COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT Accompanying document to the Proposal for a DIRECTIVE OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL amending Directive 2000/25/EC as regards the implementation provisions for tractors placed on the market under the “flexible scheme”
Date: 2010-10-27
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: air quality, approximation of laws, motor vehicle, pollution control measures, technical regulations, tractor

EN 

EN 

   EN 

 
 
EUROPEAN COMMISSION 

Brussels, 27.10.2010 
SEC(2010) 1252 final 

COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT 

Accompanying document to the 

Proposal for a 

DIRECTIVE OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL 

amending Directive 2000/25/EC as regards the implementation provisions for tractors 
placed on the market under the “flexible scheme” 

Executive summary of the Impact Assessment 

{COM (2010) 607} 
{SEC (2010) 1251} 

This report commits only the Commission's services involved in its preparation and does not 
prejudge the final form of any decision to be taken by the Commission 

EN 

1 

   EN 

 
 
  
 
 
 
1. 

CONTEXT AND PROBLEM DEFINITION  

The  tractors  emissions  Directive  2000/25/EC1  regulates  the  exhaust  emissions  (carbon  monoxide 
(CO), hydrocarbons (HC), nitrogen oxides (NOx) and particulate matter (PM) from diesel engines 
installed in agricultural and forestry tractors (hereafter: tractors). It is fully in line with Directive 
97/68/EC  on  emissions  of  non-road  mobile  machinery  (NRMM),  for  which  recently  a  similar 
proposal and IA Report were produced. 

For the various types of tractors, Directive 2000/25/EC stipulates the maximum permitted engine 
exhaust  emissions  as  a  function  of  the  power  of  the  installed  engine.  Moreover,  the  Directive 
includes a series of emission limit stages of increasing stringency with corresponding compliance 
dates.  Tractor  manufacturers  must  ensure  that  new  engines  used  in  their  machines  comply  with 
these limits when placing them on the market.  

Directive  2005/13/EC2  amended  the  original  tractors  Directive  and  introduced  the  currently 
applicable  stage  of  emission  limits  for  the  majority  of  diesel  engines  (referred  to  as  Stage  IIIA). 
These  limits  will  be  replaced  by  the  more  stringent  Stage  IIIB  limits  entering  into  force 
progressively, depending on the power category, affecting vehicles placed on the market from 1st 
January  2011  onwards.  From  1st  January  2010  the  type  approval  period  for  these  engines  has 
started.  As  the  Stage  IIIB  limits  are  stricter,  current  engines  will  need  to  be  modified  and  re-
designed in order to respect the new limits. This redesign affects tractor manufacturers who have to 
adapt  the  design  of  their  vehicles  to  accommodate  the  modified  engines.  This  is  a  time  and 
resources consuming procedure; the efforts needed depend heavily on the required changes to the 
engines and to the body of the tractor in which the engine is to be installed. 

Directive  2005/13/EC  introduced  a  so-called  "flexibility  scheme"  to  facilitate  the  transition  from 
one emission stage to the next. The flexibility scheme allows the tractor manufacturers to place on 
the market, during one stage of exhaust emissions limit values, a limited number of tractors fitted 
with compression ignition (CI, diesel) engines that still comply with the exhaust emission limits of 
the previous stage. A tractor manufacturer has the option to place on the market either (1) for each 
engine  power  category  a  limited  number  of  tractors  not  exceeding  20%  of  the  tractor 
manufacturer's annual sales (calculated as the average sales in the EU of the latest 5 years) or (2) a 
fixed maximum number of tractors as stipulated in the Directive. This second option was intended 
to be used by smaller enterprises producing lower volumes of tractors. 

The flexibility scheme was designed to: 

•  permit smooth integration of new engine requirements applicable to the tractors. The majority of 
tractor manufacturers do not produce their own engines, but have to purchase these from engine 
manufacturers.  Once  the  engine  manufacturer  is  satisfied  that  engine  and  after-treatment 
development3 is satisfactory and ready for production, then the tractor manufacturer can follow-
up  with  its  integration  and  optimisation  in  the  vehicle  and  arrange  for  type-approval.  This 
situation is unique compared with other (mostly road) vehicle manufacturers, who can develop 
and produce both vehicle and engine at the same time. 

