EUROPEAN COMMISSION Brussels, 31.5.2017 SWD(2017) 190 final COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT



IMPACT ASSESSMENT

Accompanying the document Proposal for a Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council on the interoperability of electronic road toll systems and facilitating cross-border exchange of information on the failure to pay road fees in the Union (recast) {COM(2017) 280 final}

{SWD(2017) 191 final}

{SWD(2017) 192 final}

{SWD(2017) 193 final}



Table of Contents 1.Introduction 1.1.Short description of the EETS legislative framework 1.2.What is the European Electronic Toll Service (EETS)? 1.3.Evaluation of the existing legal framework 1.4.Contribution to the reduction of the regulatory burden on companies 2.What is the problem and why is it a problem? 2.1.Introduction to the description of the problem 2.2.Description of the problems 2.2.1.Problem 1: Barriers to entry and lack of truly competitive market for electronic toll collection services 2.2.2.Problem 2: Foreign-registered vehicles can escape tolls 2.2.3.Problem 3: Burdensome obligations on EETS providers 2.3.How are different stakeholders affected, what is the scale of the problems and how will they evolve in the future 2.3.1.Road users 2.3.2.Toll chargers 2.3.3.EETS providers 2.4.How would the problems develop, all things being equal 3.Why should the EU act?

4.What should be achieved? 4.1.General objective 4.2.Specific objectives 5.What are the various options to achieve the objective? 5.1.Preliminary screening of potential main policy measures to achieve the identified objectives 5.1.1.Measures aiming at reducing the cost and burden for EETS providers to enter new toll domains and to provide services therein (first part of specific objective 1) 5.1.2.Measures to ensure a competitive functioning of the market (second part of specific objective 1) 5.1.3.Measures to facilitate the cross-border enforcement of tolls (second specific objective) 5.1.4.Options to soften the current requirement for EETS providers to cover with their services all EETS domains within 24 months from their registration (first aspect of specific objective 3) 5.1.5.Specific rules on light duty vehicles (second aspect of specific objective 3) 5.2.Succinct assessment of other proposed policy measures 5.3.Complete list of policy measures retained for further analysis 5.4.Policy options retained for analysis 5.4.1.Policy option 0: Baseline 5.4.2.Policy option 1: Self-regulation to achieve specific objective 1 + legislative measures to achieve specific objective 2 and 3. 5.4.3.Policy option 2: Legislative approach 5.4.4.Policy option 3: A single EU ETC standard to facilitate technical and procedural interoperability + legislative measures to promote competition on the market and to achieve specific objective 2 and 3. 6.What are the impacts of the different policy options and who will be affected? 6.1.Economic impacts 6.1.1.Impacts on operating costs for road users

6.1.2.Impacts on operating costs and conduct of business for toll chargers 6.1.3.Impacts on operating costs and conduct of business for EETS providers 6.1.4.Impacts on conduct of business for OBU manufacturers 6.1.5.Innovation impacts 6.1.6.Competitiveness impacts 6.1.7.SME impacts 6.1.8.Impacts on the peripheral Member States and regions 6.1.9.Impacts on third countries 6.1.10.Summary of the economic impacts 6.1.11.Impacts on regulatory burden reduction (contribution to the Regulatory Fitness and Performance programme) 6.2.Social and environmental impacts 6.2.1.Impacts on jobs 6.2.2.Fundamental rights impacts 6.2.3.Impacts on the protection of personal data and right to privacy 6.2.4.Environmental impacts 7.How do the options compare? 7.1.Effectiveness 7.1.1.Effectiveness in achieving the general objective 7.1.2.Effectiveness in achieving the specific objectives 7.1.3.Effectiveness in achieving the objective to reduce regulatory burden for companies (REFIT objective)

7.2.Efficiency 7.2.1.Cost-benefit analysis 7.2.2.Comparison of other impacts 7.3.Coherence 7.4.Proportionality 7.5.Preferred policy option 8.How would actual impacts be monitored and evaluated? SO1: Remove market entry barriers and foster the development of a competitive market for electronic toll collection services SO2: Improve the level of enforcement of tolls from foreign-registered vehicles 9.Annexes 9.1.Annex 1: Procedural information concerning the process to prepare the impact assessment report and the related initiative 9.1.1.References 9.1.2.Organisation and timing 9.2.Annex 2: Stakeholder consultation 9.3.Annex 3: Who is affected by the initiative and how 9.4.Annex 4: Analytical models used in preparing the Impact Assessment 9.4.1.Introduction 9.4.2.Modelling – assessment for HGVs 9.4.3.Modelling – assessment for buses 9.4.4.Modelling – assessment for cars

9.4.5.Key assumptions used for the modelling of the baseline and of the impacts of the different policy options 9.4.6.Reliability and appropriateness of the model 9.5.Annex 5: Glossary 9.6.Annex 6: List of provisions relative to the obligations of EETS providers active on the market for light vehicles vs. those active on the market for heavy vehicles 9.7.Annex 7: Flow of costs (€ million/year) to users for using road toll infrastructure 9.7.1.HGVs 9.7.2.Buses 9.7.3.Light duty vehicles 9.8.Annex 8: Evaluation of investment costs for toll chargers in Policy option 3 9.9.Annex 9: Composition of certification costs for EETS providers 9.10.Annex 10: The road initiatives – the 'big picture' 9.10.1.Introduction 9.10.2.The EU road transport market 9.10.3.Why is there a need for action? 9.10.4.What are the main problems? 9.10.5.Options and main impacts 9.10.6.Expected synergies of the package 9.11.Annex 11: Impacts on SMEs 9.11.1.Consultation that captures the SME angle 9.11.2.Identification of affected businesses

9.11.3.Measurement of the impact on SMEs 9.11.4.Assessment of alternative options and mitigating measures 9.12.Annex 12: Electronic toll collection market in the EU 1.Introduction The Impact Assessment report uses many technical terms and abbreviations. All of them are explained in Annex 5. 1.1.Short description of the EETS legislative framework This Impact Assessment accompanies two proposals of the European Commission modifying Directive 2004/52/EC and Commission Decision 2009/750/EC. The latter form together the existing legislative framework for electronic toll collection (ETC) in the EU and provide for making all European ETC schemes interoperable through a European Electronic Toll Service (EETS). It is important for the understanding of the rest of this Impact Assessment that the content of the current EETS legislation is briefly explained. Directive 2004/52/EC called for the setup of a European Electronic Toll Service (EETS), by which road users only subscribe to a single contract and use a single on-board unit (OBU) to pay electronic tolls all over the EU. To ensure that different tolling systems are technologically compatible and therefore ready to connect to this single tolling service, the Directive specified that all new electronic toll systems brought into service after 1 January 2007 which require the installation of on-board equipment shall use one or more of the following three technologies: satellite positioning (GNSS) which is recommended in the Directive; and/or mobile communications (GSM-GPRS) and/or microwave technology (DSRC). Decision 2009/750/EC defined the EETS and provided for it to be offered by market players (EETS providers) on commercial terms. It outlined the "actors" of the EETS in four categories: Member States, toll chargers (TC), i.e. those who impose the electronic toll upon the road users; clients, i.e. road users; and EETS providers, i.e. intermediaries between the clients and the toll chargers. The Decision stated that the EETS providers should negotiate with all toll chargers in the EU the authorisation to provide the EETS on their road networks and offer the EETS to their clients. The Decision specified the rights and obligation of all actors in more detail. Member States were to put in place the necessary regulatory framework to make the provision of EETS possible: in particular, they were to establish independent 'conciliation bodies' to supervise both the correct application of the rights and obligations of all partners. Toll chargers were to accept on a non-discriminatory basis all interested EETS providers and their certified equipment; they were to have the right to request full co-operation of the EETS providers to guarantee the correct functioning of the service and eventually the correct collection of the toll. EETS providers were to provide their services in all electronic toll domains in the EU within 24 months of their official registration by their Member State of establishment and to guarantee the quality and continuity of the EETS, in full co-operation with the toll chargers. Finally, EETS users were to ensure the correctness of all the data provided in the framework of the EETS and to comply with the obligation to pay the toll; they were to have the right to sign contracts with the EETS provider of their choice and to pay all their tolls through this channel. 1.2.What is the European Electronic Toll Service (EETS)? Figure 1 presents the relationships between the parties to an electronic toll collection system. Electronic tolls can be collected in two alternative ways: either the toll charger enters into a direct relationship (green arrows in Figure 1 ) with the road user, or a third-party "EETS provider" acts as intermediary between the two (red arrows). There are more than 140 different toll chargers in the EU, which means potential complexity for the road user. Hence the attraction to the users of EETS providers as intermediaries: instead of dealing with up to 140 different entities to pay tolls for the different stretches of road used, the user only needs to interact with one entity: the EETS provider. There can be many EETS providers on the market, who must all offer access to all toll domains in the EU; road users can choose the EETS provider who offers the service best suited to their needs. Using the services of an EETS provider can also be attractive for the toll charger. The latter's main activity and expertise is in the construction, maintenance and/or management of roads, so the need to service up to hundreds of thousands of toll payers from different countries comes at high cost and effort, and in any case distracts toll chargers from their core business. EETS providers can perform these activities for the toll charger as specialised providers of these services based on their expertise in the field and international presence. 1.3.Evaluation of the existing legal framework

