COMMUNICATION FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT pursuant to the second subparagraph of Article 251 (2) of the EC Treaty concerning the Common Position of the Council on the adoption of a Directive of the European Parliament and Council amending Directives 70/156/EEC and 80/1268/EEC as regards the measurement of carbon dioxide and fuel consumption of N1 vehicles

1. BACKGROUND

Date of transmission of the proposal to the European Parliament and the Council: COM(2001)543 final - 2001/0255(COD) // 24 October 2001

Date of adoption the opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee: // 20 March 2002

Date of the opinion of the European Parliament in first reading: // 24 September 2002

Date of transmission of the modified proposal: // N/A

Date of adoption of the common position: // 9 October 2003

2. OBJECTIVE OF THE COMMISSION PROPOSAL

The objective of the proposal is to extend the requirements of Directive 80/1268/EEC [1] (as last amended by Directive 1999/100/EC [2]) regarding the measurement of CO2 emissions and fuel consumption, to category N1 vehicles (light commercial vehicles up to 3,5 tonnes gross vehicle weight). This Directive presently only applies to category M1 vehicles (passenger cars). Directive 80/1268/EEC only provides for the measurement of CO2 and fuel consumption as part of the requirements for type-approval - there are no specific limit values for CO2. The proposal also makes a small editorial amendment to Directive 70/156/EEC [3], dealing with EU type-approval of motor vehicles.

[1] OJ L 375, 31.12.1980, p.36.

[2] OJ L 334, 28.12.1999, p.36.

[3] OJ L 42, 23.2.1970, p.1.

3. COMMENTS ON THE COMMON POSITION

3.1. Brief comments:

The European Parliament adopted three amendments (restricted only to Directive 80/1268/EEC) which all aim to provide additional relief against the burden of type-approval for vehicle manufacturers (specifically small and medium enterprises), in addition to the relief that was already provided for in the Commission's proposal. The Council common position, which was achieved by a qualified majority, takes the following position on these amendments and has also introduced some additional amendments to the Commission proposal:

3.2. The amendments of the European Parliament:

European Parliament Amendment 1:

The Commission's proposal exempts a category N1 vehicle from testing for fuel consumption/CO2 if it is equipped with an engine that has been type-approved for pollutant emissions according to Directive 88/77/EEC [4] and is produced by a manufacturer having a world-wide production of category N1 vehicles of less than 2,000 units per annum. This aims at providing relief for small and medium enterprise involved in this kind of vehicle production against facing a financial burden for CO2/fuel consumption testing.

[4] OJ L 36, 9.2.1988, p.33.

Amendment one of the European Parliament further reduces the potential testing burden by allowing 'bodywork builders' who buy a chassis equipped with engines from a car or truck manufacturer to use the CO2/fuel consumption test data supplied by the chassis/engine manufacturer if the finished vehicle remains within certain criteria defined for a family of vehicles (defined by amendment 3).

Commission position on European Parliament amendment 1:

The Commission accepted in principle amendment 1.

Council position on European Parliament amendment 1:

The Council has not adopted amendment one directly but has requested the Commission, within 2 years of the entry into force of the Directive, to come forward with the results of an evaluation and, if appropriate, a proposal that will address further the issue of 'bodywork builders' or multi-stage vehicles.

European Parliament Amendment 2:

The objective of the Commission's proposal is to exempt those smaller manufacturers of category N1 vehicles (i.e. light commercial vehicles) for which compliance with Directive 80/1268/EEC would be a financial burden. The Commission proposal therefore exempts category N1 vehicles from the requirements to measure CO2/fuel consumption if the following two conditions are both met - (a) the engine fitted to the vehicle had been type-approved for pollutant emissions as a heavy-duty engine to Directive 88/77/EEC and (b) the total annual world-wide production of category N1 vehicles by that manufacturer is less than 2,000 units.

Instead of requiring that both criteria (a) and criteria (b) should be met, amendment two of the European Parliament makes either criteria (a) or criteria (b) applicable for exemption. Therefore, this amendment would allow all category N1 vehicles fitted with an engine that has been type-approved to Directive 88/77/EEC to be exempt as well as all category N1 vehicles by a manufacturer having a total world-wide production of less than 2,000 units per year.

