This document is an excerpt from the EUR-Lex website
Document 52012SC0207
COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT Accompanying the document REGULATION OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL on periodic roadworthiness tests for motor vehicles and their trailers and repealing Directive 2009/40/EC and REGULATION OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL on the technical roadside inspection of the roadworthiness of commercial vehicles circulating in the Union and repealing Directive 2000/30/EC and DIRECTIVE OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL amending Council Directive 1999/37/EC on the registration documents for vehicles Summary of IMPACT ASSESSMENT
COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT Accompanying the document REGULATION OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL on periodic roadworthiness tests for motor vehicles and their trailers and repealing Directive 2009/40/EC and REGULATION OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL on the technical roadside inspection of the roadworthiness of commercial vehicles circulating in the Union and repealing Directive 2000/30/EC and DIRECTIVE OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL amending Council Directive 1999/37/EC on the registration documents for vehicles Summary of IMPACT ASSESSMENT
COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT Accompanying the document REGULATION OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL on periodic roadworthiness tests for motor vehicles and their trailers and repealing Directive 2009/40/EC and REGULATION OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL on the technical roadside inspection of the roadworthiness of commercial vehicles circulating in the Union and repealing Directive 2000/30/EC and DIRECTIVE OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL amending Council Directive 1999/37/EC on the registration documents for vehicles Summary of IMPACT ASSESSMENT
/* SWD/2012/0207 final */
COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT Accompanying the document REGULATION OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL on periodic roadworthiness tests for motor vehicles and their trailers and repealing Directive 2009/40/EC and REGULATION OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL on the technical roadside inspection of the roadworthiness of commercial vehicles circulating in the Union and repealing Directive 2000/30/EC and DIRECTIVE OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL amending Council Directive 1999/37/EC on the registration documents for vehicles Summary of IMPACT ASSESSMENT
COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT Accompanying the document REGULATION OF THE EUROPEAN
PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL on periodic roadworthiness tests for motor
vehicles and their trailers and repealing Directive 2009/40/EC
and
REGULATION OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL on the technical
roadside inspection of the roadworthiness of commercial vehicles circulating in
the Union and repealing Directive 2000/30/EC
and
DIRECTIVE OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL amending Council Directive
1999/37/EC on the registration documents for vehicles Summary of IMPACT ASSESSMENT 1. Problem definition Directive 2009/40/EC fixes minimum
standards for the periodic technical inspection (PTI) of motor road vehicles.
The role of PTI is to ensure that vehicles in operation are properly maintained
and tested, so that their performance remains in accordance with the
type-approval[1] throughout their lifetime. Directive 2009/40/EC
is complemented by Directive 2000/30/EC, which provides the requirement to control the technical state of
commercial vehicles in between periodic inspections (roadside inspections –
RSI). On 20 July 2010 the Commission
adopted policy orientations on road in whichit announced the harmonisation and
progressive strengthening of EU legislation on roadworthiness tests and on
technical roadside inspections; the inclusion of powered-two wheelers in
vehicle inspections; and the possible setting-up of a European electronic
platform with a view to harmonise and to exchange vehicle data. The stakeholder consultation and the
analysis by the Commission allowed identifying one main problem with the
current PTI system in Europe: there are too many vehicles with technical defects on the
road. Indeed, studies from the UK and Germany indicate that up to 10% of
cars at any point in time have a defect that would cause them to fail the PTI
test. Moreover, many technical defects with serious implications for security
(mainly related to electronic safety components such as ABS, ESC) are not even
checked at PTI tests as conducted under current rules. Technical defects contribute heavily
to accidents: it is estimated that they are responsible for 6% of all
accidents, translating into 2,000 fatalities and many more injuries yearly.
