COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT IMPACT ASSESSMENT ANNEXES Accompanying the document Proposal for a Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council amending Directive 2003/59/EC on the initial qualification and periodic training of drivers of certain road vehicles for the carriage of goods or passengers and Directive 2006/126/EC on driving licences - PART 2/2 - Hoofdinhoud

Council of the European Union

Brussels, 1 February 2017 (OR. en)

5671/17

Interinstitutional File: ADD 4

2017/0015 (COD) i

TRANS 28 CODEC 107 MI 91 EDUC 32

COVER NOTE

From: Secretary-General of the European Commission, signed by Mr Jordi AYET PUIGARNAU, Director

date of receipt: 1 February 2017

To: Mr Jeppe TRANHOLM-MIKKELSEN, Secretary-General of the Council of the European Union

No. Cion doc.: SWD(2016) 27 final - PART 2/2

Subject: COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT IMPACT ASSESSMENT ANNEXES Accompanying the document Proposal for a Directive of the

European Parliament and of the Council amending Directive 2003/59/EC i on the initial qualification and periodic training of drivers of certain road vehicles for the carriage of goods or passengers and Directive 2006/126/EC i on driving licences

• - 

  PART 2/2

Delegations will find attached document SWD(2016) 27 final - PART 2/2.

Encl.: SWD(2016) 27 final - PART 2/2

EUROPEAN COMMISSION

Brussels, 1.2.2017 SWD(2016) 27 final

PART 2/2

COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT

IMPACT ASSESSMENT

ANNEXES

Accompanying the document

Proposal for a Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council

amending Directive 2003/59/EC i on the initial qualification and periodic training of drivers of certain road vehicles for the carriage of goods or passengers and Directive

2006/126/EC on driving licences

ANNEX 1:

Procedural Information concerning the process to prepare the impact assessment and the related initiative

Lead DG: Directorate General for Mobility and Transport

Agenda planning/Work Programme references: 2013/MOVE/013

Other involved services: The Secretariat General, the Legal Service, the former DG Education and Culture, DG Employment, Social Affairs and Inclusion, the former DG Internal Market and Services joined DG Mobility and Transport in the Steering Group.

Organisation, timing and consultation of the RSB:

The work on the Impact Assessment started in April 2013 when the Inter-service Steering Group (ISG) was created. The Impact Assessment process followed a short ex-post evaluation, which was conducted by an external consultant in a close cooperation with Commission services. The Steering group met on 7 occasions to discuss the main milestones in the process, such consultation with stakeholders, key deliverables from impact assessment and ex-post evaluation support studies, final evaluation report, final draft of the impact assessment report before the submission to the Regulatory Scrutiny Board. The ISG were consulted by the lead service (MOVE) on the changes brought to the impact assessment report after the scrutiny of the Regulatory Scrutiny Board and the proposal for the revision of the Directive.

This Impact Assessment was reviewed by the Regulatory Scrutiny Board (RSB) that provided its opinion on 22 July 2016. Based on the Board's recommendations, the impact assessment has been revised according to the following lines:

Recommendation from Relevant Main description of changes the RSB sections of the IA report

1 Clarify how the initiative 1.1 Policy context was clarified and close interrelates to the more general linkage with related instruments was context of road safety underlined, and description of specific road policy, i.e. what its safety effects of this initiative strengthened contribution will be to

improve road safety as compared to other road safety initiatives

2 Better describe magnitude 2, 1.2 Description on the need for EU legislative of the problems action was elaborated

encountered and clarify Numbers of affected drivers of mutual

Recommendation from Relevant Main description of changes the RSB sections of the IA report

need for legislative action recognition inserted, and their proportion of all EU drivers. Estimation of costs for drivers/companies in the current context inserted. Possible consequences for road haulage enterprises in need of professional drivers strengthened.

3 Simplify description of 4.2.1, The presentation of policy options is policy options, focussing on 4.2.7, 4.3 simplified. A new paragraph on future those issues where there is developments has been inserted, description a genuine policy choice of the possible use of RESPER strengthened and specific assessment of possible use of TACHOnet inserted

Furthermore, a series of additional changes due to the technical comments received from the Regulatory Scrutiny Board were incorporated into the Impact Assessment Report.

Evidence used in IA together with its sources:

• Ex-post evaluation study on the effectiveness and improvement of the EU legislative framework on training of professional drivers, done by Panteia in October 2014.

• The Report on the implementation of Directive 2003/59 i/EC (COM(2012) 385 final i) provides an overview of the current state of play in terms of implementation and highlights some of the problems identified.

• The study on the Shortage of Qualified Personnel in Road Freight Transport, which was run by the European Parliament in 2009

• The 2012 Report of the High Level Group on the Development of the EU Road Haulage Market identifying future challenges for the road transport sector and making proposals for changes.

• In 2010 the International Commission for Driver Testing (CIECA) presented its Survey on the implementation of the directive 2003/59/EC i laying down the initial qualification and periodic training of drivers of certain road vehicles for the carriage of goods and passengers.

• A series of papers which have been published since 2010 by DEKRA Akademie Gmbh as part of the project Professional driving – more than just driving.

• The Survey on driver training issues. Implementation of Directive 2003/59/EC i, which was published in 2013 by the European Transport Workers Federation (ETF) and the International Road Transport Union (IRU)

• Statistics available from EUROSTAT and the CARE-datebase (accident statistics) External expertise:

An external consultant carried out an ex-post evaluation study 1 as well as a support study to

the impact assessment in the framework of the same contract between October 2013 and May 2015. The results of the evaluation report fed into the Impact assessment support study and then into the Impact Assessment report, which as well was presented to the Steering group for comments and reactions. The ex-post evaluation study and the impact assessment support study took into account the replies to the public consultation and on the information gathered during the stakeholder conference (see annex II).

The final impact assessment report was submitted on 18 of May 2015. Due to the change of the impact assessment approach discussed and endorsed by the Inter-service Steering Group, the lead service (MOVE) partially used from the contractors report the data collected in the course of the stakeholders consultation activities, while the main analysis was performed in house.

Bibliography

• CARE database.

• CIECA (2010), The Survey on the implementation of the directive 2003/59/EC i laying down the initial qualification and periodic training of drivers of certain road vehicles for the carriage of goods and passengers, The international commission for driver testing

• CIECA (2014), CIECA Workshop report Directive 2003/59/EC i of the European Parliament and of the Council of 15 July 2003 on the initial qualification and periodic training of drivers of certain road vehicles for the carriage of goods or passengers

• Dutch safety Board, ’Truck accidents on motorways’ (2012).

• ETF, IRU (2013), The Survey on driver training issues. Implementation of Directive 2003/59/EC i (STARTS).

• ETSC PIN Flash No24. Towards safer transport of goods and passengers in Europe. • European Commission (2003), European Road Safety Action Programme - Halving

the number of road accident victims in the European Union by 2010: A shared responsibility (COM(2003) 311 final i).

• European Commission (2010), The Communication Towards a European road safety area: policy orientations on road safety 2011-2020 (COM(2010) 389 final i).

• European Commission (2011), The EU White Paper Roadmap to a Single European Transport Area – Towards a competitive and resource efficient transport (COM(2011) 144 final i).

• European Commission (2012), ‘Report from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions on the implementation of Directive 2003/59/EC i relating to the initial qualification and periodic training of drivers of certain road vehicles for the carriage of goods or passengers, COM(2012) 385 final i.

1 Please see http://ec.europa.eu/transport/facts-fundings/evaluations/doc/2014_ex_post_evaluation_study_training_drivers_en.pdf

• European Commission (2012), Impact Assessment – Roadworthiness package. SWD(2012) 206 final

• European Commission, EU Energy, Transport and GHG Emissions Trends to 2050, (December 2013).

• European Commission (2014), Public Consultation on Directive 2003/59/EC i

• European Commission (2014), EU Transport in Figures: Statistical Pocketbook 2014.

• European Commission (2014), Guide to Cost-benefit Analysis of Investment Projects

• EUROSTAT: motor vehicle movements on national territory.

• GHG‐TransPoRD (2011), Bottom-up quantifications of selected measures to reduce GHG emissions of transport for the time horizons 2020 and 2050: Cost assessment of GHG mitigation measures of transport.

• International Energy Agency (2013), CO2 Emissions from fuel combustions

• International Transport Forum/International Energy Agency (2007) Workshop on Ecodriving. Findings and messages for policy makers.

• IRU, 2007, Scientific Study "ETAC" European Truck Accident Causation.

• Japan Automobile Manufacturers Association (2014) Presentation at The International Conference on Global Environment

• Mineta Transportation Institute (2012), Ecodriving and Carbon Footprinting: Understanding how public education can reduce greenhouse gas emissions and fuel use.

• NHTSA 2006, Large-truck crash causation study: an initial overview.

• Panteia (2014), Ex-Post Evaluation Study Report - Study on the effectiveness and improvement of the EU legislative framework on training of professional drivers.

• Panteia (2014), Impact Assessment support Study.

• Panteia (2014), Report on the Stakeholder Conference on Directive 2003/59/EC i

• ProfDRV (2011), Methods and Assessment in Training of Professional Drivers

• ProfDRV (2012), 2003/59/EC- standardised Europe-wide initial and continuous vocational education and training for professional drivers: strategies, consequences, opportunities and threats.

• Report of the High Level Group on the Development of the EU Road Haulage Market (2012).

• UITP-ETF (2014), Joint Statement: The implication, application and further development of Directive 2003/59/EC i on initial qualification and continuous training of professional bus drivers in urban public transport.

• Volvo Trucks, 'European Accident Research and Safety Report 2013

ANNEX 2:

Stakeholder consultation- Synopsis report

• 1. 

  Introduction and overview

Before drafting the legislative proposal and the present report stakeholder consultations were conducted in order to gather as many comments and suggestions as possible from the individuals and bodies concerned. This exercise complied with the minimum standards for consultation of interested parties set out in the Commission Communication of 11 December 2002 (COM (2002) 704 final i).

The consultation process included two types of actions, opinion gathering and data collection, for which open and targeted consultation methods and various consultation tools were used.

