffices indeed that the type of vehicle is approved in one Member State and conformity of production for the series of vehicles built according to that type is ensured, in order for all vehicles of that type to be registered throughout the European Union solely on the basis of their certificate of conformity. This approach has been established to reach the objective of ensuring the proper functioning of the internal market.

The Directive mainly aims at contributing to the overall policy objectives of ensuring a proper functioning of the Internal Market ©, enhancing the competitiveness of the EU automotive industry ©, increasing road safety © + @ and reducing emissions © + ®. (see the numbering in the intervention logic diagram in fig. 2 below).

• General Safety Regulation (EC) No 661/2009.

The main objectives of the General Safety Regulation are to significantly simplify the legislation concerning the type-approval legislation for motor vehicles by replacing 50 base Directives and around 100 related amending Directives by internationally harmonised requirements adopted by the World Forum for the harmonisation of vehicle regulations. This World Forum is a subsidiary of the United Nations Economic Commission for Europe (UNECE) and develops these harmonised UN Regulations under the so-called 1958 Agreement, which provides for a system of mutual recognition of approvals issued by Contracting Parties in accordance with these UN Regulations.

The General Safety Regulation also aims at further enhancing the safety of motor vehicles by requiring the mandatory fitting of some advanced safety systems and by specifying requirements for the safety and environmental performance of their tyres.

4

The simplification of the regulatory framework ©, as well as the promotion of new safety technologies © and reduction of noise emissions © are identified as specific policy objectives for the General Safety Regulation in the intervention logic diagram (see the numbering in fig. 2 below).

• Pedestrian Protection Regulation (EC) No 78/2009.

The Pedestrian Protection Regulation aims at improving the safety of pedestrians and other vulnerable road users, by reducing the severity of injuries resulting from a collision with a motor vehicle. The Regulation requires that passenger vehicles are equipped with a type-approved brake assist system, which detects in a fraction of a second that the driver is attempting an emergency brake and triggers the brake automatically in order to achieve the shortest possible braking distance. In addition, if these vehicles are equipped with a frontal protection system, intended to protect the external surface of the vehicle from damage in the event of a collision with an object, this protection system has to comply with specific requirements to reduce the possible injuries for pedestrians in case of collision. The Regulation's aim of ensuring a high level of safety of pedestrians and passengers is identified as a specific policy objective © in the intervention logic diagram.

• Regulation (EC) No 79/2009 on the type-approval of hydrogen-powered motor vehicles.

This Regulation sets out safety requirements for hydrogen components and systems that store hydrogen in liquid or gaseous (compressed) phase to ensure the safe and reliable functioning of these vehicles. In addition to contributing to the overall policy objective of protection ®, the Regulation also contributes to encouraging the use of alternative fuels by ensuring that this can be done in a safe manner. The link between the Regulation and this specific policy objective © is identified in the intervention logic diagram.

• Regulation (EC) No 715/2007 on the emissions of light duty motor vehicles (Euro 5 and Euro 6).

• Regulation (EC) No 595/2009 on the emissions of heavy duty motor vehicles (Euro VI).

• Directive 2006/40/EC relating to emissions from air-conditioning systems in motor vehicles (MAC Directive).

• Directive 2005/64/EC on the type-approval of motor vehicles with regard to their reusability, recyclability and recoverability.

The two emissions Regulations (Euro 5 and 6 and Euro VI) as well as the Directives on emissions from air-conditioning systems and on recyclability aim at contributing to the overall policy objectives of environmental protection © + © + ®. The link between these pieces of type-approval legislation and the overall and specific policy objectives of the framework are indicated in the intervention logic diagram.

5

The emissions Regulations aim at contributing to the reduction of air pollutant emissions by specifying limits for tailpipe emissions and by establishing requirements to ensure in-service conformity of vehicles and engines with these emission limits. They also contain requirements on the durability of pollution control devices and on the measurement of fuel consumption and CO2 emissions. As such they aim to contribute to specific policy objective ©.

By requiring the accessibility of information on vehicle repairs and maintenance, these Regulations also aim at creating a competitive after-sales and repair market, which is the framework's specific policy objective © as indicated in the intervention logic diagram.

The Directive relating to emissions from air-conditioning systems in motor vehicles aims to cut back the emissions of fluorinated greenhouse gases used in air conditioning systems fitted in motor vehicles, by providing for the gradual prohibition of the use of fluorinated gases with a high global warming potential. As such the Directive is intended to contribute to the overall policy objective ® to meet climate change commitments and the specific policy objective © to reduce CO2 emissions.

The Directive on the type-approval of motor vehicles with regard to their reusability, recyclability and recoverability is intended to facilitate the recycling and recovery of components and parts of end-of-life vehicles by obliging manufacturers to incorporate recycling from the vehicle design stage onwards. Manufacturers must design vehicles from the viewpoint of dismantling and recycling them, for example by using a large proportion of materials which are potentially able to be recycled and recovered. The Directive contributes to the overall policy objective ® of minimising the impact on the environment of end-of-life vehicles and to the specific policy objective © of increasing the levels of recycling, reuse and recovery of materials used in motor vehicles.

6

Overall policy objectives Specific policy objectives

Operational objectives

Ensureproper operation of internal market

for motor vehicles

Enhance competitive TlieEU automotive industr?

less of

► i

ProvirJefora high level of Q) Safety, health and environmental protection in the European Union

@ IncreaseroarJ safety

Mi 11 i in i s e h a nnf u I eff e ct s to human health from air ^ emissions

Minimisehealth impacts ^! of ambient noise

Meet climate change ^Z} commitments fv'ir inise C 02 emissions

' Minimise impact of ELVto environment

I

Set harmonised rules on the construction of motorvehicles

Simplify regulatory framework

Createa competitive after-sales and repairmarket


Ensurehigh level o of safety of passengers andpedestrians

— PromotethearJ option of "new safetytechnologies

RerJuceemissions of *■© NOicPMs

and HC s from vehicles

Reduce noise emissions 0 -from motorvehicles

~l—►©

ReduceC02 @ emissionsfrom motor vehicles

Framework Directive (2007/46/EC) - Procedures farthe type approval af all categaries of mator vehides t systeme, components and technical units -AH emative provisions far vehides prod uc Ed in small val urn be -Procedures ta ensure that only vehicles and camp an ent s that meet the technical requirements set in the regulatory acts enterthe market -Safeguard clausES and procedures forthe recall of vehidES -Provisions for the adoptian af UNECE Regulations -Provisions forthe exemption af new technologies or new concepts -Provisian far thE implEmentatian and adaptation of regulatory acts ta techno logical development - Provisions far the designation and notification of technical services

Encourage the use of alternative f ue Is

Regulations 715/2007 and 595/2009 - Ftequirementsfor the air Emissions from l^htand heavy duty motor vehicles -Requirements forsharing of maintenance -and repair information

Increase levels of recycling. r*l reuse and recovery of motor vehides

Regulation 75/2009 Requirements far the Protection of pedestrians

RegJation 79/2009 Require merits for the safety of

hydrogen powered motor vehicles Re qu ire me ntsfor vehides with

innovative propJsion technologies

General safety Reg u lat on BG1/2009 -Requirementsfarthe introduction of advanced safety measures -Requirementsfortyre rolling resistance, tyre noise em ission I im its., wetgri p req ii rements and use of TPM5 -Repeal of EU Directives and replacement by UNECE Reg Jations

Directive 200E/40/EC -Requirements to r emission of substances with global warming potential from air-conditioning systems fitted Id vehides

Directive 2005/Ed -requirementsfor level of reusability, Recyclability and recoverability of motor vehides

Fig. 2: Intervention Logic Diagram

7

Mechanisms/structures

EU level [Commission) Adopt implement^ regulations Promotion of international stand ards for vehicle repair and m a i nten a nee i nfo rmatio n - -Coord i natio n with UNECE

Propose amendments to Regulationon the basis of tech no logica I developments and economic and technical feasibility Establishment of harmonised driving cycles for thetest methodology Monitorand reviewtheimplementationofthe legal framework

N ati o na I Level [MemberStates)

Tra ns pose Di rectives i n n ation a I legisJ atio n

Appoi ntcompetent a uthorities D esig na te techn ica I services to ca rry tests Issue and review/withdraw approval certificates Co mm un icatedecisio nsfo r a p prova I, withdraw a I

toother Member States Lay down rules and penaltiesfor noncompliance

Monitor and enforce compliance Participate in support structures (TC-MV, MvWGs,, TAAMJAAEG)

Industry and stakeholdera

Comply with legal requirements Issue certificate of compliance Participatein supportstructures

2. Background to this initiative

The reasons for selecting this policy area for the fitness check pilot exercise in DG Enterprise and Industry are the following:

(1) The EU has been - so far - the world's largest producer of motor vehicles. The automotive industry is therefore central to Europe's prosperity and to the growth of its economy. One third of all manufacturing jobs in the EU are linked to this sector. With the inclusion of services related to the industry, 13 million jobs depend on the sector. It provides a positive contribution to the trade balance of around € 70 billion and vehicle taxes contribute €360bn to Member States' revenues. The automotive industry is also Europe's largest private investor in research and development.

(2) The continuous evolution of the global automotive industry is accelerating with an unprecedented pace. In the coming decades, important changes are expected in several areas that are likely to profoundly reshape the automotive industry and its markets worldwide. While the European market has a low-growth perspective, third country markets are growing fast, changing the trade flows and the automotive value chain. The intense competitive pressure is growing further and EU vehicle manufacturers are increasingly being challenged on their home market. Maintaining and strengthening the competitiveness of the European automotive industry will therefore be essential to deliver an important contribution to the strategic objective of the Union to work towards creating long-term prosperity in Europe through sustainable and dynamic growth.

(3) The CARS 21 (Competitive Automotive Regulatory System for the 21st century) process, initially launched in 2005, aimed at establishing recommendations for the short-, medium-, and long-term policy and regulatory framework for the European automotive industry. This policy is geared towards enhancing global competitiveness and employment, while sustaining further progress in safety and environmental performance at a price affordable to the consumer. At the outset, in 2005, industry stakeholders raised concerns about the high cumulative cost of legislation. The review conducted by CARS 21 concluded that the current type-approval system for motor vehicles was effective, should be maintained and that most of the legislation was necessary and useful in the interest of protecting health, safety, consumers and the environment. The CARS 21 Group did, however, identify about 40 directives which could be replaced with international UNECE regulations.

(4) As a result of this first phase of the CARS 21 process, the EU legal framework for the type-approval of motor vehicles has undergone a substantial simplification process in recent years. This has been achieved by replacing a number of Directives by internationally harmonised vehicle regulations, developed under the auspices of the United Nations' Economic Commission for Europe (UNECE). As a result a mature regulatory framework has been put in place, which is regularly reviewed in close consultation and with the involvement of all stakeholders. As the automotive industry needs a stable and predictable regulatory framework, re-opening discussions on the recently revised policy for the automotive industry should therefore be avoided in the context of this Fitness Check pilot project, and adaptations and extensions to the already mature regulatory framework should be limited to clearly identified needs.

