COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT Accompanying document to the  Proposal for a REGULATION OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL concerning Type-approval requirements for agricultural vehicles    Impact Assessment  {COM(2010) 395 final} {SEC(2010) 934 final}
Date: 2010-07-23
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: agricultural equipment, agricultural implement, approval, commercial vehicle, tractor

EN 

EN 

   EN 

 
 
EUROPEAN COMMISSION 

Brussels, 23.7.2010 
SEC(2010) 933 final 

COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT 

Accompanying document to the 

Proposal for a 
REGULATION OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL 
concerning Type-approval requirements for agricultural vehicles  

Impact Assessment 

{COM(2010) 395 final} 
{SEC(2010) 934 final} 

EN 

   EN 

 
 
 
  
 
 
 
 
Table of contents 

Background ................................................................................................................................ 4 

Section 1: Procedural issues and consultation of interested parties ........................................... 6 

1.1. 

1.2. 

1.3. 

Organisation and timing............................................................................................... 6 

Public consultation ....................................................................................................... 6 

External expertise......................................................................................................... 7 

Section 2: Policy context, problem definition and right to act................................................... 8 

2.1. 

2.2. 

Policy context............................................................................................................... 8 

Problem definition........................................................................................................ 9 

2.2.1.  A Lack of Legal and Regulatory clarity and burdensome management ...................... 9 

2.2.2.  Resource-intensive transposition without adding value............................................... 9 

2.2.3.  Functioning of the internal market............................................................................. 10 

2.3. 

Community competence and subsidiarity .................................................................. 11 

Section 3: Objectives................................................................................................................ 11 

3.1. 

3.2. 

3.3. 

Overall objective ........................................................................................................ 11 

Objective 1: Simplification of existing acquis (by repeal of existing directives) ...... 12 

Objective 2: Improved regulatory capacity for future acquis (by new split-level 
regulatory approach with use of references to international standards)..................... 12 

3.4. 

Objective 3: Completion of the single market ........................................................... 12 

Section 4: Policy options.......................................................................................................... 13 

4.1. 

4.2. 

Simplification I: Simplification of existing acquis (by repeal of existing directives. 13 

Simplification II: Improved regulatory capacity for future acquis (by new split-level 
regulatory approach with use of references to international standards)..................... 13 

4.3. 

Completion of the single market ................................................................................ 14 

Section 5: Analysis of impacts ................................................................................................. 16 

5.1. 

5.2. 

Simplification I: Simplification of existing acquis (by repeal of existing directives) 16 

Simplification II: Improved regulatory capacity for future acquis (by new split-level 
regulatory approach with use of references to international standards)..................... 18 

5.3. 

Completion of the single market ................................................................................ 21 

Section 6: Options comparison and conclusions...................................................................... 27 

Section 7: Monitoring and evaluation ...................................................................................... 31 

ANNEX 1  Public consultation on outline proposals for a Framework Regulation of the 

European Parliament and of the Council for Agricultural Vehicles .......................... 32 

1. 

2. 

3. 

Context ....................................................................................................................... 32 

Overview of respondents............................................................................................ 32 

Summary of responses ............................................................................................... 32 

EN 

2 

   EN 

 
3.1 

3.2 

3.3 

3.4 

3.5 

3.6 

Choice of the legislative format ................................................................................. 32 

References to international regulations and standards ............................................... 32 

The type-approval system as legislative approach..................................................... 33 

Completion and mandatory nature of the type-approval system ............................... 33 

Aspects to be covered................................................................................................. 33 

Need for exemptions .................................................................................................. 33 

ANNEX 2................................................................................................................................. 34 

Description of the tasks requested to the external consultant  and methodology used ............ 34 

ANNEX 3................................................................................................................................. 36 

Definition of vehicle categories and vehicle types .................................................................. 36 

and background to the type-approval system........................................................................... 36 

A. The vehicle categories are defined as follows:.................................................................... 36 

1. Category T: Wheeled tractors .............................................................................................. 36 

2. Category C: Track-laying tractors........................................................................................ 36 

3. Category R: Trailers ............................................................................................................. 36 

4. Category S: Interchangeable towed machinery.................................................................... 37 

B. Definition of vehicle types .................................................................................................. 37 

1. Wheeled tractors:.................................................................................................................. 37 

2. Track-laying tractors: idem wheeled tractors....................................................................... 38 

3. Trailers: ................................................................................................................................ 38 

C. Background to the type-approval system ............................................................................ 38 

ANNEX 4................................................................................................................................. 40 

Market of agricultural vehicles ................................................................................................ 40 

ANNEX 5................................................................................................................................. 44 

Stakeholders position on the objectives and options................................................................ 44 

ANNEX 6................................................................................................................................. 48 

List of separate directives, relation with UNECE and OECD ................................................. 48 

ANNEX 7................................................................................................................................. 51 

Cost / Benefit comparison table ............................................................................................... 51 

EN 

3 

   EN 

 
 
BACKGROUND 

Type-approval  requirements  for  agricultural  and  forestry  tractors,  their  trailers  and  towed 
machinery  (vehicles  from  categories  T,  C,  R  and  S1,  hereafter  referred  to  as  agricultural 
vehicles)  are  currently  contained  within  the  Framework  Directive  2003/37/EC2  (  the 
“Framework  Directive”).  In  addition  to  this,  a  series  of  Directives  referenced  in  the 
Framework Directive contain detailed technical requirements relating to agricultural vehicles. 
The  Framework  Directive  became  mandatory  on  the  1  July  2005  for  new  types  of  tractors 
from categories T1, T2, and T3, and is mandatory for all new T1, T2 and T3 tractors as of 1 
July  2009.  For  all  the  remaining  vehicle  types  (categories  T4,  T5,  C,  R  and  S)  approval 
requirements are currently optional or not yet available (Annex 3 includes detailed definitions 
of  all  tractor  categories  and  in  part  C  gives  some  information  on  how  the  type-approval 
system  functions).  To  be  noted  that  during  creation  and  development  of  the  complete  type-
approval  system,  for  some  time  directives  usually  are  of  an  ‘optional’  nature  in  order  to 
facilitate  those  manufacturers  that  want  to  (and  are  able  to)  use  the  advantages  of 
harmonisation  while  not  creating  undue  burden  to  others.  For  authorities  it  allowed  at  the 
same time to adapt. 

Type approval is legislation that has been addressed in the political initiative named “CARS 
21”3.  This  initiative  was  set  up  in  2005  to  carry  out  an  automotive-related  regulatory  and 
policy  review  to  advise  the  Commission  on  future  policy  options.  One  of  the  reasons  for 
setting  up  CARS  21  was  the  concern  expressed  by  automotive  stakeholders  that  the 
cumulative  cost  of  regulation  had  a  negative  effect  on  competitiveness,  and  made  vehicles 
unnecessarily  expensive.  The  CARS  21  Final  Report4  concluded  that  while  most  of  the 
legislation  in  force  should  be  maintained  for  the  protection  of  consumers  and  the 
environment, a simplification exercise should be undertaken so as to rationalise the regulatory 
framework and move towards international harmonisation of requirements. 

Concerning  the  braking  requirements  currently  provided  for  in  Directive  76/432/EEC  for 
tractors it has been made evident that the directive needs to be updated and extended to the 
other  categories  covered  by  the  Framework  Directive.  Draft  amendments  have  been 
extensively  discussed  and  should  be  concluded  in  the  near  future.  These  amendments  will 
thus be integrated into the implementing legislation following the split-level approach which 
is explained in more detail below. As it may have serious implications the Commission will 
prepare a separate impact assessment report on this project 

Information on the market of agricultural vehicles (more details are presented in Annex 4): 

a.  For  the  tractor  categories  of  T1-T2-T3,  the  EU  type-approval  (TA)  is  mandatory  on  the 
basis  of  Directive  2003/37/EC.  Based  on  available  figures  137,000  products  were  sold  in 
2005. 

b. The other categories defined in Directive 2003/37 can obtain – on an optional basis as an 
alternative  to  national  type-approval  -  EC  type-approval  for  specific  aspects,  based  on 
separate directives. Sales  p.a. in  2005: T4:  15,000; T5: 13,000; C:  5,000 R: 125,000 and S: 
500,000. 

1  
2 
3 
4 

Categories: T = wheeled tractors; C = crawler tractors; R = trailers; S = towed machinery 
OJ L 171, 9.7.2003 
http://ec.europa.eu/enterprise/automotive/pagesbackground/competitiveness/cars21.htm 
http://ec.europa.eu/enterprise/automotive/pagesbackground/competitiveness/cars21finalreport.pdf 

EN 

4 

   EN 

 
                                                 
c.  Tractors  are  to  a  large  extent  produced  by  large  manufacturers  with  multinational 
operations,  while  only  a  few  are  SMEs  (with  the  exception  of  e.g.  T4.1  (high-clearance 
tractors),  which  are  produced  virtually  all  by  SMEs).  In  the  category  of  trailers  (R)  and  to 
some  extent  also  towed  equipment  (S)  there  are  many  SMEs.  No  figures  on  SMEs  are 
available (see annex  2). Some categories are mostly used in specific regions/areas: crawlers 
(C) especially in ES, IT, EL, FR; low-clearance tractors (T4.3) in mountains (AT, CH, IT).  

d.  Users:  1. 
farmers,  with  or  without  personnel  –  most  or  all  are  SMEs.  
2.  a  large  sector  of  contractors:  companies  working  for  farmers  to  provide  for  specific 
services,  on  each  farm  usually  a  limited  number  of  days  p.a.  They  are  mostly  using 
specialized (larger) equipment, like harvesters and fast tractors (T5). Contractors generally are 
SMEs (typically about 10 staff on average). 

This simplification exercise has been planned in the “Commission second progress report on 
the strategy for simplifying the regulatory environment”5. 

5 

COM(2008) 33 final, 30.1.2008, proposal n°47, p. 31. 

EN 

5 

   EN 

 
 
                                                 
SECTION 1: PROCEDURAL ISSUES AND CONSULTATION OF INTERESTED PARTIES 

1.1. 

Organisation and timing 

Apart  from  its  planning  in  the  simplification  strategy,  this  proposal  forms  part  of  the  2009 
Commission Legislative and Work Program6 and is scheduled in the Commission’s Agenda 
Planning under the reference 2009/ENTR/001. 

A Roadmap has been established for this proposal, including an impact assessment, and has 
been inserted in the Agenda Planning. An Impact Assessment Steering Group, consisting of 
interested Directorate-Generals was set up and met on 26 March 2009.  

The impact assessment was presented to the Commission’s Impact Assessment Board (IAB) 
on 13 May 2009. This version of the impact assessment has been amended to respond to the 
comments  of  the  IAB.  In  particular,  implications  of  the  preferred  options  have  been  further 
detailed, as well as the positions of stakeholders; information on the markets for agricultural 
vehicles  has  been  added;  criteria  for  comparison  have  been  amended;  consequences  for 
health, safety and environment have been spelled out; some editorial errors were corrected. 

TRL  Ltd.  was  contracted  as  external  consultant  in  order  to  deliver  an  extended  Impact 
Assessment study, while a public consultation took place to gather stakeholders’ opinions. 

1.2. 

Public consultation 

An open public consultation was run from 3 July 2008 to 12 September 2008 with the specific 
purpose of seeking stakeholder opinions on key aspects of the simplification of the provisions 
relating to type-approval of agricultural vehicles. In particular, stakeholder views were sought 
regarding  the  choice  and  format  of  the  coming  legislation,  on  the  completion  and  the 
mandatory nature of the type-approval system, and on its scope and coverage.  

The  public  consultation  was:  targeted  at  those  groups  that  would  be  most  affected  by  the 
proposals, including type-approval authorities in Member States, manufacturers, suppliers and 
consumers; published on a specific website created for the purposes of the consultation7; and 
published in English, French and German. The consultation document was also announced on 
“Your Voice in Europe” and sent directly to parties known to be interested in the policy.  

The  Commission  has  acknowledged  the  receipt  of  all  stakeholder  responses  to  the 
consultation, and these have been made publically available. 8  

The  Commission  has  analysed  the  comments  made  during  the  consultation  and  a  full 
summary of these can be found on the DG Enterprise and Industry website.9 Further details 
regarding the consultation can also be found in Annex 1.  

The  written  consultation  was  discussed  in  2008  in  a  meeting  of  the  Commission's  Working 
Group on Agricultural Tractors (WGAT) to which all relevant stakeholders were invited, and 
supplemented  by  an  impact  assessment  study  (see  section  1.3).  The  general  attitude  was 
positive, but with differing opinions on specific issues (i.a. on whether type-approval should 
be mandatory for all categories). 

The public consultation met with the Commission’s minimum standards for consultation. 

6 

7 
8  
9  

COM(2008)  712  final,  Commission  Legislative  and  Work  Programme  2009.  Acting  now  for  a  better 
Europe, 5.11.2008, p. 17. 
http://ec.europa.eu/enterprise/automotive/consultation/agricultural_vehicles/call.htm 
http://ec.europa.eu/enterprise/automotive/consultation/agricultural_vehicles/contributions.htm 
http://ec.europa.eu/enterprise/automotive/consultation/agricultural_vehicles/summary.pdf 

EN 

6 

   EN 

 
                                                 
1.3. 

External expertise 

An impact assessment study ran from September 2008 to March 2009 with the aim of 
evaluating the economic, social and environmental impacts of the proposals relating to 
agricultural vehicles. In particular, the study focused on the simplification of the existing 
type-approval system and the development of type-approval legislation where it does not exist 
for certain vehicle categories. 

The following statement by the contractor is to be noted: “The confidence in the 
estimates could be improved if additional responses and data were available from 
stakeholders. The lack of data has meant that some of the estimates made in this impact 
assessment have relied heavily on assumptions made by TRL or on anecdotal evidence 
from stakeholders.”  

Annex 2 gives a description of the tasks (to be) performed and the methodology used by the 
contractor. 

EN 

7 

   EN 

 
 
 
SECTION 2: POLICY CONTEXT, PROBLEM DEFINITION AND RIGHT TO ACT 

2.1. 