An ex post evaluation of the existing legal framework in the field of EETS was performed in 2015-2016 and updated with the most recent information in the beginning of 2017. The assessment covered Directive 2004/52/EC (EETS Directive) and Decision 2009/750/EC (EETS Decision). The ex post evaluation assessed the level and accuracy of implementation of the legal framework, the relevance of the objectives and the effectiveness and efficiency of the individual provisions in achieving the stated objectives. The ex post evaluation was based on a deep review of publicly available written sources and – like the impact assessment itself – on a thorough and inclusive consultation of stakeholders. The evaluation points out that the legislation failed to deliver on most of the objectives: costs of electronic tolling have hardly decreased for toll chargers and for road users, an EETS has not been set up (and interoperability hardly progressed) and OBUs have not – with few exceptions – been integrated with other devices. It also indicates that cross-border interoperability is expensive and difficult to achieve because of the significant differences in how the three technologies allowed by the EETS legislation were applied in the individual national tolling schemes. Besides, the lack of efficient provisions in the EETS legislation to ensure the enforcement of tolls from vehicles registered in another Member State is another obstacle to cross-border interoperability. Furthermore, the evaluation suggests that the current legislation is only partially relevant in terms of its scope, as the mandatory coverage by all EETS providers of all types of vehicles and all toll domains in Europe is found to be an excessive requirement in practice. The results of the ex post evaluation are well reflected in this impact assessment – in particular in section 2 dedicated to the problem definition. Table 1 indicates how the conclusions of the ex post evaluation are reflected in the text of the report. Main ex post evaluation conclusions Impact Assessment Conclusions on effectiveness "Interoperability on a wider scale has been blocked by the lack of commitment and – in the worst case scenario – resistance of some Member States to open their markets" The Impact Assessment recognises that the problems mainly lie with market deficiencies and national market entry barriers. These problems are described in details in section 2.2.1 ("Problem 1: Barriers to entry and lack of truly competitive market for electronic toll collection services") "The Decision fails to mandate a sufficiently detailed standardisation framework to support the needed harmonisation of electronic tolling systems in the EU" The problem of missing references to standards which define the interfaces between toll chargers and EETS providers is specifically discussed in section 2.2.1.5 of the problem definition. "The evaluation shows that the market rules defined in the Decision are biased to the detriment of the EETS providers" This problem is analysed in section 2.2.3 "Burdensome obligations on EETS providers", and particularly in section 2.2.3.1 "Excessive requirements for EETS providers in Decision 2009/750/EC" "Lack of effective provisions allowing for a cross-border enforcement of offenses to the toll obligation" This problem is the topic of section 2.2.2 "Foreign-registered vehicles can escape tolls" Conclusions on efficiency "[RFID] could provide a cheap alternative to DSRC in specific contexts" The consideration and suitability of RFID for e-tolling is discussed in section 5.1.5 and in section 6.1.5 "Innovation impacts" Conclusions on relevance "The mandatory coverage by EETS of all types of vehicles and all toll domains in Europe is considered an excessive requirement" "EETS providers should offer their services everywhere where significant demand exists" These findings of the ex post evaluation are the reason behind the change in the general objective of the initiative from the current 'EU-wide interoperability for all' to 'More interoperability in tolling services in line with and proportionate to the road users' needs'. This is discussed in details in section 4.1 "General objective". "The objective of having three layers of interoperability – procedural, contractual and technical – is still relevant" This objective is kept and expanded, as specific objective 1 (c.f. section 4.2 "specific objectives") The full text of the ex post evaluation report is annexed to this staff working document. 1.4.Contribution to the reduction of the regulatory burden on companies The initiative is mentioned as a REFIT initiative in point 5 of Annex 1 to the Commission Work Programme 2017. It is thus part of the Commission's Regulatory Fitness and Performance programme that aims at making EU laws simpler and less costly. The REFIT objectives will be reflected in the specific objectives of this Impact Assessment, and special attention will be given to the analysis of the impacts on regulatory burden on companies. 2.What is the problem and why is it a problem? 2.1.Introduction to the description of the problem Years after the adoption of the EETS legislation in 2004 and 2009 (see above), the market remains largely fragmented, with around 140 electronic toll collection (ETC) systems in operation across the EU and Norway. The level of interoperability between these toll domains is far from satisfactory and generates costs to road users and e-tolling service providers. Whilst a small number of schemes offer cross-border interoperability (for example between the ETC schemes for heavy duty vehicles – HDVs – in Austria, Denmark, Sweden and Norway), the majority do not. Additionally, despite the 2009 Commission Decision requiring the opening of ETC markets in all Member States to EETS providers, few EETS providers have so far been registered, and those that have registered do not offer coverage beyond a small number of adjacent Member States, although this is a legal requirement. Indeed, members of AETIS, the EU representative body for EETS providers, consider that the risks associated with offering a service in all Member States is too high due to costly and complex minimum contractual requirements for EETS providers and only partial implementation of EETS legislation in certain markets (these reasons are further explained in section 2.2 below). Consequently, instead of a competitive market for fully interoperable toll collection services, road users and toll chargers face a highly fragmented market characterised by a low degree of competition. The result of this fragmented and uncompetitive market is primarily increased costs, both for the road users and for the toll chargers. For example, when driving across multiple EU Member States, road hauliers are likely to have to purchase or rent multiple On Board Units (OBUs) to communicate with different ETC systems and to make individual contracts with each toll operator, leading to additional administrative burden. Additionally, the lack of multiple toll service providers in each market stifles competition and promotes higher costs for both road users (in the form of higher fees for the provision of OBUs and means of payment like fuel cards) and toll chargers (in the form of higher remuneration requested by service providers). For toll chargers, fragmentation of the market also increases costs due to the high costs associated with the development, deployment and operation of bespoke tolling systems with bespoke equipment, systems and processes. Difficulties in recovering unpaid tolls from international road users also result in reduced revenues for toll chargers. 2.2.Description of the problems This section details the problems and their drivers. The structure of the problem definition is presented in a problem tree in Figure 2 below. 2.2.1.Problem 1: Barriers to entry and lack of truly competitive market for electronic toll collection services Many national markets for the electronic collection of tolls are functioning in a suboptimal, often anti-competitive manner. Road users can choose between only very few (mostly only one) toll service providers, which can use their strong market position to impose sub-optimal commercial conditions on both road users and toll chargers. These quasi-monopolies generally go unchallenged in the market, because potential new market entrants – EETS providers – are blocked by the high levels of cost and uncertainty linked to the process of accreditation to national ETC systems. So there are significant barrier to entry in certain markets, and less competition in the market with negative consequences for the toll chargers and the users of the concerned road networks.