As an open consultation method an internet-based open public consultation took place between 17 July and 25 October 2013. The Commission services received 395 contributions, 203 respondents participated as private individuals 192 replied on behalf of institutions or interest representation. 58 respondents are registered in the Transparency Register of the European Parliament and of the European Commission.

Participants emphasised the importance of ongoing EU action in the field of qualification and training of professional drivers. In considering the impact of the Directive, the perception of the stakeholders is that it contributed only insufficiently to achieving its objectives, namely increased road safety, development of the level of professional competence of drivers, free mobility of drivers and the creation of a level playing field for drivers and undertakings. On the concrete measures to be adopted to address these difficulties the opinions were more divided.

The consultation paper, the contributions received, a summary of these contributions and the report on the stakeholder conference of 6 March 2014 are available on the website of the road

safety unit of DG MOVE and on the “Your voice in Europe” website 2 .

As targeted consultation methods, the process considered:

• The Commission services presented the initiative in the framework of the social dialogue with the road transport social partners on 24 June 2013 and with the urban

public transport on 25 September 2013 3 . The main findings of the open public

consultation were presented again to the road transport social partners on 25 April 2014. The key issues addressed in the proposal for a revised directive on the initial and periodic training were presented to social partners on 19 November 2014. On that occasion the social partners expressed their support for having legislation at European level in this field and did not have any objections to the objectives proposed by the Commission.

2 Please see http://ec.europa.eu/transport/road_safety/take-part/public-consultations/cpc_en.htm and

http://ec.europa.eu/transport/road_safety/events-archive/2014_03_06_cpc_review_en.htm

3 http://ec.europa.eu/social/main.jsp?catId=521&langId=en&agreementId=5365

• On 6 March 2014 a hearing of stakeholders was held in Brussels with the participation of delegations from around 100 organisations representing haulage operators, passenger transport operators, workers, training providers and national administrations. The conference confirmed the findings of the open public consultation (see above). The report on the stakeholder conference of 6 March 2014 isavailable on the website of the road safety unit of DG MOVE.

• On 23 January 2014 the Commission held an informal workshop with Member States in order to discuss minimum age requirements and the structure of the training in the context of a possible review of the Directive. At the meeting of the CPC committee on 23 October 2014 the last part of the meeting was dedicated to an informal discussion with Member States on how to improve mutual recognition. The CPC committee met again on the 9 October 2015, when the ongoing review of Directive was discussed. As regards to problem with mutual recognition of periodic training, the participants expressed concern about Member States applying different practice and generally saw the need for a harmonised approach. There was an exchange of views on the issue of mutual recognition of periodic training undergone in another Member State and the issue of content and structure of the training. Importance of keeping the Directive up to date as regards technological progress was underlined and the need on additional clarity on some aspects, such as e-learning.

• A questionnaire survey to Member States authorities was sent in the course of the support study to collect detailed information on the implementation of the Directive. The questionnaires were distributed among the DG-MOVE CPC Committee Members. At the latter stage, a follow-up data request was sent to collect additional quantitative information on specific elements related to the Directive.

In addition, the contractor together with ETF developed a questionnaire survey about possible barriers for the free movement of drivers. This questionnaire was submitted to the EU-members of ETF.

• Targeted interviews were carried out in the course of the support study order to supplement the data obtained through the other methods, to investigate certain specific issues, strengthen findings, or seek clarifications on the answers given by stakeholders to questionnaires. Interviews were held with a number of stakeholders ranging from public entities to relevant transport associations.

• 2. 

  Main conclusions various consultation activities

  • a. 

    Open public consultation exercise

The consultation attracted 395 responses, 389 of them via the online questionnaire, the others via email. The Commission received also contributions analysing the Directive, which were not directly responding to the questions of the consultation. About half of the contributions were submitted by private individuals, the other half was submitted on behalf of institutions or interest representation representing the road transport service sector, training organisations, competent authorities and other enforcement bodies in relation to the application of the

Directive, road safety experts and researchers and public authorities.

The largest amount of contributions was received from the UK, particularly among the private individuals.

Overall the respondents agree on the important role that training of drivers plays in ensuring increased road safety. They also agree on the importance of harmonisation to allow for mutual recognition. On the current Directive there is a wide spread view that it managed to reach its objectives only to a limited extent.

On the specific aspects to improve the efficacy of the Directive the opinions are divided.

There is no clear prevailing idea on how the scope of the Directive should be regulated to make it clearer. On the minimum age requirements for young drivers the opinions are evenly divided as well.

The participants in the public consultation do not express a clear opinion on who should certify periodic training undergone in another Member State: the home country of the drivers having issued the driving licence or by the Member State in which the training was taken.

There is greater consensus on the importance of preserving the specificity of the training and testing for the Certificate of Professional Competence (CPC). The subjects currently covered by the training are seen as relevant. The mandatory inclusion of the use of simulators during the training is not perceived as necessary, while there is support for regulating the use of elearning instruments in the Directive.

Respondents generally support greater harmonisation of the content of the periodic training, but are evenly divided on the opportunity of having a test at the end of it. The distribution of the periodic training over the whole 5-year period is a solution that is favoured by a majority of the respondents. They also agree on the necessity of developing a mechanism which allows for the recognition of partial periodic training undergone in another Member State. A more detailed regulation of the requirements for training centres and instructors is favoured as well.

• b. 

  Stakeholder conference

On 6 March 2014, the European Commission organized a Stakeholder Conference as part of the review of Directive 2003/59/EC i.

The main objectives of the conference, which was open to all interested stakeholders, were to report on the findings of the public consultation and to validate its results, to present the first results of the ex-post evaluation of the Directive and to discuss policy measures for the review of the Directive. 107 participants registered for the Conference, representing 104 organisations from 20 Member States or operating EU wide.

The Conference had four thematic sessions and an introductory session.

Data limitations

The categories of participants of the stakeholder conference reflected the categories of respondents of the public consultation, with the exception of individual participants. Most of the speakers represented training institutes or road transport associations, of which many also have training business units.

Conclusions:

For each of the four thematic sessions, the below conclusions emerged, based on general consensus among the stakeholders present at the conference.

Session 1 - Relevance and scope of the Directive.

• No stakeholder contested the relevance of the Directive but there was a clear signal that before expanding the scope, the Commission has to ensure that the Directive is operating properly in the Member States, which also gives added value to the industry and the drivers themselves. The Commission took notice of the concerns expressed regarding the growing cross-border traffic of vans and the possibility to extend the scope of the Directive to apply also to this category of vehicles.

• The stakeholders’ discussion showed that the scope of exemptions should not be increased from what is currently foreseen in the Directive. Alignment with Regulation 561/2006 i is not seen as important but coherence between the two regimes is welcome.

• The Commission took notice of the concerns expressed regarding the negative impact of the application of certain exemptions on the level playing field on a national level.

Session 2 - Minimum age.

• There is a difference between the opinion of the academia and that of the industry on the right level of minimum ages to enter the profession. The former considers that

lowering minimum ages would lead to increased risks of road accidents. The industry representatives, on the other hand, believe that young drivers (aged 18 ) do not represent a higher risk than older drivers, provided the selection criteria and the quality of training are right. Also, the industry representatives pointed out that there is a growing shortage of drivers, which could be compensated through maintaining the low minimum ages to enter the profession.

• Nonetheless, both the academia and the industry believe that there are ways to mitigate the increased risk of causing road accidents posed by youngsters through mechanisms such as having the right training or other measures such as mentorship.

• There is a broad consensus among the stakeholders that the minimum ages as laid down currently in the Directive (18 years for truck drivers and 21 for bus/coach

drivers) are adequate.

Session 3 - Structure of the training.

• Stakeholders generally agree that there is a need to improve the current training system.

• There is also agreement that the training system has to be made more adaptable to the actual needs of the drivers and companies. There is also a need to make it more

flexible over time and to introduce more direct involvement of the stakeholders and the industry.

• Stakeholders pointed out that the training should be meaningful for the drivers. This means that the periodic trainings should not comprise of merely repetitive courses, or include topics that are irrelevant for the driver. Rather, the training should take into account the individual needs of the driver.

• There might be a need to replace a rigid periodic training system with a life-long learning approach.

Session 4 - Quality assurance and mutual recognition of the training.

• As regards the mutual recognition, it is not clear whether there is a problem, and if so, how big it is.

• There is support for a system that improves mutual recognition but there are concerns among the industry representatives about the possible costs that this may entail to the driver and his/her operator.

• There is a consensus that quality assurance is important and we should find ways to increase the reliability and trustworthiness of the training centres.

Summarised conclusions:

• There is broad agreement among the stakeholders that the Directive is relevant and necessary, but it has to be improved especially as regards implementation. That should be given priority over extending its scope to other vehicles.

• There are reservations regarding the extension of the scope to drivers currently not covered, although a couple of stakeholders called for an extension to vans and small trucks.

• There was little, if any, support for the alignment of the scope of the Directive with other related legislation, especially Regulation 561/2006 i on the harmonisation of

certain social legislation relating to road transport.

• Stakeholders support leaving minimum age requirements as they currently are in the Directive. However, the current ambiguity with the Driving Licence Directive needs to be corrected.

• Almost all stakeholders agree that introducing a modular training structure would be a good way to go forward.

• There is a need to improve the adaptability and flexibility of the training system. The training should be meaningful and useful for the drivers.

• It remains uncertain whether mutual recognition of training and certification represents a problem, and if so, to what extent. Cost-effective measures that would improve the mutual recognition would be most welcome.

• Similarly, cost-effective measures to provide better quality assurance would be received favourably.

• The stakeholders expressed an interest to be involved and consulted in the subsequent steps of the review process, to the extent allowed by procedural rules.

• c. 

  Member States Workshop

The Workshop took place on 23 January 2014 in Brussels and was attended by 18 Member States.

Minimum age

Eight Member States expressed themselves in favour of the option of considering that as professional drivers have to undergo additional testing, which goes beyond the normal driving licence testing to obtain the initial CPC, it might be considered that they drive at an earlier age than drivers, who have not undergone the CPC qualification. They mention the importance of not imposing restrictions to the access of young people to the profession, in particular since the profession is suffering from a shortage of young drivers and an aging workforce

A system of gradual access to professional driving requiring the various categories of C and D driving licences is perceived as less useful since there is particularly a need for transport relying on heavy trucks.