Also, technical defects increase
emissions (e.g. CO, HC, NO and CO2) by some 1.2% and 5.7% on
average, and by up to 20 times for particular vehicles. Two root causes of the problem
have been identified. First, the scope of EU legislation is too narrow and the level
of requirements it sets is too low. A comparative analysis of existing national
PTI systems suggests that the requirements of EU legislation are insufficient
for the 7 pillars of EU roadworthiness test to reduce defect occurrence to
sustainable levels: –
not enough items are inspected (particularly
electronic safety devices are not thoroughly inspected); –
the definitions of defects are out of date and
the assessment not harmonised; –
the equipment used for PTI is not performant
enough; –
the skills of inspectors are not precisely defined; –
many vehicle classes are not inspected at all
(notably motorcycles, which are involved in many accidents); –
vehicles are not tested frequently enough (in
particular older and commercial vehicles, which have higher damage rates); –
testing stations are not sufficiently supervised
in many Member States. Second, information and data vital for the effectiveness of
testing and enforcement of test results is not exchanged between concerned
actors. In particular: –
Data for testing electronic safety components is
often not available; –
Odometer readings are not collected in a
centralised manner; –
PTI centrificates are not protected against
fraud; –
Data on PTI results not available to enforcement
authorities, such as police or registration authorities. Evolution of the problem (baseline scenario) The failures identified as drivers of the
problem are regulatory in nature. The Netherlands and the United Kingdom
have been looking at possibilities to reduce the frequency of PTI to
save costs for vehicle owners, but this is a very modest indication of
potential future changes across the EU Member States. On the EU side, the
technical annexes to Directive 2009/40/EC will be updated regularly to take
into account technological advances, as it has happened so far.[2] However, since the Directive
allows only the list of test items and testing methods to be updated through
commitology, no change to the scope and frequency of testing, and to the
framework for data exchange, can be achieved in the baselie scenario. Available projections concur to conclude
that the vehicle fleet in Europe will increase in the future. The Commission
estimates that, in a no policy change scenario, the number of passenger cars
will increase from 220.2 million in 2005 to 307.1 million in 2050.[3] More vehicles in principle
increase the risk of accident occurrence. At the same time, the ambitious policies
announced in the Road Safety Policy Orientations for 2010-2020 are expected to
increase road safety. In particular, large hopes are related to the development
and deployment of Intelligent Transport Systems (ITS) and related pervasive
technologies and tools. On the other hand, the latter will increase the
complexity of on-board electronic equipment, which is difficult to test under
the present conditions since the technical data from manufacturers are not
currently available in functional form. Overall, it is expected that the
downwards trend in fatalities is maintained,[4]
but it is probable that the share of accidents caused by technical defects will
rise from the current 6%. On the environment side, pollutant emissions will be
drastically reduced as vehicles compliant with older Euro classes are gradually
scrapped and new, zero-emission vehicles are marketed. As it happens, the
incidence of heavy polluters (due to technical defects) on air quality will
become proportionally higher. 2. Analysis of subsidiarity The right to
act for the EU in the field of transport is set out in the Treaty on the
Functioning of the European Union. More particularly, Art. 91 of the Treaty
puts on the legislators the obligation to lay down measures to improve road
safety. Road transport
– individual, passenger and particularly commercial – has a strong cross border
aspect. This is particularly important for enforcement, where effectiveness
depends on the seemless flow of information about the technical state of
vehicles, the compliance history and fraud detection between different
authorities in different Member States. Similarly, vehicle manufacturing is
global, and action addressing the provision of data for PTI purpose by the
manufacturers clearly has to be taken at the highest possible level. Under current rules, Member States have a
lot of flexibility in the application of the Directives, allowing them notably
to establish higher PTI standards. Experience shows that this opportunity has
not been seized by all the MS, resulting in a diversity of testing qualities
across the continent. This trend can be only reversed by concerted action at EU
level. In order to avoid falling in the trap of
looking at legislative solutions only, the Commission also analysed the impacts
of an intervention based purely on soft-low, or on a mixed soft and legislative
approach. The Commission believes that some aspects of the review of
the roadworthiness system should be left to the MS, who can achieve the goals
in a more effective way, notably in what concerns: the organisation of roadside
technical inspections, training of inspectors and the execution of supervision
activities. 3. Objectives of EU initiative The general objectives of this initiative
are: 1. To contribute to the achievement of the
goal of halving the overall number of road deaths in the European Union between
2010 and 2020 and moving to zero fatalities in road transport by 2050, through
measures aiming at increasing the quality and better coordinating national PTI
and roadside inspection systems, and 2. To contribute to the reduction of the
emissions of GHG and air pollutants from road transport through measures aiming
at detecting more effectively and removing from circulation vehicles which are
over-polluting because of technical defects. These general objective can be translated into
two specific objectives: –
increase the scope and the level of requirements
for roadworthiness testing and roadside controls across the European Union; –
create the appropriate framework for seamless
flow of information between actors and Member States involved in the
enforcement of PTI results. There are two operational objectives to be
achieved three years after the entry into force of all elements of the new
legislation (including the set-up of the data exchange system): –
To reduce the number of fatalities caused by
technical defects by as close as possible to 1100 yearly, which has been
estimated as the maximum potential; and –
To move towards eliminating the "gross
emitting" vehicles from the fleet in use. 4. Policy options A set of policy options have been considered: a no policy
change option (Policy option 0); the discontinuation of EU action; a soft law
approach (Policy option 1); a legislative approach (Policy option 2); a
combination of soft law and legislative approach (Policy Option 3).