1 
2
3 

OJ L173, 12.7.2000, p.1 
OJ L 55, 1.3.2005, p. 35 
Additional  equipment  installed  with  the  engine,  that  chemically  or  physically  reduces  the  exhaust  emissions  emitted  from  the  engine 
before releasing them to the atmosphere e.g. Diesel Particulate Filters, NOx adsorber Catalyst or Selective Catalyst Reduction systems. 

EN 

2 

   EN 

 
                                                 
 
•  provide the necessary environment for the tractor manufacturers to develop and adapt, initially, 
tractors with bigger volume sales and fewer problems and then utilise the experience gained to 
adapt  the  rest  of  the  tractors,  produced  at  smaller  volumes  for  niche  markets.  This  experience 
makes the adaptation of the rest less costly. 

•  avoid excessive impacts during the transition to the next Stage on low volume products, since 

development in these series requires relatively high fixed costs. 

The tractors emissions directive 2000/25/EC was set up fully in line with the NRMM directive and 
implemented the requirements specifically for tractors under the framework Directive 2003/37/EC, 
including  the  Stages  IIIA,  IIIB  and  IV,  the  timeframe  and  the  flexibility  scheme.  Because  the 
provisions for tractors are aligned with those for NRMM, the text of this impact assessment draws 
on  the  impact  assessment  for  flexibility  for  NRMM.  A  general  difficulty  was  encountered  in 
obtaining  specific  information  for  tractors.  Sources  like  EUROSTAT  treat  tractors  as  part  of 
'agricultural  machinery'  and  don't  show  them  separately.  Because  of  the  similarities  between 
NRMM and tractors with regard to engines, some of the data on NRMM can still be used. 

What is the problem? 

In  analogy  with  the  situation  for  NRMM  manufacturers,  the  technological  challenge  for  tractor 
manufacturers is that the next generation of engines must achieve emission reductions in PM and 
NOx  comparable  to  those  required  and  deployed  in  on-road  engines  and  vehicles  (trucks,  buses 
etc.).  This  is  not  possible  with  the  current  technology.  Further  research  and  technological 
development  by  industry  is  required  in  order  to  ensure  that  tractors  can  be  placed  on  the  market 
with Stage IIIB compliant engines. 

There  are  approximately  40  tractor  manufacturers  (most  are  part  of  6  major  groups)  in  the  EU 
producing a wide variety of tractors that have to comply with the emission limits laid down in the 
Directive,  while  the  engines  are  produced  by  only  a  few  large  companies  (approximately  10 
manufacturers in the EU and 20 companies worldwide). Only very few large tractor manufacturers 
produce  their  own  engines.  The  adaptation  of  the  vehicles  can  only  be  done  by  the  tractor 
manufacturers  after  the  finalisation  of  the  configuration  of  the  engine,  since  this  redesigning 
procedure  cannot  be  done  in  parallel  (except  for  tractor  manufacturers  producing  their  own 
engines). According to information from the industry, the total turnover for tractor manufacturing 
in  2008  should  have  reached  some  €  8  billion.  Directly  linked  jobs  reach  24 000  for  tractors 
production and another 10 000 jobs are indirectly related. 

Influence of the Crisis 

From early 2009 onwards most of the EU based industry producing tractors has been unexpectedly 
and  severely  hit  by  the  global  financial  and  economic  crisis.  Steep  falls  in  sales  caused  a  large 
decrease  in  income  and  available  capital  to  finance  the  necessary  technology  research  and 
development for tractors to be equipped with Stage IIIB compliant engines in all power categories 
and applications within the time limits in the Directive. Firms prioritise their R&D expenditure to 
cover  firstly  those  products  with  high  existing  and  potential  sales  volumes.  These  sales  then 
provide  the  business  with  revenues  that  can  be  used  for  R&D  in  order  to  develop  technical 
solutions for smaller niche markets.  

EN 

3 

   EN 

 
For tractors the market in Europe started to drop sharply in the 1st quarter of 20094; the sales over 
the year 2009 have dropped by 20 % in units (180 000 in EU15 for 2008. No figures are available 
for  EU12;  for  all  equipment  this  may  probably  be  15%  of  the  total).  According  to  the  industry 
association  (CEMA)  the  turnover  in  2009  decreased  by  20-25%  compared  to  2008.  This  is  the 
consequence of the decrease in downstream demand. For 2010 tractor manufacturers are expecting 
a further 5-10% decrease. Figures for the 1st quarter 2010 show - 22% compared to 2009.5 

Industry has not been able to do all necessary R&D yet, which is now aggravated by the influence 
of the crisis. There is a risk that no tractors (or not enough) complying with IIIB will be available 
in 2011. At the same time not enough IIIA compliant tractors can be put on the market. This would 
mean that older tractors have to run longer, which entails an increase in pollution and require more 
expensive maintenance work, manufacturers might go bankrupt and/or have to lay-off staff, etc 

2. 

