5 Vehicle type approval
| (29713)
10099/08
+ ADDs 1-2
COM(08) 316
| Draft Regulation concerning type-approval requirements for the general safety of motor vehicles
|
| Legal base | Article 95 EC; co-decision; QMV
|
| Department | Transport |
| Basis of consideration | SEM of 3 March 2009
|
| Previous Committee Report | HC 16-xxv (2007-08), chapter 4 (25 June 2008) and HC 19-iv (2008-09), chapter 8 (21 January 2009)
|
| To be discussed in Council | Not known
|
| Committee's assessment | Politically important
|
| Committee's decision | Cleared
|
Background
5.1 Design and construction standards for motor vehicles in the
Community are governed by a framework Directive, at present 70/156/EEC
and from 29 April 2009, 2007/46/EC, which updates and repeals
the 1970 Directive. The objective is to achieve a single market
through harmonised safety and environmental standards, using the
concept of type approval. Type approval involves testing prototypes
and it ensures that manufacturers are able to produce products
in conformity with the type approval. Various aspects of type
approval are implemented in Regulations made under the framework
Directive.
5.2 A Commission initiative, CARS 21 (Competitive
Automotive Regulatory System for the 21st Century), focused on
simplification and eliminating unnecessary burdens on industry
and recommended in 2006, in its final report,[20]
that to simplify the regulatory system 38 Directives should be
replaced by equivalent UN-ECE (United Nations Economic Commission
for Europe) Regulations.[21]
5.3 This draft Regulation addresses some of the CARS
21 issues through the repeal and consolidation of approximately
50 Directives. It concerns type approval requirements for the
general safety of motor vehicles and environmental impacts of
tyres, seeking to simplify the existing Community regulatory structure
and introduce certain advanced vehicle safety features and new
measures for tyres. And it sets timetables for implementation
of the various requirements.
5.4 When we considered this proposal, in June 2008,
we said that any simplification of the vehicle type approval process
would be useful and to that extent the draft Regulation was welcome.
But we noted both various preliminary reservations the Government
had outlined to us and the Government's intentions as to further
consideration of the policy implications, a public consultation
and an impact assessment. So we asked, before considering the
proposal further, to hear the outcome of the further consideration,
the consultation and the assessment.
5.5 In January 2009 we considered further information
from the Government. However we decided that we still needed additional
information before concluding our consideration of the document
and asked, first, to hear the outcome of the public consultation
we had been advised of and to see any resultant revised impact
assessment. We asked also for clarification of apparent discrepancies
between:
- the Government's latest general
support for the draft Regulation and its earlier wish for details
on technical standards and the process of simplification and its
doubt that the proposal would achieve the simplification it was
intended to deliver;
- the latest comment on wet grip limits and the
Government's previous observation that there would be no increased
safety benefit from the introduction in the draft Regulation of
the proposed requirement about these limits; and
- its latest views on lane departure warning systems
and advanced emergency braking systems and the different reservations
the Government had expressed previously.
And we recalled two further points drawn to our attention
when we first considered this proposal, and asked for information
on these:
- given that the definition of
categories of tyres had omitted a category of vehicle, N1 —
goods vehicles of less than 3.5 tonnes gross mass, covered by
the existing legislation — the Government would be seeking
to have this omission addressed; and
- as reference in the draft Regulation to the design
of vehicles intended for the carriage of dangerous goods might
not be appropriate, because comparable measures for these vehicles
already existed in other Community law, the Government would be
seeking clarification from the Commission regarding this issue.
Again the document remained under scrutiny.[22]
The Government's further view
5.6 In his Supplementary Explanatory Memorandum of
3 March 2009, the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department
for Transport (Jim Fitzpatrick), now tells us that the Czech Presidency
has pursued a vigorous programme of working group meetings to
enable a first reading agreement to be achieved with the European
Parliament. A European Parliament plenary vote on the resultant
package is scheduled for its 9-12 March 2009 session and a Council
vote is expected to follow shortly after.
