COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT IMPACT ASSESSMENT Accompanying the document Proposal for REGULATION OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL establishing a Union certification system for aviation security screening equipment
Date: 2016-09-07
Institutions: Directorate-General for Migration and Home Affairs, European Commission
Subjects: EC conformity marking, air safety, approval, civil aviation, competitiveness, electronic equipment, free movement of goods, market approval, single market, technical standard

EN 

   EN 

   EUROPEAN COMMISSION  Brussels, 7.9.2016  SWD(2016) 261 final   COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT  IMPACT ASSESSMENT  Accompanying the document Proposal for REGULATION OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL establishing a Union certification system for aviation security screening equipment {COM(2016) 491 final} {SWD(2016) 259 final}  
 
 
TABLE OF CONTENTS 

1. 

1.1. 

2. 

2.1. 

2.2. 

2.3. 

2.4. 

2.5. 

Introduction .................................................................................................................. 3 

Policy Context .............................................................................................................. 3 

Problem definition ........................................................................................................ 6 

The lack of an internal market for aviation security equipment .................................. 6 

The internal dimension of the market fragmentation for aviation screening equipment
 .................................................................................................................................... 11 

The external dimension .............................................................................................. 12 

Outcome of the public consultation ........................................................................... 13 

Underlying drivers of the problem ............................................................................. 14 

2.6.  Who is affected, in what ways and to what extent? ................................................... 14 

2.7. 

2.8. 

3. 

3.1. 

3.2. 

3.3. 

4. 

5. 

5.1. 

5.2. 

6. 

7. 

Evolution of the problem ........................................................................................... 15 

EU right to act ............................................................................................................ 16 

Objectives ................................................................................................................... 17 

General policy objectives ........................................................................................... 17 

Specific policy objectives .......................................................................................... 17 

Consistency with other policies and objectives ......................................................... 18 

Policy options ............................................................................................................. 18 

Analysis of impacts .................................................................................................... 22 

Economic impacts ...................................................................................................... 22 

Social and environmental impacts ............................................................................. 30 

Comparing the options ............................................................................................... 31 

Monitoring and evaluation ......................................................................................... 34 

Annex 1: List of acronyms ....................................................................................................... 35 

Annex 2: Glossary .................................................................................................................... 36 

Annex 3: Procedural issues and consultation of interested parties .......................................... 42 

Annex 4: Stakeholder consultations ......................................................................................... 42 

Summary of responses to the public consultation .................................................................... 45 

Summary of the Workshop ...................................................................................................... 71 

Annex 5: Procedure for testing the aviation security equipment ............................................. 75 

Annex 6: Stylised supply/value chain for aviation security screening equipment ................... 77 

Annex 7: Overview on the Impacts on competitiveness of EU businesses ............................. 78 

Annex 8: Background information on the legal implications of the policy options ................ 82 

2 

 
 
 
1. 

INTRODUCTION  

In the absence of any EU-wide rules on certification, Member States have adopted different 
approaches  when  it  comes  to  approving  and/or/certifying  aviation  security  screening 
equipment  before  placing  it  on  the  market.  The  purpose  of  this  impact  assessment  is  to 
identify the consequences this situation has and assess the possible policy options to address 
them. 

1.1. 

Policy Context 

The  Commission  Communication  “Security  Industrial  Policy  Action  Plan  for  an  innovative 
and competitive Security Industry (COM (2012) 417)”  1 announced under action 2: “Subject 
to a thorough impact assessment analysis and consultation of stakeholders, the Commission 
would  propose  two  legislative  proposals:  one  to  establish  an  EU-wide  harmonised 
certification system for airport screening (detection) equipment2; and one to establish an EU 
harmonised  certification  system  for  alarm  systems.  The  objective  is  to  achieve  mutual 
recognition of certification systems.” 
Increasing the competitiveness of EU companies by overcoming the fragmentation of the EU 
security markets is a priority for the European Commission as outlined by President Juncker 
in his Political Guidelines:  
"Our internal market is Europe’s best asset in times of increasing globalisation. I therefore 
want the next Commission to build on the strength of our single market and to fully exploit its 
potential  in  all  its  dimensions.  We  need  to  complete  the  internal  market  in  products  and 
services  and  make  it  the  launch  pad  for  our  companies  and  industry  to  thrive  in  the  global 
economy, […]"("A Deeper and Fairer Internal Market with a Strengthened Industrial Base"). 
The European Agenda on Security3 also emphasised the need for a "competitive EU security 
industry" which "can also contribute to the EU’s autonomy in meeting security needs. The EU 
has  encouraged  the  development  of  innovative  security  solutions,  for  example  through 
standards  and  common  certificates".  In  that  context,  the  Commission  reiterated  its  will  to 
consider further action, such as on alarm systems and airport screening equipment4, to remove 
barriers to the Single Market and to enhance the competitiveness of the EU security industry 
in export markets. 

The aviation security sector 

Aviation screening equipment relate to the equipment used for the screening of persons, cabin 
baggage,  hold  baggage,  supplies,  cargo  and  mail.  Aviation  security  screening  equipment 
means equipment subject to current legislation (Regulation (EC) No 300/2008), i.e. currently 
walk-through metal detection equipment (WTMD), security scanners (SSc) which do not use 

http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=COM:2012:0417:FIN:EN:PDF  

1 
2 The Security Industrial Policy Action Plan refers to airport screening equipment while this Impact Assessment 
refers  to  aviation  screening  equipment.  The  terminology  was  changed  in  the  drafting  process  to 
"aviation"  as  this  encompasses  the  whole  aviation  transport  chain,  while  "airport"  would  leave  out 
aspects related to cargo. 

3 COM(2015) 185 final 
4 The European Agenda on Security refers to airport screening equipment while this Impact Assessment refers to 
aviation screening equipment. The terminology was changed in the drafting process to "aviation" as this 
encompasses  the  whole  aviation  transport  chain,  while  "airport"  would  leave  out  aspects  related  to 
cargo. 

3 

 
 
 
 
                                                 
ionising radiation, cabin baggage x-ray imaging equipment (CBS), liquid explosives detection 
systems  (LEDS),  explosives  detection  equipment  for  carry  on  and  divested  items  (EDS-C), 
explosive detection systems for hold luggage (EDS), and explosive trace detection equipment 
(ETD). 

Screening equipment in the aviation security sector represents a considerable market, with an 
annual global turnover of 14 billion Euros, 4.2 billon of which in the EU alone. Airports and 
air transport hubs are also among the sectors with the highest global growth potential, with a 
strong  focus  on  Asian  markets.  For  illustration,  during  the  next  10  years  the  market  for 
aviation security in China is expected to grow by 140%.5 

The supply of screening equipment for the aviation transport sector is concentrated among a 
few  international  players,  coming  mainly  from  the  US  and  the  EU  Member  States.  These 
include  Smiths  Detection,  Rapiscan  and  L3  which  are  large  multinational  companies  based 
both in the EU and in the US and companies such as Morpho (Safran), CEIA and SMEs such 
as Gilardoni which are EU based.  

Other  US  companies,  such  as  Bruker,  Analogic,  Sellex  and  FLIR,  have  produced  aviation 
security screening equipment but to date have limited market penetration outside the US. In 
terms of other international competitors, the only significant companies in this sector are the 
Chinese company Nuctech and the Canadian company OptoSecurity, although there are other 
Chinese, Israeli, Japanese, Korean and Russian manufacturers of aviation security screening 
equipment who, to date, have limited or no penetration of this sector in Europe. 

Looking below the first-tier of what are essentially global players, the European industry in 
this sector appears somewhat fragmented. The remainder of the sector is characterised by EU 
companies of relatively limited size such as Kromek, Cobalt Light Systems and System Two, 
focussed  on  the  development  of  specific  technologies  and/or  offering  specialised  or  niche 
products to the market such as liquid screening technologies. The limitations that come from 
their size means they have limited capability to compete with the major players, with whom 
they often need to develop partnerships to have access to broader market segments. 

It  is  difficult  to  quantitatively  assess  the  competitive  position  of  EU  suppliers  of  aviation 
security  screening  equipment.  Information  on  the  global  market  position  of  EU  suppliers  is 
not readily available and estimates, where they exist, are subject to wide differences. Even for 
the  aviation  security  market  as  a  whole,  estimates  differ  substantially  across  sources. 
Moreover,  aviation  security  screening  equipment  is  not  identifiable  from  existing  product 
classification used for the collection of international trade data. This implies that there are no 
export and import data at country level for the aviation security screening equipment segment. 
Equally  for  the  large  multinationals  it  is  hard  to  distinguish  the  data  for  sales  of  aviation 
security screening equipment from their other activities. 

To provide a quantitative impression of the competitive position of EU suppliers, this Impact 
Assessment  makes  use  of  the  annual  reports  for  some  of  the  main  players  identified  above. 
Insofar  as  data  are  available  the  annual  reports  give  information  about  sales  revenues  by 
geographic market area. Table 2 shows the share of revenues by main market for six of  the 
main  companies  active  in  the  aviation  screening  sector.  The  last  line reports  estimated  total 
revenues in 2012 in million Euros, based on the reported information on the share of security 
and detection in total revenues.6 

5 

See: http://ec.europa.eu/enterprise/policies/security/documents/index_en.htm  

4 

 
 
                                                 
  
The  major  American  and  European  companies  are  competing  with  each  other  at  a  global 
level, although subject to the specific peculiarities and preferences within the main Western 
and other international markets. 

Table 1: Revenues of main companies in aviation screening equipment by geographical market area (2012, percentage of total 

revenue) 

Europe 

Americas 

North America 

Asia 

Oceania 

Other 

Total revenues (million 
euro) 

Smiths 

Safran 

(UK) 

26% 

50% 

7% 

- 

17% 

635 

(FR) 

46% 

30% 

16% 

- 

8% 

1492 

L3 

(US) 

6% 

84% 

1% 

1% 

8% 

256 

Rapiscan 

FLIR 

Analogic 

(US) 

19% 

68% 

12% 

- 

0% 

302 

(US) 

24% 

(US) 

24% 

51% 

- 

- 

25% 

66 

39% 

16% 

- 

21% 

48 

Source: annual reports; Ecorys. Notes: Analogic's figures for Europe include Germany, the Netherlands and Denmark, and Asia refers to Japan only. "Other" includes the 

rest of Europe, Canada and China for example. The Netherlands accounts for 12% of revenue, but most likely this is mostly in medical appliances. In security, this share is 

likely an overestimate. The figures for Rapiscan refer to the Americas, including the North American and Latin American markets. 

Though  still  in  a  strong  position,  there  is  some  evidence  to  suggest  that  main  EU  suppliers 
have lost some ground in terms of market shares over time since about 2007  

Table 2: Development of total revenue for main companies in aviation screening equipment 
over time (index; 2010=100) 

Source: annual reports; HSRC (2008); Ecorys.  

A  more  detailed  assessment  of  the  competitiveness  of  the  EU  manufacturers  can  be  found 
under point "3.4. The external dimension". 

5 

 
 
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
 
2. 

2.1. 

PROBLEM DEFINITION  

The lack of an internal market for aviation security equipment 

In  absence  of  a  common  legally  binding  procedure  for  the  certification  of  aviation  security 
screening  equipment  in  the  EU  Member  States,  there  is  no  single,  legally  binding  EU-wide 
mechanism by which this equipment is  approved and the methods by which Member States 
certify equipment diverge.7 This fragmentation has effectively hindered the creation of a 
true  internal  market  for  aviation  screening  equipment  in  the  EU.  This  causes 
inefficiencies  and  impedes  the  competitiveness  of  European  manufacturers  of  aviation 
security screening equipment. 
There  is  an  applicable  EU  legislation8  on  the  technical  specifications  and  performance 
requirements for aviation security screening equipment used at EU airports. This legislation is 
based  on  performance  standards  developed  by  the  Commission,  which  are  continuously 
adapted  to  the  evolving  threat  scenarios  and  risk  assessments.  These  standards  and  the  two 
related regulations are not being addressed by this initiative as they are already applied across 
the EU. These standards are classified and only made available to those (persons, companies, 
organisations etc.) which have an adequate security clearance as well as a valid justification 
("need to know basis"). This aspect has an impact on the choice of policy options described 
under section 4 "Policy Options". 

This  legislation,  however,  is  not  accompanied  by  a  legally  binding  EU-wide  conformity 
assessment9  scheme  to  ensure  that  the  required  standards  are  met  at  all  EU  airports. 
Therefore  equipment  certified  in  one  EU  Member  State  can  be  put  on  the  market  in  that 
Member State only. Any other Member State is free to recognise this certification, to require 
that  the  equipment  is  tested  again  to  verify  it  meets  the  requirements  prescribed  by  EU 
legislation,  or  to  refuse  its  use  in  their  territory.  In  any  case,  this  second  Member  State  is 
obliged to issue its own certification, which is not based on the automatic recognition of the 
initially certifying Member State. 

However there is an exception. Within Regulation (EU) 185/2010, point 12.7.3, there is the 
provision that for liquid explosive detection systems if equipment is approved by or on behalf 
of one appropriate authority of a Member State, it shall be recognised by other Member States 
as meeting the EU standards. This does not however mean that there is an EU system in place 
based  on  common  testing  procedures.  Nor  does  it  mean  that  the  Member  States  all  use  the 
same procedures. Every Member State can set up its own methodologies if it wishes. So far, 
no  case  of  mutual  recognition  based  on  the  provision  of  the  Regulation  185/2010  has  been 
recorded. 
Member  States  through  ECAC10,  and  in  cooperation  with  the  Commission,  have  partially 
addressed this fragmentation through the development of common testing methodologies for 
several  categories  of  aviation  security  screening  equipment.  In  2008  ECAC  put  in  place  a 

7 An overview of the divergent approaches on certification procedures for aviation security screening equipment 

8 

can be found in table 4. 
The  two  relevant  regulations  are:  (EC)  No  300/2008  and  (EC)  185/2010,  Commission  Decision 
774/2010. 

9  Definition from Regulation (EC) No 765/2008: 'conformity assessment' shall mean the process demonstrating 
whether  specified  requirements  relating  to  a  product,  process,  service,  system,  person  or  body  have  been 
fulfilled. 
10 European Civil Aviation Conference consisting of 44 European countries (including 28 EU Member States), 

https://www.ecac-ceac.org/ 

6 

 
 
 
                                                 
framework  for  the  evaluation  of  security  equipment  used  in  the  aviation  sector  (ECAC 
Common Evaluation Process (CEP)).  

Schematic overview of the repartition of roles in the aviation screening equipment sector 

Today  ECAC  provides  a  common  method  of  testing  for  many  Member  States  and  tests  an 
increasing  proportion  of  the  aviation  security  screening  equipment  described  in  the  EU 
regulation. The ECAC CEP applies to Explosives Detection Systems (EDS), Liquid Explosive 
Detection  Systems  (LEDS),  Explosive  Trace  Detection (ETD)  and  Security  Scanners  (SSc). 
In 2015 this will be extended to at least Cargo Metal Detection Equipment (MDE) and EDS 
for  cabin  baggage  (EDS-C).  The  ECAC  Common  Testing  Methodologies  (CTM's)  are 
developed by the ECAC Technical Task Force (TTF) and endorsed by all 44 ECAC Member 
States (which includes all 28 Member States).  

It  should  be  noted  that  several  of  the  problems  related  to  ECAC  identified  during 
consultations  have  been  improved  or  resolved.  The  passages  of  the  public  consultation  on 
these aspects have therefore been disregarded for the drafting of this Impact Assessment: 

  The overall number of laboratories for aviation screening equipment has increased as 
well as their testing capacities. Manufacturers can now freely choose the laboratory at 
which they want to have their equipment tested.  

  The  bottlenecks  at  the  laboratories  for  testing  slots  for  aviation  screening  equipment 

have been reduced.  

  The duplication of testing for aviation screening equipment has been reduced.  

  The  speed  at  which  the  test  results  are  transmitted  by  the  laboratories  has  been 

improved.  

However,  approval  (certification)  of  equipment  remains  at  national  level  and  does  not 
preclude  national  authorities  from  subjecting  screening  equipment  to  their  own  national 
testing  and  validation  procedures.  The  ECAC  CEP  publishes  test  results  but  does  not  issue 

7 

 
 
 
 
certifications. Equally the CTMs are not legally binding, nor do they prevent a Member State 
from  requiring  additional  or  different  tests.  The  problem  of  a  lack  of  legal  certainty  on  the 
certification process therefore still persists. 

In the absence of any EU-wide rules on certification, Member States have adopted different 
approaches  when  it  comes  to  approving  and/or/certifying  aviation  security  screening 
equipment before placing it on the market. These divergent approaches have been mapped in 
a survey launched by the Joint Research Centre in autumn 2012, which asked for information 
regarding  the  certificate  requested  in  each  Member  State  for  aviation  security  screening 
equipment  to  be  eligible  for  a  tender.  The  survey  clearly  shows  that  no  single  certification 
system  is  used  across  the  whole  EU.  While  some  base  themselves  on  the  ECAC  system 
described  above,  others  rely  on  the  US  certification  scheme,  the  approval  of  other  Member 
States  or,  in  one  case,  have  no  requirements  at  all.  A  more  detailed  overview  of  these 
divergent approaches can be found in the study of the JRC. 

Table  4:  Overview  of  the  diverging  approaches  on  certification  procedures  for  aviation 
screening equipment in EU and EFTA Member States 

Responses  to  the  question:  'What  approval(s)/certificate(s)/information  are  requested  for  an  eligible  tender 
concerning  performance  requirements  and  conformity  to  Regulation?'  Note  that  respondents  selected  more 
than one option. The share of responses is calculated against the total number of responses to the questionnaire 
(27). 

Reply 

Number  of 
responses 

Share 
responses 

of 

Share of EU/EFTA passenger flow 

Approved/certified by a dedicated entity in 
Member State 

Passed ECAC CEP 

'Complies with EU Regulation' 

Approved/certified  by  other  Member 
State(s) 

Used by other Member State(s) 

TSA approved11 

None 

Other (please specify) 

7 

20 

20 

12 

3 

5 

1 

0 

25.9% 

55.1% 

74.1% 

74.1% 

67.7% 

62.5% 

44.4% 

28.5% 

11.1% 

18.5% 

3.7% 

0% 

3.3% 

9.0% 

2.7% 

0% 

The  studies  and  consultations  mentioned  above  concluded  that  the  lack  of  a  harmonised 
certification  system  affects  the  efficiency  of  the  certification  process  for  aviation  security 
screening equipment in the EU.  

In  the  context  of  the  public  consultation,  on  the  question:  “What  effect  do  you  think  the 
current  situation  where  there  is  no  harmonised  certification  system  for  aviation  security 
equipment has had on the efficiency of the certification process?” 78,38% of the respondents 
answered either with “Very negative effect” (48,65%) or “Negative effect” (29,73%). 

Thus, in the absence of a common overall EU framework for aviation security, differences in 
national  approaches  and  requirements  persist.  These  differences  can  be  particularly 
pronounced when they concern the evaluation and introduction of new security technologies 
and solutions. This can result in situations where equipment may be certified and approved in 

11 

“TSA  approved”  means  that  a  technology  has  been  successfully  certified  by  the  US  Transportation 
Security Administration 

8 

 
 
                                                 
one  Member  State  but  not  in  another.  The  negative  effects  resulting  from  the  absence  of  a 
harmonised  certification  system  for  aviation  security  equipment  can  be  divided  in  two 
categories: (i) effects on the internal dimension, and (ii) effects on the external dimension. 

9 

 
 
 
Problem tree and objectives 

10 

Ensure the proper functioning of the EU internal market for aviation screening equipmentAllow manufacturers to market conform products throughout the EU internal marketImprove the choice available to customers (e.g. airport operators)Create a clearer common EU-wide certification  systemIncrease the competitiveness of EU companies operating in this fieldReduce regulatory costs and time to marketEliminate the need for MS-specific modificationsEliminate the need for multiple testingEnhance the image of EU products on the global marketCreate a level playing field with US companies.Create a label showing compliance with EU regulatory requirementsCreate a more investment friendly environment for security technologies.Fragmentation of the national certification and approval processesInternal dimensionExternal DimensionNo level playing field on the testing proceduresDisadvantage against the US TSA “label”Delayed commercialisationDifficulties in accessing new marketsMember States add new requirementsOnly 20 out of 28 Member States use ECAC resultsMultiple/additional tests are requiredNo internal market for aviation screening equipmentIncreased costsNo common accreditation system for labsDisadvantages in terms of competitivenessLack of legal certainty/mutual recognitionConsequencesDriverMAIN PROBLEMLack of an internal  market for aviation screening equipmentProblemsObjectives 
 
 
 
 
It  should  be  noted  that  there  are  a  number  of  substantial  differences  between  aviation  and 
other screening equipment (e.g. used for access to buildings) in terms of their certification and 
placing on the market. The existing aviation security legislation is the only one establishing a 
list  of  threats  whose  detection  is  mandatory.  Other  sectors'  screening  equipment  has  no 
mandatory  technical  standards.  The  purchase  of  other  sectors'  screening  equipment  is  not 
done via public procurement but rather via direct negotiation buyer-manufacturer/retailer.  