DOES THE EU HAVE THE RIGHT TO ACT?  

The  legal  basis  of  this  initiative  is  the  same  as  for  the  tractors  emissions  Directive  2000/25/EC, 
namely  Art.  114  of  the  TFEU.  The  subsidiarity  principle  is  respected  by  the  proposal,  since 
amending the Directive is only possible at EU level. Member States cannot take action individually 
on  emission  limits  and  related  deadlines.  Therefore  EU  action  is  necessary  and  provides  value 
added in maintaining the internal market for tractors. 

3. 

OBJECTIVES 

The  general  objective  of  the  proposal  is  to  safeguard  economic  development  of  the 
tractors industry and maintain a high level of environmental protection.  

The table below describes the general, specific and operational objectives. 

GENERAL 

SPECIFIC 

OPERATIONAL 

1. Maintain the 
functioning of the 
internal market 
for tractors 

1. Maintain a level playing field for 
tractor producers by upholding a 
harmonised regulatory framework 
across all Member States (and thus 
eliminating the risk of national 
deviations). 

1. Introduce a cost-effective and 
timely measure that will allow EU 
producers to keep selling tractors 
under the same rules across the EU 
and will allow users to replace end 
of life tractors.  

2. Prevent the foreseeable aggravation 
of an already difficult economic 
situation for the tractor industry that 
has been caused by the economic 
crisis. 

2. Allow tractor manufacturers to 
generate revenues that can be used 
to invest in the necessary R&D to 
comply with foreseen emission 
limits.  

3. Ensure that demand for new tractors 

4 

5 

Reference: CEMA letter and attached ''Background material for the Request to Enlarge Flexibility from 20% to 50% for Stage IIIB'' , 14-
07-2009, addressed to Commission VP G.  Verheugen. Additional information on  market  share can be found in the study 'Competitive 
analysis of the EU Mechanical Engineering', p. 4, available at the link: http://ec.europa.eu/enterprise/mechan_equipment/companalysis-
eu-mechengin.pdf 
Source: CEMA, June 2010. 

EN 

4 

   EN 

 
 
                                                 
can be satisfied by industry. 

2. Protect the 
environment  

1. Reduce the risk that older, more 
polluting (pre-Stage IIIA) tractors 
cannot be replaced by newer cleaner 
tractors, i.e. make sure that the 
potential for emission reductions from 
replacing end of life tractors is not 
jeopardised. 

1. Enable the replacing of older, 
more polluting and fuel consuming 
engines and tractors by cleaner ones 
by adjusting the emission 
requirements in such a way that 
demand for new tractors can be met 
by the cleanest available models.  

2. Maintain the incentive for the 
industry to invest in R&D necessary to 
develop cleaner tractors compliant 
with the foreseen future emission limit 
stages.  

2. Send a clear signal to industry 
that further emission reductions are 
required and that the current path of 
reducing emissions is maintained. 

4. 

POLICY OPTIONS 

The following options to tackle the identified problem have been identified: 

Option 1 - No action = Baseline scenario 

The provisions of the current flexibility scheme remain unchanged, i.e. 20% (or absolute numbers 
of engines) continue to apply. 

Option  2  -  Provision  of  government  backed  loans  for  purchasing  stocked  engines  manufactured 
under the so called sell-off period 

Article  4  of  Directive  2000/25/EC  states  that  requirements  shall  be  postponed  by  two  years  in 
respect  of  engines  with  a  production  date  prior  to  the  said  date,  the  'said  date'  being  one  of  the 
deadlines specified in point 2 of that article, after which non-compliant engines and tractors shall 
not enter into service anymore. 

