COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT EXECUTIVE SUMMARY OF THE IMPACT ASSESSMENT Accompanying the documents Proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council on the European Union Agency for Railways and repealing Regulation (EC) No 881/2004 Proposal for a Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council on the interoperability of the rail system within the European Union (Recast) Proposal for a Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council on railway safety (Recast)
Date: 2013-01-30
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: European Union Agency for Railways, harmonisation of standards, intra-EU transport, operation of the Institutions, rail transport, technical standard, trans-European network, transport safety

EUROPEAN 
COMMISSION 

Brussels, 30.1.2013  
SWD(2013) 9 final 

COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT 

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY OF THE IMPACT ASSESSMENT 

Accompanying the documents 

Proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council on the 
European Union Agency for Railways and repealing Regulation (EC) No 881/2004 

Proposal for a Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council on the 
interoperability of the rail system within the European Union (Recast) 

Proposal for a Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council on railway 
safety (Recast) 

{COM(2013) 27 final} 
{COM(2013) 30 final} 
{COM(2013) 31 final} 
{SWD(2013) 8 final}

EN 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
 
  
 
 
 
COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT 

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY OF THE IMPACT ASSESSMENT 

Accompanying the documents 

Proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council on the 
European Union Agency for Railways and repealing Regulation (EC) No 881/2004 

Proposal for a Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council on the 
interoperability of the rail system within the European Union (Recast) 

Proposal for a Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council on railway 
safety (Recast) 

1. 

PROBLEM DEFINITION 

While  in  some  Member  States  the  national  railway  authorities  function  in  general 
efficiently, in others they are heavily understaffed and/or the procedures which they manage 
are long and costly. At the same time, the interoperability and safety requirements, which in 
principle  should  have  been  aligned  by  common  EU  rules,  still  diverge  significantly  at  the 
national level, creating access barriers, especially for new entrants. This is particularly acute 
for  the  freight  as  rail  freight  markets  have  been  opened  for  a  number  of  years.  The  new 
entrants  are  relatively  more  vulnerable  to  complexity  and  delays  in  procedures  as  their 
human and financial resources are often limited. 

The  existing  costly  and  long  procedures,  especially  to  obtain  authorisation  for  a  railway 
vehicle  and  safety  certificate  for  railway  undertaking,  are  important  factors  hindering  the 
development  of  the  EU  railway  market  and  its  efficient  functioning.  Besides  being 
complicated  and  slow,  these  procedures  do  not  guarantee  sufficient  level  of  mutual 
recognition  of  certificates  and  authorisations.  This  negatively  affects  particularly  new 
companies wishing to enter into the market, thus contributing to a low level of competition 
and lasting market distortions.  

Stakeholders also complained that national railway authorities may use technical arguments 
and  a  legacy  of  diverging  and  not  always  transparent  national  rules  as  access  barriers  for 
new entrants. According to the results of the targeted consultation, new entrants may inter 
alia face discrimination from National Safety Authorities (NSAs) when applying for safety 
certificate or during vehicle authorisation processes. Stakeholders reported more specifically 
that the processes leading to the delivery of safety certificate and vehicle authorisation are 
not sufficiently harmonised and transparent to prevent arbitrary and discriminative decisions 
by NSAs.  

Notwithstanding its important role in creation of the European railway interoperability and 
safety legislation, it is evident that currently ERA does not have major control and oversight 
powers  with  regard  to  national  railway  authorities,  infrastructure  managers  or  market 
players.  Its  monitoring  responsibilities  are  practically  limited  to  monitoring  of  safety 
performance  and  of  interoperability  (through  publication  of  regular  reports  and  collecting 
and  publishing  common  safety  indicators  and  facilitating  cooperation  between  the  NSAs 
and NIBs). 

EN 

2 

   EN 

 
 
 
2. 

SUBSIDIARITY 

Articles 58, 90 and 100 of the Treaty extend to railways the objectives of a genuine internal 
market in the context of an EU Common Transport Policy.  

