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 on the labelling of tyres with respect to fuel efficiency and other essential parameters and repealing Regulation (EC) No 1222/2009
Date: 2018-05-17
Institutions: Directorate-General for Energy, European Commission
Subjects: European standard, consumer information, energy consumption, energy efficiency, energy saving, environmental protection, labelling, motor fuel, pneumatic tyre

EN 

  EN 

   EUROPEAN COMMISSION  Brussels, 17.5.2018 SWD(2018) 188 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  on the labelling of tyres with respect to fuel efficiency and other essential parameters and repealing Regulation (EC) No 1222/2009 {COM(2018) 296 final} - {SEC(2018) 234 final} - {SWD(2018) 189 final}  
 
 
Impact assessment on the review of Regulation (EC) No 1222/2009 of the European Parliament and of the 
Council on the labelling of tyres with respect to fuel efficiency and other essential parameters 

Executive summary sheet 

Why? What is the problem being addressed?  

A. Need for action 

Transport represents more than 30 % of energy consumption in the EU. Road transport is responsible for 
about 22 % of the EU’s total greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. In its 2016 Communication on A European 
strategy  for  low-emission  mobility,  the  Commission  stated  that,  by  2050,  GHG  emissions  from  transport 
should be at least 60 % lower than in 1990. Therefore, the Third Mobility Package will include initiatives to 
reduce emissions from cars and lorries, to improve the safety of road transport and to reduce pollution. It 
will also contribute to reducing the EU’s dependence on energy imports. 

Vehicle  tyres  affect  fuel  consumption  (and  thus  GHG  emissions),  noise  and  safety.  A  stocktake  of  the 
current  Tyre  Labelling  Regulation  showed  that  it  is  not  sufficiently  achieving  its  aim  of  increasing  the 
environmental efficiency of road transport by promoting fuel-efficient and safe tyres with low noise levels; 
this is due to: 

 
 
 

the low visibility, and low public awareness, of tyre labelling; 
compliance problems and inadequate enforcement of the rules by Member States; and 
outdated performance classes and inaccurate and incomplete information. 

What is this initiative expected to achieve? 

Better-informed  consumers,  updated  and  more  precise 
compliance/enforcement. 

technical 

requirements  and 

improved 

These improvements would lead to safer and quieter tyres that save energy, lower  fuel costs and reduce 
GHG emissions. 

What is the added value of action at EU level?  

Action at EU level ensures: 

- 

- 

the same, harmonised information for end-users, in whichever Member State they purchase their 
tyres; and 
reduced costs for suppliers, who are able to market their tyres throughout the EU with only one 
label. 

These advantages ultimately strengthen competitiveness of the EU tyre industry and facilitate the trade of 
tyres  within  the  internal  market,  also  benefiting  consumers  in  terms  of  lower  overall  costs  and  a  wider 
range of products. 

For action at EU level to be effective, the market surveillance effort must be consistent across the EU to 
support the internal market and incentivise businesses to invest resources in designing, making and selling 
energy-efficient tyres. 

B. Solutions 

What legislative and non-legislative policy options have been considered? Is there a preferred 
choice or not? Why? 

Four policy options have been considered: 

1.  no action; 
2.  non-legislative  option:  information  campaigns,  joint  enforcement  actions,  mandate  to  revise  the 

3. 

testing methods; 
legislative option: amending the current Regulation and its annexes to broaden its scope, provide 
for the labelling of tyres sold on the internet, re-adjust the label classes and add new parameters, 
improve testing methods and provide for a tyre registration database; and 

4.  a  combination  of  options  2  and  3:  this  is  the  preferred  option.  It  achieves  significantly  better 
impacts  in  terms  of  energy  savings  and  GHG  emissions,  better  market  turnover,  jobs,  reduced 
costs for tyre users/purchasers, and safety and environmental factors. 

2 

 
 
 
Who supports which option? 

Neither the consumer survey conducted as part of the review nor the open public consultation (OPC) asked 
specifically about the options. However: 

 
 
 

only 41 % of car owners were aware of the tyre label, although 90 % considered it useful; 
76 % of respondents thought the label should be provided with all tyre sales; and 
70 % of respondents supported a registration database. 

The  OPC  revealed  a  consensus  on  the  need  to  improve  awareness  of  the  label  through  awareness 
campaigns, mandatory online labelling and the labelling of tyres sold originally with new cars. To improve 
consumer confidence, respondents agreed on increasing market surveillance and creating a better platform 
for the authorities to enforce and coordinate activities. 

C. Impacts of the preferred option 

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

It is estimated that policy option 4 would result in the following annual savings by 2030: 

 
 
 

 
 
 

129 PJ fuel savings, resulting in EUR 7 billion savings in energy costs; 
10 Mt fewer CO2 emissions; 
EUR 2.8 billion net costs savings for consumers ('energy cost savings' minus 'additional purchase 
costs'); 
increased turnover of EUR 9 billion in manufacturing, wholesale and retail sectors; 
reductions in road accident fatalities and injuries; and 
reductions in noise-related fatalities and injuries. 

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

Administrative and compliance costs are approximately as follows: 

 
 
 
 

for suppliers: EUR 127 million per year; one-off costs of EUR 40 million; 
for distributors: EUR 50 million per year; one-off costs of EUR 30 million; 
for Member States: EUR 20 000 per year; one-off costs of EUR 13 million; and  
for the Commission: EUR 0.5-1 million per year; one-off costs of EUR 2.1 million. 

Given  that  compliance  is  mandatory,  suppliers  and  distributors  should  be  able  to  pass  these  costs  on  to 
consumers, for whom they would be more than offset by the financial benefits. There are no other negative 
impacts. 

How will businesses, SMEs and micro-enterprises be affected?  

There  are no  SME  tyre  producers  in  the  EU.  SMEs  that  retail/import  tyres could  face  additional costs,  in 
particular  from  the  obligation  to  show  the  label  when  tyres  are  offered  for  sale  online.  However,  the 
proposal does not change the coverage of the current Regulation in terms of products or create obligations 
to produce new information. Therefore, it is not expected to give rise to significant implementation costs. As 
end-users of tyres, SMEs will benefit from reduced costs over the tyres’ lifetime and increased safety for 
their employees. 

Will there be significant impacts on national budgets and administrations? 

There are no additional impacts on national budgets/administrations other than those shown above. 

Will there be other significant impacts?  

Yes, it is expected that the preferred option will have a positive impact on competitiveness and innovation 
in the EU tyre market (see section 6.4 of the IA report). 

When will the policy be reviewed? 

A clause would be included stipulating a review six years after adoption. 

D. Follow up 

3