While Stage IIIA is in force, industry may produce engines and tractors and stock them in the EU 
territory. These Stage IIIA engines and tractors are manufactured to keep industries running and to 
cover the needs of other countries that do not have exhaust emissions limitations as strict as EU. 
After the beginning of implementation of Stage IIIB (between 1-1-2010 and 1-1-2013 depending 
on power category), these stocked engines and tractors may be placed on the market for a period of 
two  years.  This  option  suggests  the  use  of  government  backed  loans  to  be  granted  to  tractor 
manufacturers to purchase Stage IIIA engines on stock.  

Option 3 - Implementation of a scrapping scheme.  

The use of a scrapping scheme would be a subsidy, given as an incentive, to the user to buy new 
tractor with a Stage IIIB engine. 

EN 

5 

   EN 

 
 
  
Under  this  option,  the  owner  of  an  older,  more  polluting  tractor  will  deliver  the  tractor  for 
scrapping  (destruction-recycle  etc).  A  national  public  authority  would  grant  a  lump  sum  to  the 
owner  of  the  scrapped  tractor.  The  owner  will  receive  the  money  via  banking  or  the  tax  system 
when the purchase of new the tractor is proven. 

Option 4 – Implementation of alternative types of provisions under the flexibility scheme 

Under this option additional flexibility will be granted for the transition from Stage IIIA to Stage 
IIIB. No additional measures for future stages are envisaged. 

•  Option 4.1 - Implementation of a scaled percentage of the flexibility scheme  

The option suggests a different percentage for the various categories of tractors, depending on the 
particular transitional problems from Stage IIIA to Stage IIIB plus a similar approach with regard 
to the fixed numbers of engines. 

•  Option 4.2 - Increase of flexibility percentage to 50% 

This  option  suggests  increasing  flexibility  from  20%  to  50%  for  all  tractor  categories.  The  fixed 
maximum number of engines would be amended accordingly. 

•  Option 4.3 - Increase of flexibility percentage to 80% 

This  option  suggests  increasing  flexibility  from  20%  to  80%  for  all  tractor  categories.  The  fixed 
maximum number of engines would be amended accordingly. 

•  Option 4.4 - Conditional expansion of the flexibility scheme, with penalty mechanism 

In  order  to  maintain  the  incentives  to  develop  Stage  IIIB  engines,  a  system  could  be  introduced 
where additional flexibility used in the transition from stage IIIA to Stage IIIB will trigger payment 
of a penalty after several years. This would maintain the incentive for the tractor manufacturers to 
develop  tractors  with  IIIB  engines  and  use  only  the  minimum  additional  flexibility  they  need.  It 
requires a penalty to be set at the right level. 

•  Option 4.5 - Implementation of a trading system 

A  system  similar  to  that  of  the  EU  Emissions  Trading  Scheme  could  be  developed  for  the 
flexibility  measure.  A  system  could  be  established  whereby  firms  that  would  not  use  the  entire 
flexibility  could  sell  their  flexibility  rights  to  firms  that  need  additional  flexibility.  This  scheme 
would  require  a  mechanism  to  sell  flexibility  (permits)  and  a  system  in  place  to  monitor  the 
scheme. The price of each permit of flexibility would be determined by the market.  

Option  4.6  -  Replace  the  flexibility  scheme  by  a  combination  of  flexibility  for  tractors 
manufacturers and ABT, as applied in the USA. 

An ABT scheme similar to the one used in the USA could be developed for engine manufacturers, 
together with a flexibility scheme for the tractor manufacturers. 

EN 

6 

   EN 

 
5. 

ASSESSMENT OF IMPACTS OF THE OPTIONS 

The  policy  option  of  doing  nothing  would  not  be  effective  in  reaching  the  objectives.  Industry 
would continue to struggle in the current economic climate and would not have tractors ready for 
Stage IIIB. Industry would then not be able to place products on the market beyond what is offered 
in the 20% flexibility scheme and some firms would subsequently go out of business which would 
lead to job losses. 

Clients of tractor manufacturers are currently much more prudent towards buying new tractors as a 
result of the economic climate. Users cut capital costs by extending the use of old tractors and not 
purchasing newer, cleaner tractors, thus causing a larger negative environmental impact in the short 
term.  Also  they  would  have  to  pay  more  for  maintenance  in  order  to  keep  their  old  tractors 
operational. 

The system for loans would be very complex to put into place in a short time which is required due 
to the fact that Stage IIIB limits apply as of 2011 onwards. The time taken to develop a working 
system would not be effective in meeting the immediate requirements of the industry. Additional 
EU / national resources would be required to set up and regulate this system. This scheme would 
not help the firms who are experiencing problems with financing R&D to reach Stage IIIB. Those 
firms not ready for Stage IIIB would have to pay for additional R&D.  