Actions  by  Member  States  alone  cannot  ensure  the  coherence  of  EU  railway  market  and 
address  the  divergent  interpretation  of  the  legislation,  as  persistence  of  national  rules  and 
sub-optimal functioning of national institutions, acting as barriers to the internal market, is 
in  fact  at  the  centre  of  the  problem.  Action  at  EU  level  aims  to  ensure  consistent 
implementation  of  the  EU  rail  acquis,  which  should  lead  to  the  creation  of  the  Single 
European Railway Area with no unnecessary administrative and technical barriers. 

3. 

OBJECTIVES 

General objective: 

Eliminate  existing  administrative  and  technical  barriers  thereby  enhancing  the  competitiveness  of  rail  sector 
vis-à-vis other modes and developing further the Single European Rail Area.  

Specific objectives: 

SO1: 

Facilitate entrance of new operators into market 

SO2:  Reduce administrative costs of railway undertakings  

Operational objectives: 

OO1: 

Increase the efficiency of the safety certification and vehicle authorisation processes 

OO2:  Ensure  non-discrimination  in  the  granting  and  recognition  of  safety  certificates  and  interoperability 
authorisations across the EU  

OO3: 
interoperability aspects of the internal market for railways 

Increase  the  coherence  of  the  national  legal  frameworks,  notably  related  to  the  safety  and 

The following targets have been set to the operational objectives: 

• 

• 

• 

to achieve, by 2025, the removal of all unnecessary national rules (cf. OO3) 

to  achieve,  by  2025,  a  20%  reduction  in  the  time  to  market  for  new  railway 
undertakings above the baseline situation in 2025 (cf. OO1 and OO2) 

to achieve, by 2025, a 20% reduction in the cost and duration of the authorisation 
of rolling stock above the baseline situation in 2025 (cf. OO1 and OO2) 

4. 

POLICY OPTIONS 

Based  on  the  screening  of  individual  measures  the  Commission  has  identified  five  policy 
options  (options  2-6),  besides  the  baseline  scenario.  By  construction,  options  2-5  concern 
primarily  the  level  of  interaction  between  the  European  Railway  Agency  (ERA  or  the 
Agency)  and  national  authorities  and  are  all  capable  of  tackling  the  three  operational 
objectives  set  out  in  section  3.  Option  6  is  a  set  of  horizontal  measures  which  are  mostly 
independent of the interactions between ERA and national authorities and can be applied on 
top of any of the option 2-5, with expected reinforcement of the overall final impact.  

EN 

3 

   EN 

 
Option 1: Baseline scenario (do nothing) – continuing on the path that is currently set out 
for the sector  

Option 2: Greater coordination role for the Agency in ensuring a consistent approach to 
certification of railway undertakings and vehicle authorisation 

Option  3:  ERA  as  a  one-stop-shop,  where  the  final  decision  on  certification  and 
authorisation  remains  with  the  NSAs  but  ERA  performs  entry  and  exit  checks  of 
applications and of the decisions 

Option 4: ERA & NSAs share competencies, where the final decision on certification and 
authorisation is taken by the Agency 

Option  5:  ERA  takes  over  activities  of  NSAs  in  relation  to  certification  of  railway 
undertakings and vehicle authorisation 

Option  6:  Horizontal  measures,  includes  other  legislative  and  soft  measures  (beyond 
sharing  the  responsibilities  between  national  authorities  and  ERA)  that  could  be 
implemented to improve the competitiveness of the rail sector. 

A table showing all the policy packages together with individual policy measures is given 
below. 

EN 

4 

   EN 

 
Summary of policy options 

Option 1 

Baseline 

Option 2: Further ERA 
“Coordination” over NSAs 

Enhanced “coordination” and 
supervision role of ERA with 
respect to NSAs regarding 
granting of vehicle 
authorisations & safety 
certificates including ensuring 
their mutual recognition by 
national authorities. 