Policy context 

Type-approval  of  agricultural  vehicles  has  substantially  evolved  over  the  past  thirty-five 
years:  its  nature  has  moved  from  being  a  system  designed  to  allow  free  trade  between 
Member  States  to  a  system  based  on  compulsory  whole-vehicle  type-approval  (WVTA)  for 
most categories of vehicle. This system now aims to provide a high level of health, safety and 
environmental  protection.  Initially,  after  the  adoption  of  Council  Directive  74/150/EEC,  the 
type-approval  of  agricultural  vehicles  was  applied  only  to  agricultural  tractors  fitted  with 
pneumatic  tyres  having  a  design  speed  of  less  than  25  km/h.  Since  that  time  agricultural 
tractors, trailers and towed equipment have typically increased in size, weight, and technical 
complexity.  In  addition,  many  are  now  capable  of  much  greater  speeds,  the  distance  they 
travel on public roads has increased, and differing agricultural traditions in different countries 
has led to greater diversity in designs. 

Directive  74/150/EEC  has  been  replaced  in  2003  by  the  new  Framework  Directive 
2003/37/EC, inter alia extending the scope to include trailers and towed equipment. In parallel 
a  set  of  requirements  has  been  developed  for  Non-Road  Mobile  Machinery,  with  Directive 
2006/42/EC  covering  safety  aspects.  This  directive  will  enter  into  force  on  29  December 
2009.  In  principle  the  two  directives  deal  with  different  products  (agricultural  vehicles 
respectively  non-road  mobile  machinery)  but  in  practice  some  could  be  classified  in  both. 
When the machinery directive was adopted it was agreed that, for the time being, agricultural 
and  forestry  tractors  would  fall  under  this  directive  too  for  those  risks  not  covered  at  that 
moment  by  the  type-approval  system.  The  Commission  then  committed  to  prepare  the 
necessary proposals to eliminate the overlap between the systems thus created, to be adopted 
in Comitology in 2009. 

Some of the separate technical Directives foreseen by the Framework Directive have not yet 
been fully adapted to this important technical progress: in those directives, requirements for 
some  vehicles  remain  optional  and  therefore,  no  EC  whole  vehicle  type  approval  can  be 
issued  for  these  vehicles  and  the  internal  market  for  these  vehicles  is  therefore  still 
incomplete.  In  the  absence  of  uniform  European  standards  being,  Member  States  have 
imposed their own mandatory requirements and these often differ widely from one Member 
State to another. 

Moreover, where no common standards exist at EU-level, cultural and traditional differences 
between  farmers  in  different  Member  States  may  lead  to  different  user  preferences.  Any  of 
these  factors  can  result  in  a  fragmentation  of  the  internal  market  for  industry,  i.e. 
manufacturers having to adapt particular types of vehicles to provide different specifications 
for the sale in different Member States, thus potentially increasing complexity and cost. For 
example,  some  Member  States  require  ABS  (anti-lock  braking)  on  fast  tractors  (T5  – 
maximum speed over 40 and up to 80 or more km/h); one requires the front axle of a tractor to 
be connected for the purpose of braking in certain conditions, others do not; requirements on 
marking  plates  differ;    another  has  no  type-approval  system  at  all  for  agricultural  vehicles 
other  than  T1-T3;  maximum  axle  loads  are  different  between  countries;  a  Member  State  
notified various requirements for T4.1, T4.2, T4.3, C1, C2 and C3 tractors (requirements on 
stability, roll-over protection, driver seat, noise etc.); in some Member States braking systems 
are hydraulic, in others pneumatic. 

EN 

8 

   EN 

 
2.2. 

Problem definition 

The Commission has identified three key problems associated with the current provisions for 
the type-approval of agricultural vehicles: 

2.2.1.  A Lack of Legal and Regulatory clarity and burdensome management 

It has been pointed out to the Commission that the existing system for agricultural vehicles is 
too  complex  and  that  there  is  therefore  scope  for  simplification  and  international 
harmonisation.  At  the  same  time,  the  completion  of  the  internal  market  for  agricultural 
vehicles could be done, by proposing to define the requirements which are currently lacking 
for some categories, despite that the Framework Directive in principle provides for EC whole 
vehicle type-approval for these categories. It is understood that this proposal does not suggest 
to  increase  the  stringency  of  any  existing  technical  requirements;  where  requirements  are 
introduced  for  non-regulated  categories  /  aspects,  these  should  be  at  a  level  comparable  to 
existing  ones,  suitably  adapted  to  the  category.  The  specific  case  of  new  requirements  for 
braking of all vehicle categories will be dealt with in a separate IA study. 

Agricultural  vehicles  currently  have  to  comply  with  a  series  of  requirements  found  in  a 
number of separate Directives. The Framework Directive is linked to 23 technically detailed 
Directives, which have themselves been amended by 36 amending Directives, so as to ensure 
that  they  accurately  reflect  technical  progress  (for  example,  by  applying  stringent noise and 
exhaust  gas  requirements,  higher  maximum  speeds  and  improved  roll-over  protection 
systems). For formal reasons all these separate publications stand on their own and must be 
applied individually. 

In  addition  to  this,  many  directives  contain  references  to  international  regulations  and 
standards, such as those from the UNECE, which are subject to amendments. 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 
directives,  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. For industry, it has been indicated that the compliance cost for 
type-approval has increased due to this regulatory complexity and uncertainty. This situation 
is particularly a problem for SMEs which operate on this market. 

The type-approval system is generally recognised as an effective framework to tackle various 
aspects (road and occupational safety, environment). However, national authorities in charge 
of the correct application of the Framework Directive are facing unnecessary additional costs 
in  their  attempts  to  operate  in  this  complex  regulatory  framework.  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. 

2.2.2.  Resource-intensive transposition without adding value 

The Framework Directive and its separate Directives provide for the technical requirements to 
be complied with when granting EC type-approval. Both the enacting terms 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 
those  Directives,  while  others  develop  a  completely  new  legislative  text  that  is  meant  to 
correctly transpose those requirements.  

Nevertheless, amending Directives have to be transposed by Member States, and this has led 
to difficulties for EU manufacturers, as national transpositions may slightly differ for example 
concerning  dates  of  publication  and  entry  into  force  and  even  (mis-)  interpretations  with 

EN 

9 

   EN 

 
regard to the substantive requirements, leading to unclarity between type-approval authorities. 
This  problem  is  inherent  in  any  EU  legislation  adopted  in  the  form  of  a  Directive,  but  it  is 
particularly prominent in this case where the requirements are highly technical, very detailed, 
and  likely  to  be  very  frequently  amended  due  to  frequent  adaptations  to  technical  progress. 
Transpositions are then using resources in national administrations without adding any value 
in  terms  of  safety  or  environment  protection.  Additional  administrative  resources  are 
consequently  required  to  solve  such  problems  of  interpretation,  which  happen  on  a  regular 
basis in the so-called Type-Approval Authorities Meeting (TAAM) where representatives of 
Member States and the Commission services meet.  

2.2.3.  Functioning of the internal market 

Requirements  under  the  Framework  Directive  are  mandatory  since  1  July  2005  for  all  new 
types of tractors in categories T1, T2 and T3, and are 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; today it is optional for certain 
categories; the manufacturers may choose. For others, not all special requirements have been 
harmonized  at  EU-level  yet,  thus,  EC  whole  vehicle  type-approval  is  not  yet  available.  The 
Framework Directive provides in Annex II Chapter B a table listing the requirements that are 
to  be  specified  in  the  separate  Directives,  and  will  be  necessary  for  obtaining  EC  type-
approval for the different vehicle categories. In most cases, existing directives for categories 
T1-T3  cannot  be  directly  applied  to  the  remaining  categories.  This  is  because  the  test 
procedure  is  not  adequate  (e.g.  caterpillar  or  “crawler”  tractors  ordinarily  have  no  steering 
wheel  but  two  handles,  used  to  accelerate,  steer  and  brake  and  there  is  no  adequate  test 
procedure  for  such  a  system  under  the  present  directive),  or  different  limit  values  must  be 
defined for those categories. 

Consequently an EC whole vehicle type-approval cannot presently be granted to these other 
categories. A regulatory framework harmonised at the European level is thus lacking for these 
categories,  preventing  the  realisation  of  the  internal  market  until  each  of  these  technical 
requirements  have  been  harmonized  for  the  vehicle  categories  for  which  this  has  not  been 
done so far. As such a process would be particularly resources and time consuming for both 
EU  and  national  administrations,  the  question  is  raised  whether  the  completion  of  the 
mandatory EC whole vehicle type-approval is needed for these categories, and whether it can 
be done in a simplification exercise.  

The  absence  of  (some)  EU  harmonized  technical  requirements  can  be  explained  as  follows:  
in 1970 the EC started with its regulatory work, with priority for automobiles and production 
in  large  series,  completed  in  1992  with  the  revision  of  the  relevant  Framework  Directive 
70/156/EEC: the package became mandatory for passenger cars. In 1974 a similar system was 
set  up  for  (wheeled)  tractors:  Directive  74/150/EEC.  This  was  partially  completed  with  the 
new  Framework  Directive  replacing  Directive  74/150/EEC  and  making  Type-Approval 
possible (and mandatory) for the main categories of tractors: T1, T2 and T3 (80% of tractors 
market). As of today, the full series of related specific directives is not completed due mainly 
to  lack  of  capacity  in  combination  with  the  lack  of  priority  and  urgency  (for  stakeholders), 
even  if  the  most  complex  and  high  priority  issues  like  exhaust  gas  emissions  have  been 
covered  and  updated  by  the  legislation  for  all  categories,  while  others,  like  braking,  are 
currently being addressed for completion and updating. Braking proposals should be covered 
in  implementing  legislation,  updating  existing  requirements  and  adding  such  for  categories 
not covered in the old directive. A separate IA is planned for this subject in 2009/2010. 

Directive 2003/37/EC provides for mandatory EC whole vehicle type-approval in article 23 

EN 

10 

   EN 

 
 
1 for all categories, some time after completion of all the necessary separate directives: 3 years 
for new types, 6 years for all new vehicles. 

Annex 6 gives the overview of the specific directives needed according to 2003/37.  

A further consideration to be taken into account when choosing between different alternatives 
is whether completion of the EC whole vehicle type approval system would be too costly for 
SMEs  like  trailer  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  (the  choice  being  for  the  manufacturer)  for  those  categories,  thus  allowing  full  EC 
whole  vehicle  type-approval  (or component  type-approval)  for  those  -larger-  industries  who 
can benefit.  

A  drawback  is  that  Member  States  may  need  to  maintain  a  set  of  national  rules  and 
requirements,  in  parallel  to  the  EC  Regulation  now  being  proposed.  It  should  also  be 
considered  whether  mandatory  EC  whole  vehicle  type-approval  is  desirable  for  reasons  of 
safety  or environmental protection (the more so, since exhaust gas requirements are  already 
mandatory for all tractors). 

2.3. 

Community competence and subsidiarity 

Prior to the establishment of an EC type-approval for agricultural vehicles, regulations were 
established at Member State level. This legislation set by Member States often differed and 
manufacturers selling on several markets were then obliged to vary their production 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, 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. 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  fragmentation  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. 

SECTION 3: OBJECTIVES 

3.1. 

Overall objective 

One overall objective is the exercise of simplification which is a response to the commitment 
of the Commission to act in accordance with the principles of Better Regulation. This overall 
objective can be subdivided as described in 3.2. and 3.3. hereafter. Simplifying the regulatory 
framework of the type-approval of vehicles is furthermore in line with the recommendations 
of CARS 21, 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  the  stakeholder  consultation.  The  simplification  exercise  has  thus  as  general 
objectives 
the  deletion  of  resource-intensive 
legal  unclarity, 
transpositions, and a move towards a better coverage of these agricultural vehicles by the EU 
type-approval system. 

the  reduction  of 

the 

EN 

11 

   EN 

 
 
 
A  second  overall  objective  is  to  make  the  free  movement  of  goods  in  the  internal  market 
possible by completing the type-approval system for all categories of agricultural ad forestry 
vehicles. 

3.2. 

Objective 1: Simplification of existing acquis (by repeal of existing directives) 

The  simplification  exercise  aims  at  addressing  the  complexity  of  using  a  Framework 
Directive, 23 detailed technical Directives, 36 amending directives and a whole corresponding 
set of transpositions into national legislations and assessing which regulatory approach could 
allow less time-consuming and less burdensome adaptations to technical progress. A clearer, 
better  structured  and  coherent  legislation  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 simplification exercise is the elimination of technical specifications in EC 
Directives  by  replacing  them  by  references  to  standards  set  by  other  international 
organisations  such  as  the  UNECE,  OECD,  CEN/CENELEC  and  ISO10,  which  are  widely 
accepted inside and outside the EU. Direct references to them are already used in the existing 
type-approval legislation, often as alternatives. Those standards are not made mandatory, but 
the manufacturer may opt for compliance with those standards instead of the requirements set 
by the EC directly. 

Through  these  references,  duplication  of  technical  requirements  is  created  in  the  EU 
legislation  and  among  regulations  and  standards  of  these  international  organisations.  The 
second  objective  of  simplification  is  thus  to  see  how  these  duplications  can  be  reduced  in 
order for stakeholders to not be  confronted  with several sets of requirements addressing the 
same aspects.  

It  must  be  emphasized  that  this  is  an  exercise  of  simplification  only,  and  that  no  change  in 
technical  requirements  should  be  introduced  by  using  references  to  international  standards. 
Such  references  would  in  principle  only  be  used  if  the  level  of  safety  or  environmental 
protection of those international standards is the same as the one of the EC Directives, and no 
loss in safety or environment protection levels is foreseen. 

3.4. 

Objective 3: Completion of the single market 

The EC whole vehicle type-approval system under the Framework Directive 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  vehicle)  type-approval  for  vehicles  of  these  categories. 
However, technical requirements for these categories have not been established11 yet for many 
of the aspects and the option to obtain an EC whole-vehicle type-approval remains therefore 
theoretical,  despite  what  is  provided  in  the  directive:  vehicles  of  these  categories  can  only 
obtain  a  whole  vehicle  type-approval  under  national  legislation.  It  follows  that  in  order  to 
obtain  access  to  the  different  national  markets,  the  same  vehicle  may  need  a  whole-vehicle 
type-approval  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 gives access to the whole European market. 

10  

11  

United Nations Economic Commission for Europe; Organisation for Economic Cooperation and 
Development; CEN, the European Committee for Standardisation, and CENELEC, the European 
Committee for Electrotechnical Standardisation; International Standardisation Organisation. 
Chapter B Part I of Annex II of 2003/37/EC provides with the list of requirements under the specific 
directives, and requirements which still have to be defined are marked with the symbol “(X)”. 

EN 

12 

   EN 

 
                                                 
SECTION 4: POLICY OPTIONS 

For these objectives the following options were evaluated. 

4.1. 