Two Member States expressed that the minimum age requirements as they are currently set in Directive 2003/59/EC i are considered appropriate.

Structure of the training

Some aspects related to structure of the training was discussed on the basis of an introduction indicating that training requirements could be indicated not in form of the hours of the training but in form of what a driver needs to know at the end of the training, so-called learning outcomes. These outcomes could be set in the form of common standards set by the European Committee for standardisation (CEN). A system of modules could contribute to create greater uniformity in the training and thereby facilitating mutual recognition and also transferability. There could be tests at the end of the periodic training to verify what drivers have learnt.

Some Member States expressed themselves in favour of a flexible model, e.g to have a mix between mandatory and optional modules for the periodic training, while other expressed satisfaction with the current structure. Some sympathy for an outcome oriented approach was expressed.

Some Member States mention that standardisation could be a solution to the existing problems with mutual recognition, while other are concerned with the burden with this approach, e.g. to training centres.

Some Member States express their opposition to tests after the periodic training.

Some Member States express concerns on the costs of the introduction of a system of sharing information from the national database similar to RESPER to help with mutual recognition, also of partial periodic training undergone in another MS.

• d. 

  Interviews

Targeted interviews were carried out in the course of the support study order to supplement the data obtained through the other methods, to investigate certain specific issues, strengthen findings, or seek clarifications on the answers given by stakeholders to questionnaires. Interviews were held with a number of stakeholders ranging from public entities to relevant transport associations.

In the period between October 2013 and July 2014 interviews were held face to face or collected via phone or email from with 22 organisations representing authorities, the drivers, transport companies and other affected stakeholders.

Data limitations

In general, stakeholders reacted positively to the interviews, and showed willingness to cooperate and assist in the evaluation by providing information to the best of their availabilities. The interviewed stakeholders were often unable to provide (relevant) quantitative data. Although they were aware of the existence of certain problems (through complaints of association members, discussions, or hearsay), there were no clear records kept that would help determine the magnitude of the problems.

Main findings:

• In general stakeholders support mandatory initial and periodic training as introduced by the Directive.

• The views of the different stakeholder categories can be summarized as follows: employers want maximum flexibility, training institutes want more training,

examination institutes want more examination, employees want the job of a driver to become a real profession, which in turn could make the profession more attractive.

• Problems relating to the mutual recognition of full trainings may only have a regional dimension since only in certain areas were these problems pointing out by the

stakeholders.

• Stakeholders were unable to present quantitative data on the impact of training on road safety and reduction of fuel use.

• Not one stakeholder questioned the length of the periodic training (35 hours), except for one stakeholder who is in favour of slowly reducing the number of periodic

training hours for experienced drivers.

• e. 

  Questionnaire surveys

In December 2013 a questionnaire survey to collect additional information on the implementation of the Directive in the Member States was launched in the course of the support study. The questionnaire was distributed among the members of the DG-MOVE CPC Committee. In January 2014 a short additional questionnaire was distributed to collect quantitative information on the recognition of CPC training in foreign countries. In April 2014 a questionnaire was distributed via ETF in order to get additional quantitative information on problems with the recognition of driver training undergone in another Member State.

Data limitations

Most of the Member States gave complete answers to the questions addressed. However, some did not possess all the necessary data to provide all the information. The most frequently incurred missing information was on the operation of the system (number of drivers who acquired initial qualification and number of drivers obtained a CPC through a periodic training).

Main findings

The questionnaire surveys gave information on how the Directive was implemented in the Member States. In addition, the questionnaire surveys gave quantitative information on some elements of the Directive, such as the number of exempted drivers, the mandatory topics for obtaining a driving license and a CPC per Member State, Member State’s policies on recognition of training in other countries, the number of drivers trained till 2013 and the number of approved training courses and training centres.

• 3. 

  Consultation response presented according to each key IA element

General (From interviews):

Employers want maximum flexibility, training institutes want more training, examination institutes want more examination, employees want the job of a driver to become a real profession, which in turn could make the profession more attractive. The interviewed stakeholders were often unable to provide (relevant) quantitative data

Mutual recognition of periodic training

In the Public Consultation the participants did not express a clear opinion on who should certify periodic training undergone in another Member State: the home country of the drivers having issued the driving licence or by the Member State in which the training was taken.

In the Stakeholder Conference it is stated uncertainty whether there is a problem, and if so, how big it is. There is support for a system that improves mutual recognition but there are concerns among the industry representatives about the possible costs that this may entail to the driver and his/her operator. Cost-effective measures that would improve the mutual recognition would be most welcome.

The interviews indicate that the problems related to mutual recognition of full trainings may only have a regional dimension since only in certain areas were these problems are pointed out by the stakeholders.

The results of the consultation on this element has fed into policy making by recognising the incoherence of the Directive in this regard, and triggering further analysis of the scope of the problem and possible solutions.

Mutual recognition of driver attestation

During the CPC Committee meeting in October 2015 it emerged that Member States have different practise as regards issuing of driver attestations, and that this has led to problems of mutual recognition for drivers who have fulfilled their training obligations.

The results of the consultation on this element has fed into policy making by recognising the incoherence of the Directive in this regard, and triggering further analysis of the scope of the problem and possible solutions.

Legal uncertainty in minimum age

In the Public Consultation opinions differ on the minimum age requirements for young drivers

In the Stakeholder Conference there was a difference between the opinion of the academia and that of the industry on the right level of minimum ages to enter the profession. The former considers that lowering minimum ages would lead to increased risks of road accidents. The industry representatives, on the other hand, believe that young drivers (aged 18) do not represent a higher risk than older drivers, provided the selection criteria and the quality of training are right. Also, the industry representatives pointed out that there is a growing shortage of drivers, which could be compensated through maintaining the low minimum ages to enter the profession.

Nonetheless, both the academia and the industry believe that there are ways to mitigate the increased risk of causing road accidents posed by youngsters through mechanisms such as having the right training or other measures such as mentorship.

There is a broad consensus among the stakeholders that the minimum ages as laid down currently in the Directive (18 years for truck drivers and 21 for bus/coach drivers) are adequate. However, the current ambiguity with the Driving Licence Directive needs to be corrected.

In the Member States workshop, eight Member States expressed themselves in favour of considering that as professional drivers have to undergo additional testing, which goes beyond the normal driving licence testing to obtain the initial CPC, it might be considered that they drive at an earlier age than drivers, who have not undergone the CPC qualification. They mention the importance of not imposing restrictions to the access of young people to the profession, in particular since the profession is suffering from a shortage of young drivers and an aging workforce. A system of gradual access to professional driving requiring the various categories of C and D driving licences is perceived as less useful since there is particularly a need for transport relying on heavy trucks. Two Member States expressed that the minimum age requirements as they are currently set in Directive 2003/59/EC i are considered appropriate.

The results of the consultation on this element has fed into policy making by recognising the incoherence between the Directives in this regard, and triggering further analysis of the scope of the problem and recognising the clear preference of having the minimum ages according to the current (lower) ones of Directive 2003/59/EC i.

Legal uncertainty in exemptions

From the Public Consultation there is no clear prevailing idea on how the scope of the

Directive should be regulated to make it clearer.

From the Stakeholder Conference, the stakeholders’ discussion showed that the scope of exemptions should not be increased from what is currently foreseen in the Directive.

Alignment with Regulation 561/2006 i is not seen as important but coherence between the two regimes is welcome. Improvements of the Directive on implementation should be given priority over extending its scope to other vehicles. There are reservations regarding the extension of the scope to drivers currently not covered, although a couple of stakeholders called for an extension to vans and small trucks.

Use of ICT-tools( e-learning)

In the replies to the Public Consultation there is support for regulating the use of e-learning instruments in the Directive.

Content of training

From the public Consultation respondents considers that the subjects currently covered by the training are seen as relevant and generally support greater harmonisation of the content of the periodic training.

In the Stakeholder Conference it was pointed out that the training should be meaningful for the drivers. This means that the periodic trainings should not comprise of merely repetitive courses, or include topics that are irrelevant for the driver. Rather, the training should take into account the individual needs of the driver.

From the interviews it emerged that Stakeholders were unable to present quantitative data on the impact of training on road safety and reduction of fuel use.

The results of the consultation on this element has fed into policy making by recognising that no major changes are needed on the training content, but some greater harmonisation could be considered, and especially avoiding repetitive courses in the periodic training.

Training System:

In the Stakeholder Consultation there was agreement that the training system has to be made more adaptable to the actual needs of the drivers and companies. There is also a need to make it more flexible over time and to introduce more direct involvement of the stakeholders and the industry. There is a consensus that quality assurance is important and we should find ways to increase the reliability and trustworthiness of the training centres. Almost all stakeholders agree that introducing a modular training structure would be a good way to go forward. There is a need to improve the adaptability and flexibility of the training system. The training should be meaningful and useful for the drivers. Similarly, cost-effective measures to provide better quality assurance would be received favourably.

In the Workshop some Member States expressed themselves in favour of a flexible model, e.g to have a mix between mandatory and optional modules for the periodic training, while other expressed satisfaction with the current structure. Some sympathy for an outcome oriented approach was expressed. Some Member States mention that standardisation could be a solution to the existing problems with mutual recognition, while other are concerned with the burden with this approach, e.g. to training centres. Some Member States express their opposition to tests after the periodic training. Some Member States express concerns on the costs of the introduction of a system of sharing information from the national database similar to RESPER to help with mutual recognition, also of partial periodic training undergone in another MS.

The results of the consultation on this element have fed into policy making by triggering further assessments of the problems indicated. Further analysis has however not provided clear indications of a need for the EU to act by changing the structure of the current training provisions as indicated.

ANNEX 3:

Who is affected by the initiative and how

Table 1: Description of the stakeholders

Description of Main expected Stakeholder the stakeholders Key interests Impacts of preferred

group in 2014 policy option In 2014 there -Reduced costs in were circa cross border regions 592.000 Maintaining of the MS concerned Businesses enterprises active profitability and by mutual recognition

Road providing in freight-related employment; -Increased labour transpo international and road transport and legal certainty supply in the MS rt domestic road 336 000 and a fair and concerned with compani freight and enterprises in level playing field minimum age

es passenger passenger-related for intra-EU -Increased clarity transportation road transport. competition; wellprovides more

services Between 65% and qualified predictability and 95% of transport workforce. level playing field

enterprises represent SMEs.

