3 Vehicle type approval
| (32051)
14622/10
+ ADDs 1-2
COM(10) 542
| Draft Regulation on the approval and market surveillance of two- or three-wheel vehicles and quadricycles
|
| Legal base | Article 114 TFEU; co-decision; QMV
|
| Department | Transport
|
| Basis of consideration | Minister's letter of 12 July 2011
|
| Previous Committee Report | HC 428-vi (2010-11), chapter 4 (3 November 2010)
|
| Discussion in Council | Not known
|
| Committee's assessment | Politically important
|
| Committee's decision | Not cleared; further information requested
|
Background
3.1 The Commission's 2006 initiative CARS 21 (Competitive Automotive
Regulatory System for the 21st Century) recommended simplification
of the current whole vehicle type approval regulatory framework.
It also recommended, where appropriate, replacing relevant EU
Directives by equivalent UN-ECE (United Nations Economic Commission
for Europe) Regulations. Type-approval that is directly based
on internationally agreed standards will improve market access
in third countries, in particular those which are contracting
parties to the UN-ECE 1958 Agreement on type-approval, thus enhancing
EU industry's competitiveness.
3.2 CARS 21 simplification of EU type approval legislation
is undertaken in a 'split-level approach':
- fundamental provisions are
laid down in a framework Regulation; and
- technical specifications implementing the fundamental
provisions are laid down at a later date, by the Commission assisted
by a technical committee, in delegated legislation.
3.3 The existing EU regulatory structure for type
approval for motorcycles, tricycles and quadricycles has evolved
over many years and currently consists of a framework Directive,
Directive 2002/24/EC, 13 separate technical Directives and their
amending Directives. This means that the industry and regulators
must currently be aware of a mass of legislation and ensure that
it is correctly transposed into national law or applied as appropriate
— this is considered to be a costly, burdensome process.
3.4 This draft Regulation aims to simplify the approval
process for motorcycles, tricycles and quadricycles, while improving
safety and limiting the emission of exhaust pollutants. Simplification
would be achieved by repealing the current framework Directive
and the technical Directives and replacing them with:
- this draft framework Regulation,
containing the fundamental requirements of the type approval system;
and
- technical requirements contained in three Commission
Regulations referring, where possible, to harmonised international
standards adopted by the UN-ECE.
The three Commission Regulations envisaged, to be
made on the advice of a technical committee, are on:
- environmental and propulsion
performance requirements;
- vehicle functional safety requirements and related
subjects; and
- vehicle construction requirements.
There would also be a Commission implementing act
to set out administrative provisions.
3.5 When we considered this proposal, in November
2010, we said that, whilst the simplification this draft Regulation
would achieve was to be welcomed, we noted that there were a number
of issues the Government was addressing in the negotiation of
the proposal and that it was producing its own impact assessment.
Before considering the document further we asked to hear about
progress in the negotiation and to see the impact assessment.
Meanwhile the document remained under scrutiny.[14]
The Minister's letter
3.6 The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department
for Transport (Mike Penning) encloses a copy of the Government's
negotiating stage impact assessment and a summary of the key results,
the latter of which we annex.
3.7 The Minister tells us that the Commission's text
of the draft Regulation has been discussed at a number of Council
working group meetings and reports that:
- there has been general support
for the proposal from Member States;
- discussions so far have considered elements common
with a parallel proposal on agricultural tractors,[15]
to ensure a consistent regulatory approach for both where possible;
- discussions also covered general requirements
for EU type approval, provisions for market surveillance, acceptance
of UN-ECE Regulations (in place of EU Directives) and obligations
on manufacturers and distributors;
- the Government and other Member States have expressed
concern that the proposal gives the Commission powers to introduce
new measures without sufficient scrutiny;
- there has been support for the Government's view
that, to minimise the burdens on individuals and very low volume
manufacturers, Member States should retain the powers to set the
requirements for vehicles built and approved singly, for example,
amateur self builds;
- there is general agreement that the timetable
for the changes is too ambitious and should be delayed by at least
one year to allow time for Member States to implement the new
provisions;
- the Government has concerns with many of the
emissions elements of the Commission's proposal; and
- the Government's impact assessment suggests that
the costs substantially outweigh the benefits and the benefits
are not focussed on the air quality problems that exist throughout
the EU — these issues will be discussed in future meetings.