8

(5) The CARS 21 High Level Group was re-launched in November 2010. Its final report, adopted in July 20123, confirms that an important objective of vehicle regulation is to strengthen the EU internal market and that this requires, amongst others, a revision of the procedures for the surveillance of the automotive products placed on the EU market in order to make sure that all vehicles meet the regulatory requirements put in place and pose no safety risk to consumers, while limiting at the same time administrative burdens. Another key message in the CARS21 final report is that the cumulative effects of the different pieces of legislation affecting the automotive sector should be scrutinized in order to have an overall assessment of their economic, social and environmental impacts.

(6) In response to the CARS 21 final report the Commission adopted the CARS 2020 Action Plan for a competitive and sustainable automotive industry in Europe4. In this Action plan the Commission confirmed its commitment to carry out an extensive and in-depth evaluation of the type-approval framework for motor vehicles.

The decision to run this pilot project by carrying out a fitness check on the legal framework for the type-approval of motor vehicles constitutes therefore a timely and appropriate response to these key messages from the CARS21 final report and to the commitment made in the CARS 2020 Action Plan.

In addition, it is of utmost importance that the fitness check takes full account of the efforts already undertaken and underway. Its main objective should therefore be to assess the effectiveness of the recent changes introduced in the legal framework for the type-approval of motor vehicles in achieving the simplification objectives and the smart regulation principles identified in the CARS21 final report as an essential contribution towards ensuring a favourable business environment for the automotive industry. Against this background, the fitness check should provide the benchmarks for assessing the need for any future amendments to the legal framework for the type-approval of motor vehicles.

It should be noted that at the time that the decision was taken to run this fitness check pilot project on the type-approval framework for motor vehicles, the preparation of a draft legislative proposal for amending Framework Directive 2007/46/EC had already been planned, and preliminary work started. In fact, a public consultation5 and an impact assessment study6 have already been carried out.

In view of the decision to run this fitness check pilot project, the preparation of a proposal for amending the Framework Directive has been postponed, so as to enable the Commission services to take into account the outcome of the fitness check in preparing this amending proposal, which is now foreseen for adoption by the Commission by the end of 2013 -beginning of 2014.

http://ec.europa.eu/enterprise/sectors/automotive/files/cars-2l-final-report-2012 eapdf COM(2012) 636 final, 8.11.2012,

http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=CELEX:52012DC0636:EN:NOT http://ec.europa.eu/enterprise/sectors/automotive/documents/consultations/2010-internal-market/index en. htm

http://ec.europa.eu/enterprise/sectors/automotive/files/proiects/impact-assessment-internal-market-legislation eapdf

9

3. Evaluation questions

With a view to identify what works well and what does not work so well in the legal framework for the type-approval of motor vehicles, the Fitness Check pilot project has looked, inter alia, at:

- any possible barriers (including in other policy areas) to meeting the simplification and smart regulation objectives in the legal framework for the type-approval of motor vehicles;

- issues related to implementation and measures that could improve compliance and enforcement; in particular through the introduction of market surveillance principles;

- coherence of the legislation in place and whether there are any overlaps, inconsistencies and/or ineffective measures. The cumulative effect of the different pieces of legislation has been assessed;

- future challenges stemming from a fast changing global automotive industry, both in terms of shifting centres of gravity for motor vehicle production as well as for selling markets.

The main focus has been on the Framework Directive, but the cumulative effects with the other elements of the regulatory framework have been considered, as well as any potential spill-over on industrial competitiveness.

In addressing the key evaluation questions, due account has been given to the recommendations of the CARS21 final report and the follow-up given by the Commission in its CARS 2020 Action Plan, in particular with regard to the need to strengthen the EU internal market for motor vehicles and the call for a revision of the procedures for the surveillance of the automotive products placed on the EU market.

Originally, the Fitness Check Roadmap - as discussed and agreed with the members of the Steering Committee (see section 4) - contained seven key evaluation questions:

(1) What were the main objectives of the regulatory intervention? Was there an actual need to legislate to achieve these objectives?

(2) What are the main outcomes and impacts of the Framework Directive and its associated Regulations and Directives? Have the main objectives been achieved and to what extent?

(3) Do stakeholders consider that the regulatory framework for the type-approval of motor vehicles addresses sufficiently and satisfactorily the issues that need to be addressed? Are there any shortcomings, overlaps, spill-over effects or unwanted cumulative impacts that need to still be addressed? Balance between pollutant emissions, C02 and road safety objectives?

(4) Are there any excessive administrative or regulatory burdens caused by the type-approval framework? And if so, how and to what extent could these be effectively reduced or eliminated without reducing the effectiveness and efficiency of the system put in place to meet its internal market and safety and environmental objectives?

10

(5) Without the EU intervention, would self-regulation be a more effective alternative to some of the regulatory measures and what has been the EU added value of the intervention? Were some regulatory measures shown to be redundant, overlapping, ineffective, or inconsistent?

(6) Is the regulatory framework fit for purpose and adequately equipped for facing and tackling the needs of the changing economic environment and that of the changing global automotive market and industry in particular, or are there any changes needed to take account of current and future developments? And if yes,

(7) What kind of changes to the current regulatory framework do stakeholders consider necessary and appropriate?

As a results of the discussions between the steering group members and the study contractor for the fitness check (CSES), these key evaluation questions have been further split, detailed and refined into 22 questions, which have been grouped according to the evaluation criteria that needed to be addressed as follows7:

3.1. Relevance and coherence:

3.1.1. What were the main policy objectives of the regulatory intervention? Was there an actual need to legislate to achieve these objectives?

3.1.2. Do the Framework Directive and its associated Regulations and Directives under consideration form a coherent and consistent framework, given the overall policy objectives that the interventions are aiming to meet (see the intervention logic diagram -fig. 2)?

3.1.3. What are the main trends in the structural characteristics of the motor vehicle industry and in its internal and external trade? What challenges do these developments pose for the current regulatory framework?

3.2. Effectiveness

3.2.1. To what extent has the legal framework for the type-approval of motor vehicles contributed to achieving the overarching policy objectives of the Internal Market for goods (overall policy objective ©) and the competitiveness of the automotive industry (overallpolicy objective Q))?

3.2.2. How effective is the legal framework for the type-approval of motor vehicles as a mechanism and means to achieve each of the policy objectives (as reflected in the intervention logic diagram)? What are the main outcomes and impacts of the regulatory framework, including the cumulative impacts of the separate pieces of legislation taken together, and to what extent have the policy objectives been achieved?

3.2.3. What, if anything, could be done to render the legal framework more effective as a means to achieve the policy objectives?

The link between the evaluation questions and the overall and specific policy objectives are indicated with the respective numbers attributed to these objectives in the intervention logic diagram

11

3.2.4. How well are the overall policy objectives to reduce air pollutant and CO2 emissions (© + ®) and to increase road safety (©) achieved and how well has the balance between them been achieved (in overall policy objective ©)?

3.2.5. What is the added value of the legal framework for stakeholders? Do stakeholders consider that the regulatory framework for the type-approval of motor vehicles addresses sufficiently and satisfactorily the issues that need to be addressed?

3.2.6. Are there any shortcomings, overlaps, spill-over effects or unwarranted cumulative impacts that need to be addressed?

3.2.7. What are the current and possible future barriers or weak links to the effective application and enforcement of the legal framework, if any? How could any such barriers be overcome or avoided in the future? What role could market surveillance play in this context?

3.2.8. Are there any aspects/means/actors that render certain aspects of the legal framework more or less effective than others, and - if there are - what lessons can be drawn from this?

3.3. Efficiency

3.3.1. What aspects of the legal framework are the most efficient or inefficient, especially in terms of resources that are mobilised by stakeholders during the different phases of the process?

3.3.2. What does this represent in terms of administrative and reporting burdens on stakeholders and/or other actors? Are there any excessive administrative burdens caused by the regulatory framework (see specific policy objective &)? And if so, how could these be reduced or eliminated?

3.3.3. Is the administrative burden on SMEs proportionate (specific policy objective &)? And if not, how could it be reduced or eliminated?

3.3.4. Are there overlaps/ complementarities between the legal framework and any other European Union or Member State action in the relevant areas? Were some regulatory measures shown to be redundant, overlapping, ineffective, or inconsistent?

3.3.5. How effectively has the legislation been implemented on the ground in the Member States? Is the option to include market surveillance in the regulatory framework feasible, and if so, how could this be done in an effective and efficient way?

3.3.6. To what extent could measures be taken to improve the implementation of the legislation, and what would those measures be?

3.4. Utility

3.4.1. Is the legal framework delivering identifiable benefits to the sector and ultimately to consumers? What are the expectations of the users?

12

3.5. Sustainability

3.5.1. To what extent are there any positive changes brought about by the recent changes to the legal framework or are any likely to ensue?

3.5.2. Is the regulatory framework considered fit for purpose and adequately equipped for facing and tackling the needs of the changing global automotive industry environment or are there any changes needed to take account of current and future developments? And if so,

3.5.3. What further changes, if any, do stakeholders consider necessary/suitable to ensure the sustainability of the legal framework in the future?

3.6. European Added Value

3.6.1. Without the EU intervention, would self-regulation have been a more effective alternative to some of the regulatory measures? What has been the EU added value of the intervention?

4. Method/process followed

To support the Commission services in this pilot project, a Fitness Check study8 was commissioned to an external contractor (CSES), involving a broad consultation with stakeholders.

The tools used for the collection of qualitative and quantitative data and other information and for obtaining the views of the relevant stakeholders, included:

• Desk research in relation to the various aspects covered by the type approval framework.

• An analysis of official data sources on issues related to the operation of the internal market, trade flows, CO2 and pollutant emissions, noise, safety etc. These included sectoral statistics and studies on the automotive sector from Eurostat, international organisations and industry associations, data on EU whole vehicle type-approval activities, environmental data from the European Environmental Agency database. Transport and vehicle safety data from the CARE database have been used as well as data on the number of vehicle recalls from the RAPEX system.

It should be noted that these data provide evidence of positive developments towards achieving the objectives pursued by the legal framework, but that they do not enable a quantification of the extent to which the requirements of the legal framework have been contributing to these developments. One of the main reasons is that for most of the policy objectives identified there is a wide range of other policies and external factors that are also having an impact, positively or negatively, on the attainment of these objectives. For the achievement of the safety objectives, the specific policies pursued by the EU and the Member States to improve road infrastructure, to enhance the use of safety belts, to discourage driving under influence, to introduce speed limitations on the roads, etc. are all impacting factors. As for the achievement of the environmental objectives the air quality and climate change policies pursued by the EU are the main drivers to which the type-approval framework is contributing in as far road transport is concerned.

8

http://ec.europa.eu/enterprise/sectors/automotive/files/proiects/report-cses-fitness-check eapdf

13

Where possible a link has been made with data extracted from the impact assessments accompanying the Commission proposals for some of the legislative acts covered by this fitness check, in an attempt to provide some degree of quantification of the contribution provided by the legislation concerned in achieving the policy objectives. It was however not possible to compare in a quantitative way these ex-ante estimates with the final results achieved or to be achieved by the implementation of the legislation as adopted, due the lack of sufficient and detailed ex-post evaluation data for these pieces of legislation and/or due to the fact that not all the measures are yet fully implemented. As a result the achievement of the objectives by the legislation concerned could only be done in a qualitative manner, making use of the valuable feedback provided by stakeholders affected by the legislation.

