16 Vehicle type approval: sound levels
of motor vehicles
| (33551)
18633/11
+ ADDs 1-2
COM(11) 856
| Draft Regulation on the sound levels of motor vehicles
|
| Legal base | Article 114 TFEU; co-decision; QMV
|
| Department | Transport
|
| Basis of consideration | Minister's letter of 22 November 2013
|
| Previous Committee Reports | HC 83-iii (2013-14), chapter 10 (21 May 2013) and HC 428-xlvii (2010-12), chapter 10 (18 January 2012)
|
| Discussion in Council | Probably November or December 2013
|
| Committee's assessment | Politically important
|
| Committee's decision | Cleared
|
Background
16.1 Noise limits for new motor vehicle limits are
set by Directive 70/157/EEC, as amended, and the equivalent UNECE
(United Nations Economic Commission for Europe) Regulation No.
51. Vehicle noise limits were last reduced in 1995,
but the reductions did not have the expected effects in reducing
environmental noise.
16.2 The aim of this draft Regulation is to reduce
permissible noise levels of new motor vehicles. If adopted Directive
70/157/EEC and its amending Directives would be repealed. The
proposal aims to reduce levels of traffic noise and consequently
the number of people exposed to levels of noise which adversely
affect their health. The Commission proposes maximum noise limits
for road vehicles, ranging from cars through to heavy trucks and
buses. The proposal excludes powered two wheelers, three wheelers
and quadricycles — these are covered in separate legislation.
16.3 When we considered this draft Regulation in
January 2012 we said that clearly the proposal has important implications
for vehicle manufacturers, consumers and those affected by vehicle
noise. But we noted some caveats mentioned in the Government's
preliminary assessment of the draft Regulation. So we asked, before
considering the matter further, to have the Government's more
considered view of any problems with the proposal. In May we heard
that that the position the Government was taking was broadly that
it supported the Commission's limit values for all vehicles, supported
its timescale for light duty vehicles, but was seeking a longer
timescale for heavy duty vehicles to bring it more in line with
the longer product development and life-cycles of those vehicles.
We noted more detailed comment on a number of points and looked
forward to hearing in due course about developments in securing
the Government's objectives. Meanwhile the document remained under
scrutiny.[37]
The Minister's letter
16.4 The Minister of State, Department for Transport
(Baroness Kramer) writes now to tell us that:
· since May significant progress has been
made in Council working group consideration of the proposal;
· the Lithuanian Presidency has also held
trilogue meetings with representatives of the European Parliament
and a proposed compromise position has been reached;
· no date has yet been set for consideration
of this by the Council; but
· she expects the Presidency to seek agreement
at short notice this month or in December.
16.5 Turning to the substance of the compromise text
the Minister first says that:
· despite pressure from the European Parliament
and some Member States to relax the noise limit values, the proposed
compromise keeps values broadly in line with those originally
proposed by the Commission and supported by the Government;
· this should see a reduction of about 4dB(A)
for each vehicle category;
· this was achieved following a compromise
within the Council working group to reduce the noise limits in
three stages rather than the two originally proposed by the Commission,
the second and third stage limits being equivalent to the Commission
proposal;
· these stages would apply to new vehicles
from 2016, 2020 and 2024 respectively — the overall impact
of this is to delay the introduction of the most stringent limits
by about five years; and
· this would provide the necessary lead
times for manufacturers of heavy duty vehicles which have long
development cycles, although the first stage limits are somewhat
unambitious since a high percentage of the UK car fleet already
meets them.
16.6 Next the Minister tells us that:
· during negotiations the Government argued
in favour of the Commission's proposal for non-mandatory fitment
of noise generating devices ("acoustic vehicle alerting systems")
on electric and hybrid electric vehicles, provided that these
met internationally agreed standards;
· the European Parliament, however, supported
mandatory fitting and in trilogue meetings their representatives
made this a condition of accepting the proposed limit values and
lead times;
· the Presidency proposed a compromise whereby
optional fitment would be permitted for a transitional period
of five years to allow work on harmonised technical standards
to be finalised;
· after this period fitment would become
mandatory, together with a driver operated on/off switch, for
new vehicle types;
· during this transitional period the Commission
would study the possibility of continuing to permit optional fitment
on vehicles with active safety systems such as automatic emergency
braking; and
· the Government believes that it should
now accept this compromise in order to secure the European Parliament's
agreement on the limit values.
