This document is an excerpt from the EUR-Lex website
Document 52013SC0009
COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT EXECUTIVE SUMMARY OF THE IMPACT ASSESSMENT Accompanying the documents Proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council on the European Union Agency for Railways and repealing Regulation (EC) No 881/2004 Proposal for a Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council on the interoperability of the rail system within the European Union (Recast) Proposal for a Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council on railway safety (Recast)
COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT EXECUTIVE SUMMARY OF THE IMPACT ASSESSMENT Accompanying the documents Proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council on the European Union Agency for Railways and repealing Regulation (EC) No 881/2004 Proposal for a Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council on the interoperability of the rail system within the European Union (Recast) Proposal for a Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council on railway safety (Recast)
COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT EXECUTIVE SUMMARY OF THE IMPACT ASSESSMENT Accompanying the documents Proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council on the European Union Agency for Railways and repealing Regulation (EC) No 881/2004 Proposal for a Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council on the interoperability of the rail system within the European Union (Recast) Proposal for a Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council on railway safety (Recast)
/* SWD/2013/09 final */
COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT EXECUTIVE SUMMARY OF THE IMPACT ASSESSMENT Accompanying the documents Proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council on the European Union Agency for Railways and repealing Regulation (EC) No 881/2004 Proposal for a Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council on the interoperability of the rail system within the European Union (Recast) Proposal for a Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council on railway safety (Recast) /* SWD/2013/09 final */
COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT EXECUTIVE SUMMARY OF THE IMPACT ASSESSMENT Accompanying the documents Proposal for a Regulation of the
European Parliament and of the Council on the European Union Agency for
Railways and repealing Regulation (EC) No 881/2004
Proposal for a Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council on the
interoperability of the rail system within the European Union (Recast)
Proposal for a Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council on
railway safety (Recast) 1. Problem definition While in some Member States the national railway
authorities function in general efficiently, in others they are heavily
understaffed and/or the procedures which they manage are long and costly. At
the same time, the interoperability and safety requirements, which in principle
should have been aligned by common EU rules, still diverge significantly at the
national level, creating access barriers, especially for new entrants. This is
particularly acute for the freight as rail freight markets have been opened for
a number of years. The new entrants are relatively more vulnerable to
complexity and delays in procedures as their human and financial resources are
often limited. The existing costly and long procedures,
especially to obtain authorisation for a railway vehicle and safety certificate
for railway undertaking, are important factors hindering the development of the
EU railway market and its efficient functioning. Besides being complicated and
slow, these procedures do not guarantee sufficient level of mutual recognition
of certificates and authorisations. This negatively affects particularly new
companies wishing to enter into the market, thus contributing to a low level of
competition and lasting market distortions. Stakeholders also complained that national
railway authorities may use technical arguments and a legacy of diverging and
not always transparent national rules as access barriers for new
entrants. According to the results of the targeted consultation, new entrants
may inter alia face discrimination from National Safety Authorities (NSAs) when
applying for safety certificate or during vehicle authorisation processes. Stakeholders
reported more specifically that the processes leading to the delivery of safety
certificate and vehicle authorisation are not sufficiently harmonised and
transparent to prevent arbitrary and discriminative decisions by NSAs. Notwithstanding its important role in
creation of the European railway interoperability and safety legislation, it is
evident that currently ERA does not have major control and oversight powers
with regard to national railway authorities, infrastructure managers or market
players. Its monitoring responsibilities are practically limited to monitoring
of safety performance and of interoperability (through publication of regular
reports and collecting and publishing common safety indicators and facilitating
cooperation between the NSAs and NIBs). 2. Subsidiarity Articles 58, 90 and 100 of the Treaty
extend to railways the objectives of a genuine internal market in the context
of an EU Common Transport Policy. Actions by Member States alone cannot
ensure the coherence of EU railway market and address the divergent
interpretation of the legislation, as persistence of national rules and
sub-optimal functioning of national institutions, acting as barriers to the
internal market, is in fact at the centre of the problem. Action at EU level
aims to ensure consistent implementation of the EU rail acquis, which
should lead to the creation of the Single European Railway Area with no
unnecessary administrative and technical barriers. 3. Objectives General
objective: Eliminate existing administrative and
technical barriers thereby enhancing
the competitiveness of rail sector vis-à-vis other modes and developing further the Single European Rail
Area. Specific objectives: SO1: Facilitate entrance of new operators into market SO2: Reduce
administrative costs of railway undertakings Operational objectives: OO1: Increase the efficiency of the safety certification and
vehicle authorisation processes OO2: Ensure non-discrimination in the
granting and recognition of safety certificates and interoperability
authorisations across the EU OO3: Increase the
coherence of the national legal frameworks, notably related to the safety and
interoperability aspects of the internal market for railways The following
targets have been set to the operational objectives: ·
to achieve, by 2025, the removal of all
unnecessary national rules (cf. OO3) ·
to achieve, by 2025, a 20% reduction in the time
to market for new railway undertakings above the baseline situation in 2025 (cf.