An interview programme with key stakeholders - this covered Commission officials, Member State authorities, technical services, European and national industry associations directly or indirectly affected by the type approval legal framework, manufacturers of motor vehicles, NGOs and consumer groups, experts.

Three online surveys targeted at Member State authorities, manufacturers and technical services. These complemented the interview programme and aimed to reach a broader audience.

Four detailed case studies aimed at providing more in-depth investigation of particular issues identified as being interesting and worth exploration. The subjects covered in these case studies were:

(1) Assessment of the administrative burdens from the implementation of the legal framework;

(2) The use of the type approval legal framework in the pursuit of environmental and climate change policy objectives;

(3) The impact of the legal framework on non-EU based manufacturers;

(4) Impact on the implementation of the type approval legal framework of processes followed or measures and regulations adopted at the national level concerning the process of registration and the placing on the market of motor vehicles and components.

A steering group was set up and chaired by the sustainable mobility & automotive industry unit of ENTR, involving colleagues from SG, MOVE, CLFMA, ENV and SANCO and assisted by colleagues form the evaluation unit and impact assessments units in ENTR. Regular meetings were organised between March 2012 and March 2013 with a view to monitor and steer the work undertaken by the study contractor. Members of the steering group were fully involved in the assessment and approval of the interim and final reports prepared by the study contractor, as well as in the elaboration of this Commission staff working document.

Systematic consultation with stakeholders has been ensured, both though their involvement in the surveys and interviews carried out in the context of the fitness check study as mentioned above, as well as on a broader basis through regular reporting on progress and results at the motor vehicle working group (MVWG). This MVWG is a platform for exchange of information on automotive policy related issues between the Commission services, Member States' authorities, industry

14

stakeholders and non-governmental organisations. In addition, high level policy coordination between the Commission, Member States, the European Parliament, Trade Unions and Captains of Industry has been ensured through the CARS21 process.

5. Results - State of implementation

The current situation regarding compliance by Member States with the legal framework for the type-approval of motor vehicles is generally considered as satisfactory. Nevertheless, some delays in the timely transposition of certain Directives have been experienced (for example, in the context of amendments to framework Directive 2007/46/EC, where only 15 Member States communicated national transposition measures prior to the expiry of the deadline).

Seven infringement cases were opened during 2010 in relation to EU legislation in this sector (compared to 32 cases in 2009) and 25 cases were closed. All of these cases were opened as a result of late communication of national measures transposing EU Directives which generally contained technical updates of the acquis. The Member States concerned by these non-communication cases were Austria, Bulgaria, the Czech Republic, Hungary, Ireland and Portugal. Most of these cases were closed after national transposition measures were communicated by the Member States concerned (but one 2009 case remained open and is currently before the Court of Justice). In around 70% of cases opened in 2010 and subsequently closed in the same year, national measures were communicated before the reasoned opinion stage. However, in only 40% of all open cases that were closed in 2010 did communication take place before that stage.

In 2013 a specific implementation issue emerged with regard to Directive 2006/40/EC relating to emissions from air-conditioning systems in motor vehicles. An EU pilot procedure has been launched in June 2013 aimed at seeking clarification from Germany on the compliance of certain motor vehicles for which an approval has been issued by means of an extension of a previous type-approval9. The preliminary analysis undertaken by the Commission services indicates that there may be a need for clarifying and enhancing some of the provisions and procedures in the type-approval framework, in particular to ensure that the procedures for extending type-approvals - which are intended to apply solely for existing types of vehicles - cannot be used for other purposes.

Most of the complaints or requests for information in relation to the motor vehicles sector are submitted by individuals or SMEs. In many cases, the issues raised could be dealt with by giving guidance on the Commission services' interpretation of the relevant EU legislation. It should be noted however that the majority of these complaints were about issues not directly related to the type-approval framework for motor vehicles, such as registration, taxes, etc.

http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release MEMO-13-689 en.htm

15

6. Results - Answers to the evaluation questions

6.1. Relevance and coherence

The focus of the evaluation questions on the relevance and coherence of the legal framework is on whether the framework responds to the needs of the automotive industry, consumers and society, and whether it is coherent in the sense that the stated objectives are consistent with each other and that the instruments to realise these objectives are applied in a consistent way. The Intervention Logic diagram in fig. 2 above identifies the multi-layered policy objectives of the automotive regulatory framework and the specific place of type approval legislation within this.

6.1.1. What were the main policy objectives of the regulatory intervention? (Evaluation question 3.1.1.)

Stakeholders' opinions have been asked about the continuing relevance of the following overall and specific objectives identified in the intervention logic diagram:

• Ensure harmonisation and effective operation of the internal market (policy objective ©)

• Promote fair competition in the EU market (policy objective ©)

• Increase access of the EU automotive industry to global markets (policy objective ©)

• Promote the development of innovation in the automotive industry (policy objective ©)

• Ensure a high level of safety for vehicle occupants and pedestrians (policy objectives © + @)

• Reduce C02 and air pollutants emissions from motor vehicles (policy objectives © + ®)

• Reduce noise emissions from motor vehicles (policy objective ©)

• Promote the adoption of alternative fuels (policy objective ©)

• Simplification of the regulatory framework (policy objective ©)

The feedback indicates that these objectives are widely accepted as both relevant and appropriate. The harmonisation and effective operation of the Internal Market, fair competition, safety, reduction of CO2 and air pollutant emissions are generally recognised as highly relevant to the type approval approach. The other objectives -promotion of alternative fuels, reduction of noise emissions and promotion of innovation - are less often recognised as being relevant to the type approval legal framework.

In general, the objectives are considered complementary to each other, but the relationship between the costs of safety and environmental provisions and the global competitiveness of the industry and the relationship between reducing road noise and safety requirements have been identified as issues requiring careful attention.

Was there an actual need to legislate to achieve these objectives? (Evaluation question 3.1.1.)

Stakeholders confirmed that type-approval legislation has been and continues to be necessary in order to provide a clear framework and planning horizon for the industry. Alternative approaches - such as self-certification by industry - are not

16

considered to be appropriate since they would not bring similar results. The presence of legislation is seen as supporting fair competition in the market and - if properly implemented - ensuring consumer and environmental protection.

6.1.2. Do the Framework Directive and its associated Regulations and Directives under consideration form a coherent and consistent framework, given the overall policy objectives that the interventions are aiming to meet?(Evaluation question 3.1.2.)

This evaluation question relates to whether the legal framework is robust and coherent, whether the instruments whereby the objectives are to be achieved are applied in a consistent fashion and whether the anticipated effects of the legislation are articulated in comparable ways. The answer is summarised in the following points:

• The aims and objectives of the various parts of the legislative framework are stated in a wide range of policy documents and in the recitals of the various legislative measures, often with a cross reference between the two. While there are clearly legal and institutional reasons for proceeding in this way, the 'users' of the legislation, and particularly smaller manufacturers, find it often difficult to get a clear understanding of the coherence between these different pieces of legislation.

• Given the technical complexity of the subjects covered by the legislation and the need to adjust its requirements continuously to technical and other developments, the structure of the legislative framework, with enabling legislation supported by implementing measures, is acknowledged to be sensible. However, this approach raises co-ordination and timetabling issues that are further considered in the answers to the evaluation questions on efficiency.

• There appears to be a need for a clearer distinction between supply-side control mechanisms - the type approval framework - and demand-side measures, such as labelling, taxation and other financial incentives.

• The wide range of policy objectives is creating a challenge on the operation of the whole system. However, all of the stakeholders interviewed believed that it is necessary to address all of the issues together and none of them proposed an alternative approach.

• Streamlining of the different pieces of legislation in the framework is necessary to avoid differences in definitions which may create confusion and problems in implementation.

• In general, the type-approval legislation is conceived to be flexible enough to accommodate emerging safety and environmental technologies that are likely to have a major effect on the market, such as advanced driver assist systems (ADAS), natural gas, hydrogen, electric and hybrid vehicles.

• The development of legislation relating to C02 emissions, after the shortcomings of the voluntary approach became apparent, now provides a complementary adjunct to the use of the type approval framework.

• In general the framework has been designed to meet the needs of large scale manufacturing and the benefits of its application in the case of small series and individual vehicles are more finely balanced.

17

6.1.3. What are the main trends in the structural characteristics of the motor vehicle industry and in its internal and external trade? What challenges do these developments pose for the current regulatory framework? (Evaluation question 3.1.3.)

The automotive industry10 is of strategic importance to the European economy and its products and services have an impact on the life of European citizens on a daily basis. The sector represents around 12 million direct and indirect jobs and delivers a sizeable positive contribution to the EU trade balance, growing over the last few years and reaching € 100 billion in 2011 (see fig. 3).

18O.O0O.O0O.0O0 16O.00O.O0O.OOO 140.000.000.000 120.000.000.000 100.000.000.000

so.ooo.ooo.ooo 60.ooaooo.ooo

40.000.000.000 2O.000.OO0.O0O O

2007 2008 2005 2010 2011 Jan-Oct

2012

Fig. 3 Contribution of the EU automotive industry to trade (source: Eurostat)

The results of the survey carried out in the context of the fitness check study indicate that Member States' authorities and manufacturers positively assess the contribution that the type-approval framework is providing to the increased access to global markets (see table 1).

Member StatesManufacturers
No response00
Do not know/No opinion519%00%
Not relevant00%111%
Expect to do so in the future14%111%
Little311%111%
Moderately726%667%o
Significantly1141%00%
Total27100%o11100%

Table 1: Contribution of the type-approval framework to increased access to global markets (source: CSES survey)

The term automotive industry is meant to cover the entire supply chain, covering vehicle manufacturers, suppliers, distribution and after-market services. Products include passenger cars, light-and heavy-duty commercial vehicles and powered two-wheelers, three-wheelers and quadri-cycles.

18

In particular the replacement of EU Directives by UNECE Regulations in the framework is considered as a positive element in this context (see also § 6.2.2).

In addition, the high level of safety and environmental performance pursued by the type-approval framework is an essential driver for technological innovation. The industry records the biggest private spending on research and innovation (€ 28 billion in 2009). It can be concluded that the general policy objective of providing for a high level of safety, health and environmental protection in the EU (see policy objective ® in the intervention logic diagram) helps to reinforce the high quality reputation of motor vehicles produced in Europe and provides a strong advantage in markets around the world.

The automotive sector is today at a historic turning point: the coming decade is expected to lead to important changes in several areas that are likely to profoundly reshape the industry and its markets worldwide.

First of all, production and trade patterns are shifting. While the European market is considered mature, several third markets are growing fast, changing the trade flows and the automotive value chain. The share of the EU automotive industry in the global production of motor vehicles has been decreasing over the last decade and the dominant position has been taken over by China (see table 2) and this trend is expected to continue in the future with pronounced growth of the share of emerging countries (see table 2 and fig 4).