2.2. 

The internal dimension of the market fragmentation for aviation screening equipment 

As  mentioned  there  is  no  EU-wide  legally  binding  system  by  which  aviation  security 
screening  equipment  can  be  certified,  which  has  prevented  the  creation  of  an  internal 
market for aviation screening equipment. Furthermore the ECAC CEP system itself has the 
potential for improvement. All these issues are discussed in this section. 

Lack of legal certainty and mutual recognition 

The ECAC CEP, which is close to a common certification system, is not legally binding upon 
Member  States.  They  are  not  obliged  to  accept  the  results  of  the  ECAC  CEP  nor  are  they 
equivalent  to  an  acceptance  by  all  the  Member  States.  Test  centres  are  approved  by  ECAC 
and national authorities to execute the tests, but are not recognised by the Commission as is 
the case with Notified Bodies in the Single Market Legislation12. 

Thus there is no guarantee that a piece of equipment that has passed the ECAC CEP will be 
accepted as such by the appropriate authority of a given country (i.e. ECAC Member State) 
where the manufacturer of that equipment would like to market it. The ECAC CEP is merely 
a common system for testing equipment and reporting the outcome of the tests to the ECAC 
Member  States.  Manufacturers  are  therefore  left  with  the  risk  of  having  to  re-test  or  even 
modify their product for every Member State in which they want to commercialise it.  

This has already led to situations where equipment that successfully passed the ECAC CEP 
was  not  accepted  in  the  Member  State in  which  the  manufacturer  wanted  to  market it.  This 
increases their development costs as well as their time to market. Given the limited resources 
available to an SME, this is a proportionally greater problem for it than for a larger company. 

This  negatively  affects  both  the  manufacturers  and  the  end-users  of  the  equipment.  The 
manufacturer  has  to  face  new  development/modification  requirements  that  increase  the 
commercialisation costs as well as the time to market, which has a negative impact on both 
industry and end-users, who have a limited choice of purchasable equipment.13 
This assessment has also been confirmed by the respondents of the public consultation14. On 
the  question:  “What  effect  do  you  think  the  current  situation  where  there  is  no  harmonised 
certification system for aviation security equipment has had on the Legal certainty?” 78,38% 
of the respondents answered either with “Very negative effect” (45,95%) or “Negative effect” 
(32,43%). 

Regulatory dimension – the ECAC testing process  

Table 3: Organisation of the ECAC-CEP  

12 Reference:  
13 
14 See annex 2  

See SER3CO study 

11 

 
 
 
                                                 
Source: German Federal Police Department / Federal Police Technology Centre  

Manufacturers  have  noted  inconsistencies  in  how  the  tests  are  applied  and  the  quality  of 
testing  as  a  result,  in  some  instances  this  has  led  to  the  same  equipment  failing  in  one  test 
centre but passing in another resulting in extra time and costs for the manufacturer to obtain a 
positive result.  

Once an ECAC testing laboratory has completed its assessment of a piece of equipment a test 
report  is  sent  to  the  ECAC  management  group.  The  reports  are  then  sent  to  the  ECAC 
secretariat  for  the  publication  of  those  that  are  successful.  Within  this  system  the  results  of 
ECAC testing can be published up to three months after a laboratory has completed testing. 
Member  States  then  add  additional  time  for  their  individual  certification  processes.  The 
ECAC secretariat is also responsible for the assigning of tests to testing laboratories, leading 
to similar delays at the start of their assessment process. 

It  should  be  noted  that  there  has  been  progress on  the  efficiency  of  the  ECAC  CEP  system 
over the last years. Member States have extended their cooperation in ECAC which has led to 
an  improvement  of  the  testing  procedures  as  well  as  harmonization  of  quality.  This  did 
however not improve the lack of mutual recognition or, the lack of legal certainty. 

2.3. 

The external dimension 

The fragmentation of the internal market has also a negative impact on the competitiveness 
of  the  European  industry  in  comparison  to  their  global  counterparts.  EU  companies 
competing on world markets can only cite as a reference the results of the voluntary ECAC 
CEP that offers no legal certainty or the certification by those EU Member States who have 
provided one. In comparison, US companies can rely on a globally renowned and recognised 
approval  by  the  US  Transportation  Security  Administration  (TSA).  US  companies  can  thus 
rely on a clearly recognisable label which ensures a better access to third countries markets.  

Several  industry  representatives  stated  that  this  gave  US  companies  a  strong  competitive 
advantage  in  comparison  to  EU  based  companies  when  competing  in  third  countries  (e.g. 
Brazil).  Stakeholder  consultations  have  shown  that  the  likelihood  of  a  technology  which 
passed  the  ECAC  CEP  system  being  chosen  in  a  tender  is  considerably  hampered  by  its 

12 

 
 
 
uncertain  legal  status  and  the  lack  of  an  EU-wide  application.15A  US  company  can  state 
during a sales pitch that their product has successfully passed the tests of the globally known 
TSA system. An EU company can only state that their technology has been tested in a system, 
which  is  not  fully  recognised  by  EU  Member  States.  EU  products  thus  often  appear  less 
credible than those of their US competitors. 

Illustrative example taken from the workshop discussion 

A specific example was given by an industry representative who stated that, while competing 
in a tender against a US company for a contract in Venezuela, he was negatively affected by 
the legal uncertainty of the ECAC system.  Being non-binding, the value of a testing system 
which is not mandatory across the EU suffers a great deal against the well-known and legally 
binding certification of the TSA. The US competitor used this difference during the tendering 
process as a sales argument and successfully discredited the European manufacturer. 

The assessment of these disadvantages was also largely supported by the public consultation. 
On the question “What effect do you think the current situation where there is no harmonised 
certification  system  for  aviation  security  equipment  has  had  on  competition  with  US 
competitors”  72,97%  of  the  respondents  answered  either  with  “Very  negative  effect” 
(21,62%) or “Negative effect” (51,35%). 

During the interviews held in the context of the SER3CO study manufacturers stated that their 
experience  is  that  manufacturers  that  have  a  product  that  is  certified  by  the  Transportation 
Security Administration, are using this "TSA stamp" in their sales on third markets, especially 
emerging  markets,  as  a  selling  argument.  This  picture  is  confirmed  in  some  of  the  country 
studies such as South Korea.  

The TSA certification system 

The  loss  in  market  share  in  emerging  markets  and  in  mature  markets  to  these  US  suppliers 
may be related to the general framework conditions. In particular, the regulatory environment 
in  the  US  is  more  conducive  to  development  and  certification  of  aviation  screening 
equipment.  

On top of the general regulatory environment, the adoption of a harmonised US certification 
systems administered by TSA in 2007 provided marketing advantage to US suppliers. Clients 
in  various  emerging  markets  require  equipment  to  have  a  US  certificate  as  proof  of  its 
performance. 

Both  studies  and  consultations  assessed  that  EU  companies  are  among  the  technological 
frontrunners  in  the  field  of  aviation  security.  There  are  no  indications  that  companies  are 
lagging  behind  their  US  counterparts  in  terms  of  technology.  It  should  be  noted  that  the 
European  Commission  invested  considerably  in  R&D  in  this  sector  through  the  Security 
Theme of the Seventh Framework programme for Research and Development (FP7).16  

2.4. 

Outcome of the public consultation 

The public consultation provided a series of concrete answers to the initial assessments of the 
Commission  on  the  problems  that  affect  the  certification  system  of  aviation  screening 
equipment.  A  clear  distinction  can  be  made  between  the  widely  acknowledged  problems 
which  should  be  addressed  by  the  Commission  and  the  problems  which  had  only  a  very 
marginal support and could be discarded.  

15 
16 The Commission financed 14 research projects in this area, worth 91 million Euros in EU contribution. 

See SER3CO study 

13 

 
 
                                                 
The central problems identified by the respondents concern mainly the negative effects due to 
the fragmented regulatory framework of the certification system on:  

1. 
The commercialisation of aviation security screening equipment (i.e. research 
and  development  costs,  the  legal  certainty  and  the  efficiency  of  the  certification 
process and the time to market of equipment); and  

The external dimension (i.e. acceptance of performance by third countries and 

2. 
competition with third countries such as the US).  

It should be underlined that these assessments were made by the majority of stakeholders be 
they  SME,  large  industry,  test  laboratories  or  business  associations.  The  only  group  of 
respondents  which  expressed  some  reservations  were  the  representatives  from  national 
administrations.  

  Issues  like  the  use  of  airport  space,  the  training  of  personnel,  passenger  and  staff 
security  and  the  passenger  flow  were  deemed  to  be  largely  irrelevant  by  the 
respondents for the scope of this initiative. As an example, on the question regarding 
the  use  of  airport  space,  14%  of  the  respondents  answered  either  with  very  negative 
effect  or  negative  effect.  Nearly  80%  of  the  respondents  did  not  see  any  effect, 
including all airport operators. The need for the Commission to act on these aspects 
thus seems secondary. 

2.5. 

Underlying drivers of the problem 

The  main  underlying  driver  is  the  current  fragmentation  of  the  national  certification  and 
approval  processes,  which  leads  to  the  internal  market  problem  explained  above  and  its 
negative consequences for EU aviation security industry.  

2.6.  Who is affected, in what ways and to what extent? 

The  lack  of  a  common  legally  binding  certification  system  for  aviation  security  screening 
equipment  negatively  affects 
the  following  stakeholder  groups:  national  authorities 
responsible for aviation security, equipment manufacturers (ranging from large-scale system 
integrators  to  small  and  medium  companies  and  suppliers  of  components),  and  airport 
operators.  An  overview  of  the  value  chain  for  aviation  screening  equipment  can  be  found 
under annex 5. 

Appropriate authorities  

The Appropriate Authorities in  the Member States  are currently  facing some uncertainty on 
the legal character and the quality of the testing in the various laboratories. The ECAC CEP 
system is  not  based on a  legally binding  legislation, the results of the testing procedures  do 
therefore  not  give  the  authorities  the  same  certainties  on  compliance  that  legislation  would 
provide. The Appropriate Authorities currently have to analyse the results of ECAC CEP and 
assess  if  extra  testing  is  required,  in  case  they  have  more  stringent  measures  (measures 
specifying  requirements  above  the  EU  baseline)  in  place  which  they  have  notified  to  the 
European Commission.  

Industry/ Equipment manufacturers 

The  lack  of  efficiency  has  a  series  of  negative  consequences  for  the  competitiveness  of  the 
European industry. The delays due to the lack of legal certainty, the testing process, and the 
certification process negatively affect their time to market and increase their production costs. 

14 

 
 
 
The  lack  of  a  unique  "EU  certified  brand"  hampers  their  position  in  competitions  with  US 
manufacturers.  

Small and medium enterprises are particularly affected by these problems as they often have 
more limited resources. Any increase in development costs or timelines increases the barriers 
to entry to a given market. Any divergence in national requirements makes it more difficult 
for them to adapt their technologies due to the added burden this puts on their resource and 
finances.  

Airport and air transport hub operators 

Any  delay  to  the  development  of  new  technology  or  increase  in  the  cost  of  equipment  also 
negatively  affects  airport  operators.  Airport  operators  also  need  to  ensure  their  equipment 
meets  the  requirements  for  aviation  security.  An  EU  certification  system  would  help  EU 
airports  confidently  identify  equipment,  especially  where  the  information  is  not  readily 
available at a Member State level.  

Where  new  equipment  is  required  by  legislation  airports  are  particularly  dependent  on  a 
timely commercialisation of new technologies to fulfil such security requirements. Any delay 
in certification can harm the ability of the airport to fulfil these obligations. The current lack 
of  efficiency  of  the  certification  has  led  to  situations  where  airport  operators  had  only  a 
limited  (if  any)  choice  of  products  available  in  the  prescribed  legal  timeframe  which  meets 
their  demands.  This  is  not  only  a  concern  in  terms  of  aviation  security  but  also  leads  to  a 
temporary lack of competition among the manufacturers as delays in testing and certification 
can prevent equipment from reaching the market in time. 

2.7. 

Evolution of the problem 

Air  transport  is  expected  to  grow  strongly  for  the  foreseeable  future  at  the  same  time  as 
transport security concerns are growing. As a consequence, more security screenings need to 
be  carried  out  and  more  aviation  security  screening  equipment  needs  to  be  installed  and 
operated. 

Estimates by the International Civil Aviation Organisation (ICAO) predict that International 
air traffic is envisioned to grow at a rate of 5.3 per cent per annum for passenger-kilometres 
and 6.9 per cent per annum for freight tonne-kilometres over the next years. The International 
Air Transport Association (IATA) forecasts that by 2016, China will have 415 million fliers 
annually, second  only to the U.S. in volume of  domestic passengers. The current Five Year 
Plan  of  the  People’s  Republic  of  China  calls  for  the  construction  of  55  new  airports  until 
2015.17 

This  presents  business  opportunities  for  manufacturers  of  aviation  security  screening 
equipment.  EU  companies  are  still  among  market  leaders  and  benefit  from  a  relative 
technological  advantage and high  quality manufacturing  compared to  some of  the emerging 
countries  in  Asia.  Yet  their  past  relative  performance  compared  to  US  competitors  and 
forecasts made by EU industry on the future competitiveness indicate that EU manufacturers 
are losing competitiveness. 

The  main  competitors  are  US  companies,  who  benefit  from  a  harmonised  legal  framework 
and a worldwide /widely recognised certification system.  This  gives them not  only  a  strong 
home market basis but also the benefit of a clearly recognised and distinguishable US brand, 

17 

http://www.eu-china.net/web/cms/upload/pdf/materialien/11-06-30_12th-Five-Year-Plan-China-

See: 
english.pdf 

15 

 
 
                                                 
which has proven to be a highly valuable advantage compared to EU companies in terms of 
international competition.  

At the same time, Asian countries are closing the technological gap that separates them from 
EU companies at an increasing rate, while also benefitting from a production cost advantage 
in comparison to EU firms. This effectively gives Asian companies a competitive advantage 
against EU manufacturers, particularly in third country markets. 

Without a policy initiative to support the competitiveness of the European manufacturers the 
market shares of these companies on the global market are bound to decrease constantly over 
the next years.  

2.8. 

EU right to act 

The basis for EU action is Article 114 TFEU, which deals with the approximation of laws of 
the Member States in order to achieve the objectives of Article 26 TFEU, namely, the proper 
functioning of the internal market. 

The  current  fragmentation  of  the  certification  systems  for  aviation  security  screening 
equipment in the EU is a result of the lack of a common legally binding certification process 
among  the  Member  States.  This  hindered  the  creation  of  an  internal  market  for  aviation 
security  screening  equipment  and  hampered  the  competitiveness  of  the  European  Security 
Industry. There are no indications that Member States are planning to take any measures to 
reduce this fragmentation.  

This  is  also  confirmed  by  the  results  of  the  study  of  the  JRC.  One  of  the  questions  to  the 
Member  States  in  this  study  concerned  the  sharing  of  information  with  other  EU  Member 
States  and/or  ECAC  on  the  results  of  the  certifications  or  approvals  for  aviation  security 
screening equipment among the Member States. The exchange of this information would be 
an  essential component/initial  step  of  any  EU-wide  certification  system.  As  the  table  below 
shows,  none  of  the  18  Member  States  consulted  in  this  study  replied  that  they  share  this 
information.  

Table 6: Number of the Member States which issue certifications and share the results of the 
process with other Member States and/or ECAC 

Responses from 18 countries issuing certificates or approvals to the question: 'Are other EU Member States and/or 
ECAC informed about issued approvals/certification procedure?' 

Reply  

Yes 

No 

No reply 

Total 

Number 
responses 

of 

Share 
responses 

of 

Share  of  EU/EFTA  passenger 
flow 

0 

15 

3 

18 

0 

83.3% 

16.7% 

100.0% 

0 

67.4% 

3.9% 

71.3% 

EU action is thus necessary to address the fragmentation of the current certification system. 
The  need  for  EU  action  to  overcome  the  fragmentation  of  the  certification  procedures  for 
aviation  security  screening  equipment  was  also  confirmed  by  the  participants  in  the  public 
consultation and confirmed by the participants in the workshop. 

EU  action  would  also  clearly  add value  as  it would  allow  manufacturers  to  benefit  from  an 
internal market and realise significant savings regarding testing and redesign costs. 

16 

 
 
None  of  the  options  analysed  in  this  Impact  Assessment  go  beyond  what  is  necessary  to 
achieve  satisfactorily  the  objectives  set  in  the  following  section.  As  indicated  above,  it  is 
unlikely  that  the  Member  States  will  take  measures  to  overcome  the  current  fragmentation. 
The  scope  of  the  action  would  not  impede  on  national  security  matters  or  on  the  existing 
standards on aviation security.  

In  fact  the  aim  of  this  action  is  to  incorporate  the  non-binding  ECAC  CEP  cooperation 
agreement  of  the  Member  States  into  EU  single-market  legislation.  The  options  would  not 
seek  to  abolish  this  cooperation  agreement  of  the  Member  States  but  merely  incorporate  it 
into a more transparent and legally binding EU-wide system. 

Further  details  on  the  choice  of  legal  instruments  are  outlined  under  section  "7.  Comparing 
the options - choice of legislative instrument". 

EU action is therefore justified on grounds of subsidiarity and proportionality. 

3. 

OBJECTIVES  

3.1. 

General policy objectives 

The main policy objectives of this initiative are to ensure the proper functioning of the EU 
internal  market 
the  global 
competitiveness of the EU companies operating in this field.  

for  aviation  screening  equipment  and 

increase 

to 

3.2. 

Specific policy objectives 

A specific objective is to avoid unnecessary development, production and administrative cost 
for  producers  of  aviation  screening  equipment,  and  thereby  reduce  time  to  market  for  new 
products.   

Another specific objective is to allow manufacturers to market conform products throughout 
the  EU  internal  market  without  double  testing  or  unnecessary  product  modifications.  This 
should in turn speed up the development and availability of highly performing equipment to 
meet EU screening and detection requirements.  

Finally,  it  should  increase  the  competitiveness  and  market  access  of  EU  manufacturers  in 
global aviation security markets. 

17 

 
 
 
 
 
Overview of the objectives 

General Policy Objective 

Specific Policy Objective 

Ensure the proper functioning of the EU 
internal  market  for  aviation  screening 
equipment 

Increase the competitiveness of EU 
companies operating in this field 

Allow  manufacturers 
products throughout the EU internal market 

to  market 

conform 

Reduce regulatory costs and time to market 

Enhance the image of EU products on the global 
market 

3.3. 

Consistency with other policies and objectives 

Taking action in this area is supporting both the implementation of the policy area "A Deeper 
and Fairer Internal Market with a Strengthened Industrial Base" of the Political Guidelines of 
the European Commission outlined by President Juncker as well as the European Agenda on 
Security, which specifically underlined the importance of a competitive EU security industry 
for the EU’s autonomy in meeting security needs. This specific initiative was also announced 
in the Commission Communication “Security Industrial Policy Action Plan for an innovative 
and competitive Security Industry (COM (2012) 417)” as "action number 2".18  

4. 

POLICY OPTIONS  

Five  policy  options,  including  the  baseline,  were  developed  in  the  context  of  this  Impact 
Assessment. These options can be roughly divided in three groups: 1. the baseline scenario; 2. 
a recommendation to apply the mutual recognition principle; and 3. three regulatory options. 

Mutual recognition with the US certification system 

An issue which will not be addressed by this initiative concerns the mutual recognition with 
the  US  certification  system.19  The  central  reason  for  this  is  the  fundamental  difference 
between  the  US  certification  system  of  the  TSA  and  a  viable  EU-wide  certification  system. 
Under the TSA system, the testing is not only free of charge, but the TSA is also participating 
financially and technically in the development of the equipment to be tested. The US and EU 

18 
19 It should be noted that the current negotiations on the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP) 

http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=COM:2012:0417:FIN:EN:PDF  

are not covering the field of aviation screening equipment.  

18 

 
 
 
 
                                                 
standards  on  aviation  security  are  however  largely  equivalent  and  are  not  affected  by  this 
initiative. 

In  the case of  mutual  recognition, there would be little to  no incentive for  manufacturers to 
seek the more costly EU certification. This would eventually make an EU certification system 
redundant. Given the specific market conditions and the sensitiveness of the security sector, 
the  pursuit  of  harmonisation  between  the  US  and  EU  systems  would  be  unlikely  to  yield 
results in an acceptable timescale. 

