EN    EN EN 
 
EN    EN  EUROPEAN COMMISSION 
Brussels, 23.7.2010 
SEC(2010) 934 final 
  
COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT 
Accompanying document to the 
 
Proposal for a 
REGULATION OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL 
concerning Type-approval requirement s for agricultural vehicles  
  
Executive summary of the Impact Assessment
 
{COM(2010) 395} 
{SEC(2010) 933} 
 
EN 2   EN EXECUTIVE  SUMMARY 
Over the last 35 years a type-approv al system for agricultural vehicles has been developed from a basic 
document for harmonisation (Directive 74/150/EEC) to a system securing proper limits for road safety and 
environment protection. Now it needs modernising,  rationalisation, simplification and completion.  
1. P ROBLEM DEFINITION  
The Commission has identified three key problems asso ciated with the current provisions for the type-
approval of agricultural vehicles: 
1.1. Lack of Legal and Regulatory clarity and burdensome management 
The existing system for agricultural vehicles is cons idered to be too complex and that there is therefore 
scope for simplification and international harmonisation. It is  understood that in principle this proposal does 
not suggest increasing the stringency of existing technical requirements. 
Type-approval of agricultural vehicles  has substantially evolved over the pa st thirty-five year s: its nature has 
moved from being a system, based on existing nati onal requirements and designed to allow free trade 
between Member States to a system based on compulso ry whole-vehicle type-approval (WVTA) for most 
categories of vehicle, aiming to provide a high level of protection for health, safety and environment. 
In addition to this, many directives contain references to international regulations and standards, such as 
those from the UNECE, which are subject to amendment s. Ultimately, the disparate nature of regulations 
relating to type-approval of agricultural vehicles leads to a lack of legal and regulatory clarity. Industry and 
regulators must be familiar with some 60 directiv es, and ensure that they are aware of and apply any 
amendments to international standards. This can be a burdensome process and results in additional costs 
for administrations and industry. This situation is pa rticularly a problem for SMEs which operate on this 
market. 
As a general framework, the type-approval system is recognised as an effective approach to tackle various 
aspects (road and occupational safety, environment).  Many stakeholders have called upon the Commission 
to simplify the regulatory framework in order to obtain a less burdensome and less time consuming 
approach to type-approval. 
1.2. Resource-intensive transposition without adding value 
The Framework Directive and its separa te Directives provide for the technical requirements to be complied 
with when granting EC type-approval. The enacting term s of the directives and their annexes are highly 
detailed and leave practically no room for discretion of  Member States when transposing them. Thus, some 
Member States simply make direct reference to th ose Directives, but others develop a completely new 
legislative text that is meant to co rrectly transpose those requirements.  
Transpositions are then using resources in national adm inistrations without adding any value in terms of 
safety or environment protection.  
1.3. Functioning of the internal market 
Requirements under the Framework Directive are mandatory since 1 July 2005 for all new types of tractor in 
categories T1, T2 and T3, and will be mandatory for all new tractors in these categories from 1 July 2009 
onwards. For the remaining categories of vehicles (T4,  T5, C, R and S) EC whole vehicle type-approval is 
not yet mandatory. For certain categories, it is optio nal, i.e. up to the choice of the manufacturers. For 
others, not all special requirements have been harmoni sed at EU-level yet, thus, EC whole vehicle type-
approval is not yet available. 
A further consideration to be taken into account wh en choosing between different alternatives is whether 
completion would be too costly for SMEs such as tra iler manufacturers and end-users if it would be on a 
mandatory  basis. One alternative could be to complete the set of requirements but leave whole vehicle type-
approval optional  (at the manufacturer’s choice) for those categories, thus allowing full EC whole vehicle 
type-approval (or component type-approval) for those -larger- industries that can benefit. A drawback may 
be that Member States may need to maintain a set of nat ional rules and requirements, in parallel to the EC 
Regulation now being proposed. It should also be c onsidered whether mandatory EC whole vehicle type-
approval is desirable for reasons of  safety or environmental protecti on (the more so, since exhaust gas 
requirements are already mandatory for all tractors). 
 