2007200820092010201120122013
Brazil2.349.5812.501.2872.563.9132.671.3752.643.2702.693.3082.816.011
+6%+3%+4%-1%+2%+5%
China5.415.4005.733.5618.413.93211.335.21012.287.15213.264.37114.686.024
+6%+47%+35%+8%+8%+11%
India1.717.7781.841.0362.157.4272.779.4912.984.1173.171.6663.529.239
+7%+17%+29%+7%+6%+11%
Japan9.827.5659.747.0026.786.5458.137.6337.007.4568.508.8067.491.377
-1%-30%+20%-14%+21%-12%
Russia1.339.3241.497.417604.5721.233.1291.758.9401.974.7302.035.361
+12%-60%+104%+43%+12%+3%
us7.710.2286.647.8064.117.9455.734.8586.411.6297.939.6938.485.837
-14%-38%+39%+12%+24%+7%
eu16.578.14015.280.71513.418.48414.681.45115.034.35214.214.81013.576.814
-8%-12%+9%+2%-5%-4%

Table 2: Share in global production 2007-2013 (source: Global Insight)

19

30.000.000 25.000.000 20.000.000 15.000.000 10.000.000 5.000.000

Greater China Japan/Korea North America South America Russia India EU

r--cocnO'Hrsim**Lj">'£>r--Mcno oooooooooooooo

ININNNNINISISNNNINININ

>>>>>>>>>>>>>> UU(_>(_>UUUU<_>(_>(_>UUf_>

Fig. 4: Share in global production - 2020 forecast (source: Global Insight)

Secondly, to reach the targets of the climate agenda a significant contribution is expected from technological progress. To meet long-term greenhouse gas emissions targets as well as air quality objectives, the internal combustion engine will need to be further improved, being accompanied by the development and progressive implementation of breakthrough technologies, such as electrified propulsion.

Sizeable efforts will also need to be made with the further development and distribution of sustainable fuels which can be alternatives to traditional diesel and gasoline. At the same time, the contribution technological improvements in motor vehicle design can bring to increased road safety will be a continuing incentive and challenge for innovation.

These developments and patterns entail the challenge of ensuring that the legal framework continues to contribute at ensuring a level playing field for all players in the sector, with fair chances for all technologies. In the same context, the final report of the CARS21 High level Group underlines the importance of taking into account the current competitive pressure on costs, the cumulative effect of legislation and the situation of SMEs.

This need has been acknowledged by the Commission in its CARS 2020 Action Plan, with the commitment by the Commission to carry out, within its impact assessment system, a rigorous competitiveness proofing exercise for relevant major future initiatives, in particular those expected to have a significant impact on the automotive industry.

6.2. Effectiveness

The evaluation questions relating to effectiveness focus on the contribution of the legal framework to achieving the overall and specific policy objectives as identified above in § 6.1.

20

6.2.1. To what extent has the legal framework for the type-approval of motor vehicles contributed to achieving the overarching policy objectives of the Internal Market for goods and the competitiveness of the automotive industry?(Evaluation question 3.2.1)

6.2.1.1. Contribution to the Internal Market for goods (overall policy objective (D)

The main added value of the legal framework is the effective role it plays in eliminating approaches and requirements at a national level that fragment the market. Also its role in the promotion of fair competition within the market has been recognised because it is a single legal framework that is applicable to all manufacturers, irrespective of whether they are based inside or outside the EU.

The majority of the stakeholders indicate that the legal framework has provided a positive contribution to the internal market. 70% of the Member States' authorities indicated a significant contribution and 26% consider it has provided a moderate contribution. The views from manufacturers were also overwhelmingly positive (56% for significant contribution + 44% for moderate contribution + the remaining 4% expecting the contribution to materialise in the future).

Also the role of the framework in the promotion of fair competition within the market is positively assessed by stakeholders, providing for a level playing field as it is equally applicable to all manufacturers, inside and outside the EU (see table 3).

Ensures effective operation of the internal marketPromotes fair competition
Member StatesManufacturersMember StatesManufacturers
Do not know/No opinion0%0%0%11%
Not relevant0%0%0%0%
Expect to do so in the future4%4%7%0%
Little0%0%4%11%
Moderately26%44%o26%44%o
Significantly70%56%o63%o33%o
Total100%o100%o100%o100%o

Table 3: to what extent has the type-approval framework contributed to the effective operation of the internal market and to promoting fair competition? (source: CSES survey)

In principle, the increasing harmonisation of the automotive market as a result of the type approval framework should contribute to an increasing level of intra-EU trade, greater level of competition and ultimately a lowering of prices for motor vehicles and components.

A review of the main data on the development of total intra-EU trade in the motor vehicles sector indicates that the volume of intra-EU trade in the last decade has increased by more than 25% and extra-EU trade by more than 50%. This development is in line with the evolution of total trade. (See table 4).

21

20002002200420062008200920102011
Total tradeIntra-EU100.0103.1114.7113.1116.6104.6121.3126.7
Extra-EU100.0103.4115.0120.4122.0104.2110.2111.7
VehiclesIntra-EU100.0106.9119.095.6108.980.0109.3127.9
Extra-EU100.0100.2127.1152.7168.7118.6137.0150.9

Table 4: evolution of volume of intra-EU and extra-EU imports of motor vehicles and comparison with total trade (source: Eurostat)

It is however difficult to assess to what extent the type-approval framework has contributed to this growth, taking into account that there are many other variables playing a role, like energy and raw materials costs, changes in production structures and the supply chain, brand competition and possibly other EU legislation (e.g. competition law). It is also not possible to establish any clear and direct association between the type-approval framework and the development in the level of prices.

Some issues have been raised by stakeholders in the survey concerning the operation of the aftermarket and the effectiveness of the provisions concerning access to necessary repair and maintenance information for the manufacturers of components, independent service providers and remanufacturers laid down in the emissions Regulations 715/2007 and 595/2009. The implementation of the provisions that make the sharing of information mandatory has given rise to some questions - such as the fees charged for access to information or the form in which the relevant data are made available - to the extent that the expected results in terms of fair and open competition may not be fully achieved.

6.2.1.2. Role in promoting the competitiveness of the automotive industry (overall policy objective ®)

In relation to the access to global markets, see also the answer provided to evaluation question 3.1.3. The replacement of EU Directives by UNECE Regulations with the adoption of the General Safety Regulation is recognised to have played a significant role.

In addition, and as demonstrated in the case study on the impact of the legal framework on non-EU based manufacturers11, this has resulted in some non-EU countries accepting EU type approved vehicles and components without additional testing or adopting some elements of the EU type-approval system.

With regard to the development of innovation, it is recognised that type-approval may play a role in promoting the adoption and more widespread use of safety technologies initially developed for the high end segments of the market. In the case of environmental aspects - such as fuel efficiency and air pollutant emissions - it is recognised that the provisions of the legal framework have a role in pushing the development of new technologies.

ii

http://ec.europa.eu/enterprise/sectors/automotive/files/proiects/report-cses-fitness-check enpdf

22

6.2.2. How effective is the legal framework for the type-approval of motor vehicles as a mechanism and means to achieve each of the policy objectives (as reflected in the intervention logic diagram)? What are the main outcomes and impacts of the regulatory framework, including the cumulative impacts of the separate pieces of legislation taken together, and to what extent have the policy objectives been achieved? (Evaluation question 3.2.2),and

What is the added value of the legal framework for stakeholders? Do stakeholders consider that the regulatory framework for the type-approval of motor vehicles is addressing sufficiently and satisfactorily the issues that need to be addressed? (Evaluation question 3.2.5)

It should be noted that for some of the specified policy objectives, it may be still too early to make a proper assessment of the actual contribution of the legal framework. In particular for policy objectives © and ©, aiming at noise reduction and the promotion of alternative fuels, the relevant pieces of legislation are still largely in a transition period and not all requirements have been implemented yet. This could explain the relative lower rating for these criteria compared to the ones related to the safety and environmental objectives (© + © + © + ®), and the assessment made by stakeholders could be read as a statement about the relevance and appropriateness of the proposed tools rather than as an actual assessment of expected impact.

6.2.2.1. Contribution to safety and environmental policy objectives

With an exception for the promotion of alternative fuels, the majority of stakeholders consider that the legal framework has made a positive and even significant contribution to safety and to environmental policy objectives (see table 5).

ObjectiveNo responseDo not knowNot relevantExpect to do so in the futureLittleModeratelySignificantlyTotal
Member States authorities
Ensure high level of safety for vehicle occupants & pedestrians ® + ©7,4%7,4%3,7%14,8%67%100%
Reduced C02 and air pollutants emissions from motor vehicles® + ®3,7%7,4%11%14,8%63%100%
Reduced noise emissions from motor vehicles®7,4%3,7%8,5%33%37%100%
Promoted adoption of alternative fuels O11%7,4%7,4%30%30%14,8%100%
Manufacturers
Ensure high level of safety for vehicle occupants & pedestrians ® + ®18%9%27%45%100%
Reduced C02 and air pollutants emissions from motor vehicles® + ©18%9%9%64%100%
Reduced noise emissions from motor vehicles®18%18%64%100%
Promoted adoption of alternative fuels®18%27%18%27%9%100%

Table 5: To what extent is the framework contributing to safety and environmental policy

objectives? (Source: CSES survey)

23

In the case of road safety (overall policy objective ©), the dominant view is that vehicle safety improvements have played a role in reducing the overall level of road accidents and fatalities in the EU. In fact, the number of fatalities and injuries on European roads have decreased continuously in the last decade (see fig. 5 + 6) and the vehicle safety requirements of the type-approval framework are considered as providing an important contribution to this positive trend, although there are no detailed data available to quantify this contribution..

- Target 2020 EU fatalities

'"■'I 2002 2(903 2004 Source: -ttRE (EU i oj-J J-rnt; database)

20QS 2007 2C08 20(E 2010 2011 20T2 2313 201* 2015 201Ö ZOTF 20TS 2019 2020

Fig. 5: Road fatalities in the EU since 2001

2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007

ioii'K. CARE; Ur ted Nal i'8ls;D3lies of rcsd tragic accidents}; Naliona! Reports

•Injured

Fig. 6: Fatalities, injuries and accidents in EU-27 (2000-2009)

Notwithstanding this, the impact assessment accompanying the Commission proposal for the General Safety Regulation12 provides some quantitative estimates of the expected contribution to road safety through the mandatory introduction of advanced safety technologies, and their comparative importance for the EU Road Safety 2020 target (see table 6).

http://ec.europa.eu/enterprise/sectors/automotive/files/safetv/sec 2008 1908 eapdf

24

FatalitiesSevere injuriesSlight injuries
Baseline (do-nothing scenario)13201042,382448,5504,429,204
202034,797412,5254,083,271
Electronic stability control (assumption: 100% of fleet in 2020)2010-2,138-19,396-191,530
2020-2,250-22,866-226,337
Advanced Braking Assistance Systems

(assumption 100% in 2025)
2010-1,223-12,431-122,383
2020-1,675-19,164-188,332
Tyre Pressure Monitoring Systems (assumption of 100% in 2020)2010-18-196-1,932
2020-29-340-3,369
Lane Departure Warning Systems (assumption 100% in 2025)2010-3,941-19,494-127,665
2020-5,491-30,791-208,554
Expected results from implementation of measures201035,062397,0333,985,694
202025,352339,3643,456,679
Actual figures201030,900341,013 (2009)n.d.
2010 target27,000
2020 target (see fig. 5)15,500

Table 6: Expected contribution to road safety through the mandatory introduction of safety technologies in the type approval framework (source: impact assessment for the General Safety Regulation)

In reply to the fitness check study survey, consumer organisations have suggested that additional safety enhancing in-vehicle systems, such as reminders for rear seat belts, speed limiting devices or alcohol interlocks, should be included in the future.