It  should  also  be  underlined  that,  in  order  to  be  certified  by  the  TSA,  aviation  screening 
equipment has to be produced in the US. Simply adopting the TSA certification system in the 
EU  would  therefore  force  all  EU  companies  to  establish  production  sites  in  the  US,  which 
would lead to a shift of production from the EU to the US.  

Simply transposing the US system on the EU would also imply that the Member States would 
have to give up authority on the requirements for aviation screening equipment. It would not 
be acceptable for Member States to give up their prerogatives on national security to the US. 

Subsequently,  none  of  the  options  developed  below  address  the  possibility  of  a  Mutual 
recognition with the US certification system. 

1. "Baseline scenario", the Commission would not launch any dedicated policy initiative. As 
described  under  section  "3.8  Evolution  of  the  problem"  and  "3.9.  EU  right  to  act",  it  is 
unlikely that the current sub-optimal conditions on the procedures of certification of aviation 
screening would be addressed by a Member States initiative. 

2.  A  recommendation  to  Member  States  to  mutually  accept  their  national  certification 
systems  and/or  to  rely  on  the  common  evaluation  process  of  the  European  Civil  Aviation 
Conference.  The  aim  of  this  recommendation  would  be  to  enable  a  producer  of  an  aviation 
screening  equipment  to  certify  his  product  only  once  in  a  single  Member  State  and 
subsequently be able to sell it in all Member States. 

Under  this  option,  the  Commission  would  encourage  the  Member  States  to  agree  on  a 
common,  legally  binding  EU  methodology  for  the  certification  of  aviation  screening 
equipment. This methodology could be based on the ECAC CEP system. 

Further  recommendations  of  the  Commission  to  the  Member  States  would  address  the 
following aspects: 

  The Commission would recommend the Member States to grant an accreditation by a 
national  authority  to  the  testing  laboratories  which  fulfil  the  requirements  set  by  the 
common  EU  methodology.  This  would  ensure  that  the  certifications  issued  by  the 
laboratory are mutually recognised across the EU, enabling the producers to put their 
products  on  the  whole  EU  markets.  This  accreditation  should  be  open  to  any 
laboratory which fulfils the necessary requirements. 

  The  Commission  would  also  recommend  that,  contrary  to  the  current  system,  the 
producers should be able to select the accredited laboratory at which they want their 
technology to be tested. 

  Additionally, the Commission would recommend to the Member States the creation of 
a  recognisable  EU  label  or  brand  for  those  technologies  which  were  successfully 
certified. This label should enhance the competitiveness of the European producers on 
the global market. 

19 

 
 
3. "Legislation" - The Commission would prepare a legislative proposal which would allow 
producers  to  market  and  sell  their  products  throughout  the  Union,  once  certified  in  one 
Member State. Such a proposal could take different forms. Three different variations will be 
explained  and  analysed  below.  Regulations  EC  300/200820  on  common  rules  in  the  field  of 
civil  aviation  security  and  EC  185/201021  laying  down  detailed  measures  for  the 
implementation of the common basic standards on aviation security would apply to all three 
options.  

3.1. The "old approach", or "full harmonisation" is characterised by detailed specifications 
(technical  requirements,  testing  methodologies  and  certification  criteria)  laid  down  in 
legislation. Member States' approval authorities certify ex-ante ("type-approval") that the type 
of product concerned is in conformity with applicable legislation. Conformity assessments are 
performed  by  Member  States,  who  may  delegate  some  assessment  tasks  to  appointed 
"technical  services".  Only  products  that  comply  with  the  relevant  regulatory  requirements 
may be sold or enter into service in the EU.  

Since  there  are  already  detailed  technical  requirements  and  testing  methods  for  aviation 
screening  equipment,  it  would  not  be  necessary  to  draft  more  technical  legislation.  In  this 
particular case the creation of a harmonised certification system according to the old approach 
would require the adoption of a legal act establishing the framework for such a scheme. This 
act  would  make  compliance  with  the  existing  requirements  mandatory  for  the  sale  or  entry 
into  service  of  any  aviation  screening  equipment  in  the  EU,  and  would  stipulate  that 
compliance with these requirements has to be demonstrated by means of the Common Testing 
Methodologies elaborated within ECAC.  

It  would,  furthermore,  set  out  the  administrative  procedures  to  be  followed,  lay  down  the 
obligations of the different actors involved and stipulate how the technical services carrying 
out  the  required  tests  have  to  be  designated  and  notified.  Testing  laboratories  would  be 
accredited  by  national  authorities,  which  would  issue  accreditation  on  the  basis  of  EU 
standards. EC-type approval would be granted to equipment which conforms to the technical 
prescriptions. Equipment which has been granted EC-type approval would be accompanied by 
a certificate of conformity. Member States would have to permit the sale or entry into force of 
such  equipment,  unless  there  are  serious  grounds  for  concern  (e.g.  threat  to  safety,  more 
stringent  measures,  public  health  or  the  environment).  Conformity  certificates  would  be 
subject to mutual recognition.   

Under  this  approach  ECAC  would  maintain  a  key  role  in  implementing  the  conformity 
assessment process on the basis of the CTMs developed within ECAC to test compliance with 
the  EU  standards  on  aviation  security  set  out  under  Regulation  (EC)  No  300/2008.  ECAC 
would also publish the results of the certifications in the laboratories and continue to act as the 
interface with the laboratories. 

Under this option, the Member States who are actively participating in ECAC's development 
of  the  Common  Testing  Methodologies  would  keep  their  central  role.  Non-EU  members  of 
ECAC  would  still  benefit  from  the  equipment  tested  and  certified  under  the  EU/ECAC 
umbrella. 

20 See (Official Journal L 97 of 9.4.2008): 
http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:L:2008:097:0072:0084:EN:PDF  
21 See (Official Journal L 55 of 5.3.2010): 
 http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:L:2010:055:0001:0055:EN:PDF  

20 

 
 
                                                 
3.2. The "new approach", is, unlike the old approach, not based on detailed specifications. 
Harmonisation  is  limited  to  essential  requirements,  written  in  general  terms.  Product 
legislation is restricted to the requirements necessary to protect the public goals of health and 
safety.  Essential  requirements  are  legally  binding  in  the  sense  that  only  products  fulfilling 
these requirements may be sold or placed on the market. Different types of technical solutions 
can be used to ensure compliance with the essential requirements. However, the application of 
so-called  "harmonised  standards",  the  technical  specifications  adopted  by  the  European 
Standardisation Organisations upon request of the European Commission, has the advantage 
of  providing  a  presumption  of  conformity  with  the  essential  requirements  of  the  applicable 
legislation. Alternative technical specifications may have the same result, but their conformity 
with the relevant requirements has to be demonstrated 

The  establishment  of  a  harmonised  certification  system  for  aviation  screening  equipment 
according to the new approach would require the drafting of essential requirements for testing 
labs and accompanying  harmonised standards. The essential  requirements, set out in a legal 
act,  should  be  general  enough  to  leave  the  technical  specification  to  the  European 
Standardisation Organisations which will draw up the standards, but exact enough to cover all 
hazards that need to be addressed in this sensitive area. The newly adopted legal instrument 
would also lay down the rules and procedures for conformity assessment. Given the particular 
nature  of  the  products  involved,  third-party  certification  would  be  more  suitable  than  self-
certification.  Compliance  with  the  essential  requirements  would  thus  be  assessed  and 
evaluated  by  an  external  conformity  assessment  body.  Products  which  would  meet  all 
requirements laid down in the applicable legislation would receive a CE-mark. With this mark 
products may be sold in all Member States.  

A  hurdle  in  the  feasibility  of  option  3.2  "new  approach"  concerns  the  central  role  of  the 
European  Standardisation  Organisations  and  the  general  way  in  which  standards  work.  As 
explained above the existing standards, on which the current legislation for aviation security22 
is based and on which the requirements for the certification process  would be based, would 
have  to  be  made  public.  This  is  not  the  case  currently,  where  access  to  the  standards  is 
restricted depending on security clearance and "need to know basis".  

It is unthinkable that this classification will ever be removed, as their content could otherwise 
be used malevolently to bypass the security controls at airports. This intrinsic feature of the 
new approach would thus be incompatible with a successful implementation of a legislative 
proposal. 

The option has therefore been discarded. 

3.3. The third option, "the centralised approach", is different from the other two options as 
certification would be carried out centrally by an EU agency. In the particular case of aviation 
screening  equipment  certification  could  be  done  by  the  European  Aviation  Safety  Agency 
(EASA)  which  is  already  responsible  for  the  certification  of  aircraft  in  the  EU  and  some 
European  non-EU  countries.  The  agency,  which  was  established  in  2002  for  the  purpose  of 
implementing  Regulation EC (No) 1592/2002 on common rules in the field of civil aviation 
establishing  a  European  Aviation  Safety  Agency,  has  been  in  charge  of  the  certification  of 
aircraft, including installed products, parts and appliances since 2003. If EASA would become 
responsible for the certification of aviation screening equipment as well, the agency would set 
the rules that would apply for the certification of the equipment and establish a certification 

22 

The  two  relevant  regulations  are:  (EC)  No  300/2008  and  (EC)  185/2010,  Commission  Decision 
774/2010. 

21 

 
 
                                                 
programme in order to test compliance with the criteria. The agency would test the equipment 
and  verify  if  the  products  concerned  meet  the  regulatory  requirements.  Aviation  screening 
equipment  which  fulfils  the  criteria  would  receive  a  certificate  of  compliance,  issued  by 
EASA. Option 3.3 would thus  create an EU-wide  procedure for the certification of aviation 
screening equipment, with a single application, a single evaluation and a single authorisation 
which would be valid throughout the whole EU. 

Under this option, ECAC would not maintain its current role. 

5. 

ANALYSIS OF IMPACTS  

The  options  have  been  assessed  against  their  potential  economic,  social  and  environmental 
impacts, with a particular focus of their cost-benefits and impacts on the competitiveness of 
the EU companies. 

5.1. 

Economic impacts 

Costs and benefits of the policy options 

Option 1 “baseline” 

Impacts on competitiveness of EU businesses 

Benefits 

It is expected that the “baseline” option 1 would have no positive economic impact compared 
to  today.  As  laid  out  under  section  "3.9.  EU  right  to  act",  it  is  not  likely  that  the  Member 
States would launch an initiative to overcome the current problems related to the certification 
of aviation screening equipment. As shown under section "3.8 Evolution of the problem" and 
considering the current trends, the existing problems are likely to increase to the detriment of 
the European producers if no action is launched to overcome the current lack of efficiency in 
the certification process. 

It  is  likely  that  the  lack  of  action  would  ultimately  lead  to  an  aggravation  of  the  current 
internal market failure for aviation screening equipment. The world-wide competitiveness of 
European  Manufacturers  would  likely  be  hampered  in  the  long  run.  Their  capacity  to  bring 
innovative technologies swiftly to the market would also be hindered which would lead to a 
reduced choice for customers (e.g. airport operators). 

The current situation of lack of efficiency for the certification of aviation screening equipment 
has  a  negative  effect  on  market  efficiency  and  the  competitive  situation  of  EU  aviation 
security screening equipment sector. The lack of harmonisation typical of fragmented markets 
translates  into  higher  costs  and  reduces  opportunities  for  achieving  economies  of  scale  for 
equipment suppliers orientated towards European markets.  

In  addition  to  the  implications  that  this  situation  has  for  price  competitiveness,  there  is 
concern that the fragmented nature of the European market might have the effect of reducing 
the  overall  level  of  R&D,  technology  development  and  innovation.  Specifically,  market 
fragmentation implies higher barriers of entry for the adoption of new technologies within the 
market, potentially reducing the return on investment in development.  

Consequently,  there  may  be  a  negative  effect  on  the  competitive  position  of  European 
suppliers as a result of insufficient investment in technological developments and innovation. 

Results of the public consultation for option 1 

22 

 
 
The results of the public consultation showed that the baseline scenario was judged to  have 
either a very negative or a negative impact on all the areas addressed by the questionnaire.23  

Option 2 “recommendation” 

Costs of the policy option 2 

Considering  the  inherent  voluntary  nature  of  a  recommendation,  there  is  a  degree  of 
uncertainty  regarding  its  costs  and  benefits.  The  benefits  of  option  2  would  depend  on  the 
willingness of the Member States to implement the recommendations listed above.  

In  a  "best  case  scenario",  where  the  Member  States  follow  all  the  recommendations,  the 
benefits could have a positive impact on the free movement of goods, as manufacturers would 
no longer need multiple certifications to commercialise their product across the EU. In terms 
of time to market, producers would be able to reduce the time needed to place their products 
on the market by up to 6 months. In this case, the impacts would be largely identical to those 
outlined in option 3.1 "old approach". 

However,  in  a  "worst  case  scenario",  the  Member  States  would  not  follow  any  of  the 
recommendations of the Commission. In this case, the impact of this option would be largely 
identical  to  the  baseline  option,  which  would  lead  to  a  further  deterioration  of  the  current 
competitiveness of the EU aviation screening equipment producers. 

Possible impact on appropriate authorities  

This option should  

  Ensuring  that  the  pre-existing  investment  of  the  Member  States  in  ECAC  and  the 

development of the CTM are maintained. 

Possible impact on Industry/ Equipment manufacturers 

Overall this option could lead to a gain of competitiveness for European Producers: 

  Reduce the time from development to market of their equipment. 

  Reduce the production and commercialisation costs. 

  Free up workforce which could be used to develop innovative solutions. 

  Create a level playing field with US companies. 

Possible impact on airport and air transport hub operators 

This option could 

  Increase the availability of equipment by a reduction of the time to market. 

  Improve their choice of equipment. 

Results of the public consultation for option 2 

Option  2  was  judged  by  the  respondents  to  have  a  positive  impact  on  only  four  aspects: 
increasing  the  facilitation24,  reducing  research  and  development  costs,  ensuring  passenger 
safety and improving passenger flow (i.e. passenger throughput at airports).25  

23 See annex 3: Summary of the responses to the public consultation 
24  Facilitation  Programme:  The  ICAO  Facilitation  (FAL)  Programme  is  based  on  10  articles  of  the  Chicago 
Convention  which  require  that  the  civil  aviation  community  comply  with  laws  governing  the  inspection  of 

23 

 
 
 
                                                 
This option was judged to have a negative impact on most of the other aspects, including key 
issues such as the reduction of commercialisation costs, fostering the harmonisation with third 
countries, for example the US, reduction of time to market of equipment and influencing the 
competition with non-EU suppliers. 

Option 3.1 "Old approach" 

Impacts on competitiveness of EU businesses 

Costs of option 3.1 

The reduction of the need to test multiple times a single piece or equipment should lead to a 
reduction of the number of tests a single laboratory would perform per year. This reduction of 
tests  would  lead  to  a  reduction  of  income  for  the  laboratories.  This  reduction  of  income 
should be lower than the costs savings of the producers, as not all the costs are directly related 
to the price of the certification as such (e.g. the shipping of the equipment).26  

Laboratories  have  signalled  to  the  Commission  (in  August  2015)  that  they  are  concerned 
about potential costs of obtaining accreditation to international standards for the competence 
of  testing  laboratories.  The  use  of  accreditation  to  provide  an  authoritative  statement  of  the 
competence of a body to perform conformity assessment activities is normal practice in EU 
single market legislation, as established by Regulation 765/2008, particular in areas of health, 
safety and security. Assuming a laboratory already meets the necessary quality standards, the 
Commission  considers that the  costs  of  the actual  accreditation  audit would  only  amount  to 
around five thousand Euros.27 These costs would therefore be marginal and would not have an 
impact  on  the  running  costs  of  the  laboratories.  The  benefits  of  accreditation  include 
enhancing confidence in the conformity assessment regime, facilitating regulatory compliance 
and facilitating international trade.  

Cost reductions resulting from an EU-wide approach would only have a limited impact on the 
price competitiveness of EU products on international markets in the short term. Nonetheless, 
there  may  be  dynamic  effects  if  a  less  fragmented  EU  market  encourages  investment  in 
research,  technology  development  and  innovation.  In  particular,  to  the  extent  that  the 
proposed actions  are associated to a clear EU approach  to aviation security (and regulation, 
thereof)  then  this  should  enhance  the  attractiveness  of  investments  in  relevant  security 
technologies. An EU-wide certification scheme (and corresponding EU security performance 
‘mark’  or  ‘quality  label’)  may  strengthen  broader  international  market  awareness  and 
acceptance of EU products. 

Benefits of the policy option 3.1  

The legislative option 3.1 is expected to have positive economic impacts.  

aircraft,  cargo  and  passengers  by  authorities  concerned  with  customs,  immigration,  agriculture  and  public 
health. Under the Convention, States are obligated to adopt standards and expedite the necessary formalities in 
order  to  minimize  operational  delays.  As  the  means  of  carrying  out  this  mandate,  the  FAL  Programme  is 
designed to help States achieve maximum efficiency in their border clearance operations and at the same time 
achieve  and  maintain  high-quality  security  and  effective  law  enforcement.  Standards  and  Recommended 
Practices (SARPs) designed to meet these objectives are developed by ICAO and are maintained in Annex 9 to 
the Convention. See also : http://www.icao.int/Security/FAL/Pages/default.aspx  

25 See annex 2: Summary of the responses to the public consultation 
26 See SER3Co study, chapter 3.2.4 
27 This assessment is based on market prices, and actual costs incurred by JRC during accreditation. 

24 

 
 
 
                                                                                                                                                         
Regarding  option  3.1  one  may  expect  that  the  existing  national  authorities  in  the  Member 
States that currently approve or certify aviation screening equipment, could be tasked to carry 
out the product certification under this option. However, this would need to be done in only 
one Member State, as the certificate issued would now be valid in all 28 EU Members States. 
The  JRC  survey  indicates  that  currently  some  18  Member  States  are  issuing  certificates  or 
approvals. Apart from one Member State, the other 27 would no longer need to certify.  

Moreover,  if  successful  in  reducing  market  fragmentation  in  the  EU,  the  proposed  policy 
actions  should  raise  overall  EU  market  efficiency  in  the  aviation  security  screening  sector. 
However,  an  EU-wide  approach  to  standards,  conformity  access  and  certification  may  also 
increase  the  openness  of  the  EU  market  to  non-EU  suppliers.  In  this  regard,  EU  companies 
may face increased competition from non-EU suppliers 

A  harmonisation  of  the  certification  procedures  should  have  a  positive  impact  on  the  free 
movement  of  goods,  as  manufacturers  would  no  longer  need  multiple  certifications  to 
commercialise their product across the EU.  

The  choice  of  customers  (e.g.  airport  operators)  should  also  be  improved,  given  they  could 
choose  to  procure  any  “EU  certified”  aviation  screening  equipment,  and  not  just  those  who 
were certified in their country. 

Single certification procedures should reduce the administrative burden of the manufacturers 
and improve the time to market. Instead of having to apply and go through several times for a 
test  of  a  single  piece  of  equipment  (i.e.  paperwork,  travelling  to  test  centres,  delegating 
personnel  etc.),  manufacturers  will  only  have  to  go  through  this  process  a  single  time,  if 
successful. 

This  harmonisation  should  also  have  a  positive  impact  on  the  global  competitiveness  of 
European manufacturers, in particular regarding their US competitors.  

Direct benefits of option 3.1 

A key direct benefit is the reduction of duplication of testing for manufacturers.  

Differing  national  requirements  imply  that  manufacturers  need  to  amend  their  products  to 
comply with national regulations, which negatively affect production costs. Under the current 
system,  each  test  implies  extensive  administrative  procedures  such  as  for  instance  the 
shipping of the equipment to the testing facility, the preparation of the specific documents for 
the  test,  the  assignment  of  staff  to  follow  testing  etc.  Possible  request  for  redesigns  or 
modifications of the equipment (e.g. adapting the algorithms) due to the test also contribute to 
an increase of the production costs. The delays due to the possible redesign/modification of 
the tested equipment should also be reduced, which could accelerate the time to market by up 
to six months.  

Furthermore,  a  common  EU-wide  certification  scheme  brings  more  clarity  on  the  testing 
procedure and timing of the procedure than in the baseline. This is positive for manufacturers. 

