Opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee on the Proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council on type-approval of motor vehicles and engines with respect to emissions from heavy duty vehicles (Euro VI) and on access to vehicle repair and maintenance information COM(2007) 851 final — 2007/0295 (COD)
Date: 2008-04-22
Institutions: European Economic and Social Committee
Subjects: access to information, commercial vehicle, engine, general mechanical engineering, motor vehicle, motor vehicle pollution, pollution control measures, reduction of gas emissions

C 211/12

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

19.8.2008

4.13
Concerning the first aspect mentioned above, i.e. road
user behaviour, accidents are frequently caused by driver care-
lessness, but just as often pedestrians and cyclists act impru-
dently, in contravention of the basic rules of the road and some-
times of common sense. Education and information in this area
should be provided from primary school onward by means of
regular publicity campaigns aimed at encouraging proper beha-
viour by all users. It is equally important to introduce severe
penalties for dangerous behaviour by all road users.

4.14
The other essential aspect of road safety concerns infra-
structure, first and foremost in cities, where 80 % of pedestrian
and cyclist deaths occur. Physical separation of road users wher-

ever possible represents the most effective way of preventing
contact between vehicles, pedestrians and cyclists. From this
point of view, work to build protected pedestrian crossings,
footbridges, cycle lanes, proper lighting and surfaces, and clear
signage, which should as far as possible be the same in the
different Member States, would help to reduce the number of
accidents, as well as creating a less hostile urban environment
for people with disabilities.

4.15
Initiatives of this kind increase safety and improve the
quality of life in cities, and should therefore be recalled in all
Commission proposals including those, such as the present one,
that refer only to the technical aspects of motor vehicles.

Brussels, 22 April 2008.

The President

of the European Economic and Social Committee

Dimitris DIMITRIADIS

Opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee on the ‘Proposal for a Regulation of
the European Parliament and of the Council on type-approval of motor vehicles and engines with
respect to emissions from heavy duty vehicles (Euro VI) and on access to vehicle repair and
maintenance information’

COM(2007) 851 final — 2007/0295 (COD)

(2008/C 211/03)

On 30 January 2008 the Council decided to consult the European Economic and Social Committee, under
Article 95 of the Treaty establishing the European Community, on the

Proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council on type-approval of motor vehicles and
engines with respect to emissions from heavy duty vehicles (Euro VI) and on access to vehicle repair and maintenance
information.

The Section for the Single Market, Production and Consumption, which was responsible for preparing the
Committee's work on the subject, adopted its opinion on 3 April 2008. The rapporteur was Mr Ranocchiari.

At its 444th plenary session, held on 22 and 23 April 2008 (meeting of 22 April), the European Economic
and Social Committee adopted the following opinion by 142 votes nem. con., with 3 abstentions.

1. Conclusions and recommendations

for application of environmental requirements and industry lead
times.

The rise in demand for mobility,

1.1
the proportion of
private vehicles and the problems created by traffic congestion
above all — but not only — in urban areas have helped to
make road transport an area of human activity where particular
attention is being paid to environmental impact assessment. The
Commission's proposal to reduce the emission of atmospheric
pollutants from heavy duty vehicles can also be seen in this
context.

1.3
The EESC shares the Commission's view that the regu-
lation under consideration constitutes a step towards gradual
global harmonisation of emission levels.

1.2
The EESC supports the proposal, which it considers
appropriate both in terms of its effectiveness and of time frames

1.4
The EESC considers the choice of a regulation as the
legal instrument to be reasonable and particularly appropriate,
as this ensures deadlines and specific implementation methods
in all the Member States — a particularly important aspect for
such highly technical legislation.

19.8.2008

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 211/13

1.5
The EESC fully supports the right of independent opera-
tors to have guaranteed access to vehicle repair information. It
has misgivings, however, about opting to extend to heavy-duty
commercial vehicles the standardised OASIS format, designed
for passenger cars, for the reasons outlined below.

1.6
In order to dispel these misgivings, the EESC hopes that
the Commission will continue to seek alternative solutions
which could have the same presumed advantages as the OASIS
system but would be simpler and cheaper for users to apply.