In its Cars 2020 Action Plan, the Commission has confirmed its commitment to continue to implement road safety enhancing measures in line with the focus areas and objectives of its Policy Orientations 2011-2020 on Road Safety14. Amongst the priorities identified figure the safety of new vehicle technologies and technologies supporting driver behaviour (intelligent speed management devices, seat belt reminders). Also the deployment of Intelligent Transport Systems (ITS) will be further promoted, in particular the EU-wide in-vehicle emergency call system.15

With regard to specific policy objective O the Pedestrian Protection Regulation is expected to be the main contributor, as it will result in significant improvements in the design of vehicles to increase pedestrian safety and reduce the impact from collision.

The available data from the CARE database indicate a continuous and significant reduction in the absolute number of pedestrian fatalities (fig. 7). It should be noted however that data are only available up to 2009 and therefore it is too early to assess fully the impact of the pedestrian protection Regulation on a further decrease of these numbers.

The anticipated decrease in number of fatalities and injuries in the do-nothing scenario can be explained by the fact that other policies pursued by the EU and its Member States, in particular in the field of road safety, are having a beneficial impact on the reduction of these fatalities and injuries.

http://ec.europa.eu/transport/road safetv/pdf/road safety citizen/road safety citizen 100924 en.pdf http://ec.europa.eu/enterprise/sectors/automotive/safetv/ecall/index enhtm

25

2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009

Source: CARE Database Date of Query: December 2011

Fig. 7: number of pedestrian fatalities in EU-19 (2000-2009)

To achieving the overall policy objective © and specific policy objective ©, the introduction of Euro 5 and, even more so, Euro 6 emissions requirements are generally expected to bring significant improvements. The anticipated reduction of pollutant emissions stemming from the introduction of the Euro 5 requirements are summarised in table 7.

NOxPMHC
tonne%tonne%tonne%
Diesel car-62,000-16%-20,000-70%-520-1.00%
Light duty commercial vehicle-42,000-16%-5,900-52%-210-1.50%
Total diesel-104,000-16%-26,000-65%o-730-1.10%
Petrol car-28,000-16%600.30%-30,000-13%
Light commercial vehicle petrol-2,400-16%1105.00%-1,300-11%
Total petrol-31,000-16%1700.80%o-31,000-13%o
LPG car300.50%30.60%o1400.80%o
TOTAL-135,000-16%o-26,000-43%o-32,000-9.70%o

Table 7: Expected contribution of Euro 5 for different types of pollutants -difference from baseline scenario in 2020 (source: impact assessment to the Commission proposal for the Euro 5/6 Regulation16)

The available data from the European Environment Agency indicate that there has been a reduction in the total level of NOx and PM emissions for all categories of motor vehicles.

http://ec.europa.eu/enterprise/sectors/automotive/files/environment/sec 2005 1745 en.pdf

26

Fig. 8: Evolution of air pollutant emissions from passenger cars, light duty and heavy duty vehicles - total emissions for EU 27 in 1000 tonnes (source: EEA -Air pollutant emissions data viewer - LRTAP Convention)

Fig. 8 illustrates this trend for the period 2000-2010. It should be noted that these reductions have been achieved despite the general increase in the level of traffic and that it is too early to assess the impact of the contribution of Euro 5 to these reductions. In fact, the market share of Euro 5 compliant vehicles among new passenger cars is expected to represent about 40% in 2010 and close to 80% in 2011 (whilst representing only 5% in 2008).

However, it is acknowledged that the test cycle currently used to measure emissions appears to be a limiting factor in achieving a greater level of effectiveness from the emission requirements. It is generally recognised that under real-world or 'normal' driving conditions, emissions from vehicles exceed the test cycle limits specified in the emissions legislation17 18.

By way of example, fig. 9 shows that while the NOx emission limit values for diesel passenger cars have been tightened by approximately a factor of 4 from Euro 2 to Euro 6, the estimated average NOx emissions in real driving conditions (urban traffic) have not decreased to the same extent. Tests performed by JRC with portable emission measurement systems (PEMS) indicate that NOx emissions of light-duty diesel vehicles exceed the Euro 3-5 emission limits by a factor 4 to7 in real world driving conditions19

Reduction of C02 emission (objectives ® and ©): Carbon dioxide emissions from road transport increased by 21 % between 1990 and 2011. The sector is responsible for 23% of all C02 emissions in the EU. As part of the response to this problem, a comprehensive strategy to reduce CO2 emissions from new cars and vans sold in the European Union was adopted in 2007. The EU has set a short-term target for average new car emissions to be below 130 grams carbon dioxide per kilometre (g C02/km) by 2015, and a long term target of 95 gC02/km by 2020.

http://www.eea.europa.eu/pressroom/newsreleases/TERM2004-en

ht^p://www.theicct.org^logs/staff/laboratorv-versus-real-world-discrepancies-nox-ernissions-eu http://ec.europa.eu/clima/policies/transport/vehicles/docs/2011 perns ire 62639 en.pdf

27

In 2012, average emissions were 132.2 gCCVkm.Average CO2 emissions from the new EU car fleet decreased by 2.6% to 132.2 grams/km in 2012. This means that the average car became 17% more efficient in the period 2007-2012. (See Fig. 10)

Diesel passenger car (g/km) 0.8

Euro 2 Euro 3 Euro 4 Euro 5 Euro 6

Emission factors (NOx) — Emission limits (NOx)

Fig. 9: change in real-world NOx emission factors in urban conditions for diesel cars with different Euro standards along with the change in the type-approval standards (source: European Environment Agency)

Tailpipe emissions, g C02/km 180-

2015 target for new passenger cars (130 g C02/km)---------+--------
2020 target for new passenger cars (95 g C02/km)

1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
1 1 1 1 1

Average C02 emissions from new passenger cars

Fig. 10: Evolution of average C02 emissions for new cars versus 2015 and 2020 targets (source: European Environment Agency)

28

The direct impact of the type approval legal framework on the reduction of CO2 emissions is comparatively small, in view of the fact that the C02 reduction strategy for road transport has been set out in specific legislation and that only the type-approval procedure of the framework is used to verify compliance with that specific CO2 legislation.

As already has been noted for the pollutant emissions, inaccuracies in the current measurement methods and test cycle and the extent that these are not representative of real life conditions are generally reported as having a negative impact, in particular for a good understanding of the level of emissions and for providing consumers with reliable information on fuel consumption and C02 emissions20.

The need to address the discrepancy between real world emissions and fuel consumption and the figures obtained from the type-approval procedures due to the test cycle specified has been recognised at several levels and stages. First, the Euro 5 and 6 Regulation itself explicitly recognises the need to revise the New European Drive Cycle as the test procedure that provides the basis of EC type approval emissions regulations to ensure that real world emissions correspond to those measured at type approval. Second, the CARS21 final report calls for a credible, reliable, accurate vehicle test procedure, including a better test cycle and measurement procedures for C02 emissions, which is fair and predictable. The Commission has re-confirmed in the CARS 2020 Communication its commitment to actively support the development and implementation of a new driving test cycle and test procedure to measure fuel consumption and emissions from cars and vans that is more representative of real-world driving, taking account of the characteristics of the EU market. Definition of the modalities for the inclusion into the EU legal framework of the new cycle and test procedures is envisaged for 201421.

Stakeholders generally expect that the legal framework will have a positive contribution to noise emission reductions (objectives © and ©). The requirements for tyre noise introduced by the General Safety Regulation are considered as appropriate and have the potential to bring measurable improvements. However, stakeholders of the tyre manufacturing industry are concerned by the weaknesses in enforcement resulting in a sizeable number of non-compliant tyres entering the market and are therefore strongly supportive of complementing the type-approval framework with clear and effective provisions on market surveillance.

In relation to the specific policy objective © of promoting alternative fuels, the contribution is expected to come from the introduction of the Euro 5 and 6 Regulation, as well as from the Regulation on the type-approval of hydrogen-powered motor vehicles. As the latter only started to apply in 2011 it is not possible to assess at this stage the extent to which the framework is contributing to this objective. However, industry stakeholders recognise its potential role in facilitating the harmonisation of the market and increasing confidence in these alternative fuel vehicles.

http://www.theicct.org/sites/default/files/publications/ICCT LabToRoad 20130527.pdf http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=CELEX:52012DC0636:EN:NOT

29

6.2.2.2. Simplification of the regulatory framework

The specific policy objective of simplification of the regulatory framework © is in many respects linked to the overall policy objective © to enhance the competitiveness of the industry. It is expected to contribute to the reduction of the administrative burden for industry and to improve the business environment.

The introduction of the General Safety Regulation (GSR) with the replacement of EC Directives by UNECE Regulations is considered to be a key contribution for achieving this objective. By eliminating around 50 base Directives and over 100 amending Directives the GSR aimed at getting rid of the existing duplication of regulations at UNECE and EU levels with a view to improving the clarity of the type-approval framework. As a result of the entry into application of the GSR, the number of applicable pieces of legislation will be reduced, taking full effect as from 2014. It is also anticipated that the need for a large number of amendments, as existed in the past, has been removed and that future changes to the regulatory framework will be easier to administer.

However, the feedback from stakeholders has not been as positive on this point as might have been expected, at least as far as the experience up until now is concerned (see table 8).

Member State authoritiesManufacturers
No response
Do not know/No opinion0%0%
Not relevant0%0%
Expect to do so in the future11%0%
Little37%60%
Moderately41%10%
Significantly11%20%
Total100%100%

Table 8: To what extent has the type approval legal framework contributed towards the objective of simplifying the regulatory framework for the automotive sector? (source CSES survey)

In their comments to this survey question on simplification, stakeholders pointed out that they consider the GSR to be particularly complicated, bringing together in one piece of legislation different thematic areas and introducing a large number of different deadlines that are difficult to follow. It is regarded as having created an additional framework structure within the broader Framework Directive with its own implementing measures.

It should be noted that the implementation of the GSR is still in a transition period. The building of practical experience among manufacturers should over time improve the situation for all actors involved. Indeed, the initial period has been particularly demanding given the number of implementing measures that had to be introduced.

30

6.2.3. How well are the overall policy objectives to reduce air pollutant and CO2 emissions (© + ®) and to increase road safety © achieved and how well has the balance between them been achieved (in overall policy objective ©)?

The survey revealed diverging views about the presence of trade-offs between the objectives of reducing pollutant and CO2 emissions on the one hand and the safety objectives on the other (see table 9).

Member State authoritiesManufacturers
No response
Do not know35%25%
NO46%13%
YES19%62%
Total100%100%

Table 9: Are there any trade-offs between safety and environmental aspects (pollutant and C02 emissions) in the implementation of the legal framework? (Source: CSES survey)

Whilst authorities in the Member States generally consider that the legal framework achieves an appropriate balance, industry stakeholders claim that there are already clear trade-offs between the emissions reduction requirements and requirements for additional safety systems that increase vehicle weight or between fuel consumption and increased lighting requirements.

However, to the extent that past experience can provide lessons for the future, a study carried out by AEA in 201122 indicates that manufacturers have generally been able to meet environmental requirements with new technologies while at the same time providing improvements in comfort, power and safety features. The data analysis showed that during the period 1995-2010 there is a similar trend for all vehicle categories, with fuel consumption decreasing, despite power and weight increasing.

