COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT IMPACT ASSESSMENT REPORT Accompanying the document Proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council on the approval and market surveillance of non-road mobile machinery circulating on public roads and amending Regulation (EU) 2019/1020
Date: 2023-03-30
Institutions: Directorate-General for Internal Market, Industry, Entrepreneurship and SMEs, European Commission
Subjects: EC conformity marking, approval, machinery, market approval, market supervision, road network, road safety, technical specification, technical standard

EN 

  EN 

   EUROPEAN COMMISSION  Brussels, 30.3.2023  SWD(2023) 65 final  COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT  IMPACT ASSESSMENT REPORT  Accompanying the document  Proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council   on the approval and market surveillance of non-road mobile machinery circulating on public roads and amending Regulation (EU) 2019/1020 {COM(2023) 178 final} - {SEC(2023) 145 final} - {SWD(2023) 64 final} - {SWD(2023) 66 final}  
 
 
Table of contents 

1. 

INTRODUCTION: POLITICAL AND LEGAL CONTEXT ............................................................... 4 

1.1.  What is non-road mobile machinery? ................................................................ 4 
1.2.  Political and legal context ................................................................................. 4 
1.3.  The non-road mobile machinery sector ............................................................. 8 

2. 

PROBLEM DEFINITION .................................................................................................................... 8 

2.1.  What is/are the problems? ................................................................................. 8 
2.2.  What are the problem drivers? ........................................................................ 19 
2.3.  How will the problem evolve? ........................................................................ 20 

3.  WHY SHOULD THE EU ACT? ........................................................................................................ 20 

3.1.  Legal basis ....................................................................................................... 20 
3.2.  Subsidiarity: Necessity of EU action ............................................................... 20 
3.3.  Subsidiarity: Added value of EU action .......................................................... 21 

4.  OBJECTIVES: WHAT IS TO BE ACHIEVED? ............................................................................... 21 

4.1.  General objectives ........................................................................................... 21 
4.2.  Specific objectives ........................................................................................... 21 

5.  WHAT ARE THE AVAILABLE POLICY OPTIONS? .................................................................... 22 

5.1.  What is the baseline from which options are assessed? .................................. 23 
5.2.  Description of the policy options .................................................................... 24 
5.3.  Options discarded at an early stage ................................................................. 27 

6.  WHAT ARE THE IMPACTS OF THE POLICY OPTIONS? ........................................................... 28 

6.1.  Policy Option 1.a – Type-approval ................................................................. 29 
6.1.1 Economic impacts ............................................................................................ 29 
6.1.1.1  Impact  on  manufacturers  and  distributors  (large  enterprises  and 

SMEs) .............................................................................................................. 29 
6.1.1.2 Impact on rental companies and end users .................................................... 30 
6.1.1.3 Impact on Member States authorities ............................................................ 31 
6.1.1.4 Impact on technical services .......................................................................... 32 
6.1.1.5 Impact on competitiveness ............................................................................ 32 
6.1.1.6 Impact on single market ................................................................................ 32 
6.1.2 Social impacts ................................................................................................... 33 
6.1.2.1 Road Safety ................................................................................................... 33 
6.1.3 Environmental impacts ..................................................................................... 33 
6.2.  Policy Option 1.b – Simplified type-approval ................................................. 34 
6.2.1 Economic impacts ............................................................................................ 34 
6.2.1.1  Impact  on  manufacturers  and  distributors  (large  enterprises  and 

SMEs) .............................................................................................................. 34 
6.2.1.2 Impact on rental companies and end users .................................................... 35 
6.2.1.3 Impact on Member States authorities ............................................................ 35 
6.2.1.4 Impact on technical services .......................................................................... 35 

 
 
6.2.1.5 Impact on competitiveness ............................................................................ 36 
6.2.1.6 Impact on single market ................................................................................ 36 
6.2.2.1 Road Safety ................................................................................................... 36 
6.2.3 Environmental impacts ..................................................................................... 36 
6.3.  Policy Option 2 – CE Marking (New approach type of legislation) ............... 36 
6.3.1 Economic impacts ............................................................................................ 37 
6.3.1.1  Impact  on  manufacturers  and  distributors  (large  enterprises  and 

SMEs) .............................................................................................................. 37 
6.3.1.2 Impact on rental companies and end users .................................................... 38 
6.3.1.3 Impact on Member States authorities ............................................................ 38 
6.3.1.4 Impact on technical services .......................................................................... 39 
6.3.1.5 Impact on competitiveness ............................................................................ 39 
6.3.1.6 Impact on single market ................................................................................ 39 
6.3.2 Social impacts ................................................................................................... 39 
6.3.2.1 Road Safety ................................................................................................... 39 
6.3.3 Environmental impacts ..................................................................................... 40 
6.4.  Directive or regulation ..................................................................................... 40 
6.5.  Mandatory versus optional .............................................................................. 40 
6.6. 
Include (or not) towed equipment ................................................................... 43 
6.7.  Limit (or not) the scope to a maximum design speed up to 40 Km/h ............. 43 

7.  HOW DO THE OPTIONS COMPARE? ............................................................................................ 45 

8. 

PREFERRED OPTION ...................................................................................................................... 52 

8.1.  Simplified 

type-approval,  mandatory, 

covering 

self-propelled 

machinery only and with a maximum design speed limit up to 40 km/h ........ 52 
8.2.  Choice of the instrument: a regulation. ........................................................... 53 

9.  HOW WILL ACTUAL IMPACTS BE MONITORED AND EVALUATED? .................................. 54 

ANNEX 1: PROCEDURAL INFORMATION ............................................................................................ 56 

1. 

LEAD DG, DECIDE PLANNING/CWP REFERENCES .................................................................. 56 

2.  ORGANISATION AND TIMING ...................................................................................................... 56 

3. 

4. 

CONSULTATION OF THE RSB....................................................................................................... 56 

EVIDENCE, SOURCES AND QUALITY ......................................................................................... 58 

ANNEX 2: STAKEHOLDER CONSULTATION ....................................................................................... 61 

ANNEX 3: WHO IS AFFECTED AND HOW? .......................................................................................... 74 

1. 

2. 

PRACTICAL IMPLICATIONS OF THE INITIATIVE..................................................................... 74 

SUMMARY OF COSTS AND BENEFITS ....................................................................................... 74 

ANNEX 4: ANALYTICAL METHODS ..................................................................................................... 76 

ANNEX 5: VEHICLE FEATURES ............................................................................................................. 77 

2 

 
 
 
 
Glossary 

Term or acronym 

Meaning or definition 

Certificate of Conformity 

Conformity Assessment 

EU 

Homologation 

Motor vehicle registration  

NRMM 

PRODCOM 

SMEs 

Type-Approval 

A Certificate of Conformity is a statement by the 
manufacturer that the vehicle conforms to EU type-approval 
requirements 

Conformity assessment is the name given to the processes that 
are used to demonstrate that a product, service or 
management system or body meets specified requirements 

European Union 

Homologation is the granting of approval by an official 
authority 

Motor vehicle registration is the registration of a motor 
vehicle with a government authority, either compulsory or 
otherwise. The purpose of motor vehicle registration is to 
establish a link between a vehicle and an owner or user of the 
vehicle. This link might be used for taxation or crime 
detection purposes. While almost all motor vehicles are 
uniquely identified by a vehicle identification number, only 
registered vehicles display a vehicle registration plate and 
carry a vehicle registration certificate 

Non-road mobile machinery 

Statistics on the production of manufactured goods 

Small and Medium Enterprises 

Type approval or certificate of conformity is granted to a 
product that meets a minimum set of regulatory, technical and 
safety requirements. Generally, type approval is required 
before a product is allowed to be sold in a particular country, 
so the requirements for a given product will vary around the 
world. Processes and certifications known as type approval 
are generally called homologation. 