There are five drivers to this problem, namely: 2.2.1.1. Toll chargers have established de facto monopolies for the provision of toll collection services which abuse their position. In some Member States, the presence of vertically integrated companies providing services in the role toll charger as well as that of toll service provider, or the presence of long-established national toll service providers can present a potential barrier to entry to EETS providers and other toll service providers. Vertically integrated operators typically appear when Member States tender out to one company not only all activities related to electronic tolling, including the setup and operation of the system itself, but also the collection of the toll – an activity generally also performed, on competitive markets, by EETS providers. Such companies have a privileged position which they can use to prevent competitors from entering the toll collection market. Vertically integrated companies are present, currently, in: Austria, Belgium, the Czech Republic, Germany, Italy, Poland, Slovakia, and soon Slovenia (once its new electronic tolling system is deployed in 2018). It is true that the level of openness and competitiveness of the market is different in each of these countries. Austria seems to be in the process of fully opening its toll collection market to competition, as six EETS/toll service providers are in the final stage of negotiations to entering the Austrian market. Belgium has so far opened to one EETS provider, in Italy several service providers have started the accreditation process, but in the other countries, no steps have been made towards an opening of the market so far. Various EETS providers have raised their concerns about this situation. For example, a number of EETS providers applying for accreditation in Belgium have complained that the national toll service provider, Satellic, had unfair access to the toll chargers' representative ViaPass during the national system design and early tendering phase. This thereby allowed Satellic to streamline its accreditation efforts and design its OBUs to match the specification of the planned ETC system earlier than other toll service providers (e.g. Axxès) and thereby to have an unfair first mover advantage in accessing Belgian tolling customers. Another example is Germany, where the national service provider Toll Collect is seen to have an unfair advantage over EETS providers, given that there is no provision in national law or readiness on the side of national administration to remunerate toll service providers other than Toll Collect (even if they are registered as EETS providers), thereby presenting an unsurmountable barrier to entry in the German market for many EETS providers. 2.2.1.2. Widely differing accreditation processes for new EETS providers in different Member States. Any EETS provider must undergo accreditation with each toll charger that he wishes to provide his services to, as provided for in Annex IV of the Decision. However, the accreditation procedures vary widely between markets, with significant variations in timeline, cost, procedures and technical requirements. The duration of an accreditation procedure ranges from as little as 6 months (time that it took to accredit Axxès to the Belgian HGV tolling scheme) up to 20 months (estimated accreditation time to all motorway concessions in France or in Italy). In Germany, the time for accreditation is estimated to a minimum of 13 months. All the toll chargers request a fee to cover their expenses during the certification process. These fees vary considerably between markets: for example €220,000 just for Viapass in Belgium but €350,000 for all the French toll chargers together. It is estimated that accreditation to just France, Italy, Austria, Belgium and Germany could cost between 6 and 8 million euro. Certification to all toll domains in the U could cost around 14 million. To this must be added the potential costs of re-certification of certain elements of the OBU in case of significant changes to the toll charger's or EETS provider's system. Furthermore, either in parallel to, or after, the technical tests, the EETS provider negotiates the contract with the toll charger. In the case where different parts of the network are managed by separate concession holders (e.g. 19 in France), these contractual negotiations can be very complex and time consuming as well. In Belgium, in additional to the contract with Viapass, a separate contract must be negotiated with an independent toll charger managing the Liefkenshoek tunnel near Antwerp. 2.2.1.3. Use of the agency model by certain toll chargers. The Eurovignette Directive makes a clear distinction between taxes and tolls, the latter being a fee for the use of the road. Yet some Member States qualify tolls as taxes in their internal legal order - this means that the toll operator becomes in effect a tax collector, and indeed in these circumstances the EETS provider is regarded as a collection agent (e.g. in Poland, Germany, Flanders, Brussels). On the other hand, where tolls are not classified as taxes, the toll represents payment for a service and the EETS provider can be regarded simply as a sub-seller (e.g. France, Italy, Wallonia, Austria). Hence the description of the alternative business models as respectively the ‘agency model’ or the ‘reseller model’. For the agency model, the EETS provider cannot directly issue an invoice to the road user and must issue a separate statement, with the invoice coming directly from the tax authority – thereby complicating the overall toll collection process. This is not the case with the reseller model, where simple VAT invoices can be used between all the actors in the value chain. As an example of complications which arise, consider the situation in Belgium. The three regional authorities concerned in the tolling system differ in their categorisation of tolls, two regarding them as taxes (Brussels and Flanders) and one as service remuneration (Wallonia). The different treatment of VAT between these regions has created enormous difficulties for EETS providers in designing a common billing system covering all toll domains within Belgium. In this respect, Belgium presents in microcosm difficulties that providers face in creating a uniform billing system for their customers covering the whole EU. It was pointed out by several (prospective) EETS providers in their answers to the public consultation that where the toll is regarded as a tax and the agency model is adopted the EETS provider may be required to abide by the requirements of the PSD2 Directive and to be licenced as a financial institution. In the REETS (Regional EETS) project this was a difficulty said to have been faced by German providers wishing to operate in Austria. 2.2.1.4. Complexity and lack of harmonisation of the process of registering users to a toll domain. The registration of vehicles in an electronic tolling system can be extremely complex, in particular when the toll is considered a tax. Belgium provides truck drivers (whether represented by EETS providers or not) with a 15-page-long "vehicle documents guide" to explain the registration process. The necessary registration documents are different for each tolling scheme, and this constitutes a great administrative challenge for EETS providers and road users alike. Another problem reported to the Commission illustrates the issue: while the service provider holds in its database the number plates of vehicles as simple sequences of letters and numbers, one toll charger requires also the spaces apparent on the licence plate to be reproduced in the information which he receives. This then might force the EETS provider to duplicate its databases to suit the specific requirements of one toll charger in order to be accredited. If information is mistyped when the vehicle is registered in the system, the Commission was anecdotally informed that this is used as a basis for fines received by users. 2.2.1.5. Limited and inconsistent use of specific standard profiles and different technical solutions required by different markets. Whilst the 2004 Directive defines three main technologies that can be used for electronic toll collection under Article 2, it only references a limited set of standards to define the specific mechanics of implementation with regards to DSRC-based and autonomous (GNSS) systems. However, existing standards relevant for ETC in Europe and EETS in particular are much wider. Many of these standards are referenced in the Guide for the application of the Directive on the interoperability of electronic road toll systems published by the Commission. However, it is largely outdated given the rapid development of standardisation in this sector, its application is not mandatory, and it provides too much flexibility for interpretation. The EETS Decision created a Co-ordination Group of Notified Bodies in the field of ETC as a working group of the Electronic Toll Committee. The Decision provides that "the Coordination Group shall compile and maintain a comprehensive list of standards, technical specifications and normative documents against which EETS interoperability constituents' conformity to specifications and suitability for use can be assessed. The Coordination Group shall serve as a forum for discussing any problems that may arise in relation to the conformity to specifications and suitability for use assessment procedures and for proposing solutions to these problems". However, the low number of notified bodies (four currently) has contributed to a relatively low effectiveness of this co-ordination group in fostering harmonisation of procedures for assessing conformity with specifications and suitability for use.

Despite the fact that a number of specific ‘profiled’ standards now exist to define a more consistent implementation of EETS, these are not – apart from EN 15509 and ETSI 200674-1 – referenced in the EETS legislation. Hence toll chargers have the flexibility to use toolbox standards (standards allowing several alternative applications for the same process) or even to introduce requirements which are incompatible with established standards. This is a particular issue regarding standards which define the interfaces between the toll charger and the EETS providers, which are of crucial importance for ensuring interoperability. From the public consultation it emerged that the most important reference missing is the one to ISO 12855 and its profile CEN TS 16986, which harmonise the exchange of information between the back offices of the toll charger and the EETS provider. In summary, different technical solutions are adopted in different EETS domains and, whilst they may conform to the broad toolbox standards and technological choices referenced in the legislation, the differences between markets render technical interoperability more difficult and costly to achieve. Finally, standards are constantly evolving due to the evolution of technology and with unclear governance processes for updating the standards relevant to EETS, it is difficult to accommodate updates as they become available to ensure full compatibility between devices and processes deployed at different points in time. 2.2.2.Problem 2: Foreign-registered vehicles can escape tolls Today, the authority to enforce tolls typically stops at the borders of the country. Enforcement authorities do not have the means to establish the identity of the owner of a foreign registered vehicle on the basis of the number plate and picture of the vehicle registered by automatic enforcement devices. This problem has three negative consequences. First, it leads to revenue leakages, which are relatively small on the scale of a whole large country, but can be very significant in particular situations (e.g. on a tolled road running close to another country, such as the AP-7 running in Catalonia between Barcelona and Perpignan). Some figures on the scale of the problem are provided in section 2.3.2.3 below. Second, the difficulty in recovering tolls and fines from foreign-registered vehicles creates frustration among "national" drivers (who get the feeling that "foreigners don't pay") and thus reduces the level of acceptance for the toll. Finally, because of the problems with the cross-border enforcement of tolls, many road managers stick to traditional tolls with barriers that generate a compliance rate of more than 99%, even though they are less safe and more costly than free-flow electronic tolling systems and contribute to congestion. In addition, no common agreement exists regulating the exchange of vehicle registration data between Member States. A small number of Member States have agreements in place allowing for the exchange of vehicle registration data across borders, and the pursuit of unpaid tolls by authorities. This is for example the case of Austria and Germany. Enforcement data provided by the Austrian toll charger, ASFINAG, indicate that, as a result, the percentage of unpaid tolls not recovered from German vehicles (11%) is around half that from other EU vehicles (21%). Where no bilateral agreements are in place, and in the absence of any EU agreement, recovering unpaid tolls across borders is complex; some toll chargers use toll recovery agencies, but most such companies provide a service that is less than satisfactory in terms of public accountability and ethics. They provide only a low level of transparency on their access to sources of information and personal data, and are reported to use controversial methods to recover debts. But in the absence of toll recovery agencies, it is effectively impossible to recover unpaid tolls from foreign registered vehicles. 2.2.3.Problem 3: Burdensome obligations on EETS providers The ex post evaluation and the public consultation showed that certain requirements in the legislation, rather than promoting interoperability, have in fact contributed to blocking it. Excessive requirements for conducting EETS business means that some companies refrain from officially registering as EETS providers, which is a sine qua non requirement to enter certain important ETC markets, including Germany. These obligations also present a significant barrier to entry to new market entrants, adding cost and complexity to any prospective EETS provider considering registration to a new system. There are two main drivers of this problem: 2.2.3.1. Excessive requirements for EETS providers in Decision 2009/750/EC The Decision sets out a range of requirements, rights and obligations that EETS providers must achieve in order to be officially registered and operate, under Articles 3 and 4. This includes the requirement to cover all EU electronic toll domains in the EU within 24 months of registration of the EETS provider. The evidence of experience from contractual negotiations between toll chargers and EETS providers suggests that this requirement is impossible to meet: discussions with just two or three toll domains and adapting the OBU to their toll specific requirements can take up to 2 years and engage a significant share of the human resources of the EETS provider. Covering all toll domains within this timeframe seems to be effectively impossible. Furthermore, full EU coverage by the EETS requires such huge investments (over 14 million euro, cf. section 2.2.1.1), that only a couple of market players could afford it. The risk is that it will lead to the creation of an oligopolistic market, which will counter part of the benefits brought by interoperability (the risk being that the EETS providers collude on their pricing policies towards road users and towards toll chargers). 2.2.3.2. Same requirements for EETS providers active in the HDV and LDV markets even though markets are very different There are intrinsic differences between the European tolling markets for light and heavy vehicles, and EETS providers tend to specialise in one or the other market. For instance, members of AETIS specialise in the provision of toll services to HDVs and have not so far expressed interest in offering similar services to LDVs. On the other hand, 'Tolltickets.com' and potentially other companies aim particularly at the light duty vehicle market. However, the EETS legislation requires that a) each EETS provider services all types of user rather than only heavy or only light vehicles; and b) that each EETS provider must service light vehicles with GNSS-based OBUs even though no satellite tolling schemes exist in Europe for such vehicles. These requirements act for some companies as a disincentive to enter the EETS business and/or to register as EETS provider, and in any case certainly add to the lack of clarity of the rules in place. 2.3.How are different stakeholders affected, what is the scale of the problems and how will they evolve in the future All the main parties in the electronic tolling market are affected by the above-described problems, including road users, toll chargers and EETS providers. 2.3.1.Road users Road users must install many OBUs in order to interact with the roadside infrastructure and/or back office of the toll charger in each relevant toll domain. There is a direct cost associated with the rental or purchase of the OBU (depending on local requirements), as well as indirect costs associated with the installation, maintenance and general management of several OBUs. Table 2 shows the evolution of these costs in the baseline, compared with a scenario of 'full interoperability'. As a growing number of users are expected to use EETS OBUs to pay tolls where it is made possible (for the moment in Portugal, Spain, France, Belgium, Austria and soon for certain infrastructures in Denmark and Sweden), costs are declining over time, but remain above the level associated with a scenario of full EU-wide interoperability. Type of vehicle 2016 in €million/year 202024 in €million/year 202524 in €million/year Full interoperability24 in €million/year HGV 196 (+60) 186 (+50) 179 (+43) 136 Buses and coaches 2.1 (+0.8) 2 (+0.7) 1.9 (+0.6) 1.35 LDV (ETC) 75 (+41) 70 (+37) 69 (+36) 33 LDV (vignettes) 62 62 62 0 LDV (city tolls) 1.2 1.2 3 0 Total 336 (+166) 321 (+151) 315 (+145) 170