Finally,  an  EU-wide  certification  and  testing  procedure  coordinated  by  an  EU  recognised 
organisation could reduce the risk for delays in the testing procedure and is likely to decrease 
the  time  to  market  of  aviation  screening  equipment  for  European  producers.  Such  time  to 
market improvement has two implications: 

  Reduced  differences  in  time  to  market  between European  manufacturers.  This  is  not 
likely  to  affect  the  market  volume,  but  will  lead  to  market  share  shifts  between 

25 

 
 
European  manufacturers.  It  should  however  lead  to  an  improved  choice  of 
commercialised equipment for customers; 

  Improved  competitive  position  of  European  manufacturer’s  vis-à-vis  non-European 
manufacturers  in  the  European  market.  This  is  addressed  below  under  the  indirect 
benefits. 

Indirect benefits of option 3.1 

An  EU  certificate  could  function  as  a  quality  mark,  which  could  improve  sales  of  EU 
manufacturers  outside  Europe  positively.  During  the  interviews  manufacturers  stated  that 
having  an  EU  Certificate  or  Formal  Approval  would  benefit  their  market  access  in  third 
Countries  and  following  this  the  EU  influence  in  equipment  used  in  third  countries  grows. 
Their experience is that manufacturers that have a product that is "TSA Certified" are using 
this  "TSA  stamp"  in  their  sales  on  third  markets,  especially  emerging  markets,  as  a  selling 
argument. This picture is confirmed in some of the country studies such as South Korea.  

A  formal  EU  Certificate  for  aviation  screening  equipment  could  thus  also  be  used  EU 
manufacturers as a sales argument to generate sales in third countries.  

A  single  EU-wide  certification  system  is  likely  to  improve  the  competitive  position  of  EU 
manufacturers on the EU market, vis-à-vis their non-EU competitors. Non-EU producers can 
now  easily  put  their  products  in  several  EU  countries  on  the  market  once  they  are  TSA 
approved.  A  common  EU  certification  system  implies  that  these  manufacturers  have  to  go 
through the same route of testing and certification as the EU manufacturers.  

A further effect would be that US manufacturers would have to submit  their products to the 
common EU certification system to commercialise them in the EU. This would create equality 
of treatment between EU and US manufacturers, as EU manufacturers all have to pass the US 
TSA system to put their technologies on the US market. 

The direct benefits for manufacturers would have a negative impact on the sales price of the 
equipment. It is expected that these costs savings would be passed on, however, based on the 
current  market  structure  with  only  a  few  suppliers  per  equipment  type,  the  impact  on  sales 
price would be relatively low. Similarly, the prices of airline tickets should not be affected. 

Impact on appropriate authorities of option 3.1 

This option should  

  Ensuring  that  the  pre-existing  investment  of  the  Member  States  in  ECAC  and  the 

development of the CTM are maintained. 

  Reduce possible uncertainties related to the certification process. 

Impact on Industry/ Equipment manufacturers of option 3.1 

Overall this option should lead to a gain of competitiveness for European Producers as they 
would: 

  Improve  the  transparency  of  the  process  and  reduce  uncertainties  related  to  the 

certification process. 

  Reduce the time from development to market of their equipment. 

  Reduce the production and commercialisation costs. 

  Free up workforce which could be used to develop innovative solutions. 

26 

 
 
  Increase their visibility and credibility in the international competition. 

  Create a level playing field with US companies. 

Impact on airport and air transport hub operators of option 3.1 

This option should  

  Improve the transparency of the process. 

  Increase the availability of equipment by a reduction of the time to market. 

  Improve their choice of equipment. 

Results of the public consultation for option 3.1  

A broad positive support was expressed by the respondents on option 3.1, the regulation based 
approach.  The  respondents  judged  it  to  have  a  potentially  very  positive  impact  on  seven 
aspects:  research  and  development  costs,  commercialisation  costs,  harmonisation  with  third 
countries,  the  competition  with  non-EU  suppliers,  better  guidance  to  procurers,  Improve 
mutual  trust  in  Member  States'  aviation  security  and  Simplify  the  procurement  process  of 
aviation screening equipment for airport operators or their procurement agencies. 

The only aspect where this option was judged to have a potential negative impact concerned 
the optimisation of airport space.  

Option 3.3 "centralised approach" 

Impacts on competitiveness of EU businesses 

If successful in reducing market fragmentation in the EU, the proposed policy actions should 
raise overall EU market efficiency in the aviation security screening sector. However, an EU-
wide  approach  to  standards,  conformity  access  and  certification  may  also  increase  the 
openness  of  the  EU  market  to  non-EU  suppliers.  In  this  regard,  EU  companies  may  face 
increased competition from non-EU suppliers. 

Costs of option 3.3 

In addition to the costs laid out under option 3.1, the main costs of option 3.3 would be the 
increase of EASA (staff) required to accommodate the additional certification task.  

The current staff of ECAC can be taken as a basis for the increase of staff required at EASA 
to  cover  these  tasks.  ECAC  has  a  total  of  14  employees  working  at  the  secretariat.  All  the 
other collaborators (auditors, chairs of the different working groups) are not paid by ECAC, 
but  by  the  Member  States.  The  current  budget  of  ECAC  for  three  years  is  €  6,000,000,  i.e. 
average of € 2,000,000 per year. Around 80% of this budget is used to pay the secretariat. No 
staff would be saved at the level of national authorities. 

It should be noted in this context that the current revision of the EASA regulation 216/2008 
does not foresee the possibility of extending the competences of EASA to cover certification 
or  conformity  assessment  of  aviation  security  equipment.  In  fact  the  Impact  Assessment  on 
the revision explicitly mentions the need to address the current fragmentation: 

"In  addition,  the  EASA  Opinion  highlighted  the  need  for  an  EU  mechanism  for  conformity 
assessment  of  aviation  security  equipment,  the  absence  of  which  is  currently  considered  a 
stumbling block towards the creation of an EU market for manufacturers of airport screening 

27 

 
 
 
and explosive detection equipment. With respect to this issue, a separate initiative is ongoing 
under coordination of DG HOME." 

Extending the staff of EASA to cover certification aspects would also be complicated by the 
reduction of staff by 5% which has to be applied to all EU agencies. 

Finally, during the workshop, all participants, including Member States representatives agreed 
that ECAC should continue to play a central role in a possible future harmonised certification 
system  for  aviation  screening  equipment.  A  possible  involvement  of  EASA  was  not 
mentioned  by  any  of  the  participants.  The  willingness  of  the  Member  States  or  political 
feasibility to considerably extend the staff of EASA to cover these tasks is doubtful. 

Benefits of option 3.3 

The  benefits  for  Option  3.3  should  be  similar  to  those  of  options  3.1,  regarding  the  free 
movement  of  goods,  the  choice  of  buyers,  and  the  competitiveness  of  EU  producers.  The 
additional costs generated by an extension of staff at EASA should be  offset by savings for 
other certifying bodies. 

Impact on appropriate authorities of option 3.3 

This option should  

  Ensuring  that  the  pre-existing  investment  of  the  Member  States  in  ECAC  and  the 

development of the CTM are maintained. 

  Reduce possible uncertainties related to the certification process. 

Impact on Industry/ Equipment manufacturers of option 3.3 

Overall this option should lead to a gain of competitiveness for European Producers as they 
would: 

  Improve  the  transparency  of  the  process  and  reduce  uncertainties  related  to  the 

certification process. 

  Reduce the time from development to market of their equipment. 

  Reduce the production and commercialisation costs. 

  Free up workforce which could be used to develop innovative solutions. 

  Increase their visibility and credibility in the international competition. 

  Create a level playing field with US companies. 

Impact on airport and air transport hub operators of option 3.3 

This option should  

  Improve the transparency of the process. 

  Increase the availability of equipment by a reduction of the time to market. 

  Improve their choice of equipment. 

Results of the public consultation for option 3.3  

The centralised approach (3.3) was judged to have the highest potential for a positive impact 
on all questions. The respondents favoured this option independently of their background. It 
was judged to be very positive on 12 aspects and positive on 3 further aspects. 

Main conclusions from the Cost-benefit analysis 

28 

 
 
Option 1 would not meet the objectives of this initiative. 

The  benefits  of  option  2  would  depend  on  the  willingness  of  the  Member  States  due  to  the 
voluntary character of the option.  

The  benefits  of  options  3.1  and  3.3  are  similar.  The  benefits  of  option  3.3  would  however 
depend on the willingness of the Member States to extend the staff of EASA.  

Overall, the main benefits for industry would lie in a faster certification process which would 
reduce  the  time  to  market  and  improve  the  availability  of  novel  technologies  for  airport 
operators.  

Direct  benefits  in  terms  of  reduced  duplication  of  testing  would  remain  limited  considering 
the absolute cost savings for the process from development to commercialisation. 

A  further  substantial  benefit  of  the  sub-options  3  is  indirect:  a  European  certificate  brings 
European manufacturers 'on par' with their US competitors on markets in emerging markets 
and in Europe. The improved competitive position will increase revenue for the manufacturers 
and  value  added  for  the  European  economy.  This  is  irrespective  of  the  sub  option  chosen. 
Surveys held with eight manufacturers did not reveal any preference in this respect, as long as 
one of the sub-option 3 was implemented.  

29 

 
 
 
 
 
Comparison of costs and benefits for options (compared to baseline) 

+ = positive impact, - = negative impact, 0 = no impact, ? = unclear impact 

1
n
o
i
t
p
O

)
e
n
i
l
e
s
a
b
(

0 
0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

8
2
2
n
o
i
t
p
O

+ 
+ 

+ 

+ 

0 

- 

0 

+ 

1
.
3
n
o
i
t
p
O

+ 
+ 

+ 

+ 

0 

- 

0 

+ 

3
.
3
n
o
i
t
p
O

+ 
+ 

+ 

+ 

0 

- 

0 

+ 

 Impacts for EU Industry 
Increased clarity on testing procedure 
Efficiencies in production 
Reduced risk for delays and improved 
time to market 

Impacts for authorities 

Reduced costs for issuing certificates 

Impacts for testing laboratories (TL) 

Verification costs of TLs work 
Reduced revenues for TL29 

Impacts for European Standardisation 
Organisations 

Costs for standards development 

Impacts for end users 
Reduced product price30 

5.2. 

Social and environmental impacts  

The social impacts and environmental impacts of the options would be relatively limited.  

28  All  the  estimations  under  this  option  would  depend  on  the  willingness  of  the  Member  States  to  apply  the 

recommendations. 

29 The reductions would be due to the reduction of tests for equipment across the EU. 
30 The reductions would be relatively marginal, given that the impact of the testing costs on the production are 

below 1%. 

30 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
  
  
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
The  only  notable  social  impact  concerns  employment  in  the  aviation  screening  equipment 
sector.  

The  increase  in  competitiveness  expected  in  the  options  2,  3.1  and  3.3  should  lead  to  an 
overall  increase  of  sales  of  EU  manufacturers  in  third  countries,  as  described  in  the  table 
above. This increase of sales should in turn have a positive impact on the overall employment 
figures  in  the  aviation  screening  equipment  sector.  It  is  not  possible  however  to  precisely 
quantify  this  impact  considering  that  there  are  no  definite  indications  on  the  overall 
employment figures in the sector. 

This positive effect would not be triggered through option 1, as this option would not lead to 
an increase of competitiveness and hence not increase sales figures. 

None  of  the  options  would  lead  to  measurable  environmental  impacts.  The  current 
environmental impacts of the development, production, testing or transportation would not be 
affected by a possible harmonisation on certification procedures. 

6. 

COMPARING THE OPTIONS  

Overview of the Economic, social and environmental impacts 

Option 1 

Option 2 

Option 3.1 

Option 3.3 

ECONOMIC IMPACTS 

Functioning of the internal market 

Compliance costs for businesses 

Administrative burden for businesses  

Innovation 

SMEs 

International relations  

Competitiveness 

Implementation costs for public authorities 

SOCIAL IMPACTS 

Number and quality of jobs 

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS 

- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

0 

- 

0 

0/++ 

0/+ 

0/+ 

0/++ 

0/++ 

0/+ 

0/+ 

0/+ 

0/+ 

0 

++ 

+ 

+ 

++ 

++ 

+ 

+ 

+ 

+ 

0 

++ 

+ 

+ 

++ 

++ 

+ 

+ 

+ 

+ 

0 

The  “baseline”  does  not  address  the  problems.  Without  a  policy  initiative  to  support  the 
competitiveness of the European manufacturers it is expected that the market shares of these 
companies on the global market would decrease constantly over the next years. 

The effectiveness of a non-binding option as examined under option 2 would largely depend 
on  the  willingness  of  the  Member  States.  The  possible  impacts  of  this  option  are  therefore 
uncertain. 

The  two  legislative  options,  3.1  "old  approach",  and  3.3  "centralised  approach"  had  similar 
scores in terms of possible impacts. Both would lead to roughly identical cost savings.  

Stakeholders expressed a comparable support for each of the two legislative policy options.  

Political feasibility 

31 

 
 
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
The determining factor to select the option having the most significant positive impact relies 
on  the  political  feasibility  of  introducing  an  initiative  to  harmonise  certification  systems  for 
aviation screening equipment. 

If Member States intended to launch such an initiative on their own, they would have already 
have taken some or all the steps in option 2. We therefore conclude that intervention is needed 
at  EU  level.  This  was  confirmed  by  the  public  consultation  which  concluded  that  option  2 
would  have  a  negative  impact  on  key  issues  such  as  reduction  of  commercialisation  costs, 
reduction  of  time  to  market  of  equipment  and  influencing  the  competition  with  non-EU 
suppliers. 

The political feasibility of the centralised approach is considerably hampered by the need to 
extend the staff and role of EASA. Such an extension, and the subsequent increase of costs it 
would include, is unlikely in the current political climate of general reduction of officials in 
public  administration/agencies.  It  would  be  even  more  unlikely  when  considering  that 
Member  States  already  invested  in  the  creation,  running  and  maintenance  of  the  ECAC 
Common Evaluation Process (CEP).  

This last point was further emphasized during the workshop organised as a follow up to the 
public  consultation,  which  showed  that  the  dominant  concern  of  the  stakeholders,  including 
both  the  Member  States  and  industry,  was  to  ensure  the  continuity  of  ECAC.  The  Member 
States have invested considerably in the development of the Common Testing Methodologies 
at  ECAC  and  none  of  them  expressed  interest  for  an  extension  of  the  role  of  EASA.  All 
stakeholders  agree  that  these  CTM  are  the  best  available  system  in  the  EU  and  that  they 
should  continue  to  play  a  central  role.  The  increased  cooperation  in  ECAC  which  could  be 
observed recently and the subsequent decrease of  testing duplications for aviation screening 
equipment is a further indicator for the support of the ECAC CEP system in the EU. 

Option 3.3 can thus be considered to have limited political feasibility.  

The “old approach”  harmonisation based on the  ECAC system would  therefore be the  most 
feasible  option  with  significant  positive  impacts,  with  the  broadest  support  among  all 
stakeholders, including Member States. 

Effectiveness, efficiency and coherence 

Effectiveness:  Options  3.1  and  3.3  are  expected  to  be  more  effective  than  option  1  and  2. 
Both 3.1 and 3.3 address the specific objectives of this initiative.  

The  effectiveness  of  option  2  is  uncertain  as  its  implementation  would  depend  on  the 
willingness  of  the  Member  States.  Option  1  would  not  be  effective  on  these  two  central 
objectives. 

Efficiency: Option 3.1 is expected to be more efficient than options 1, 2 and 3.3 in meeting 
the objectives described under "section 4 Objectives", as it would ensure the broadest support 
of  all  stakeholders  for  the  establishing  a  harmonised  certification  system  for  aviation 
screening equipment without generating additional administrative burden or costs at Member 
State level.  
Option 3.3 would be less efficient than option 3.1 as it would have a lower political feasibility 
and  generate  additional  costs  in  EASA.  The  efficiency  of  option  2  is  again  uncertain  as  its 
implementation would depend on the willingness of the Member States. 

32 

 
 
Coherence: Options 2, 3.1 and 3.3 would all be coherent with the objectives of the “Security 
Industrial Policy"31, the Political Guidelines of President Juncker32 and the European Agenda 
on  Security33  to  increase  the  competitiveness  of  EU  companies  by  overcoming  the 
fragmentation  of  the  internal  market  and  contributing  to  the  EU’s  autonomy  in  meeting 
security  needs.  Option  1  would  not  be  coherent  with  these  objectives  as  it  would  have  no 
positive impact on any of the objectives of these policy initiatives. 

Comparison  of  Policy  Options  in  terms  of  their  effectiveness,  efficiency  and  coherence  of 
responding to the operational policy objectives 
Operational Policy Objective 
Create  a  clearer  common  EU-wide 
certification system 

Option 1  Option 2 

Option 3.3 

Option 3.1 

0/++ 

0/++ 

0/+ 

- 

Improve the choice available to customers 
(e.g. airport operators) 
Eliminate the need for multiple testing 
Eliminate 
modifications 

for  MS-specific 

the  need 

Create 
environment for security technologies. 

investment 

a  more 

friendly 

Create  a  label  showing  compliance  with 
EU regulatory requirements 

Create  a  level  playing  field  with  US 
companies. 

Choice of legislative instrument 

- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

0/+ 

0/+ 

0/+ 

0/+ 

0/+ 

0/+ 

0/++ 

0/++ 

0/++ 

0/++ 

0/++ 

0/++ 

0/++ 

0/++ 

0/++ 

0/++ 

0/++ 

0/++ 

One  issue  which  arises  from  this  conclusion  is  the  identification  of  the  most  appropriate 
legislative instrument to use for the initiative, i.e. either a regulation or a directive. 

The relevant legal basis, Art. 114 TFEU, does not specify a particular instrument.  

Regulations  are  directly  applicable  and  do  not  need  additional  transposition  measures. 
Directives on the other hand are not directly applicable and allow Member States to choose 
appropriate  measures  to  achieve  the  aims  stated  in  the  directive,  as  long  as  they  meet  them 
before the transposition deadline stated in the instrument's text.  

When  there  are  large  discrepancies  between  Member  States  in  terms  of  administrative, 
political and social arrangements, when country's legal systems deal differently with an issue 
or  when  it  is  difficult  to  come  to  an  agreement  which  is  precise  and  specific  enough  to 
regulate a subject matter without requiring any (further) transposition measures, a directive is 
better adapted at regulating a matter than a regulation.  

Taking into account the aims of this particular proposal, the specific context and the content, a 
regulation seems better suited than a directive considering the need for a clear framework in 
the form of  a harmonised certification system, based on the already existing regulations EC 
300/2008 and EC 185/2010.  

31 COM (2012) 417 
32 "A Deeper and Fairer Internal Market with a Strengthened Industrial Base" 
33 COM(2015) 185 final 

33 

 
 
 
 
                                                 
7. 

MONITORING AND EVALUATION  

Every five years, the Commission will publish a general report on the implementation of this 
regulation. 

This report will be based on a targeted survey aimed at all relevant stakeholders to assess the 
efficiency  and  effectiveness  of  the  implementation  of  the  regulation  with  respect  to  the 
operational  objectives34.  This  survey  will  be  launched  through  a  contract  with  an  external 
contractor, which will also collect the data for the 2010-15 annual mean.  

This  survey  will  address  the  following  indicators  with  a  view  to  assess  whether  the 
implementation of the regulation led to a: 

  Reduction  of  research  and  development  costs;  i.e.  by  how  much  EUR  per  piece  of 
aviation screening equipment per year have the costs associated with adaptation of the 
equipment be reduced in comparison to annual mean 2010-2015? 

  Reduction of commercialisation costs; i.e. by how much have the costs of complying 
with  different  national  requirements  be  reduced  per  piece  of  aviation  screening 
equipment per year in comparison to annual mean 2010-2015? 

  Recognition of EU certification; i.e. in how many cases has EU certification been used 
in third countries of the tenders for procurement of aviation screening equipment per 
year in comparison to annual mean 2010-2015? 

  Reduction of time to market of equipment; i.e. by how many months has the average 
time  to  market  for  a  piece  of  aviation  screening  equipment  been  reduced  in 
comparison to 2015?. 

  Improving the competition with non-EU suppliers; has there been a case where a non-
EU supplier could place his equipment on the EU market without an EU certification? 

34 i.e. Create a clearer common EU-wide certification  system; Improve the choice available to customers (e.g. 
airport  operators);  Eliminate  the  need  for  multiple  testing;  Eliminate  the  need  for  MS-specific 
modifications; Promote competition between accredited test centres; Create a more investment friendly 
environment  for  security  technologies;  Eliminate  the  need  for  multiple  applications  for  certification; 
Increase  testing  capacity  by  facilitating  the  accreditation  of  new  test  centres;  Create  a  label  showing 
compliance with EU regulatory requirements; Create a level playing field with US companies. 