EU Type-Approval Category M 

Vehicles carrying passengers 

EU Type-Approval Category N 

Vehicles carrying goods 

EU Type-Approval Category O 

Trailers 

EU Type-Approval Category L 

2- and 3-wheel vehicles and quadricycles 

EU Type-Approval Category T 

Wheeled agricultural and forestry tractors 

EU Type-Approval Category C 

Tracked agricultural and forestry tractors 

EU Type-Approval Category R 

Agricultural trailers 

EU Type-Approval Category S 

Agricultural interchangeable towed equipment 

3 

 
 
 
 
1. 

INTRODUCTION: POLITICAL AND LEGAL CONTEXT 

1.1.  What is non-road mobile machinery? 

Non-road  mobile  machinery  (hereafter 
'NRMM’,  or  simply  ‘non-road  mobile 
machinery’)  means  any  self-propelled  or  towed  vehicle  machinery  that  is  designed  and 
constructed  specifically  to  perform  work  and  which,  because  of  its  construction 
characteristics,  is  not  suitable  for  carrying  passengers  or  for  transporting  commercial 
goods.  In  this  impact  assessment,  tractors  are  not  considered  non-road  mobile 
machinery1.  

In  the  execution  of  their  work,  these  machines  are  often  required  to  move  around  and 
may,  from  time  to  time,  need  to  circulate  on  the  road  to  go  from  one  workplace  to 
another. 

The  main  types  of  non-road  mobile  machinery  belong  to  the  agricultural  and  forestry, 
construction,  garden,  material  handling  and  municipal  equipment  sectors.  Non-road 
mobile machinery may have a huge variety of designs, depending on the intended use of 
the machinery. Some examples2 of non-road mobile machinery are: 

  Agricultural and forestry: Combine harvesters, forage harvesters, sprayers; 
  Construction:  Loaders,  excavators/diggers,  dumpers,  telescopic  loaders,  mobile 

cranes; 

  Garden: Ride-on mowers; 
  Material handling: Forklifts, side loaders, tele handlers; 
  Municipal: Street sweepers, lifting platforms, snow cleaners. 

Figure 1. Main non-road mobile machinery sectors 

  Agricultural          Construction  

       Garden 

     Material handling       Municipal  

1.2. 

Political and legal context 

Over the last decades, substantive efforts have been made to harmonise different aspects 
affecting  non-road mobile machinery, such as the product  safety3, pollutant emissions4, 

1 In this impact assessment, agricultural tractors are not considered non-road mobile machinery since their road safety 
requirements are covered by a separate legal act, namely Regulation (EU) No 167/2013 of the European Parliament 
and of the Council of 5 February 2013 on the approval and market surveillance of agricultural and forestry vehicles. 

2 List not exhaustive. 
3 Directive 2006/42/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 May 2006 on machinery, OJ L 157, 

9.6.2006, p. 24–86. 

4 Regulation (EU) 2016/1628 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 14 September 2016 on requirements 
relating to gaseous and particulate pollutant emission limits and type-approval for internal combustion engines for 
non-road mobile machinery, OJ L 252, 16.9.2016, p. 53–117. 

4 

 
 
 
 
                                                           
noise emissions5 as well as electromagnetic disturbances generated by these machines6. 
However,  no  harmonisation  exists  as  regards  the  technical  requirements  for  the  road 
circulation of non-road mobile machinery. 

The Machinery Directive7 is the regulatory basis governing the safety of non-road mobile 
machinery placed on the EU market. It requires that non-road mobile machinery placed 
on  the  single  market  meet  the  essential  health  and  safety  requirements  set  out  in  the 
Annex  I  to  the  Directive.  These  requirements  cover  the  off-road  travelling  function  of 
non-road  mobile  machinery  such  as  slowing  down,  stopping,  braking,  driving  seats, 
restraint  systems,  etc.  However,  the  essential  health  and  safety  requirements  in  the 
Machinery Directive are designed to cover the occupational safety, i.e. when machinery 
is at work, but do not cover the safety aspects related to the circulation of this machinery 
on public roads8. 

In  EU  law,  the  technical  safety  of  vehicles,  including  the  requirements  for  road 
circulation  are  harmonised  and  regulated  in  vehicle  type-approval  legislation  such  as 
Regulation (EU) 2018/858 on the approval and market surveillance of motor vehicles and 
their trailers9, or Regulation (EU) No 167/2013 on the approval and market surveillance 
of agricultural and forestry vehicles10. However, these legislative acts do not cover non-
road  mobile  machinery,  with  the  following  exceptions:  categories  R  (agricultural 
interchangeable  towed  equipment),  for  which 
trailers)  and  S  (agricultural 
manufacturers can apply for road approval under Regulation (EU) No 167/2013 on an 
optional  basis,  and  most  of  the  towed  equipment  today  can  be  homologated  under 
category  O  (trailers).  All  other  mobile  machines  are  not  covered  by  the  type-
approval framework. This  leaves  a gap in  the  single market  as manufacturers need to 
comply  with  different  technical  rules  and  conformity  assessment  procedures  set  up  by 
each EU country.  

For many years, the industry has informed the Commission about the administrative and 
cost  burdens  manufacturers  are  facing  due  to  non-harmonisation  of  road  approval 
requirements for non-road mobile machinery.11 

The Commission proposal for a Tractor Regulation in 201212 included a category type of 
agriculture  non-road  mobile  machinery.  However,  during  the  legislative  process,  this 

5 Directive 2000/14/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 8 May 2000 on the approximation of the laws 
of the Member States relating to the noise emission in the environment by equipment for use outdoors, OJ L 162, 
3.7.2000, p. 1–78. 

6 Directive 2014/30/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 February 2014 on the harmonisation of 

the laws of the Member States relating to electromagnetic compatibility, OJ L 96, 29.3.2014, p. 79–106. 

7 Directive 2006/42/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 May 2006 on machinery, OJ L 157, 

9.6.2006, p. 24–86. 

8 The European Commission adopted a proposal for a new Regulation on Machinery Products on 21 April 2021, which 
will replace the existing Machinery Directive. Like the current directive, the proposed Regulation will not cover the 
safety aspects related to the circulation of non-road mobile machinery on public roads. The proposed Regulation is 
undergoing inter-institutional negotiations and can be found at: https://ec.europa.eu/docsroom/documents/45508. 