To illustrate the reality behind the figures in Table 2 , Table 3 presents various actions which just one haulier had to undertake to equip with OBUs trucks bought over from another haulier, and on other specific conditions imposed by the respective toll chargers. It shows the complexity (and thus administrative costs and burden) of the "OBU management" processes. Member State Operation Deposit for the OBU Cost if not returning Austria Devices can be modified at a GO-MAUT point by drivers, the name of the new owner of the truck and the type of payment must be communicated to ASFINAG 5 EUR - Czech Republic Devices must be returned by courier or to a Contact Point in the Czech Republic. Registration certificate of the trucks must be presented, the form "Claim (service, billing, request for info)" must be filled in. The deposit will be returned only if the OBU is returned undamaged – but if the device has not been used for more than 1 year, the deposit is not refundable 50 EUR - France and Spain Devices must be returned by courier 0 EUR 170 EUR Germany Toll Collect OBUs are not transferable from a company to another. In this situation the devices must be removed by an authorized Toll Collect Service Partner. After the OBU is removed from the vehicle, a de-registration request to Toll Collect must be submitted. If the trucks are sold with devices, tolls will still be charged to the original company's customer number, and the cost of 400 euro will be paid by this company if not returning OBU. The re-installation of an OBU can only take place in an authorised workshop. 0 EUR 400 EUR Hungary After deregistration from HU-GO, trucks must be registered on the new company's HU-GO client name and the fleet management devices used by the new company must be connected to the HU-GO system - - Italy Devices must be returned to the fuel card company or can be used by other company only if it is a fuel card company. 0 EUR 30 EUR Poland Devices must be returned to a contact point, distribution point or border distribution point - deposit and unused credit will be returned on the fuel card 30 EUR - Slovakia Devices must be returned by drivers or by courier to SkyToll a.s., including the form "Request for refund", drivers ID, registration certificate of the truck - the deposit and the unused credit will be returned in the bank account indicated on the form. 50 EUR 257 EUR 2.3.2.Toll chargers For toll chargers, the main impact relates to the need to develop, provide to clients and support bespoke OBUs. Other impacts relate to the reduced competition for services in the national electronic toll collection markets, and to the difficulty in recovering fines from tolls evaded by road users established in other Member States. 2.3.2.1. Cost of making available bespoke OBUs to road users OBUs and the management of relations with road users are significant cost elements mainly in GNSS-based systems, as shown in Table 4 . In DSRC-based systems, EETS-independent elements, such as the central system and tolling gantries are responsible for the bulk of costs, and OBUs represent just a few percent of the overall costs. Cost element Initial investment cost (€m) (% of total costs) Yearly operating costs (€m) (% of total costs) OBU (production/distribution/mobile telecommunication) and relations with clients 120 (60%) 14.5 (48%) Other 81 (40%) 15.5 (52%) TOTAL 201 30 It appears from Table 4 that a representative GNSS-based nation-wide system could 60% lower initial investment costs and 48% lower operating costs if toll chargers could rely entirely on EETS providers for the management of contacts with road users and the distribution and servicing of OBUs. In reality, many toll chargers will still need to service a large group of clients unwilling or unable to sign a contract with an EETS provider. For instance, vehicles which never leave the borders of the concerned Member State are unlikely to use the EETS, which by definition is interesting for vehicles involved in cross-border transport. Realistically, the potential savings from EETS for GNSS-based ETC systems are therefore lower, rather in the range of 15% (initial costs) and 20% (operating costs). With only four countries having put a GNSS-based system in place (Germany, Hungary, Slovakia and Belgium) and one in the process of implementing it (Bulgaria), the potential savings on operating costs from the introduction of EETS into all their value chains are about €30 million per year (20% of €30 million for each of the five systems), and the potential one-off reduction in the cost of establishing the Bulgarian scheme is about €30 million (15% of €201 million). 2.3.2.2. Cost of reduced competition for services in the national electronic toll collection markets Beyond the "direct" costs of lack of interoperability of electronic tolls, some more "indirect" costs must also be considered: ·On those national markets which EETS providers could not enter because of the high entry costs and obstacles,, toll chargers must maintain direct relationships with all road users. There is a cost associated with supporting these relationships, including the cost of providing customer support / helplines, accounting and invoicing, contract management, etc. It has been raised by several respondents to the public consultation that EETS providers are better suited to be responsible for managing these relationships across multiple toll domains, benefiting from their experience and direct customer access on many national markets. Toll chargers, on the contrary, do not have the experience and international presence of EETS providers to provide international customer services in a cost-efficient manner. ·The lack of competition on the toll collection market, due to the low level of penetration of EETS providers, can result in higher costs for the toll charger (because of the monopolistic or oligopolistic structure of the market for toll services). Toll chargers must accept worse contractual conditions for the collection of tolls than they could achieve if the market was fully competitive. This was raised in the public consultation by several toll chargers, EETS providers and toll service providers, who argue that if only a few strong companies are present on the EETS market, they will be in a position to dictate to the toll chargers a price for their services that is above their market value. No quantification of this problem is however available. 2.3.2.3. Cost of the difficulty to recover unpaid tolls from foreign-registered vehicles. Foreign-registered vehicles typically represent a disproportionately high share of total toll offences: 38% in Poland, 25% in Portugal, 40% in France and 89% in Austria. These figures vary inside each State, with higher shares of foreign offenders on road sections with high proportion of cross-border traffic. In absolute numbers, the foregone revenues are typically not huge, but still significant. In Austria, foreign HGVs were responsible for close to 110.000 offences, while some 95.000 cars have been detected as not having paid the vignette (in reality, the number of foreign offenders for the vignette scheme might be much higher, as only a share of all violations is detected or reported); According to Abertis, respectively 26% and 69% of foreign drivers fail to pay the toll on the Dartford Crossing in the UK and on the M50 ring of Dublin (Ireland). The working assumption, based on expert input and anecdotal evidence, is that non-payment of tolls and fines by foreign registered vehicles leads to an average revenue leakage corresponding to 1% of the tolls collected.

In the absence of other means, certain toll chargers use the services of debt recovering agencies for the cross-border enforcement of tolls. Apart from the ethical and legal implications of this tool (discussed in section 2.2.2), the price to pay can range from 10-30% of the recovered sum. Many toll chargers thus simply write off the foregone revenues from foreign vehicles, contributing to a sentiment of injustice among compliant nationally-registered road users. 2.3.3.EETS providers The heterogeneity of ETC systems in the EU contributes to the high cost of accreditation of EETS providers to the different toll domains. Annex 9 presents the typical structure of the costs of certification/accreditation of an EETS provider to a toll domain. The average cost of an accreditation is around €100,000 for a DSRC toll domain and €1 million for a GNSS toll domain (based on the Viapass example). For the EU as a whole, the payments requested by toll chargers for performing all the tests for systems applying to heavy goods vehicles alone are estimated at around 14 million euro. A major issue for EETS providers is the lack of business certainty. The legal obligation to offer their service across the EU in 24 months, the existing obstacles to enter certain national markets, unfair competitive practices of some vertically integrated operators, KPIs and other requirements of toll chargers being always subject to possible change: all these contribute to making the EETS business risky. For instance, Axxès made considerable investment to enter the Belgian market despite the lack of clarity as to the remuneration which it could ultimately count on. This remuneration is now subject to a conciliation procedure between Axxès and the Belgian Regions represented by Viapass in front of the Belgian Conciliation Body. Similarly, the requirements of the new German ETC system, due to be introduced in 2018, are yet largely unknown – this is the source of a lot of business uncertainty for EETS providers, who need to start the accreditation processes very soon in order to be able to enter the German market from the day of the launch of the new system. Because of the lack of certainty on the future business decisions of (prospective) EETS providers, calculations of the cost of the status quo for the sector are subject to a large element of uncertainty. Table 5 presents gross calculations on the market realities to illustrate this cost, based on the assumption that all current or prospective EETS providers participating in the REETS consortium enter the EETS market for HDV as announced. It appears from this table that the costs of initial accreditation under baseline assumptions correspond to more than 7 years of net operational profits of EETS providers. Even disregarding the considerable uncertainties regarding the possibility to conclude contracts on crucial markets (such as the German market) at the end of the accreditation, the figures in Table 5 by themselves do indicate the lack of a good business case for the provision of EETS. Costs of accreditation Yearly toll revenues Potential turnover of EETS providers in the baseline Potential net operational profits of EETS providers in the baseline 154 14,000 420 21 2.4.How would the problems develop, all things being equal A number of EETS providers have developed roadmaps stating their intentions to cover additional markets by 2020, however in many cases they may encounter barriers caused by the various complexities described above around the lack of harmonisation of processes and national legislation, as well as the lack of a level playing field in certain markets, varying technical, contractual and procedural specifications and sometimes complex and heterogeneous accreditation procedures between Member States. For the baseline scenario, it is assumed that Member States will retain the same policy approach, except when a revision process has been launched (e.g. Italy is in the process of opening up to EETS providers). Markets are therefore assumed to remain (partially) foreclosed in many Member States, i.e. in Germany, Poland, Czech Republic, Slovakia, Slovenia, Greece and Croatia. Table 6 provides a summary of the estimated costs for road users and toll chargers stemming from the lack of EU-wide deployment of EETS. These costs are to be understood as the difference between the operating costs under baseline assumptions and the operating costs in a situation of full interoperability. The table is therefore a summary of the information provided in sections 2.3.1 and 2.3.2. It does not include the costs of setting up new ETC schemes, such as the upcoming Bulgarian system, the costs of lack of effective tools for the cross-border enforcement of tolls, nor the costs of EETS providers (see Table 5 ) for which a comparison to a "full interoperability scenario" is not relevant. These cost categories are recalled in Table 7 . Stakeholder category 2016 2020 2025 Road users 166 151 145 Toll chargers 30 30 30 Total 196 181 175 Stakeholder category Cost description Toll chargers High price paid to toll service providers for their services, due to the lack of competition on the market Toll chargers Cost of tolls not paid by vehicles registered in another Member State which are not recovered because of the lack of efficient tools for cross-border enforcement (gross estimate: 1% of tolls collected, i.e. €300 million) EETS providers Cost of accreditation to EETS domains amounting to >7 years of expected net operational profits