EN 3   EN 2. A NALYSIS OF SUBSIDIARITY  
Prior to the establishment of an EU type-approval for agricultural vehicles, regulations were established at 
Member State level. The regulations set by Member  States often differed and manufacturers selling on 
several markets were then obliged to vary their produc tion according to the Member States for which their 
products were intended and had their vehicles tested in every Member State, which was time consuming 
and costly. Different national rules consequently hindered  trade (different design, production, distribution, 
after-sales in every country), and had a negative effect on the establishment and functioning of the internal 
market. 
It was, therefore, necessary to establish standards at  the EU level for certain areas (for example, road 
safety, occupational safety, and environment protec tion). The Framework Directive 2003/37/EC, based on 
Article 95 of the EC Treaty, was designed to do this and aims at establishing an internal market while 
ensuring a high level of protection concerning health, safety and environment. Such a rationale is still valid 
today as Community action is necessary to avoid fragment ation of the internal market and to ensure a high 
and equal level of protection across Europe. Any change to this regulatory framework will be assessed in its 
compliance with the principle of subsidiarity as established in Article 5 of the EC Treaty. 
3. OBJECTIVES OF EU INITIATIVE  
3.1. Overall objective The exercise of simplification replies to the commitment  of the Commission to act in accordance with the 
principles of Better Regulation. Simplifying the regulato ry framework of the type-ap proval of vehicles is 
furthermore in line with the recommendations of CARS 21
1, which gathered expectations of various 
stakeholders. Applying now this process to agricultural vehicles aims at addressing the problems identified 
by the Commission on the basis of t he stakeholder consultation. The simplification exercise has thus as 
general objectives the reduction of the legal unclarity,  the deletion of resource-i ntensive transpositions, and 
a move towards a better coverage of these agricult ural vehicles by the EU type-approval system. 
3.2. Objective 1: Simplification of existi ng acquis (by repeal of existing directives). 
The current regulatory architecture is very fragmented,  using a Framework Directive, 23 detailed technical 
Directives, 36 amending directives and a whole corr esponding set of transpositions into national 
legislations. The simplification exercise aims at ad dressing this complexity and assessing which regulatory 
approach could allow less time-consuming and less burdensome adaptations to technical progress. A more clear, structured and coherent legi slation would also be in line with the Better Regulation commitment, 
which is an important objective for the Commission. 
3.3. Objective 2: Improved regulatory capacity for future acquis (by new split-level regulatory 
approach with use of references to international standards) 
Another part of the simplificat ion exercise is the elimination of technica l details in EC Directives by replacing 
them by references to standards set by other international organisations such as the UNECE, OECD, CEN/CENELEC and ISO, which are wi dely accepted inside and outside the EU. A condition is that such 
standards must be equivalent to the protecti on level provided by the present Directives. 
3.4. Objective 3: Completion of the single market 
The EC whole vehicle type-approval system under the Framework Directive, even though in principle 
foreseen, is not mandatory for categories T4, T5, C, R and S, but according to the text of the Directive 
manufacturers can voluntarily apply for EC (whole vehicl e) type-approval for vehicl es of these categories. 
However, technical requirements for these categori es have not been established yet for many of the 
aspects and the option to obtain an EC whole-vehicle ty pe-approval remains therefore theoretical, despite 
what is provided in the Directive: vehicles of these categories can onl y obtain a whole vehicle type-approval 
under national legislation. It follows that in order to obt ain access to the different national markets, the same 
vehicle may need a whole-vehicle type-appr oval from several Member States . The simplification exercise is 
an opportunity to complete the EU regulatory framework for these categories of vehicles, so that they can 
benefit from a single EU system which give s access to the whole European market. 
                                                 