34 

 
 
 
 
                                                 
ANNEX 1: LIST OF ACRONYMS 

ACI 

CENELEC 
CEN 
CEP 
CTM's 
TTF 
EASA  
ECAC 
EDS 
EFTA 
ETSI 
IATA 
ICAO 
LEDS 
SSc 
SER3CO 
TFEU 
TSA  

Airports Council International  
Comité Européen de Normalisation Électrotechnique/European Committee for 
Electrotechnical Standardization 
Comité Européen de Normalisation/European Committee for Standardisation 
Common Evaluation Process of security equipment 
Common Testing Methodologies  
ECAC Technical Task Force  
European Aviation Safety Agency 
European Civil Aviation Conference 
Explosives Detection Systems  
European Free Trade Association 
European Telecommunications Standards Institute 
International Air Transport Association  
International Civil Aviation Organisation  
Liquid Explosive Detection Systems  
Security Scanners  
Study on security R&D in major 3rd countries 
Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union 
US Transportation Security Administration 

35 

 
 
 
 
ANNEX 2: GLOSSARY 

Accreditation 

What is accreditation? 

Accreditation  is  the  last  level  of  public  control  in  the  European  conformity  assessment 
system. Accreditation is designed to ensure and attest that conformity assessment bodies (e.g. 
laboratories,  inspection  or  certification  bodies)  have  the  technical  capacity  to  perform  their 
duties adequately. 

Accreditation  is  used  in  both  the  regulated  sector  to  meet  the  requirements  of  certain 
legislation and the voluntary area where there is no specific legislation. 

Accreditation aims  to  increase trust in  conformity attestation and thus  reinforces  the  mutual 
recognition of products, processes, services, systems, persons and bodies across the EU. 

It  is  based  on  a  peer  evaluation  system  that  ensures  the  proper  functioning  of  accreditation 
across the EU. 

How does accreditation work? 

Accreditation  of  conformity  assessment  bodies  is  based  on  international  standards,  which 
define  competence  criteria  for  the  national  accreditation  body  and  for  each  category  of 
conformity  assessment  body  (such  as  laboratories  or  certification  bodies),  sector  specific 
requirements and guidance documents drawn up by regional and international organisations of 
accreditation bodies. 

Accreditation in the EU 

Regulation  765/2008,  which  sets  out  requirements  for  accreditation  and  market  surveillance 
relating  to  the  marketing  of  products,  establishes  the  legal  framework  for  accreditation  in 
Europe. 

The  Regulation  promotes  a  uniformly  rigorous  approach  to  accreditation  across  Member 
States  –  so  that  ultimately  one  accreditation  certificate  will  be  enough  to  demonstrate  the 
technical capacity of a conformity assessment body. 

The  main  principles  of  accreditation  in  the  Regulation  (which  complement  the  relevant 
international standard for accreditation bodies) are: 

One  accreditation  body  per  Member  State  (but  it  is  possible  to  have  recourse  to  another 
Member  State's  national  accreditation  body,  should  a  Member  State  decide  not  to  set  up  its 
own).  

  Accreditation is a public sector activity.  

  There is no competition between national accreditation bodies.  

  Accreditation is a not-for-profit activity.  

  Stakeholder representation is ensured.  

  Accreditation  is  the  preferred  means  of  demonstrating  technical  capacity  in  the 

regulated area - in the appointment of notified bodies.  

36 

 
 
The European accreditation infrastructure 

Furthermore, Regulation 765/2008 recognises a body known as the European co-operation for 
accreditation,  the  EA,  of  which  national  accreditation  bodies  are  members  and  which 
cooperates with the European Commission. 

It is EA's task to set up and manage a sound peer evaluation system of national accreditation 
bodies  –  to  ensure  that  each  accreditation  body  functions  properly  and  has  the  competence 
needed to perform its tasks. 

EA also provides technical assistance to the Commission in the field of accreditation. 

For  this  purpose,  in  2009,  the  Commission,  European  Free  Trade  Association  (EFTA), 
Member  States  and  EA  signed  general  cooperation  guidelines  that  mark  their  political 
commitment  to  work  closely  together  and  prepare  for  the  successful  implementation  of  the 
accreditation chapter of the Regulation. 

In  June  2010,  the  Commission  and  EA  signed  a  framework  partnership  agreement  for  the 
period 2010-2014. This framework partnership agreement allows financial support for EA in 
fulfilling its tasks under the Regulation and meeting the objectives set out in the guidelines. 

37 

 
 
Conformity Assessment 

1. Conformity assessment of products 

The free movement of goods is a cornerstone of the single market. The mechanisms in place 
to achieve this aim are based on the prevention of new barriers to trade, on mutual recognition 
and  on  technical  harmonisation.  Placing  a  product  on  the  market  and  putting  it  into  service 
can  only  occur  once  it  is  deemed  to  comply  with  the  provisions  of  all  applicable  technical 
harmonisation  legislation  and  once  a  conformity  assessment  has  been  carried  out  in 
accordance with that legislation. The manufacturer has an obligation to ensure that a product 
intended  to  be  placed  on  the  EU  market  is  designed  and  manufactured  in  conformity  with 
essential requirements laid down in applicable legislation and to confirm that this conformity 
has been assessed. Conformity assessments include activities such as testing, inspection and 
certification  to  determine  that  a  product  fulfils  the  relevant  requirements  of  applicable 
technical harmonisation legislation. 

Conformity  assessments  must  not  be  confused  with  market  surveillance,  which  consists  of 
controls  after  the  product  has  been  placed  on  the  market.  However  both  techniques  are 
complementary and equally necessary to ensure the smooth functioning of the internal market. 

The assessment of the conformity of a product is carried out before that product is placed on 
the  market  and  consists  of  demonstrating  that  it  fulfils  all  the  legislative  requirements  that 
apply  to  it.  Conformity  assessments  are  performed  in  accordance  with  technical  procedures 
specified in sectorial legislation. 

Manufacturers may choose between different conformity assessment procedures provided for 
in the applicable directive(s). The assessment of the conformity of a product may be carried 
out  either  by  the  manufacturer  himself  or  by  a  conformity  assessment  body  (‘in-house’  or 
'external'  ; see notified bodies), depending on the provisions of the modules selected by the 
relevant sectorial legislative instrument. 

1.1 Conformity assessment procedures and Declaration of Conformity 

The  essential  objective  of  a  conformity  assessment  procedure  is  to  demonstrate  to  public 
authorities that a product being placed on the market conforms to the requirements expressed 
in  relevant  legislation,  in  particular  with  regard  to  the  health  and  safety  of  users  and 
consumers. The purpose of conformity assessment procedures is thus to ensure confidence on 
all sides in a product’s conformity to the relevant essential requirements. As a general rule, a 
product  should  comply  with  conformity  assessment  requirements  throughout  the design  and 
production phases. 

1.1.1 The modules 

Conformity assessment is subdivided into modules, and conformity assessment procedures are 
composed  of  one  or  more  conformity  assessment  modules.  The  modules  relate  either  to  the 
design phase of products, the production phase, or both. A conformity assessment procedure 
should cover both the design and production phases, while a module may cover either one of 
these phases (when a conformity assessment procedure is composed of two modules) or both 
(when a conformity assessment procedure comprises just one module). 

Each  directive  describes  the  range  and  contents  of  possible  conformity  assessment 
procedures, which are considered to give the necessary level of protection. The directives also 
set out the criteria governing the conditions under which the manufacturer can make a choice, 
if more than one option is provided for. 

38 

 
 
1.1.2 EC Declaration of Conformity 

Manufacturers, or their authorised representatives, with a legal base in the EU must draw up 
an  EC  Declaration  of  Conformity  (DoC)  as  part  of  the  conformity  assessment  procedure 
provided for in the applicable legislation. The EC Declaration of Conformity should contain 
all relevant information to identify the legislation according to which it is issued, as well as 
the  manufacturer,  the  authorised  representative,  the  notified body  if  applicable,  the  product, 
and where appropriate a reference to harmonised standards or other normative documents. 

Notified Bodies 

1.1 Notification procedure and withdrawal of notification 

Notification  is  an  act  to  inform  the  Commission  and  the  other  Member  States  that  a  body, 
which  fulfils  the  requirements,  has  been  designated  to  carry  out  conformity  assessment 
according to technical harmonisation legislation. The Commission publishes lists of notified 
bodies for information purposes on its website for Notified Bodies, NANDO. 

Withdrawal  of  notification  takes  place  when  the  notified  body  ceases  to  fulfil  the  afore-
mentioned  requirements  or  its  obligations.  Withdrawal  is  the  responsibility  of  the  notifying 
Member State. It can also be the end result of an infringement procedure. 

1.2 Principles of notification 

Notified  bodies  carry  out  the  tasks  pertaining  to  the  conformity  assessment  procedures 
referred to in the applicable technical harmonisation legislation when a third party is required. 
It  is  the  responsibility  of  Member  States  to  notify  those  ('external')  conformity  assessment 
bodies  within  their  jurisdiction  that  are  technically  competent  to  assess  the  compliance  of 
products with the requirements of applicable directives(s). They may choose from among all 
the bodies under their jurisdiction which comply with the requirements of the directives and 
the principles laid down in Decision EC/2008/768. 

The assessment of the body seeking notification determines if it is technically competent and 
capable,  and  if  it  can  demonstrate  the  level  of  independence,  impartiality  and  integrity 
necessary  to  carry  out  the  conformity  assessment  procedures  in  question.  Further,  the 
competence  of  the  notified  body  should  be  subject  to  surveillance,  which  should  be  carried 
out  at  regular  intervals  and  should  follow  the  practice  established  by  the  accreditation 
organisations. 

The  EN  ISO/IEC  17000  series  of  standards  and  accreditation  are  important  supporting 
instruments in establishing conformity with the requirements of the applicable legislation. 

In-house bodies do not need to be notified but they must still demonstrate the same technical 
competence as external bodies. Member States must ensure that in-house bodies also maintain 
their technical competence. 

1.3 Notified bodies and conformity assessment 

As  previously  mentioned,  the  primary  task  of  a  notified  body  is  to  provide  services  for 
conformity assessment under the conditions set out in the directives. This is a service to the 
manufacturers in an area of public interest. Notified bodies are free to offer their conformity 
assessment services, within their scope of notification, to any economic operator established 
either  inside  or  outside  the  EU.  They  may  also  carry  out  these  activities  on  the  territory  of 
other Member States or of third countries. 

39 

 
 
 
Manufacturers are free to choose any notified body that has been designated to carry out the 
conformity assessment procedure in question according to the applicable directive. 

1.4 General responsibilities of notified bodies 

Notified  bodies  must  operate  in  a  competent,  non-discriminatory,  transparent,  neutral, 
independent and impartial manner. They must employ the necessary personnel, with sufficient 
and  relevant  knowledge  and  experience  to  carry  out  conformity  assessment  in  accordance 
with the directive(s) in question. 

Notified bodies must make adequate arrangements to ensure confidentiality of the information 
obtained  in  the  course  of  conformity  assessment,  and  be  adequately  insured  to  cover  their 
professional activities, unless liability is assured under the national legislation of the notifying 
Member State. They must  also provide relevant information  to  their  notifying  authority, the 
market surveillance authorities and other notified bodies. 

1.5 Notified bodies and subcontracting 

A notified body can subcontract part of its work to another body on the basis of established 
and regularly monitored competence. The subcontracted body must be technically competent 
and display independence and objectivity according to the same criteria and under the same 
conditions  as  the  notified  body.  However,  notification  is  not  necessary.  The  Member  State 
that  has  notified  the  subcontracting  body  must  also  be  capable  of  ensuring  effective 
monitoring of the competence of the subcontracted body. 

A  further  condition  for  subcontracting  is  that  the  conformity  assessment  procedure  can  be 
subdivided  into  technical  operations  and  assessment  operations,  and  that  the  methodology 
used to carry out the technical operations is sufficiently precise. The body subcontracted by 
the  notified  body  must,  nevertheless,  carry  out  substantial  and  coherent  parts  of  these 
technical operations. 

Subcontracting  must  be  based  on  a  contract  which  makes  it  possible  to  ensure  the 
transparency  of  and  have  confidence  in  the  notified  body’s  operations.  A  subcontracting 
notified  body  remains  responsible  for  all  the  activities  covered  by  the  notification. 
Subcontracting  does  not  entail  the  delegation  of  powers  or  responsibilities.  Certificates  are 
always issued in the name and under the responsibility of the notified body. The conditions 
for subcontracting apply to any subcontractor whether established within the Community or 
not. 

1.6 Coordination and cooperation of notified bodies 

Notified bodies participate in coordination activities. Coherent application of the conformity 
assessment  procedures  requires  close  cooperation  between  the  notified  bodies,  the  Member 
States and the European Commission. The Commission supports the Member States in their 
efforts  to  establish  coherence  among  the  notifying  authorities  regarding,  in  particular,  the 
assessment  of  the  competence  of  the  bodies  to  be  notified,  the  application  of  notification 
procedures  and  the  surveillance  of  notified  bodies.  The  Commission,  in  coordination  with 
Member States, also ensures that cooperation is organised between the notified bodies. They 
should also take part, whether directly or by representation in European standardisation, or are 
up-to-date with current relevant standards. 

1.7 The NANDO website 

The Member States, EFTA countries (EEA members) and other countries with which the EU 
has  concluded  Mutual  Recognition  Agreements  (MRAs)  and  Protocols  to  the  Europe 

40 

 
 
Agreements on Conformity Assessment and Acceptance of Industrial Products (PECAs) have 
designated  Notified  Bodies,  established  per  directive.  Lists  of  Notified  Bodies  can  be 
searched  on  the  NANDO  website  (New  Approach  Notified  and  Designated  Organisations). 
The lists include the identification number of each notified body as well as the tasks for which 
it has been notified, and are subject to regular update. 

The lists of notified bodies are given for information only and are valid at the date indicated. 
Information  is  made  available  as  provided  by  the  designating  authorities  of  the  Member 
States. Any comments concerning the information contained in the lists should be addressed 
directly to the relevant authorities in the Member States responsible for the designation of the 
bodies. 

41 

 
 
 
 
ANNEX 3: PROCEDURAL ISSUES AND CONSULTATION OF INTERESTED PARTIES 

Identification  

Lead DG: DG HOME  

Other involved DGs: DG MOVE, DG JRC, DG GROW 

Agenda Planning/WP Reference:  

Organisation and timing 

The work for this Impact Assessment started in November 2012. 

An impact assessment steering group was set up to which DG HOME, DG GROW, DG JRC, 
SG,  LS,  DG  MARKT  and  DG  JUST  participated.  A  total  of  four  meetings  of  the  Impact 
Assessment Steering Group were held on 28 November 2012, 8 February 2013, 11 May 2015 
and 30 September 2015. 

Scrutiny by the Commission Impact Assessment Board 

The  Impact  Assessment  Board  of  the  European  Commission  assessed  a  draft  version  of  the 
present  impact  assessment  and  issued  its  opinion  on  03/07/2015.  The  Regulatory  Scrutiny 
Board  made  several  recommendations  and,  in  the  light  of  the  latter,  the  final  impact 
assessment report: 

-  Gives  more  information  on  the  public  consultation  and  the  background  on  the 

stakeholders. 

-  A passage on TTIP has been added. 

-  The relation between the EU and US has been expanded. The differences between the 

ECAC and the TSA have been expanded. 

-  The  problem  definition  has  been  revised  and  streamlined.  Clarifying  the  drivers, 

problems and consequences. Adding the objectives to the problem tree.  

-  The  operational  policy  objectives  have  been  expanded  and  the  objectives  in  general 

have been streamlined. 

-  The role non EU Members of ECAC would play in the proposed legislation has been 

detailed. 

-  Sections on the different stakeholder groups and how they are affected were added. 

-  The information on ECAC and the CEP has been updated. 

-  The Impacts section was revised. 

-  The section on monitoring has been clarified. 

-  The relation to the EASA revision has been made clearer. 

-  Paragraph was added on the possible costs related to ISO standards acquisition. 

ANNEX 4: STAKEHOLDER CONSULTATIONS 

42 

 
 
 
 
 
This  IA  builds  both  on  internal  and  external  expertise.  Relevant  data  has  been  collected 
through: 

  An  open  Public  Consultation  on  the  Certification  of  Aviation  Screening  Equipment 
which  ran  from  5  March  2013  to  10  June  2013.  The  consultation  was  published  on 
Your Voice in Europe. The results of the public consultation have been added below.  

The consultation received 37 contributions. Despite this relatively low response rate, 
the  results  of  the  public  consultation  can  be  considered  as  representative.  All 
stakeholder  groups  (national  administrations,  all  types  of  enterprises  (including 
SMEs), test laboratories, airport operators etc.) were represented.  

Additionally, the main associations of the sector, such as the main airlines association, 
representing  some  240  airlines  or  84%  of  total  air  traffic  and  the  main  business 
association, representing most EU manufacturers and several testing labs contributed 
to the consultation, effectively representing several hundred of stakeholders. 

Stakeholder background  

Number of replies 

Micro  or  small  enterprise  (fewer  than  49  employees,  turnover  less  than  €10 
million) 

Medium enterprise (between 50 and 249 employees, turnover less than €50 
million) 

Large enterprise (more than 250 employees) 

A business association 

A national administration 

An academic institution or think tank 

A non-governmental organisation 

A security services provider 

An airport operator 

A test laboratory 

4 

1 

8 

4 

8 

1 

1 

3 

5 

2 

The respondents came from sixteen countries, including twelve Member States and four non-
EU countries (Norway, Switzerland, Bosnia and Herzegovina, and Turkey). The participants 
reflected  well  the  views  of  the  relevant  community  and  can  be  considered  as  representative 
for the stakeholders in the aviation security sector. The results of the public consultation have 
also been uploaded to the website of the consultation.35 

The  aim  of  this  consultation  was  to  ensure  that  the  initiatives  planned  by  the  Commission 
address issues which are a true concern for the EU and that no stakeholder group is affected in 
a disproportionate manner. 

The public consultation was divided in four sections: 

35 

See:  http://ec.europa.eu/enterprise/policies/security/industrial-policy/consultation-on-airport-screening-
equipment/index_en.htm  

43 

 
 
                                                 
1)  Problem  definition:  an  essential  aspect  was  to  inquire  among  all  relevant 
stakeholders on the preliminary problem assessment made by the Commission, i.e. 
defining  the  general  need  and  the  specific  areas  on  which  action  is  required. 
Respondents were asked to reply to a set of questions based on the same baseline: 
“What  effect  do  you  think  the  current  situation  where  there  is  no  harmonised 
certification  system  for  aviation  security  equipment  has  had  on  […]”.  This 
question  was  asked  for  17  different  issues,  three  of  which  reserved  solely  for 
industry. The full list of questions can be found below. 

2)  Assessing the impact of the options: the aim of this section was to assess which of 
the five policy options presented by the Commission was judged to have the most 
positive  impact  on  a  set  of  15  aspects,  such  as  development  costs  or  the  time  to 
market of equipment. The full list of questions can be found under below. 

3)  Technical questions on the certification process: this section focussed on specific 
technical  details  on  a  possible  harmonised  certification  process  for  aviation 
screening equipment. 

4)  The  role  of  the  European  Civil  Aviation  Conference  (ECAC):  the  last  section 
inquired  on  the  role  ECAC  could  or  should  play  in  the  context  of  a  possible 
harmonised certification process for aviation screening equipment. 

It  should  be  underlined 
largely 
homogeneous  replies  to  these  questions.  No  major  discrepancies  among  the  various 
groups were identified. 

the  different  stakeholder  groups  gave 

that 

  A workshop was organised as a follow up to the public consultation on 25 September 
2013.  The  workshop  was  well  attended  and  comprised  representatives  from  all  the 
concerned  stakeholder  groups,  including  the  industry,  the  European  Civil  Aviation 
Conference (ECAC) representing the central member States organisation on aviation 
screening  equipment  and  end-users  representatives  (Airports  Council  International 
Europe). 

The  central  aim  of  this  workshop  was  to  present  the  conclusion  of  the  Commission 
analysis on the public consultation, as well as the outcomes of the external “Study on 
Civil  Security  R&D  in  major  third  countries”36  and  of  the  Commission's  Joint 
Research Centre (JRC) study on “Detection Requirements and Testing Methodologies 
for Aviation Security Screening Devices in the EU and EFTA. 

Moreover,  each  stakeholder  group  had  the  opportunity  to  present  and  discuss  their 
views on the current state of play of the certification of aviation screening equipment. 

The main conclusion of the workshop was the convergence of the results of the studies 
presented  during  the  first  session,  in  terms  of  both  problematic  issues  and  potential 
solutions. A summary report of this Workshop can be found in annex 2. 

36  This  study  comprised  an  extensive  analysis  of  the  certification  and  conformity  assessment  procedures  for 

aviation screening equipment. 