3.8 The Minister continues that the European Parliament
is also considering the proposal and is expected to vote on its
first reading position in October 2011. Its Committee on the Internal
Market and Consumer Protection (IMCO) has made a number of recommendations
in its draft report, which is likely to be the basis for the European
Parliament's position.[16]
On the views of the IMCO the Minister tells us that it:
- is concerned that the proposed
timetable is too ambitious and suggests that the proposed introduction
date of 1 January 2013 be put back by one year to 2014;
- considers that the subsequent dates for the introduction
of the various provisions, for example advanced braking, tail
pipe emission limits, etc. are too complex and could be simplified,
which supports views made by UK industry;
- supports, in the draft report, the introduction
of tighter limits on tail pipe emissions;
- suggests, however, in the draft report, deleting
the first stage and moving straight to the second stage, while
keeping the proposed introduction dates — this view is at
odds with the Government's impact assessment, which suggests that
only the first stage will be cost effective for the UK;
- endorses, in the draft report, the introduction
of advanced braking system and other safety provisions;
- supports the introduction of small series and
individual vehicle approval to benefit smaller manufacturers;
and
- recognises that the proposed limits on the numbers
of vehicles that can be approved through these routes is too low
and should be increased.
Conclusion
3.9 We are grateful to the Minister for his account
of where matters stand on this draft Regulation. Whilst we recognise
that there is general support for the measure, we note that the
Government has some concerns, some shared by other Member States,
about the proposal. So before considering the document again we
should like to hear about progress in the negotiation —
particularly in relation to powers to be delegated to the Commission,
minimising the burdens on individuals and very low volume manufacturers,
the timetable for changes and the possible disbenefits of the
emissions elements of the proposal. Meanwhile the document remains
under scrutiny
Annex: Summary of the Department
for Transport's Impact Assessment
Advanced Braking
When fitted to all motorcycles advanced braking systems
could prevent up to 72 fatal accidents and 493 serious accidents
each year saving £220 million annually, rising to £234
million when slight injuries are also considered. There is uncertainty
over the level of fitment that could be achieved without this
measure, it might be as low as 24% but could reach 85% depending
on the level of commitment by manufacturers.
The cost of fitting ABS to a motorcycle is estimated
between £90 and £180 giving an annual total cost of
nearly £16 million if fitted to all new vehicles. Overall
the cumulative net benefit by 2026 is estimated to be £387
million.
Tailpipe Emissions
Considering the three emission stages only the first
is likely to deliver worthwhile benefits, the cost of the subsequent
stages is unlikely to be justified by the benefits, the third
stage in particular looks very costly and may not be achievable
with current technology.
Evaporative Emissions
Controls on evaporative emissions are not expected
to result in benefits for the UK but, if included in the Regulation,
costs to manufacturers are likely to be minimised if the Commission
chooses to align the test procedure with the current Californian
motorcycle test. If a procedure based on the European test for
cars is used then costs will be higher.
Durability of Emission control equipment
No test procedure has been proposed for assessing
the durability of emission controls making it difficult to assess
the impact of this measure. There are not expected to be additional
technology costs but a lengthy test procedure is likely to have
a significant cost and impact on development cycle.
Onboard Diagnostics
Many current motorcycles already meet the first stage
on-board diagnostic requirements, and its costs are therefore
negligible, however the second stage is technically very demanding
and is likely to require costly sensors which are only at the
prototype stage at present. The net cost of both OBD stages up
to 2025 is estimated at £8,159,794.
Repair and maintenance info
Provision of non-discriminatory access to repair
and maintenance information is likely to deliver substantial net
benefits to small and medium sized enterprises in the repair sector
and to consumers through reduced servicing costs. However, costs
to set up on-line access to the information is likely to be significant,
particularly for small manufacturers.
Fuel consumption
The proposal requires the measurement of CO2 and
fuel consumption. These measurements can be made as part of the
procedure for measuring tailpipe emissions so the additional costs
are expected to minimum. There is no obligation at this stage
to publish the information however it is likely that this will
be the next step, bringing a benefit for consumers who will be
able to compare the fuel economy of different vehicles
Anti-tampering
There is insufficient information to determine the
costs and benefits of anti tampering measures. This is due in
part to the lack of information on the current level of tampering
and its impact on safety and the environment. The Commission's
proposal does not contain any technical details, these will be
contained in the delegated acts which will be drafted separately
and adopted as a delegated act. The Commission has recognised
there is a lack of information and a study is underway to investigate
this further.
14 See headnote. Back
15
(31841) 12604/10 + ADDs 1-2: see HC 428-iii (2010-11), chapter
3 (13 October 2010) and HC 428-xxxiii (2010-11), chapter 3 (13
July 2011). Back
16
For the draft report see http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?pubRef=-//EP//NONSGML+COMPARL+PE-464.815+01+DOC+PDF+V0//EN&language=EN,
for proposed amendments to it see http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?pubRef=-//EP//NONSGML+COMPARL+PE-467.203+02+DOC+PDF+V0//EN&language=EN.
The IMCO's final report is due in October 2011. Back
| 