1 Competitive Automotive Regulatory System for the 21st century 
http://ec.europa.eu/enterprise/automotive/ pagesbackground/compe titiveness/cars21.htm 
 
EN 4   EN 4. POLICY OPTIONS  
For these objectives the following options were evaluated: 
4.1. Simplification I: Simplific ation of existing acquis (by repeal of existing directives) 
a) Option 1: No policy change No change would be made to the current regulatory framework: the Framework Directive would still define 
the EC type-approval system, while technical r equirements would still be established under separate 
Directives, which require transposition into national legislations. Amending directives would also require 
transposition through national acts. 
b) Option 2: Replace the current  framework by two regulations 
The present Directives would be r epealed. A new Mother Regulation adopted by co-decision would contain 
the fundamental requirements of the EC type-approva l system, while all detailed technical requirements 
would be gathered into a single implementing regulati on, to be adopted and more easily updated in the 
future through the comitology procedure. 
c) Option 3: Replace the curr ent framework by a limited numbe r of thematic regulations 
Same as option 2, but the detailed technical r equirements would be gathered into for example three 
thematic implementing regulations adopted by comi tology procedure. Require ments could be grouped by 
coherent blocks under environmental aspects, road sa fety aspects, and occupational safety aspects
2. 
While the difference between Option 2 and Option 3 is rather small, the difference from Option 1 is major. 
By moving from directives to the legislative instrume nt of regulations, options 2 and 3 would do away with 
the need for transposition on the side of Member States and the need for transposition control on the side of 
the Commission, and all discrepancies between national  transposition acts would be avoided. With the 
introduction of the split-level approach, the co-legislator  could concentrate on issues which must be decided 
by Council and Parliament, while delegating technical and administrative details to the Commission without losing control (the regulatory procedure with scrutiny  would be the applicable comitology procedure, which 
ensures final control by the co-legis lator also for comitology acts). 
4.2. Simplification II: Improved regulatory cap acity for future acquis (by new split-level 
regulatory approach with use of references to international standards) 
a) Option 1: No policy change 
No change would be made to the current framework, requirements and test procedures having to be 
followed as required under t he 24 separate Directives. 
b) Option 2: Use when possible references to UNECE Regulations 
Similar to what has been introduced for motor vehicles in the General Safety Regulation (GSR), where 
equivalent technical standards have been defined by UNE CE, the provisions of EC Directives should be 
repealed and replaced by a reference to these internati onal standards. This option could take different forms 
which have to be assessed: 
– Full references, where the text is fully copied and published by EU 
– Simple fixed (static) references, where the EC legislation links to a dated international 
regulation 
– General (dynamic) references, where the EC  legislation links to a regulation of an 
international standardisation body, but without dating it (open to update). 
– From a point of view of legal certainty and c ontrol over EU legislation the latter possibility 
(dynamic reference) seems unaccept able; it was not further analysed. 
c) Option 3: Use references to a ll relevant international standards 
Similar to option b), but now reference to OECD , CEN/CENELEC and ISO can be applied. OECD has 
introduced so called Codes for Roll-over Protection Sy stems, which are not availa ble from UNECE; for other 
issues only standards from CEN/CENELEC or ISO exist. .  
                                                 