The EESC would again stress the need for Commission
1.7
policies on reducing pollutant emissions to encourage the intro-
duction of alternative fuel vehicles with lower nitrogen oxides
and particulate emissions, and to ensure that the future regu-
lation also mentions the concept of fuel quality.

The EESC believes that

1.8
the reference to compulsory
measurement of CO2 emissions is inappropriate for an instru-
ment that should cover only pollutant emissions. The EESC
fears that the complexity and specific nature of this issue, which
have considerable implications for competitiveness, could give
rise to a debate that could slow down the legislative process and
delay the regulation's expected results. The EESC therefore
suggests that the issue of CO2 be the subject of a separate regu-
lation whenever more reliable data is available.

harmonisation in that it sets emission limit values similar to
those of the United States of America.

2.4
Both occurring naturally and from human activities —
particularly combustion processes — the particles that make up
particulate matter (PM) have a complex, varying structure both
chemically and in terms of size.

It should be borne in mind that although it is often asso-
2.5
ciated with the effects of human activities, acute cases of fine
particulate pollution can also occur far from densely urbanised
areas as a result of natural phenomena, specific weather condi-
tions and local topography. Furthermore, the proportion of the
various emission sources can vary significantly from area to
area: the European Environment Agency (EEA) reckons that in
the EU-15, 26 % of total emissions linked to human activity are
attributable to road transport.

2.6
This confirms, once again, that the problem of emissions
and pollutants must always be assessed from all angles and as
part of an integrated approach.

2.7
From this perspective, the EESC welcomes the fact that
the Commission has drawn up its proposal in the context of the
Clean air for Europe programme (CAFE (1)), which provided the
technical basis for preparing the Thematic Strategy on Air Pollu-
tion.

2. Introduction

2.1
Although air quality has improved over the past decade,
there remain significant air quality problems throughout the
European Union, especially in urban areas and densely popu-
lated regions.

By 2020 the EU will still be a long way from achieving
2.2
the objectives of
the 6th Environment action programme.
Among the various forms of pollution, particulate matter is of
increasing scientific concern. The proposed Regulation covered
improving air quality, without
in this opinion is aimed at
impairing industrial competitiveness and the free movement of
goods.

2.3
dent Verheugen, will

The new Euro VI standard, as pointed out by vice-presi-
global

step towards

also be

a

2.8
The EESC also welcomes the split-level approach taken
by the Commission on this issue. The proposed Regulation will
lay down the fundamental provisions, for adoption through the
co-decision procedure. The
imple-
menting the main provisions will be laid down in a second
Regulation to be adopted by the Commission with the assistance
of the regulatory committee for adaptation to technical progress,
under the comitology procedure.

specifications

technical

3. The Commission proposal

3.1
The Commission set out to identify measures necessary
to attaining the desired air quality levels. Euro VI is one impor-
tant measure for reducing gaseous emissions (such as nitrogen
oxides — NOX and hydrocarbons — HC) and particulate matter.

(1) CAFÉ: Clean air for Europe. This programme was launched by commu-
nication COM(2001) 245. Its aims are to develop a strategy for asses-
sing directives on air quality and the effectiveness of programmes
running in the Member States; ensure ongoing monitoring of air
quality; promote the dissemination of public information; and contri-
bute to the revision and updating of emission limits and the develop-
ment of new monitoring and modelling systems.

C 211/14

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

19.8.2008

3.2
The Regulation applies to vehicles of categories M1, M2,
N1 and N2, as defined in Annex II of Directive 2007/46/EC,
with a reference mass exceeding 2 610 kg and all motor vehi-
cles of categories M3 and N3, as defined in that Annex. It shall
not apply, however, if a manufacturer so requests, to vehicles of
categories M1, M2, N1 and N2 with a reference mass not
exceeding 2 840 kg that are type-approved under Regulation
(EC) No 715/2007 (2).