Full mutual

recognition of

periodic training,

access to the

In 2014 in EU-28 profession at a lower there were circa Health and safety age in concerned MS

3.3 million HGV in the workplace,

and 0.9 bus -A training content free movement,

Professi Human drivers, out of

that further improves high quality

onal resources of which by the

road safety and fuel training and

Drivers road transport Directive were professional

efficiency

companies covered career

respectively opportunities, Increased clarity around 2,8 and good chances of provides more 0.8 million employability predictability and drivers. level playing field

Access to the profession at an earlier age in concerned MS

Professi Professional In 2014 there Maintaining the Full mutual onal drivers who live were around 48 possibility to be recognition of drivers and work in 700 drivers who employable, periodic training affected different lives in one MS, career undergone in the MS by the Member States work in another opportunities; where the driver

problem .. MS and could works., of undergo periodic mutual training there, but recognit could not get the ion training mutually

recognised Number of

centres varies per -Adjustments in

Training centres Member State training content

approved by the (less than 3 in

competent Malta and Maintaining -Increased customer authorities of Luxembourg to profitability and base in concerned

Trainin the Member 1400 in the UK). employment; border regions and in g States to The same applies MS affected by legal certainty instituti organise the the average and a fair and minimum age

ons training courses number of drivers level playing field Increased clarity for the initial covered per for intra-EU provides more qualification and training centre, competition predictability and periodic ranging from level playing field

training. circa 6,400 in Malta to 125 in Ireland.

National,

regional and Issuing of DQC in local bodies concerned MS

regulating the

implementation Reduce minimum age of the Directive in concerned MS

on their Ensuring an efficient, effective Adjust required

Authori territory, in training content on particular those

ties in National

and practical

management road safety and fuel

Member responsible for authorities in 28 efficiency framework that

State the system of Member States accreditation balances a wide Increased flexibility

and quality range of control of the stakeholder needs

on combining

trainings and on use

training centres of e-learning

or for

recognition Legal clarity provides

process of CPCs more predictability

trainings.

All All other road Safer professional other users, who are drivers on the roads. road not professional Road safety

users drivers of HGV or bus.

Annex 4: Methodological guide: Calculations made in the course of the impact assessment -

Regulatory costs of different Policy measures

1 MAIN METHODOLOGICAL CONSIDERATIONS

In line with the Better Regulation Guidelines 4 NPVs for costs and benefits in the period from

2018 till 2030 are calculated using a discount rate of 4% and a discount period 2018-2030. Calculations are carried out in constant prices (price levels 2013).

In the assessment of regulatory costs for stakeholders caused by the implementation of Directive 2003/59/EC i three stakeholder categories are identified: enterprises, drivers, and public administrations. The components of the cost categories are as follows:

Total regulatory costs (TC) = Implementation Costs (IC) for public administrations + Compliance Costs (CC) for enterprises / drivers / training centres.

Compliance Costs (CC) for enterprises / drivers / training centres are defined as Substantive Costs (SC) + Administrative Costs (AC).

Substantive costs are costs made in order to comply with the content of the obligation that the Directive requires.

Administrative costs are the costs associated with information obligations stemming from the Directive.

The value of leisure time applied is 5.41 Euros per hour. It is calculated starting from the value of leisure time of 5.04 Euros of 2010 updated to 2013 values on the basis of the Eurostat data on the development of the Harmonised Index of Consumer Prices (HICP).

The value of an hour of FTE 5 applied is 19.55 Euros. It is calculated taking as reference the

2010 value of hourly earnings of clerks in transport sector taken from the EU Database on Administrative Burden (i.e. 18.2 Euros) and updated to 2013 values on the basis of the Eurostat data on the development of the Harmonised Index of Consumer Prices.

When the training is carried out during working hours costs for the enterprises are calculated in terms of wages and lost profits. The hourly wage cost is assumed at 14,71 Euros based on 13,7 Euros of hourly wage for elementary occupations in 2010 taken from the EU Database on Administrative Burden and updated to 2013 values on the basis of the Eurostat data on the development of the Harmonised Index of Consumer Prices. Following Panteia (2014) lost profits are calculated as 12.5% of total wages.

The following table gives an overview of the cost components that will be taken into account in the calculation of total regulatory costs. The table shows the cost components, the cost categories, and the bearer of costs.

4 http://ec.europa.eu/smart-regulation/guidelines/toc_guide_en.htm

5 unit that indicates the workload of an employed person in a way that makes workloads or class loads comparable across various contexts

Table 1: Cost components regulatory costs

Cost components Cost category Bearer of costs

Time spend on training (value of leisure time) Substantive costs Training associated with initial qualification participants Training and test fees associated with initial Substantive costs Training qualification participants Issuing of driver qualification card or marking Administrative Training code 95 on driving license after initial training costs participants (time spend and administration fees) Training fees and opportunity costs (wages / lost Substantive costs Enterprises profits) associated with periodic training Drivers Governments Renewal of driver qualification card / code 95 on Administrative Drivers driving license after periodic training (time spend costs and administration fees)

2 BASIC DATA AND ASSUMPTIONS

2.1 Numbers of professional drivers

The total number of truck and bus drivers and the development of these numbers over time

are taken from the European Union Labour Force Survey 2014 6 , executed by EUROSTAT.

Based on the data from the Survey, the annual growth rate applied for both truck and bus drivers during the period 2013-2030 is assumed to be 2.03% and distribution between the HGV and bus/coach drivers is estimated to be 78.2% and 21.8% respectively. According to the research made by the external consultant, the Directive does not cover 13.2% of drivers holding C and D licenses under current system of exemption.

Based on the Eurostat data 7 in 2014 the total transport of goods by road in the EU was

1.725.240 million tonne-kilometres, where 75.024 million tonne-kilometres of these were dangerous goods. Therefore, the transport of dangerous goods represents around 4,5% of the total transport of goods in the EU. In 2012 and 2013 the percentage was slightly higher, but always around 5%. It is therefore a safe assumption that the transport of dangerous goods represents around 5% of the overall transport of goods in the EU. In the same way the number of drivers engaged in transport of dangerous goods in the EU will be around 5% of the total amount of drivers in the EU. Finally, we assume that all professional bus and coach drivers from 2018 would need to pass the training on the passenger rights as carrying passengers follows directly from their job description, and most Member States exempt drivers from the training obligation until 2018.

Table 2: Drivers under the Directive in thousand people

Year Total C Professional drivers under the current exemption and D system

licence Total Totals

drivers HGV and HGV buses ADR buses

buses +ADR

2013 4187 3634 2842 792 142 934

2014 4189.6 3636.6 2843.8 792.3 142.1 934.3

2015 4274.7 3710.4 2901.6 792.8 142.2 935.0

2016 4361.5 3785.8 2960.5 808.9 145.1 954.0

2017 4450.0 3862.6 3020.6 825.3 148.0 973.3

2018 4540.3 3941.0 3081.9 842.0 151.0 993.1

2019 4632.5 4021.0 3144.4 859.1 154.1 1013.2

2020 4726.5 4102.6 3208.3 876.6 157.2 1033.8

2021 4822.5 4185.9 3273.4 894.4 160.4 1054.8

2022 4920.4 4270.9 3339.8 912.5 163.7 1076.2

2023 5020.3 4357.6 3407.6 931.1 167.0 1098.0

2024 5122.2 4446.1 3476.8 950.0 170.4 1120.3

2025 5226.2 4536.3 3547.4 969.2 173.8 1143.1

2026 5332.3 4628.4 3619.4 988.9 177.4 1166.3

2027 5440.5 4722.4 3692.9 1009.0 181.0 1190.0

2028 5550.9 4818.2 3767.8 1029.5 184.6 1214.1

2029 5663.6 4916.0 3844.3 1050.4 188.4 1238.8

2030 5778.6 5015.8 3922.4 1071.7 192.2 1263.9

Source: the Labour Force Survey statistics on employment of HGV and bus drivers (2014)

2.2 Number of trainees for initial qualification and periodic trainings

Only drivers who are entering the profession are supposed to follow initial qualification training. Therefore, we can assume that number of trainees for this type of CPC training is equal to the yearly increase of the drivers.

Table 3: Number of participants in training for the initial qualification training in thousands people

 Year Total

2015 73.8

2016 75.3

2017 76.9

2018 78.4

2019 80.0

2020 81.6

2021 83.3

2022 85.0

2023 86.7

2024 88.5

2025 90.3

2026 92.1 2027 94.0

2028 95.9

2029 97.8

2030 99.8

Total 2531

Source: calculations made based on the Labour Force Survey statistics on employment of HGV and bus drivers (2014)

The situation is however different when it concerns professional drivers who wishes to undergo the periodic training. The Directive allows Member States to extend the deadline for drivers who obtained their C and D driving licence before 9 September 2009 and 9 September 2008 respectively to complete the first round of periodic training by 9 September 2015 for D licences and by 9 September 2016 for C licences. Therefore, and given the five years cycle of periodic training, the number of drivers affected is expected to vary over the years, with a peak every five years. In our calculations, we assumed that in 2016 (deadline year) all professional drivers, who are in the profession for at least 5 years had to follow the periodic training. For the upcoming years until 2021, periodic training requirement would apply to professional drivers who enter into the profession respectively between 2013 and 2012, 2014 and 2013, 2015 and 2014, 2016 and 2015. In 2021, the training will be required for drivers joining the profession between 2017 and 2016 plus all drivers who need to pass the periodic training in 2016 for the first time. Therefore, the number of drivers affected varies over the years, with a peak every five years (i.e. in 2021, 2026).