2 At this stage, the exact number of implementation Regulations has not been fixed yet. 
 
EN 5   EN 4.3. Completion of the single market 
a) Option 1: No policy change 
No change would be made to the scope of the Fram ework Directive, the EC w hole vehicle type-approval 
remaining optional, but de facto not available for cate gories T4, T5, C, R and S. Without any adaptation to 
technical requirements, the different national type-appr oval requirements will have to be complied with in 
order to obtain national type-approvals and have market  access in different Me mber States of the EU. 
b) Option 2: Complete  the EC type-approval requirements and make EC type-approval mandatory  
for all categories of vehicles 
The EC type-approval legislation will be completed for t he categories not (fully) co vered today. The missing 
technical compliance requirements for certain elements would be filled in. EC whole vehicle type-approval 
would be made mandatory  for all categories presently covered by the Framework Directive, which means 
that vehicles from categories T4, T5, C, R and S would no longer have to pass national type-approval 
procedures: they should only fulfil requirements of EC type-approval and then gain access to all markets. 
c) Option 3: Complete  the EC type-approval requirements and leave EC whole vehicle type-approval 
optional  for certain categories  (T4, T5, C, R and/or S) 
 As with option 2, the EC legislation would be completed, but the EC whole vehicle type-approval 
would remain optional for those categories. This would allow a manufacturer the choice between a national 
approval per Member State or an EU whole vehicle ty pe-approval, the latter at probably higher costs but 
with the benefit of direct accessibility of the w hole internal market. The manufacturer would have an 
incentive to choose the profit maximising solution. 
An alternative would be, as suggest ed by many stakeholders, to ma ke certain requirements mandatory 
within this option. Some subjects mentioned are: braking, lighting and markings. This would harmonise 
those aspects within Europe and bring important road sa fety aspects at a certain acceptable minimum level. 
For all tractors this already is the case  for exhaust gas emissions requirements. 
5. ANALYSIS OF IMPACTS  
5.1. Simplification I: Simplific ation of existing acquis (by repeal of existing directives) 
The proposal to change to Regulations is brought  about by Parliament and stakeholders; several have 
expressed criticisms on the useless complexity of the format of the current legi slative framework, and asked 
the Commission to take measures to tackle this situation.  
The type-approval system receives  full support, but needs updating. 
Changing from Directives to regulatio ns in split-level approach is shown to be clearly cost-effective, after 3 
to 4 years because of investment costs for the change. 
The simplification exercise is welcomed by the stakeh olders, even though some insist ed that there are other 
issues on the agenda that should have priority (e.g. ex clusion of tractors from the Machinery Directive). 
The choice between two and more Regulations is not ev ident on the basis of cos t/benefit considerations, 
but should be made on practical grounds.  
5.2. Simplification II: Improved regulatory cap acity for future acquis (by new split-level 
regulatory approach with use of references to international standards) 
A move to use “worldwide” recognised standards, also applied in the General Safety Regulation for motor 
vehicles, widely supported by stakehol ders as expressed in replies to the public consultation, is a benefit to 
industry as their approved products can be marketed as widely as possible.  
The main positive point is that the legislation will be simplified by suppressing useless duplications. This will 
benefit to all actors dealing with this legislation, bei ng national authorities respon sible for type-approval, or 
manufacturers whose vehicle types have to comply with  these requirements. It will in particular benefit the 
SMEs which have limited resources to be attributed to regulatory affairs. 
In relation with translations the st udy shows that large be nefits should not be expected as legal security 
requires that such documents need to be available in all official community languages. UNECE and OECD 
produce only French and English versions, so the EC must take care of the others (a reduction of 1 
language compared with the present sit uation where one original version needs to be translated in all other 
languages). 
 
EN 6   EN Some cost reduction can be obtained by a limited redu ction in participation in international meetings. 
A reduction in costs of type-approval seems po ssible, but limited. Today some components (like 
headlamps) have more than one approval (set of documents and marking) which brings about some additional costs. At the same time such a limitation in international legislation by suppressing useless 
duplications is also an advantage for national authorities which have to apply them.  
In all cases of reference to international standards  the Regulation should prov ide that the EU can act 
independently to introduce differing amendments if necessary. 
A special case is the existing Directive on exhaust gas requirements for tractors. As the technical content is 
already aligned with Directive 97/68/EC for Non-Road Mobile Machinery, it is considered to be a simplification to repeal the tractors Directive and fu lly refer to 97/68/EC, without affecting the technical 
content. 
In conclusion the evaluation is slightly in fav our of this reference to international standards. 
5.3. Completion of the single market 
The present incomplete status of Directives mean s that additional national legislation is necessary. 
Completing the EC system and
 making it mandatory could change th is and bring long-term advantages. 
Completion as such is seen as beneficial, but it is  shown that making it mandatory would bring serious and 
undesirable costs for industry, especially for the m any SMEs. This may vary with vehicle categories, 
depending on the facilities for “small-series type-approv al”. Such arrangement, already available in the 
present Framework Directive, allows manufacturers and national authorities to use easier and cheaper 
approval procedures, while the vehi cle is supposed to attain the same level of protection. 
When the system would remain optional for certain cat egories the level of protection provided in a certain 
market might be lower than in others. At the same time Member States will have to maintain national 
legislation. For manufacturers it will be the cheapest solution, if th ey sell only in limited numbers of 
countries. This would be important for SMEs, especia lly in the sector of trailers and towed machinery.
 