Discontinuation of EU action was discarded at an early stage because it would
not contribute to the objectives and be inconsistent with existing EU
strategies. Policy option 1 encompasses
an increased use of peer reviews and screening by the Commission and the
exploration of optimal levels of investment in PTI and roadside testing
exploring the scope for risk-based testing regimes together with Member States.
The option would also include looking into the enforcement of legal
responsibilities of individuals not presenting their vehicles to required PTI.
Enforcement measures would include awareness campaigns focusing on vehicle
owners, enhancement of roadside inspections and testing as well as supervision
by Member States. Finally, PO1 would include recommendations for voluntary
action by vehicle manufacturers. Policy options 2 and 3 were further declined into three
incremental sub-options from a to c, ranging from moderate to highest increase
of minimum EU standards for PTI and
roadside inspections (RSI). All three sub-options have been analysed
separately. PO 2a increases the scope of RSI beyond checking emissions
and brakes; sets detailed requirements for the equipment to be used at PTI;
puts in place the obligation for government departments to perform regular
quality checks on PTI centres; includes motorcycles (L3,4,5,7) and
light trailers (O2) among vehicles to be inspected at PTI; pushes
forward the date of the first mandatory PTI from the fourth year after
registration to the third; and sets regular training requirements for
inspectors, both for PTI and RSI. Policy Option 2b, in addition to Policy Option 2a sets
higher standards for testing equipment at PTI centres (including for testing
electronic safety components) and for RSI (testing 15% of vehicles at roadside
inspections with mobile roadside inspection units); increases the specific
training requirements for ispectors (PTI and RSI) to 4 days a year; includes
mopeds (L1,2,6) among vehicles tested at PTI and vans (N1)
with commercially used small trailers (O1,2) among vehicles tested
at RSI; increase the testing frequency for older small vehicles (every year
instead of every two years for M1N1O1,2L3,4,5,7);
sets a minimum requirement of 10% of commercially used vehicles being tested at
RSI; and increases the quality of supervision of PTI centres. Policy Option 2c, in addition to Policy Option 2b,
introduces emission testing for all categories of vehicles at RSI by the use of
remote sensing technology with a target of 15% of vehicles tested; expands RSI
to all categories of vehicles; and increase the frequency of testing of light
vehicles (M1N1O1,2 L3,4,5,7) to
yearly counting from the moment of registration and for heavier vehicles to
every half a year instead of every year for M2,3N2,3O3,4. Initially, also three technical solutions
for ensuring the exchange of data from and for PTI have been considered:
centralised data store; centrally defined data store with full replication of
all data to each Member State; and centrally defined but regionally
administered data stores holding local information only. However, preliminary
analysis indicated that given the particular requirements in the PTI context,
the first two solutions would be too costly and also suboptimal from an
operational point of view. For this reason, only the third solution was
retained for further analysis and incorporated into Policy options 2a-c and
3a-c. Table 1: Summary table of Policy Options || Minimum EU standards for PTI and roadside inspections || Data exchange Policy Option 0 || No policy change Policy Option 1 (PO 1) || Soft law Policy Option 2 || Legislative approach PO 2a || Moderate increase in the minimum standards for PTI and roadside testing || Data exchange platform PO 2b || Advanced increase in the minimum standards for PTI and roadside testing PO 2c || Highest increase in the minimum standards for PTI and roadside testing Policy Option 3 || Soft law + Legislative approach PO 3a || PO 2a + PO 1 || PO 2 + PO1 PO 3b || PO 2b + PO 1 PO 3c || PO 2c + PO 1 5. Assessment of impacts The analysis
of impacts follows the logic of a partial cost-benefit analysis. The main
economic, social and environmental impacts are classified according to whether
they constitute costs or benefits. Of course, what is a cost for one group can
be a benefit for another: for example additional PTI generate costs for vehicle
owners and benefits for the garages. The analysis below therefore deals with
what can be perceived as social costs and benefits. In the end of the
section, impacts concerning particular stakeholder groups are detailed, i.e.