OO1 and OO2) ·
to achieve, by 2025, a 20% reduction in the cost
and duration of the authorisation of rolling stock above the baseline situation
in 2025 (cf. OO1 and OO2) 4. Policy
options Based on the screening of individual
measures the Commission has identified five policy options (options 2-6),
besides the baseline scenario. By construction, options 2-5 concern primarily
the level of interaction between the European Railway Agency (ERA or the
Agency) and national authorities and are all capable of tackling the three operational
objectives set out in section 3. Option 6 is a set of horizontal measures which
are mostly independent of the interactions between ERA and national authorities
and can be applied on top of any of the option 2-5, with expected reinforcement
of the overall final impact. Option 1: Baseline scenario (do nothing) – continuing on the path that is currently set out for
the sector Option 2: Greater coordination role for
the Agency in ensuring a consistent approach to
certification of railway undertakings and vehicle authorisation Option 3: ERA as a one-stop-shop, where the final decision on certification and authorisation
remains with the NSAs but ERA performs entry and exit checks of applications
and of the decisions Option 4: ERA & NSAs share
competencies, where the final decision on
certification and authorisation is taken by the Agency Option 5: ERA takes over activities of
NSAs in relation to certification of railway
undertakings and vehicle authorisation Option 6: Horizontal measures, includes other legislative and soft measures (beyond sharing the
responsibilities between national authorities and ERA) that could be
implemented to improve the competitiveness of the rail sector. A table showing all the policy packages
together with individual policy measures is given below. Summary of
policy options Option 1 || Option 2: Further ERA “Coordination” over NSAs || Option 3: ERA as One-Stop-Shop || Option 4: ERA & NSAs share competencies || Option 5: ERA takes over activities of NSAs Baseline || Enhanced “coordination” and supervision role of ERA with respect to NSAs regarding granting of vehicle authorisations & safety certificates including ensuring their mutual recognition by national authorities. || ERA shares the competences with the NSAs regarding granting of safety certificates to the railway undertakings and vehicle authorisations ("one stop shop" concept): the decision is taken by NSA, ERA performs "entry and exit" checks of the application. || ERA shares the competences with the NSAs regarding granting of safety certificates & vehicle authorisations: a "one stop shop" concept with the NSAs (acting as regional offices of ERA) contributing but the final decision rests with ERA. || ERA takes over the competences of the NSAs regarding granting of certificates to the railway undertakings and vehicle authorisations. ERA as an appeal body for some decisions of NSAs Migration to a single (common) safety certificate and single vehicle authorisation (setting up European "passport" for vehicles): national authorities issue single safety certificates & single vehicle authorisations (mutually recognised by definition) || Migration to a single (common) safety certificate and single vehicle authorisation (setting up European "passport" for vehicles): ERA issues single safety certificates and single vehicle authorisations (Appeals to ERA decisions are sent to a separate appeal body) Control by ERA over the functioning of NSAs (e.g. developing guidelines & auditing adherence to them). Enhanced “coordination” and supervision role of ERA with respect to NoBos regarding: type approval; rail vehicles certification; ERTMS certification and accreditation of NoBos. Option 6: horizontal measures (independent of the level of interaction ERA/national authorities) || Strengthened action by the