EN 7   EN 6. OPTIONS COMPARISON AND CONCLUSIONS  
Summary of impacts of different options for all objectives 
 
                                                 
3 Explanation: 0 means ‘neutral’ (no change) 
 + means ‘better’ Criteria Objective Policy options effectiveness efficiency coherence Conclusion
3 
1 - No policy change 0 0  0 
initial cost _ 
 
slight risk of delaying urgent matters _ 
cost reduction on the long term + 2 - Replace current framework by two 
regulations simplification of the 
regulatory 
framework + 
a quick process of adaptation to 
technical evolution in the future + better than baseline +  
initial cost _ 
 
slight risk of delaying urgent matters _ even more positive 
(increased clarity for 
industry) + 
easier processing + 
cost reduction on the long term + 1 - Simplification of existing acquis  
(by repeal of existing directives) 3 - Replace the 
current framework by 
limited number of 
thematic regulations simplification of the 
regulatory 
framework + 
implementing measures will be 
adopted in a short term + facilitation and rationalisation 
effects: more coherence for 
experts +  
 
EN 8   EN  Criteria  
Objective  Policy options  
effectiveness  efficiency  coherence  Con-
clusion  
1- No policy 
change 0 0 0 0 
simplification + slight reduction of costs and administrative 
burden + 
improved management of procedures + 
UNECE texts also need to be translated and 
published, like EC legislation 0 2- Use references 
to UNECE 
Regulations reduction of 
duplications + 
potential risk of weakening requirements _ increase clarity 
for industry and 
administrations +  
simplification ++ OECD texts also need to be translated and 
published, 
like EC legislation and UNECE 0 
reduction of costs and administrative burden + 
improved management of procedures + 2 – Simplification: Improved regulatory capacity for future 
acquis (new split-level regulatory approach with use of 
international standards) 
3- Use references 
to all relevant international 
standards reduction of 
duplications ++ 
potential risk of weakening requirements - same as in 2.2  
 
EN 9   EN Criteria  
Objective  Policy options  
effectiveness  efficiency  coherence  Con-
clusion  
1- No policy change 0 0 0 0 
high costs of new requirements for 
T4.2, T5, R and S _ 
access to a wider market with less 
administrative burden + 
new specific techni cal requirements 
needed - 
increase in road safety + 2- Complete the EC TA 
requirements and make EC 
type-approval mandatory for 
all categories of vehicles completion of 
internal market 
(mandatory) + 
gains from harmonised designs +  0 
allows open market with cheapest 
option + 
new specific techni cal requirements 
needed - 
increase in road safety + 3 - Completion of the single market 3- Complete the EC TA 
requirements; leave EC WVTA optional for certain 
categories (T4, T5, C, R 
and/or S) completion of the 
internal market 
(optional) + 
gains from harmonised designs +   
 
EN 10   EN In conclusion, the preferred options would be to si mplify the legislation by introducing a co-decision 
Regulation with a limited number of implementing Regulations through Comitology, using available 
standards from UNECE, OECD, ISO and CEN/CENELEC as much as possible; the technical 
provisions should be completed as already foreseen in the Framework Directiv e; some of the road 
safety related prescriptions should be made mandatory (as is already the case for emission 
requirements for all tractors). 
7. MONITORING AND EVALUATION  
No specific system is foreseen but the Commiss ion’s Working Group on Agricultural Tractors will 
be used for the follow-up with the implementing measures.  
 