Table 4: Number of t raining participants for the periodic training in thousands people

Drivers under the

Year Definition Directive

2018 Δ* 2014 80.8

2019 Δ 2015 153.8

2020 Δ 2016 156.9

2021 value** 2012 + Δ2017 3899.5

2022 Δ 2018 + Δ2013 163.4

2023 Δ 2019 +Δ 2014 169.1

2024 Δ 2020 +Δ 2015 243.9

2025 Δ 2021+ Δ 2016 248.9

2026 Δ 2022 + Δ2017 + value 2012 3993.2

2027 Δ 2023 +Δ 2018 + Δ2013 259.1

2028 Δ 2019 + Δ2014 +Δ2023 266.8

2029 Δ 2020 +Δ 2015 + Δ2024 343.5

2030 Δ 2018 + Δ2016 + Δ2025 350.5

• * 

  "Δ" stands for an increase in number of drivers between the year indicated and a previous one

** "value" stands for a number of drivers in the year indicated

Source: calculations made based on the Labour Force Survey statistics on employment of HGV and bus drivers (2014)

Number of foreign drivers affected by the problem of mutual recognition periodic trainings and associated costs for drivers and companies.

Only drivers nationals of other EU Member States who work in Austria, Germany, Greece, Latvia, Lithuania, Malta, the Netherlands and Poland are affected by the problem of the mutual recognition of their CPC training. These 8 countries opted solely for the option of marking Code 95 on the driving license. In the remaining Member States it is possible to get Code 95 on a DQC to foreign drivers, which ensures mutual recognition.

According to the Labour Force Survey statistics on employment of HGV and bus driver, in 2014 only four Member States, notably Austria, Germany, Greece and the Netherlands, had somewhat considerable shares of foreign drivers who were nationals of other EU Member States. For Lithuania, Malta and Poland, the sample of non-nationals was too small and the estimates were made on the basis of the overwhelming majority of national drivers in these countries, which brings the share of impacted foreign drivers in these MS close to 0%.

Table 5: Estimated breakdown of professional drivers (2014)

Total Non-National Number of number EU

of nationals Total drivers potentially number covered affected by

of by the the drivers Directi problem of C and ve Nationa EU 28 the mutual

D (1000) l of the national recognition (1000) country s others (1000)

AT 67.1 58.2 81.5% 8.7*% 9.8% 5.1*

DE 710.5 616.7 89.5% 5.2% 5.3% 36.7

GR* 82.1 71.2 92.5% 3.0*% 4.5% 2.4*

LT** 41.5 36.0 ~100% ~0% ~0% ~0

LV 26.3 22.9 85.4% ~0% 14.6% ~0

MT** 2.3 2.0 ~100% ~0% ~0% ~0%

NL*** 111.5 96.8 96.9% 1.5*% 1.6*% 1.7*

PL 395.8 343.6 ~100% ~0% ~0% ~0

• * 

  Estimated share of HGV and bus drivers based on the overwhelming majority of national drivers in these nine countries, as the share of non-nationals possesses low reliability to be published.

• * 

  * The estimates are made based on very small data samples which implies a low reliability of data

*** The estimates of non-national drivers include those drivers who did not report their nationality

Source: calculations made based on the Labour Force Survey statistics on employment of HGV and bus drivers (2014)

In most of these Member States the first round of period training has accomplished by 2014 and only the deadlines for both categories of professional drivers will expire in upcoming years. However, in the calculations, we assume that in 2016 (deadline year) all professional drivers, who are in the profession for at least 5 years have to follow the periodic training. As for calculations of the number of drivers following the periodic training, the number of drivers affected varies over the years, with a peak every five years (i.e. in 2021, 2026).

Table 6: Number of foreign drivers affected

Year Definition Number of drivers

2018 Δ 2014 798

2019 Δ 2015 823

2020 Δ 2016 839

2021 value 2012 + Δ2017 39490

2022 Δ 2018 + Δ2013 2052

2023 Δ 2019 +Δ 2014 1689

2024 Δ 2020 +Δ 2015 1732

2025 Δ 2021+ Δ 2016 1768

2026 Δ 2022 + Δ2017 + value 2012 40437

2027 Δ 2023 +Δ 2018 + Δ2013 3018

2028 Δ 2019 + Δ2014 +Δ2023 2675

2029 Δ 2020 +Δ 2015 + Δ2024 2738

2030 Δ 2018 + Δ2016 + Δ2025 2794

Source: calculations made based on the Labour Force Survey statistics on employment of HGV and bus drivers (2014)

Given that the drivers need to fulfil the periodic training once in 5 years' time, we assume that they need to spent 1 working day of 7 hours to go to the country of their residence to undergo the periodic training there. This is done outside the working hours, therefore drivers do lose their daily wage and opportunity leisure costs. Companies in their turn lose daily profit for this day.

The following assumptions were made to estimate substantive costs associated with periodic

driver training 8 :

• Costs are borne by enterprises are lost profits 9 .

8 For further details, see Panteia et al. (2014) Ex-post evaluation report: Study on the effectiveness and improvement of the EU legislative

framework on training of professional drivers.

• In assessment of costs borne by drivers, it is assumed that training is done outside working hours and the cost components are value of lost leisure time and lost wages. For the hourly

wages we use the study on road haulage 10 , that presents average driver costs for selected

countries. Countries with missing values are adjusted based on the ratio estimated from EUROSTAT information on average gross earnings. The value of leisure time was estimated based on the VOT presented by the UNECE study (as described in the CE Delft handbook of external costs in the transport sector). The VOT for leisure was indicated to be € 4 (EU average, 1998). This value was updated to 2010 value (€ 5.04) using EU inflation figures. This value was then made comparable to the shadow-price of labour (methodology presented in the Guide to Cost Benefit Analysis of Investment Projects, DG REGIO, 2008) and differentiated for EU countries.

Table 7: Compliance costs to drivers and companies due to the biased application of the mutual recognition principle over 5 year period

Number of EU nationals

potentially Value Loss

affected by the Hourly Lost of for Loss problem of the wage profits leisure busines for mutual time s drivers

recognition (1000)

AT 5.1* 28.20 3.53 8.36 144.0 1494

DE 36.7 27.64 3.46 8.44 888.4 9277

GR* 2.4* 17.30 2.16 3.29 37.0 352

LT** ~0 5.14 0.64 1.13 0.0 0

LV ~0 5.44 0.68 1.26 0.0 0

MT** ~0% 14.36 1.80 4.79 0.0 0

NL** * 1.7* 29.25 3.66 6.56 42.9 420

PL ~0 23.93 2.99 1.99 0.0 0

11543. Totals 1112.3 7

• * 

  Estimated share of HGV and bus drivers based on the overwhelming majority of national drivers in these nine countries, as the share of non-nationals possesses low reliability to be published.

• * 

  * The estimates are made based on very small data samples which implies a low reliability of data

9 Estimated lost profits, calculated as 12,5% of total wages, based on an average estimated profit of 5% in the sector, and an estimated wage

share in total costs of 40%, based on Panteia (2013)

10 Panteia (2013): Cost comparison and cost developments in the European road haulage sector

*** The estimates of non-national drivers include those drivers who did not report their nationality

Source: calculations made based on the Labour Force Survey statistics on employment of HGV and bus drivers (2014)

Table 8: Development of the compliance costs to drivers and companies due to the biased application of the mutual recognition principle in the long-run in the concerned

Member States 11

PV of PV of losses for losses for

Year business drivers

2018 16.8 54.9

2019 18.8 66.2

2020 19.2 65.0

2021 904.9 2952.5

2022 47.0 147.3

2023 37.2 106.5

2024 39.6 114.7

2025 40.4 112.5

2026 926.5 2484.7

2027 69.1 177.9

2028 59.7 143.3

2029 62.6 149.0

2030 63.9 146.1

Totals 2305.7 6720.7

Source: calculations made based on the Labour Force Survey statistics on employment of HGV and bus drivers (2014)

Table 9: Development of the compliance costs to drivers and companies due to the biased application of the mutual recognition principle in the long-run in the Netherlands

PV of PV of

losses for losses for

Year business drivers

2018 0.0 12 0.0

2019 0.7 7.0

2020 0.7 6.9

2021 34.6 319.3

11 Values are calculated for each of the Member State separately and put together in this table

12 Between 2014 and 2013, there was a negative increase in the transport sector in the Netherlands. Therefore, for the sake of analysis, the

value of the drivers subject to the periodic training in 2018 is considered as 0.

2022 1.8 15.8

2023 0.8 6.5

2024 1.5 12.1

2025 1.5 11.9

35.4 268.6 2026

2027 2.6 19.0

2028 1.6 11.2

2029 2.3 15.7

2030 2.4 15.4

Totals 85.9 709.3

Source: calculations made based on the Labour Force Survey statistics on employment of HGV and bus drivers (2014)

Table 10: Development of the compliance costs to drivers and companies due to the biased application of the mutual recognition principle in the long-run in Greece

PV of PV of losses for losses for

Year business drivers

2018 3.0 7.5

2019 0.6 1.5

2020 0.6 1.5

2021 27.7 62.1

2022 1.5 3.2

2023 3.7 7.6

2024 1.3 2.6

2025 1.3 2.6

2026 28.4 52.3

2027 2.2 3.9

2028 4.4 7.5

2029 2.1 3.4

2030 2.1 3.3

Totals 79.0 159.2

Source: calculations made based on the Labour Force Survey statistics on employment of HGV and bus drivers (2014)

Table 11: Development of the compliance costs to drivers and companies due to the biased application of the mutual recognition principle in the long-run in Germany

PV of PV of

losses for losses for

Year business drivers

2018 13.8 47.4 2019 15.1 49.8

2020 15.4 48.9

2021 721.8 2209.3

2022 37.5 110.4

2023 30.1 85.1

2024 31.7 86.2

2025 32.3 84.6

2026 739.2 1859.5

2027 55.2 133.5

2028 48.1 111.9

2029 50.1 112.0

2030 51.1 109.9

Totals 1841.3 5048.7

Source: calculations made based on the Labour Force Survey statistics on employment of HGV and bus drivers (2014)

Table 12: Development of the compliance costs to drivers and companies due to the biased application of the mutual recognition principle in the long-run in Austria

PV of PV of

losses for losses for

Year business drivers

2018 0.0 13 0.0

2019 2.4 7.9

2020 2.5 7.8

2021 120.7 361.8

2022 6.2 17.9

2023 2.6 7.3

2024 5.1 13.7

2025 5.2 13.4

123.5 304.3 2026

2027 9.1 21.5

2028 5.6 12.7

2029 8.1 17.8

2030 8.3 17.5

Totals 299.4 803.5

Source: calculations made based on the Labour Force Survey statistics on employment of HGV and bus drivers (2014)

13 Between 2014 and 2013, there was a negative increase in the transport sector in Austria. Therefore for the sake of analysis, the value of the

drivers subject to the periodic training in 2018 is considered as 0.