Option 3: ERA as One-Stop-Shop 

ERA shares the competences with the NSAs 
regarding granting of safety certificates to the 
railway undertakings and vehicle authorisations 
("one stop shop" concept): the decision is taken by 
NSA, ERA performs "entry and exit" checks of the 
application.  

ERA as an appeal body for some decisions of 
NSAs 

Migration to a single (common) safety certificate 
and single vehicle authorisation (setting up 
European "passport" for vehicles): national 
authorities issue single safety certificates & single 
vehicle authorisations (mutually recognised by 
definition) 

Option 5: ERA takes over activities of NSAs  

ERA takes over the competences of the NSAs 
regarding granting of certificates to the railway 
undertakings and vehicle authorisations. 

Option 4: ERA & NSAs share 
competencies 

ERA shares the competences with 
the NSAs regarding granting of 
safety certificates & vehicle 
authorisations: a "one stop shop" 
concept with the NSAs (acting as 
regional offices of ERA) 
contributing but the final decision 
rests with ERA.  

Migration  to  a  single  (common)  safety  certificate  and  single  vehicle  authorisation 
(setting up European "passport" for vehicles): ERA issues single safety certificates and 
single vehicle authorisations 
(Appeals to ERA decisions are sent to a separate appeal body)  

Control by ERA over the functioning of NSAs (e.g. developing guidelines & auditing adherence to them). 

Option 6: 
horizontal 
measures 
(independent 
of the level of 
interaction 
ERA/national 
authorities) 

Enhanced “coordination” and supervision role of ERA with respect to NoBos regarding: type approval; rail vehicles certification; ERTMS certification and accreditation of 
NoBos. 

Strengthened action by the Commission outside infringement procedure, notably on non-discrimination in the railway market 

Amendment of the interoperability and safety directives to enable the adoption of implementing acts setting out common principles & practices for national authorities 

Enhanced role of ERA in monitoring and control of implementation of national safety and interoperability legislation 

Migrating from national technical & safety rules to a system of EU rules (requirement for national authorities to remove unnecessary rules and limiting their possibility of 
adopting new rules). 

Enhanced role of ERA in dissemination of railway-related information and training. 

Enhanced role of ERA in providing advice & support for Member States & other stakeholders in implementing legislation on safety & interoperability 

Communication from the Commission regarding guidelines on the interpretation of specific EU laws & decisions (including Technical Specification for Interoperability, TSIs) 

Enhanced role of ERA in identifying potential spare parts to be standardised and coordination of industry activities in this area 

EN 

5 

EN 

 
  
For the sake of transparency, all options were first assessed individually and, subsequently, in 
combination with option 6 which has amplificatory effect on other options. 

5. 

ASSESSMENT OF IMPACTS 

Given  the  strong  focus  on  operational  efficiency,  the  core  impacts  of  this  initiative  are 
economic,  while  social  and  environmental  impacts  are  mostly  indirect  and  sometimes 
negligible.  Direct  impacts  are  quantified,  while  indirect  impacts  are  assessed  in  qualitative 
terms. 

Quantitative assessment of direct impacts consists of:  

• 

• 

• 

calculation  of  savings  in  costs  and  timescales  of  certification  and  authorisation 
processes (including savings of administrative costs for operators); 

calculation of opportunity cost savings for operators resulting from a reduced time to 
market for railway vehicles and 

calculation  of  the  changes  in  the  cost  of  administration  of  ERA  and  national 
authorities. 

Option 6 was assessed separately and in combination with options 2-5. 