Simplification  I:  Simplification  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 requirements would still be 
established  under  separate  Directives,  which  require  transposition  into  national  legislations. 
Amending directives would also require transposition through national acts. The Commission 
will have to continue to monitor transposition. 

b) 

Option 2: Replace the current framework by two regulations 

The  Framework  Directive,  the  23  technical  Directives  and  their  36  amendments  would  be 
repealed.  A  new  Mother  Regulation  adopted  by  co-decision  would  contain  the  fundamental 
requirements of the EC type-approval system, while all detailed technical requirements would 
be gathered into a single implementing regulation, to be adopted and more easily updated in 
the future through the comitology procedure. 

c) 

Option  3:  Replace  the  current  framework  by  a  limited  number  of  thematic 
regulations 

Same  as  option  2,  but  the  detailed  technical  requirements  would  be  gathered  into  e.g.  three 
thematic implementing regulations adopted by comitology procedure. Requirements could be 
grouped  by  coherent  blocks  under  environmental  aspects,  road  safety  aspects,  and 
occupational safety aspects12. 

For  both  Option  2  and  Option  3,  beyond  the  implementing  regulations  mentioned  before, 
further implementing acts would be needed in order to establish or modify certain annexes of 
the  mother  regulation  containing  detailed  requirements  for  application  forms,  information 
folders,  numbering  systems,  templates  for  approval  certificates  and  other  technical  and 
administrative  details  which  should  not  be  adopted  by  the  co-legislator,  but  by  the 
Commission, using the comitology procedure.13 In practical terms this means that these acts 
could after all be integrated in the main Regulation.  

4.2. 

Simplification II: Improved regulatory capacity 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 the 23 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), if equivalent technical standards have been defined by UNECE, the provisions of EC 

12  
13  

At this stage, the exact number of implementation Regulations has not been fixed yet. 
Cf.  Regulation  1060/2008,  replacing  certain  annexes  of  the  framework  directive  (2007/46/EC)  for 
motor vehicles; OJ L 292 of 31.10.2008. 

EN 

13 

   EN 

 
 
                                                 
Directives  should  be  repealed  and  replaced  by  a  reference  to  these  international  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: this would allow opening 
up  to updates of these technical requirements. 

From  a  point  of  view  of  legal  certainty  and  control  over  EU  legislation  the  latter 
possibility (dynamic reference)  seems unacceptable; stakeholders  agree on this.  As a 
consequence  this  is  not  further  analysed.  It  is  intended  to  maintain  the  existing 
reference to motor vehicle directives, as far as they will continue to exist in the light of 
developments under the General Safety Regulation for those vehicles.  

c) 

Option 3: Use references to all 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  Systems,  which  are  not 
available from UNECE; for other issues only standards from CEN/CENELEC or ISO exist.  

In  the  table  in  annex  6  a  preliminary  indication  is  given  of  the  international  standards  that 
could be used. This needs verification during the development of implementing legislation. 

4.3. 

Completion of the single market 

a) 

Option 1: No policy change 

No  change  would  be  made  to  the  scope  of  the  Framework  Directive,  the  EC  whole  vehicle 
type-approval remaining optional, but de facto not available14 for categories T4, T5, C, R and 
S.  Without  any  adaptation  to  technical  requirements,  the  different  national  type-approval 
requirements  will  have  to  be  complied  with  in  order  to  obtain  national  type-approvals  and 
have market access in different Member 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  the  categories  not  (fully)  covered 
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) 

Like  in  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 type-approval, 
the  latter  at  probably  higher  costs  but  with  the  benefit  of  direct  accessibility  to  the  whole 

14  

Cf. the explanation given under point 2.2.3. above. 

EN 

14 

   EN 

 
 
                                                 
internal market. The manufacturer would have an incentive to choose the profit maximising 
solution. 

An  alternative  would  be,  as  suggested  by  many  stakeholders,  to  make  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 safety aspects up 
to  a  shared  certain  acceptable  (minimum)  level.  For  all  tractors  this  already  is  the  case  for 
exhaust gas emissions requirements. 

EN 

15 

   EN 

 
SECTION 5: ANALYSIS OF IMPACTS 

5.1. 

Simplification  I:  Simplification  of  existing  acquis  (by  repeal  of  existing 
directives) 

a) 

Option 1: No policy change 

Considering  the  positive  side  of  no  change  in  policy,  it  can  be  stated  first  that  avoiding  to 
change the whole regulatory framework will save the administrative cost necessary in national 
administrations  to  establish  the  new  Regulation  and  repeal  the  current  national  legislation 
transposing  the  Directives.  The  extended  impact  assessment  report  presents  the  saving  of 
€ 909.225  (average  of  values  given  by  resp ondents;  range  from  € 18.225  to  € 3.653.100, 
caused by differences in legal systems in Member States; see TRL report paragraph 4.1.2) for 
this change in the 27 MS. This cost would be avoided if option 1 is chosen. If a look is taken 
at medium and long-term effects, this positive aspect is nevertheless weakened, because the 
annual  cost  of  managing  the  current  regulatory  framework  in  the  27  MS  is  estimated  at 
t paragraph 4.2.1.1), while it would be 
€ 533.993 (range: € 29.160 to € 2.435.400; TRL repor
at € 128.912 with a new Mother Regulation and  an implementing Regulation. This situation 
can  be  explained  by  the  different  management  requirements  used  by  Member  States 
administrations between the two legislative formats: an annual average cost per Member State 
of  € 19.778  in  order  to  reflect  th e  changes  to  Directives  in  their  national  legislation  can  be 
compared to an annual average of € 11.858 for changes to implementing Regulations. Due to 
this  difference,  it  can  be  calculated  that  the  initial  cost  would  turn  to  be  beneficial  from  a 
cost/benefit point of view after a foreseen period of 3 years. 

Apart  from  this  budgetary  point  of  view,  the  simplification  process  and  replacement  of  the 
current framework Directive by a Regulation has not been opposed by stakeholders during the 
public  consultation.  Stakeholders  welcome  the  simplification  exercise  and  consider  that  the 
choice of a Regulation is a proper step on this way. But several actors, in particular industry, 
stress the need to deal firstly with other matters, considered to be more urgent15, before using 
time  to  tune  the  legal  format  of  the  regulatory  framework.  These  actors  underline  that  the 
simplification exercise should not delay such urgent dossiers. The shift to a Regulation is thus 
not opposed by stakeholders, but not deeply supported because of this scepticism on timing. 
This can be considered as a positive point for option 1, but it assumes that delays will indeed 
be introduced for dealing with current matters. The Commission services intend to tackle both 
aspects  in  parallel,  using  the  comitology  procedure  (CATP-AT)  to  tackle  urgent  issues,  in 
order for this negative input of the regulatory modification to be limited as much as possible. 
This impact can thus be considered as limited.  

b) 

Option 2: Replace the current framework by two regulations 

Replacing the Framework Directive and its set of 23 technical Directives (and 36 amending 
Directives) by one co-decision Regulation and one Regulation by comitology is proposed as 
an  exercise  of  simplification.  The  proposal  to  apply  simplification  to  agricultural  vehicles 
responds to a clear demand coming from stakeholders in the public consultation, but also from 
the European Parliament, where several Members have expressed criticisms on the pointless 
complexity of the format of the current legislative framework, and asked the Commission to 
take measures to tackle this situation. 

15  

One  of  these  issues  is  to  take  agricultural  tractors  out  of  the  scope  of  the  Machinery  Directive 
2006/42/EC. 

EN 

16 

   EN 

 
                                                 
As  mentioned  above,  replies  from  stakeholders  during  the  public  consultation  have 
highlighted  that  a  shift  to  a  Regulation  was  welcomed  as  a  simplification  exercise.  This 
proposal  has  also  received  the  support  of  Member  States  representatives  during  the  83rd 
meeting of the Working Group on Agricultural Tractors, held on 21 November 2008. It must 
be stressed that in both cases the support is dependent on the format of the Regulation, which 
has to be of a split-level nature. Both Member States and industry insisted on the necessity of 
this  approach:  the  functioning  of  the  type-approval  system,  its  scope  and  its  fundamental 
requirements  have  to  be  included  in  the  Mother  Regulation  decided  by  co-decision,  while 
detailed  technical  requirements  have  to  be  contained  in  implementing  legislation  adopted 
through  comitology  procedure.  Such  a  split-level  approach  allows  a  quick  process  of 
adaptation to technical evolution in the future. Commission services are aware of this demand 
and therefore intend to use this approach. The support for this format is thus a positive point 
for this option. 

As far as administrative costs are concerned, the choice of such a format can be considered 
positive as well, because transpositions in national legislations will no longer be needed, and 
the  Commission  will  also  no  longer  be  responsible  for  a  time  consuming  scrutiny  of  these 
transpositions. Both national and EU administrations will thus benefit from this new format. 
As explained with figures in option 1, the cost of replacing the regulatory framework is quite 
high (estimated at € 909.225), and this cost  is a clear negative point for option 2. But taking a 
medium and long-term view (more than 3 years), the shift appears to be beneficial, and is then 
a  positive  point,  which  is  well  in  line  with  the  objective  of  simplification  and  reduction  of 
administrative burden. 

c) 

Option 3: Replace the current Directives by four Regulations 

The cost/benefit analysis did not show significant differences between cost to implement and 
operate one or three implementing Regulation(s); this reflects the view taken above16 that the 
difference between options 2 and 3 is small.  

Actually,  the  exact  number  of  implementing  Regulations,  setting  technical  requirements  via 
comitology  procedure,  is  not  yet  fixed.  It  is  proposed  to  group  these  provisions  by  themes, 
like  road  safety,  occupational  (work)  safety,  and  environmental  protection  aspects. 
Nevertheless, additional categories could be added, for example one for braking requirements.  

This proposal should be seen as a generalisation for the simplification exercise, in order for 
technical experts in comitology to deal with sets of coherent groups of issues. This division is 
thus purely practical, intended to plan the adoption of the requirements, but  will not indeed 
affect  the  requirements  themselves.  Such  an  approach  using  several  sets  of  implementing 
Regulations  is  also  seeking  to  increase  the  clarity  of  the  regulatory  framework  for 
manufacturers which have to comply with it to obtain type-approval. It would be particularly 
the case if it is foreseen to choose the option of mandatory EC type-approval for vehicles in 
categories R and S, covering only aspects relating to road safety. This clarity for industry is an 
important  benefit  of  the  simplification  exercise,  considering  in  particular  SMEs  which  have 
limited  administrative  resources  to  deal  with  complex  regulatory  requirements  needed  to 
obtain  type-approval.  This  option  for  providing  a  clear  and  logical  structure  has  been 
supported  by  industry  representatives,  for  example  during  the  stakeholders  workshop 
organised by TRL on the 21 November 2008. 

A  negative  aspect  of  using  one  implementing  Regulation  can  be  the  length  of  processing: 
agreeing  on  one  text  including  all  requirements  would  indeed  take  a  lot  of  time  for  the 

16  

Cf. point 4.3.  

EN 

17 

   EN 

 
                                                 
committee,  which  may  need  to  involve  different  experts  depending  on  the  aspects  covered. 
The  positive  side  of  grouping  the  requirements  is  the  facilitation  and  rationalisation  effects 
provided, by allowing experts to deal more coherently with aspects related to similar, limited 
objectives. And the timing issue can be minimised as implementing measures will be prepared 
in  parallel  to  the  co-decision  process,  allowing  them  to  be  adopted  in  a  short  term.  The 
decision to go for one or a particular number of implementing Regulations should be agreed 
with the comitology committees. 

It  must  be  kept  in  mind  that  two  issues  have  to  be  distinguished:  one  is  the  number  of 
regulations to be adopted, the other one is the number of regulations finally obtained. What is 
intended  to  become  one  (Mother)  Regulation  could  be  adopted  in  several  stages,  with  one 
original  (basic)  regulation  which  is  later  on  amended  by  other  regulations.  Thus,  while  the 
legislative  process  could  be  split  up  for  practical  reasons,  the  number  of  legal  instruments 
obtained in the end could still be very small. This might well be the most suitable answer to 
the different pros and cons deliberated in the preceding paragraph. 

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  instrument  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 of the co-legislator also for comitology acts). 

Position of stakeholders 

Member States: some expressed preference for Regulations for faster and clearer legislation 
(DE,  FR,  FI,  UK),  none  were  against.  NL:  could  accept,  but  fears  additional  administrative 
costs. Only one ministry was in favour of New Approach directives. Some expressed that this 
project should not delay prioritary work on specific other proposals. 

Industry: CEMA agreed with a regulation; scope should be clear and agreed in co-decision. 

No opinion was expressed on the number of Regulations to be used. 

5.2. 

Simplification II: Improved regulatory capacity for future acquis (by new split-
level regulatory approach with use of references to international standards) 

a) 

Option 1: No policy change 

Regulations  of  the  UNECE,  under  the  1958  Agreement,  are  widely  recognized  in  countries 
inside and outside the EU, and the EU has itself acceded to a lot of them. A similar situation 
takes  place  with  standards  produced  by  other  international  institutions,  such  as  OECD, 
CEN/CENELEC and ISO. Many provisions of EU Directives relate to these standards, and as 
a  result  manufacturers  whose  types  of  vehicles  comply  with  their  requirements  can  gain 
access  to  EU  and  various  other  markets  using  these  same  requirements.  In  practice,  a 
manufacturer usually selects among those organisations the single most appropriate approval 
standard  in  order  to  get  approval  for  a  component  or  a  type  of  vehicle.  This  promotion  of 
international standards is thus supported by industry. But in the current situation, provisions 
are often duplicated in the European legislation, or are similar in technical requirements but 

EN 

18 

   EN 

 
 
 
differ  in  formal  details.  An  example  is  the  date  of  entry  into  force  of  an  amendment  to  a 
Directive, which usually is different as a result of (lengthy) procedures to update the Directive 
after  e.g.  UNECE  introduced  an  amendment  in  its  Regulation  on  the  same  subject.  This 
causes unclarity and unnecessary administrative burden. 