9 Regulation (EU) 2018/858 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 30 May 2018 on the approval and 

market surveillance of motor vehicles and their trailers, and of systems, components and separate technical units 
intended for such vehicles, OJ L 151, 14.6.2018, p. 1–218. 

10 Regulation (EU) No 167/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 5 February 2013 on the approval 

and market surveillance of agricultural and forestry vehicles, OJ L 60, 2.3.2013, p. 1–51 

11 Industry position available at: https://ec.europa.eu/info/law/better-regulation/have-your-say/initiatives/1198-Road-

circulation-requirements-for-mobile-machinery/feedback_en?p_id=131560&page=1. 

12 COM/2010/0395. 

5 

 
                                                           
category  was  disregarded.  Instead,  Recital  6  of  Regulation  (EU)  167/201313  was 
introduced,  asking  the  Commission  to  carry  out  a  study  to  identify  policy  options 
for  harmonising  road  approval  requirements  for  non-road  mobile  machinery.  In 
reply,  the  Commission  launched  an  impact  assessment  study,  which  was  finalised  in 
2016 (the ‘impact assessment study’14). This study focused on the direct costs faced by 
stakeholders in  compliance with  the different  requirements in  the EU countries and did 
not  provide  enough  reliable  information  on  the  indirect  costs  incurred  by  the  different 
stakeholders,  despite  these  costs  being  significant.  As  a  result,  the  Commission 
commissioned a second study focusing on the costs and benefits of the different policy 
options that are the subject of this impact assessment. This second study was finalised in 
2019  (the  ‘costs  and  benefits  study’15).  Both  studies  are  contributors  to  this  impact 
assessment report, together with public and targeted consultations, workshops and other 
meetings  held  with  stakeholders  including  Member  State  authorities,  technical  services 
for road approvals, manufacturers and distributors, rental companies and individual end 
users (see Annex 2 to this report for more details). 

The  following  table  presents  the  existing  legal  frameworks  as  regards  vehicle  safety 
legislation: 

Table 1. Vehicle safety legal framework 

Category descriptions: M: vehicles carrying passengers; N: vehicles carrying goods16; O: Trailers; L: 2- 
and 3-wheel vehicles and quadricycles; T: wheeled agricultural and forestry tractors; C: tracked 
agricultural and forestry tractors; R: agricultural trailers; S: agricultural interchangeable towed 
equipment. 17  

13 Regulation (EU) No 167/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 5 February 2013 on the approval 

and market surveillance of agricultural and forestry vehicles, OJ L 60, 2.3.2013, p. 1–51. 

14 “Study on the EU harmonisation of the requirements for the road circulation of mobile machinery”. ECORYS, 2016. 
Available at: https://single-market-economy.ec.europa.eu/sectors/mechanical-engineering/mobile-machinery_en. 
15 “Cost/benefit analysis study for Impact Assessment on road circulation of Non-road mobile machinery”, PPMI, 

2019. Available at: https://op.europa.eu/en/publication-detail/-/publication/c0d598e2-17d8-11ea-8c1f-
01aa75ed71a1/language-en. 

16 Vehicles built on a truck platform are truck-like, and as such, are covered by the category ‘N’ type-approval 

legislation, since speed and characteristics are those of a truck. They are therefore out of the scope of this initiative. 

17 Available at: https://ec.europa.eu/growth/sectors/automotive/vehicle-categories. 

6 

 
 
                                                           
Type-approval  legislation  and  the  Machinery  Directive  are  fundamentally  different 
frameworks for product safety legislation. The type-approval framework (in green in the 
above table) is  sometimes referred to  as  the ‘old approach’ legislation, where technical 
specifications are embedded in the legal text itself. Type-approval describes the process 
applied by national  authorities to  certify that a  model of a vehicle meets all EU safety, 
environmental  and  conformity  of  production  requirements  before  authorising  it  to  be 
placed on the EU market. In practice, the manufacturer makes available a number of pre-
production vehicles that are equal to the final product. These prototypes are used to test 
compliance  with  EU  safety  rules  (installation  of  lights,  braking  performance,  stability 
control, etc.). If all relevant requirements are met, the national authority delivers an EU 
vehicle type-approval to the manufacturer authorising the sale of the vehicle type in the 
EU. The approval granted by one Member State authority is valid throughout  the entire 
EU (i.e., certified once, accepted everywhere in the EU). Every vehicle produced is then 
accompanied by a certificate of conformity, in which the manufacturer certifies that the 
vehicle  corresponds  to  the  approved  type.  Based  on  this  document,  the  vehicle  can  be 
registered anywhere in Europe. 

In  contrast,  the  Machinery  Directive  (in  orange  in  the  above  table)  follows  the  ‘new 
approach’ principles of EU legislation, where the legal text only lays down the essential 
health-and-safety requirements to be complied with by the product, without prescribing 
any  specific  technical  solution  for  complying  with  those  requirements.  This  creates  a 
technologically  neutral  legal  act  that  allows  manufacturers  to  develop  new  innovative 
designs  to  comply  with  the  legislative  requirements.  To  help  manufacturers  prove  that 
their  machinery  conforms  to  the  requirements,  harmonised  standards  whose  references 
are  published  in  the  Official  Journal  of  the  European  Union  provide  a  presumption  of 
conformity  with  the  requirements  in  the  legal  act.  However,  their  use  always  remains 
voluntary. 

In the absence of harmonised rules, the principle of mutual recognition allows for the free 
movement  of  goods  in  the  single  market.  Mutual  recognition  guarantees  that  any  good 
lawfully sold in one EU country can be sold in another Member State without the need 
for dedicated EU harmonising legislation. However, the principle of mutual recognition 
is  hard  to  apply  in  highly  technical  and  regulated  areas  of  the  economy.  The  strong 
diversity of national rules, the big variety of machinery products, the sensitive political 
nature of road safety for Member States and the strong burden of proof with respect to 
the demonstration of technical equivalence, all prevent mutual recognition from being an 
adequate alternative to EU harmonising legislation (see sections 2 and 5).  

Both  the  Type-Approval  legislation  and  the  Machinery  Directive  are  frameworks 
regulating product safety features and do not affect other aspects that may be regulated 
with the aim to ensure safety on the roads, such as road infrastructure rules, circulation 
rules  (speed  limits,  prohibition  to  circulate  in  certain  roads,  etc.),  driver  licences  and 
other. 

This  initiative  is  consistent  with  the  Commission’s  New  Legislative  Framework18  and 
policy on the Single Market (Single Market Act)19.  

18 To improve the internal market for goods and strengthen the conditions for placing a wide range of products on the 
EU market, the new legislative framework was adopted in 2008. It is a package of measures that aim to improve 
market surveillance and boost the quality of conformity assessments. It also clarifies the use of CE marking and 
creates a toolbox of measures for use in product legislation.https://ec.europa.eu/growth/single-market/goods/new-
legislative-framework_en. 