Assessment  of  direct  impacts  -  total  cost  saving  benefits  for  operators  of  combined 
options  

Combining  the  authorisation,  certification  and  opportunity  cost  savings  demonstrates 
substantial benefits over the evaluation period with benefits of over €0.5 bn for options 3-5. 
Total quantified benefits by option are presented in the table below, with option 2 being the 
least and option 5 – the most beneficial: 

Total quantified benefits for rail undertakings 2015-2025 of options 2-5 in combination with option 6 
(discounted, € m NPV) 

Authorisation 
cost savings 

Certification 
cost savings 

Opportunity 
cost savings 
(central case) 

Total 
benefits 

Option 

Option  2+6:  Further  ERA  “Coordination”  + 
horizontal measures 

Option 3+6: ERA as One-Stop-Shop + horizontal 
measures 

Option 4+6: ERA & NSAs share competencies + 
horizontal measures 

Option  5+6:  ERA  takes  over  activities  of  NSAs 
regarding 
certification  + 
horizontal measures 

authorisation  & 

EN 

201 

217 

235 

276 

6 

2 

2 

2 

3 

237 

255 

265 

440 

474 

502 

295 

574 

   EN 

 
 
 
Assessment  of  direct  impacts  -  total  changes  in  administrative  costs  for  Agency  and 
NSAs 

The estimate of the cost of administration for ERA arising from combined options is given in 
the table below, with option 5 being by far the most costly: 

Additional cost of administration on the ERA of options 2-5 in combination with option 6 (€m) 

Yearly values by 2020 (when all staff changes have been phased in) 

Option 

Total 
additional 
staff 

Total 
additional 
staff cost 

Overhead  

Other 
costs  

Total 
gross cost 
increase  

% of 
current 
ERA 
budget  

Total costs, 
NPV (2015-
2025) 

Option 2+6: Further ERA 
“Coordination" + 
horizontal measures 

Option 3+6: ERA as One-
Stop-Shop + horizontal 
measures 

Option 4+6: ERA & 
NSAs share competencies 
+ horizontal measures 

Option 5+6: ERA takes 
over activities of NSAs 
regarding authorisation & 
certification + horizontal 
measures 

38 

(3.5) 

(0.9) 

(0.5) 

(4.9) 

24% 

(37) 

42 

(3.9) 

(1.0) 

(0.5) 

(5.4) 

27% 

(39) 

55 

(5.0) 

(1.3) 

(0.3) 

(6.6) 

33% 

(44) 

302 

(23.2) 

(5.8) 

(2.0) 

(31) 

154% 

(221) 

It should be noted that no additional costs were identified as a result of the baseline activities. 
There  is  a  clear  evolution  of  activities  in  the  baseline,  but  it  is  not  believed  having  a 
significant impact on the administrative costs for the Agency.  

The related cost of administration on NSAs arising from  combined options are presented in 
the table below, with option 5 having the highest potential impact on reducing the costs. 

Savings of the cost of administration in NSAs of options 2-5 in combination with option 6 (€m) 

Option 

Option 2+6: Further ERA 
“Coordination” + horizontal 
measures 

Option 3+6: ERA as One-Stop-
Shop + horizontal measures 

Option 4+6: ERA & NSAs 
share competencies + horizontal 
measures 

Total 
NSA 
staff* 
(estimate 
2011) 

500 

Yearly values by 2020 (when all staff changes have been phased 
in), per NSA 

Total staff 
variation  

Total staff 
costs saving 

Overhead  

Total gross 
cost saving 

-2 

-4 

-5 

EU12 

EU15 

EU12 

EU15 

0.08 

0.17 

0.09 

0.35 

EU12 

0.11 

EU15 

0.44 

0.02 

0.04 

0.02 

0.09 

0.03 

0.11 

0.1 

0.2 

0.1 

0.4 

0.1 

0.6 

Total 
NPV in 
the EU 
(2015-
2025) 

37 

55 

68 

EN 

7 

   EN 

 
 
 
Option 

Total 
NSA 
staff* 
(estimate 
2011) 

Yearly values by 2020 (when all staff changes have been phased 
in), per NSA 

Total staff 
variation  

Total staff 
costs saving 

Overhead  

Total gross 
cost saving 

Option 5+6: ERA takes over 
activities of NSAs regarding 
authorisation & certification + 
horizontal measures 