The  positive  point  in  ”no  policy  change”  is  that  no  risk  of  loss  in  quality  of  requirements 
would be introduced by replacing provisions of EU Directives by references to international 
standards. Indeed, many respondents to the public consultation have expressed their worries 
that the referencing exercise  could introduce loss in safety  or environmental protection. But 
the negative side of option 1 is that the unclarity for manufacturers and administrations will 
remain,  which  is  not  in  line  with  the  Better  Regulation  objective,  in  particular  because  the 
duplication  is  considered  as  useless  in  terms  of  safety  or  environment.  Continuing  this 
approach would thus only add additional administrative burden on stakeholders. To reply to 
the  worries  about  a  weakening  of  requirements,  it  is  stated  clearly  in  the  objectives  that 
references will be proposed only in cases where the international standards are at least equal 
to the relevant EU Directives. This argument for the support of option 1 can thus be assumed 
to be non-applicable. 

b) 

Option 2: Use where possible references to UNECE Regulations17 

This  option,  also  applied  in  the  General  Safety  Regulation  for  motor  vehicles,  is  widely 
supported  by  stakeholders,  as  expressed  in  replies  to  the  public  consultation.  The  main 
positive  point  is  that  the  legislation  will  be  simplified  by  suppressing  useless  duplications. 
This will benefit all actors dealing with this legislation, being national authorities responsible 
for  type-approval,  or  manufacturers  whose  vehicle  types  have  to  comply  with  these 
requirements.  This  will  in  particular  benefit  the  SMEs  which  have  limited  resources  to  be 
attributed  to  regulatory  affairs.  The  extended  impact  assessment  done  by  the  contractor  has 
tried to quantify the changes implied by the references, offering a cost/benefit analysis of the 
different aspects of this shift. 

Considering the cost of type-approvals for manufacturers, it has been estimated from previous 
studies  and  stakeholders’  feedback  that  it  would  be  approximately  € 15.000  per  type  on 
average.  The  cost  of  one  whole  vehicle  type-approval  taken  individually  can  be  above 
€ 100.000, but practically most manufacturers use  a family approach, using results from one 
type to approve other types of vehicle. For example, a cab structure approved for the roll-over 
protective  structure  (ROPS)  test  can  be  used  several  times  for  different  vehicle  types  using 
various engines and devices: the costly ROPS test would not need to be done again and again. 
This  situation  allows  manufacturers  to  reduce  costs  and  administrative  burden.  Using 
references  to  international  standards  and  repealing  EC  Directives  duplicating  them  is  not 
likely  to  change  this  functioning.  Manufacturers  will  continue  to  select  the  approval  tests 
needed  among  UNECE  and  remaining  EC  standards.  There  will  be  no  additional 
administrative  or  type-approval  costs.  Requirements  of  repealed  Directives  will  be  replaced 
by equivalent requirements. There is therefore no cost, but no direct benefit either in terms of 
cost  reduction  for  manufacturers.  The  foreseen  benefit  will  be  the  simplification  and  the 
clarification of the regulatory framework, but this is particularly hard to be quantified. 

Considering the cost of attendance to meetings of EU, UNECE, OECD, ISO and CEN, it has 
been  estimated  that  the  average  annual  cost  for  all  participants  is  € 1.135.085  (range: 

17  

Presently 8 Regulations specific for tractors and some 12 for motor vehicles which can applied to this 
sector too. 

EN 

19 

   EN 

 
 
                                                 
€ 310.536  to  € 2.608.200;  TRL  report  paragraph  4.2.1. 2).  This  cost  is  high  and  the 
simplification  exercise  could  help  to  reduce  it.  Nevertheless,  Member  States  representatives 
indicated that the proposed changes to the current type-approval framework will not put into 
question  the  necessity  for  them  to  attend  meetings  of  these  international  organisations.  A 
simplified  regulatory  framework  could  thus  not  claim  to  reduce  costs  for  national 
administrations to this respect. Member States which mentioned a reduction stated it as being 
very  limited,  and  difficult  to  quantify.  As  far  as  industry  representatives  are  concerned, 
stakeholder feedback suggested also that the impact on attendance to meetings might be very 
limited.  However,  even  if  difficult  to  assess,  there  will  be  a  reduction.  For  example,  if  all 
lighting  requirements  were  based  on  UNECE  Regulations,  with  only  references  in  EC 
Regulations, there would still be a need to attend meetings of both organisations, but the work 
in EC working groups would be reduced, because it would only be necessary to agree on the 
updated version of the UNECE Regulation and to change the reference in the EC Regulation. 
As a result of this situation, a reduction of up to 10 % on annual meeting costs is assumed to 
take  place,  which  means  an  annual  benefit  of  € 56.574  (average;  TRL  report  paragraph 
4.2.2.2).  This  benefit  will  compensate  the  initial  cost  of  introducing  a  new  Framework 
Regulation with references and repealing the current Directives (estimated at € 533.993) after 
a few years. 

Another aspect  of the  quantified cost/benefit  assessment of using references to international 
standards  is  the  reduction  of  translation  costs.  The  annual  cost  for  translations  under  the 
current  regulatory  system  is  estimated  at  € 55.688  (average),  because  amendments  to  a 
Directive need to  be translated  into all languages. This  cost should no  longer  be  required if 
references to international standards are used. Nevertheless this benefit would exist only if the 
option  of  fixed  references  is  used,  with  only  the  mention  of  the  code  of  the  international 
standard, and not a full reference with the text of the standard fully transferred or separately 
published by EC. However, even in the case of simple static references - which seem to be the 
most likely option - the Commission can commit to translate the texts of these international 
standards. It is already the case for UNECE, and it has been requested for OECD Codes. 

To  summarize,  quantified  benefits  of  using  references  are  limited,  but  costs  are  also  very 
limited.  The  global  assessment  is  that  this  change  has  a  very  low  impact  for  both 
manufacturers  and  EC  and  MS  in  terms  of  administrative  or  type-approval  costs.  The 
cost/benefit  assessment  is  thus  slightly  but  globally  in  favour  of  these  references.  The  main 
argument  for  this  option  is  therefore  the  simplification:  a  regulatory  framework  with  more 
clarity  will  benefit  both  manufacturers  seeking  type-approval  and  administrations  updating 
regulations  to  technical  progress  in  an  international  environment.  In  addition,  today  the 
Commission services work on their own documents and on those from UNECE, OECD, etc. It 
would  be  much  easier  and  more  cost-effective  for  the  Commission  services  and  for  the 
representatives of Member States in the working groups if the technical details were no longer 
duplicated in different set of legislations. 

c) 

Option 3: Use references to all relevant international standards 

Similar to option b), but now reference to OECD, CEN/CENELEC and ISO can be applied. 

A certain number of subjects is dealt with in other international organisations than UNECE. In 
relevant  cases  the  EU  may  wish  to  reference  those  other  standards,  for  example  the  OECD 
Codes on roll-over protection systems. In other cases we can refer to CEN/CENELEC or ISO 
standards. 

A  further  difference  may  be  caused  by  the  influence  of  the  parties  involved  in  decision 
making;  in  UNECE  the  EU  has  full  voting  rights,  which  is  not  the  case  in  the  other 

EN 

20 

   EN 

 
organisations.  Also,  standards  from  CEN/CENELEC  and  ISO  are  mostly  about  definitions 
and test procedures, but do not contain limit values for approval or rejection. 

Stakeholders  from  industry  clearly  expressed  a  preference  to  refer  to  ISO  standards  above 
UNECE  and  OECD.  Furthermore  there  is  an  ongoing  process  to  harmonise  requirements 
between  OECD  and  ISO,  producing  one  single  standard  for  both  organisations  for  certain 
subjects.  

In all cases of reference to international standards the Regulation should provide that the EU 
can act independently to introduce differing amendments if necessary. 

Position of stakeholders 

Member  States:  DE,  FI,  FR,  NL,  UK  favourable  to  the  use  of  international  standards, 
especially  UNECE  and  OECD,  with  some  conditions  (static  reference;  CoP  requirements). 
None was negative. 

Industry:  General  support,  with  preference  for  ISO  standards;  OECD  and  UNECE  as 
alternative. 

The idea of legislation based on New Approach was supported by one ministry (DK); others 
were against and insisted on sticking to the existing type-approval system (with either a Reg. 
or a Dir.). 

5.3. 

Completion of the single market 

The baseline (no change in policy) has been considered  the completion of requirements on a 
mandatory basis as described in the current Framework Directive. The preferred option (3) 
considers  the    completion  of  all  requirements,  on  a  mandatory  basis,  for  all  tractors  (for 
reasons  of  road  and  occupational  safety  and  environment),  while  on  an  optional  basis  for 
trailers and towed equipment with the exception of the main road safety aspects that shall  be 
made mandatory too. It has been considered that the  baseline will not be achieved for a long 
time and will represent a problem in particular  for SMEs it would be a problem. 

a) 

Option 1: No policy change 

Basically  Directive  2003/37/EC  provides  for  mandatory  EU  type-approval  for  all  categories 
of  agricultural  and  forestry  vehicles  (as  soon  as  all  relevant  separate  Directives  would  be 
available). At the moment of writing this report, vehicles from categories T4, T5, C, R and S 
should in principle be able to apply for EC type-approval on a voluntary basis. In the present 
situation  technical  requirements  for  many  subjects  still  have  to  be  adapted  for  this  to  be 
possible.  In  this  situation,  safety  objectives  set  at  the  European  level  are  not  reached,  and 
these vehicles have only to comply with provisions of national type-approval systems (as far 
as  they  exist).  The  free  movement  of  these  goods  across  the  European  market  is  thus  not 
possible, as a same vehicle has to be approved in each country where a manufacturer wants to 
sell it or a user wants to use it. For some manufacturers and some types of product it is little or 
no  problem  (SME;  small  series  for  local/regional  markets  only).  Larger  manufacturers  may 
produce larger series for many markets and wish to obtain EU type-approvals. 

This  option  requires  that  Member  States  continue  to  implement  future  EU  Directives  and 
COM shall monitor this. To agree on the applicable technical requirements for categories T4, 
T5, C, R and S and producing such detailed Directives is a time consuming  and sometimes 
cumbersome procedure. 

EN 

21 

   EN 

 
 
b) 

Option 2: Complete the EC type-approval requirements and make EC type-approval 
mandatory  for  all  categories  of  vehicles,  as  intended  in  the  present  Framework 
Directive 

The  expected  main  benefit  of  this  option  is  considered  to  be  that  for  society  thanks  to  road 
casualties reduction (TRL: up to € 51 million; pa ragraph 4.3.2.8), but the statistical basis for 
this assumption is very limited.  

Going for mandatory EC type-approval for these categories T4, T5, C, R and S would help 
manufacturers saving costs of approving their vehicles in the different national type-approval 
systems.  Vehicles  are  sold  on  average  in  between  4  and  14  Member  States,  which  would 
indicate much less administrative costs for manufacturers if only one EC type-approval would 
be needed. This would allow the development of the internal market of this sector, and help 
manufacturers  to  develop  by  accessing  various  European  markets.  It  may  be  an  interesting 
option when considering that most manufacturers of vehicles in categories R and S are SMEs: 
these  manufacturers  would  benefit  from  access  to  a  wider  market  for  less  administrative 
burden and costs. But it must be highlighted that this option would introduce new European 
standards  replacing  national  ones,  and  that  this  shift  could  imply  important  costs  for 
manufacturers in order for their vehicles to comply with these new safety and environmental 
requirements.  This  is  particularly  a  problem  when  considering  that  additional  costs  will  be 
passed  on  to  users  and  consumers  of  these  vehicles,  which  are  often  SMEs:  farmers, 
contractors  and  forestry  enterprises.  Establishing  new  mandatory  requirements  at  EU-level 
has thus to be well assessed, in order to be cost/beneficial and not to add unnecessary costs on 
manufacturers. During the public consultation, the wide majority of stakeholders have replied 
that  a  completion  under  certain  conditions  is  very  welcome,  and  option  1  is  thus  not 
supported, but both administrations and manufacturers have expressed demands on how this 
completion should be made, with distinctions among types of requirements. 

As  stressed  by  stakeholders  during  the  public  consultation,  a  completion  of  the  internal 
market is welcomed for these categories, and the EC type-approval system is supported as a 
good instrument for this purpose. But the mandatory version of option 2 is very unlikely to be 
applied: cost/benefit calculations must be done for each category, and the various aspects of 
the  type-approval  must  be  distinguished.  As  far as  vehicles  in  categories  C,  T4,  and  T5  are 
concerned, stakeholders have agreed that, considering their use on the road and their higher 
speed capabilities, they should comply with common road safety requirements, and thus have 
mandatory  EC  type-approval  for  these  aspects.  Where  these  vehicles  are  used  by  larger 
companies  or contracting firms, the  additional cost of  new requirements would be borne by 
large manufacturers and is not likely to add more costs on SMEs. For the larger manufacturers 
of  these  vehicles,  the  benefit  would  be  less  administrative  costs  for  type-approval,  and  an 
easier access to markets. 

Concerning  the  T4.1  category  (high-clearance  tractors,  used  in  vineyards),  industry 
representatives  have  highlighted  that  these  types  of  vehicles  are  currently  covered  by  the 
exemption  for  small  series  existing  in  present  the  Framework  Directive.  The  Commission 
services do not foresee modification of this exemption. If T4.1 category is to be included in 
the  mandatory  EC  type-approval  system,  those  types  of  vehicles  can  thus  continue  to  be 
approved under the small series exemption. There will be therefore no cost for this enclosure. 
However,  opting  for  the  mandatory  EC  whole  vehicle  type-approval  would  cause 
manufacturers  and  administrations  to  prepare  the  ground  for  common  road  safety 
requirements for such vehicles, in case their market grows and is consolidated across Europe, 
which will impede the use of the small series exemption. 

EN 

22 

   EN 

 
Concerning  the  T4.2  category  (very  large  tractors),  the  feedback  from  manufacturers 
suggested that the current situation offers a large variety of situations among Member States 
in terms of technical requirements and road safety provisions. In the meantime, these types of 
vehicles  are  sold  across  the  EU  (typically  in  about  10  MS)  which  means  that  there  is  no 
common  market  for  them  and  that  manufacturers  and  users  suffer  from  administrative  and 
design/production  costs  due  to  the  different  national  technical  requirements.  Mandatory  EC 
type-approval could lead to a reduction of the cost of design, and finally to a reduction of the 
final  cost  of  the  vehicle.  This  would  be  an  additional  benefit,  together  with  the  benefits  of 
having a common market established for these goods. The impact on the final price has been 
assessed in order to indentify the cost/benefit analysis on users, which include SMEs. It has 
been  estimated  that  a  reduction  of  2%  could  occur,  which  means  a  benefit  of  € 2.000  to 
€ 3.000 on vehicles of € 100.000 to € 150.000. As a
bout 9.000 vehicles of  this category are 
registered each year across Europe, an average of € 22.500.000 could be saved by users (TRL 
report paragraph 4.3.2.2). Nevertheless, technical requirements will have to be adapted to this 
category, because the cost of compliance would otherwise cause an increase of price superior 
to the decrease permitted by the harmonisation.  