6.2.4. Considerations that render aspects of the legal framework more or less effective -lessons learned

In this section the remaining evaluation questions concerning the effectiveness of the type-approval framework are addressed (3.2.3, 3.2.5, 3.2.6, 3.2.7 and 3.2.8). The responses of stakeholders to the survey questions on the effectiveness of the overall legal framework are summarised in fig. 11.

As already set out in the section on simplification, the introduction of the GSR is perceived as resulting in a more complicated structure in the overall legal framework. According to most stakeholders (100% of the manufacturers, 75% of the Member States' authorities and 67% of the technical services) this "framework within a framework" structure is giving rise to problems of interpretation, which could be detrimental to the necessary clarity and predictability of the legal framework. The fact that it covers different thematic areas with a large number of milestones and dates for the entry into force of requirements for the different categories of vehicles is perceived as being very complex.

http://ec.europa.eu/clima/policies/transport/vehicles/cars/docs/annex report effect 2011 enpdf

31

Reusability, recyclability and recoverability Directive 2005/64/EC

General safety Regulation 661/2009

Hydrogen powered motor vehicles Regulation 79/2009

Euro VI Regulation 595/2009

Euro 5 and Euro 6 Regulation 715/2007

Pedestrian protection Regulation 78/2009

Emissions from air conditioning systems Directive 2006/40/EC

Framework Directive 2007/46/EC

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

■ Manufacturers (n=6) ss Technical services (n=7) ■ Member States Authorities (n=20)

Fig. 11: Which Directives and Regulations of the legal framework for the type-approval of motor vehicles are considered to render it less effective (% of respondents indicating) -

Source: CSES survey

In relation to the Framework Directive, a commonly stated problem concerns the provisions for the multi-stage type-approval process that is primarily used by manufacturers of special purpose vehicles and bodybuilders in the commercial vehicles and trucks and trailers sectors. The multi-stage process provisions appear to be based on the assumption that multi-stage vehicles are developed from incomplete vehicles. In practice multi-stage is also used for the existing types of complete vehicles which may result in difficulties in respecting the type-approval requirements.

In the case of emissions legislation the main concern raised relates to the measurement tests and the driving cycle definition, as already explained in detail in § 6.2.2.1. These elements have a significant impact on the effectiveness of the legislation in terms of air pollutant emissions but also spill-over effects to the policy measures for reducing CO2 emissions. The proposals for a new test cycle by 2014 with appropriate transitional arrangements up to 2017, as announced in the CARS 2020 Action Plan, are generally expected to make an important contribution towards addressing this problem.

The presence of non-compliant automotive products on the EU market is a problem area that also indicates the need to enhance the effectiveness of the legal framework in terms of fair competition and the operation of the Internal Market as well as in terms of achieving safety and environmental objectives. Stakeholders' assessment of the perceived level of non-compliance on the market is summarised in table 10.

17%

0% 0% 0%


0% 0% 0%


I_L

33%

50%

67%


sssjm 83%

30%

100%

32

MS authoritiesTechnical ServicesManufacturers
Do not know48%40%83%
Less than 1%16%13%17%
1-5%28%33%0%
5-10%4%13%0%
10-25%4%0%0%
>25%0%0%0%
No response
Total100%100%100%

Table 10: Assessment of the level of non-compliant products in the vehicles and components market (source: CSES survey)

The CARS21 Final Report recognised that the issue of non-compliant products in the market is important and the ex-post evaluation of the Framework Directive23 also concluded that there is indeed an issue with unsafe and non-compliant new vehicles or components placed on the market.

The survey has also revealed stakeholders' scepticism about the present effectiveness of some of the type approval processes to tackle this issue, in particular those relating to conformity of production. Manufacturers and technical services appeared less supportive of the monitoring and enforcement activities, but recognised problems in relation to the type-approval process, mainly referring to conformity of production. Among Member States' authorities there is a higher level of confidence in the effectiveness of the procedures in place, but still around 50% of them recognise that the current procedures and activities may not be sufficiently efficient (see fig. 12).

Member States Technical Manufacturers

Authorities services Monitoring and enforcement activities ensure that non-compliant products do not enter the market

Member5tates Technical Manufacturers Authorities services Type approval and Co P requirements and procedures ensure that non-compliant □roducts do not enter the market

Do not know £ NO BYES

Fig. 12 (source: CSES survey)

RPA (2011), Ex-Post Evaluation and Impact Assessment Study on Enhancing the Implementation of the Internal Market Legislation Relating to Motor Vehicles, Study prepared for prepared for DG Enterprise and Industry

http://ec.europa.eu/enterprise/sectors/automotive/files/proiects/report-intemal-market-legislation en.pdf

33

The Commission has acknowledged in its CARS 2020 Action Plan these less effective aspects of the legal framework and has responded by announcing a legislative initiative to amend the Framework Directive, in particular with a view to complementing the type-approval framework with market surveillance provisions and strengthening its provisions on conformity of production.

6.3. Efficiency

6.3.1. What aspects of the legal framework are the most efficient or inefficient, especially in terms of resources that are mobilised by stakeholders during the different phases of the process? (§3.3.1)

The overall experience with the implementation of the legal framework is viewed clearly positively by the Member States (80% of respondents stating positive or very positive experience), whilst technical services and manufacturers take a more neutral position (see table 11).

MS authoritiesTechnical ServicesManufacturers
Negative0011
Neutral19%53%56%
Positive65%47%33%
Very positive15%00
Total100%100%100%

Table 11: What is your overall experience with the implementation of the legal framework for the type-approval of motor vehicles? (source: CSES survey)

Fig. 13 provides an overview of the aspects of the legal framework which are considered by stakeholders as rendering the implementation of the framework less efficient. From this overview it clearly emerges that the differences in the interpretation of the various parts of the legal framework is the dominant factor in rendering the framework less efficient.

Interpretation of Type approval Conformity of Verification of Implementation Recall of vehicles the legislation process production conformity of safeguard

clauses

■ Member States Authorities (n=27) Technical services (n=17) Manufacturers (n=ll)

Fig. 13: Aspect that render the type-approval framework less efficient (% of respondents

indicating) - source: CSES survey

34

Stakeholders responding to the survey indicated that there is a significant degree of flexibility in the interpretation of legal provisions with a clear risk that this may allow a substantial variation in the implementation of the legal framework by type approval authorities across Member States. This in turn leads to uncertainty for manufacturers operating on a cross-border basis as they try to respond to the different interpretations emerging across the EU. Main areas of concern are Conformity of Production, multi stage vehicles, small series and special purpose vehicles. There is in particular concern that too much flexibility in interpretation can lead to unfair competition and this has recently been highlighted in the context of the implementation problems related to the MAC Directive24.

The differences in the interpretation and implementation of certain parts of the legal framework can to some extent be associated with the degree of efficiency of the procedures in place to ensure a consistent approach by the Member States' authorities and their technical services. Whilst the overall assessment of the efficiency of these procedures for exchange of information and cooperation is positive (see table 12), an increased level of cooperation between Member States is considered desirable.

Share of respondents
No response-
Do not know8%
Very little0%
Little15%
Moderately12%
Considerably35%
Very much31%
Total100%

Table 12: How helpful is the information exchange and cooperation with other Member States in the implementation of the legal framework (source: CSES)

A second aspect that is considered to have an impact on the efficiency of the legal framework are the coordination efforts necessary to monitor and follow-up the UNECE process for developing UN Regulations and to implement them in the context of the type-approval framework. While stakeholders are in principle supportive of replacing EU Directives by UN Regulations, this transition is giving rise to some issues in particular for manufacturers (see table 13).

Member State authoritiesTechnical servicesManufacturers
No response---
Do not know/ no opinion12%7%0%
NO48%57%33%
YES40%36%67%
Total100%100%100%

Table 13: Are there issues arising from the replacement of EU Directives by UN Regulations? (Share of respondents indicating) - Source: CSES survey

http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release MEMO-13-698 en.htm

35

Main areas of concern voiced by stakeholders relate to the slow speed of the process for the adoption and approval of UNECE Regulations and the need to monitor a process that includes a wide range of working groups and committees and frequent changes - up to three times a year - to the appropriate reference documents.

A third aspect that has been identified as having an impact on the efficiency of the type-approval framework concerns the recall process, which represents the main tool currently available to ensure that non-compliant or unsafe products are removed from the market.

Data from the RAPEX system (RAPid EXchange of information between Member States and the Commission on measures taken to prevent or restrict the marketing or use of products posing a serious risk to the health and safety of consumers) indicates a rising trend in the number of notifications on recalls in the motor vehicle sector (see fig. 14).

250

200

150

100

50

0

2004 2005 2006 2007 2033 2006 2010 2011 2012

Fig. 14: Number of notified recalls in the motor vehicles sector (source: RAPEX)

It should be noted that almost all of these recalls have been notified as being voluntary ones, which raises the question about the efficiency of the Framework Directive's provisions on mandatory recalls. The concern most commonly raised is that these provisions are not sufficiently clear and firm, resulting in different procedures and criteria being adopted by different Member States. For instance, it is reported that some vehicles may be recalled in some Member States but not in others. Further to that, a number of Member States consider that the process can be rather slow and complicated in situations where the type approval has been issued by another Member State. The recent problems arising from the implementation of the MAC Directive raises the question about the need to enhance the recall system in the legal framework with a view to better ensure common minimum levels of consumer protection and health and safety standards across the EU.

A fourth aspect that is considered to have an impact on the efficiency of the type-approval framework are the variations in the competence and performance levels of Technical Services, who are carrying out the tests and inspection necessary for type-approval on behalf of the Member States' authorities. From the stakeholders' survey emerged that there is a significant variation in the way Technical Services carry out their tasks and different levels of stringency applied by them.

36

6.3.2. What does the framework represent in terms of administrative and reporting burdens on stakeholders and/or other actors? Are there any excessive administrative burdens caused by the regulatory framework (see specific policy objective &)? And if so, how could these be reduced or eliminated? (Evaluation question 3.3.2)

6.3.2.1. Costs for authorities

The resources dedicated by Member States' authorities to support the implementation of the type approval legislation vary significantly but appear to be driven by the level of type approval activity in each Member State.

On the basis of the information provided, the total number allocated appears to be close to 1000 FTE (Full Time Equivalents) across the EU27 with the type approval activity (testing and certification) representing more than 70% of the total. Furthermore, seven Member States account for close to 95% of type approval activity and account for close to 85% of the total resources allocated. For Member States with well-established type-approval structures, such as the UK, DE and NL, the amount of manpower dedicated is around 100 FTE.

Figure 15 represents the correlation between the number of FTEs dedicated to type approval activities (testing and certification) and the average level of type-approval activity in the Member States during the period 2007-2011. It suggests that on average Member States are allocated one FTE to type-approval activities for every nine type-approvals issued.

a 200

150

a 100

200 300 400 500 600 700 Average number of TA (period 2007-2011)

1000

Fig. 15: relationship between human resources dedicated to type approval activities and the number of type approvals issued by Member States (source: CSES survey)

At the broader policy level, manpower in Member States ranges between two to ten FTE with responsibilities in transposing the legal framework into national legislation and when necessary, monitoring and supervising the implementation of the system, participating in the various working groups and supervising the technical services.