7 

 
                                                           
1.3.  The non-road mobile machinery sector 

The non-road mobile machinery industry cannot be statistically defined as a ‘sector’, as it 
consists  of  a  range  of  products  that  cover  different  sectors  such  as  agricultural  (excl. 
tractors), construction, garden, material handling and municipal equipment. 

The overall non-road mobile machinery EU production value can be estimated at €12.5 
billion, based on 2019 data20. The covid-19 pandemic in 2020 affected the sector, which 
presented lower production figures. Nonetheless, the industry showed a relatively prompt 
recovery from the crisis in 2021. In any case, production figures for 2019 are considered 
more  representative  for  the  sector  than  those  for  2020.  Annual  production  figures  for 
each  category  of  self-propelled  and  towed  non-road  mobile  machinery  in  2019  are 
reported in Annex 4.  

The  production  of  non-road  mobile  machinery  in  the  EU  is  highly  concentrated  in  a 
small  number  of  EU  countries.  Almost  80%  of  the  production  is  in  just  six  EU 
countries: Germany (37 %), Italy (11%), France (10%) and Finland, Sweden and Austria 
(7% each). 

The production of non-road mobile machinery in the EU is carried out by both large and 
small manufacturers. Like in other segments of the machinery industry, a small number 
of  large  companies  control  large  shares  of  the  market,  while  SMEs  tend  to  be  more 
specialised  in  niche  markets.  An  estimation  of  size  distribution  points  to  SMEs 
accounting  for  98%  of  all  companies  registered.  Nevertheless,  large  enterprises 
contribute 82% of the sector’s revenues and 70% of employment21. 

The EU non-road mobile machinery sector is a significant producer and strong exporter 
of  non-road  mobile  machinery  globally.  Out  of  the  annual  production  value,  42% 
exported to non-EU countries and 54% is traded intra-EU, hence only 4% is sold in the 
EU  country  where  production  takes  place22.  Thus,  non-road  mobile  machinery 
producers are extremely reliant on road approval in other countries. 

2.  PROBLEM DEFINITION 

2.1.  What is/are the problems? 

The  lack  of  harmonisation  leads  to  considerable  differences  across  EU  countries  in 
technical  requirements  and  approval  procedures,  and  therefore  harms  the  correct 
functioning  of  the  single  market.  Some  EU  countries  have  a  conformity  assessment 
procedure for the entire non-road mobile machinery similar to a type-approval with third 
party testing (e.g., Austria, Germany, Italy, Portugal, Slovak Republic, Spain; France for 
agricultural  self-propelled  machinery  only,  but  not  for  construction  machinery).  Other 
countries  have  lighter  processes,  based  on  documentation  from  the  manufacturer  (e.g., 
Belgium,  Luxembourg,  Greece),  on  internal  production  control  (Estonia),  on  CE 

19 http://ec.europa.eu/growth/single-market. 
20 Eurostat 2019 data: Sold production, exports and imports by PRODCOM list (NACE Rev. 2) - annual data [DS-

066341]. 

21 ESTAT 2018: Annual enterprise statistics by size class for special aggregates of activities (NACE Rev. 2), C283 and 

C289 [SBS_SC_SCA_R2__custom_1485219] 

22 Eurostat 2019 data: Sold production, exports, and imports by PRODCOM list (NACE Rev. 2) - annual data [DS-

066341]. 

8 

 
                                                                                                                                                                            
Declaration  of  Conformity  under  the  Machinery  Directive  (Finland,  Latvia)  or  on  in-
house certification (Sweden). 23 

The  most  demanding  requirements  categories  include  vehicle  performance  and  control 
(especially  braking  and  max.  speed),  vehicle  dimensions  (max.  weight/length/width), 
road  surface  protection  (max.  axle  loading,  max.  surface  contact  pressure),  vehicle 
awareness  (in  particular,  lighting,  signalling  and  reflectors),  operator  vision  (including 
operator field of vision and mirrors)  and vehicle design (mechanical towing couplings). 
The following table provides a detailed overview on each category of requirements.  

Table 3. Vehicle features relevant for road safety 

Vehicle features 

Vehicle detailed features 

Vehicle masses, 
dimensions and structure 
Vehicle performance & 
control 
Road surface protection  Maximum axle loading, maximum surface contact pressure, tyres and tracks 
Vehicle awareness 

Maximum authorized mass, maximum length /width /height, vehicle structure 
integrity, swinging upper structure 
Braking system, steering system, turning radius, maximum design speed, 
speedometer 

Operator vision 

Vehicle components 
related to functional 
safety 

Audible warning device, lighting, signalling installation, side reflectors, 
rotating beacon, external sound level 
Field of vision, windscreen wipers, rear-view mirrors, sun visor, glazing and 
installation 
Vehicle structure integrity, heating /ventilation/filtration systems, mechanical 
couplings/towing devices, fuel tank pressurization and leakage, guards and 
fenders, operator controls related to circulation, unauthorised use prevention 

It is estimated that about half of current national technical requirements mainly translate 
into  high  administrative  hindrance  for  non-road  mobile  machinery  manufacturers,  as 
the technical differences are minor, but manufacturers need to keep track of the different 
requirements between Member States24. For example, there are different requirements for 
markings across Member States. These markings come in different sizes, colours, shapes. 
The manufacturer needs to ensure that the right markings are installed in the right place 
on  the  machines.  This  procedure  is  not  technically  challenging,  but  requires  additional 
logistics,  proper  sequencing  and  high  doses  of  precision.  In  addition,  technical 
requirements  also  can  be  contradictory  in  areas  such  as  markings,  lights  or  warnings, 
where  the  requirements  in  terms  of  position,  colour  or  shape  may  be  different  and 
overlap, creating contradictory requirements. 

The  other  half  of  the  current  national  technical  requirements  present  a  more  technical 
challenge for implementation. For example, certain diverging requirements such as those 
related to braking are technically difficult to implement and require much more effort as 
they  may  require  changes  to  the  core  design  of  the  vehicle  in  question.25  On  complex 
technical requirements, what often happens is that some may be  more stringent, rather 
than  contradictory.  For  instance,  on  vehicle  performance  and  control  braking  systems, 

23 Working document ‘NRMM-2019.03 MS Targeted Consultation Feedback’ summarising the findings of the targeted 
consultation done by the Commission on differences between member states approval for the road circulation of non-
road mobile machinery. Available in the library section of the CIRCABC interest group “New legislative initiative - 
Road circulation approval requirements for non-road mobile machinery”. 

24 “Study on the EU harmonisation of the requirements for the road circulation of mobile machinery”. Page 36.  
25 “Study on the EU harmonisation of the requirements for the road circulation of mobile machinery”. Page 36. 