Another  possibility  to  continue  its  operation  is  that  a  tractor  manufacturer  could  buy  stocked 
engines from an engine manufacturer to be able to continue selling IIIA compliant tractors. In order 
to be used after a stocking period of more than three months, engines require a special treatment6 
that is time consuming and costly and could reach up to 5% of the sale price of the engine. 

It could also be argued that the incentive to produce more Stage IIIA engines would result in a high 
number of Stage IIIA engines, instead of development of the cleaner Stage IIIB engines; it would 
act  as  a  counter  incentive  to  innovate  and  develop  more  environmental  friendly  tractors.  Thus,  a 
loan to purchase stocked Stage IIIA engines would reduce the incentive to design compliant Stage 
IIIB  tractors  which  is  less  environmentally  damaging.  In  addition,  this  option  raises  issues 
regarding compatibility with the EU state aid provisions. 

The use of a scrapping subsidy will provide an incentive to the users to buy new tractors with a 
cleaner Stage IIIB engine, under the condition that they destroy their older, more polluting tractor. 
This will encourage the purchase of Stage IIIB tractors and have positive environmental impacts. 
However, it will not assist tractor manufacturers in financing the R&D to make Stage IIIB tractors 
available. Whether the prospect of a scrapping scheme would be sufficient to induce banks to hand 
out  additional  loans  to  tractor  manufacturers  for  R&D  remains  doubtful.  In  addition,  if  Member 
States implemented the scrapping scheme in different ways, this could lead to a fragmentation of 
the  internal  market  and  to  distortion  of  competition.  In  any  event,  no  plans  from  any  MS  to 
introduce a scrapping scheme for this sector are known to the Commission.  

Implementation of scaled percentages of flexibility for the different types of tractors, depending 
on the problems they encounter for the transition from Stage IIIA to Stage IIIB is not feasible since 

6 

When the engine is manufactured to be stocked, it is filled with a special oil. When it is placed on the tractor , this oil must be changed to 
a specific one and then with a specific fuel the engine is kept running for a few hours. After that period the oil must be changed again to 
normal  and  with  a  normal  fuel  it  must  run  for  some  time  and  then  it  is  ready  and  safe  to  be  sold.  The  required  time  and  cost  of  the 
procedure depend on the size of the engine and its power. 

EN 

7 

   EN 

 
                                                 
there  is  no  specific  inventory  of  the  tractors  in  the  various  categories,  nor  a  relevant  system  to 
survey the number of sales. 

Increase  of  flexibility  percentage  to  50%  for  all  tractors  and  proportionate  adjustment  of  the 
fixed numbers has to take account of environmental, social and economic impacts. Environmental 
impacts  have  been  determined  for  all  NRMM  in  the  impact  assessment  for  NRMM  flexibility 
based on external costs of calculated emissions. As there is a complete lack of specific information 
for tractors in EUROSTAT and environmental databases, it is not possible to provide more specific 
information for tractors only. However, the nature of the impacts is similar for tractors as for all 
non-road mobile machinery. 

The environmental costs represent the cost generated from the additional emissions of the engines 
under the amended 50% flexibility scheme compared to the current 20% flexibility scheme. 

According  to  the  methodology  followed  based  on  the  Net  Present  Value  (NPV),  per  type  of 
pollutant  the  environmental  costs  resulting  from  a  50%  flexibility  compared  to  the  current  20% 
flexibility are in the magnitude of: 

Pollutant 

50% flexibility for all NRMM 

50% flexibility for tractors 

PM 

NOx 

Total 

200 

350 

550 

80 – 90 

130 – 150 

210 - 240 

These figures (million Euros) represent the total cost over the period of 2008-2030, while for the 
present Impact Assessment the benefit has been calculated for the period of three years as covered 
by the accompanying proposal. The figures for tractors are based on the assumption that tractors 
will still have the same relative share in pollution. 

The estimated impact of an enlarged flexibility scheme is 0,3% of the overall emissions (both of 
PM and NOx) of all NRMM in use, in the first year. 

On the other hand, enlarged flexibility would allow manufacturers to continue selling tractors and 
thereby generating revenue to finance R&D costs for stage IIIB tractors. Similarly to the NRMM 
impact assessment, it is expected that the economic benefits outweigh the environmental harm.  