37

Another important cost aspect concerns market surveillance. This is an area where, only a small number of Member States are currently actively engaged. The data indicates a range between two and ten FTEs dedicated per Member State to market surveillance activities. The feedback obtained suggests that this level of resourcing on market surveillance is probably insufficient.

It is not possible to assess whether the total amount of resources dedicated to type approval activities in the Member States represents an efficient ratio as there is no evident benchmark against which to compare. The responses of Member States' authorities to the survey indicate that in most of them the resources are not considered sufficient with half of the respondents indicating that more are necessary (see table 14).

ResponseNumber (percentage)
No response3
Do not know4 (17%)
NO12 (50%)
YES8 (33%)
Total27

Table 14: Are the resources available at national level sufficient for the efficient implementation of the legal framework? (Number of Member States responding) - source CSES survey.

6.3.2.2. Costs for the automotive industry

The estimated costs for industry to obtain type approval for selected categories of motor vehicles is summarised in table 15.

Type of vehicleCosts(€s)/TA of a single modelMain cost driversTA costs (€s)/annual turnoverTA costs (€s)/vehicle
Human resources for preparation, information collection and monitoringTesting fees
Large volume passenger cars700,000-1,000,00030-50%15-20%<0.05%5-15
Sport/luxury cars250,000-350,00030-50%15-20%0.1-0.2%250-300
Trailers/ Tankers50,000-100,00050-80%15-20%0.3-0.5%50-250

Table 15: summary of type-approval cost estimates for selected categories of motor vehicles (source: CSES survey)

For large OEMs producing passenger cars or commercial vehicles, the administrative costs - including familiarisation with legislation, resources allocated for the collection of data and reporting and fees to technical services and type approval authorities - are generally considered to be a minor consideration when compared to the other compliance costs resulting from the necessary changes to product design and technologies to meet the environmental or safety requirements. The administrative costs per vehicle for these manufacturers are no more than a few Euros per unit, representing no more than 0.1% of annual operating expenses and 0.05% of their annual turnover.

38

In contrast, for smaller manufacturers selling only a few thousand vehicles - in comparison to more than a million vehicles sold by large OEMs - the cost per unit is around €300, and representing 2-3% of the full year budget.

For firms in other subsectors - including producers of trailers and tankers -estimated costs per unit varied in the range of €50-250/vehicle produced and the administrative type approval costs represent around 0.5-1% of annual turnover.

Finally, for the firms in the components and systems sub-sectors, the single example available indicated a type approval cost of around €5,000 per product, with total administrative costs from type approval estimated again to be a small fraction of the annual turnover.

It has not been possible to obtain data that would allow a comparison of the administrative costs of the type approval process with those of the processes applicable in other global regions with a similar system, such as Japan. In the United States, manufacturers are expected to have information on the tests conducted on their behalf providing proof of compliance with the legal requirements but there is no type approval process or comparable type approval fees. Thus, the up-front administrative costs are generally lower, but the self-declaration system followed in the United States means that manufacturers carry all the legal responsibility and, as a result, almost all purchase insurance against the risks of liability. The view of some manufacturers - including non-EU producers selling in both regions - is that the European type approval process represents a less expensive system once these insurance costs are taken into account.

6.3.3. Is the administrative burden on SMEs proportionate (specific policy objective &)? And if not, how could it be reduced or eliminated? (Evaluation question 3.3.3)

The data available indicate that while smaller in absolute terms, administrative costs of type approval per vehicle produced by a small volume producer can often be up to 50 times higher than those of a large OEM. Type approval costs appeared to be in the range of 0.1-1% of annual turnover for SMEs, in comparison to less than 0.05% for large manufacturers. Given that the firms that provided data were still relatively large (over 100 employees), the share of administrative costs is most probably even higher for the smaller size firms that dominate certain sub-segments of the automotive industry including body builders and manufacturers of trailers or special purpose vehicles.

The introduction of the small series type approval schemes (at national and EU level) and individual vehicle approval (IVA) were expected to accommodate the needs and characteristics of SMEs that produce in small volumes and help to reduce their relative costs. However, the most common feedback is that in practice the National Small Series Scheme (NSSTA) does not differ significantly in terms of administrative costs from the whole vehicle type approval at EU level (EU WVTA). Manufacturers of special purpose vehicles commented that despite the reduced costs in comparison to EU WVTA, the restrictive upper limits set for the NSSTA make the whole process uneconomical and the use of IVA a much more preferable option for a producer of up to a few hundred vehicles per annum. Type approval data show indeed a clear decline in the use of national type approvals (the earlier national scheme and the current NSSTA) during the period 2007-2011 in parallel to an increase in the number of EUWVTA issued (see table 16).

39

Vehicle CategoryType20072008200920102011
MlNational type approval
EU WVTA12914812612894
M2National type approval44
EU WVTA
M3National type approval3334223
EU WVTA785120
NlNational type approval6716151
ECU WVTA53089
N2National type approval26718163
EU WVTA29
N3National type approval10737734416
EU WVTA258062
01National type approval
EU WVTA8930
02National type approval39264
EU WVTA235388
03National type approval
EU WVTA123
04National type approval15236119
EU WVTA162046

Table 16: Evolution of number of national type approvals and EU WVTA in the NL (period 2007-2011) - source: CSES survey

6.3.4. Are there overlaps/ complementarities between the legal framework and any other European Union or Member State action in the relevant areas? Were some regulatory measures shown to be redundant, overlapping, ineffective, or inconsistent? (Evaluation question 3.3.4)

In spite of the considerable complexity of the type-approval framework, only a few areas of inconsistency or duplication have been identified, in terms of the objectives set and procedures used in the main related pieces of legislation.

In relation to the emissions legislation, aside from the already mentioned issue of the test cycle and measurement methods, there is no alignment between pollutants under the Air Quality Directive (Directive 2008/50/EC) which only deals with N02 emissions and the Euro 5/6 Regulation that covers all NOx emissions. A number of Member State authorities raised concerns that the Euro 5&6/VI Regulations constrained Member States that may need to adopt additional measures in order to meet the objectives of the Air Quality Directive.

Certain categories of heavy duty vehicle with containers - including ADR (refrigeration containers) or ATP (dangerous goods containers) - are not covered by the type approval framework and require separate approval processes. Stakeholders suggest that, given that the requirements are also developed by UNECE WP 29, bringing them under the type approval framework could bring certain administrative cost reductions.

At a more detailed level, a few areas of overlap with other EU provisions were indicated by manufacturers operating in specific niche markets, and concern the possible overlap with the EMC (2004/108/EC) and the Machinery (2006/42/EC)

40

Directives, in relation to those categories of vehicles - such as wheelchair accessible vehicles or trailers - that require the fitting of powered winches or lifting equipment. Such equipment needs to be CE marked and are not covered by type approval. In certain cases it is the manufacturer of the motor vehicle that is required to go through the CE certification process when additional equipment needs to be fitted in the specific vehicle.

At the national level, specific Member State actions are reported to create additional burdens and barriers. A key problematic area identified includes the conflicts with the registration process when national requirements - such as for example additional information that goes beyond the information provided in the certificate of conformity - or practices appear to pose an obstacle to placing products on the market or create additional burdens for firms. Tax regimes and incentives at the national level are often based on different criteria or use different limit values. While there is no evidence to suggest that they create serious obstacles affecting the harmonisation of the market, it appears evident that they do sometimes operate against the objective of harmonisation under a single type approval.

6.3.5. How effectively has the legislation been implemented on the ground in the Member States? Is the option to include market surveillance in the regulatory framework feasible, and if so, how could this be done in an effective and efficient way? (Evaluation question 3.3.5), and

To what extent could measures be taken to improve the implementation of the legislation, and what would those measures be? (Evaluation question 3.3.6).

In the sections on efficiency (see § 6.3.1) already the most important shortcomings have been identified in relation to how the legal framework is implemented on the ground by the Member States. They can be summarised as follows:

(1) Significant degree of flexibility in the interpretation of legal provisions with a clear risk that this may allow a substantial variation in the implementation of the legal framework by type approval authorities across Member States. An increased level of cooperation and information exchange between Member States is considered desirable to address this issue. In addition, the recent problems encountered with the implementation of the MAC Directive has highlighted the need to review and clarify some of the principles upon which the type-approval framework is based, in particular with regard to the concept of new vehicle type, the procedures for extending approvals for existing types of vehicles, as well as the safeguard procedures.

(2) Different procedures and criteria being adopted by different Member States with regard to the recall of motor vehicles. More streamlined recall procedures in the legal framework could be a part of the answer to address this problem, together with the action under point 1 above.

(3) Variation in the way Technical Services carry out their tasks and different levels of stringency applied by them. This could be addressed by enhancing, within the type approval framework, the criteria for the designation, and monitoring of technical services by the Member States.

41

Closely linked to these problems is the question whether the option to include market surveillance in the regulatory framework would be feasible, and if so, how this could be done in an effective and efficient way. A large number of stakeholders consider that market surveillance is an important missing element in the current type approval legal framework. It is identified as an important tool to address the presence of non-compliant products and complement the ex-ante type approval system. However, some stakeholders question both the relevance and the possible added-value of market surveillance measures. In their view, appropriate implementation of the current type approval procedure - with a particular focus on the conformity of production and more systematic inspections - would bring the desired results.

Irrespective of the support in principle for the introduction of market surveillance, it is generally recognised, that its implementation will pose significant challenges for the authorities in the Member States (see table 17). Almost two out of three Member State representatives suggested that this will be the case, the main concern being the additional human and financial resources required.

NumberPercentage
No response3-
Do not know312%
NO521%
YES1667%
Total27100%

Table 17: Do you expect market surveillance requirement to pose any challenges (Member State authorities indicating) - source: CSES survey

Currently, only a few Member States allocate resources to some form of market surveillance activity. Others referred to the possible coordination problems that may arise when market surveillance is the responsibility of different authorities.

In view of the expected challenges, a significant proportion of Member States' authorities suggested that important aspects of market surveillance should be organised at the European level - in the form of targeted projects co-ordinated by the European Commission - in order to ensure a high level of co-operation and a greater sharing and more effective use of resources. In addition, it was suggested that the market surveillance activity should focus on the areas where the main problems are reported. In that respect, the general view is that the components market should be given priority. However, a few Member States' authorities were opposed to anything that involved the setting of targets at an EU level and suggested that Member States should be given the flexibility to decide on the level and target of market surveillance activity depending on their specific own circumstances.

The CARS 21 High Level Group issued a number of recommendations in their final report aimed at addressing these aspects. While recognising the need to improve and strengthen the implementation and enforcement of the type-approval legislation by complementing it with market surveillance provisions, the recommendation issued

42

provides that market surveillance should only be introduced to the extent necessary and that overlapping requirements as well as disproportionate costs and administrative burdens should be avoided. The market surveillance provisions should also be designed to ensure that the main responsibilities and obligations of the type-approval authorities are recognised and strengthened where appropriate to improve confidence that corrective actions are fully implemented. The CARS21 HLG further recommends enhancing the current legal provisions on the recall of vehicles and automotive products to ensure that they will be properly enforced. In particular the exchange of data between type-approval authorities on the application of safeguard clauses of the type approval framework should be streamlined with the principles of the New Legislative Approach.