44 

 
 
                                                 
Even though a certain time elapsed between the public consultation, the workshop and 
the  submission  of  the  Impact  Assessment,  these  findings  from  these  consultations 
remain  valid  on  the  central  issue  addressed  in  this  Impact  Assessment:  the  lack  of 
common legally binding procedures for the certification of aviation security screening 
equipment  in  the  EU  Member  States.  This  has  been  confirmed  during  bilateral 
discussions with all relevant stakeholders over the last months.  

A further survey on “Detection Requirements and Testing Methodologies for Aviation 
Security  Screening  Devices  in  the  EU  and  EFTA”  carried  out  by  the  JRC  and 
published  in  spring  2013.  The  aviation  security  authorities  of  27  EU  and  EFTA 
Member States responded to the questionnaire. The full report can be found under the 
following link: https://erncip-project.jrc.ec.europa.eu/networks/tgs/avsec. 

  A  study  carried  out  by  an  external  contractor  in  support  of  this  Impact  Assessment 
entitled “Study on security R&D in major 3rd countries” (referred to as “SER3CO” in 
this Impact Assessment). The study analysed in detail the certification and conformity 
assessment  schemes  in  the  EU  and  the  world.  It  included  also  an  assessment  of  the 
impacts  of  the  policy  options  identified  by  the  Commission.  The  final  report  of  the 
link; 
study 
http://ec.europa.eu/enterprise/policies/security/documents/index_en.htm. 

following 

found 

under 

can 

the 

be 

  A  study  carried  out  by  an  external  contractor  in  support  of  an  earlier  Impact 
Assessment  in  2012  for  the  2012  Security  Industrial  Policy  Communication  "Action 
Plan  for  an  innovative  and  competitive  Security  Industry"  entitled:  "Regulatory 
Framework  and  Certification/Conformity  Assessment  Procedures  in  the  Security 
Sector (referred to as SECERCA study in the footnotes)".37 

The Commission’s minimum standards for consultation and expertise in the context of Impact 
Assessments have been met. 

The results of these consultations have been fully taken into account in the present IA report 
when defining the problems and analysing the options. 

Summary of responses to the public consultation 

The European Commission conducted a public consultation on the Certification of Aviation 
Screening  Equipment.  An  electronic  questionnaire  was  published  on  the  Your  Voice  in 
Europe  website  and  interested  parties  were  invited  to  submit  their  contributions  from  15 
March  2013  to  10  June  2013.  The  consultation  was  open  to  all  interested  parties,  with 
distinctive modules for industry representatives, and other stakeholders. 

The consultation received 37 contributions. Respondents included: 

Stakeholder background  

Number of replies 

Micro  or  small  enterprise  (fewer  than  49  employees,  turnover  less  than  €10 
million) 

4 

37 

See: http://ec.europa.eu/enterprise/policies/security/documents/index_en.htm  

45 

 
 
 
 
                                                 
Medium enterprise (between 50 and 249 employees, turnover less than €50 
million) 

Large enterprise (more than 250 employees) 

A business association 

A national administration 

An academic institution or think tank 

A non-governmental organisation 

A security services provider 

An airport operator 

A test laboratory 

The responents came from the following countries 

1 

8 

4 

8 

1 

1 

3 

5 

2 

Countries of origin 

 Belgium; 5 

United Kingdom; 8 

Turkey; 1 

Switzerland; 2 

Spain; 2 

Slovenia; 1 

Norway; 2 

Netherlands; 2 

Italy; 2 

Greece; 1 

Bosnia and 
Herzegovina ; 1 
Croatia; 1 

Czech Republic; 1 

Finland; 1 

France; 1 

Germany; 6 

46 

 
 
 
 
 
1.  Problem Definition 

1.1 Problems related to the fragmentation of the certification procedures 

This  initiative  is  the  first  Commission  led  attempt  to  harmonise  the  currently  fragmented 
certification procedures for aviation screening equipment in the EU. An essential aspect was 
thus to inquire among all relevant stakeholders on the preliminary problem assessment made 
by  the  Commission.  The  participants  were  thus  asked  the  question:  “What  effect  do  you 
think  the  current  situation  where  there  is  no  harmonised  certification  system  for 
aviation security equipment has had on”. 

The responses have been grouped according to the following categories: 

A.  Very significant problem: 

  Harmonisation  with  third  countries,  for  example  the  US  -  81,08%  of  the 
respondents  answered  either  with  very  negative  effect  or  negative  effect.  All 
stakeholder groups underlined the negative aspects with the exception of the national 
administrations, which did not identify this as a problem. 

47 

Harmonisation with third countries, for example the USType of respondentTotalNo responseMicro or small enterprise (fewer than 49 employees, turnover less than €10 million)1No response Total1Do not knowAn airport operator1Do not know Total1Very negative effectA business association2A non governmental organisation1A security services provider3An academic institution or think tank1An airport operator4Large enterprise (more than 250 employees)4Micro or small enterprise (fewer than 49 employees, turnover less than €10 million)1Very negative effect Total16Negative effectA business association2A national administration3A test laboratory2Large enterprise (more than 250 employees)4Medium enterprise (between 50 and 249 employees, turnover less than €50 million)1Micro or small enterprise (fewer than 49 employees, turnover less than €10 million)2Negative effect Total14Positive effectA national administration4Positive effect Total4Very positive effectA national administration1Very positive effect Total1Grand Total37 
 
 
 
  The  efficiency  of  the  certification  process  -  78,38%  of  the  respondents  answered 
either with very negative effect or negative effect. The majority of the participants (all 
industry,  business  association,  airport  operators,  services  providers,  NGO)  identified 
this as a major problem. National administrations were divided on this matter and test 
laboratories did not consider this to be an issue. 

  Legal certainty - 78,38% of the respondents answered either with very negative effect 
or negative effect. The majority of the participants (all industry except one, business 
association,  airport  operators,  test  labs,  NGO)  saw  this  as  a  problem.  National 
administrations were divided on this matter four out of six stated that legal certainty 
was  not  affected,  while  two  disagreed  entirely.  The  security  services  provider 
representative did not identify this as a problem. 

48 

The efficiency of the certification processType of respondentTotalVery negative effectA business association3A non governmental organisation1A security services provider2An airport operator5Large enterprise (more than 250 employees)5Micro or small enterprise (fewer than 49 employees, turnover less than €10 million)2Very negative effect Total18Negative effectA business association1A national administration2A security services provider1An academic institution or think tank1Large enterprise (more than 250 employees)3Medium enterprise (between 50 and 249 employees, turnover less than €50 million)1Micro or small enterprise (fewer than 49 employees, turnover less than €10 million)2Negative effect Total11No effectA national administration2A test laboratory1No effect Total3Positive effectA national administration3A test laboratory1Positive effect Total4Very positive effectA national administration1Very positive effect Total1Grand Total37 
 
 
49 

Legal certaintyType of respondentTotalVery negative effectA business association3A non governmental organisation1A security services provider1A test laboratory1An academic institution or think tank1An airport operator4Large enterprise (more than 250 employees)5Medium enterprise (between 50 and 249 employees, turnover less than €50 million)1Very negative effect Total17Negative effectA business association1A national administration2A security services provider1A test laboratory1An airport operator1Large enterprise (more than 250 employees)2Micro or small enterprise (fewer than 49 employees, turnover less than €10 million)4Negative effect Total12No effectA national administration4A security services provider1Large enterprise (more than 250 employees)1No effect Total6Positive effectA national administration2Positive effect Total2Grand Total37 
 
 
  Research and development costs - 72,97% of the respondents answered either with 
very  negative  effect  or  negative  effect.  All  industry  representatives  except  one 
identified  this  as  a  major  problem.  The  majority  of  national  administrations  did  not 
consider this to be an issue. One test laboratory and one academia representative saw 
no effect on R&D costs. 

  Competition with US competitors - 72,97% of the respondents answered either with 
very  negative  effect  or  negative  effect.  The  majority  of  the  participants  (all  industry 
except  one,  airport  operators,  business  association,  test  labs,  NGO)  saw  this  as  a 
problem.  National  administrations  were  divided.  The  security  services  provider 
representative did not identify this as a problem. 

50 

Research and development costsType of respondentTotalVery negative effectA business association1A security services provider1An airport operator1Large enterprise (more than 250 employees)1Medium enterprise (between 50 and 249 employees, turnover less than €50 million)1Micro or small enterprise (fewer than 49 employees, turnover less than €10 million)2Very negative effect Total7Negative effectA business association3A national administration1A non governmental organisation1A security services provider2A test laboratory1An airport operator4Large enterprise (more than 250 employees)6Micro or small enterprise (fewer than 49 employees, turnover less than €10 million)2Negative effect Total20No effectA national administration3A test laboratory1An academic institution or think tank1Large enterprise (more than 250 employees)1No effect Total6Positive effectA national administration4Positive effect Total4Grand Total37 
 
 
  Time to market of equipment - 64,86% of the respondents answered either with very 
negative  effect  or  negative  or  negative  effect.  The  majority  of  the  participants  (all 
industry except one, airport operators, business association, test labs, NGO) saw this 
as a problem. The majority of national administrations and all test labs did not see this 
as a problem. 

B.  Significant problem 

51 

Competition with US competitorsType of respondentTotalDo not knowA business association1A national administration1A test laboratory1Do not know Total3Very negative effectA security services provider1An airport operator1Large enterprise (more than 250 employees)5Micro or small enterprise (fewer than 49 employees, turnover less than €10 million)1Very negative effect Total8Negative effectA business association3A national administration2A non governmental organisation1A security services provider1A test laboratory1An academic institution or think tank1An airport operator4Large enterprise (more than 250 employees)3Medium enterprise (between 50 and 249 employees, turnover less than €50 million)1Micro or small enterprise (fewer than 49 employees, turnover less than €10 million)2Negative effect Total19No effectA national administration2A security services provider1Micro or small enterprise (fewer than 49 employees, turnover less than €10 million)1No effect Total4Positive effectA national administration2Positive effect Total2Very positive effectA national administration1Very positive effect Total1Grand Total37Time to market of equipmentType of respondentTotalDo not knowA business association1Do not know Total1Very negative effectA business association1A national administration1A security services provider1Large enterprise (more than 250 employees)3Medium enterprise (between 50 and 249 employees, turnover less than €50 million)1Micro or small enterprise (fewer than 49 employees, turnover less than €10 million)3Very negative effect Total10Negative effectA business association2A non governmental organisation1A security services provider1An airport operator5Large enterprise (more than 250 employees)4Micro or small enterprise (fewer than 49 employees, turnover less than €10 million)1Negative effect Total14No effectA national administration3A security services provider1A test laboratory1Large enterprise (more than 250 employees)1No effect Total6Positive effectA national administration4A test laboratory1An academic institution or think tank1Positive effect Total6Grand Total37 
 
 
 
  Commercialisation  costs  -  59,46%  of  the  respondents  answered  either  with  very 
negative  effect  or  negative  effect.  It  should  be  noted  that  27%  of  the  respondents 
(airport  operators  NGO,  national  administrations)  did  not  have  an  opinion  on  this 
matter. All Industry and test labs did however identify this as a problem. 

52 

Commercialisation costsType of respondentTotalDo not knowA business association1A national administration2A non governmental organisation1A security services provider1An airport operator5Do not know Total10Very negative effectA business association1A security services provider1Large enterprise (more than 250 employees)2Medium enterprise (between 50 and 249 employees, turnover less than €50 million)1Very negative effect Total5Negative effectA business association2A national administration2A test laboratory2An academic institution or think tank1Large enterprise (more than 250 employees)6Micro or small enterprise (fewer than 49 employees, turnover less than €10 million)4Negative effect Total17No effectA national administration1A security services provider1No effect Total2Positive effectA national administration2Positive effect Total2Very positive effectA national administration1Very positive effect Total1Grand Total37 
 
 
C.  Negligible problem 

  Passenger and staff security - 29,73% of the respondents answered either with very 
negative effect or negative effect. Over 50% of the respondents did not see any effect 
on passenger and staff security. 

  Training  of  services  personnel  -  18,92%  of  the  respondents  answered  either  with 

very negative effect or negative effect. Over 70% stated that this has no effect. 

53 

Passenger and staff securityType of respondentTotalDo not knowA business association1A national administration1An airport operator1Do not know Total3Very negative effectLarge enterprise (more than 250 employees)2Very negative effect Total2Negative effectA national administration1A security services provider2An academic institution or think tank1Large enterprise (more than 250 employees)4Micro or small enterprise (fewer than 49 employees, turnover less than €10 million)1Negative effect Total9No effectA business association3A national administration4A non governmental organisation1A security services provider1A test laboratory1An airport operator4Large enterprise (more than 250 employees)2Medium enterprise (between 50 and 249 employees, turnover less than €50 million)1Micro or small enterprise (fewer than 49 employees, turnover less than €10 million)3No effect Total20Positive effectA national administration1Positive effect Total1Very positive effectA national administration1A test laboratory1Very positive effect Total2Grand Total37 
 
 
  Use of airport space - 13,51% of the respondents answered either with very negative 
effect  or  negative  effect.  Nearly  80%  of  the  respondents  did  not  see  any  effect, 
including all airport operators. 

  Passenger flow - Facilitation of screening process - increasing throughput - 13,51% of 
the  respondents  answered  either  with  very  negative  effect  or  negative  effect.  Over 
60% of the respondents did not see any effect, including all airport operators. 

54 

Training of services personnelType of respondentTotalDo not knowA national administration1An airport operator1Large enterprise (more than 250 employees)1Do not know Total3Very negative effectLarge enterprise (more than 250 employees)2Very negative effect Total2Negative effectA business association1A test laboratory1Large enterprise (more than 250 employees)2Micro or small enterprise (fewer than 49 employees, turnover less than €10 million)1Negative effect Total5No effectA business association3A national administration6A non governmental organisation1A security services provider3A test laboratory1An academic institution or think tank1An airport operator4Large enterprise (more than 250 employees)3Medium enterprise (between 50 and 249 employees, turnover less than €50 million)1Micro or small enterprise (fewer than 49 employees, turnover less than €10 million)3No effect Total26Positive effectA national administration1Positive effect Total1Grand Total37Use of airport spaceType of respondentTotalDo not knowA national administration2Large enterprise (more than 250 employees)1Do not know Total3Very negative effectLarge enterprise (more than 250 employees)2Very negative effect Total2Negative effectLarge enterprise (more than 250 employees)2Micro or small enterprise (fewer than 49 employees, turnover less than €10 million)1Negative effect Total3No effectA business association4A national administration6A non governmental organisation1A security services provider3A test laboratory2An academic institution or think tank1An airport operator5Large enterprise (more than 250 employees)3Medium enterprise (between 50 and 249 employees, turnover less than €50 million)1Micro or small enterprise (fewer than 49 employees, turnover less than €10 million)3No effect Total29Grand Total37 
 
 
 
55 

Passenger flow - Facilitation of screening process - increasing throughputType of respondentTotalDo not knowA business association1A national administration3An airport operator1Large enterprise (more than 250 employees)3Do not know Total8Very negative effectLarge enterprise (more than 250 employees)2Very negative effect Total2Negative effectA security services provider1Large enterprise (more than 250 employees)1Micro or small enterprise (fewer than 49 employees, turnover less than €10 million)1Negative effect Total3No effectA business association3A national administration4A non governmental organisation1A security services provider2A test laboratory2An academic institution or think tank1An airport operator4Large enterprise (more than 250 employees)2Medium enterprise (between 50 and 249 employees, turnover less than €50 million)1Micro or small enterprise (fewer than 49 employees, turnover less than €10 million)3No effect Total23Positive effectA national administration1Positive effect Total1Grand Total37 
 
 
 
1.2.Problems related to the laboratories 

The Commission had identified a series of possible issues related to the laboratories currently 
used in the ECAC CEP system for the testing of aviation screening equipment. A set of five 
questions  was  thus  developed  to  inquire  on  the  regulations  and  the  functioning  of  the 
laboratories. Two of these questions were restricted to industry representatives: 

  The  accreditation  of  laboratories  -  the  ECAC  CEP  laboratories  are  currently  not 
accredited on EU level but merely adopted by ECAC on the basis of proposals from 
member states. These laboratories do therefore not issue legally binding certifications, 
but only non-binding test results. Over 84% of the respondents agreed that this legal 
uncertainty should be amended and that test laboratories should be accredited at an EU 
level. The majority of the participants (all industry except one, business associations, 
one test lab and 6 out of seven airport operators) saw this as a problem.  

56 

Do you believe that test laboratories should be accredited on a EU level?Type of respondentTotalNo responseA national administration1A security services provider1An airport operator2 No response Total4Do not knowA non governmental organisation1An airport operator1Do not know Total2NoA national administration1A test laboratory1Large enterprise (more than 250 employees)1No Total3YesA business association4A national administration6A security services provider2A test laboratory1An academic institution or think tank1An airport operator2Large enterprise (more than 250 employees)7Medium enterprise (between 50 and 249 employees, turnover less than €50 million)1Micro or small enterprise (fewer than 49 employees, turnover less than €10 million)4Yes Total28Grand Total37 
 
 
 
  Quality  control  of  the  laboratories  –  67%  of  the  respondents  agreed  that  the 
laboratories should be audited on a regular basis. A relatively high number (24%, i.e. 
the nine “blanks”) of respondents did not reply to this question 

  Membership in the ECAC CEP system – the membership to the ECAC CEP system 
is  not  an  entirely  open  process,  but  based  on  a  selection  made  by  ECAC.  On  the 
question  if  the  current  situation  hindered  them  in  becoming  an  ECAC  -  CEP  test 
laboratory, three respondents answered with yes. 

57 

Do you believe the test laboratories should be regularly auditedType of respondentTotalDo not knowA business association2A national administration1Do not know Total3YesA business association2A national administration5A security services provider2A test laboratory1An academic institution or think tank1An airport operator2Large enterprise (more than 250 employees)7Medium enterprise (between 50 and 249 employees, turnover less than €50 million)1Micro or small enterprise (fewer than 49 employees, turnover less than €10 million)4Yes Total25(blank)A national administration2A non governmental organisation1A security services provider1A test laboratory1An airport operator3Large enterprise (more than 250 employees)1(blank) Total9Grand Total37 
 
 
1.3.  Questions reserved solely for industry 

A  set  of  questions  was  developed  aimed  at  gaining  an  insight  on  the  specific  problems 
encountered by the aviation screening technology Industry. These questions focussed on the 
role and functioning of the ECAC CEP laboratories. 

  Availability  of  laboratories  –  the  Commission  had  received  indications  that  the 
limited  number  of  ECAC  CEP  laboratories  led  to  bottleneck  situations,  where  the 
demand  in  tests  exceeds  the  testing  capacities  of  the  labs.  This  assessment  was 
confirmed by the consultation, eight out of the eleven industry representatives stated 
that the availability of laboratories and the time to test were not adequate. 

58 

Has the current situation hindered you in becoming a ECAC - CEP test laboratory?Type of respondentTotal(blank)A business association1A national administration1A non governmental organisation1A security services provider2An airport operator2Large enterprise (more than 250 employees)1(blank) Total8Do not knowA business association2A national administration1An academic institution or think tank1An airport operator2Large enterprise (more than 250 employees)3Medium enterprise (between 50 and 249 employees, turnover less than €50 million)1Micro or small enterprise (fewer than 49 employees, turnover less than €10 million)1Do not know Total11NoA business association1A national administration6A security services provider1A test laboratory2An airport operator1Large enterprise (more than 250 employees)2Micro or small enterprise (fewer than 49 employees, turnover less than €10 million)2No Total15YesLarge enterprise (more than 250 employees)2Micro or small enterprise (fewer than 49 employees, turnover less than €10 million)1Yes Total3Grand Total37Do you think the availability of test laboratories and time to test appointment is adequateType of respondentTotalDo not knowLarge enterprise (more than 250 employees)1Micro or small enterprise (fewer than 49 employees, turnover less than €10 million)1Do not know Total2NoA business association1Large enterprise (more than 250 employees)4Medium enterprise (between 50 and 249 employees, turnover less than €50 million)1Micro or small enterprise (fewer than 49 employees, turnover less than €10 million)2No Total8YesMicro or small enterprise (fewer than 49 employees, turnover less than €10 million)1Yes Total1Grand Total11 
 
 
 
 
  Choosing the laboratory – the ECAC CEP system does not allow the manufacturers 
to  choose the laboratory  in  which  they want to  test  their equipment. Nine  out  of the 
eleven industry respondents expressed their interest in choosing their laboratory. 