Commission outside infringement procedure, notably on non-discrimination in the railway market Amendment of the interoperability and safety directives to enable the adoption of implementing acts setting out common principles & practices for national authorities Enhanced role of ERA in monitoring and control of implementation of national safety and interoperability legislation Migrating from national technical & safety rules to a system of EU rules (requirement for national authorities to remove unnecessary rules and limiting their possibility of adopting new rules). Enhanced role of ERA in dissemination of railway-related information and training. Enhanced role of ERA in providing advice & support for Member States & other stakeholders in implementing legislation on safety & interoperability Communication from the Commission regarding guidelines on the interpretation of specific EU laws & decisions (including Technical Specification for Interoperability, TSIs) Enhanced role of ERA in identifying potential spare parts to be standardised and coordination of industry activities in this area For the sake of transparency, all options
were first assessed individually and, subsequently, in combination with option
6 which has amplificatory effect on other options. 5. Assessment of impacts Given the strong focus on operational
efficiency, the core impacts of this initiative are economic, while social and
environmental impacts are mostly indirect and sometimes negligible. Direct
impacts are quantified, while indirect impacts are assessed in qualitative
terms. Quantitative assessment of direct impacts
consists of: ·
calculation of savings in costs and timescales
of certification and authorisation processes (including savings of
administrative costs for operators); ·
calculation of opportunity cost savings for operators resulting from a reduced time to market
for railway vehicles and ·
calculation of the changes in the cost of
administration of ERA and national authorities. Option 6 was assessed separately and in
combination with options 2-5. Assessment
of direct impacts - total cost saving benefits for operators of combined
options Combining the authorisation, certification
and opportunity cost savings demonstrates substantial benefits over the
evaluation period with benefits of over €0.5 bn for options 3-5. Total
quantified benefits by option are presented in the table below, with option 2
being the least and option 5 – the most beneficial: Total
quantified benefits for rail undertakings 2015-2025 of options 2-5 in
combination with option 6 (discounted, € m NPV) Option || Authorisation cost savings || Certification cost savings || Opportunity cost savings (central case) || Total benefits || Option 2+6: Further ERA “Coordination” + horizontal measures || 201 || 2 || 237 || 440 || Option 3+6: ERA as One-Stop-Shop + horizontal measures || 217 || 2 || 255 || 474 || Option 4+6: ERA & NSAs share competencies + horizontal measures || 235 || 2 || 265 || 502 || Option 5+6: ERA takes over activities of NSAs regarding authorisation & certification + horizontal measures || 276 || 3 || 295 || 574 || Assessment
of direct impacts - total changes in administrative costs for Agency and NSAs The estimate
of the cost of administration for ERA arising from combined options is given in
the table below, with option 5 being by far the most costly: Additional cost of administration on the ERA of
options 2-5 in combination with option 6 (€m) || Yearly values by 2020 (when all staff changes have been phased in) || Total costs, NPV (2015-2025) Option || Total additional staff || Total additional staff cost || Overhead || Other costs || Total gross cost increase || % of current ERA budget Option 2+6: Further ERA “Coordination" + horizontal measures || 38 || (3.5) || (0.9) || (0.5) || (4.9) || 24% || (37) Option 3+6: ERA as One-Stop-Shop + horizontal measures || 42 || (3.9) || (1.0) || (0.5) || (5.4) || 27% || (39) Option 4+6: ERA & NSAs share competencies + horizontal measures || 55 || (5.0) || (1.3) || (0.3) || (6.6) || 33% || (44) Option 5+6: ERA takes over activities of NSAs regarding authorisation & certification + horizontal measures || 302 || (23.2) || (5.8) || (2.0) || (31) || 154% || (221) It should be noted that no additional costs