In response to these recommendations the Commission has announced in its Action plan CARS 2020 that it will table a proposal to enhance the type-approval framework to include market surveillance provisions in areas where a need has been identified, in order to ensure that vehicles and their components are safe and compliant with relevant legal requirements, and that the framework effectively achieves the relevant policy objectives.

6.4. Utility

6.4.1. Is the legal framework delivering identifiable benefits to the sector and ultimately to consumers? What are the expectations of the users? (Evaluation question 3.5.1)

From the point of view of environmental, safety and consumer representatives, it is generally accepted that the legal framework makes an important contribution to ensuring that high standards of vehicle safety apply to all vehicles in the market, thus contributing to the overall level of safety for consumers and citizens.

While market forces have an important role to play and consumer purchase decisions include more safety considerations, they are not considered sufficient to bring the desired results across the whole vehicle fleet and therefore a regulatory approach is seen to be needed.

Although not considered as particularly relevant from the industry side, some stakeholders suggest that the high vehicle safety standards also represent a selling point for the automotive industry, contributing to its reputation for technological sophistication and supporting sales in global markets.

In relation to the improvement of environmental performance and the respective impact on pollution and climate change, the recent data indicate a gradual move towards cars with lower levels of CO2 emissions and a reduction of NOx and PM from road transport, even though these are not as much as initially expected (see sections 6.2.2.1 above).

In terms of meeting the needs and expectations of citizens, therefore the type approval framework is generally delivering what is required. However, to properly assess this fundamental aspect of the utility of the legislation, in the spirit intended in a Fitness Check, it is not only a matter of asking whether the legislation has managed to achieve its objectives, but also of considering how dynamic the

43

relationship between those responsible for the legislation and the community that it serves is. In other words it is about answering the question on how the management of the legislation reacts dynamically with the evolving needs of citizens, consumers and manufacturers and other stakeholders in the industry.

This more dynamic interaction is partially a matter of having the appropriate institutional framework, but also of having access to and making use of a sound evidence base. As far as the latter is concerned, the evaluation framework, in a broad sense, has developed considerably in recent years. As well as the current Fitness Check, there have been a series of impact assessments accompanying legislative proposals and broader studies aiming to assess the likely impacts of legislation within the type approval framework25.

In terms of engagement with stakeholders, the convening of the High Level Group CARS 21 has created a major forum for discussing critical elements for the future of the industry on two occasions - in 2005 and in 2011-12.

Furthermore, the Commission has committed in its CARS 2020 Action Plan to extend this open engagement with stakeholders. The constructive discussions in the CARS 21 High Level Group have highlighted the usefulness and the need to continue the dialogue among major stakeholders. Therefore a CARS 2020 follow-up process was launched to monitor and take stock on a regular basis of the implementation of the earlier CARS 21 recommendations and the Action Plan. In this framework, dedicated expert meetings are envisaged on an ad-hoc basis with a view to enhancing the knowledge base of the Commission and to broaden stakeholder consultation.

Therefore it can be concluded that the state of the dynamic interaction with stakeholders is good and improving. This interaction and the subsequent development of policy is founded on a sound knowledge base.

6.5. Sustainability

6.5.1. To what extent are there any positive changes brought about by the recent changes to the legal framework or are any likely to ensue? (Evaluation question 3.5.1)

One of the envisaged contributions from the changes to the type approval legal framework since 2007 was to bring greater clarity and predictability to the framework and to achieve simplifications and reduced costs.

As already indicated above, the transition towards the direct applicability of UN Regulations and the extension to other categories of vehicles has generally been welcomed and is supported by most stakeholders. However, there are also some issues suggesting that the changes have not delivered fully in meeting these objectives (see table 18).

25

http://ec.europa.eu/enterprise/sectors/automotive/documents/calls-for-tender-and-studies/index eahtm

44

No responseDo not knowReduced significantlyReduced slightlyNo changeIncreased slightlyIncreased significantly
Clarity of the type approval legal framework
MS authorities (n=27)04%4%7%19%52%15%
Technical services (n=18)314%0%13%13%53%7%
Manufacturers (n=10)325%13%0%0%50%13%
Predictability of the legal framework
MS authorities (n=27)18%4%20%40%24%4%
Technical services (n=18)320%0%13%20%33%13%
Manufacturers (n=10)338%0%13%13%38%0%
Simplification of the type approval process
MS authorities (n=27)112%8%23%35%15%8%
Technical services (n=18)313%7%21%27%27%7%
Manufacturers (n=10)211%22%0%11%44%11%
Costs of compliance with the type approval
MS authorities (n=27)228%0%12%16%36%8%
Technical services (n=18)320%7%0%20%33%20%
Manufacturers (n=l 1)350%13%0%13%0%25%

Table 18: Impacts of the changes to the type approval legal framework since 2007 (% of respondents indicating) - source: CSES survey

Generally, stakeholders take a moderately positive view of the legal framework's contribution to clarity, but most indicate that there has either been no change or only a limited contribution to predictability or simplification. As already indicated, the GSR is perceived as having increased the complexity of the overall framework.

On the question of the costs of compliance, the majority of stakeholders tend to see either no change or an increase in costs as a result of the changes.

6.5.2. Is the regulatory framework considered fit for purpose and adequately equipped for facing and tackling the needs of the changing global automotive industry environment or are there any changes needed to take account of current and future developments? And if so, what further changes, if any, do stakeholders consider necessary/suitable to ensure the sustainability of the legal framework in the future? (Evaluation questions 3.5.2 and 3.5.3)

Most stakeholders consider that with the current structure and with the increasing role of UN Regulations, the type approval system appears capable of adapting to new technological developments and to facilitating the achievement of a growing share in non-EU markets. The legal framework is considered to be flexible enough to accommodate emerging technologies that are likely to have a major effect on the market, such as natural gas, hydrogen, electric and hybrid vehicles at least as far as the type approval instrument is concerned.

There was no specific feedback in relation to the level of use and effectiveness of the provisions for the exemptions in relation to new technologies within the framework but, at least in principle, it is recognised as being an appropriate tool.

A common point made is the need to avoid prescriptive provisions and requirements and to ensure that solutions adopted are technologically neutral. In general, however, it is considered that technological neutrality has largely been achieved and the overall assessment of stakeholders in this area is clearly positive.

45

6.6.

European Added Value

6.6.1. Without the EU intervention, would self-regulation have been a more effective alternative to some of the regulatory measures? What has been the EU added value of the intervention? (Evaluation question 3.6.1)

All stakeholders participating in the CSES survey agreed that action in the form of legislation at European level was necessary. An alternative approach based on self-regulation would not have been appropriate.

From the point of view of industry, the necessity of ensuring harmonisation in the EU market, removing national barriers and ensuring a level playing field has been underlined.

On the other hand, environmental and consumer groups and most Member States' authorities also consider it necessary to ensure that appropriate levels of safety and environmental protection are guaranteed at the EU level through harmonised requirements. Finally, given the increasing internationalisation of vehicle markets, there is strong support from stakeholders for harmonized requirements at worldwide level (UNECE).

At the same time it is recognised that there is still scope for maintaining national regimes to accommodate national conditions and provide the necessary flexibility -particularly in relation to small manufacturers - as long as these do not create loopholes or disturb the level playing field on the Internal Market. In this context the provisions on national small series or individual vehicles in the legal framework are accepted as rather appropriate provided and they are not detrimental to the overall policy objectives in particular concerning the free movement of goods.

7. Conclusions

7.1. Main conclusions arising from the Fitness Check

(1) The overall picture arising from the fitness check is that the legal framework for the type approval of motor vehicles is appropriate in achieving the main policy goals of harmonisation, effective operation of the single market and ensuring fair competition. The legislation has largely eliminated national differences in relation to type approval. The legal framework has also a positive role in promoting access to global markets primarily through mandating the use of internationally harmonised UNECE Regulations.

(2) The relevance and appropriateness of the objectives of the type approval legal framework are acknowledged to be complementary. There are some concerns of possible trade-offs between environmental and safety objectives, but they do not appear to be prominent in view of the fact that the framework addresses such a wide range of objectives.

(3) The safety objectives have been successfully achieved, with a clear and positive effect on vehicle and pedestrian safety by making the use of certain safety enhancing technologies mandatory under the type-approval framework.

46

By ensuring high levels of vehicle safety, the framework is complementary to market mechanisms, and has contributed to a reduction in the number of fatalities and injuries.

(4) The emissions legislation of the framework has a positive impact on the reduction of air pollutant emissions. However, it is acknowledged that the test cycle and the measurement methods may not be fully representative of real world driving conditions, resulting in real life emissions being higher than the regulatory limits and having a knock-on effect on air quality targets set in other EU legislation. Similar problems arise in relation to the role of the test cycle in the legislation aimed at reducing average C02 emissions from light duty vehicles. From the recently encountered problems surrounding the implementation of the MAC Directive emerges the need to verify and ensure that the basic concepts upon which the type-approval framework is based are sufficiently clear and solid so as to avoid divergence of interpretation with regard to their implementation and enforcement by Member States and economic operators.

(5) The provisions on repair and maintenance information are considered to be an appropriate and important step in the creation of a more level playing field in the aftermarket for components and services but there are some issues related to proper implementation.

(6) The legal framework has made a positive contribution to the development of innovation by pushing more demanding standards, particularly in the field of emissions and by extending the market base for advanced safety technologies and generating economies of scale, whilst at the same time ensuring that requirements are technologically neutral not favouring specific technologies.

7.2. Areas for improvement

7.2.1. General issues

There is no need for a major overhaul of the type approval legal framework structure. The basic principles of the legal framework are appropriate and fit-for-purpose in achieving the major objectives of harmonisation and effective operation of the Internal Market.

Some areas for improvement of the overall framework have been identified for consideration, as follows:

(1) Within the 'integrated' automotive policy framework, as advocated by the CARS 2020 Action Plan, the respective roles of the supply-side instruments (principally the type approval framework) -and demand-side policies - such as financial incentives or labelling schemes, could be made clearer.

(2) The objective of simplifying the legal framework should continue to be pursued, but lessons could be learned from the experience with the introduction of the General Safety Regulation.

47

(3) The announced reform of the driving cycle and testing procedures so that they reflect real world conditions more closely, as they are central to the credibility of the type approval system in pursuing environmental objectives.

7.2.2. Prioritisation

Some of the areas for improvement are directly linked to Framework Directive 2007/46/EC and could therefore be addressed as a matter of priority for the envisaged amendment of this Framework Directive, as announced in the CARS 2020 Action Plan:

(1) Market surveillance is an important missing element in the current type approval legislation. It is identified as an important tool to address the presence of non-compliant products and to complement the ex-ante type approval system.

(2) The recall system could be clarified, in particular to ensure that vehicles recalled in one Member State be recalled elsewhere. At the same time, the current safeguard procedures could be addressed.

(3) Particular attention could be given to the suitability of the alternative type-approval schemes (national small series and individual approvals) and of the multi-stage type approval process in providing appropriate flexibility for niche markets and SMEs, without however distorting the level playing field.

(4) The practical implementation of the type-approval requirements could be improved by harmonising and enhancing the approaches adopted by Member States' authorities and their technical services, and by clarifying their roles and responsibilities as well as their co-operation. Furthermore the procedures for granting extensions to approvals for existing vehicle types, ensuring conformity of production, and for safeguard measures and recalls could be enhanced.

48