9 

 
 
                                                           
some  countries  require  two  braking  systems,  whereas  other  countries  require  three 
braking systems (service, parking, and emergency braking).26 

Due to  the lack of harmonisation at  EU level,  individual  countries have issued specific 
requirements to address safety of non-road mobile machinery circulating on the road, and 
this  has  led  to  a  situation  where  this  kind  of  equipment  may  not  be  developed  and 
produced in a single version to fulfil those requirements. Such non-harmonisation leads 
to  entry  barriers  to  EU  markets,  and  increased  direct  and  indirect  costs  for 
manufacturers.  In  fact,  the  multiplication  of  different  requirements  in  the  various  EU 
countries obliges manufacturers to produce many versions of the same machine model in 
order  to  sell  it  within  the  EU.  The  effort  to  get  familiarised  and  comply  with  multiple 
rules is proportionally bigger for SMEs than for large companies, particularly for those 
SMEs producing low volume but highly specialized export-oriented machines27. 

Depending on the market situation, these costs may be passed on towards downstream 
clients, preventing a level playing field for downstream clients, who do not have access 
to the same variety of products28 and at the same prices across the EU29.  

In  addition,  also  the  use  of  non-road  mobile  machinery  is  reduced  due  to  national 
requirements.  For  example,  rural  contractors  or  construction  companies,  which  provide 
services  in  multiple  EU  countries,  may  not  be  able  to  use  their  non-road  mobile 
machinery across Member State borders, due to the costs and regulatory requirements 
associated with the need to adapt to different rules for circulation in border countries.  

legal 
Finally,  feedback  from  stakeholders  suggests 
requirements for the road approval result in differences in the level of safety requested 
between EU countries. Germany, Italy and France can be considered not only the main 
producers of non-road mobile machinery but also the most demanding Member States in 

the  different  national 

that 

26 Working document ‘NRMM-2019.06 Technical requirements’ summarising the findings of the targeted consultation 
done by the Commission on differences between member states requirements for the road circulation of non-road 
mobile machinery. Available in the library section of the CIRCABC interest group “New legislative initiative - Road 
circulation approval requirements for non-road mobile machinery”. 

27 Inception Impact Assessment Feedback. Accessible from: https://ec.europa.eu/info/law/better-regulation/have-your-

say/initiatives/1198-Road-circulation-requirements-for-mobile-machinery/F8305_en. 

28 Anecdotal evidence collected in the impact assessment study carried out in 2016, suggested that this is not only the 
case in small markets (e.g., the Baltic States), but that this problem can also extend to larger countries, e.g., Spain or 
Italy which may be less interesting for a particular niche product. For example, it means that a beet or potato farmer 
in one country has access to the latest range of self-propelled harvesting machines, whilst his colleague from a 
neighbouring country does not have the option to purchase this product. This differentiated access to machinery can 
lead – ultimately – to differences in productivity of downstream producers across the EU. Phrased differently, a 
farmer in one country seeking for example an oilseed machine may be confronted with limited or no choice. Hence, 
this can lead to rent-seeking behaviour from monopolies or duopolies – which runs against consumer interests. In 
addition, it leads to an uneven playing field for competing companies from different Member States and hence 
reflects a malfunctioning of the Single Market. 

29 The impact assessment study carried out in 2016 showed that, prior to the introduction of harmonised requirements 
for tractors (Regulation (EU) No 167/2013), significant price differences have been observed between EU countries 
in the period between 2005 and 2011. The 7th Framework Programme project FACTOR MARKETS identified 
Germany as the market with the highest competition. Benchmarking prices in Germany with those in the 
Netherlands, the UK, Finland, France, Italy and Sweden for the same vehicle models, an estimated average of 10.3% 
price difference was identified with products being cheaper in Germany. Cross-border transport and red-tape costs 
were found to account for 4.4% of the price difference. The rest 5.9% was attributed to a combination of factors, 
most significant considered to be the market power of manufacturers and distributors in markets with a lack of 
competition, differences in demand, local distribution costs and to a lesser extend the impact of the market size on 
economies of scale. Considering the similar nature to the non-road mobile machinery sector, but accounting for the 
significantly smaller sector size, it can be reasonably assumed that intra-EU price differences for these mobile 
machines are at least equivalent to the one’s previously found for tractors. 

10 

 
                                                           
terms  of  road  approval  requirements.  Other  Member  States  still  have  comparatively 
lower requirements. 

According to  the  costs and benefits  study, under the current  system, all stakeholders in 
the  EU  incur  costs  of  just  over  €6  billion  over  ten  years30  to  comply  with,  and  to 
maintain  the  road  safety  requirements  for  non-road  mobile  machinery.  Such  costs  are 
borne  by  three  stakeholder  groups:    €3  561  million  (59%)  by  manufacturers  and 
distributors31; €2 442 million (41%) by rental companies and end users32; and €23 
million by MS authorities33. Costs for MS authorities are limited in comparison with the 
other two. Out of 19 authorities responding to a targeted consultation carried out by the 
Commission34,  only  3  estimated  a  significant  effort’  to  enforce  new  EU  rules, 
corresponding  to  countries  where  road  circulation  rules  are  very  loose  or  non-existing 
today. 

  EU  manufacturers  and  distributors35  (large  enterprises  and  SMEs)  are 
presently  incurring  compliance  costs  of  approximately  €3 561  million  over 
ten  years  to  comply  with  the  current  safety  requirements  and  to  obtain  the 
necessary certification and approvals for the road circulation of non-road mobile 
machinery,  as  defined  in  national  legislation  set  by  the  Member  States. 
Compliance costs for manufacturers and distributors were estimated at 4% of the 
industry’s production value. 

As seen in section 1, SMEs account for 18% of the NRMM market revenue, hence out of 
the  €3  561  million  compliance  costs  borne  by  manufacturers  and  distributors  over  ten 
years, at least €641 million are borne by SMEs. 

The  direct  costs  for  manufacturers  and  distributors  account  for  28%  of  total 
compliance costs. However, the biggest cost are the indirect costs, amounting to 72% 
of  the  total  compliance  costs,  which  are  mostly  due  to  market  entry  delays36.  As  a 
result, of the total  compliance costs estimated over ten  years at  €3 561 million,  €2 564 
million (72%) are indirect costs and €997 million (28%) are direct costs.   

The figure below presents the breakdown of costs that manufacturers currently incur due 
to the non-harmonised system of homologation of non-road mobile machinery as shown 
in the costs and benefits study, classified as direct or indirect.  

30 The study considered 10 years as a reasonable timeframe to measure costs and benefits, since the life average life 

cycle of this type of machinery is not considered to be lower. 

31 Estimated at 4 % of the industry’s revenue. 
32 Estimated according to the methodology explained in Annex I to this report. 
33 Estimated based on consultation to the authorities. 
34 Working document ‘NRMM-2019.03 MS Targeted Consultation Feedback’ summarising the findings of the targeted 
consultation carried out by the Commission on differences between member states approval systems for the road 
circulation of non-road mobile machinery. Available in the library section of the CIRCABC interest group “New 
legislative initiative - Road circulation approval requirements for non-road mobile machinery”. 

35 For the sake of simplicity, in the report it is often used ‘manufacturers’ to refer to both ‘manufacturers and 

distributors. 

