12.9.2014   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 311/55

1.1

The EESC has always supported any measures that, also in the light of technological developments, contribute to reducing pollutant emissions and, more generally, to improving air quality.

1.2

The proposal under consideration nevertheless raises a number of concerns with respect to the method and timeframes for achieving these reductions, as explained further on in the opinion.

1.3

In particular, the EESC notes the lack, or sometimes total absence, of an adequate impact assessment on some of the measures envisaged. These shortcomings and omissions are in stark contradiction with the principle of ‘smart regulation’ so often reiterated in the context of these and other issues of considerable social, economic and environmental importance.

1.4

Similar concerns are raised by the overuse of delegated acts for matters that, given their importance, cannot possibly be perceived as ‘non-essential elements’ of a regulation and, therefore, as falling into the category of delegated acts.

1.5

The EESC therefore recommends:

1.6

As suggested above, the EESC believes that this would enable the co-legislators to carry out a more informed, comprehensive and transparent assessment of the proposal, which would at least alleviate, if not obviate, the abovementioned concerns.

2.1

The purpose of this proposal is to introduce a number of amendments to two regulations in force:

2.2

Through this proposal, the Commission seeks to reduce pollutant emissions, and to introduce a number of provisions to simplify the legislation in force.

2.3

2.3.1

Methane will be added to the current evaluation of CO2 emissions, which will now constitute new information, expressed as the total mass of CO2 equivalents. This measure would also enable a review of the total hydrocarbons (THC) emission limits which currently include methane (CH4) emissions and non-methane hydrocarbons (NMHC), thus deregulating the specific evaluation of methane emissions. This should facilitate the market entry of natural gas vehicles, for which compliance with THC limits would otherwise be difficult.

2.3.2

The limits for tailpipe emissions at cold temperatures (Euro 6) will be revised.

2.3.3

A separate limit value for emissions of NO2 (nitrogen dioxide), hitherto included as a share of total nitrogen oxide emissions (NOx), will be established.

2.3.4

The method for measuring particulate matter will be reviewed and will also introduce a new cap on the number of particles it is composed of.

2.3.5

The provisions on access to vehicle repair and maintenance information will be revised, with special attention to the specific needs of SMEs.

2.4

2.4.1

The maximum mass limit will be redefined in order to extend the application of legislation concerning LD vehicle emissions (Regulation (EC) No 715/2007) to vehicles which, due to their equipment variants, could be covered by both LD and HD vehicle legislation, to avoid the need for double emissions certification for the same vehicle. This would enable these vehicles to reach a Gross Vehicle Mass (GVM) of 5  000kg without lowering the level of environmental protection.

2.4.2

The emission limit set for ammonia (NH3) currently applies to all HD vehicles. In fact, the risk of ammonia slip (ammonia used in emission control systems) concerns diesel vehicles which use these particular systems. Engines that run on petrol or natural gas do not present this risk and the Commission intends to remove this limit for the undoubtedly more ecological CNG-fuelled buses and HD vehicles (i.e. powered by compressed natural gas), which would otherwise be subject to significant and unnecessary additional costs.

2.5

In order to achieve this, the Commission has requested the power to adopt delegated acts for an indeterminate period of time from the date of the regulation's entry into force.

3.1

The EESC cannot but express its doubts regarding this proposal's form and the arrangements and timeframe for its implementation.

3.2

First of all, the very structure of the regulation, which merges the various legislative amendments for LD and HD vehicles into a single act, does not reflect the tenets of ‘smart and transparent regulation’, which was one of the key commitments set out in CARS 21 (2) and reiterated in CARS 2020, for which work is still in progress (3).

3.3

There are many cases where the impact assessment accompanying the proposal would appear to be lacking or altogether absent from the proposed measures, which will however have a significant impact on the price of vehicles.

3.4

Once again, the Commission has requested the power to adopt delegated acts (about ten) in accordance with Article 290 of the TFEU and, in so doing, reduces the practical content of the legislative act, i.e. the regulation.

3.4.1

It should be added that some of the issues in the proposal for which the use of delegated acts is envisaged concern vehicle emissions and their limits. These issues have always been decided by the co-legislator precisely because of their importance and it is difficult to see how they can be considered as ‘non-essential elements’ of a regulation and, therefore, as falling into the category of delegated acts.

3.4.2

The EESC has often pointed out in its opinions that delegated acts are used far too frequently and summed up the problems this created in a recent report (4) which drew attention to the Commission's increasing leeway in this area, questioning the transparency of the system, the correct use of the procedure and the effectiveness of the control mechanisms.

4.1

The EESC has serious doubts about including methane (CH4) as a CO2 equivalent (see point 2.3.1) since this would involve reviewing the current rules on CO2 (Regulation (EC) No 443/2009 and Regulation (EU) No 510/2011). The objectives indicated in these regulations were set without taking into account CO2 equivalents, the possible introduction of which would require an accurate impact assessment to ensure a proper review of these regulations. The inclusion of CO2 equivalents would also have consequences for consumers, both in terms of taxation in Member States where this is based on CO2 emissions and the risk of confusing users who are accustomed to the current CO2 labelling system. This would all be done to achieve marginal variations in the values currently measured as CO2 equivalents (an increase of less than 1 g/km) and would introduce significant complications to monitoring.

4.2

With regard to tailpipe emissions at cold temperatures (point 2.3.2), the EESC recommends that the review of the limits should be preceded by a detailed impact assessment for carbon monoxide (CO) and hydrocarbons (HC), and not just for nitrogen oxides (NOx) and nitrogen dioxide (NO2).

4.3

Even in the case of nitrogen dioxide (point 2.3.3), which is a very significant pollutant, particularly in urban areas, the decision to set a specific limit through delegated acts should be supported by a detailed impact assessment.

4.4

With regard to revising the measurement of particulates (point 2.3.4), the EESC notes that when a particle number limit value was introduced (Commission Regulation (EC) No 692/2008), the particulate mass limit was reduced from 5,0 mg/km to 4,5 mg/km, specifically in order to ensure that it was consistent with the number of particles. The proposal therefore seems to be unjustified and in contradiction with a recent statement by the UNECE working party (5) (in which the Commission participates) to the effect that procedures relating to particulates do not need to be reviewed.

4.5

With regard to access to information (point 2.3.5), the EESC points out that according to Article 9 of Regulation (EC) 715/2007, the Commission should have drawn up a report on this issue by 2 July 2011; this report has yet to be submitted. It goes without saying that no decision can be taken on this issue until the Council and the European Parliament have studied this report.

4.6

The EESC welcomes the intention to provide flexibility in terms of emission limits for certain LD vehicles which, once completed, run the risk of falling into the HD category and requiring double type approval (point 2.4.1). The introduction of a GVM of 5000kg seems consistent with the current limit of 2840kg as a reference mass. As a result, there does not seem to be any need to use delegated acts to update the test procedure. Instead, the EESC believes that this long-discussed proposal should come into force with immediate effect, possibly as an interim measure, without resorting to the delegated act procedure. This is because it would only be a short-term measure pending the new WLTP (World Light Duty Test Procedure) due to be adopted by UNECE in Geneva, which will review all test procedures for LD vehicles and will come into force as of 2017.

4.7

Finally, with regard to the proposal to exclude gas-fuelled vehicles from the measurement of ammonia (point 2.4.2), the EESC supports the Commission since it is a matter of correcting a measure that discriminates against vehicles powered by compressed natural gas (CNG). This issue had already been raised during discussions about Regulation (EC) 595/2009 but was then inexplicably left out of the final version of the regulation itself.