were identified as a result of the baseline activities. There is a clear
evolution of activities in the baseline, but it is not believed having a
significant impact on the administrative costs for the Agency. The related cost of administration on NSAs arising
from combined options are presented in the table below, with option 5 having
the highest potential impact on reducing the costs. Savings of the cost of administration in NSAs of
options 2-5 in combination with option 6 (€m) Option || Total NSA staff* (estimate 2011) || Yearly values by 2020 (when all staff changes have been phased in), per NSA || Total NPV in the EU (2015-2025) Total staff variation || Total staff costs saving || Overhead || Total gross cost saving Option 2+6: Further ERA “Coordination” + horizontal measures || 500 || -2 || EU12 || 0.08 || 0.02 || 0.1 || 37 EU15 || 0.17 || 0.04 || 0.2 Option 3+6: ERA as One-Stop-Shop + horizontal measures || -4 || EU12 || 0.09 || 0.02 || 0.1 || 55 EU15 || 0.35 || 0.09 || 0.4 Option 4+6: ERA & NSAs share competencies + horizontal measures || -5 || EU12 || 0.11 || 0.03 || 0.1 || 68 EU15 || 0.44 || 0.11 || 0.6 Option 5+6: ERA takes over activities of NSAs regarding authorisation & certification + horizontal measures || -11 || EU12 || 0.24 || 0.06 || 0.3 || 152 EU15 || 0.96 || 0.24 || 1.2 * Only those
working on certification & authorisation. An estimated value based on the
Interoperability and Safety Reports of the Agency. Assuming that EBA (German
NSA) staff in regional offices is not counted as certification and
authorisation staff, but is being an inspection and auditing staff The following table shows the total estimated
impacts on the cost of administration for ERA and NSAs respectively for each of
the policy options analysed. For all options, except for option 5, an overall
reduction in the cost of administration was estimated due to the fact that the
additional costs incurred by ERA can be compensated by the cost savings
registered by the NSAs. Change in Agency and NSA costs and the net impact on
cost of administration of options 2-5 in combination with option 6 (Total
costs, NPV, 2015-2025, € m) Option || Estimated cost increase for ERA || Estimated cost decrease for NSAs || Total saving in the cost of administration (ERA+NSAs) Option 2+6: Further ERA “Coordination" + horizontal measures || (37) || 37 || 0 Option 3+6: ERA as One-Stop-Shop + horizontal measures || (39) || 55 || 16 Option 4+6: ERA & NSAs share competencies + horizontal measures || (44) || 68 || 24 Option 5+6: ERA takes over activities of NSAs regarding authorisation & certification + horizontal measures || (221) || 152 || (69) The table above shows that option 4 is the
one that leads to highest cost savings (€24 m.), while the implementation of
option 5 is expected to impose an increase in administrative costs of about €69
m. Assessment of indirect impacts The indirect social impacts, as well as any
environmental impacts (GHG emissions, air quality and noise) are expected to be
low, and in reality it would be difficult to establish to what extent these
were originated by this initiative rather than other 4th Railway
Package initiatives and/or external factors such as changes in demand of other
transport modes.. Rail safety levels under each option remain the same given
that the principal responsibilities of each main actor in the safety chain will
not be changed, or improve as a result of more harmonised national legislation.