Amendment two of the European Parliament would allow the majority of category N1 vehicles to be exempt from CO2/fuel consumption testing, irrespective of whether they were made by small or large manufacturers and would effectively negate the main objective of the proposal to provide accurate CO2/fuel consumption data to consumers.

Commission position on European Parliament amendment 2:

The Commission rejected amendment 2.

Council position on European Parliament amendment 2:

The Council did not adopt amendment 2 for similar reasons to those outlined above.

European Parliament Amendment 3:

Amendment three of the European Parliament adds several criteria (specifically for category N1 vehicles) to the list of characteristics for determining if category N1 vehicles can be grouped together into one family for the purposes of measuring CO2/fuel consumption (to reduce the testing burden), and sets the condition for which a type-approval can be extended from one category N1 vehicle type to another category N1 vehicle type. The amendment contains two elements:

The first element modifies a requirement which is already part of Directive 80/1268/EEC, and allows for a type-approval already granted to a vehicle type to be extended to another vehicle type if the measured CO2 does not exceed by more than 6% the CO2 of the initial vehicle as given on the type-approval. It also allows for the extension of a type-approval to vehicles within the same defined family. This amendment aims at reducing the total number of tests (irrespective of the size of the manufacturer that has to bear the costs) for both type-approval and, importantly conformity of production (the obligation of the manufacturer to show that vehicle production continues to comply with the type-approval). Presently, Directive 80/1268/EEC applies only to category M1 vehicles (passenger cars) and allows extension of the type-approval to vehicles that do not exceed by more than 4% the CO2 of the initial vehicle as given on the type-approval.

The second element, a 'family concept' is new, allowing a grouping of vehicles having similar characteristics (e.g. transmission ratio, reference mass and vehicle frontal area) to be covered by the same type-approval.

Commission position on European Parliament amendment 3:

The Commission's proposal does not contain any type of 'family concept' for category N1 vehicles. There are several vehicle characteristics proposed for the grouping of a family and each characteristic will have an effect on fuel consumption and CO2. All characteristics can be modified at the same time so, in the worst cases, the increase in CO2 could easily exceed the 6% increase in CO2 mentioned above for extension of a type-approval from one vehicle type vehicle to another.

The family concept has been proposed in conjunction with amendment 1, with which the Commission agrees in principle. However, the Commission believes that there is no need for the introduction of a family concept since the possibility to extend the type-approval from one vehicle type to another having a CO2 emission no more than 6% above the initial vehicle type provides a high degree of flexibility for manufacturers with respect to the tests to be performed in conformance with the Directive.

The Commission accepted in principle the first element of amendment 3 (extension of type-approval within a 6% increase in CO2) since that is a reasonable exception to make for light commercial vehicles with their wider range of reference masses compared to passenger cars. However, the Commission rejected the second element of amendment 3 (family concept).

Council position on European Parliament amendment 3:

The Council common position takes on board both elements of European Parliament amendment 3 but with certain differences:

- extension of the type-approval from one vehicle type to another having a CO2 emission no more than 6% above the initial vehicle type, where the vehicle characteristics are essentially the same as in amendment 3;

- a vehicle family is defined according to a more detailed number of characteristics than amendment 3 and the vehicle within the family having the highest CO2 emission is the basis for the type-approval of the complete family. Extension of approval to vehicles within the same family is possible if the fuel consumption of the new vehicle does not exceed the fuel consumption of the vehicle on which the family fuel consumption and type-approval is based;

- a vehicle family is defined according to a more detailed number of characteristics than amendment 3 and the vehicles with the lowest and highest CO2 emissions are the basis for the type-approval of the family. If these values are within 4% of one another (see section 6.5. of Annex I to Directive 93/116/EEC [5]), the CO2 emission declared by the manufacturer for all members of the family is the basis for the type-approval. If these values are not within 4% of one another (see section 6.5. of Annex I to Directive 93/116/EEC), then further vehicle tests are carried out and a decision on the type-approval values is reached on the basis of section 6.5 of Annex I to Directive 93/116/EEC.

[5] OJ L 329, 30.12.1993, p.39.