3.Why should the EU act? The problems are by their nature pan-European, because ensuring interoperability for ETC systems across the EU (a stated aim of the existing legislation) requires action that involves all EU Member States. Much as cooperation between stakeholders and further proliferation of ETC systems in Europe is expected to increase interoperability to some extent, without changes in the EU legislation it seems clear that significant barriers to market entry will persist. In addition, although some Member States are announcing market opening measures, recent cases show that new ETC systems can still be costly to establish and excessively burdensome for EETS providers (e.g. in Belgium). Consequently, it is the right time for the EU to improve the legislative framework so that the ETC market can develop in a more optimal way with lower regulatory costs. Nearly all of the problems described in section 2 are within the scope of application of Directive 2004/52/EC. The EU's right to act seems effectively therefore justified by the existence of this Directive. Most of the problems relate to issues on which the legislators have already given to the Commission the right to act under the Regulatory Procedure with Scrutiny (PRAC). Currently, only the issue of cross-border enforcement of tolls is not explicitly covered by the EETS legislation, although article 4.10 of the EETS Decision provides that "EETS providers shall collaborate with toll chargers in their enforcement efforts". However, cross border co-operation in the enforcement of road-safety-related traffic offences is provided for in the so-called "Cross-border enforcement" Directive. This Directive, which uses Article 91 of the Treaty as the legal basis, gives precedence to measures aiming at facilitating the cross-border enforcement of other road traffic related offenses, such as non-payment of tolls. For all the problems identified in section 2, Article 91 of the Treaty (Transport) is the appropriate legal basis for any legislative solutions envisaged. 4.What should be achieved? 4.1.General objective The general objective of the proposed initiative would be to contribute to the correct functioning of the Internal Market by ensuring more access to interoperability in tolling services in line with and proportionate to the road users' needs. This constitutes a certain change compared to the current legislation, which provides that each user should have access to EU-wide interoperability, i.e. an EETS covering all toll domains across the EU. The following considerations were behind the change in the objective: –full EU-coverage comes at a cost for EETS providers (in excess of €14 million per EETS provider) which is very significant in light of the size of the EETS market, estimated at €420 million/year (c.f. Table 5); this high entry cost combined with the small size of the market leave space for few (possibly even only one) EETS providers. There is a risk that the market becomes oligopolistic (or even a monopoly); –Interoperable tolling services which give access with one OBU to all toll domains from Portugal to Poland, and from Norway to Greece, are needed by very few users. Indeed, most haulage companies specialise in transport to- and from defined regions, while light duty vehicles (predominantly cars, but also vans) rarely cross more than 2-3 borders. –The removal of the obligation to cover the entire EU will reduce market entry costs for smaller EETS providers, resulting in more competition on the market. The objective implies that both users engaged in regional transport, and those in need of EU-wide interoperability, will find an offer which meets their requests. 4.2.Specific objectives Reflecting the identified problems, there are three specific objectives: Specific objective 1: Remove market entry barriers and foster the development of a competitive market for electronic toll collection services Explanatory note on specific objective 1: This specific objective builds on the current objective of the existing legislation to 'ensure technical, contractual and procedural interoperability of electronic tolls'. Indeed, the market entry barriers identified in section 2.2.1 are of technical (non-standardised interfaces between toll chargers and EETS providers, as described in section 2.2.1.5), contractual (c.f. the problem of EETS providers to obtain fair remuneration, described in section 2.2.1.1, and problems resulting from the use of the 'agency model' by certain toll chargers, described in section 2.2.1.3) and procedural (c.f. the inconsistent accreditation processes, described in section 2.2.1.2, and the lack of harmonisation of the process of registering users to a toll domain, described in section 2.2.1.4) nature. However, specific objective 1 goes one step beyond technical, procedural and contractual interoperability, as it also sets the aim of achieving a competitive structure of the toll collection market – an objective currently not spelled out in the legislation. Specific objective 2: Improve the level of enforcement of tolls from foreign-registered vehicles

Specific objective 3: Remove the excessive obligations on EETS providers All objectives are consistent with other EU policies, and notably with the objective of completing the Internal Market and creating a Digital Single Market. Specific objective 2 has been checked for compatibility with the Charter for Fundamental Rights, and no major issues have been identified. Specific objectives 1 and 3 have a clear link to the objective of reducing the regulatory burden on companies (REFIT). 5.What are the various options to achieve the objective? 5.1.Preliminary screening of potential main policy measures to achieve the identified objectives Given that the identified problems are linked to a number of technical and regulatory issues, some pre-screening of possible approaches and measures has been done in order to limit the analysis to the acceptable and feasible options. In the public consultation the Commission asked respondents for their opinion on a long list of possible legislative measures to achieve the policy objectives presented in section 4. Further proposals were made by the stakeholders spontaneously. The most important of those measures are screened below against the opinions of the stakeholders, opinions of experts and other considerations such as their political acceptability or proportionality. Based on this screening, some of them are recommended for more detailed analysis in section 6, while others are discarded. 5.1.1.Measures aiming at reducing the cost and burden for EETS providers to enter new toll domains and to provide services therein (first part of specific objective 1) Four alternative approaches were proposed and discussed: I. Mandatory standardisation Under this approach, entering new toll domains and providing services therein is made easier for EETS providers thanks to a much deeper harmonisation of tolling systems based on new precise standards. Comment: Views in the public consultation were mixed regarding this policy measure. Three representatives of toll chargers/Member States (Vinci, ASECAP and Hungary), two service provider (WAG, DKV) and one technology provider (Xerox) supported some additional standardisation effort, while 4 toll chargers / Member States (ASFINAG, AISCAT, the Netherlands, Sund and Belt), one technology provider (Kapsch) and one service provider (Egis) were against, notably arguing that too much standardisation will increase the cost of tolling (ASFINAG, Egis). It must be underlined that even those in favour of further standardisation effort do not necessarily support the imposition of such standards through legislation. The general view expressed by experts in the field is that the existing body of standards is wide enough to support interoperability to a satisfactory level, and any gaps can be corrected via limited standardisation activity. Some support for this measure (imposition of very precise standards through legislation) was expressed by the association of light vehicle users (FIA) which indicated that "the European Commission should play a key role in setting a single standard and specifications for road operators for the benefits of citizens". The solution equally has support from the wider public (vide several articles in the general press calling for a "single EU-wide tolling scheme") Preliminary conclusion: Retain for further assessment, because of the support for this option coming from a significant part of the road users community. II. Market self-regulation Under this approach, the industry organises itself to achieve the first specific objective, namely the removal of barriers to the deployment of EETS in a competitive market environment. The role of the Commission in this case is limited to setting the objectives (in agreement with industry representatives) and legally recognising the industry representative body – the 'EETS Facilitation Platform' – as an official partner for the achievement of the first specific objective. Comment: Stakeholders from the electronic tolling sector have organised themselves in an inclusive co-operation platform (the 'EETS facilitation platform' – EFP) which gathers the main categories of stakeholders (Member State administrations, toll chargers, toll service providers) from 12 countries (11 Member States and Switzerland). The platform remains open to new members, and regularly expands (e.g. membership applications from four new service providers and one new national toll chargers are currently in the process of being examined). EFP is already strongly engaged in promoting harmonised practices and facilitating interoperability between European EFC systems, and played a non-negligible role in the achievement of first interoperability agreements between toll chargers and EETS providers in 2016. All this makes the EFP a potential partner with whom the Commission could jointly pursue the first specific objective. The self-regulation approach is strongly supported by ASECAP (the European association of motorway concessionaires) and several other Member States/toll chargers participating in EFP, notably Germany, ASFA (French association of concessionaires), AISCAT (its Italian equivalent), but also by Vinci, Norway, and even the association of EETS providers AETIS and some individual EETS providers like Total (although they see self-regulation as a complementary activity to some necessary changes in the legislation). Preliminary conclusion: Retain for further assessment because of the support of many toll chargers/Member States, because of proportionality considerations, and because of the significant success of the activities deployed by EFP so far to promote interoperability in a number of Member States. III. Establishment of a single European co-ordination body

