COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT EXECUTIVE SUMMARY OF THE IMPACT ASSESSMENT Accompanying the document Proposal for a 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) 259 final   COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT  EXECUTIVE SUMMARY OF THE IMPACT ASSESSMENT  Accompanying the document  Proposal for a 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) 261 final}  
 
 
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY SHEET 

Impact  assessment  on  a  proposal  for  a  regulation  of  the  European  Parliament  and  of  the 
Council on establishing an EU certification system for aviation screening equipment 

What is the problem and why is it a problem at EU level?   

A. Need for action 

This  initiative  addresses  the  lack  of  an  internal  market  for  aviation  screening  equipment. 
This causes inefficiency and impedes the competitiveness of European manufacturers of 
such equipment. 

Without  a  policy  initiative  to  support  the  competitiveness  of  the  European  manufacturers 
their market shares on the global market are bound to decrease.  

What should be achieved? 

The proper functioning of the EU internal market for aviation screening equipment and an 
increase in the global competitiveness of the EU companies.  

What is the value added of action at the EU level (subsidiarity)? 

Member States have, with the Commission, partially addressed this problem through a non-
binding  cooperation  agreement  the  development  of  common  testing  methodologies.  This 
agreement  does  however  not  issue  certifications.  There  are  no  indications  that  Member 
States  plan  a  legally  binding  mutually  agreed  certification  system.  EU  action  is  thus 
necessary.  EU  action  would  add  value  as  manufacturers  would  benefit  from  an  internal 
market and improve their global competitiveness. 

What are the various options to achieve the objectives? Is there a preferred option or 
not? If not, why? 

B. Solutions 

Five policy options were developed:  

1.  "Baseline  scenario",  the  Commission  would  not  launch  any  initiative.  2.  A 
recommendation to Member States. 3. "Legislation" - A legislative proposal which would 
allow producers to market and sell their products throughout the Union, once certified in one 
Member State: 3.1. The "old approach", 3.2. The "new approach", 3.3. The "centralised 
approach". 

The  preferred  option  is  3.1  “old  approach”,  which  would  have  significant  positive 
impacts, with broad support among all stakeholders. 

What are different stakeholders' views? Who supports which option? 

Stakeholder groups did not support options 1 and 2. The majority of stakeholders preferred 

2 

 
 
option 3.3 closely followed by 3.1 and 3.2. Stakeholder groups gave a largely homogeneous 
reply on these questions.  

C. Impacts of the preferred option 

What are the benefits of the preferred option (if any, otherwise main ones)?  

Certification would be done in only one Member State. The proposed policy action should: 
raise  EU  market  efficiency,  improve  the  free  movement  of  goods,  improve  the  choice  of 
customers,  reduce  the  administrative  burden,  improve  time  to  market  and  improve  the 
competitiveness of European manufacturers. This should lead to an overall increase of sales 
of  EU  manufacturers  in  third  countries  and  increase  overall  employment  figures  in  the 
sector.  

What are the costs of the preferred option (if any, otherwise main ones)?  

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,  leading  to  a 
reduction  of  income  for  the  laboratories,  which  should  however  be  lower  than  the  costs 
savings of the producers.  

What are the impacts on SMEs and competitiveness? 

The  current  legal  uncertainty  of  the  current  certification  system  increases  the  development 
costs  as  well  as  the  time  to  market  of  aviation  screening  equipment.  Given  the  limited 
resources available to an SME, this is a proportionally greater problem for it than for a larger 
company. The positive impacts of option 3.1 are therefore expected to be higher for SMEs. 

Will there be significant impacts on national budgets and administrations?  

No 

Will there be other significant impacts?  

No 

D. Follow up 

When will the policy be reviewed?  

Every five years. 

3