5.7 On the first reading package the Minister says:
- regulatory simplification —
the text clarifies that manufacturers may demonstrate compliance
with component and system requirements using the relevant UN-ECE
Regulations and that use also of the proposed General Safety Regulation
will not be required;
- tyre noise — the package retains the noise
limit values proposed by the Commission but with the addition
of derogations for certain types of tyres —reinforced/extra
load tyres for passenger cars, all snow tyres and special use
tyres for light/medium and for heavy commercial vehicles (tyres
for mixed on and off-road use, for example, on trucks serving
construction sites). The derogation for passenger car tyres is
non-cumulative, meaning an extra load snow tyre gets the same
derogation as a snow tyre or as an extra load tyre. Robust definitions
of the derogated tyre types, based on their physical and/or performance
characteristics, rather than their "intended" use, will
be adopted by comitology[23]
to prevent abuse of the derogations;
- tyre wet grip limits — the limits proposed
by the Commission have been retained without modification. These
are based on existing requirements contained in a UN-ECE Regulation
that were agreed following extensive negotiations between European
governments and the tyre industry;
- tyre rolling resistance — the Commission's
proposed rolling resistance limit values have been retained with
the addition of a 1kg/tonne derogation for all snow tyres;
- tyre implementation dates — tyre requirements
will be applied to new tyres based on their dates of manufacture
instead of the date on which they are placed on the market, as
proposed originally by the Commission. This will reduce difficulties
with running down stocks of tyres manufactured prior to the implementation
dates. The package allows 30 months from these dates for remaining
stocks of older, non-compliant tyres to be sold-off, but gives
the Commission powers to reduce this period for some or all types
of tyre, if a cost effectiveness analysis supports this;
- tyre pressure monitoring systems — the
package clarifies that the aim of these systems is to reduce fuel
consumption and carbon dioxide emissions as well as to detect
safety-critical deflation (punctures) and states that the systems
should be accurate, but that technical specifications should be
technology-neutral and allow for a cost-effective approach. (Officials
have been involved in discussion on specifications for tyre pressure
monitoring systems at recent UN-ECE meetings, seeking accurate
systems that maximise carbon dioxide reductions);
- gear shift indicators — these did not form
a part of the Commission's original proposal, but the package
requires their fitment on new cars from the same dates as tyre
pressure monitoring systems;
- electronic stability control — the package
requires new types of cars and vans to be fitted with electronic
stability control one year earlier than the original Commission
proposal, from October 2011 instead of October 2012. For heavy
duty vehicles the electronic stability control implementation
dates shall be those specified in the corresponding UN-ECE Regulation;
- advanced emergency braking system — to
acknowledge that an advanced emergency braking system may not
be cost-effective for all types of heavy commercial vehicles,
for example, those engaged in slow moving stop-start operations
such as refuse vehicles and inner-city buses, the package gives
the Commission powers to adopt derogations for such vehicles on
cost-effectiveness grounds. The requirements in the Commission's
proposal, that advanced emergency braking systems voluntarily
fitted to cars and vans should comply with the standards required
for heavy vehicles, has been deleted because heavy duty standards
are unlikely to be appropriate for lighter vehicles. (The Government
will engage in UN-ECE discussions to ensure the technical standards
for these systems are feasible and appropriate bearing in mind
cost and lead time considerations); and
- lane departure warning system — the package
gives the Commission powers to adopt derogations on cost-effectiveness
grounds for vehicles engaged in slow moving stop-start operations.
5.8 The Minister tells us that the Government's public
consultation ran for four weeks, closing on 4 February 2009, saying
that a reduced timescale was necessary to deliver responses which
could be considered within the timeframe in which negotiations
were being conducted. He attaches to his new Explanatory Memorandum
a summary of the consultation responses and the Government's views
on them.[24] He notes
that overall, the tyre industry was not supportive of the noise
or rolling resistance limit values in the original proposal, but
that the proposed first reading deal package does take into account
some of their concerns, including derogations for certain types
of tyre for noise and rolling resistance and a long sell-off period
for old tyres. The Minister says also that respondents raised
a number of questions and comments about the costs and benefits
which do not affect the Government's overall assessment of the
costs and benefits of the proposal. It will, however, address
these points in the final impact assessment when the proposed
Regulation is transposed into UK law.
5.9 The Minister comments on the first reading deal
that, overall, the Government believes it is a good package, which
secures the key safety and environmental benefits of the Commission's
proposal, whilst providing flexibility for industry in areas such
as limit values for specialised tyres and derogations from advanced
safety requirements for low-speed vehicles and that the Government
will continue to work with the Commission and industry to ensure
that the Regulation does provide the expected regulatory simplification.
On the details of the package the Minister says that:
- in relation to tyre noise,
the derogated tyre types account for a very small proportion of
tyre sales, less than five per cent, and the derogations will
therefore not significantly reduce the environmental benefits
of the proposal. They will, however, provide welcome flexibility
to industry for products, which by their fundamental nature, are
noisier than normal tyres;
- the Government is pleased that the European Parliament
opposed any relaxation of the tyre rolling resistance limit values
proposed by the Commission, which the Government supports and
which will help mitigate potential increases in fuel consumption
of heavy trucks associated with the standard in the draft Regulation
on emissions from heavy duty vehicles (Euro VI);[25]
- the 30 month period to sell off remaining stocks
of older non-compliant tyres is acceptable to the Government;
- the Government supports mandatory fitment of
gear shift indicators to cars, which have the potential to deliver
carbon dioxide savings by improving driving style at minimal cost
and for the introduction of which industry has already planned;
- the Government supports the requirement to fit
electronic stability control to new types of cars and vans one
year earlier than in the original Commission proposal, since the
dates and requirements are well established and known to industry;
and
- the Government will engage in UN-ECE discussions
to ensure the technical standards for advanced emergency braking
systems are feasible and appropriate bearing in mind cost and
lead time considerations.