3 REGULATORY COSTS AND BENEFITS OF THE IMPACT ASSESSMENT

POLICY MEASURES

This section reviews the development of the costs and savings linked to different measures, and how they are distributed between different stakeholders group.

PM 1: Requirement to recognize CPC certificate based on a standardized attestation document

This measure affects only those eight Member States, which currently mark Code 95 solely on the driving licence and for the foreign drivers active there. According to the finding of the external consultant, the price of a CPC attestation card, which is a standardized secured

attestation document, is assumed to be 65 Euros 14 .

As according to our assumptions the first round of periodic training is accomplished in 2016 and only since that moment all foreign drivers are subject to follow the periodic training in the country of their residence.

Table 13: Discounted cost flow (thousands of euros)

Discounted

Year cash flow

2018 49.8

2019 51.4

2020 52.5

2021 2468.1

2022 128.3

2023 105.6

2024 108.3

2025 110.5

2026 2527.3

2027 188.6

2028 167.2

2029 171.1

2030 174.6

Source: calculations made based on the Labour Force Survey statistics on employment of HGV and bus drivers (2014)

Total NPV of this measure is minus € 6 303,000.

14 According to the findings of the impact assessment support study "Assistance on impact assessment on Directive 2003/59/EC i on initial

qualification and periodic training of drivers of certain good vehicles for the carriage of goods or passengers", Panteia et al (2015), the value of the a standardized secured attestation document in Germany, Austria and Greece account for 65 euros, while the value of the same document in the Netherlands is 57 euros. To account for a maximum effect on costs for the Member States, the value of the document in the Netherlands is also assumed as being 65 euros.

Table 14: Development of the costs for the implementation of the policy measure in the Netherlands

Year PV of costs

2018 0.0 15

2019 1.8

2020 1.7

2021 81.1

2022 4.0

2023 1.6

2024 3.1

2025 3.0

68.2 2026

2027 4.8

2028 2.8

2029 4.0

2030 3.9

Totals 180.1

Source: calculations made based on the Labour Force Survey statistics on employment of HGV and bus drivers (2014)

Table 15: Development of the costs for the implementation of the policy measure in the long-run in Greece

Year PV of costs

2018 3.0

2019 2.6

2020 2.5

2021 105.7

2022 5.5

2023 12.9

2024 4.5

2025 4.4

89.1 2026

2027 6.7

2028 12.8

15 Between 2014 and 2013, there was a negative increase in the transport sector in the Netherlands. Therefore, for the sake of analysis, the

value of the drivers subject to the periodic training in 2018 is considered as 0.

2029 5.8

2030 5.7

Totals 271.1

Source: calculations made based on the Labour Force Survey statistics on employment of HGV and bus drivers (2014)

Table 16: Development of the costs for the implementation of the policy measure in

Germany

Year PV of costs

2018 37.0

2019 38.9

2020 38.2

2021 1724.7

2022 86.2

2023 66.5

2024 67.3

2025 66.0

2026 1451.6

2027 104.2

2028 87.4

2029 87.5

2030 85.8

Totals 3941.2

Source: calculations made based on the Labour Force Survey statistics on employment of HGV and bus drivers (2014)

Table 17: Development of the costs for the implementation of the policy measure in

Austria

Year PV of costs

2018 0.0 16

2019 6.2

2020 6.1

2021 282.7

2022 14.0

2023 5.7

16 Between 2014 and 2013, there was a negative increase in the transport sector in Austria. Therefore for the sake of analysis, the value of the

drivers subject to the periodic training in 2018 is considered as 0.

2024 10.7

2025 10.5

237.8 2026

2027 16.8

2028 9.9

2029 13.9

2030 13.6

Totals 627.8

Source: calculations made based on the Labour Force Survey statistics on employment of HGV and bus drivers (2014)

According to the findings of the external contractor 17 , Member States tend to reallocate

financial burden for issuing secured papers on the targeted population of drivers. Therefore, it might be considered that the final payers for the measure would be drivers. However,

following the statements made by Germany and Austria in the CPC committee 18 this

assumption might not always be the case and Member States might consider a part of this burden. In this analysis an even distribution of the costs between governments and drivers is assumed.

PM 2: Issuing a DQC to foreign drivers

This measure obliges Member States authorities to issue a DQC in a form of standardized secured attestation document to foreign drivers who undergo the periodic training on its territory. The price of the document and number of drivers affected is the same as discussed under PM 1.

PM 3: The use of RESPER as a system of exchange of information on completed CPCs

This policy measure affects all Member States. The costs incurred are the result of

• costs of a set-up of a national CPC register for those countries where it is not still put in place (one-off compliance cost);

• costs of interlinking/updating the Member States' interface to RESPER (one-off compliance cost)

• Running costs or time spent by the authorities in transferring the information (implementation costs).

National register

According to the information provided by the national authorities in the course of the evaluation and impact assessment support studies, 12 Member States do already own the CPC register and one Member State decided not to set it up due to the complexity of the training system. 14 Member States did not provide the information. It is reasonable to assume that a

17 Ex-post evaluation study report: Study on the effectiveness and improvement of the EU legislative framework on training of professional, Panteia et a. (2014)

18 Meeting of the CPC-Committee 23 October 2014.

third of Member State which did not provide information could already have a national register in place. This would imply that 10 Member States still need to set up a register.

To calculate the set-up costs of the national register, we will use an approach and data on ERRU register assessed by Ricardo Energy & Environment et al under the ex-post evaluation of Regulation (EC) No 1071/2009 i and Regulation (EC) No 1072/2009 i.

As the ERRU register and RESPER are built on the same IT-architecture, and therefore share the core and main elements and features, costs related to the ERRU-register are considered relevant to estimate the costs for similar measures under RESPER.

Ricardo assessed that the costs of setting up a national register are broadly proportionate to the “size” of the national register. They categorized Member States under three different headings, i.e. small, medium and small and assessed the costs for each of the groups

Table 18: Ex-post costs for set up / upgrading of national registers (disregarding any prior costs)

Register Number of Member States Ex-post set up size Member cost

States (€ millions)*

Small 9 HR, CY, DK, EE, FI, LT, LU, MT 0.37

Medium 12 AT, BE, BG, CZ, EL, HU, IE, PT, RO, SE, SI, SK 0.51

Large 7 FR, DE, IT, NL, PL, ES, UK 1.25

Source: Ricardo Energy & Environment et al

However, as mentioned above only 10 Member States do need to set up a register. We assume an equal distribution among three categories of 9 countries for which information is not available and we will classify a Member States without the register as a large Member State. The total (one –off) for this element would amount for 7.64 million euro.

Costs of interlinking of RESPER to the national register

Member States need to update the interface to exchange information with the RESPER system to allow for the exchange of information. The approach for the assessment of these costs is taken following the estimates provided by Ricardo Energy & Environment et al for the ERRU

register under the support study for the evaluation of the Road Haulage market 19 and TUNER

project (Wilson et al, 2009):

Table 19: Ex-post cost estimates for interconnection

Ease of Number of Ex-post interconnection cost implementation Member States € millions)

Easy 10 0.05

Medium 11 0.12

19 Ex-post evaluation of Regulation (EC) No 1071/2009 i and Regulation (EC) No 1072/2009 i, Ricardo Energy & Environment et al (2015)

Ease of Number of Ex-post interconnection cost implementation Member States € millions)

Difficult 7 0.31

Total 28 3.94

Source: Ricardo Energy & Environment et al (2015)

This leads for 3.94 million of one-off investments for Member States.

Maintenance costs are used to be negligible, as all Member States have already put in place system of information exchange under the RESPER.

Running costs (administrative costs)

National administration will need to register the data on completed CPCs. These costs are of a running nature and will depend on the number of foreign drivers seeking the recognition of their training. Given the estimated 30 minutes for the registration of the CPC in the country of training and issuing the document in the country of the residence (15 minutes and 15 minutes respectively), the rolling costs for the period 2018 -2030 will make up around 2.27 million euros.

The total costs of policy measure 3 to the society over the period 2018-2030 are estimated to be 11.14 million euros for the national authorities.

PM 4 Driver attestation recognised without code 95

This option is not expected to produce any costs for the affected authorities, as all MS may continue with their current practise to indicate the code or not.

PM 5 Driver attestation recognised only with code 95

This option would imply costs on the authorities of those MS who do not currently mark code

95 on the licence. Based on information from 6 MS 20 3 would have to change their practise.

For the remaining MS we do not have information, but for the sake of calculations we might assume this measure could affect more than half of the remaining MS. The main costs are considered a one off cost related to the change of procedure, which is estimated to around 10 000 Euro per Member State. This gives a total cost of between 30 000-140 000 Euro.

PM 6:- Revision of Section I of Annex I (Content of Initial training)

The average initial qualification currently costs 1709 Euros per driver. The revision of section I of Annex I is estimated to lead to a one-off price increase of 5%. This would lead to cost increases of 85 Euros respectively per driver. It is reasonable to assume that the change of the system will primarily be of transitional nature, affecting the costs for the first four years only, while afterwards the system will be adjusted to the new requirements. These costs are substantive compliance costs borne by the drivers. This measure does not concern 11 Member

20 Information was received on 9 October 2015 concerning Germany, Austria, Lithuania, Romania, Poland and the Netherlands, whereby the

three latter would have to change practise.

States, which opts for test only option as the change of the training curriculum affects them only marginally.

Table 20: Cost development for new drivers under course and test system in thousand euros (applicable for 16 Member States)

2018 2019 2020 2021 Total Year

Discounted

cost flow 4,813 4,722 2,316 2,272 14,123

PM 7 – Revision of Section 4 of Annex I (Content of Periodic training)

Review of Section 4 of the Annex I related to the periodic training will bring only marginal level of costs compared to the current situation, as the revision would not impose new courses compared to the initial qualification training, but only require more diversity in the courses, and the topic of road safety to be covered.