16.7 The Minister then says that:
· the boundaries between the categories
of vehicles in terms of, for example, power to mass ratio for
light duty vehicles, engine power output for commercial vehicles,
and the removal of categories of vehicles that will effectively
no longer exist such as light duty commercial vehicles with low
engine power, have now been revised along the lines requested
by industry and supported by the Government;
· the Government successfully sought dispensations
for specialist super sports cars, which have been included in
a separate category, and for vehicles converted to make them wheelchair-accessible
and for armoured vehicles; and
· dispensations have been separately agreed
for multi-stage build vehicles, ambulances and hearses, within
amendments to Directive 2007/46/EC on the type approval of motor
vehicles.
16.8 Reminding us that the Commission proposed slightly
different vehicle operating conditions from those contained in
the proposed future test method (Method B) that was trialled against
the current method (Method A) and that the Government sought to
reverse the changes in order to maintain the link between the
proposed limit values and the data on which the Commission based
their decision, the Minister reports that:
· this position has been supported by the
European Parliament and other Member States; and
· it is likely, however, that manufacturers
will be permitted to use tyres with the legal minimum tread depth,
rather than 80% tread depth, which is a slight, but acceptable,
deviation from the position that the Government would have preferred.
16.9 In relation to concerns raised by UK bus manufacturers
regarding double-deck buses custom built for city use, which are
fitted with low power engines and have higher capacity than city
buses used in the rest of Europe, the Minister explains that:
· because noise limits are set against engine
power output, UK bus manufacturers felt they might be forced to
compromise their designs by having to fit higher-powered engines
simply to move the vehicle into a category with an achievable
noise limit; and
· the concern was that fitting an unnecessarily
high-powered engine would increase emissions of air quality pollutants
and of CO2, and, because of the physically larger engine, might
reduce passenger carrying capacity.
16.10 She reports that while the Government did not
achieve specific limit values for these vehicles, the combination
of the revised categories and longer lead time have reduced the
burden on manufacturers, and the industry is now content.
16.11 The Minister says that:
· provisions have also been included in
the compromise text to address anomalies for certain classes of
vehicle using the same basic chassis and drive train where one
is commercial and the other is for carrying passengers;
· in these cases, where a passenger variant
is derived from a commercial vehicle, as is the case, for instance,
with some minibuses, the limit values for the commercial vehicle
would apply; and
· this reflects the difficulty of modifying
a commercial vehicle to meet the stricter limits for passenger
vehicles and is a satisfactory outcome.
16.12 The Minister then tells us that:
· the European Parliament proposed inclusion
of provisions that would require manufacturers to provide a label
at the point of sale informing consumers of the measured sound
level of each vehicle;
· the UK and other Member States argued
against this proposal;
· labelling is required for carbon emissions
and incentives are in place to encourage consumers to purchase
fuel efficient vehicles;
· no such incentives exist for vehicle noise
and there is no evidence to show whether such labelling would
influence the buying decision;
· there is also a risk that any such labelling
requirements would distract the buyer from the existing fuel consumption
and carbon dioxide information;
· noise data is already published online
as part of the Department for Transport's fuel consumption data
tool;
· in the trilogue discussions, the European
Parliament's representatives accepted the proposed Presidency
compromise of tasking the Commission to carry out a wider study
into consumer information and to return with proposals if appropriate;
and
· manufacturers would also be "encouraged"
to put labels in the showroom and on promotional material.
16.13 The Minister also says that:
· the European Parliament also called for
a study on the feasibility of a road classification scheme;
· this would be a complex and costly exercise
and the benefits of such a scheme, if any, have not been established;
· during the trilogue meetings however,
the European Parliament's representatives accepted the position
put forward by the Presidency and supported by the Government;
and
· this was that should not be contained
in a Regulation on the type approval of vehicles and that if requirements
are to be imposed at all that should be done in the context of
the Environmental Noise Directive.
16.14 The Minister concludes that:
· the Government believes that the proposed
compromise text represents a satisfactory outcome for the limit
values and that significant dispensations to minimise burdens
on small UK manufacturers have been achieved;
· the delay on mandatory fitting of noise
generators for electric and hybrid-electric vehicles will give
time to develop harmonised technical standards, so minimising
the cost to industry;
· the proposed study, in addition, should
result in proposals to permit those vehicles fitted with active
safety systems to be exempt; and
· given the progress made the Government
is therefore minded to support the adoption of this draft Regulation.
Conclusion
16.15 We are grateful to the Minister for the
information she gives us and, noting the improvements that have
been secured to the text of the draft Regulation, now clear the
document.
37 See headnote. Back
| 