impacts on SMEs, citizens and public authorities. All the costs are presented in a monetized
form. On the benefit side, most of the impacts related to road safety and
environment were monetized, and gains in term of new jobs created are also
quantified. However, some important benefits could not be quantified and are
presented in qualitative terms. The costs are mostly related to: –
additional equipment and staff at PTI centres,
borne by garages which are mostly SMEs; –
more frequent tests for a wider range of
vehicles, borne by vehicle owners; –
supervision of garages and setting up the data exchange
system, borne by public authorities. The benefits are mostly related to: –
increased road safety (nearly the totality of
benefits of each policy option and sub-option); –
reduced impact on the environment; –
additional employment; –
availability of better statistics for policy
making and better functioning of the internal market. The table below provides a summary of the
costs and benefits of each of the options. Table 2: Costs and benefits of the different options Policy option || Cost (€ million) || Monetized benefit (€ million) || Monetized benefit/cost ratio || Other benefits PO1 || 0.28, of which: 0.2: Communication campaigns 0.08: peer reviews || 184 (mostly related to road safety) || 656:1 || Increased average scope and level of PTI and RSI resulting from additional peer reviews and screenings and from the exploration of optimal levels of investment in PTI and roadside testing. PO2a || 459.5, of which: 125: increased testing frequency 150: more vehicle categories tested 95: more staff needed || 1,622 (mostly related to road safety) || 3.53:1 || - 1,450 additional jobs created; - increase in the rate of detected defects thanks to better training of inspectors and supervision of PTI centres; - more "heavy offenders" detected at RSI thanks to targeted roadside inspections; - better enforcement of PTI results by the authorities thanks to data exchange; - better policy making and more reliable second-hand car market thanks to data exchange. PO2b || 3,347, of which: 1,681: increased testing frequency 273: more vehicle categories tested 263: more staff needed || 5,623 (mostly related to road safety) || 1.68:1 || Benefits of PO 2a plus: - 12,000 additional jobs created - increased detection of defects at RSI due to increased scope (target numbers and all vehicle categories checked); - higher increase in the rate of detected defects thanks to better training of inspectors. PO2c || 9,227, of which: 8,541: increased testing frequency 281: more vehicle categories tested 273: more staff needed || 7,027 (mostly related to road safety) || 0.76:1 || Benefits of PO 2b plus: - 34,260 additional jobs created. PO3a || 460, of which: 125: increased testing frequency 150: more vehicle categories tested 95: more staff needed || 1,806 (mostly related to road safety) || 3.93:1 || Benefits of PO 1 plus benefits of PO 2a PO3b || 3,347, of which: 1,681: increased testing frequency 273: more vehicle categories tested 263: more staff needed || 5,807 (mostly related to road safety) || 1.73:1 || Benefits of PO 1 plus benefits of PO 2b PO3c || 9,227, of which: 8,541: increased testing frequency 281: more vehicle categories tested 273: more staff needed || 7,211 (mostly related to road safety) || 0.78:1 || Benefits of PO 1 plus benefits of PO 2c 6. Comparison of options Policy option 1 allows reaching the
"low hanging fruit", i.e. achieving a limited increase in road safety
and environment protection at a very low price. It is however far from
exploiting the full potential of the roadworthiness system in contributing to
increasing road safety, which is estimated in different studies at 900-1100
avoided fatalities per year. The tools contained in policy option 2a are far
more effective, since they allow avoiding 749 fatalities yearly. Policy option
2b – after taking into account the possible margin of error in the estimation
of impacts – probably allows unleashing the full potential of roadworthiness
systems in avoiding accidents, injuries and fatalities. Policy option 2c goes
beyond what can be considered as the "normal" potential with 1,441