59 

INDUSTRY ONLY 2.8.2 Do you think it would be important to be able to choose test laboratory?Type of respondentTotalDo not knowLarge enterprise (more than 250 employees)1Do not know Total1NoLarge enterprise (more than 250 employees)1No Total1YesA business association1Large enterprise (more than 250 employees)3Medium enterprise (between 50 and 249 employees, turnover less than €50 million)1Micro or small enterprise (fewer than 49 employees, turnover less than €10 million)4Yes Total9Grand Total11 
 
 
 
1.4.Conclusion 

The public consultation provided a series of concrete answers to the initial assessments of the 
Commission  on  the  problems  that  affect  the  certification  system  of  aviation  screening 
equipment.  A  clear  distinction  could  be  made  between  the  largely  acknowledged  problems 
which  should  be  addressed  by  the  Commission  and  the  problems  which  had  only  a  very 
marginal support and could be discarded.  

The central problems identified by the respondents concern mainly the negative effects due to 
the fragmented regulatory framework of the certification system on:  - the commercialisation 
of  aviation  screening  equipment  (I.e.  research  and  development  costs,  the  efficiency  of  the 
certification process, legal certainty and the time to market of equipment); and - the external 
dimension (I.e. harmonisation with third countries and competition with the US).  

It should be underlined that these assessments were made by the majority of stakeholders be 
they  SME,  large  industry,  test  laboratories  or  business  associations.  The  only  group 
respondents  which  expressed  some  reservations  were  the  representatives  from  national 
administrations  

A similar concern was expressed by the respondents with regards to the current system of the 
CEP  testing  laboratories.  A  strong  majority  of  the  respondents  agreed  that  the  status  of  the 
laboratories should be consolidated by accrediting them on an EU level. At the same time, the 
respondents also stated that these laboratories should be audited on a regular basis.  

The  questions  on  the  laboratories  targeted  solely  for  industry  representatives  confirmed  this 
interest  in  a  restructuring  of  the  laboratory  system.  Industry  stakeholders judged  the  current 
availability and the time to test of the laboratories to be inadequate. They also expressed their 
interest in being able to choose their test laboratory. 

Issues like to use of airport space, the training of personnel, passenger and staff security and 
the passenger flow were deemed to be largely irrelevant. The need for the Commission to act 
on these aspects is thus secondary. 

60 

 
 
 
 
2.  Assessment of the Options 

An  essential  part  of  this  consultation  was  assessing  the  support  for  the  five  policy  options 
developed by the Commission in the context of this initiative. 

The options provided to the respondents were as follows: 

1. "Baseline scenario" - The Commission would not launch any dedicated policy initiative to 
harmonise the certification procedures for aviation screening equipment.  

2. "Recommendation" - The Commission would issue a recommendation to Member States 
to mutually accept each other's national approval systems or to rely on the common evaluation 
process  of  ECAC,  provided  that  EU  laboratories  undertaking  performance  testing  respect 
certain requirements.  

3.  "Legislation"  -  The  Commission  would  propose  legislation  on  product  certification  and 
compliance  testing  principles  and  procedures  in  order  to  ensure  full  compliance  with  EU 
security performance standards adopted under Regulation (EC) 300/2008.  

3.1.  The  "directive-based  approach"  is  characterised  by  a  set  of  detailed 
specifications which are laid out in the directive itself.  

3.2. The "standards-based approach" is not based on specifications with the same 
level  of  detail  as  in  3.1.  This  approach  is  based  on  the  so  called  "new  approach", 
which focuses on essential requirements written in general terms. 

3.3.  The  "centralised  approach",  whereby  product  certification  would  be  done 
centrally  by  an  EU  agency,  such  as  the  European  Aviation  Safety  Agency,  which 
already certifies all EU commercial aircraft.  

61 

 
 
 
 
The participants were asked to assess which of the five options listed above would allow the 
Commission to achieve the following objectives: 

  Ensuring the optimal level of security for European airports and citizens 

  Increasing the capacity of technology to adapt to emerging threat scenarios 
  Increasing the facilitation38 
  Reducing research and development costs 

  Reducing commercialisation costs 

  Ensuring passenger safety 

  Improving passenger flow 

  Facilitating the training of security officers 

  Optimising the use of airport space 

  Fostering the harmonisation with third countries, for example the US 

  Providing better guidance to procurers 

  Improving  mutual  trust  in  Member  States'  aviation  security  in  view  of  “one  stop 

security" 

  Reducing time to market of equipment 

  Influencing the competition with non-EU suppliers 

  Simplifying  the  procurement  process  of  aviation  screening  equipment  for  airport 

operators or their procurement agencies 

The  respondents  were  asked  to  rate  (from:  very  negative,  negative,  no  effect,  positive,  very 
positive)  the  efficiency  of  the  five  action  on  these  objectives.  For  the  analysis  of  this 
consultation,  these  replies  where  translated  into  a  points  system,  from  -2  for  very  negative, 
over 0 for no effect, to 2 for very positive.  

The sums of the answers were then used to rank of the options based on the following system: 
majority  of  very  negative  =  --,  majority  of  negative  =  -,  no  effect  =  0,  positive  =  +,  very 
positive = ++. The results of the assessment of the options by the respondents have been listed 
in the table below. Criteria and weighting of the options  

The  respondents  were  asked  to  rate  (from:  very  negative,  negative,  no  effect,  positive,  very 
positive) the efficiency of the five policy options on various aspects. For the analysis of this 
consultation, these replies where translated into a points system, from -2 for very negative, -1 
for negative, 0 for no effect, +1 for positive, +2 for very positive.  

38  Facilitation  is a  specific  terminology used in  the  aviation  sector which covers  the  aviation  security  process. 

See: http://www2.icao.int/en/AVSEC/FAL/Pages/default.aspx  

“Within  the  civil  aviation  community,  facilitation  is  of  interest  to  four  major  groups:  Contracting  States,  air 
transport  operators,  airports  and  customers.  States  are  primarily  interested  in  achieving  full 
compliance with their laws and regulations, whereas operators are focused on increasing productivity 
by minimizing the costs of operational delays and administrative procedures. Airports view facilitation 
as  a  means  to  reduce  congestion  in  passenger  terminals  and  cargo  sheds.  The  fourth  group,  air 
transport  customers  (i.e.  passengers  and  cargo  shippers),  wants  to  proceed  through  airports  with 
minimal delay and difficulty.” 

62 

 
 
 
                                                 
Five of the questions are of particular importance for the realisation of the objectives; these 
questions  have  been  highlighted  in  bold.  These  questions  address  issues  which  have  been 
highlighted  as  very  significant  problems  in  the  context  of  the  questions  on  the  problem 
definition. 

  Reduce research and development costs? 

  Reduce commercialisation costs? 

  Foster the harmonisation with third countries, for example the US?   

  Reduce time to market of equipment? 

  Influence the competition with non-EU suppliers? 

Three  of  the  questions  were  met  with  very  limited  responses  from  the  stakeholders;  these 
questions  have  been  highlighted  in  italic.  On  the  following  questions  one  third  of  the 
participants answered “do not know”. 

  Increase the facilitation? 

  Ensure passenger safety? 

  Improve passenger flow? 

63 

 
 
 
 
64 

Ranking of the options  Which of the afore-mentioned options do you believe has the greatest potential to: Options  3.1 3.2 3.3.1 3.3.2 3.3.3 Questions Reduce research and development costs? -- + ++ + ++ Reduce commercialisation costs? -- - ++ + ++ Foster the harmonisation with third countries, for example the US?   -- -- ++ - ++ Reduce time to market of equipment? -- - + 0 ++ Influence the competition with non-EU suppliers? -- - ++ + ++ Ensure the optimal level of security for European airports and citizens? -- - + + ++ Increase the capacity of technology to adapt to emerging threat scenarios? - 0 + - ++ Facilitate the training of security officers? - - + + + Optimise the use of airport space? - - - + ++ Provide better guidance to procurers? -- - ++ 0 ++ Improve mutual trust in Member States' aviation security in view of “one stop security"? -- - ++ + ++ Simplify the procurement process of aviation screening equipment for airport operators or their procurement agencies? -- - ++ + ++ Increase the facilitation? - + + + ++ Ensure passenger safety? - + + + + Improve passenger flow? - + + + +   
 
 
 
Conclusion 

Three  of  the  questions  were  met  with  very  limited  responses  from  the  stakeholders.  On  the 
questions  referring  to:  increase  the  facilitation,  ensure  passenger  safety  and  improve 
passenger flow one third of the participants answered “do not know”. 

On  the  question  referring  to  Optimise  the  use  of  airport  space  the  large  majority  of  the 
respondents replied that none of the options would have any noticeable effect. 

The  large  majority  of  the  respondents  preferred  option  3.3  “the  centralised  approach” 
followed by 3.1 "directive-based approach" and 3.2 "standards-based approach". The different 
stakeholder  group  gave  a  largely  homogeneous  reply  on  these  questions.  No  major 
discrepancies among the various groups were identified. 

The centralised approach (3.3) was judged to have the highest potential for a positive impact 
on all questions. The respondents favoured this option independently of their background.  

A  similar  support  by  the  stakeholders  was,  albeit  to  a  slightly  lesser  extent,  expressed  on 
option 3.1, the directive based approach. The respondents judged it to have a potentially very 
positive impact on seven and positive on seven further questions. The only aspect where this 
option was judged to have a potential negative impact concerned the optimisation of airport 
space.  

The  standards  based  approach  received  a  less  positive  response  from  the  participants.  This 
option  was  not  judged  to  have  a  very  positive  impact  on  any  of  the  questions.  On  four 
questions, the respondents gave this option either negative or “no effect” marks. 

Options  1  "Baseline  scenario"  and  2  "Recommendation"  were  judged  to  have  either 
ineffective or even to be harmful to the current situation.  

The baseline scenario, i.e. not launching  any initiative to  improve the current situation, was 
judged to have a negative impact on all the areas addressed by the questions.  

The recommendation was judged to have a moderately positive impact on only four aspects: 
increasing  the  facilitation,  reducing  research  and  development  costs,  ensuring  passenger 
safety and improving passenger flow.  

65 

 
 
 
3.  Technical questions on the certification procedures 

  Should  a  harmonised  certification  procedure be  based  on  the  approval  of  a  sample 
item  (type-approval)  or  of  each  item  produced?  –  92%  answered  with  yes.  No 
respondent disagreed. 

  Should manufacturers be informed about the details of the outcome of the tests so as to 
facilitate  the  improvement  of  the  equipment?  –  89%  answered  with  yes.  Only  one 
national administration and one test laboratory disagreed with this assessment. 

66 

Should a harmonised certification procedure be based on the approval of a sample item (type-approval) or of each item produced?Type of respondentTotalNo opinionA business association2A national administration1No opinion Total3YesA business association2A national administration7A non governmental organisation1A security services provider3A test laboratory2An academic institution or think tank1An airport operator5Large enterprise (more than 250 employees)8Medium enterprise (between 50 and 249 employees, turnover less than €50 million)1Micro or small enterprise (fewer than 49 employees, turnover less than €10 million)4Yes Total34Grand Total37 Should manufacturers be informed about the details of the outcome of the tests so as to facilitate the improvement of the equipment?Type of respondentTotalDo not knowA business association1Do not know Total1NoA national administration1A test laboratory1No Total2YesA business association3A national administration7A non governmental organisation1A security services provider3An academic institution or think tank1An airport operator5Large enterprise (more than 250 employees)8Medium enterprise (between 50 and 249 employees, turnover less than €50 million)1Micro or small enterprise (fewer than 49 employees, turnover less than €10 million)4Yes Total33Grand Total36 
 
 
 
  Should  manufacturers be informed about the testing procedures for equipment?  – 83 
%  answered  with  yes.  National administrations  were  divided  on  this  issue.  All  other 
respondents were in favour. 

  According to you, are on-site acceptance tests necessary? – 73 % answered with yes. 
Only  two  national  administrations  and  two  large  enterprises  disagreed.  It  should  be 
underlined that all airport operators were in favour of these on-site tests. 

67 

Should manufacturers be informed about the testing procedures for equipment?Type of respondentTotalNoA national administration4No Total4No opinionA business association2No opinion Total2YesA business association2A national administration4A non governmental organisation1A security services provider3A test laboratory1An academic institution or think tank1An airport operator5Large enterprise (more than 250 employees)8Medium enterprise (between 50 and 249 employees, turnover less than €50 million)1Micro or small enterprise (fewer than 49 employees, turnover less than €10 million)4Yes Total30Grand Total36According to you, are on-site acceptance tests necessary?Type of respondentTotalNoA national administration2Large enterprise (more than 250 employees)2No Total4No opinionA business association3Large enterprise (more than 250 employees)1Micro or small enterprise (fewer than 49 employees, turnover less than €10 million)2No opinion Total6YesA business association1A national administration6A non governmental organisation1A security services provider3A test laboratory2An academic institution or think tank1An airport operator5Large enterprise (more than 250 employees)5Medium enterprise (between 50 and 249 employees, turnover less than €50 million)1Micro or small enterprise (fewer than 49 employees, turnover less than €10 million)2Yes Total27Grand Total37 
 
 
 
  Do you believe that on-site acceptance tests should be harmonised? – 70% answered 
with yes. Several respondents (25%) did however disagree, among which four airport 
operators. 

Conclusion 

The five questions on technical aspect of the certification process showed general support for 
EU  action,  the  approval  rates  ranging  from  70%  to  92%.  Some  restrictions  were  however 
expressed concerning two questions. 

Two  questions  gather  unambiguous  support  by  the  participants.  The  respondents  showed 
strong support for a sample item/type approval based certification system (92% approval). A 
similar  support  was  expressed  regarding  the  need  to  provide  details  on  the  outcome  of  the 
tests to the manufacturers (89% approval).  

The  need  for  on-site  acceptance  test  was  also  supported  by  a  large  majority  (73%).  A 
noticeable  aspect  is  the  relatively  high  number  of  “no  opinion”  responses  from  industry 
representatives. 

On  the  question  referring  to  “Informing  the  manufacturers  on  the  testing  procedures“,  the 
national administrations were evenly split in their responses (four against and four in favour). 
The general response was however favourable at 83% approval. 

The  need  to  harmonise  on  site  acceptance  test  was  met  with  the  lowest  support  from  the 
respondents  at  70%.  It should  be  underlined  that  four  out  of  the  five  airport  operators  were 
among the 25% of respondents who disagreed with this question. 

68 

Do you believe that on-site acceptance tests should be harmonised?Type of respondentTotalNoA business association1A national administration1A non governmental organisation1A test laboratory1An airport operator4Micro or small enterprise (fewer than 49 employees, turnover less than €10 million)1No Total9No opinionA security services provider1No opinion Total1YesA business association3A national administration7A security services provider2A test laboratory1An academic institution or think tank1An airport operator1Large enterprise (more than 250 employees)7Medium enterprise (between 50 and 249 employees, turnover less than €50 million)1Micro or small enterprise (fewer than 49 employees, turnover less than €10 million)3Yes Total26Grand Total36 
 
 
4.  The role of the European Civil Aviation Conference (ECAC) 

  The  ECAC  -  CEP  system  should  be  considered  in  the  establishment  of  an  EU-wide 
harmonised  certification  system  for  aviation  screening  equipment.  Do  you 
agree/disagree? – 95% of the respondents answered either with strongly agree (64%) 
or  agree  (30%),  only  5%  disagreed.  The  only  respondents  who  did  not  agree  were 
representatives from security services providers. 

69 

 The ECAC - CEP system should be considered in the establishment of an EU wide harmonised certification system for airport screening equipment. Do you agree/disagree?Type of respondentTotalAgreeA business association2A national administration1An academic institution or think tank1An airport operator1Large enterprise (more than 250 employees)4Micro or small enterprise (fewer than 49 employees, turnover less than €10 million)2Agree Total11DisagreeA security services provider1Disagree Total1Strongly agreeA business association2A national administration7A non governmental organisation1A security services provider1A test laboratory2An airport operator4Large enterprise (more than 250 employees)4Medium enterprise (between 50 and 249 employees, turnover less than €50 million)1Micro or small enterprise (fewer than 49 employees, turnover less than €10 million)2Strongly agree Total24Strongly disagreeA security services provider1Strongly disagree Total1Grand Total37 
 
 
  The work by the ECAC technical groups on developing standards should be retained 
in  an  EU-wide  harmonised  certification  system.  Do  you  agree/disagree?  95%  of  the 
respondents  answered  either  with  strongly  agree  (64%)  or  agree  (30%),  only  5% 
disagreed. The only respondent who did not agree was a representative from a security 
services provider. 

 

If  you  answered  "agree/strongly  agree"  to  question  5.2,  what do  you  think ECAC's 
liability should be? – full liability: 19%, limited liability: 27%, no liability: 5%, do not 
know 40%. No stakeholder group had a clear opinion on this issue. 

70 

The work by the ECAC technical groups on developing standards should be retained in an EU wide harmonised certification system. Do you agree/disagree?Type of respondentTotalAgreeA business association2A national administration1A security services provider1An airport operator1Large enterprise (more than 250 employees)4Micro or small enterprise (fewer than 49 employees, turnover less than €10 million)2Agree Total11DisagreeA security services provider1Disagree Total1Do not knowAn academic institution or think tank1Do not know Total1Strongly agreeA business association2A national administration7A non governmental organisation1A security services provider1A test laboratory2An airport operator4Large enterprise (more than 250 employees)4Medium enterprise (between 50 and 249 employees, turnover less than €50 million)1Micro or small enterprise (fewer than 49 employees, turnover less than €10 million)2Strongly agree Total24Grand Total37 
 
 
Conclusion 

The  consultation  showed  a  clear  support  for  the  central  role  of  ECAC.  Over  90%  of  the 
respondents  concluded  that  the  ECAC  -  CEP  system  should  be  considered  in  the 
establishment  of  an  EU-wide  harmonised  certification  system  for  aviation  screening 
equipment and that the work by the ECAC technical groups on developing standards should 
be retained in an EU-wide harmonised certification system. 

The  question  related  to  the  liability  of  ECAC  was  not  met  with  a  clear  response  by  the 
participants.  A  considerable  part  of  the  respondents  (40%)  did  not  have  an  opinion  on  this 
matter,  only  27  %  of  the  respondents  judged  a  limited  liability  to  be  suitable  and  less  than 
20% expressed their support for a full liability. 

Summary of the Workshop 

The  Workshop  "Discussion  on  a  possible  Commission  initiative  on  Harmonisation  of  the 
Certification of Aviation Screening Equipment" took place on 25 September 2013 in Brussels. 

The aim of the Workshop was:  

  to  present  to  the  stakeholders  the  latest  studies  that  were  conducted  in  the  field  of 
aviation screening equipment as well as the initial findings of the public consultation 
that was carried out on last spring; and 

  to  give  each  stakeholder  group  the  possibility  to  present  their  view  on  a  possible 

harmonisation of the certification of aviation screening equipment. 

The  presentations  given  during  the  Workshop  were  split  in  two  sessions.  The  first  three 
presentations  were  given  either  by  Commission  officials  or  by  a  contractor  of  the 
Commission.  The  last  three  presentations  were  given  by  each  central  stakeholder  group, 
which had the opportunity to present their view on the possible Commission initiative. 

71 

What should be the liability of ECAC?Type of respondentTotalDo not knowA business association4A non governmental organisation1A security services provider1A test laboratory1An airport operator5Large enterprise (more than 250 employees)1Medium enterprise (between 50 and 249 employees, turnover less than €50 million)1Micro or small enterprise (fewer than 49 employees, turnover less than €10 million)1Do not know Total15Full liabilityA national administration2Large enterprise (more than 250 employees)3Micro or small enterprise (fewer than 49 employees, turnover less than €10 million)2Full liability Total7Limited liabilyA national administration5A security services provider1A test laboratory1Large enterprise (more than 250 employees)3Limited liabily Total10No liabilityA national administration1Large enterprise (more than 250 employees)1No liability Total2Grand Total34 
 
 
 
 
The first three presentations were given by: 

  A  representative  of  the  external  contractor  who  wrote  the  “Study  on  Civil  Security 
R&D  in  major  third  countries”.  The  focal  point  of  this  presentation  was  the  Cost-
Benefit-Analysis of the different policy options envisaged by the Commission. 

  A representative of the JRC, who presented the outcome of their study on “Detection 
Requirements and Testing Methodologies for Aviation  Security Screening Devices in 
the EU and EFTA”. 

  A  representative  of  DG  Enterprise  and  Industry  (European  Commission),  who 

presented a detailed assessment of the public consultation. 

The three presentations of the second session were given by: 

  Industry representative: the Chairman of the Civil Aviation Security Working Group 

of the European Organisation for Security (EOS). 

  ECAC representative: the Chairman, Management Group of the Common Evaluation 

Process of Security Equipment, European Civil Aviation Conference (ECAC)  

  End-users representative: a Senior Manager of the Aviation Security, Airports Council 

International (ACI) Europe. 