-11 

EU12 

0.24 

EU15 

0.96 

0.06 

0.24 

0.3 

1.2 

Total 
NPV in 
the EU 
(2015-
2025) 

152 

*  Only  those  working  on  certification  &  authorisation.  An  estimated  value  based  on  the  Interoperability  and 
Safety  Reports  of  the  Agency.  Assuming  that  EBA  (German  NSA)  staff  in  regional  offices  is  not  counted  as 
certification and authorisation staff, but is being an inspection and auditing staff 

The following table shows the total estimated impacts on the cost of administration for ERA 
and  NSAs  respectively  for  each  of  the  policy  options  analysed.  For  all  options,  except  for 
option 5, an overall reduction in the cost of administration was estimated due to the fact that 
the additional costs incurred by ERA  can be compensated by the cost  savings  registered by 
the NSAs. 

Change  in  Agency  and  NSA  costs  and  the  net  impact  on  cost  of  administration  of  options  2-5  in 
combination with option 6 (Total costs, NPV, 2015-2025, € m) 

Option 

Estimated cost 
increase for ERA 

Estimated cost 
decrease for NSAs 

Total saving in the 
cost of administration 
(ERA+NSAs) 

Option 2+6: Further ERA 
“Coordination" + horizontal measures 

Option 3+6: ERA as One-Stop-Shop + 
horizontal measures 

Option 4+6: ERA & NSAs share 
competencies + horizontal measures 

Option 5+6: ERA takes over activities 
of NSAs regarding authorisation & 
certification + horizontal measures 

(37) 

(39) 

(44) 

37 

55 

68 

0 

16 

24 

(221) 

152 

(69) 

The  table  above  shows  that  option  4  is  the  one  that  leads  to  highest  cost  savings  (€24  m.), 
while the implementation of option 5 is expected to impose an increase in administrative costs 
of about €69 m. 

Assessment of indirect impacts 

The indirect social impacts, as well as any environmental impacts (GHG emissions, air quality 
and  noise)  are  expected  to  be  low,  and  in  reality  it  would  be  difficult  to  establish  to  what 
extent these were originated by this initiative rather than other 4th Railway Package initiatives 
and/or external factors such as changes in demand of other transport modes.. Rail safety levels 
under each option remain the same given that the principal responsibilities of each main actor 
in the safety chain will not be changed, or improve as a result of more harmonised national 
legislation.  

EN 

8 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
6. 

COMPARISON OF OPTIONS 

Comparison in terms of direct impacts  

The overall results of the assessment of different impacts are summarised in the table below. 
Although  option  6  could  be  pursued  as  a  self-standing  option,  the  analysis  has  shown  the 
strong benefits of combining it with institutional options 2-5.  

Summary table of discounted cost savings for rail undertakings and public authorities 2015-2025 of 
options 2-5 in combination with option 6 (NPV, € m)  

Savings to rail undertakings 
(including in administrative costs) 

Change in cost of administration 

Option 

Authoris
ation 

Safety 
certificati
on 

Opportu
nity 
costs 
(central 
case) 

Total 
benefits 
for 
operato
rs  

For ERA

For 
NSAs 

Total 
change in 
cost of 
administr
ation 

ERA/N
SA 
authoris
ation fee 
revenue 
loss1 

Total net 
benefit 

Additional 
funds 
necessary 
from EU 
budget to 
cover ERA 
costs 

Option 2+6: 
Further ERA 
“Coordination”
+ horizontal 
measures 

Option 3+6: 
ERA as One-
Stop-Shop+ 
horizontal 
measures 

Option 4+6: 
ERA & NSAs 
share 
competencies+ 
horizontal 
measures 

Option 5+6: 
ERA takes over 
activities of 
NSAs regarding 
authorisation & 
certification+ 
horizontal 
measures 

201  

2 

237 

440 

(37) 

37 

0 

(29) 

411 

(37) 