Concerning the T4.3 category (alpine tractors), these vehicles fall totally under the exemption 
for small series, which Commission services intend to maintain. To include this category in 
the  mandatory  EC  whole  vehicle  type-approval  framework  will  thus  not  add  any  cost  for 
manufacturers  or  users.  This  exemption  allows  vehicles  to  be  type-approved  by  a  national 
type-approval  system  under  its  specific  provisions,  and  the  Member  State  then  sends  to  the 
Commission  and  to  other  MS  the  list  of  its  approvals;  other  Member  States  decide  then 
individually  to  accept  it  or  not  if  a  manufacturer  wants  to  sell  the  product  in  such  other 
Member State. 

Concerning  the  T5  category  (maximum  speed  more  than  40  km/h),  diverging  technical 
requirements  are  currently  used  across  the  EU,  which  prevent  these  types  of  vehicles  from 
benefitting  of  the  internal  market.  To  ask  these  vehicles  to  meet  mandatory  type-approval 
requirements  is  likely  to  increase  their  final  price,  but  this  depends  on  the  requirements 
selected. TRL calculated that if the requirements currently used by the German type-approval 
system  were  used  for  the  mandatory  EC  whole  vehicle  type-approval,  an  increase  of  2,5% 
(average) could be expected, which would lead to an increase in price per vehicle of € 2.000 
to  4.500  on  a  vehicle  costing  typically  €  100.000  to  150.000  now  (TRL  report  paragraph 
4.3.2.4).  Considering  that  some  13.000  vehicles  of  this  type  are  registered  each  year  in 
Europe, such requirements would cost from € 26 to 59 million to manufacturers due to higher 
prices. If other requirements were selected, such as mandatory fitting of ABS (as is currently 
required in the United Kingdom), the increase in price would be much higher, and so would 
be  the  global  cost  on  users.  Commission  services  consider  that  the  EC  whole  vehicle  type-
approval is nevertheless a good option for the T5 category, because those vehicles can reach 
high speeds (designed for > 40km/h, typically intended also for use on main public roads) and 
road safety is a real concern. The various provisions in force in Member States prove that all 
Member  States  agree  that  road  safety  requirements  are  indeed  needed  here,  and  to  ask  for 
common requirements at the European level is thus an opportunity to reach the benefits of the 
common market while ensuring a high level of road safety. 

Concerning  the  C  category,  these  vehicles  are  produced  in  low  volumes  for  very  specific 
markets,  and  therefore  they  all  fall  under  the  small  series  exemption  that  the  Commission 
services  propose  to  maintain,  in  accordance  with  what  both  national  administrations  and 
manufacturers  have  asked  during  the  public  consultation.  In  this  situation,  there  will  be  no 
additional  cost  to  include  these  types  of  vehicles  in  the  mandatory  EC  whole  vehicle  type-
approval framework. 

EN 

23 

   EN 

 
As  far  as  vehicles  from  categories  R  (trailers)  and  S  (towed  machinery)  are  concerned,  a 
different assessment must be used. These vehicles are produced and bought directly mainly by 
SMEs, which would bear the costs of new requirements. Stakeholders are divided about the 
necessity  to  make  the  EC  whole  vehicle  type-approval  mandatory  for  these  categories. 
Nevertheless,  these  vehicles  are  being  used  on  public  roads,  and  are  sold  across  the  EU  in 
very high numbers (estimation of 625.000 vehicles for EU-25 in 2005). To require European 
road  safety  provisions  for  them  is  thus  a  policy  option  supported  by  the  majority  of 
stakeholders  during  the  public  consultation,  being  associations  of  users  or  governmental 
organisations. Commission services consider that mandatory EC whole vehicle type-approval 
for these categories could thus be introduced, but that this would be done only for road safety 
aspects.  

This approach respects opinions expressed by stakeholders. Other aspects such as work safety 
are  considered  as  sufficiently  well  covered  by  other  European  legislations,  such  as  the 
Machinery  Directive.  Moreover,  the  majority  of  replies  from  national  administrations  state 
that for other aspects than road safety these vehicles are produced for specific regional needs 
which would be very difficult to cover with harmonised requirements at the European level. 
To choose a regulatory action would therefore not be in line with the subsidiarity principle. In 
addition, Commission services agree with the various stakeholders who expressed the opinion 
that exemptions such as included in the current legislation should be maintained. Small series 
and  individual  approvals  will  thus  remain  type-approved  at  the  national  level.  Exemptions 
stated  currently  under  Art.  2.2  of  the  Framework  Directive  will  also  be  maintained,  as 
demanded by stakeholders. 

Concerning the R category, for which common technical requirements are currently missing, 
it  covers  a  wide  variety  of  trailers,  ranging  from  large  standardised  productions  to  very 
specific vehicles used for particular works. Some of the specific productions would fall under 
the small series exemptions, defined in Annex V Section A of the Framework Directive, but 
the number authorised is smaller: 75 units instead of 150 units for the T categories. (This limit 
is  set  as  the  number  of  vehicles  registered,  offered  for  sale  or  put  into  service  each  year  in 
each Member State.).  

It has been estimated that common requirements for road safety (signs, lighting, braking etc.) 
would  allow  a  harmonisation  of  design  for  all  markets,  which  would  lead  to  a  better 
integration of these road safety devices on the vehicles, but also to a reduction of their final 
price. This reduction is estimated at 2 to 3 %, which means a decrease of € 200 to 900 on a 
vehicle  of  between  € 5.000  and  30.000  (TRL  report  paragraph  4.3.2.6).  Over  a  number  of 
125.000 units registered per year in the EU, there will be a benefit of € 68.750.000 (average) 
for  buyers  of  these  vehicles,  which  are  often  SMEs.  Manufacturers  will  also  gain  from 
common requirements, which will prevent them to adapt the safety devices of their vehicles in 
a badly integrated way, only in order to comply with the variety of national rules. It will thus 
simplify  their  design  and  production,  as  well  as  the  functioning  of  their  stocks  and  their 
logistics. Finally, asking for mandatory application of common road safety requirements will 
benefit to all citizens, as those vehicles are sold in high volumes and do circulate on public 
roads. To complete the internal market by setting common European road safety requirements 
is thus an option foreseen by Commission services, and it has been supported by a majority of 
stakeholders during the public consultation. 

The current technical requirements are nevertheless not adapted to the category R. It has been 
estimated  by  a  stakeholder  that  to  comply  with  all  current  requirements  of  the  EC  type-
approval framework would lead to an increase of € 3.000 of the pr ice per vehicle. This cost 
would be borne by buyers of these vehicles, among which there are many SMEs (farmers and 

EN 

24 

   EN 

 
small  forestry  enterprises).  As  stated  by  national  administrations  during  the  public 
consultation, many of these vehicles are adapted for specific needs to perform jobs related to 
special  agricultural  of  forestry  work  which  are  different  across  Europe.  To  standardise  all 
safety and environmental requirements in such a situation would be very difficult, and would 
put into question the use of particular vehicles in certain regions. In respect of this situation, 
the Commission services could set new requirements for road safety only, and not make the 
EC type-approval system for other aspects mandatory. 

Concerning the  S  category,  types  of  vehicles  are  even  more  diverse  than  in  the  R  category. 
Interchangeable  towed  machinery  covers  a  wide  variety  of  vehicles  built  to  perform  very 
specific tasks and with many regional specialisations across the regions of Europe. Given this 
situation,  a  high  proportion  of  these  types  of  vehicles  (estimated  as  between  25  and  50  %) 
would  fall  under  the  small  series  exemption.  Nevertheless,  considering  the  low  limit  of  this 
exemption  for  this  category  (set  as  50  units  registered  per  year  in  each  MS),  a  majority  of 
these  types  will  have  to  comply  with  the  requirements  of  the  EC  type-approval  if  it  was 
decided  to  make  it  mandatory.  The  same  approach  as  for  category  R  has  been  followed  to 
assess the cost/benefit of this choice (TRL report paragraph 4.3.2.7). An average reduction of 
€ 1.625 of the price per vehicle (2.5% of € 65.000)
 could be gained due to harmonisation of 
road  safety  requirements  and  production  harmonisation  allowed  by  it.  As  some  vehicles  of 
category  S  are  sold  in  a  high  numbers,  it  would  mean  a  benefit  of  € 812.500.000  (average 
reduction of € 1.625 on 500.000 vehicles  registered per year). This will be a benefit to buyers, 
which  are  often  SMEs,  as  well  as  to  manufacturers  which  will  have  simplified  design  and 
production stages.  

Nevertheless,  the  technical  requirements  are  not  yet  adapted,  and  in  the  current  situation,  if 
vehicles  from  category  S  had  to  comply  with  all  requirements  of  the  separate  Directives 
specified  in  the  EC  type-approval  Framework  Directive,  the  cost  of  all  the  additional 
requirements would be much higher than the benefits from the standardisation (approximately 
twice  as  much,  estimated  as  €  3.000  per  vehi cle).  This  means  that  a  cost  of  € 687.500.000 
would be implied. In this situation, asking for mandatory EC type-approval for this category 
is not a good cost/benefit option, particularly if considering that the increase in the cost per 
vehicle  would  be  borne  by  a  large  number  of  SMEs.  And  as  stated  above,  it  cannot  be 
assumed  that  the  small  series  exemption  will  cover  sufficiently  the  very  specific  types  of 
vehicles, in order for them not to see their price increase drastically; they might even not be 
allowed on the market anymore, not meeting the EU requirements. 

With such an assessment, it is clear for Commission services that technical requirements will 
have to be adapted and defined precisely in order to allow vehicles to comply with the new 
common  requirements  at  a  minimum  cost.  At  the  same  time  and  in  the  present  market 
conditions  it  seems  undesirable  to  introduce  mandatory  new  requirements  because  of  rising 
costs.  

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 S) 

This  option  is  similar  to  b)  above,  but  in  this  case  the  EU  requirements  (to  be  completed) 
would not be mandatory but it will be left to the choice of the manufacturer whether to apply 
for EC whole vehicle type-approval or for national type-approval or not. 

The advantages and disadvantages are similar to the option above, but the manufacturer can 
decide whether his choice is beneficial for him and his product.  

An additional disadvantage is, however, that Member States will have to maintain a national 
homologation  system  in  parallel.  In  addition,  an  optional  system  requires  that  for  each 

EN 

25 

   EN 

 
separate  substantive  requirement  set  at  EU-level,  the  legislation  specifies  whether  this 
requirement is mandatory, including in the context of national type-approval, or optional. 

Also,  if  certain  requirements  are  left  optional,  various  MS  may  choose  a  different  level  of 
protection. This may be appropriate for the local / national conditions, but it may hinder trade 
if the vehicle is to be used elsewhere later on.  

Presently  the  Commission  services  are  of  the  opinion  that  there  are  no  supporting  data  in 
accident statistics, nor in trade aspects, that would justify a mandatory system. In 7 to 10 years 
it could be useful to reassess  this situation. 

The  preferred  option  would  be  option  3,  but  with  addition  that  certain  road  safety 
requirements  would  be  mandatory  in  order  to  guarantee  road  safety  (e.g.  braking,  lighting, 
marking). From the point of view of proportionality this seems the most appropriate choice; in 
numbers the categories T1, T2 and T3 are about 80% of the tractors market, so ‘completion’ 
would  be  for  20%  only  and  these  vehicles  are  very  seldom  used  on  the  roads  –  with  the 
specific  exemption  of  T5  (fast  tractors)  that  will  need  special  attention  in  implementing 
legislation.  For  environmental  apsects  it  should  be  noted  that  the  requirements  of  Directive 
2000/25/EC  are  already  mandatory  for  all  tractors  and  the  intention  is  that  this  will  not 
change,  so  the  present  project  of  introducing  a  Mother  Regulation  should  not  lessen 
environmental protection levels. 

Position of stakeholders 

Member States:  

Austria: should be optional 

Finland: mandatory for all tractors; partly optional for others. 

France: completion on mandatory basis, as soon as possible. 

Germany: mandatory for all, but with some possibilities for exemptions. 

Netherlands:  the  use  of  “small  series  exemptions”  causes  a  need  for  national 
legislation,  which  is  contrary  to  the  idea  of  a  Regulation.  TA  only  for  large  series, 
should be limited to tractors. 

United Kingdom: mixed, depending on cost/benefit. Mandatory for all tractors, maybe 
optional for T5. 

Industry:  

CEMA favours mandatory legislation for T1, T2 and T3 tractors only; the 
requirements for all other categories should be optional and for R and S be limited to 
road safety aspects. For some industries (SME) full EU type-approval would be too 
costly and they fear that it might prove impossible to build in enough flexibility in 
requirements to fit the needs for all different types of vehicle (e.g. the various higher 
masses and dimensions for special large tractors and machines). Requirements to be 
adjustable to regional needs. 

Some delegations have indicated that “self-propelled machinery” (or equipment) should be 
included in this Regulation on an optional basis (ES, NL, CEMA), for road safety issues.