In this respect, the Council common position offers some flexibility to manufacturers in how they wish to define vehicle families but puts more constraints on the family definition and on extensions of type-approval within the family than amendment 3 of the European Parliament. This, at least, does offer the potential for more accurate information to the consumer on the fuel consumption of category N1 vehicles than could have been the case with the amendments of the European Parliament.

However, similar to the Commission comments regarding the European Parliament amendment, the Commission is aware of the basis for the Council to include not only the 6% extension rule but also a family concept. However, the Commission feels that this will only add to uncertainty regarding the effectiveness of this Directive, particularly when it is used to support any future measure that could be adopted in the future with respect to CO2 emission from light commercial vehicles.

3.3. Commission position on major new elements introduced by the Council:

Article 3:

The Council did not conclude on the application of this Directive to multi-stage vehicles and the heavier category N1 vehicles that may be equipped with an engine that has been type-approved for pollutant emissions to Directive 88/77/EEC. It requests the Commission to evaluate the possibility of applying the Directive in a representative manner to these vehicles within two years of the date of entry into force of the Directive, accompanied, if appropriate, by a proposal. However, through Article 5(4), the application of the Directive to multi-stage vehicles is postponed by 12 months.

Also within two years of the date of entry into force of the Directive, the Council also requests the Commission to evaluate the practical operation of the family concept contained within the Directive.

The Commission states that according to its right of initiative in conformity with the Treaty, it can appreciate the timing and content of any proposal to be submitted. In addition, the Council common position places the burden of this exercise on the Commission while an evaluation of the practical operation of this Directive will depend heavily on the information that the Commission receives from the Member States regarding the operation of this Directive for the purposes of type-approval. This is not mentioned in Article 3.

The Commission is also concerned that Council feels it necessary to grant multi-stage vehicles (which are essentially SME's) a one year derogation when such vehicles should be covered by the 2,000 vehicle exemption that the Commission proposed (and which remains in the common position in the amended section 1 of Annex I (scope) of the Directive) or covered by the 6% extension.

Article 5:

The Commission proposed that this Directive would apply for the type approval of all new types of category N1 vehicles from 1 January 2003. It would then apply from 1 January 2006 to all types of category N1 class I vehicles and from 1 January 2007 to all types of category N1 class II and III vehicles. These dates are in line with the dates for the introduction of more stringent exhaust emission standards for new vehicle types (Directive 70/220/EEC, as amended by Directive 98/69/EC).

Council has pushed-back the application of this Directive for new type approvals and for all types of class II and III vehicles by one year and, by virtue of Article 5(4), has also postponed by a further 12 months the application of the Directive to multi-stage vehicles (in correspondence with the review detailed in Article 3).

The Commission reiterates the point that delays in the application of this Directive is likely to mean that any future CO2 measure (if adopted) targeted at light commercial vehicles, be it legislation or voluntary commitment, could be delayed as well.

4. CONCLUSIONS

The Council common position takes either direct or indirect account of all three amendments tabled by the European Parliament.

In addition, in Article 3, Council has deferred a decision regarding multi-stage vehicles until the Commission evaluates the practical operation of this Directive with respect to the family concept and also assesses the possibility of applying the Directive in a representative manner to multi-stage vehicles and those vehicles that are equipped with an engine that has been type-approval for pollutant emissions according to Directive 88/77/EEC. The Commission is concerned that Council found it necessary to increase the complexity of the Directive by introducing the family concept in addition to the 6% criteria for extension of type-approval.

Aside from the fact that the Commission, according to its right of initiative in conformity with the Treaty, can appreciate the timing and content of any proposal to be submitted, the evaluation of the practical operation of this Directive according to Article 3 will depend heavily on the information that the Commission receives from the Member States. The Commission is concerned that the obligation of the Member States to provide the information to the Commission is not mentioned in Article 3.

The Commission has expressed its views regarding the delays in the implementation of this Directive. However, in order to lay down the legislation in order for any further steps to be considered, the Commission, in general, accepts the common position. It therefore invites the two institutions to reach an agreement on the amendments to Directives 80/1268/EEC and 70/156/EEC as soon as possible.