3.7
The proposed Regulation provides for a further imple-
menting Regulation to be issued by the Commission, whose
provisions would cover:

— exhaust emissions, including test cycles, off cycle emissions,
particle number, emissions at idling speed, smoke opacity
and correct
functioning and regeneration of pollution
control devices;

3.3
The new proposed exhaust emission limit values (Euro VI)
will see a reduction of 80 % in NOx and 66 % in PM on Euro V
levels (required for new type-approvals from 1 October 2008).
Authorised emission levels will
then be in line with those
planned for the same period in the USA. The Regulation also
provides for the introduction — once the relevant measuring
system has been developed — of a limit on the number of parti-
cles that can be emitted.

— crankcase emissions;

— OBD systems and in-service performance of pollution

control devices;

— durability of pollution control devices, replacement pollution
control devices, conformity of in-service engines and vehi-
cles, conformity of production and roadworthiness;

3.4
The proposed Regulation lays down limits based on
current test cycles, but provides for the introduction of world-
wide harmonised cycles (WHDC) once it is possible to correlate
the
cycles with those
measured from harmonised cycles.

emissions measured from current

In relation to the current legislation in force, the Regu-
3.5
lation prolongs the useful life of the vehicle in accordance with
the durability of pollution control devices and in-service confor-
mity.

To this end, the definitions of useful life for the various

3.6
categories of vehicle will be extended as follows:

a. 160 000 km or five years, whichever is the sooner, in the
case of engines fitted to vehicles of category M1, N1 and M2;

b. 300 000 km or six years, whichever is the sooner, in the
case of engines fitted to vehicles of category N2, N3 with a
maximum technically permissible mass not
exceeding
16 tonnes and M3 Class I, Class II and Class A, and Class B
with a maximum technically permissible mass not exceeding
7,5 tonnes;

c. 700 000 km or seven years, whichever is the sooner, in the
case of engines fitted to vehicles of category N3 with a
maximum technically permissible mass exceeding 16 tonnes
and M3, Class III and Class B with a maximum technically
permissible mass exceeding 7,5 tonnes.

(2) Category N vehicles are goods vehicles with at least four wheels. They
are divided into three classes: N1, N2 and N3, on the basis of maximum
weight: N1 <3 500 kg; N2 <12 000 kg; N3 >12 000 kg. The N1 class is
also subdivided into 3 subclasses: NI, NII and NIII, also on the basis of
weight. Category M covers passenger vehicles with at least four wheels.
They are divided into three classes (M1, M2, M3) based on the number of
seats and their maximum weight: M1 < 9 seats; M2 > 9 seats and
< 5 000 kg; M3 > 9 seats and > 5 000 kg.

— carbon dioxide emissions and fuel consumption;

— granting extension of type-approvals;

— test equipment;

— reference fuels;

— measurement of engine power;

— specific measures to ensure the correct operation of NOx
control measures; such measures must ensure that vehicles,
which need a reagent in order to respect the limit values for
NOx emissions, cannot be operated without such reagent.

The Regulation also stipulates that independent operators
3.8
shall have unrestricted and standardised access to on-board diag-
nostic (OBD) information and vehicle repair and maintenance
information (3). Referring to the other more detailed Regulation,
it
(OBD)
information and vehicle repair and maintenance information to
be made available through websites in the standardised format
developed by a technical committee of
(the
so-called ‘OASIS format’ (4)).

vehicle on-board diagnostic

also provides

stakeholders

for

Under the Regulation, the Euro VI standard is to apply

3.9
from:

— 1 April 2013 for new type approvals; and

— 1 October 2014 for new registrations.

(3) ‘Vehicle repair and maintenance information’ means all information
required for diagnosis, servicing,
inspection, periodic monitoring,
repair, re-programming or re-initialising of the vehicle and which the
manufacturers provide for their authorised dealers and repairers,
including all subsequent amendments and supplements to such infor-
mation. This information includes all information required for fitting
parts or equipment on to vehicles.

(4) OASIS — Organisation for the Advancement of Structured Informa-

tion Standards.

19.8.2008

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 211/15

4. General comments

4.1
Over the last decade, despite a considerable increase in
the number of vehicles on the roads, air quality has improved.
However, the EU as a whole is still some way off solving the
problem of air pollution, especially in urban areas and densely
populated regions. The EESC therefore welcomes the Commis-
sion's proposal to lay down harmonised rules on the construc-
tion of motor vehicles with a view to ensuring the functioning
of the internal market while at the same time providing for a
high level of environmental protection.