The Spanish concession operator ABERTIS suggested the establishment of a central European Body which would replace national authorities and toll chargers in registering EETS providers and accrediting them to individual toll domains, and which would also play the role of a central clearing house. Some other players supported the idea (e.g. the EETS provider Total). Comment: In recent political discussions the creation of new EU agencies was rejected primarily for budgetary reasons. Hence, the measure is not politically achievable. Furthermore, several major players, including France, ASFA and Sund and Belt opposed the idea and insisted that accreditation of EETS providers to a toll domain should stay in the hands of the toll chargers. Preliminary conclusion: Discard from further analysis, because the measure is very unlikely to receive the necessary political support and is not widely supported by the stakeholders. IV. Regulatory changes coupled with some standardisation Under this approach, several complementary measures were discussed: ·Harmonisation of accreditation procedures (incl. equipment testing) across all toll domains Comment: This measure received nearly unanimous support in the open public consultation (56 out of 70 answers) and in the targeted stakeholder consultation (all service providers, users, toll chargers and Member States with the exception of France; however, the association of French toll chargers supported the measure). Given the strong support for harmonisation and the fact that other possible measures making the accreditation procedures easier and less burdensome would be much less effective (e.g. manuals of procedures or partial harmonisation) they are not considered as alternatives for this measure. Preliminary conclusion: Retain for further analysis – universally supported ·Standardisation of interfaces between EETS providers and toll chargers Comment: It is a crucial measure to ensure technical interoperability, and for this reason it is strongly supported by all EETS providers. Despite the fact that it might involve significant adaptation costs for toll chargers, the measure also received support from this community (notably ASFINAG, AISCAT, Norway, Hungary) with only ASECAP raising some opposition. The standardisation of interfaces is considered as minimum standardisation already increasing interoperability to an adequate level, while further standardisation is considered under approach (I). Preliminary conclusion: Retain for further analysis – important for achieving technical interoperability and supported by the main impacted group – the toll chargers. ·Mandatory use of the reseller model in the contractual relationship between the toll charger and the EETS provider Comment: This measure is very important for EETS providers (it is on the list of ten top priorities prepared by AETIS as input to discussions with toll chargers in REETS) and has unanimous support of all of them. It was also supported by the equipment manufacturer Kapsch. The reseller model is the only one compatible with the objective of a single invoice for paying all tolls in the EU (in the agency model, there is a separate invoice for each toll domain). It also greatly simplifies the provision of the EETS service, as it leaves EETS providers free to define their invoicing policy. While toll chargers and Member States did not raise it as a problem in the public consultation, it can reasonably be expected that some of the Member States currently requesting the agency model, such as Germany or Poland, will do so in the future, if the measure is proposed. Indeed, the agency model is easier to apply in the schemes where tolls are regarded as taxes. However, the experience of one country (Austria) who recently accepted to change from the agency to the reseller model shows that the difficulty of the change is sometimes exaggerated. As there are only two models of contractual relationships (agency and reseller), no other alternative regulatory measure could be considered here. The mandatory aspect of the measure is justified by the fact that many Member States with agency model are unlikely to shift to the reseller model voluntarily. Preliminary conclusion: Retain for further analysis (although the measure might prove controversial with certain Member States) ·Toll chargers to set up the necessary framework for manufacturers to test their equipment against the requirements of each toll domain. Comment: This measure was suggested by the equipment manufacturer Kapsch, but is equally supported by EETS providers, for which it would largely ease the accreditation process. It also received the explicit support of the Toll Charger Sund and Belt. Toll Chargers who already opened their markets (e.g. concessionaires in France, Spain and Portugal, Belgian Viapass, etc.) should already have in place testing sites or equivalent facilities to perform tests with EETS providers. For instance the association of French motorway concessionaires ASFA has test lanes at the toll plaza in Eprunes. Performing certain the tests upstream with OBU manufacturers could also be a source of savings for the toll chargers, as the number of repetitive tests would diminish. Imposing common testing requirements at the EU level would be excessive given the differences in the toll domains. Preliminary conclusion: Retain for further analysis. A lighter assessment of secondary measures under this approach is provided in section 5.2 below.

5.1.2.Measures to ensure a competitive functioning of the market (second part of specific objective 1) Two alternatives, and some complementary solutions within the second alternative were proposed and discussed in the framework of the public consultation: I. Market self-regulation Market players, and in particular national toll chargers/ Member State authorities, can agree voluntarily to apply certain rules to ensure fair competition on the individual tolling markets under their authority. The instruments used in this case would be the same as those described in section 5.1.1 (II) above. II. Regulatory changes ·Establishing a non-exhaustive list of services provided by the EETS provider which should give rise to a remuneration by the toll charger Comment: The measure was opposed by three toll chargers/Member States (Vinci, Norway, the Netherlands); however, Vinci and Norwegian toll chargers are known to already provide a (relatively) fair remuneration, while the Netherlands do not have any electronic tolling. The list of supporters of the measure is much longer and includes all EETS/service providers, as well as several toll chargers and Member States (ASFINAG, Austria, Hungary, Abertis). Preliminary conclusion: Retain for further assessment ·Toll chargers to put in place the conditions to allow EETS providers to offer services in the toll domain as of its launch Comment: This is one of the most controversial measures. While it was not specifically stated by toll chargers and/or Member States in the public consultation, it is clear that the measure is not welcome for them. Indeed, when deploying a new system, toll chargers/Member States want to first establish a stable closed scheme, and only then allow third parties to access it. Such an approach damages, however, the EETS market: once the national market is saturated with OBUs provided by the incumbent/single national service provider, it is very difficult for EETS providers to enter and regain market shares. The measure is therefore one of the most crucial requests coming from EETS providers, and also one of the measures which could determine the success or failure of the EETS project. Preliminary conclusion: Retain for further assessment because of its importance for the success of EETS and despite possible opposition from certain Member States and/or toll chargers ·Separation of accounts between toll charger- and toll service provider kind of services Comment: This measure received nearly unanimous support from all kinds of stakeholders, including all EETS providers, technology providers (Kapsch), users (UAPME, NHOLT, IRU) and toll chargers/Member States (France, ASFA, ASFINAG, AISCAT, APCAP, the Netherlands, Norway, Sund and Belt, Hungary, Abertis). It was also supported by 45 (65%) respondents to the open public consultation. Preliminary conclusion: Retain for further assessment ·Turning Conciliation Bodies into market regulators with powers to enforce their decisions Comment: Many players, including all EETS providers, road users (IRU, WKÖ, UAPME) and even two toll chargers (Norway, Abertis) supported this measure. It was also supported by 36 respondents to the open public consultation (most of them representing road users) with only 16 against. On the other hand, it was opposed by France, the Netherlands, Germany, Kapsch and by the Belgian Conciliation Body. The main argument against changing the role of the Conciliation Bodies is that their effectiveness in the current form has not yet been tested (the first case was presented to a conciliation body – the Belgian one – only in the second half of 2016). It is therefore too early to change the system, at least until more evidence of the functioning of the current system becomes available. Preliminary conclusion: Discard from further assessment, because there is not enough evidence that the current system doesn't work correctly. ·Obligation for Member States to organise separate tenders for toll charger- and toll service provider kind of activities Comment: The reaction to this measure was mixed. All EETS providers supported it. Norway, Kapsch (a major technology provider, but also a vertically integrated toll operator in the Czech Republic and Poland!), Egis and Xerox were also in favour. Germany, the Netherlands and Vinci were against. The measure is quite intrusive in the sense that it complicates the tendering for a new tolling system (the need to launch two parallel tenders instead of one), which already by nature is a very difficult and politically risky process for the concerned Member State. The relatively small opposition of Member States voiced in the public consultation might not be giving full account of the real opposition to this measure. In addition, the separation of tenders is not essential to achieve a competitive market, as shown by the example of Austria. Preliminary conclusion: Discard from further assessment (too intrusive, not proportionate)