36 This figure is significantly high. It was provided by a representative part of the industry, since the 2019 study 

gathered data from 39 manufacturers of non-road mobile machinery from 11 Member States, representing around 50 
% of the total industry turnover, and extrapolated the results to the whole industry turnover. However, this figure 
could not be confirmed by other sources. 

11 

 
                                                           
Figure 2. Manufacturers and distributors compliance costs composition at the baseline 

4%

5%

4%

4%

4%

Staff familiarisation with the legislation

Type approval body testing/third party testing

Internal company product testing/self-testing

7%

Administrative costs

72%

Product design, manufacturing and marking
for safety features

Other costs

Indirect costs (market delays)

Source: Cost and benefit study - PPMI analysis. 

  Direct  costs  comprise  recurring  and  one-off  compliance  costs.  One  off 
compliance  costs  include  staff  familiarisation  with  the  legislation  costs,  type-
approval  body  testing/third  party  testing  costs,  internal  company  product 
testing/self-testing  costs  and  product  design.  Recurring  compliance  costs 
include the manufacturing and marking for safety features. Administrative costs 
relate  to  the  road  homologation  administrative  procedures  and  are  estimated  at 
4% of the total compliance costs.  

  Indirect costs are measured by the costs incurred due to the market delays. The 
costs incurred by manufacturers due to market entry delays are the lost revenues 
of  manufacturers  who,  after  having  completed  production  of  a  new  machine 
model,  cannot  export  it.  Market  delays  can  originate  simply  from  the  need  to 
perform  multiple  procedures,  for  instance  performing  conformity  assessment  in 
several  countries,  storing  production  and  waiting  times  before  being  able  to 
export  products.  According  to  the  industry,  the  indirect  costs  related  to  market 
delays  are  the  biggest  negative  economic  impact  for  them,  because  the  lost 
revenues  due  to  delays  in  market  launches  are  directly  impacting  companies’ 
sales  and  cash  flow,  which  has  stronger  financial  consequences  than  the  direct 
compliance costs.  

The  market  entry  delays  also  lead  to  unpredictable  delivery  of  machines.  Due  to  the 
highly  specialised  and  in  some  cases  tailor-made  aspects  of  the  machinery,  many 
manufacturers  produce  on-demand  only.  In  the  agricultural  sector,  this  leads  to  strong 
cyclical peaks, e.g., orders are placed in winter and delivery is expected in the middle of 
the  year,  typically  prior  to  harvesting.  In  such  cases,  delays  in  delivery  can  be  more 
harmful than in a regular and more standard production and may result in machinery not 
being  available  in  time  for  a  particular  construction  project  or  the  harvest,  with 
production losses as a possible consequence for end users. 

  EU rental companies and end users presently incur costs of approximately €2 
442 million over ten years to comply with the current safety requirements for the 
road  circulation  of  non-road  mobile  machinery  and  to  obtain  the  necessary 
certification and approvals  as  defined by national  legislation set  by the Member 

12 

 
 
 
States (when this has not been dealt with by manufacturers or distributors). This 
amount includes both the direct and indirect costs.  

The main direct costs for rental companies stem from: familiarisation with the legislation 
for the road approval of mobile machinery; technical and administrative procedures that 
include fixing national vehicle compliance or warning signs to meet national road safety 
requirements;  modifying  machinery  or  sending  it  back  to  manufacturers.  The  main 
indirect costs experienced by rental companies come from time delays due to having to 
follow  the  national  road  safety  requirements  for  the  machinery  produced  in  other  EU 
countries. 

The  main  direct  costs  experienced  by  end  users  relate  to  the  need  to  modify  mobile 
machinery to meet national road safety requirements if manufacturers or distributors have 
not dealt with this. The main indirect costs for end users stem from lost earnings due to 
the delay and/or unpredictable delivery of machines.  

  In  total,  all  EU  Member  State  authorities  currently  spend  around  €23  million 
over ten years on the enforcement of existing rules for the requirements of the 
road  circulation  of  non-road  mobile  machinery.  The  enforcement  activities 
usually  include  tasks  such  as  granting  the  approval  for  non-road  mobile 
machinery, market surveillance, vehicle conformity spot checks, and the removal 
and storage of non-conforming vehicles.  

  Technical  services  were  interviewed,  although  they  were  not  included  in  the 
costs and benefit study calculations. The study found out that seven out of eight 
technical  services  interviewed  claimed  that  the  fee  is  determined  based  on  the 
complexity  of  the  product37.  It  is  common  practice  that  technical  services  also 
spend time and money to drive to the manufacturers’ plants where they carry out 
the  testing  and/or  inspection.  According  to  the  manufacturers’  data,  the  average 
annual  fee  paid  for  third  party  testing  and  certification  purposes  by  a 
manufacturer  is  approximately  €82  000.  Large  manufacturers  pay  around  €104 
000  annually  on  average  and  SMEs  pay  approximately  a  third  of  what  large 
manufacturers  pay.  Considering  that  SMEs  sell  on  average  238  machines  per 
year,  which  is  only  one-tenth  the  number  of  machines  sold  by  manufacturers, 
SMEs pay a higher fee per machine than manufacturers and therefore experience 
higher cost burden compared to large firms. 

To facilitate the definition of the problems encountered in the market of non-road mobile 
machinery, they have been split in distinct aspects below.  

  Problem 1: Barriers to market entry and market delays in the introduction 

of new machines 

As  explained  above,  the  cost  and  benefit  study  estimated  that  about  72%  of  the  costs 
manufacturers  face  when  getting  multiple  approvals  are  indirect  costs  due  to 
market  delays,  which  could  be  spared  if  requirements  would  be  harmonised  and 
approvals  would  be  done  only  once.  The  major  driver  of  such  costs  is  market  delays. 
Most manufacturers and distributors expect reduced delays under a harmonised system. 
However, none of them believes that the delays will be cut out completely.  

37 “Cost/benefit analysis study for Impact Assessment on road circulation of Non-road mobile machinery”. Page 34.  

13 

 
                                                           
In practice, before the non-road mobile machinery is put on the market, the manufacturer 
must complete the necessary national approval procedure, also known as 'homologation', 
which  in  some  countries  requires  third  party  verification,  to  certify  that  the  design  and 
construction respect the requirements stipulated in the national legislation.  

Because  the  requirements  for  homologation  are  different  between  EU  countries, 
manufacturers need to complete the homologation process in each country in which they 
plan to market their new models of machinery. This creates market entry delays and a 
consequent  significant  delay  in  return  on  investment  for  the  manufacturer.  While  large 
manufacturers  are  seen  as  being  able  to  cope  with  such  complexity  to  cover  the  whole 
EU, even if at a higher cost38, SMEs producing low volume highly specialized machines 
perceive  such  differences  often  as  entry  barriers  and  thus  focus  on  their  home 
countries39. 