EN 

26 

   EN 

 
 
SECTION 6: OPTIONS COMPARISON AND CONCLUSIONS 

Summary of impacts of different options for all objectives 

Objective 

Policy options 

effectiveness 

1 - No policy change 

0 

s
i
u
q
c
a

g
n
i
t
s
i
x
e

f
o

n
o
i
t
a
c
i
f
i
l
p
m
i
S

-

1

)
s
e
v
i
t
c
e
r
i
d

g
n
i
t
s
i
x
e

f
o

l
a
e
p
e
r

y
b
(

2 - Replace current 
framework by two 
regulations 

simplification of the 
regulatory 
framework 

+ 

3 - Replace the current 
framework by limited 
number of thematic 
regulations 

simplification of the 
regulatory 
framework 

+ 

Criteria 

efficiency 

0 

initial cost 

slight risk of delaying urgent 
matters 
cost reduction on the long term 

a quick process of adaptation to 
technical evolution in  the future 

initial cost 

slight risk of delaying urgent 
matters 

easier processing 

cost reduction on the long term 

implementing measures will be 
adopted in a short term 

_ 

_ 

+ 

+ 

_ 

_ 

+ 

+ 

+ 

coherence 

0 

better than baseline 

+ 

even more positive 
(increased clarity for 
industry) 

facilitation and 
rationalisation effects: more 
coherence for experts 

+ 

+ 

Conclusion
18 

0 

+ 

++ 

18 Explanation:   0 means ‘neutral’ (no change) 

+ means ‘better’ 

EN 

27 

EN 

 
  
 
 
                                                 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Policy options 

Objective 

1- No policy 
change 

2- Use references 
to UNECE 
Regulations 

3- Use references 
to all relevant 
international 
standards 

s
i
u
q
c
a

e
r
u
t
u
f

r
o
f

y
t
i
c
a
p
a
c
y
r
o
t
a
l
u
g
e
r

d
e
v
o
r
p
m

I

:
n
o
i
t
a
c
i
f
i
l
p
m
S
–

i

2

l
a
n
o
i
t
a
n
r
e
t
n
i

f
o

e
s
u

h
t
i

w
h
c
a
o
r
p
p
a
y
r
o
t
a
l
u
g
e
r

l
e
v
e
l
-
t
i
l
p
s
w
e
n
(

)
s
d
r
a
d
n
a
t
s

effectiveness 

0 

Criteria 

efficiency 

coherence 

Con-
clusion 

0 

0 

0 

simplification 

+ 

slight reduction of costs and administrative 
burden 

improved management of procedures 

reduction of 
duplications 

+ 

UNECE texts also need to be translated and 
published, like EC legislation 

simplification 

++ 

potential risk of weakening requirements 

OECD texts also need to be translated and 
published, 
like EC legislation and UNECE 

reduction of costs and administrative burden 

reduction of 
duplications 

++ 

improved management of procedures 

potential risk of weakening requirements 

+ 

+ 

0 

_ 

0 

+ 

+ 

- 

increase clarity 
for industry and 
administrations 

+ 

+ 

same as in 2.2 

++ 

EN 

28 

EN 

 
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Objective 

Policy options 

effectiveness 

1- No policy change 

0 

Criteria 

efficiency 

0 

coherence 

0 

t
e
k
r
a
m
e
l
g
n
i
s

e
h
t

f
o

n
o
i
t
e
l
p
m
o
C

-

3

2- Complete the EC TA 
requirements and make EC 
type-approval mandatory for 
all categories of vehicles 

completion of 
internal market 
(mandatory) 

+ 

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) 

+ 

high costs of new requirements for 
T4.2, T5, R and S 

access to a wider market with less 
administrative burden 
new specific technical requirements 
needed 
increase in road safety 
gains from harmonised designs 

allows open market with cheapest 
option 

new specific technical requirements 
needed 
increase in road safety 
gains from harmonised designs 

_ 

+ 

- 

+ 
+ 

+ 

- 

+ 
+ 

Con-
clusion 

0 

0 

+ 

EN 

29 

EN 

 
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
In  conclusion,  the  preferred  options  would  be  to  simplify  the  legislation  by  introducing  a  co-
decision  Regulation  with  a  limited  number  of  implementing  Regulations  through  Comitology, 
using as much as possible the standards available from UNECE, OECD, ISO and CEN/CENELEC. 
some of the road safety related prescriptions should be made mandatory (like already the case for 
emission requirements for all tractors). 

Furthermore, the preferred option for completion would be to maintain the ‘mandatory’ approach 
for tractor categories T1, T2 and T3, to require mandatory application of road safety requirements 
(at least braking, lighting, marking) for T4, T5, C, R and S vehicles and make the additional 
requirements (as listed in annex 3) optional at the choice of the manufacturer. Most stakeholders 
agree with the need for mandatory road safety requirements. CEMA would wish to maintain 
‘optional’ for all except T1-T2-T3. Optionality means the need to keep national legislation, but 
‘mandatory’ would be too expensive. 

It  can  be  noted  that  for  all  ‘automotive  sectors’  (motor  vehicles,  two-  and  three  wheelers  an 
agricultural vehicles) the following applies:  

a.  Self-regulation / voluntary codes: since 1970 many actors, including Member States national 
authorities have indicated that  in Europe these are not acceptable approaches for road safety, 
occupational safety and environmental protection, hence the existing (framework) 
Directives. Member States do not accept a change and prefer type-approval. A typical 
example for this approach is provided by the reasons for regulating CO2 emissions from 
passenger cars; another example is the situation relating to ‘pedestrian protection’ (bumpers 
of cars).  

b.  An additional option to make use of all international standards combined with ‘no EU 
action’: in this case EU would maintain the system of Directives but amend them 
progressively by replacing the technical content by a reference to such standards; this would 
be a viable option, but less desirable than when combined with a new Regulation. As 
explained the Directives are a relatively cumbersome, time-consuming and costly system, 
lacking some legal clarity, for all parties involved. 

Impact on health, safety and environmental protection: the ‘Mother Regulation’ should not have a 
major impact on health, safety and environmental protection as the Commission does not intend to 
change  the  technical  requirements; as  indicated  before  the  proposal  involves  first  of  all  a  system 
change.  For  health  and  environmental  protection  there  should  be  no  impact  at  all  (same 
requirements as today, no new categories); for road safety a slight improvement may be expected 
as  categories  R  and  S  would  fall  under  harmonised  requirements.  Later,  in  implementing 
legislation, positive effects should come from improved requirements for braking, to be applied to 
categories not covered today. On the other hand, the external study was not able to quantify these 
effects due to lack of detailed information (see annex 2). 

Ensuring existing level of protection: when agreeing a reference to UNECE, OECD or other, there 
should  be  agreement  with  the  experts  that  equivalence  is  shown;  of  course  the  Commission  is 
obliged under the Treaty to strive for a high level of protection when it  proposes legislation, so a 
step  back  would  not  be  acceptable.  Not  for  the  Commission,  nor  for  the  MS.  A  positive  change 
may occur, also in the case where a MS did not have requirements until now and will have to apply 

EN 

30 

   EN 

 
 
the  new  rules.  This  approach  is  similar  to  what  has  been  accepted  for  the  ‘General  Safety 
Regulation’ for motor vehicles recently. 

SECTION 7: MONITORING AND EVALUATION 

No specific system is foreseen but the Commission’s Working Group on Agricultural Tractors 
(WGAT) will be used for the follow-up with the implementing measure

EN 

31 

   EN 

 
ANNEX 1 

PUBLIC CONSULTATION ON OUTLINE PROPOSALS FOR A FRAMEWORK 
REGULATION OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL FOR 
AGRICULTURAL VEHICLES 

Summary of Responses  

1. 

CONTEXT 

The Commission launched an open public consultation seeking to gather views of interested parties on 
its outline proposals for new legislation for agricultural vehicles. A consultation document has been 
published to provide background and ask for opinions on this new framework, which should replace 
the  Framework  Directive  and  23  separate  directives  and  their  many  amending  directives.  These 
outline  proposals  are  thus  embedded  in  the  EU  strategy  to  improve  the  regulatory  environment 
towards simplification. In particular, comments of interested parties have been asked over three main 
aspects:  concerning  the  choice  and  format  of  the  legislation;  on  the  completion  and  the  mandatory 
nature of the type-approval system; and over its scope and coverage. 

2. 

OVERVIEW OF RESPONDENTS 

The consultation was launched on 03 July 2008, with 12 September as deadline for submission. The 
Commission  services  received  19  responses,  among  which  9  contributions  have  been  provided  by 
Member  States  governmental  organisations,  and  10  by  industrial  organisations.  Business  responses 
came from European federations of producers and users, national associations of producers and users, 
and single manufacturers of vehicles and components. 

3. 

3.1 

SUMMARY OF RESPONSES 

Choice of the legislative format 

There is a general support for the use of the Regulation format, which should help in the simplification 
process. Only one (governmental) organisation highlighted the usefulness of a New Approach system. 
The  majority  of  stakeholders  have  stressed  the  necessity  of  the  split-level  approach,  where 
fundamental requirements are included in a Mother Regulation decided by co-decision, while detailed 
technical requirements are contained and updated in implementing regulations, using the comitology 
procedure. Business actors consider this approach as  very needed in order to grant in the future the 
quick adaptation to new requirements. 

3.2 

References to international regulations and standards 

Comments  from  both  governmental  and  business  responses  are  highly  positive  about  increasing 
references  to  international  regulations  and  standards,  being  Regulations  from  the  United  Nations 
Economic Commission for Europe (UNECE), or standards developed by OECD, CEN/CENELEC or 
ISO.  This  approach  is  supported  because  of  its  welcomed  simplification  effect,  provided  that 
references  should  be  done  on  a  case  by  case  basis,  and  only  when  standards  are  at  least  equal  to 
existing parallel EU legislation, i.e. supporting the achievement of an equal level of safety. Moreover, 
many stakeholders stressed that static references should be used. 

EN 

32 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
3.3 

The type-approval system as legislative approach 

The  broad  majority  of  stakeholders,  both  public  and  private,  consider  the  use  of  the  type-approval 
system as efficient and support it as a legislative approach, even if it could be improved in order to 
become less time-consuming for the process of updating to technical progress. 

3.4 

Completion and mandatory nature of the type-approval system 

Both  public  and  private  stakeholders  broadly  (but  not  unanimously)  support  a  mandatory  type-
approval system at the European level for all agricultural and forestry tractors (defined as categories T 
and  C  in  the  Framework  Directive).  Some  want  limitations  if  a  cost/benefit  analysis  support  it. 
Concerning trailers and interchangeable towed machinery (categories R and S), half of governments 
consider  that  mandatory  type-approval  at  the  European  level  could  be  applied,  provided  that 
exemptions should be maintained for small series and very specific needs. The other administrations 
would  rather  see  the  type-approval  of  these  vehicles  at  the  European  level  as  optional,  or  only 
mandatory  for  road  safety  aspects.  They  are  backed  in  this  position  by  most  manufacturers 
representatives, who also ask for a voluntary harmonisation only. National (type)-approval systems are 
in  their  opinion  still  necessary  considering  regional  specific  uses  across  Europe.  Still  concerning 
trailers and interchangeable towed machinery (categories R and S), most governmental and business 
organisations are asking for a distinction between road safety aspects, which should be covered by the 
type-approval system, and other aspects such as occupational safety, which are already covered by the 
requirements of Directive 2006/42/EC on machinery. 

3.5 

Aspects to be covered 

All  stakeholders  but  one  agree  on  the  fact  that  road  safety  aspects  have  to  be  covered  in  the  type-
approval system. Concerning occupational safety of vehicles from categories T and C, respondents ask 
for  an  inclusion  of  the  risks  falling  currently  under  the  Machinery  Directive,  so  tractors  would  no 
longer fall under the requirements of Directive 2006/42/EC. As mentioned above, occupational safety 
aspects  in  vehicles  of  categories  R  and  S  are  considered  as  sufficiently  covered  by  the  Machinery 
Directive.  Additionally,  some  stakeholders  have  shown  interest  for  new  requirements  concerning 
aspects such as anti-lock braking (ABS). 

3.6 

Need for exemptions 

Both governmental and business actors consider that exempting full classes from type-approval is not 
the  right  option.  Stakeholders  are  nevertheless  divided  concerning  specific  exemptions.  Some 
responses only ask for exemptions contained in the Framework Directive, such as vehicles produced 
in small series or on individual basis, to be maintained in the new Regulation. Others would like to 
see new specific exemptions introduced, for example for vehicles adapted for special forestry needs, 
or about small vehicles from categories R and S which do not contain a braking system. Moreover, 
several  manufacturers  representatives  ask  for  exemptions  from  particular  requirements,  such  as 
vehicles from category C out of noise specifications, or vehicles from categories T2 and T4.1 out of 
updated exhaust emissions requirements. 

EN 

33 

   EN 

 
ANNEX 2 

DESCRIPTION OF THE TASKS REQUESTED TO THE EXTERNAL CONSULTANT  

AND METHODOLOGY USED 

Tasks 

A. 

General assessment: identification and estimation of likely economic, safety, social 
and environmental effects for each policy objectives proposed. 

This  implies  firstly  to  provide  a  general  overview  of  the  relevant  market,  with  a  special 
emphasis  on  vehicle  categories  for  which  EC  type-approval  is  not  mandatory  yet,  and  also 
with  a  particular  interest  for  SMEs.  Moreover,  the  contractor  has  been  asked  to  include 
wherever possible the 27 Member States. And it has also been asked to provide market data 
on the share between vehicles produced inside and outside Europe. 

Secondly,  always  for  each  policy  option,  data  have  been  requested  on  both  positive  and 
negative  impacts  on  road  and  work  safety,  on  the  environment,  and  on  costs  for 
manufacturers  as  well  as  for  national  administrations.  The  necessity  to  integrate  these 
different  aspects  has  been  stressed,  and  it  has  been  asked  to  consider  impacts  in  short, 
medium and long-term. Moreover, the contractor should study the possible improvement of 
the competitiveness of the relevant industry on the global market. And as costs are concerned, 
an integrated approach should be adopted with measurements to be done at the various stages 
from manufacture, assembly, and testing to the final type-approval of vehicles. 

B. 

Simplification  of  the  legislation  (Part  I):  assessment  of  a  simplification  exercise 
where  the  current  legislative  framework  consisting  of  24  Directives  would  be 
replaced  by  a  single  Regulation  adopted  by  co-decision  and  a  limited  number  of 
implementing regulations adopted by comitology procedure. 

This simplification is deemed to enable the co-legislator to focus on the main political issues, 
whereas  technical  issues  will  be  dealt  at  the  level  of  experts.  Advantages  foreseen  are  a 
quicker  adaptation  and  moreover  and  prevention  of  burdensome  transpositions  by  Member 
States,  as  well  as  the  related  scrutiny  of  these  transpositions  by  the  Commission.  The 
contractor has been requested to assess, if possible in monetary terms, the impacts of such a 
simplification for the different stakeholders. Three scenarios have been established: the “no-
policy  change”,  the  introduction  of  one  co-decision  Regulation  with  one  implementing 
comitology  regulation  covering  all  aspects,  and  the  introduction  of  one  co-decision 
Regulation  together  with  several  implementing  regulations  covering  different  aspects  (road 
safety, work safety and environment). 

C. 

Simplification of the legislation (Part II): assessment of the replacement of existing 
detailed technical provisions in current separate Directives by references to relevant 
international or European standards (UNECE, OECD, CEN/CENELEC and ISO 19). 

The study should analyse three scenarios: the “no-policy change”, referencing in a single co-
decision Regulation, and referencing in one “mother” Regulation and in a limited number of 
specific implementing measures (divided between road safety, work safety and environment 

19 United Nations Economic Commission for Europe; Organisation for Economic Cooperation and 

Development; CEN, the European Committee for Standardisation, and CENELEC, the European Committee 
for Electrotechnical Standardisation; International Standardisation Organisation 

EN 

34 

   EN 

 
                                                 
 
aspects).  Cost/benefit  calculations  have  to  be  assessed  for  direct  references  and  for  full 
publication, where translations would then be needed considering that OECD documents are 
only  available  in  FR  and  EN  while  EU  Regulations  need  to  be  made  available  in  all  23 
official  languages.  (For  UNECE,  the  Commission  is  already  publishing  all  relevant 
Regulations.) 