As alternative to 50% flexibility, a possibility to postpone the introduction of Stage IIIB might be 
considered until the introduction of Stage IV. The consequence of this would be that the effect of 
the 90% reduction in PM limits would be delayed for three years. The Commission is also of the 
opinion that a similar rise in flexibility for the introduction of Stage IV should not be considered; 
as  stated  before,  the  R&D  work  done  for  Stage  IIIB  should  guarantee  that  this  would  not  be 
justified. The Commission will inform the stakeholders about this. 

Increase  of  flexibility  percentage  to  80%  for  all  tractors  and  proportionate  adjustment  of  the 
fixed numbers, similar to option 4.2, with the  following  differences: 80% would  not be coherent 
with  the  NRMM  proposal  (50%);  flexibility  would  now  be  closer  to  the  US  system  while 
maintaining the EU fundamental system; it would lead to more environmental harm, while industry 
stated that this high figure is not necessary for them to be able to comply with the Directive. 

The use of the flexibility scheme with penalty mechanism would limit concerns that competitive 
distortions may occur from enlarged flexibility. However, there is a lack of available information 

EN 

8 

   EN 

 
 
concerning compliance of tractors which would place a significant burden on competent National 
authorities that render this option practically unfeasible and the preparation and implementation of 
such a mechanism would entail disproportionate costs (notification and surveillance) with regard to 
the benefits triggered by its application. 

A flexibility trading system by which firms could buy additional flexibility from those firms that 
do  not  need  it,  would  provide  a  strong  incentive  to  comply  as  soon  as  possible  with  the  new 
emission  limits.  However,  setting  up  such  a  complex  system  in  a  short  time  scale  would  be 
disproportionate to the expected achievements.  

Similarly  an  ABT  is  not  considered  to  be  a  feasible  option  as  described  before;  it  was  already 
turned down by Council and Parliament. 

Comparison of the listed options:  

Effectiveness 

Efficiency 

Coherence 

Feasibility 

Option 1 –  

Not effective 

Not efficient 

Partly coherent 

Feasible  

Baseline 

Option 2 -  
Provision of government 
backed loans to finance 
stocking of IIIA engines 

Option 3 -  
National scrapping 
schemes 

Option 4.1 –  
Scaled Flexibility  

Option 4.2 –  
50% Flexibility  

Option 4.3 –  
80% Flexibility  

Option 4.4 –  
Penalty mechanism 

Option 4.5 -  
Trading scheme 

Option 4.6 -  
ABT 

Partly Effective  Not efficient 

Not coherent 

Feasible, if MS 
would be willing 

Partly effective  Not efficient 

Partly coherent 

Unfeasible  

Effective 

Efficient 

Coherent 

Unfeasible 

Effective 

Efficient 

Coherent 

Feasible 

Effective only 
with respect to 
objective 1 

Not efficient 
due to 
environmental 
trade-off 

Coherent with 
environmental 
policy 

Feasible 

Effective 

Not Efficient 

Coherent 

Unfeasible  

Effective  

Partly efficient 

Coherent 

Unfeasible  

Effective  

Partly efficient 

Coherent 

Unfeasible  

EN 

9 

   EN 

 
 
 
5.1. 

Conclusion  

As a result of the above analysis, it is concluded that extending the flexibility to 50% is the most 
appropriate measure to ensure that the objectives of the policy are met.  

6. 

MONITORING AND EVALUATION 

An  assessment  of  the  impacts  of  the  enlarged  provisions  of  the  flexibility  scheme  after  its 
implementation  and  completion  will  be  based  on  information  provided  by  the  industry  and  by 
Member  States,  as  already  required  in  Directive  2000/25/EC.  Thus,  no  increase  in  costs  for 
manufacturers or national authorities is expected. 

Key indicators to assess the effectiveness of this initiative could be the use of the flexibility scheme 
until  end  of  2013,  the  development  of  the  number  of  firms  going  out  of  business,  and  the 
development of NOx and PM emissions attributed to tractors. 

It is the Commission’s intention to evaluate the impact of the revised flexibility measure at the end 
of  the  period  defined  in  the  accompanying  proposal,  i.e.  in  2014  and  to  draw  the  necessary 
conclusions from the results obtained. 

EN 

10 

   EN