4.7.1
Vehicles from very large-scale series production are not
covered by the regulation, which applies to commercial vehicles
with a reference mass exceeding 2 610 kg. As commercial vehi-
cles are produced in many different versions and varieties, the
difficulty and cost of trying to standardise information would
outweigh the practical benefits, also bearing in mind the fact
that repair firms for heavy-duty commercial vehicles are few in
number and specialise to a very high degree in specific makes.
Applying the OASIS system to repair firms for heavy-duty
commercial vehicles, which are almost all SMEs, would mean
imposing on them the considerable financial and organisational
burdens of installing and administering the new system. Such
burdens would outweigh the benefits envisaged for the user.

4.2
Euro IV emission limits for trucks and buses are applic-
able as from 9 November 2006 and Euro V emission limits will
apply from 1 October 2008 for new type-approvals. The EESC
thus endorses the proposed dates for the application of the new
Regulation.

In the light of the foregoing, the EESC would therefore
4.7.2
propose that the Commission undertake an impact assessment
focused on a cost/benefit analysis of the use of OASIS over
other possible simpler and cheaper solutions.

4.3
As the proposal does not fall under the exclusive compe-
tence of the Community, the EESC supports the application of
the subsidiarity principle. However, it shares the Commission's
view that, rightly mindful of both the need to avoid the emer-
gence of barriers to the single market and of the trans-boundary
implications of air pollution, the objectives of
the proposal
cannot be sufficiently achieved by actions of Member States, but
require binding measures agreed at EU level.

4.8
The EESC would again stress the need, previously high-
lighted in relation to other Commission proposals, to encourage
the introduction of alternative fuel vehicles, which can have low
nitrogen oxides and particulate emissions. It thus concurs on
the need for limit values for hydrocarbons, non-methane hydro-
carbons and methane.

4.4
The EESC also endorses the choice of a regulation as the
implementation
legal
instrument,
methods and deadlines in all the Member States — a particularly
important aspect for such highly technical legislation.

ensures

specific

this

as

4.5
The Committee agrees with the points made in para-
graphs 5 and 6 of the introduction to the proposed Regulation,
that ‘achieving EU air quality objectives requires a continuing effort to
reduce vehicle emissions. For that reason, industry should be provided
with clear
information on future emission limit values’ and that
‘setting limit values for nitrogen oxide emissions at an early stage
should provide long-term, Europe-wide planning security for vehicle
manufacturers’.

4.6
The EESC also concurs with the Commission that in
setting emissions standards it is important to take into account
the implications for competitiveness of markets and manufac-
turers, the direct and indirect costs imposed on business and the
benefits
stimulating innovation,
in terms of
improving air quality, reducing health costs and increasing life
expectancy.

accrue

that

4.7
The EESC fully supports the right of independent opera-
tors to have guaranteed access to vehicle repair information. It
has considerable misgivings, however, about opting to extend to
heavy-duty commercial vehicles the standardised OASIS format,
designed for passenger cars.

4.9
In terms of the test procedure that provides the basis of
EC type-approval emissions regulations, the EESC hopes that the
Commission adopts world-wide harmonised driving cycles as
soon as possible.

The Regulation also provides for the measurement of
4.10
fuel consumption and CO2 emissions, and therefore deviates
somewhat
to reduce
atmospheric pollutants.

stated objective, which is

from its

4.10.1
The data used for such measurements would be that
obtained from engine tests on dynamometers, which, in reality
is not representative of
the vehicle as a whole. A vehicle's
energy efficiency, as is well known, depends on various aspects,
of which the engine is but one important element among others
(the transmission, aerodynamics,
rolling resistance, auxiliary
parts, etc.). The same type of engine can be used in vehicles
with very different characteristics and purposes (heavy goods
vehicles, construction vehicles, local buses, etc.).

4.10.2
In this context, the Committee would recall that the
Commission's intention to include N1 commercial vehicles,
in its communication on the strategy to reduce
set out
CO2
then
abandoned when it came to the proposed Regulation itself
[COM(2007) 856 final] — quite rightly, given the specificity of
the subject and the inadequacy of the available data.