D. 

Completion for categories T4, T5, C, R and S: assessment of the cost/benefit and the 
feasibility of a completion towards mandatory type-approval for these categories, for 
which  requirements  are  sometimes  specified  and  sometimes  still  to  be  determined 
depending on the different Directives. 

Methodology 

A  literature  review  was  performed,  including  the  CARS  21  initiative,  the  present  set  of 
Directives  for  the  sector  and  the  public  consultation  done  by  the  Commission  services  in 
2008. An enquiry form was sent to all relevant stakeholders: representatives of ministries in 
all Member States and industry organisations. Twenty-two replies were received, of which 12 
contained  useful  information;  10  from  Member  States  and  2  from  industry.  Consultation 
meetings were planned in October and November, but due to unavailability only the one on 
21  November  was  held,  with  representatives  of  one  Member  State  and  of  industry.  A 
reminding letter was sent by the Commission services, which caused 4 more replies (included 
in the numbers given above) with some useful information.  

On this basis the contractor drafted a report, which was then presented in the Working Group 
on Agricultural Tractors (WGAT) on 20 February 2009. 

The  following  statement  by  the  contractor  is  to  be  noted:  “The  confidence  in  the  estimates 
could  be  improved  if  additional  responses  and  data  were  available  from  stakeholders.  The 
lack of data has meant that some of the estimates made in this impact assessment have relied 
heavily on assumptions made by TRL or on anecdotal evidence from stakeholders.”  

Although the Commission has to accept the report prepared by the contractor because of the 
limitations    for  the  study  there  is  uncertainty  about  the  figures  used;  that  is  why  ranges  of 
values have been indicated. Also the figures given by some of the stakeholders might not be 
fully comparable because of a different (but unknown) breakdown of the costs involved. 

The contractor has used a figure of 3.5% for the discount rate in stead of 4% given in the IA 
Guidelines, but it is considered that this should not have a relevant impact on the outcome of 
the study. 

The report by TRL can be found at the following website: 
http://ec.europa.eu/enterprise/automotive/projects/index.htm  

EN 

35 

   EN 

 
 
ANNEX 3 

DEFINITION OF VEHICLE CATEGORIES AND VEHICLE TYPES 

20 

AND BACKGROUND TO THE TYPE-APPROVAL SYSTEM 

A. The vehicle categories are defined as follows: 

1. Category T: Wheeled tractors 

–  Category T1: wheeled tractors with a maximum design speed of not more than 40 km/h, with the 
closest  axle  to  the  driver21  having  a  minimum  track  width  of  not  less  than  1 150 mm,  with  an 
unladen mass, in running order, of more than 600 kg, and with a ground clearance of not more than 
1 000 mm. 

–  Category T2:  wheeled  tractors  with  a  maximum  design  speed  of  not  more  than  40 km/h,  with  a 
minimum track width of less than 1 150 mm, with an unladen mass, in running order, of more than 
600 kg and with a ground clearance of not more than 600 mm. However, where the height of the 
centre  of  gravity  of  the  tractor22  (measured  in  relation  to  the  ground)  divided  by  the  average 
minimum track for each axle exceeds 0,90, the maximum design speed is restricted to 30 km/h. 

–  Category T3: wheeled tractors with a maximum design speed of not more than 40 km/h, and with 

an unladen mass, in running order, of not more than 600 kg. 

–  Category T4:  special  purpose  wheeled  tractors  with  a  maximum  design  speed  of  not  more  than 

40 km/h (as defined in Appendix 1). 

–  Category T5: wheeled tractors with a maximum design speed of more than 40 km/h. 

2. Category C: Track-laying tractors 

Track-laying tractors that are propelled and steered by endless tracks and whose categories C1 to C5 

are defined by analogy with categories T1 to T5. 

3. Category R: Trailers 

–  Category  R1:  trailers,  the  sum  of  the  technically  permissible  masses  per  axle  of  which  does  not 

exceed 1 500 kg. 

–  Category  R2:  trailers,  the  sum  of  the  technically  permissible  masses  per  axle  of  which  exceeds 

1 500 kg but does not exceed 3 500 kg. 

–  Category  R3:  trailers,  the  sum  of  the  technically  permissible  masses  per  axle  of  which  exceeds 

3 500 kg but does not exceed 21 000 kg. 

–  Category  R4:  trailers,  the  sum  of  the  technically  permissible  masses  per  axle  of  which  exceeds 

21 000 kg. 

Each trailer category also includes an «a» or «b» index, according to its design speed: 

–  «a» for trailers with a maximum design speed below or equal to 40 km/h, 

–  «b» for trailers with a maximum design speed above 40 km/h. 

20  
21 

22 

Directive 2003/37/EC and proposal for Regulation 
For  reversible  driver's  position  tractors  (reversible  seat  and  steering  wheel),  the  closest  axle  to  the 
driver to be considered must be the one fitted with the biggest diameter tyres. 
In accordance with standard ISO 789-6: 1982. 

EN 

36 

   EN 

 
                                                 
Example:  Rb3  is  a  category  of  trailers  for  which  the  sum  of  the  technically  permissible  masses  per 
axle  exceeds  3 500 kg  but  does  not  exceed  21 000 kg,  and  which  are  designed  to  be  towed  by  a 
tractor in category T5. 

4. Category S: Interchangeable towed machinery 

–  Category S1: Interchangeable towed machinery intended for agricultural or forestry use, the sum 

of the technically permissible masses per axle of which does not exceed 3 500 kg. 

–  Category S2: Interchangeable towed machinery intended for agricultural or forestry use, the sum 

of the technically permissible masses per axle of which exceeds 3 500 kg. 

Each category of interchangeable towed machinery also includes an «a» or «b» index, according to its 

design speed: 

–  «a»  for  interchangeable  towed  machinery  with  a  maximum  design  speed  below  or  equal  to 

40 km/h, 

–  «b» for interchangeable towed machinery with a maximum design speed above 40 km/h. 

Example: Sb2 is a category of interchangeable towed machinery for which the sum of the technically 
permissible masses per axle exceeds 3 500 kg, and which is designed to be towed by a tractor in 
category T5. 

B. Definition of vehicle types 

1. Wheeled tractors: 

For the purposes of this Directive: 

«type»  means  tractors  of  the  same  category  that  do  not  differ  in  respect  of  at  least  the  following 

essential aspects: 

–  manufacturer; 

–  manufacturer's type designation; 

–  essential construction and design characteristics: 

–  backbone  chassis/chassis  with  side  members/articulated  chassis  (obvious  and  fundamental 

differences), 

–  engine (internal combustion/electric/hybrid), 

–  axles (number); 

«variant»  means  tractors  of  the  same  type  which  do  not  differ  in  respect  of  at  least  the  following 

aspects: 

–  engine: 

–  operating principle, 

–  number and arrangement of cylinders, 

–  power difference of no more than 30 % (the highest power being no more than 1,3 times the lowest 

power), 

–  cylinder capacity difference of no more than 20 % (the highest figure being no more than 1,2 times 

the lowest figure); 

–  powered axles (number, position, interconnection); 

–  steered axles (number and position); 

–  maximum laden mass differing by no more than 10 %; 

–  transmission (type); 

EN 

37 

   EN 

 
–  rollover protection structure; 

–  braked axles (number); 

«version»  of  a  variant  means  tractors  which  consist  of  a  combination  of  items  shown  in  the 

information package in accordance with Annex I. 

2. Track-laying tractors: idem wheeled tractors. 

3. Trailers: 

«Type»  means  trailers  of  the  same  category  that  do  not  differ  in  respect  of  at  least  the  following 

essential aspects: 

–  manufacturer; 

–  manufacturer's type designation; 

–  essential construction and design characteristics; 

–  backbone  chassis/chassis  with  side  members/articulated  chassis  (obvious  and  fundamental 

differences); 

–  axles (number); 

«variant»  means  trailers  of  the  same  type  which  do  not  differ  in  respect  of  at  least  the  following 

aspects: 

–  steering axles (number, position, interconnection); 

–  maximum laden mass differing by no more than 10 %; 

–  braked axles (number). 

4. Interchangeable towed machinery: idem trailers. 

C. BACKGROUND TO THE TYPE-APPROVAL SYSTEM 

How the system works 

Before  the  EU  developed  the  type-approval  system  most  Member  States  used  to  have  their  own, 
differing national requirements for new vehicles to be allowed on the market. The directives for motor 
vehicles (under 70/156/EEC)  and for tractors (74/150/EEC) were set up to counter the problems for 
industry created by these differences and separate approval procedures by harmonising the minimum 
requirements  to  be  fulfilled.  Execution  of  testing  and  approval  activities  was  left  to  the  MS.  In  the 
directives  it  is  stated  that  other  MS  have  to  accept  approvals  given  in  one  MS  (mutual  recognition, 
based  on  EU  requirements;  an  approach  of  mutual  recognition  based  on  –differing-  national 
requirements has been discussed in the past but has never been accepted by Member States).  

Costs:  the  system  has  inherent  costs:  the  directives  have  to  be  developed  (meetings  of  experts, 
drafting by  Commission  services  and  experts from MS; procedural costs related to getting the draft 
approved  by  the  co-legislators;  cost  of  implementing  directives  in  national  legislation  and  its 
verification  by  the  Commission;  costs  for  manufacturers  to  get  their  product  tested  (including 
provision of products for testing) and approved; follow-up costs if product needs to be adapted and 
again approved. Available figures are in this report and the supporting external report.  

Every  Member  State  appoints  a  ‘Type-approval  authority’  (TAA;  under  2003/37  –  agricultural 
vehicles as well as under 70/156 – motor vehicles and 2002/24 – two and three wheelers). This TAA 
must  be  notified  to  the  Commission  and  other  MS  to  perform  the  necessary  tests  or  other institutes 
(testhouses) can be notified for this purpose. 

EN 

38 

   EN 

 
 
A manufacturer who proposes a new vehicle or component (e.g. headlamp) contacts the TAA and the 
testhouse, submits the prescribed completed information document, makes the vehicle or component 
available for testing and pays the fees. 

It may prove that the test is not passed; in such case the product can be adapted and resubmitted for 
testing.  

If all is well the manufacturer obtains the test report(s) and approval form(s). These forms are defined 
in the SDs. Then the manufacturer is able to sell his product everywhere in the EU, provided he puts 
the prescribed marking on the product and, for vehicles, provides a CoC (Certificate of Conformity) 
with every vehicle delivered. 

In case of a vehicle, the manufacturer can obtain TA in one step (all testing etc in one go), or step-by-
step  (separate  approvals  for  every  component  /  system;  in  the  end,  for  the  vehicle  as  a  whole,  he 
submits the approvals given before. In the latter case, which is must usual, many part-approvals may 
have  been  obtained  by  other  (component)  manufacturers.  Another  option  foreseen  is  that  one 
manufacturer  builds  a  basic  but  incomplete  vehicle  and  the  next  finishes  it  by  e.g.  building  the 
bodywork on it, or modifying it for a specific purpose: multi-stage approval. 

A manufacturer can submit a product for TA only in one MS, to one TAA (no ‘shopping’). 

The  TAA  must  inform  the  other  authorities  about  TA’s  given,  denied  or  withdrawn.  The  latter 
because  the  TAA  is  responsible  towards  the  others  in  case  it  is  found  that  products  are  marketed 
which are not in line with the TA given. 

As long as the EU system allows “optionality”, this means that he may choose to apply for an EU TA 
for the vehicle or component. EU requirements are often somewhat stricter than national requirements 
and thus the product may have to be somewhat more expensive; on the other hand if his markets are in 
more MS he can choose his best option. 

The  approval  procedure  for  a  vehicle  may  be  time-consuming,  often  starting  in  the  first  year  of 
development,  lasting  3  to  4  years.  It’s  important  for  the  manufacturer  not  to  have  to  repeat  this  a 
number of times in different countries. 

EN 

39 

   EN 

 
ANNEX 4 

MARKET OF AGRICULTURAL VEHICLES 

1. 

Number of tractors and trailers sold in 2005 (EU-25; source: TRL final report, 2009) 

Vehicle type  Number 

Price 

Turnover 

sold 

120,000 

15,000 

1,650 

15,000 

  100,000 -150,000 

13,000  100,000 -150,000 

1,300,000 - 2,000,000

T1 

T2 

T3 

T4 

T4.1 

T4.2 

T4.3 

T5 

Sub total 

164,650 

5,000 

169,650 

125,000 

5,000 – 30,000 

625,000,000 – 3,750,000,000

500,000 

65,000 * 

32,500,000,000

C 

Total 

R 

S 

* indication of average 

------------- 

CEMA information for the years 2001 and 2004 – tractor market, turnover etc. 

-  Turnover tractors: 2001 - € 6,180 million for 154,000 units (12 member countries); 
average price  € 40,130 / unit. For 2004: € 7,300 million for 156,200 units, € 46,700 / 
unit. 
In Europe 5 manufacturing groups are active, with more than 20 brand names, most 
from the EU.  

- 

---------------- 

EN 

40 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Tractors  -  new  registrations  per  MS,  2006  –  2008  (source:  TRL  final  report 

2. 
2009). 