·De facto separation of vertically integrated companies Comment: This measure was supported by the EETS providers and only one toll charger – ASFINAG (only in the case when the company goes abroad). It was explicitly opposed by the Netherlands, Norway and even by the haulage association UETR, who feared that such separation would increase, for toll chargers, the costs of establishing and running the tolling system, and that this increase in costs would eventually be reported on the users. Preliminary conclusion: Discard from further assessment (not proportionate, potentially increasing the cost of the system, which is contrary to the objectives of the EETS legislation) ·Giving the Commission the right to issue opinions on the tender specifications before they are published by the Member State Comment: This measure was supported by EETS providers and by road users, as well as two toll chargers who are not concerned by the problem, because unlikely to tender out any activities (Abertis and Sund and Belt). It also received the support of 45 (64%) respondents to the open public consultation. On the other hand, the measure was explicitly opposed by Vinci, SEOPAN, Austria, the Netherlands and Norway. Overall, the main impact of the measure would be that it would extend the time needed to deploy a new tolling system. It is therefore likely to be opposed by many Member States, in particular those planning to deploy a new or renewed system in the future. Preliminary conclusion: Discard from further assessment (potential opposition disproportionately high in comparison to the expected added value) Some additional lighter measures have been considered in section 5.2 below. 5.1.3.Measures to facilitate the cross-border enforcement of tolls (second specific objective) Three incremental options were envisaged to address the second specific objective: ·Requesting the EFP to find a solution for better enforcement of tolls (self-regulation) Comment: Given that up to now Member States have not found a way to cope with the issue it is very unlikely that any recommendation of the platform would be followed. Actually, several members of the EFP (notably France, ASFA, SEOPAN, Austria, Poland) are among the stakeholders calling on the Commission to propose a regulatory framework for the cross-border enforcement of tolls. Besides, a voluntary scheme might not ensure sufficient data protection depending on the approach chosen. Recommendation: Discarded from further assessment (not effective) ·The establishment of a mandatory mechanism for the exchange of information on the identity of toll offenders using the same tools as Directive 2015/413/EU on the cross-border exchange of information on road-safety-related traffic offences. Comment: This measure was supported by 53 (76%) of respondents to the open public consultation. It also received nearly unanimous support from respondents to the targeted consultation, from all stakeholder groups: Member States, Toll Chargers, users, technology providers and EETS providers. There were two exceptions: Germany indicated that it believes that such a system is not needed, because current tools are sufficient (this view was opposed by all the other Member States who responded); IRU also opposed the measures, although the reasons for this opposition were not clear (the explanation said "The realisation of the single market for electronic tolling systems should result in an overall cost reduction for EU hauliers and should not lead to higher tolls or user charges when using EETS compared to national and local providers." Preliminary conclusion: Retain for further assessment – nearly universally supported by the stakeholder community Two requests to make the measure more precise were made: - Several respondents representing concessionaires (Vinci, ASECAP, SEOPAN, ASFA) asked that private entities are given access to the tool for cross-border exchange of information. This however does not seem justified, as it would not ensure sufficient level of personal data protection (Preliminary conclusion: discard from further assessment) - Sund and Belt suggested that the tool for exchanging information on toll offenders be used independently on the type of vehicle with which the offence was committed; this suggestion is implicitly supported also by other stakeholders (Preliminary conclusion: Retain for further assessment) ·The establishment of a mandatory mechanism for Member States to assist each other in the recovery of fines related to the non-payment of tolls

Comment: This measure was suggested by Hungary and by the Polish General Inspectorate of Road Transport. No other stakeholder expressed an opinion on this issue. While this measure would considerably strengthen the effectiveness of the cross-border enforcement of tolls, it would go beyond what is foreseen by the established EU rules for the enforcement of road-safety-related traffic offences (Directive 2015/413/EU) and by the rules for the recovery of claims relating to taxes, duties and other measures (Council Directive 2010/24/EU), where the obligation of assistance is limited to claims in excess of € 1,500. The measure seems therefore disproportionate, but could be envisaged in the future once the effectiveness of the simple exchange of information has been assessed. Preliminary conclusion: Discard from further assessment (but consider it as an option for future revisions) 5.1.4.Options to soften the current requirement for EETS providers to cover with their services all EETS domains within 24 months from their registration (first aspect of specific objective 3) It appears clearly from the problem definition that the requirement as it is currently formulated in the legislation may well be excessive and impossible or at least prohibitively expensive to meet. Participants to the public consultation were asked about their preference between several alternative options: ·Maintain the requirement for EETS providers to cover all the toll domains in the EU, but extend the deadline of 24 months ·Replace the obligation to cover all toll domains by the requirement to cover a certain high percentage thereof ·Replace the obligation to cover all toll domains by the requirement to cover a certain region of the EU and to complete it through partnerships with other EETS providers ·Replace the obligation to cover all toll domains by the requirement to cover the country of registration and all neighbouring countries ·Leave the question of timing and coverage by the service entirely to the discretion of the EETS provider Comment: In the open public consultation, half of the respondents (34), mostly road users, recommended to leave the decision entirely to the EETS providers. 18 respondents proposed to maintain the current obligation to cover all toll domains, while another 18 suggest other solutions. Regarding the targeted consultation, the solution which gathered by far the widest support was equally the one where EETS providers decide by themselves where to offer their services. Interestingly, this solutions was supported by the EETS providers (with the exception of Axxès, who insisted on keeping the full EU coverage obligation), by the users (UAPME, UETR, WKÖ), who feared that the obligation to cover all EU would increase the price of the services, and by many toll chargers and Member States (Ireland, Vinci, SEOPAN, ASFA, ASFINAG, Austria, AISCAT, Sund and Belt, Switzerland). The main reason invoked by the quoted Member States and Toll Chargers was that the obligation of full EU-coverage would likely lead to the creation of a monopolistic EETS market, with negative consequences both for the users and for the toll chargers. The solution where the obligation is maintained to cover the whole EU was mainly supported by three Member States which currently do not have or hardly have electronic tolling systems (Sweden, Finland and the Netherlands), but also by France (in contradiction with the position of French toll chargers – cf. previous paragraph) and by Germany. Solutions in between, in particular the one where EETS providers are asked to complete the EU-wide coverage through partnerships, have been supported by a few stakeholders, and notably by Norway, DARS (the Slovenian toll charger), IRU (the main road haulage association), Hungary and Abertis. Overall, the benefits of a full EU coverage, which is only needed by a relatively small proportion of road users, do not justify the risk of creating a monopolistic market. Hence it does not appear to be opportune to maintain the requirement that EETS providers cover the whole EU. As to any intermediary solutions, there appears to be little agreement among stakeholders how they should be defined, and whether they would effectively address all the issues. This is confirmed in the public consultation, where none of the conceivable intermediate solutions appeared to gather support from a group of stakeholders (toll chargers, EETS providers, users…) or indeed from a significant number of individual respondents. Retaining any of these intermediate solutions for further analysis does therefore not appear to be justified. Hence the most accepted and reasonable approach appears to be to leave the decision on the coverage of EETS to the market, i.e. to the individual EETS providers. Given the fact that the decision on the markets covered is left to the commercial decisions of EETS providers, there might be risk that no EETS provider decides to cover all/the majority of toll domains in the EU. However, the aggressive expansion policy currently practiced by two most advanced EETS providers (Axxès and Telepass) gives a clear indication of the willingness of the biggest players to offer interoperable tolling services on as many markets as possible. This was actually confirmed by Axxès in its answer to the targeted consultation, in which it expressed its preference for maintaining the requirement for EETS providers to cover all toll domains in the EU with their services. Preliminary conclusion: Retain for further assessment the option where EETS providers decide where to provide their services. 5.1.5.Specific rules on light duty vehicles (second aspect of specific objective 3) The following two alternative options were envisaged to reflect the specific characteristics of the market for EETS for light duty vehicles:

·Excluding light duty vehicles from the scope of the legislation Comment: Numerous stakeholders argued that there is little demand for cross-border interoperability of tolls, and that therefore efforts should concentrate solely on the creation of an EETS for heavy duty vehicles. This position was presented by several toll chargers and Member States (France, Germany, ASECAP, ASFA, ASFINAG, Austria), as well as by the association of EETS providers AETIS and the EETS provider WAG. Interestingly, other representatives of the same categories of stakeholders had the opposite view, i.e. indicated that light vehicles should remain within the scope of the legislation and that demand for interoperability for such vehicles exists. This opinion was presented by the Netherlands, but maybe more importantly by several representatives of users (UAPME, UETR, WKÖ) and several EETS providers (notably Axxès, DKV and Tolltickets). Also 44 respondents to the open public consultation (63%) believed that light vehicles should remain within the scope of the EETS legislation. It therefore appears that those with the best knowledge of the demand for services (users, EETS providers) believe there is a market for EETS for light vehicles and it should continue to be governed by EU rules. Preliminary conclusion: Discard from further analysis ·Introduce specific rules for the EETS for light duty vehicles The following three complementary measures were put to discussion: ·Allow EETS providers to equip light duty vehicles with OBUs which support short range microwave communication (DSRC) only Comment: This solution appears natural, as DSRC is the only technology currently used in the EU in electronic tolling systems for light vehicles which require the installation of an OBU. The measure received explicit support from the toll chargers/Member States Vinci, Sweden, APCAP, Norway, Sund and Belt, DARS, and from the EETS providers AETIS, Total, Via Verde and DKV. No stakeholder expressed any opposition. Preliminary conclusion: Retain for further assessment ·Allow EETS providers to provide services to their clients in systems which do not require the installation of OBUs, and in particular those using the automatic number plate recognition (ANPR) technology Comment: ANPR is used in many systems used by light vehicles, and notably by urban tolling schemes (such as the London Congestion Charge or the Stockholm Congestion Charge). The extension of EETS into these schemes was explicitly supported by the toll charger Vinci, the technology provider Kapsch, the user representatives IRU and WKÖ, as well as by the service provider Egis. Explicit opposition was voiced by Germany and AISCAT only. Preliminary conclusion: Retain for further assessment, although some opposition to the measure can be expected. Schemes with little cross-border traffic should be excluded from the scope to avoid unnecessary compliance costs. ·Allow the use of the RFID technology for tolling light duty vehicles Comment: This measure was explicitly opposed by several toll chargers and Member States (France, Vinci, ASFA, ASFINAG, Norway, Sund and Belt) but also by the EETS provider WAG and the technology provider Kapsch. The main reasons invoked for rejecting RFID were the following: first, adding another technology to the list of technologies allowed to be used in the EU would render the achievement of interoperability yet more complicated.; second, RFID is a less efficient technology than DSRC, and is likely not to function correctly at higher vehicle speeds (above 50 km/h). Only two stakeholders (Hungary and DARS) voice some support for the measure. The use of RFID for tolling in the European context presents a number of additional inconveniences: - it uses frequencies (865-868 MHz and 915-921 MHz)which are also used by mobile communications (4G, GSM-R), and the risk of interferences to the tolling communications is very important. - the power of the signal from the RFID antenna necessary for the system to function correctly could be up to several times stronger than the power allowed under European spectrum management legislation. Preliminary conclusion: Discard from further assessment 5.2.Succinct assessment of other proposed policy measures Table 8 provides a succinct assessment of less crucial policy measures which were discussed in the public consultation or proposed directly by stakeholders.