According  to  manufacturers  consulted  in  the  costs  and  benefits  study,  the  biggest 
problem is the delays in making profit out of new machine models, caused by the need to 
go through lengthy homologation processes in various countries. During the interviews 
with the manufacturers, it emerged that market delays occur when a manufacturer has to 
adapt  machinery  to  comply  with  the  regulations  in  other  countries.  They  can  also  face 
delays while waiting for national approvals once they reach another EU Member State. 
The  end  users,  in  turn,  suffer  delayed  and/or  unpredictable  delivery  time  of  machines. 
Due  to  the  highly  specialised  and  in  some  cases  tailor-made  aspects  of  the  machinery, 
many  manufacturers  produce  on-demand  only.  Clients  are  often  requested  to  make  up-
front  down  payments  and,  in  advance  of  the  receipt  of  their  ordered  products,  they 
prepare  time  specified  plans  for  the  use  of  their  machinery.  However,  as  mentioned 
already,  road  approval  requirements  can  lead  to  delays  in  delivery,  which  can  result  in 
machinery  not  being  in  time  for  a  particular  construction  project  or  the  harvest,  with 
production losses as a possible consequence. This problem is especially acute for some 
products subject to strong seasonality, as it is often the case in the agricultural sector.  

  Problem 2: High compliance costs for companies 

Manufacturers  are  usually  responsible  for  the  homologation  of  series  production 
machinery,  which  covers  most  of  the  cases.  However,  for  individual  approvals, 
homologation can be undertaken either by the manufacturer or by the owner/end user.  

The cost  and  benefit study estimated that about  28% of the costs manufacturers face 
when  getting  multiple  approvals  are  direct  costs  of  compliance  to  divergent  or 
multiple  requirements,  i.e.,  could  be  significantly  reduced  if  requirements  would  be 
harmonised  and  approvals  would  be  done  only  once.  The  figure  below  depicts  the  key 
compliance activities that generate direct costs to industry. 

Figure 3. Road approval compliance activities 

38 Delays on profitability until the various road approvals are completed in every EU country. 
39 Inception Impact Assessment Feedback from FEDERUNACOMA (Italian Agricultural Machinery Manufacturers 
Federation). Available at: https://ec.europa.eu/info/law/better-regulation/have-your-say/initiatives/1198-Road-
circulation-requirements-for-mobile-machinery/F8305_en. 

14 

 
 
                                                           
1. Staff familiarisation 
with the legislation on 
national road safety 
requirements (annual 
cost);

7. Product markings and 
other information for 
users to meet national 
road safety regulatory 
requirements.

6. Administrative 
tasks required to 
meet national road 
safety regulatory 
requirements;

2. Product design / 
development costs to 
meet national road 
safety regulatory 
requirements;

3. Manufacturing of 
safety features to 
meet national road 
safety regulatory 
requirements;

5. Third-party  
product testing to 
meet national road 
safety regulatory 
requirements;  

4. Internalproduct 
testing to meet 
national road safety 
regulatory 
requirements;

 

On design and manufacturing costs, to meet the different homologation requirements in 
every  EU  country,  manufactures  are  often  bound  to  adopt  different  designs  of  their 
machinery  parts  in  order  to  conform  to  those  various  national  rules.  This  results  in 
increased costs, which may be passed further down the supply chain until the final user. 
This  also  leads  to  companies  limiting  their  investment  in  innovation.  As  an  example, 
non-road mobile machinery designs need to consider different requirements for lighting. 
In France, lights often need to be designed to fold, or remain in a position where they are 
more  likely  to  not  be  damaged  when  the  machinery  is  in  use.  Other  countries  require 
R65-R10 beacons. It is difficult to design a machine according to ISO visibility standards 
and at the same time according to each specific national road requirement further testing 
or technical requirement40. 

The  efforts  required  for  type-approval  in  some  Member  States  can  be  very  high.  Here 
below are reported examples of three member states41: 

  In  Germany:  In  order  to  be  able  to  apply  for  national  type-approval,  the 
manufacturer  or  dealer  needs  to  provide  information  about  ISO9002  equivalent 
standard to the road approval body (initial procedure). The technical service asks 
the manufacturer for the provision of written information on the machine, specific 
designs  and  testing  results  that  indicate  that  there  is  conformity  with  existing 
regulations42. Moreover, independent tests are carried out to evaluate the results. 
The  technical  service  test  report  based  on  the  company’s  information  is  the 
document  that  is  transferred  to  the  public  administration  responsible  for  the 
national road approval regulation. The procedure is concluded if this public body 
decides on the road approval of one specific type of off-road machines.  

40 “Study on the EU harmonisation of the requirements for the road circulation of mobile machinery”. Page 35. 
41 Inception Impact Assessment Feedback from FEDERUNACOMA (Italian Agricultural Machinery Manufacturers 
Federation). Available at: https://ec.europa.eu/info/law/better-regulation/have-your-say/initiatives/1198-Road-
circulation-requirements-for-mobile-machinery/F8305_en. 

42  KBA (2016): http://www.kba.de/DE/Fahrzeugtechnik/Typgenehmigungen/typgenehmigungen_node.html; Interview 

with manufacturer. 

15 

 
 
                                                           
  In Italy, third party testing is carried out by the relevant regional office of CPA43, 
a  public  authority  under  the  Ministry  of  Transport.  The  Ministry  of  Transport 
checks the report of the regional CPA bureau. If the Ministry of Transport decides 
on the road approval, this decision is binding for the whole country. In addition, 
every  two  years  an  audit by  an organisation  appointed by  the  government  takes 
place in order to review the management system of the manufacturer. 

  In Sweden: The manufacturer of the machine has to provide a certain amount of 
technical documentation and certification that systems and components fulfil the 
requirements  of  the  legislation  and  must  certify  that  the  machine  complies  with 
applicable legislation44. Additional extensive practical tests are to be conducted at 
the discretion of the technical service and paid by the manufacturer. The assigned 
type  designation  has  to  be  reported  to  Swedish  Road  Authorities  as  a  basis  for 
registration. 

Granting road approval for highly specialised machines requires specific expertise, which 
is  not  always  available  at  the  authorities  concerned;  it  can  lead  to  delays  and  less 
prioritisation  of  the  files.  Such  delays  can  last  up  to  6  months  or  even  several  years  in 
certain  instances  45.  Such  delays  are  problematic  especially  for  smaller  players,  who 
might  not  be  able  to  engage  in  such  an  administrative  exercise  for  a  long  time.  As  a 
result, they might focus on home markets. This could lead to limited choice of machines 
and less competition in the European market. 

Different  requirements  lead  to  different  costs,  and  these  would  likely  be  passed  on  to 
consumers46.  Based  on  the  higher  costs  (and  depending  on  the  pass-on  capabilities), 
downstream clients will need to purchase products at higher prices. The costs borne by 
manufacturers to launch their new machines in each EU country lead (depending on price 
elasticity) to downstream clients purchasing machines for higher prices.  