Registrations 

2006 

2007 

2008 

7,152 

6,792

7,737

2,748 

2,680

Austria 

Belgium 

Bulgaria 

Cyprus 

Czech Republic 

2,225 

2,730

Denmark 

3,110 

3,479

437

4,172 

4,245

27,388  29,129

29,009  28,469

3,518 

4,170

1,045 

2,045

4,221 

29,752  26,837

Estonia 

Finland 

France 

Germany 

Greece 

Hungary 

Ireland 

Italy 

Latvia 

Lithuania 

Luxembourg 

Malta 

Netherlands 

3,823 

4,054

Poland 

Portugal 

Romania 

Slovakia 

Slovenia 

Spain 

Sweden 

1,077

1,450

5,415 

6,122

1,853 

2,084

16,605  17,241

4,233 

4,465

United Kingdom 

13,829  14,941

Total 

160,098  159,483 10,701

(for empty boxes: no information was received)

EN 

41 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
3. Import/export of new agricultural tractors, 2007, EU27 (Comext database, Eurostat) 23 

Track-laying tractors  

Wheeled agricultural tractors 

Import 

Import  Export 

Export

Import 

Import 

Export 

Export

Value 

Units 

Value 

Units 

Value 

Units 

Value 

Units 

95.038.622

7.378 

12.964.865

95

200.412 

9   

2.677.990

295 

62.964.860

2.328

137.999

7  

11.756.464

706

130.670 

25 

114.480

5  

25.851.834

8.488 

10.044.776

283

96.146

40.539

4  

8  

450.727

13 

34.752.302

1.160

15.522.714

422

17.239.503

514

32.256 

2   

15.063

4 

11.423.125

505

439.696 

206   

147.060.521 25.068 

45.213.966

1.183

6.269.559

455

213.457

28 

9.413.104

454

198.088

21  

28.016.583

1.747

Belarus 

Canada 

Chile 

China 

Croatia 

Iceland 

Iran 

Israel 

Japan 

Malaysia 

Mexico 

Morocco 

New Zealand 

16.205

1  

8.135

1 

61.428.357

1.874

Norway 

438.338 

29 

599.060

60  

1.626.906

93 

154.734.409

5.354

Russia 

Serbia 

South Africa 

South Korea 

287.813 

8  6.981.647

170  

151.558

17.439 

1 

151.341

4  

511.653

3.463.204

34  

166.840

20 

38 

41 

72.359.710

1.370

17.239.770

413

71.097.548

2.829

20.661.795

2.248 

36.586.678

1.200

Switzerland 

580.763 

28 

416.682

16  

7.732.927

210 

93.881.975

2.921

Tunisia 

Turkey 

4.482.968  1.467 

246.126

2  

9.754.638

621 

67.533.886

3.060

9.230.970

585

23 Values in Euros and units 

EN 

42 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
 
Ukraine 

3.181.355

26  

469.873

52 

25.702.010

358

United States 

37.641.319 

368  2.082.490

188  

476.626.178 42.049 

742.673.712 25.882

Venezuela 

8.000 

1 

336.321

12  

7.440.827

280

Total 

44.259.674  2.144  18.061.683

558   789.018.717

86.647  1.625.491.673 55.978

EN 

43 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
 
 
ANNEX 5  

STAKEHOLDERS POSITION ON THE OBJECTIVES AND OPTIONS 

(information from public consultation and WGAT) 

Objective 1 – Simplification: Directive or 
Regulation 

Objective 
international standards 

2 

– 

Simplification: 

Objective 1 – Completion 

Comments 

Option 1: 
no policy 
change 

Option 2:  
2 Regulations 

Option 3:  
4 Regulations 

Option  1: 
no  policy 
change 

Option 2: 
reference 
to UNECE 
Regs  

Option 3: 
reference 
to more 
standards 

Option 1:  
no policy 
change 

Option 2: 
complete & 
mandatory 
for all cat’s 

Option 
3: 
complet
e but 
partial 
optional 

Stakeholders - MS 

Austria 

Bulgaria 

Change from Dir. to Reg., with basically 
the same contents, seems possible. Not of 
vital importance how this is done. 

Approach of 2007/46/EC must be 
followed: one framework Directive with 
TA requirements + separate reg's with 
technical req's, or references to UN/ECE 
reg's where applicable 

Denmark (Working 
Environment Auth.) 

Should be New Approach; if not, 
possibility of risks not covered.  

separate reg's with technical 
requirements, or references to 
UN/ECE reg's where applicable 

EN 

44 

EN 

 
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Emissions: Dir 
97/68 sufficient 
=> should cover 
tractors.  

Finland 

Reg. would save costs for governments.  

France 

agree with Reg; no preference for 2 or 3; 
no priority issue; should not delay some 
other issues 

Positive about reference to internat. 
documents, but updating could be a 
challenge; reference always to latest 
version. 

Favourable (also i.r.t. OECD), but 
(static) references to dated standards 
require update of regulation; New 
Approach possible to avoid that, but 
then need "guaranties” from 
CEN/ISO; codification should be 
stopped. 

option 2, ASAP 

Germany 

Agree with the replacement of dir by a 
Reg 

Netherlands 

Regulation accepted, but fear additional 
administrative burden. 

Like the 2007/46/EC system with 
direct reference to UNECE Regs. Can 
do that in a Reg 

United Kingdom 

Support for simplification, but concern 
about transition, self-certification and 
COP. 

EN 

45 

EN 

 
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Stakeholders – industry 

CEMA 

SYGMA (Fr) 

Agrees in principle with Reg. but new 
items or change in scope must be under 
Co-Decision. Scope must be considered 
carefully. 

Not against Reg, but priority for 
adaptation to techn. Progress; MD 
distinction issue; New items in the Reg. 
and scope modifications under Co-
Decision. 

VDMA (DE) 

Reg. or Dir. not important; positive on 
bringing several Dir's together in one Reg, 
Be careful with loss of clarity. 

CEETTAR 

ETRMA 

Positive on Reg., because it promotes 
harmonisation. 

Welcome the CARS21 approach on better 
regulation.Favours Impact Ass. prior to 
drafting. 

Welcome the CARS21 approach on 
reference to international docs 
(UNECE Reg. 106 on tractor tyres).  

TLN (NL) 

No different from road vehicles 

by using ECE Reg's, new EU reg's 
can be sooner 

AECC 

Agree with Reg. 

EN 

46 

EN 

 
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
J.C.Bamford 

Against Reg with systematic co-decision; 
Comitology is needed (split-level) 

Knorr Bremse 

Little benefit is expected for industry 
(compared with existing consolidated 
dir's). So not demanding, particularly 
considering updates might be more 
difficult 

ACAP (PT) 

Reg. is very positive and necessary 

EN 

47 

EN 

 
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
ANNEX 6   

 LIST OF SEPARATE DIRECTIVES, RELATION WITH UNECE AND OECD 

Directive 2003/37/EC, Annex II [similar table for special tractors:T4.1 – T4.3] 

Note: the relation between directives and UNECE Regulations / OECD Codes is indicative only and 
needs  confirmation  during  preparation  of  implementing  legislation.  For  CEN/CENELEC  and  ISO 
no suitable information is available. 

No 

Subject 

Equivalency 
with UNECE 
(R) and 
OECD (C) 

Base Directives 
and Annexes 

Applicability 

(for T4 and C4 see Appendix 1) 

T1 

T2 

T3 

T5 

C 

R 

S 

1.1.  Maximum laden mass 

74/151/EEC I 

1.2. 

Registration plate 

1.3. 

Fuel tank 

1.4. 

Ballast masses 

74/151/EEC II 

74/151/EEC III 

74/151/EEC IV 

1.5. 

Audible warning device  R28 

74/151/EEC V 

1.6. 

Sound level (external) 

R51 

74/151/EEC VI 

2.1.  Maximum speed 

2.2. 

Load platforms 

3.1. 

Rear-view mirrors 

4.1. 

Field of vision and 
windscreen wipers 

5.1. 

Steering 

6.1. 

Electromagnetic 
compatibility 

74/152/EEC 
Annex, para 1 

74/152/EEC 
Annex, para 2 

74/346/EEC 

R71 

74/347/EEC 

R79 

R10 

75/321/EEC 

75/322/EEC 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

(X) 

X 

(X) 

(X) 

X 

X 

X 

(X) 

(X) 

X 

(X) 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

(X) 

(X) 

(X) 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

(X) 

(X) 

—  — 

—  — 

—  — 

—  — 

—  — 

—  — 

—  — 

—  — 

X 

X 

(X) 

(X)  —  — 

X 

I 

—  — 

7.1. 

Braking devices 

76/432/EEC 

X 

X 

X  — 

(X) 

(X) 

(X) 

R13 

71/320/EEC 

—  —  — 

X 

—  —  — 

8.1. 

Passenger seats 

76/763/EEC 

X  — 

9.1. 

Sound levels (internal) 

77/311/EEC 

X 

X 

X 

X 

(X) 

(X) 

I 

I 

—  — 

—  — 

10.1.  ROPS 

C3 

77/536/EEC 

X  —  — 

(X) 

(X)  —  — 

12.1.  Driving seat 

78/764/EEC 

X 

X 

X 

(X) 

(X)  —  — 

EN 

48 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
13.1.  Lighting installation 

R86 

78/933/EEC 

14.1.  Lighting and 

lightsignalling devices 

79/532/EEC 

R1, 3, 4, 6, 7, 
8, 19, 20, 23, 
38, 98  

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

(X) 

X 

I 

X 

(X) 

(X) 

(X) 

(X) 

15.1.  Coupling and reversing 

79/533/EEC 

X 

X 

X 

(X) 

devices 

16.1.  ROPS (static testing) 

C4 

79/622/EEC 

X  —  — 

(X) 

17.1.  Operating space, access 

to the driving position 

80/720/EEC 

X  — 

X 

(X) 

18.1.  Power take-offs 

86/297/EEC 

X 

X 

X 

(X) 

19.1.  Rear-mounted ROPS 

C7 

86/298/EEC 

— 

X  — 

(X) 

(narrow-track tractors) 

20.1. 

Installation of the 
controls 

86/415/EEC 

X 

X 

X 

(X) 

21.1.  Front-mounted ROPS 
(narrow-track tractors) 

C6 

87/402/EEC 

— 

X  — 

(X) 

22.1.  Dimensions and trailer 

89/173/EEC I 

X 

X 

X 

(X) 

mass 

22.2.  Glazing 

22.3.  Speed governor 

22.4.  Protection of drive 
components 

89/173/EEC III 

X 

X 

X  — 

R43 

92/22/EEC 

—  —  — 

X 

—  —  — 

89/173/EEC II, 
1 

89/173/EEC II, 
2 

X 

X 

X 

(X) 

X 

X 

X 

(X) 

22.5.  Mechanical couplings 

89/173/EEC IV 

22.6.  Statutory plate 

89/173/EEC V 

22.7.  Trailer-brake coupling 

89/173/EEC VI 

23.1.  Pollutant emissions 

R49, 96 

2000/25/EC 

24.1.  Tyres24 

25.1.  Stability2 

R106 

[…./../EC] 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

(X) 

(X) 

(X) 

X 

X 

[…./../EC] 

—  —  — 

SD  —  —  — 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

—  — 

—  — 

—  — 

—  — 

—  — 

—  — 

—  — 

(X) 

(X) 

—  — 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

—  — 

—  — 

(X) 

(X) 

(X) 

(X) 

(X) 

(X) 

X 

—  — 

— 

(X) 

(X) 

26.1.  Seat-belt attachment 

C3, 4, 6, 7, 8   76/115/EEC 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

—  — 

points 

27.1.  Safety belts 

77/541/EEC 

—  —  — 

X 

—  —  — 

24 

Pending the adoption of directives on tyres, stability and rear protective structures, the absence of a separate 
directive on this does not prevent the granting of the whole vehicle type-approval. 

EN 

49 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
28.1.  Reverse and 
speedometer 

29.1.  Spray-suppression 
systems 

75/443/EEC 

—  —  — 

X 

—  —  — 

91/226/EEC 

—  —  — 

X 

— 

(X)  — 

30.1.  Speed limitation devices 

92/24/EEC 

—  —  — 

X 

—  —  — 

31.1.  Rear protective 

structures2 

[../../EC] 

—  —  —  —  — 

SD  — 

32.1.  Lateral protection 

89/297/EEC 

—  —  — 

X 

— 

(X)  — 

Legend: 

X 

(X) 

SD 

— 

I 

= 

= 

= 

= 

= 

applicable as is 

applicable in amended form 

separate directive 

not applicable 

same as T according to the category 

EN 

50 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
ANNEX 7 

COST / BENEFIT COMPARISON TABLE 

Objective 1 : Simplification of the regulatory framework through a split-level approach 

Indicators 

Option 1 

Option 2 

Option 3 

No policy change 

Replace current 
framework by 2 
regulations 

Replace current 
framework by [4] 
regulations 

Costs 

Annual cost to  

€ 29,160 to € 2,435, 400 

€ 7,560 to € 1,217,700 

EU-27  

average € 533,993 

average € 320,153 

Initial investment cost 

Benefits 

Cumulative benefit 
(Costs include an 
uplift of 2 % per 
annum and a discount 
rate of 3,5 %) 

€ 18,225 to € 3,653,100 

average € 909,225 

Year 

Lower 
limit 

Average 

Upper Limit 

1 

5 

€ 3,375

- € 695,385  

- € 2,435,400

€ 86,690

€ 129,430  

€ 2,261,461

10 

€ 184,219

€ 1,094,970  

€ 7,759,675

Objective 2: Simplification through use if international standards 

Indicators 

Option 1 

Option 2 

Option 3 

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 

EN 

51 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Annual staff cost for 
attending meetings  

Estimated average annual cost to 
attend  EC,UNECE,OECD,  ISO 
&  CEN  meetings  € 1,135,085 
(range: 
to 
€ 
€ 2,608,200)  

310,536 

Estimated  average  annual 
cost  to  attend  meetings 
with  reference  to  existing 
€  1,078,331 
standards 
(range: 
to 
€ 2,608,200)  

€  279,482 

Investment cost for 
EU-27 

Benefits 

Annual saving from 
Type approval costs 

Annual average 
savings from attending 
meetings 

Translations 

909,225 

€ 
€ 18,225 to € 3,653,100)

(range: 

0 

€ 31,054 (range: € 0 to 
 € 56,754)  

0 

EN 

52 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Objective 3 : Completion of the regulatory framework 

Indicators 

Option 1 

Option 2 

Option 3 

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 

Estimated average cost 
per vehicle category (1) 

Estimated average 
annual administrative 
costs (2) 

Total cost (1+2) 

Average investment 
cost25 for EU-27  

Benefits 

Estimated casualty 
savings  

Estimated average 
cumulative benefits 
(Costs include an uplift 
of 2 % per annum and a 
discount of 3,5 %) 

Benefits from 
standardisation (saved by 
buyers) 

T4.1 

T4.2 

T4.3 

T5 

C 

R 

S 

€ 0  

€ 112,500,000 

€ 0  

€ 40,625,000  

similar to option 2 

€ 0  

€ 200,195,313  

€ 257,812,500  

€ 36,190,000  

€ 647,322,813 (range: € 364,440,000 to € 996,565,000)

€ 32,980,000*  (range: € 3,860,000 to € 62,100,000)

€ 50,750,409  

Year 1: - € 629,552,403 

Year 5: - € 3,057,835,295 

Year 10: - € 5,900,418,586  

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 

53 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
EN 

54 

   EN