6. Comparison
of options Comparison
in terms of direct impacts The overall results of the assessment of
different impacts are summarised in the table below. Although option 6 could be
pursued as a self-standing option, the analysis has shown the strong benefits
of combining it with institutional options 2-5. Summary table of discounted cost savings for rail
undertakings and public authorities 2015-2025 of options 2-5 in combination
with option 6 (NPV, € m) Option || Savings to rail undertakings (including in administrative costs) || Change in cost of administration || ERA/NSA authorisation fee revenue loss[1] || Total net benefit || Additional funds necessary from EU budget to cover ERA costs Authorisation || Safety certification || Opportunity costs (central case) || Total benefits for operators || For ERA || For NSAs || Total change in cost of administration Option 2+6: Further ERA “Coordination”+ horizontal measures || 201 || 2 || 237 || 440 || (37) || 37 || 0 || (29) || 411 || (37) Option 3+6: ERA as One-Stop-Shop+ horizontal measures || 217 || 2 || 255 || 474 || (39) || 55 || 16 || (29) || 461 || (39) Option 4+6: ERA & NSAs share competencies+ horizontal measures || 235 || 2 || 265 || 502 || (44) || 68 || 24 || (29) || 497 || a: 0[2] b: (6) c: (25) Option 5+6: ERA takes over activities of NSAs regarding authorisation & certification+ horizontal measures || 276 || 3 || 295 || 574 || (221) || 152 || (69) || (29) || 476 || (146) Taking into account the direct impacts,
option 4 is the most beneficial, i.e. it has the best ratio of costs and
benefits. Moreover, it can be also cost-neutral to the EU budget (a minimal
cost under scenario (a) and neutral under scenario (b)), given the proposed
coverage of additional costs of ERA by industry fees. Comparison in terms of efficiency and effectiveness Effectiveness and efficiency different
options is summarised in the table below. Efficiency and effectiveness of the options Option || Efficiency (Total Net Benefit € m) || Effectiveness (number of operational objectives met) Option 2+6: Further ERA “Coordination” + horizontal measures || 411 || 1 Option 3+6: ERA as One-Stop-Shop + horizontal measures || 461 || 2 Option 4+6: ERA & NSAs share competencies + horizontal measures || 497 || 3 Option 5+6: ERA takes over activities of NSAs regarding authorisation & certification + horizontal measures || 476 || 3 This table shows that by combining the net
benefits with effectiveness in terms of operational objectives, option 4
remains the favoured option – all objectives will be achieved with a highest
net benefit. While the benefits of option 3 are relatively close to that of
option 4, this option would compare unfavourably in terms of effectiveness as
the target for reduction in authorisation costs will not be achieved. Conclusion Option 4 would be a coherent, effective and
efficient solution to the problems identified, as it provides the best balance
of outcomes in relation to: ·
the industry, in terms of reduced costs and
timescales for safety certification and vehicle and other sub-system
authorisation; ·
cost implications for the EU budget; ·
the cost impacts on national institutions; ·
respect of the subsidiarity and proportionality
principles; ·
addressing the problems identified in section 1;
and ·
meeting the objectives outlined in section 3. 7. Monitoring and evaluation Regarding evaluation, it is planned, that
in 2025 the Commission will evaluate whether the objectives of the initiative
were achieved, and if not consider additional steps to be taken in order to
complete them by 2030. Progress in terms of reaching the
objectives could be monitored by relevant monitoring indicators. For this
purpose, the existing targets for operational objectives could be used and
transformed in the following indicators: ·
number of national rules, ·
cost and duration of safety certification procedure,
and ·
cost and duration of vehicle authorisation
procedure. The indicators could be verified by the
tools like interviews (survey) with a selection of stakeholders on their own
assessment of time and costs related to certification and vehicle authorisation
and number of notified and published national rules measured in the appropriate
database. Additionally, it might be also useful to
monitor the position of stakeholders – through a consultation process – with
respect to: ·
Non-discrimination; ·
An increase the coherence of the national legal
framework. [1] Over time there will be a gradual reduction in the
total number of vehicle type authorisations, which will lead to a reduction in
total fees across the EU of about €29 m. [2] This cell illustrates the extent to which future
revenues collected by the Agency for its part of issuing of safety certificates
and vehicle authorisations can cover the additional costs of the Agency, with
three scenarios of sharing the revenues between ERA and the NSAs – (a): 25%
NSAs, 75% ERA; (b): 50% NSAs, 50% ERA; (c): 75% NSAs, 25% ERA.