The main statements brought forward by industry were: 

  The lack of a harmonised certification system in the EU has led to a massive confusion 

among both the supply and the demand side. 

  The lack of a single, recognisable EU certification system and label has proven to be a 
strong  handicap  when  competing  with  TSA  approved,  US  companies  in  emerging 
third  countries.  One  specific  example  was  given  by  an  industry  representative  who 
stated  that,  while  competing  in  a  tender  against  a  US  company  for  a  contract  in 
Venezuela, he was negatively affected by the legal uncertainty of the ECAC system. 
The value as a sales argument of a non-binding testing system which is not recognised 
across  the  EU  suffers  a  great  deal  against  the  well  know  and  legally  binding 
certification of the TSA. 

  Further criticism by industry of the ECAC CEP system also concerned the following 

aspects: 

o  The  ECAC  service  responsible  for  the  CEP  is  understaffed,  this  created 
bottlenecks  and  leads  to  delays  in  testing.  One  industry  representative  stated 
that he had to wait over 6 months to get a testing appointment, which in turn 
delays the commercialisation; 

o  The results of the tests are not communicated in a timely manner; 

72 

 
 
o  There  are  differences  between  the  labs,  both  in  terms  of  quality,  price  and 

speed of testing.  

o  It  was  also  mentioned  on  several  occasions  that  the  amount  and  detail  of 
information on the results of the testing procedures diverged considerably from 
one lab to the other, which can lead to disadvantages among the manufacturers; 

  At  the  same  time,  the  large  majority  of  the  industry  representatives  stated  that  the 
ECAC  CEP  system  has  been  considerably  improved  over  the  last  years  and  that  it 
should be integrated into a harmonised EU-wide certification system. 

The main statements brought forward by ECAC were: 

  The results are given to the Member States not to manufacturers. In consideration of 
some  criticism  received  from  the  manufacturers,  ECAC  is  currently  working  to 
improve the efficiency and the timeliness of the testing system 

  ECAC is working in collaboration with the American TSA. In terms of standards it is 
not needed that the EU ones are the same than the TSA ones but it would still be to 
converge towards common standards  

  The CEP system is open to all 44 ECAC Members as a tool to be used for the national 

certification. It has to be stressed that this is not as a certification system per se.  

The main statements brought forward by end-users/ACI were: 

  Legal certainty of the certification testing is needed. 

  A harmonisation of the EU certification system with the US TSA certification system 

should be achieved. 

  The ECAC CEP system is good but needs to be improved as the testing process is not 

fast enough and the results of the test are not published in a timely manner. 

  At today, EU airports are not allowed to buy equipment that is not mentioned on the 

ECAC website. This means that such equipment is already out of the market. 

  It is highly recommendable to have testing lab's accreditation system at the EU level 

  ACI  would  like  to  be  involved  in  the  testing  process  also  to  ensure  the  inclusion  of  

operational requirements in the testing methodologies 

Conclusion by the ENTR Chairman of the workshop (Graham Willmott) 

  A main conclusion of the workshop was the convergence of the results of the studies 
presented  during  the  first  session,  in  terms  of  both  problematic  issues  and  potential 
solutions. 

  The initial findings of the online public consultation that we have launched in the first 
half of 2013 are in line with the gaps and, overall, the needs of the main stakeholders 

73 

 
 
in  this  area  who  have  provided  us  with  their  views  on  what  is  the  desirable  way 
forward in the area of the certification of aviation screening equipment 

  It should be underlined that all participants agreed that ECAC should continue to play 
a  central  role  in  a  possible  future  harmonised  certification  system  for  aviation 
screening equipment. A possible involvement of EASA was not mentioned by any of 
the participants. 

74 

 
 
 
 
 
 
ANNEX 5: PROCEDURE FOR TESTING THE AVIATION SECURITY EQUIPMENT 

No 

Description 

Actors involved 

1 

A  manufacturer  develops  a  new  configuration  of  equipment  that  is 
intended for the European market. 

Manufacturer 

2 

3 

4 

5 

As  a  part  of  the  development  process  and  before  submitting  the 
equipment for ECAC-CEP tests at CEP test centres through the ECAC 
secretariat, manufacturers may (or may not) invest in "private testing". 
This  is  done  in  order  to  generate  technical  feedback  on  performance 
of the equipment against real threats. 

Manufacturer; 
testing entity 

Private 

When  the  manufacturer  decides  to  submit  the  configuration  to 
approval  testing  through  the  ECAC  CEP,  the  manufacturer  contacts 
the ECAC Secretariat and asks for the allocation to a CEP-Test centre 
and a time slot. 

Manufacturers  may  require  access 
the  regulatory  detection 
requirement standards from their Member State authorities. The actual 
ECAC  Common  Testing  Methodologies  are  partly  classified  and  not 
disclosed  in  their  entirety.  However,  an  unclassified  summary  is 
provided through ECAC. 

to 

Manufacturer; 
Secretariat 

ECAC 

The  ECAC  Secretariat  collects  requests  and  provides  them  to  the 
ECAC  CEP  Management  Group.  The  ECAC  CEP-MG  consist  of 
(representatives of) all test centres allocated to the CEP as well as the 
allocating Member States. 

ECAC Secretariat; ECAC 
CEP Management Group 

The  ECAC  CEP  Management  Group  convenes  4  times  per  year  and 
manages  urgent  issues  through  other  means  of  communication.  The 
requests  are  scrutinized  on  so-called  Simulator  Retest  feasibility  and 
matched  to  available  testing  slots  at  test  centres  in  the  next  2 
Quarters. Principles applied include test centre rotation, quality control, 
capacity  allocation maximization,  fairness,  cost  reduction.  The  results 
is provided to the ECAC secretariat.  

ECAC 
Management 
Group; ECAC secretariat 

6 

The  ECAC  Secretariat  informs  the  manufacturer  on  the  time  slot  and 
the test centre to which the configuration is allocated. 

ECAC 
Manufacturer 

Secretariat; 

7  The Manufacturer enters into a contract with the allocated test centre.  Manufacturer, test Centre 

According to contact the Manufacturer transports its equipment to the 
contracted ECAC-CEP test centre. 

8 

Usually  a  limited  and  defined  preliminary  phase  is  carried  out  as  first 
part  of  the  test,  after  which  the  Manufacturer  is  contacted  and 
consulted  with  regard  to  continuation,  in  order  to  minimize  costs  in 
case  of  expected  failure.  The  Manufacturer  is  allowed  to  change  the 
configuration once. 

If  there  is  agreement  on  continuation,  the  Test  Centre  progresses  to 
conduct the test in full.  

The ECAC-CEP Test Centre applies the ECAC CTMs, and applies the 
established local safety procedures and quality standards in place. 

The  Manufacturer  does  not  witness  the  test  but  remains  stand-by  to 
apply maintenance if needed.  

ECAC-CEP  Test  Centre; 
Manufacturer 

75 

 
 
 
Test  are  regularly  visited  by  staff  of  other  Test  Centres  a  per  quality 
control measures. 

After conclusion of the test the Test Centre provides an oral so-called 
debrief to the Manufacturer where, in addition to the outcome (pass or 
fail  against  an  applicable  standard)  a  maximum  of  information 
feedback  is  provided,  without  disclosing  the  detailed  CTM  nor 
classified data.  

After the testing is completed, the ECAC-CEP Test Centre provides a 
report  in  standardized  format  (included  in  the  CTM)  to  the  ECAC 
Secretariat  (level  1  and  level  2  report).  This  includes  pass  or  fail 
against applicable EU standards, as well as more detailed results. The 
raw data (level 3 report) remain the property of the MS who allocated 
the Test Centre to the CEP process. 

9 

At  the  next  convention  of  the  EDCAC  CEP  Management  Group  the 
group  discusses  the  details  of  all  completed  tests  and  decides  on 
endorsement. 

When  the  results  are  endorsed  the  Manufacturer  receives  a  closing 
letter.  When  a  standard  is  passed  the  equipment  configuration  is 
published on the website. 

ECAC-CEP  Test  Centre; 
ECAC CEP Management 
Group; 
ECAC 
Secretariat; Manufacturer 

76 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
ANNEX 6: STYLISED SUPPLY/VALUE CHAIN FOR AVIATION SECURITY SCREENING EQUIPMENT 
Based on the example of x-ray based systems. Numbers in parentheses indicate the approximate breakdown of cost elements in final equipment.   

77 

 
 
 
 
 
  
ANNEX 7: OVERVIEW ON THE IMPACTS ON COMPETITIVENESS OF EU BUSINESSES 

1. "Baseline scenario"  

Cost and price competitiveness 

Positive 

Negative 

Cost of inputs 

Cost of capital 

Cost of labour 

Other compliance costs (e.g. reporting obligations)s 

Cost of production, distribution, after-sales services 

Price of outputs (e.g. price controls) 

Capacity to innovate 

Capacity to produce and bring R&D to the market 

Capacity for product innovation 

Capacity  for  process  innovation  (including  distribution, 
marketing and after-sales) 

Access to risk capital 

International competitiveness 

Market shares (single market) 

Market shares (external markets) 

Revealed comparative advantages 

2. A recommendation 

n/a 

n/a 

n/a 

n/a 

n/a 

n/a 

n/a 

n/a 

Yes 

Yes 

n/a 

Yes 

Yes 

Yes 

n/a 

Yes 

Yes 

Cost and price competitiveness 

Positive 

Negative 

Cost of inputs 

Cost of capital 

Cost of labour 

Other compliance costs (e.g. reporting obligations)s 

Cost of production, distribution, after-sales services 

Price of outputs (e.g. price controls) 

Capacity to innovate 

Capacity to produce and bring R&D to the market 

Capacity for product innovation 

Capacity  for  process  innovation  (including  distribution, 
marketing and after-sales) 

Access to risk capital 

International competitiveness 

n/a 

n/a 

n/a 

n/a 

n/a 

n/a 

n/a 

Yes? 

Yes? 

n/a 

Yes? 

Yes? 

Yes? 

n/a 

n/a 

78 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Market shares (single market) 

Market shares (external markets) 

Revealed comparative advantages 

3.1. The "old approach" 

Yes? 

Yes? 

Cost and price competitiveness 

Positive 

Negative 

Cost of inputs 

Cost of capital 

Cost of labour 

Other compliance costs (e.g. reporting obligations)s 

Cost of production, distribution, after-sales services 

Price of outputs (e.g. price controls) 

Capacity to innovate 

Capacity to produce and bring R&D to the market 

Capacity for product innovation 

Capacity  for  process  innovation  (including  distribution, 
marketing and after-sales) 

Access to risk capital 

International competitiveness 

Market shares (single market) 

Market shares (external markets) 

Revealed comparative advantages 

n/a 

n/a 

n/a 

Yes 

Yes 

n/a 

Yes 

Yes 

Yes 

n/a 

Yes 

Yes 

n/a 

n/a 

n/a 

n/a 

n/a 

n/a 

3.3. The "centralised approach" 

Cost and price competitiveness 

Positive 

Negative 

Cost of inputs 

Cost of capital 

Cost of labour 

Other compliance costs (e.g. reporting obligations)s 

Cost of production, distribution, after-sales services 

Price of outputs (e.g. price controls) 

Capacity to innovate 

Capacity to produce and bring R&D to the market 

Capacity for product innovation 

Capacity  for  process  innovation  (including  distribution, 
marketing and after-sales) 

n/a 

n/a 

n/a 

Yes 

Yes 

n/a 

Yes 

Yes 

Yes 

n/a 

n/a 

n/a 

n/a 

Access to risk capital 

n/a 

n/a 

79 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
International competitiveness 

Market shares (single market) 

Market shares (external markets) 

Revealed comparative advantages 

Yes 

Yes 

Discarded Option 3.2 "new approach" 

Costs 

The reduction of the need to test multiple times a single piece or equipment should lead to a 
reduction of the number of tests a single laboratory would perform per year. This reduction of 
tests  would  lead  to  a  reduction  of  income  for  the  laboratories.  This  reduction  of  income 
should be lower than the costs savings of the producers, as not all the costs are directly related 
to  the  price  of  the  certification  as  such  (e.g.  the  shipping  of  the  equipment).39  The  loss  of 
income for the testing laboratories should therefore be under 0.5 million Euros per year.  

Results of the public consultation for option 3.2  

The standards based approach received a less positive response from the participants than the 
regulation based approach. Regarding key aspects it was judged to have a positive impact on 
research  and  development  costs,  Reduce  commercialisation  costs,  and  the  competition  with 
non-EU suppliers. 

This  option  was  however  not  judged  to  have  a  very  positive  impact  on  any  of  the  issues 
addressed  by  the  consultation.  Stakeholders  judged  it  to  have  negative  impact  on  the  key 
aspect  of  fostering  the  harmonisation  with  third  countries  and  a  possible  increase  of  the 
capacity of technology to adapt to emerging threat scenarios. Similarly, the impact of option 
3.2  on  the  reduction  of  time  to  market  of  equipment  and  providing  better  guidance  to 
procurers was estimated to be non-existent. 

3.2. The "new approach",  

Cost and price competitiveness 

Positive 

Negative 

Cost of inputs 

Cost of capital 

Cost of labour 

Other compliance costs (e.g. reporting obligations)s 

Cost of production, distribution, after-sales services 

Price of outputs (e.g. price controls) 

Capacity to innovate 

Capacity to produce and bring R&D to the market 

Capacity for product innovation 

Capacity  for  process  innovation  (including  distribution, 
marketing and after-sales) 

Access to risk capital 

International competitiveness 

39 See SER3Co study, chapter 3.2.4 

80 

n/a 

n/a 

n/a 

n/a 

n/a 

n/a 

n/a 

Yes 

Yes 

n/a 

Yes 

Yes 

Yes 

n/a 

n/a 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
Market shares (single market) 

Market shares (external markets) 

Revealed comparative advantages 

Yes 

Yes 

81 

 
 
 
 
 
 
ANNEX 8: BACKGROUND INFORMATION ON THE LEGAL IMPLICATIONS OF THE POLICY OPTIONS 

The old approach 

The old  approach  is  for instance  used in  the case of  motor vehicles. It is worth  providing a 
small overview of how this system functions in this product sector. 

Illustrative example  

The  EC  Whole  Vehicle  Type-Approval  (EC  WVTA)  system  has  applied  to  motor  vehicles 
and motorcycles on a mandatory basis since January 1998 and June 2003, respectively. As a 
result,  these  categories  of  vehicles  must  comply  with  all  the  relevant  EC  type-approval 
directives in order to be placed on the market. 

The  currently  applicable  Framework  Directive  on  type-approval  of  motor  vehicles 
(2007/46/EC)  makes  EC  WVTA  mandatory  for  all  categories  of  motor  vehicles  (passenger 
cars,  buses,  coaches  and  trucks)  and  their  trailers.  The  implementation  of  this  directive  is 
enforced  in  accordance  with  a  time-frame  extending  from  2009  to  2014,  depending  on  the 
category. 

The Directive provides for the Member States to take appropriate measures at two stages: 

1. Ex-ante assessment: Before granting approval, the approval authority  must ensure that all 
the  relevant  tests  provided  for  in  the  relevant  Regulatory  Acts  listed  in  Annex  IV  to  that 
Directive  have  been  carried  out  by  a  designated  'technical  service'  .  Furthermore,  before 
granting  type-approval,  the  approval  authority  must  verify  that  adequate  arrangements  for 
ensuring  conformity  of  production  (see  ex-post  surveillance  below)  have  been  made  by  the 
manufacturer.   

2.  Ex-post  surveillance:  after  giving  approval,  the  approval  authority  must  verify  that  the 
production arrangements of the manufacturer continue to be adequate. This verification must 
be  carried  out  in  accordance  with  the  procedures  set  out  in  the  Directive,  and,  where 
appropriate, with the specific provisions of the relevant Regulatory Acts listed in Annex IV to 
that Directive. This procedure may be carried out on manufacturers' technical equipment and 
control  programs,  but  may  also  be  extended  to  the  actual  testing  of  selected  production 
samples.  

Before  providing  approval,  the  approval  authority  must  ensure  that  all  the  relevant  tests 
provided for in the type approval legislation have been carried out by a technical service. 

The approval authority of each Member State must send to the approval authority of the other 
Member States a copy of the vehicle type-approval certificate for each vehicle type which it 
has approved, refused to approve or withdrawn.  

For  vehicle  types  to  which  EC  whole  vehicle  type  approval  (EC-WVTA)  applies,  each 
Member State shall register or permit the sale and entry into service of new vehicles only if 
they are accompanied by a valid certificate of conformity (CoC). 

A  certificate  of  conformity  is,  in  effect,  a  statement  by  the  manufacturer  that  the  vehicle 
conforms  to  the  vehicle  type  that  has  been  granted  the  relevant  EC  WVTA.  Other  Member 
States cannot refuse to register vehicles if they are accompanied by a valid CoC, proving their 
compliance with Community legislation. 

82 

 
 
 
 
The new approach 

The new approach, is not based on specifications as detailed as under the old approach. The 
new approach focuses on essential requirements written in general terms. Product legislation 
is  restricted  to  the  requirements  necessary  to  protect  the  public  goals  of  health  and  safety. 
Examples for these requirements include for instance the capacity of the testing lab to handle 
dangerous  materials  or  the  need  for  real  or  virtual  testing  etc.  The  technical  specifications 
under  the  new  approach  are  elaborated  by  the  responsible  European  Standardisation 
Organisations (CEN/CENELEC and ETSI). These standards would be publicly available as in 
the mandate of the Standardisation Organisations. 

This  certification  would  be  based  on  a  third  party  certification.  A  self-certification  by  the 
manufactures can be excluded given the sensitive nature of aviation screening equipment. 

New approach legislation is based on the following principles: 

  Harmonisation is limited to essential requirements. 

  Only products  fulfilling the essential  requirements may be  placed  on the market and 

put into service. 

  Compliance  with  harmonised  standards,  the  reference  numbers  of  which  have  been 
published in the Official Journal of the European Communities and which have been 
transposed  into  national  standards,  provides  a  presumption  of  conformity  with  the 
corresponding essential requirements. 

  Application  of  harmonised  standards  or  other  technical  specifications  remains 
voluntary  and  manufacturers  are  free  to  choose  any  technical  solution  that  complies 
with the essential requirements. 

Adoption of new approach legislation 

  New approach directives are based on Article 114 of the EU Treaty, and are adopted 
according to the co-decision procedure provided for in Article 294 of the EU Treaty. 

  Adopted new approach directives are published in the L series of the Official Journal 
of the European Communities. Commission proposals for new approach directives are 
published in the C series of the Official Journal. 

Transposition of new approach legislation 

  New  approach  directives  are  total  harmonisation  directives:  the  provisions  of  these 

directives supersede all corresponding national provisions. 

  New  approach  directives  are  addressed  to  the  Member  States,  which  have  an 

obligation to transpose them into their national legislation as appropriate. 

  National laws, regulations or administrative provisions, which transpose the directive, 
shall contain a reference to the directive in question or shall be accompanied by such a 
reference on the occasion of their official publication. 

  National  laws,  regulations  or  administrative  provisions,  which  are  adopted  and 
published in order to transpose a directive, must be communicated to the Commission. 

The "centralised approach 

The  "centralised  approach",  whereby  the  certification  would  be  done  centrally  by  an  EU 
agency,  such  as  for  example  the  European  Aviation  Safety  Agency  (EASA),  which  already 
today certifies centrally all EU commercial aircrafts.  

83 

 
 
Under this approach, there would be an EU-wide procedure for the authorisation of aviation 
screening  equipment,  where  there  is  a  single  application,  a  single  evaluation  and  a  single 
authorisation throughout the European Union. 

Illustrative example 

An example for such a centralised approach is the European Medicines Agency's (EMA). The 
European Medicines Agency is an EU agency for the evaluation of medicinal products. The 
European Medicines Agency's main responsibility is the protection and promotion of public 
and  animal  health,  through  the  evaluation  and  supervision  of  medicines  for  human  and 
veterinary use.  

The  Agency  is  responsible  for  the  scientific  evaluation  of  applications  for  European  Union 
(EU)  marketing  authorisations  for  human  and  veterinary  medicines  in  the  centralised 
procedure.  

Under  the  centralised  procedure,  pharmaceutical  companies  submit  a  single  marketing-
authorisation  application  to  the  EMA.  Once  granted  by  the  European  Commission,  a 
centralised  marketing  authorisation  is  valid  in  all  European  Union  (EU)  Member  States,  as 
well as in the European Economic Area (EEA) countries Iceland, Liechtenstein and Norway. 
By  law,  a  company  can  only  start  to  market  a  medicine  once  it  has  received  a  marketing 
authorisation. 

84