avoided fatalities, which explains its prohibitive cost. In the light of the above considerations
and of the EU's overarching goals in terms of road safety, the following
conclusions can be made: ·
Policy option 1 is very cost-effective, but does
not sufficiently contribute to the EU goals on road safety and environment; ·
Policy option 2a is relatively cost effective
and allows considerable increases in road safety and environment protection,
but below what is commonly estimated as the "conventional" potential; ·
Policy option 2b allows exploiting the
"conventional" full potential of roadworthiness testing in increasing
road safety and environment protection, and still has a positive cost-benefit
ratio; ·
Policy option 2c allows achieving slightly
better results than PO 2b, but at a much higher cost (benefit to cost ratio below
1). ·
PO 3 in all its versions combines the advantage
of the cost-efficiency of PO1 with the effectiveness of PO 2. PO 3b is therefore seen as the preferred option. The calculations which are behind this choice
are relatively robust in termas shown by the results of the sensitivity
analysis. 7. Monitoring and evaluation Within five years after the entry into
force of all elements of the new legislation (including the set-up of
the data exchange system), the Commission will report to the Council and the
Parliament on the effectiveness of the measures in reaching the objectives. In
particular and in line with the operational objectives, the Commission will
commission a scientific study to estimate if the number and proportion of
accidents, injuries, fatalities and emissions attributed to technical defects
has decreased and to what extent. The Commission will use the results
extracted form the national risk rating system of road transport companies for
the monitoring of the compliance of commercial vehicles with the roadworthiness
requirements and its impact on the number and proportion of accidents related
to this category of vehicles. The Commission will use the potential
synergies stemming from the revision of the legislation on type approval for
motorcycles.[5]
This new regulation on type-approval for powered two and three wheelers
foresees requirements on anti-tampering measures. The enforcement of these
measures, as indicated in the accompanying IA report, will be subject to
roadworthiness testing (both PTI as well as RSI) and create together with the
elements related to market surveillance a further input for monitoring. Further synergies will be used for
monitoring and evaluation in correlation with the recently started preparation
for a legislative initiative on re-registration[6].
As one of the main problems at re-registration, the availability of data will
be solved via the Vehicle Administrative Platform, which will provide a deep
insight into the functionality of the intra EU information exchange and will allow
real time monitoring of the system.. The Commission will also use the existing
reporting system for roadside technical inspections, as required by Article 6
of Directive 2000/30/EC on roadside technical inspections, to monitor that
Member States perform the required number of inspections of commercial
vehicles. These reports will also allow to monitor the changes in the frequency
of occurrence of defects resulting from the enhanced PTI system. [1] The "type-approval" is defined in Directive
2007/46/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 5 September 2007
establishing a framework for the approval of motor vehicles and their trailers,
and of systems, components and separate technical units intended for such
vehicles [2] The last amendment was Directive 2010/48/EU. [3] Primes-Tremove, reference scenario. [4] The goal set for the next ten years in the Policy
Orientations on Road Safety is to reduce yearly fatalities by 50%. [5] Proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament
and of the Council on the approval and market surveillance of two- or
three-wheel vehicles and quadricycles COM(2010)542 final. [6] Registration of motor vehicles previously registered
in another Member State http://ec.europa.eu/enterprise/policies/single-market-goods/files/car_registration/roadmap_en.pdf.