Measure Comments Recommendation Measures aiming at reducing the cost and burden for EETS providers to enter new toll domains and to provide services therein (first aspect of specific objective 1) ·Obligation for toll chargers to provide EETS providers digital maps of their toll domain Suggested by two EETS providers. Opposed by the Netherlands on the basis that digital maps are a commodity, and EETS providers would have to pay for it. Discard ·Measures to prevent the misuse by toll chargers of commercially sensitive data of the EETS provider A badly needed measure, as EETS providers are obliged to share a lot of data relative to their client base with the toll charger. Supported by the Netherlands, user association FIA and EETS providers (AETIS, WAG) Retain ·Streamline the acceptance of EETS providers to different toll domains in the same country through the creation of single national contact points Suggested by DKV, who complained about the cost and burden of negotiating simultaneously with many counterparts (notably in Spain and in Italy). Retain ·Make the use of the English language mandatory for contacts between toll chargers and EETS providers Suggested by several EETS providers, the measure would facilitate the business environment, but would go against the principles of multilinguism in the EU and would encroach on the principles of commercial law in the Member States Discard ·Harmonise the way vehicles are registered to individual toll domains (standard registration forms) Suggested by several EETS providers, the measure would reduce administrative costs and burden with no evident negative impacts for toll chargers. Retain ·Prohibit the imposition by toll chargers of any specific requirements on the way the three technologies are applied by the EETS providers, which would go beyond established standards and are not measurable key performance indicators Crucial measure, as contradictory specific requirements as to the functioning or construction of OBUs could completely jeopardise interoperability. Retain ·Obligation for Member States to consult the Commission on planned new criteria for varying tolls. Right for the Commission to issue an opinion, after taking into account the position of EETS providers The measure only brings more precision to an existing requirement, and is therefore not problematic. Retain ·Obligation for toll chargers to foresee transition periods when upgrading their interfaces to EETS providers to a new version of a standard Important measure without which large fleets of EETS OBUs on the market could become obsolete before they have been amortised. Keep Measures to ensure a competitive functioning of the market (second aspect of specific objective 1) ·Prohibit discrimination by Member States or toll chargers between EETS- and non-EETS users in access to toll discounts Suggested by Sund and Belt and several EETS providers. Discrimination between EETS- and non-EETS users is already provided for in the Decision; this provision makes a specific case about possible discrimination in the field of discounts. Retain Other measures ·Increase the level of protection of road tolling applications in the 5.8 GHz frequency band (DSRC) Suggested by Norway and several EETS providers. Tolling already benefits from significant protection in "SRD Decision" – DSRC antennas used for tolling can emit with an 80 times stronger power than other applications in the same band. Furthermore, the EETS legislation is not the right place to regulate the use of the radio spectrum Discard 5.3.Complete list of policy measures retained for further analysis Following the assessment in sections 5.1 and 5.2, the following list of measures is retained for further analysis; for each measure, a commentary is added as to its level of importance for the achievement of the objectives set in section 4: SO1 (first aspect): Facilitate accreditation and operation of EETS providers in toll domains (1)The Commission will request the European standardisation bodies to prepare an exhaustive list of very detailed standards for all the "interoperability constituents" (on-board units, roadside infrastructure, enforcement and back-offices) and processes linked to the electronic toll collection and EETS. It will then render standards mandatory by legislation. Comment: The measure is essential with respect to the standardisation of interfaces (also proposed in measure 4). Standardisation of internal processes inside each system could contribute to facilitating interoperability, but is not as important as the standardisation of interfaces which would allow different systems to "talk to each other". The measure is an alternative to measure 4 and to measure 2. (2)The industry organises itself to achieve the removal of barriers to the deployment of EETS in a competitive market environment. The Commission participates in setting the operational objectives and monitoring indicators in agreement with industry representatives and legally recognising the industry representative body – the 'EETS Facilitation Platform' – as an official partner for the achievement of the first specific objective. Comment: This measure is essential for the achievement of interoperability if no legislation is proposed. It is an alternative to a legislative approach (measures 3-10) and to a mandatory full standardisation approach (measure 1). (3)Member States should not make specific requirements on the way the three technologies listed in the Directive are applied, which would go beyond established standards (slim vs. fat OBU, special chips, etc.) – they can only impose measurable KPIs, and it's the EETS provider's business to see how to achieve these KPIs. Comment: This measure is essential to prevent the creation of insurmountable obstacles to interoperability in case different Member States have incompatible requirements. It is complementary with measures 4-11. (4)New or renewed tolling schemes must adopt an interface for information exchange with EETS providers based on the Interoperable application profiles for information exchange between Service Provision and Toll Charging CEN/TS 16986. Comment: This measure is essential, as compatible interfaces are a pre-condition to interoperability. It is alternative to measure 1 and to aspects of measure 2. It is complementary with measures 3 and 5-11. (5)The tolling authority must consult in advance the Commission and EETS providers on the choice of criteria for varying tolls. The Commission will issue an opinion as to the impact this choice of criteria will have on the ability of EETS providers to serve the market with existing OBUs. Comment: This measure is not essential, but could help prevent the creation of technical barriers to interoperability on certain market. It is complementary with measures 3-4 and 6-11. (6)The accreditation procedure for EETS providers, including required tests (and their cost), certificates, key performance indicators, applied standards, harmonized certification process description, tolled network description, contractual terms, key performance indicators, the tests plan and exceptions thereto, must be published in the toll domain statement at least 9 months before the launch of a new or renewed electronic tolling system. All the tests phase must not exceed a period of six months. The 6 month period does not include the trial operations in production environment. The certification process must start six months at least prior the start of operations. The same accreditation procedure must be used for all applicants. Comment: This measure is essential to prevent the creation of a monopoly when a tolling system is created or substantially changed. It is complementary with measures 3-5 and 7-11. (7)The Commission will adopt by delegated act the standard format of a toll domain statement which will become mandatory for all toll chargers. Comment: This measure is not essential for interoperability. It is complementary with measures 3-6 and 8-11. (8)Each toll charger must propose a test environment where the OBU manufacturer can fine tune their OBU to secure the compliance with toll domain specific requirements and obtain certification. No re-testing of such a certified OBU (except for end-to-end tests) will be required from the EETS provider using the OBU. Comment: This measure is not essential to achieve interoperability, although it will help limit the cost of the latter. It is complementary with measures 3-7 and 9-11. (9)The accreditation procedure will integrate the certification of all the interoperability constituents and a suitability for use test. The first phase will include all verifications of the conformity of the interoperability constituents with respect to applicable technical standards and specifications; verifications may include documentation proof, laboratory and/or field tests. EETS Providers will provide the necessary declarations to demonstrate that their interoperability constituents are conform. The second phase will include all verifications allowing to validate the correct functioning and performances of the interoperability constituents; after a system integration phase, proper pre-defined tests will be carried out in both a controlled and productive environment, including pilots with real users. The successful (or not) conclusion of each of the steps of the accreditation procedure will be certified on the basis of measurable criteria and/or parameters (such as - for example - KPIs) that will be clearly defined within the toll domain statement. Comment: This measure is not essential for interoperability, but will help lower the costs and burden associated to its achievement. It is complementary to measures 3-8 and 10-11. (10)Member States must ensure that a co-ordinated accreditation procedure is available to EETS providers and/or OBU manufacturers for all electronic toll domains (e.g. all concessions) on their territory; in particular, it must be possible to perform laboratory tests of the equipment only once for all toll domains on the Member State's territory. Comment: This measure is not essential for interoperability, but will help lower the costs and burden associated to its achievement. It is complementary to measures 3-9 and 11. (11)The contractual relationship with the EETS provider must follow the "reseller model". Comment: This measure is not essential for the achievement of interoperability. It is however essential for allowing EETS users to receive one invoice for the use of all roads in the EU. It will also reduce the administrative costs and burden for EETS providers. It is complementary to measures 3-10. (12)The Commission will adopt, by delegated act, the format of a standard, electronic registration form of road users to a toll domain, which must be accepted for their registration in any electronic toll domain subject to EETS legislation. Comment: This measure is not essential for the achievement of interoperability, but will help avoid errors in the registration of users. (13)As the standards are constantly under evolution process, the application of latest version of a standard must not be a source of discrimination for EETS regarding their ETC services. A toll charger can request the latest version of the standard. Nevertheless, if some OBUs are already in operation in any of the MS then the toll charger must accept the OBUs compliant with a prior version of the standard even if some features or attributes are not available. The acceptation period is limited and fixed between the Toll charger and the EETS provider taking into account the lifecycle of the OBUs in operation. Comment: This measure is essential for the economic sustainability of the provision of interoperable tolling services. It is complementary to the other measures in the table. SO1 (second aspect): Ensure a competitive functioning of the market (14)Separation of accounts between the operator of the toll collection system and the toll service provider, when both roles are performed by the same company. Comment: This measure is essential for the achievement of the objective of promoting a competitive market. It is complementary to measures 15-18. (15)Provide a non-exhaustive list of services performed by EETS providers which must be remunerated by the road manager at market value (e.g. providing OBUs, payment guarantees, data transfer, role in the enforcement process, etc.). Comment: This measure is essential to break the State-protected monopolies in certain Member States. It is complementary to measures 14 and 16-18. (16)If a rebate scheme is proposed by the toll charger or by the Member State, then EETS clients must have access to the same rebates and frequent-user schemes as clients of the national toll service provider. Comment: This measure is not essential for interoperability, although it is i