[COM(2007)

emissions

final],

was

19

C 211/16

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

19.8.2008

strong market demand for

The EESC also points out that, as regards commercial
4.10.3
vehicles,
reduced fuel
there is
consumption (with similarly reduced CO2 emissions), given that
fuel represents the highest operating cost in the transport sector.
It is therefore competition that drives vehicle manufacturers to
provide the most advanced solutions in terms of fuel consump-
tion and, therefore, CO2 emissions.

As regards measuring CO2 emissions, the EESC would
4.10.4
make the important point that if the data on fuel consumption
and CO2, measured solely via engine tests, were to be used to
determine possible incentives or taxes, this could irrationally
distort the market.

the foregoing,

In the light of

4.10.5
the EESC agrees
that there is also a need to legislate on CO2 emissions from
heavy-duty vehicles, as soon as possible, but would prefer that
this subject be tackled separately, through the drafting of a
specific proposal, partly to avoid the risk that an intense debate
could delay passing of the Regulation.

4.11
Given market reluctance to purchase cleaner vehicles
because of their invariably higher price, the Committee would
favour the possibility of introducing financial incentives to their
purchase and feels
should accelerate,
that Member States
through various incentive schemes, the placing on the market of
vehicles that satisfy the requirements adopted at EU level.

The EESC would certainly support the proposal that
4.12
Member States should lay down rules on penalties applicable to
infringements of
this Regulation and that
those penalties should be effective, proportionate and dissuasive.

the provisions of

the

The

that

believes

Committee

of
4.13
implementation proposed by the Commission (1 April 2013 for
new type-approvals and 1 October 2014 for new registrations)
are appropriate. Indeed, five years of stability between one emis-
sions level and the next is sufficient to allow the industry to
obtain the economic return on the investment made to bring to
market the new solutions.

dates

4.14
The EESC endorses the Commission's proposal not to
apply the new Regulation, if a manufacturer so requests, to vehi-
cles of categories M1, M2, N1 and N2 with a reference mass not
exceeding 2 840 kg that are type-approved under Regulation

Brussels, 22 April 2008.

(EC) No 715/2007. In other words, the EESC supports the fact
that for borderline vehicles in terms of tonnage, a certain degree
of type-approval flexibility is allowed to enable a more efficient
response to the various requests of customers, inter alia in rela-
tion to the trade off between fuel consumption, mileage and
pollutant emissions.

5. Specific comments

5.1
The EESC agrees with the proposed emission limits,
which are those of scenario A (5) considered by the Commission
and favoured by the majority of stakeholders involved in the
consultation process.

5.2
However, the Committee feels it must once again raise
the issue of the inverse relation between NOx and CO2 emis-
sions. Since reducing emissions of both is an important environ-
mental objective, it is vital to counterbalance NOx limits in such
as way as to prevent any knock-on rise in CO2 emissions. In
effect, the expected reduction in NOx will result in a 2-3 %
increase in CO2.emissions. The Commission, referring to a study
carried out in the USA in 2001, maintains that by the time the
regulation is implemented the currently anticipated increase will
rather have been offset by advances in engine technology. The
EESC nevertheless suggests updating this study in order to
obtain more reliable data on the effects of the proposed NOx
limit on fuel consumption and on consequent CO2 emissions.

5.3
As already stated, the EESC welcomes the parallel split-
level approach, which limits the co-decision procedure to the
elements of greater political relevance and delegates to comi-
tology the implementing measures and technical details.

5.4
However, it should be noted that many of the measures
entrusted to the regulatory committee (OBD, particle numbers,
schemes to persuade drivers where a reagent is required, etc.)
are highly complex and have huge implications for vehicle tech-
nology. The Committee therefore recommends that all these
aspects be implemented in a single phase together with the
Euro VI
just as pertains to this Regulation
under review, an adequate lead time is ensured between its entry
into force and implementation in order to allow the industry
sufficient time to carry out the necessary development.

limits, and that,

The President

of the European Economic and Social Committee

Dimitris DIMITRIADIS

(5) Impact assessment, point 6.2.2: Euro VI emission limit value sub-options.