217 

2 

255 

474 

(39) 

55 

16 

(29) 

461 

(39) 

235 

2  

265 

502 

(44) 

68 

24 

(29) 

497 

a: 02 

b: (6) 

c: (25) 

276 

3  

295 

574 

(221) 

152 

(69) 

(29) 

476 

(146) 

Taking into account the direct impacts, option 4 is the most beneficial, i.e. it has the best ratio 
of costs and benefits. Moreover, it can be also cost-neutral to the EU budget (a minimal cost 
under scenario (a) and neutral under scenario (b)), given the proposed coverage of additional 
costs of ERA by industry fees. 

1 

2 

Over  time  there  will  be  a  gradual  reduction  in  the  total  number  of  vehicle  type  authorisations,  which 
will lead to a reduction in total fees across the EU of about €29 m. 
This cell illustrates the extent to which future revenues collected by the Agency for its part of issuing of 
safety  certificates  and  vehicle  authorisations  can  cover  the  additional  costs  of  the  Agency,  with  three 
scenarios of sharing the revenues between ERA and the NSAs – (a): 25% NSAs, 75% ERA; (b): 50% 
NSAs, 50% ERA; (c): 75% NSAs, 25% ERA. 

EN 

9 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
Comparison in terms of efficiency and effectiveness 

Effectiveness and efficiency different options is summarised in the table below. 

Efficiency and effectiveness of the options  

Option 

Efficiency (Total Net 
Benefit € m) 

Effectiveness 
(number of 
operational 
objectives met) 

Option 2+6: Further ERA “Coordination” + horizontal 
measures 

Option 3+6: ERA as One-Stop-Shop + horizontal measures 

Option 4+6: ERA & NSAs share competencies + horizontal 
measures 

Option 5+6: ERA takes over activities of NSAs regarding 
authorisation & certification + horizontal measures 

411 

461 

497 

476 

1 

2 

3 

3 

This table shows that by combining the net benefits with effectiveness in terms of operational 
objectives,  option  4  remains  the  favoured  option  –  all  objectives  will  be  achieved  with  a 
highest net benefit. While the benefits of option 3 are relatively close to that of option 4, this 
option  would  compare  unfavourably  in  terms  of  effectiveness  as  the  target  for  reduction  in 
authorisation costs will not be achieved.  

Conclusion 

Option 4 would be a coherent, effective and efficient solution to the problems identified, as it 
provides the best balance of outcomes in relation to: 

• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

the  industry,  in  terms  of  reduced  costs  and  timescales  for  safety  certification  and 
vehicle and other sub-system authorisation;  

cost implications for the EU budget; 

the cost impacts on national institutions;  

respect of the subsidiarity and proportionality principles;  

addressing the problems identified in section 1; and 

meeting the objectives outlined in section 3. 

7. 

MONITORING AND EVALUATION 

Regarding  evaluation,  it  is  planned,  that  in  2025  the  Commission  will  evaluate  whether  the 
objectives of the initiative were achieved, and if not consider additional steps to be taken in 
order to complete them by 2030.  

Progress  in  terms  of  reaching  the  objectives  could  be  monitored  by  relevant  monitoring 
indicators. For this purpose, the existing targets for operational objectives could be used and 
transformed in the following indicators: 

• 

• 

• 

number of national rules,  

cost and duration of safety certification procedure, and 

cost and duration of vehicle authorisation procedure. 

EN 

10 

   EN 

 
 
The  indicators  could  be  verified  by  the  tools  like  interviews  (survey)  with  a  selection  of 
stakeholders  on  their  own  assessment  of  time  and  costs  related  to  certification  and  vehicle 
authorisation and number of notified and published national rules measured in the appropriate 
database. 

Additionally,  it  might  be  also  useful  to  monitor  the  position  of  stakeholders  –  through  a 
consultation process – with respect to: 

• 

• 

Non-discrimination;  

An increase the coherence of the national legal framework.  

EN 

11 

   EN