PM 8 – Clarify the possibility to use e-learning in the revised Directive

This PM will not in itself produce any monetary costs or benefits, as it will be left to the Member States to decide whether or not to make use of this possibility.

PM 9 - Legal clarification of exemptions

The effect of this PM is related to which extent it affects the number of drivers who are subject to the requirements of the Directive. There is currently a significant difference

between Member States on the number of divers exempted 21 . However, the available

evidence does not suggest that this difference is due to different application of the exemptions. This difference might be due to different factors, such as different share of the affected transport operations. On this basis it is not expected that the share of drivers exempted will be significantly changed by clarifying the exemptions. The effects will go both ways, as some transport operations in some Member States previously exempted will be covered by the Directive and vice versa. However no significant increase or decrease on the total number of drivers is expected.

More clarity is expected to reduce uncertainty among stakeholders and thus lead to fewer requests to Member States authorities, leading to a reduction of the administrative costs for national authorities. Based on the available information, it has however not been possible to quantify this effect.

PM 11- Authorise Member States to allow the periodic training to be combined with other forms of training requirements

21 Ex-post evaluation study report: Study on the effectiveness and improvement of the EU legislative framework on training of professional,

Panteia et a. (2014)

This PM will not in itself produce any monetary costs or benefits, as it will be left to the Member States to decide whether or not to make use of this possibility.

ANNEX 5:

Information supporting analysis of the problem definition

Table 1: Share of national and international road haulage on the basis of tkm 22

Source: European Commission 2014, EU Transport in Figures: Statistical Pocketbook 2014

Table 2: Minimum age requirements in the various Member States

Minimum age Minimum age for drivers of for drivers of

Member C and CE D and DE State categories categories With Without With Without CPC CPC CPC CPC

AT 18 21 21 24 CZ 18 21 21 24 DE 18 21 21 24 DK 18 21 21 24 EE 18 21 21 24 ES 21 21 24 24 FI 21 21 24 24

FR 18 21 21 24 GR 18 21 21 24 HR 18 18 21 21

HU 21 21 24 24 IE 18 21 21 24 IT 21 21 24 24

LT 18 21 21 24 LV 21 21 24 24

MT 19 21 21 24 NL 18 21 21 24 PO 18 21 21 24

22 Tkm = ton-kilometres

PT 18 21 21 24 SL 18 21 21 24 SK 21 21 24 24 SE 18 21 21 24

UK 18 21 21 24

Sources: Information provided by Member States to Commission in 2012; Assistance on impact assessment on Directive 2003/59/EC i on initial qualification and periodic training of drivers of certain good vehicles for the carriage of goods or passengers, Panteia et al (2015), Communication by Croatia to the Commission in 2014, Communication by Hungary to the Commission in 2015

Table 3: Overview on the marking of code 95

Member Driving Driver Driver State Licence Qualification Qualification Card Card for foreigners

Austria X

Belgium X X 23

Bulgaria X

Croatia X

Cyprus X

Czech X X

Republic

Denmark X

Estonia 24 X X

Finland 25 X X

France X

Germany X

Greece X

Hungary X 26 X

Ireland X

Italy X X

Latvia X

Lithuania X

Luxembourg X X

Malta X

23 As of 1st December 2014

24 Both options are possible

25 Driver can choose

26 Under special circumstances

The X

Netherlands

Poland X

Portugal X

Romania X

Slovenia 27 X X

Slovakia X

Spain X

Sweden X

United X

Kingdom

Norway X X

Source: European Commission

Table 4 Costs of initial qualification and periodic training (EURO)

Initial training Initial training Test only Periodic Periodic & test (140 & test (280 system training training hours) hours) (35 hours) (35 hours), corrected for PPP (2012)

AT Not relevant Not relevant 280 250 237 BE Not relevant Not relevant 400 600 552

BG No data No data received received. Not relevant 170 352

CY Not relevant Not relevant 68 50 57

CZ 1,000 No data received. Not relevant 197 273 DE 3,500 No data No data received. received. 600 593

DK 2,234 4,468 Not relevant 560 399 EE 450 1,350 Not relevant 160 208

ES No data No data received received. Not relevant 165 174

FI 3,500 7,000 Not relevant 750 616

FR 4,500 No data received. Not relevant 600 555

GR Not relevant Not relevant 40 110 119

HU No data No data received received. Not relevant 170 282

IE Not relevant Not relevant 280 250 214

IT No data No data received received. Not relevant 700 683

LT 750 No data Not relevant 215 336

27 Driver can choose

Initial training Initial training Test only Periodic Periodic & test (140 & test (280 system training training hours) hours) (35 hours) (35 hours), corrected for PPP (2012)

received.. LU 2,800 4,500 Not relevant 960 786 LV Not relevant Not relevant 93 70 98 MT Not relevant Not relevant 70 50 64 NL Not relevant Not relevant 150 800 743 PL 1,690 2,165 Not relevant 250 441

PT Not relevant Not relevant No data received 240 279 RO Not relevant Not relevant No data received 80 144 SE No data received 3,800 Not relevant 480 373 SI 600 No data received Not relevant 200 241

SK 650 850 Not relevant 150 213 UK Not relevant Not relevant 304 433 372

Source: Ex-post evaluation study report: Study on the effectiveness and improvement of the EU legislative framework on training of professional drivers Panteia et al. (2014)

ANNEX 6:

Preselection of Impacts

1 DISCARDED FORMS OF POLICY INTERVENTIONS

1.1 Soft law – Promotion of best practices and exchange of information

Possible soft law measures include setting up working groups, workshops and seminars, platforms for exchange of best practices or organising information campaigns. The positive contribution these measures can make to the better implementation of the Directive are undisputed. Soft law measures may be effectively used in combination with hard law measures to reach some of the operational objectives set out above, such as clarification of legal uncertainties. However, left on their own, soft law measures alone do not allow addressing the problems identified with the current Directive. The non-binding nature of soft law measures would not ensure the uniform application of recommendations for example recommendations for better quality assurance of training or for greater focus on road safety relevant elements in training. So far the soft law measures applied, such as the issuing of notes of interpretation by the Commission and discussions during the CPC committee meetings, have failed to help overcome the existing difficulties with the correct application of the exemptions established in the Directive, as well as the uncertainty regarding the minimum age requirement.

An uneven application of soft law measures could on the one hand fail to achieve the desired outcome and on the other hand risk creating an even more unlevel playing field. This option was therefore discarded.

1.2 No EU action – Repealing the Directive without replacing it

The repeal of Directive 2003/59/EC i, without replacing it by any other initiative at EU level, would bring the single market back to the time before Directive 2003/59/EC i. Initial qualification and periodic training of drivers, and the related certification, would rest entirely upon Member States. The expected result of this is that some Member States would establish national qualification and training requirements for professional drivers, while other Member States would decide not to fill the void left by the repeal of the Directive with national legislation. This would create differences between drivers and undertakings depending on which Member States they are based in, negatively affecting the functioning of the single market. It would also deprive the transport sector from a quality-oriented, minimum standards instrument. The positive effect of the Directive on the quality of services and quality at work

was also pointed out by UITP and ETF in a joint statement 28 . A repeal of the Directive could

also create difficulties in the mutual recognition of qualification of workers and subsequently the mobility of workers. Bilateral agreements may be reached between some Member States. However, this would not address the persistence of an unlevel playing field in the EU. The already mentioned transnational nature of transport by road would render national measures less effective, reducing the incentives for Member States to adopt them. The 'No EU action' option therefore carries the inherent risk of leading to a race to the bottom in terms of conditions for the transport sector at the expense of safety.

28 UITP-ETF, 2014, Joint Statement.

1.3 Extension of the scope of the Directive to vans and small trucks -

In the reply to the public consultation almost half of the stakeholders (47 %, 187 respondents) suggested to include also professional drivers with B licences driving vehicles below 3.5t in the scope of the Directive. Of these 62% suggested to include vans, 28% suggested to include taxis)

The ex-post evaluation underlined that taxis and vans mainly operate at a domestic level and drive mostly short distances. Furthermore the road safety performance of light goods vehicles (LGV) is generally better than that of the entire fleet and also compared to Heavy goods vehicles (HGV) and buses and coaches, and the ex-post evaluation suggested that inclusion of

LGVs in an initiative to be less relevant 29 . In these circumstances this option has been

discarded from further analysis. Member States are considered best placed to regulate on the matter at national level to the extent they deem it appropriate.

1.4 Changing the structure of the training

Stakeholder views and the ex-post evaluation recognized some shortcomings linked to the structure of the training and quality of trainers and training centres. Some Member States proposed that the training should be indicated in terms of needed know-how, and not in terms of hours of training. However, due to the lack of available data, the scope of these problems could not be estimated, and to what extent these shortcomings are linked to the Directive or to alternative factors. Furthermore, the current Directive does allow for different approaches to training and focus e.g. on needed know-how. On this basis it is not considered justified with legislative or other binding actions at EU-level and these options are discarded from analysis in the Impact Assessment, see also point 1.1 of the report.

The Commission will however consider non-legislative actions to raise the awareness on the potential benefits of different approaches to training and its quality assurance measures, and in that regard take into account European tools supporting the quality of training and the

recognition of its outcomes (EQAVET, EQF, ECVET 30 ).

29 See Ex-post evaluation study report: Study on the effectiveness and improvement of the EU legislative framework n training of

professional, Panteia et a. (2014), point 2.4

30 EQAVET – European Quality Assurance in Vocational Education and Training, EQF- European Qualification Framework, ECVET- The

European Credit System for Vocational Education and Training

ANNEX 7:

Social impact

Baseline

A decline in the number of HGV-involved fatalities from 8,538 to 4,989 was observed over

the period 2001 to 2010. Panteia 31 estimates the trend to continue over time resulting in 2,742

HGV-involved fatalities by 2020 and 1,454 by 2030. For buses and coaches, a decline in the number of fatalities was observed over the period 2001 to 2010 from 1,115 to 692. This would mean that 371 fatalities in 2020 and 203 fatalities in 2030 caused by accidents involving buses and coaches could be expected.

Accident typology and relevance for driver training

As a result of in-depth accident investigations on the causes of accidents involving HGV, different types of accidents and different underlying causes for accidents could be identified.