EN 11   EN ANNEX 
COST / BENEFIT COMPARISON TABLE  
 Objective 1 : Simplification of the regulato ry framework through a split-level approach 
 
Option 1 Option 2 Option 3 Indicators 
No policy change  Replace current 
framework by 2 
regulations  Replace current 
framework by [4] 
regulations  
Costs 
Annual cost to  
EU-27  € 29,160 to € 2,435, 400 
average € 533,993 € 7,560 to € 1,217,700 
average € 320,153 
Initial investment cost 
 € 18,225 to € 3,653,100 
average € 909,225 
 
Benefits 
Year Lower 
limit Average  Upper Limit  
1 € 3,375 - € 695,385  - € 2,435,400
5 € 86,690 € 129,430  € 2,261,461Cumulative benefit 
(Costs include an 
uplift of 2 % per 
annum and a discount 
rate of 3,5 %)  
10 € 184,219 € 1,094,970  € 7,759,675
Objective 2: Simplification throug h use if international standards 
Option 1 Option 2  Option 3  Indicators 
No policy change  Use when possible 
references to UNECE 
Regulations  Use references to all 
relevant international 
standards  
Costs 
Type approval costs Approximate costs per type (component) on average: € 15,000 
The cost of one whole vehicle-type approval can be above € 100,000  
Translation costs  
Annual staff cost for Estima ted average annual cost to 
attend EC,UNECE,OECD, ISO  Estimated average annual cost to attend meetings 
 
EN 12   EN  attending meetings  & CEN meetings € 1,135,085 
(range: € 310,536 to 
€ 2,608,200)  with reference to existing 
standards € 1,078,331 
(range: € 279,482 to € 2,608,200)  
Investment cost for 
EU-27  
  € 909,225 (range: 
€ 18,225 to € 3,653,100)  
Benefits 
Annual saving from 
Type approval costs    0 
Annual average 
savings from attending 
meetings   € 31,054 (range: € 0 to 
€ 56,754)  
Translations   0 
 
EN 13   EN Objective 3 : Completion of the regulatory framework 
 
Option 1 Option 2 Option 3 Indicators 
No policy change  Complete the EC type-approval 
requirements and make EC type-
approval mandatory for all 
categories of vehicles Complete the EC type-approval 
requirements and leave EC 
whole type-approval optional 
for certain categories of 
vehicles (T4,T5,C,R and S)  
Costs 
T4.1 € 0 
T4.2 € 112,500,000 
T4.3 € 0 
T5 € 40,625,000  
C € 0  
R € 200,195,313  Estimated average cost 
per vehicle category (1)   
S € 257,812,500  similar to option 2  
Estimated average 
annual administrative 
costs (2)  
€ 36,190,000  
Total cost (1+2)  € 647,322,813 (range: € 364,440,000 to € 996,565,000)  
Average investment cost4 
for EU-27   € 32,980,000* (range: € 3,860,000 to € 62,100,000)  
Benefits 
Estimated casualty 
savings   € 50,750,409  
Estimated average 
cumulative benefits 
(Costs include an uplift 
of 2 % per annum and a discount of 3,5 %)  Year 1: - € 629,552,403 
Year 5: - € 3,057,835,295 
Year 10: - € 5,900,418,586  
Benefits from 
standardisation (saved by 
buyers)  T4.2 Category: benefit of € 22,500, 000 (average) 
on 9,000 vehicles registered p.a. 
R Category:  benefit of € 68,750,000 (average) 
on 125,000 vehicles registered p.a. 
S Category: benefit of € 812,500,000 (average)  
on 500,000 vehicles registered p.a. 
 
EN 14   EN