5.10 The Minister then turns to the clarifications
we sought in our last report on this document. He says, in relation
to the apparent discrepancy between the Government's general support
for the draft Regulation and its earlier wish for details on technical
standards and the process of simplification and its doubt that
the proposal would achieve the simplification it is intended to
deliver, that:
- technical standards for electronic
stability control systems have now been finalised and those for
tyre pressure monitoring systems are in an advanced state of development;
- the Government's impact assessment, attached
to the Government's earlier Supplementary Explanatory Memorandum,
takes account of these standards in estimating costs and benefits;
- technical standards for advanced emergency braking
systems and lane departure warning systems have not yet been developed
and it is clear that the draft Regulation will be adopted in advance
of these standards — the Government can support this approach,
but will engage in the development of these standards to ensure
requirements are technically feasible and cost effective;
- on simplification the first reading package,
in clarifying that vehicle manufacturers will be able to type-approve,
where appropriate, directly to the relevant UN-ECE Regulations,
ensures that, in replacing Community Directives with UN-ECE Regulations,
as recommended by the CARS 21 initiative, the draft Regulation
will not introduce an additional layer of type approval; and
- whilst repealing current Community Directives
and replacing them with the equivalent UN-ECE Regulations is a
welcome tidying up of existing legislation, and does deliver the
CARS21 recommendation, the reduction in administrative burden
on manufacturers is relatively small.
5.11 On the apparent discrepancy between the Government's
latest comments on wet grip limits and its previous observation
that there would be no increased safety benefit from the proposed
requirement about these limits the Minister says that:
- this is an issue of the intent
of the proposed limit values — the limits were not intended
to improve the wet grip performance of existing tyres; and
- they are aimed at ensuring that current wet grip
performance is maintained, by requiring UN-ECE Regulation 117
limits, as manufacturers improve noise and rolling resistance
performance — the Government supports this safeguard.
5.12 In relation to the apparent discrepancy between
the latest Government views on lane departure warning systems
and advanced emergency braking systems and the different reservations
the Government expressed previously the Minister says that:
- the Government's concern that
standards designed with heavy vehicles in mind would not be applicable
to light duty vehicles has now been resolved — the first
reading package no longer requires systems voluntarily fitted
to light duty vehicles to meet standards designed for heavy vehicles;
and
- the Government believes that its concerns regarding
the Commission's cost effectiveness assessment will be adequately
addressed by the requirement in the first reading package that
the Commission conduct a cost benefit analysis considering the
application of these systems to the different types of vehicle
within categories M2, M3, N2 and N3[26]
and adopt derogations where fitting such systems is not cost-effective.
5.13 As for addressing the omission of tyres for
N1 vehicles, goods vehicles of less than 3.5 tonnes gross mass,
from the tyre categories the Minister says that these tyres are
included, in the first reading package, in the C2 tyre category,
which is intended for light/medium commercial vehicles. And in
relation to the appropriateness of the reference in the draft
Regulation to the design of vehicles intended for the carriage
of dangerous goods, the Minister says this has been addressed
in the first reading package, which clarifies that the specific
safety requirements for these vehicles shall be those set out
in the relevant UN-ECE Regulation and which are the same requirements
are already in the Dangerous Goods Transport Framework Directive,
Council Directive 94/55/EC, as amended.
Conclusion
5.14 We are grateful to the Minister for his account
of where matters now stand in the negotiations on this proposal
and the Government's view of the proposed first reading package,
for the summary of the outcome of the Government's public consultation
and for the clarifications we had sought previously. We have no
further questions to ask and now clear the document.
20 See http://ec.europa.eu/enterprise/automotive/pagesbackground/competitiveness/cars21finalreport.pdf. Back
21
(28368) 5746/07 + ADDs 1-2: see HC 41-xviii (2006-07), chapter
13 (25 April 2007). Back
22
See headnote. Back
23
Comitology is the system of committees which oversees the exercise
by the Commission of powers delegated to it by the Council and
the European Parliament. Comitology committees are made up of
representatives of the Member States and chaired by the Commission.
There are three types of procedure (advisory, management and regulatory),
an important difference between which is the degree of involvement
and power of Member States' representatives. So-called "regulatory
procedure with scrutiny", introduced in July 2006, gives
a scrutiny role to the European Parliament in most applications
of comitology. Back
24
See the attachment on the Cabinet Office website for Explanatory
Memoranda - http://europeanmemorandum.cabinetoffice.gov.uk/. Back
25
(29317) 5127/08 + ADDs 1-2: see HC 16-xi (2007-08), chapter 4
(6 February 2008) and HC 16-xxvi (2007-08), chapter 1 (2 July
2008) and Gen Co Deb, European Committee, 15 July 2008,
cols. 3-20. Back
26
Class M are vehicles for carrying passengers, Class N for carrying
goods and Class O for trailers. A suffix 1, 2, 3 etc is linked
to the size of vehicle - for example, M1 up to 8 passengers or
N1 up to 3.5tonnes. Back
|