In particular, the ETAC study 32 shows that 85,2% of accidents are human factor related.

Similar findings were made by a recent study by Volvo Trucks 33 and the Dutch Safety

Board 34 . It is in these human factor related accident where driver training can offer safety

improvement. A second important finding of in-depth studies on accidents involving heavy goods vehicles is that often the interaction between different vehicles is problematic and that

very often (more than half of the time) the other vehicle initiated the accident 35 .In particular

the focus on danger recognition is considered very important in driver training as described also in section 5.2.1. Direct effect size estimations range from a reduction between 3% and 20% of accidents involving HGV for which human factors are identified.

Safety effects associated to training

Two elements are considered when looking at the impact on road safety of the policy measures on training content:

• Initial training content aimed at improving risk awareness/ risk perception and fuel efficient driving behaviour (PM 6);

• Periodic training including road safety topic and not repetition of the same training (PM 7)

The literature review in particular Mayhew & Simpson (2002) 36 , Stanton, Walker, Young,

Kazi & Salmon (2007) 37 , a SWOV study 38 , the ADVANCED 39 project, recognizes that at

31 Panteia (2015) IA support study.

32 IRU, 2007, Scientific Study "ETAC" European Truck Accident Causation.

33 Volvo Trucks, 'European Accident Research and Safety Report 2013.

<http://pnt.volvo.com/e/GetAttach ment.ashx?id=26704> accessed 20th February 2014.

34 Dutch safety Board, ’Truck accidents on motorways’ (2012) <http://www.onderzoeksraad.

nl/docs/rapporten/Summary_Vrachtwagenongevallen_EN_web.pdf> accessed 20th February 2014

35 https://www.toi.no/getfile.php/Publikasjoner/T%D8I%20rapporter/2010/1061-2010/1061-2010-Sum.pdf

36 Mayhew & Simpson, ‘The safety value of driver education and training Injury Prevention, 8, ii3-ii8’ (2002).

‘danger recognition training’ drivers learn to recognise situations and analyse the situation for potential (imminent) dangers. The main benefits of such a training system lie in the possibility for the trainee to learn to recognize set-schemes (situation recognition) and to be able to constantly make use of the experiences gathered during the training session. Moreover, the focus on fuel efficient driving behaviour will also improve for road safety as this in general means a defensive, forward-looking driving style which is also safer driving behaviour.

The maximum effect of updating the current training and bringing more safety oriented subjects with an explicit orientation on the danger recognition was considered two per cents. However, the effect of these policy measures is difficult to quantify due to the complexity of measures affecting the level of road safety and particular challenges in separating the effects of efforts on training

Safety aspects of minimum age for access to the profession

Available accident statistics in CARE have been analysed to assess whether negative effects of road safety may be expected in those Member States if the minimum age is lowered (PM 10).

Based on available statistics no clear correlation between minimum age for professional drivers and road safety performance could be identified. Thus no negative impact on road safety could be quantified as regards this policy measure.

Figure 1: Fatal accidents by driver age

Source:CARE database

37 Stanton, Walker, Young, Kazi & Salmon, ’Changing drivers’ minds: the evaluation of an advanced driver coaching system, Ergonomics,

50, 1209-1234’ (2007).

38 SWOV (2012) De rijvaardigheidseisen in Midden- en Oost-Europese lidstaten en ongevallen en overtredingen van buitenlandse

bestuurders in Nederland.

39 CIECA, ‘Available Documentation’ (2010-2014).

Figure 2: Fatal accidents by HGV driver age involved

Source:CARE database

ANNEX 8:

Exemptions

Overview comparing exemptions of DIRECTIVE 2003/59/EC with REGULATION (EC) No

561/2006 where alignment of the Directive with the Regulation is considered

Directive Regulation (EC) Assessment Preliminary

2003/59/EC (CPC) 561/2006 (561) conclusion

• a) 

  vehicles with a Art. 3(b): - 5 kmh distinction - Provisions are maximum vehicles with a legally clear, but

authorised speed not maximum - Note that while tractors are not coherent exceeding 45 km/h authorised speed generally excluded from

not exceeding 40 CPC, this is not the case for - No indication of

561

kilometres per need to extend hour scope of CPC

• - 

  limited number of vehicles affetcted

• b) 

  vehicles used by, Art. 3(c): -Wording more or less the Align by or under the control vehicles owned or same including of, the armed forces, hired without a

civil defence, the -561 is restricted "the driver by the "the carriage is fire service and carriage is undertaken as a armed services, undertaken as a forces responsible civil defence consequence of the tasks consequence of for maintaining assigned to these services" services, fire the tasks assigned public order services, and to these services"

forces responsible for maintaining

public order when - Indications of uncertainty

the carriage is

undertaken as a on the use for other purposes – would be resolved with the

consequence of

the tasks assigned above restriction

to these services and is under their control

• d) 

  vehicles used in Art. 3(d): - 561 more specific - includes For coherence states of emergency vehicles, "non commercial transport of and legal clarity or assigned to rescue including vehicles humanitarian aid" include "non missions used in the noncommercial

commercial - No indications of clear transport of

concerns from ex post transport of humanitarian

humanitarian aid, evaluation. aid".

used in emergencies or rescue operations

• e) 

  vehicles used in Art 13(1)(g): - 561 is more specific – Align by the course of driving vehicles used for restricts to "non-commercial restricting to lessons for any driving carriage of goods and "non-commercial person wishing to instructions and passengers" and includes carriage of goods obtain driving examination with "instruction and and passengers" licence or a CPC, as a view to examination" and "instruction provided for in obtaining a and examination"

Article 6 and Article driving licence or - Legal uncertainty indicated

8 (1) a certificate of in ex post evaluation on professional combination with commercial competence, transport

provided that they are not being used for the commercial carriage of goods and passengers

• f) 

  vehicles used for Art. 3(h): - CPC I some sense wider Delete "personal non-commercial vehicles or than 561( no weight or use" carriage of combinations of passenger limit) but limited passengers or goods vehicles with a to personal use for personal use maximum

  permissible mass not exceeding 7;5

  tonnes used for - "personal use" causes the non Uncertainty on driving for commercial charities/non-profit carriage of goods organisations

  • - 

    personal use was deleted with 561 because of interpretation difficulties (point 27 last intent

  Art 13(i):

  vehicles between Explanatory Memorandum of

10 and 17 seats COM proposal (COM 2001/0573/final)

used exclusively for the noncommercial carriage of passengers

• g) 

  vehicles carrying Art 3(aa): - Some differences (561 - Include material or vehicles or explicitly includes "machinery" for equipment to be combinations of combinations of vehicles, 561 coherence and used by the driver in vehicles with a applies only up to 7,5 t, 561 marginal the course of his or maximum also includes machinery, 561 improvement of her work, provided permissible mass has a 100 km radius limit) clarity that driving vehicles not exceeding 7,5 is not the driver's tonnes used; for principle activity carrying

  materials, - Some clarity in court rulings - Add the 561 Art under 561:

  equipment or 13(1)(b) machinery for the exemption to

  driver's use in the - case 554/09:‘materials’ not clearly exempt covering packaging materials,

  course of his farm related

  work and which such as empty bottles, carried goods transport by a wine and drinks

  are used only by trucks of

  within a 100 km merchant who runs a shop, ancillary nature

  radius from the makes deliveries to his to the main customers once a week and,

base of the activity of

undertaking, and while doing so, collects the farming.

on condition that empty bottles to take them to his wholesaler.

driving the

vehicles does not Case 128/04:'material or

constitute the equipment' covers not only

driver's main

activity. 'tools and instruments', but also the goods, such as

building materials or cables, which are required for the

– Art. 13(1)(b): performance of the work vehicles used or involved in the main activity hired, without a of the driver of the vehicle

concerned. driver, by agricultural,

horticultural, - Transport of fruit and

forestry, farming vegetables by the farmer to market covered is no issue

or fishery under 561 as covered by

undertakings for

carrying goods as 13(1) (b) or (c).

part of their own

entrepreneurial Understanding of the activity within a exemption of the Directive is radius of up to not aligned with 561- ref

100 km from the ECJ 554/09 – point 25" "It follows that the materials are

base of

undertaking intended to be used or are required to create, modify or

(13(1)(b) was in transform something else and the repealed are not intended to be simply

Regulation transported for their own delivery, sale or disposal. The

3820/85(Art 13 materials being thus subject

c), kept but

tightened in COM to a transformation process,

proposal in 2001 they do not constitute goods intended for sale by their

("used or hired

user."

without a

driver").

"entrepreneurial

condition" added

during co- Adding the 561 Art 13(1)(b)

decision.) exemption would provide clarity for farm related goods

transport with trucks which would also take into account the SMEs in this sector.

• - 

  radius can be relevant to underline the objective to facilitate the ancillary nature (transport to local markets etc), and not long distance transport.

• - 

  radius can reduce risk of undermining the objectives (using professional drivers without competence) even without "principal activity clause"

ANNEX 9:

List of Abbreviations

Abbreviation Abbreviated Term

ADR Training for Drivers of Vehicles carrying Dangerous

Goods

CIECA International Commission for Driver Testing

CPC Certificate of Professional Competence

DSLV Deutscher Speditions- und Logistikverband

DQC Driver Qualification Card

EC European Commission

EU European Union

EQAVET European Quality Assurance Reference Framework

EQF European Qualifications Framework

ECVET European Credit System for Vocational Education and

Training

GO General objective

HGV Heavy goods vehicle

ICT Information and Communication Technologies

IRU International Road Transport Union

OO Operational objective

PO Policy option

SO Specific objective

SME Small and medium-sized enterprises

RESPER European Union Driving Licence Network

TACHOnet European Union Network for exchange of tachograph

information

TEC Treaty Establishing the European Community

TFEU Treaty on the Functioning of the EU

Met de EU Monitor volgt u alle Europese dossiers die voor u van belang zijn en bent u op de hoogte van alles wat er speelt in die dossiers. Helaas kunnen wij geen nieuwe gebruikers aansluiten, deze dienst zal over enige tijd de werkzaamheden staken.

De EU Monitor is ook beschikbaar in het Engels.