In addition to the higher general prices, the barrier to market entry may also introduce a 
differentiation  of  sales  prices  between  EU  countries47.  As  an  example,  prior  to  the 
introduction of harmonised requirements  for tractors (Regulation  167/2013), significant 
price differences were observed between EU countries in  the period between 2005 and 
2011. An analysis carried out in 2013 compared prices in Germany, Netherlands, the UK, 
Finland, France, Italy and Sweden for the same vehicle models, and estimated an average 
price difference of 10.3%. Cross-border transport and red tape costs accounted for 4.4% 
of the price difference. Considering the similar nature of the non-road mobile machinery 
sector,  but  accounting  for  the  significantly  smaller  sector  size,  it  can  be  reasonably 
assumed that intra-EU price differences for these mobile machines are at least equivalent 
to the ones previously found for tractors.  Industry testimonials confirm the existence of 
higher prices and price differentiation due to the lack of harmonised rules. 

A  further  reason  behind  higher  and  different  consumer  prices  for  the  same  products  is 
related  to  production  and  stock  management  issues.  Whilst  certain  non-road  mobile 

43  Centro Prova Autoveicoli (Vehicle Testing Center) 
44  SMP Swedish Machinery Testing Institute (2016): 

https://www.smp.nu/en/Inspection/Services/WorkEnvironment/Import/Sidor/default.htm 

45 “Study on the EU harmonisation of the requirements for the road circulation of mobile machinery”. Page 30. 
46 Manufacturers typically sale the machinery to dealerships (wholesale), which in turn sale it to the customers (retail 

sale). Customer can be rental companies, contractors or individual end users. 

47 Inception Impact Assessment Feedback from CEETTAR (European Organisation of Agricultural, Rural and Forestry 

Contractors). Available at:https://ec.europa.eu/info/law/better-regulation/have-your-say/initiatives/1198-Road-
circulation-requirements-for-mobile-machinery/F8305_en. 

16 

 
                                                           
machinery  manufacturers  are  producing  on  demand  only,  others  are  producing  in  large 
series.  This  requires  detailed  production  planning,  and  detailed  forecasts  about  sales 
volumes for each product in each market. If these forecasts prove incorrect (which is not 
unusual),  stocks  of  machinery  for  certain  countries  can  pile  up  whilst  there  may  be 
shortage of machinery originally planned for export to other countries. This will require 
the manufacturer to  either manage this  stock (with  capital  costs incurred  as a result) or 
reconfigure the machinery to adapt it other countries rules (e.g., from a machine destined 
for the French market to one for the German market). Both options lead to higher costs 
and inflate production prices, which maybe passed-on to consumers. 

This  differentiation  in  product  specification  and  pricing  also  has  a  bearing  on  second-
hand market prices, as non-road mobile machinery homologated in one country can be 
difficult to resell in another country without substantive modifications. This may lead to 
price  decreases  for  second-hand  machines48,  especially  in  smaller  markets  where  a 
second-hand market for specialised pieces of machinery is sometimes non-existent given 
the high homologation costs. 

A  further  consequence  for  clients,  triggered  by  the  above-mentioned  indirect  industry 
costs, is a limited access to certain machines. A farmer in one country has access to the 
latest range of machines, whilst his colleague from a neighbouring country does not have 
the  option  to  purchase  this  product.  This  differentiated  access  to  machinery  can  lead 
ultimately  to  differences  in  productivity  of  downstream  producers  across  the  EU.  In 
addition, it leads to axn uneven playing field for competing companies from different EU 
countries and hence reflects a malfunctioning of the single market. 

Because  of  the  high  compliance  costs  for  companies,  manufactures  may  reduce 
investment  in  product  innovation,  and  this  could  contribute  to  the  existence  of  sub-
optimal products. Manufacturers are likely to stick to design solutions that work and have 
been  approved  in  several  Member  States,  rather  than  innovate  on  designs  and  risk 
expensive,  and 
time  consuming,  new  homologation  procedures.  Consequently, 
downstream  clients  are  often  in  the  position  where  the  latest  technological  advanced 
machines are not offered in their markets. This reduces the productivity and safety of the 
users and thus affects their competitiveness. 

  Problem 3: Difficulties in the use of machinery across intra-EU borders 

In addition to the indirect costs associated with the homologation of the vehicle itself, the 
use of non-road mobile machinery itself can be reduced due to national requirements. For 
example,  for  rural  contractors  or  construction  companies  which  provide  services  in 
multiple  EU  countries  (such  as  the  harvesting  of  crops  for  others,  or  the  renting  of 
construction  equipment,  etc.),  the  use  of  non-road  mobile  machinery  across  different 
borders is not always possible.  

Stakeholders  indicate  that  in  some  cases  there  have  been  difficulties  for  construction 
service providers to take non-road mobile machinery across borders for projects in other 
EU  countries  as  a  result  in  differences  in  the  national  road  safety  requirements49.  As  a 

48 Inception Impact Assessment Feedback from CEETTAR (European Organisation of Agricultural, Rural and Forestry 

Contractors). Available at: https://ec.europa.eu/info/law/better-regulation/have-your-say/initiatives/1198-Road-
circulation-requirements-for-mobile-machinery/F8305_en. 

49 Inception Impact Assessment Feedback from CEETTAR (European Organisation of Agricultural, Rural and Forestry 

Contractors). Available at: https://ec.europa.eu/info/law/better-regulation/have-your-say/initiatives/1198-Road-
circulation-requirements-for-mobile-machinery/F8305_en. 

17 

 
                                                           
result,  it  is  sometimes  more  cost  effective  for  service  providers  to  hire  compliant  non-
road  mobile  machinery  in  the  relevant  country  where  the  project  is  taking  place50. 
Alternatively, machinery is moved between workplaces on trucks, without road approval.  

However, a quantification of these problems was not possible. 

  Problem 4: Need for authorities to adapt technical provisions 

The current situation obliges each of the EU countries road approval authorities to set up 
and  maintain  specific  legislation  on  requirements  for  the  road  approval  of  non-road 
mobile machinery, whenever there is an evolution in the start of the art. This, however, is 
seen  as  a  minor  problem  even  by  the  authorities  themselves  since  they  are  already 
handling several approval processes for different types of vehicles. Therefore, it does not 
translate into a specific objective of this impact assessment. 

  Problem 5: Unequal requirements and technical solutions for the road safety 

of non-road mobile machinery in the EU 

Feedback  from  stakeholders  suggests  that  different  national  legal  requirements  for  the 
road approval result in differences in the level of road safety between EU countries, but 
does  not  prove  it,  due  to  the  lack  of  granular  data.  Indeed,  several  Member  States 
responding to the consultation highlighted the lack of specific statistics on road safety of 
non-road  mobile  machinery  (e.g.,  countries  accident  statistics  include  tractors  and  non-
road mobile machinery). And even when specific statistics do exist, the data rarely allows 
for the identification of the vehicle types involved and the causes of the accident. Annex 
2  provides  road  accident  statistics  including  non-road  mobile  machinery  received  from 
Member States. 

Nevertheless, during the public consultation, 36 out of 74 respondents replied they were 
aware  of  accidents  linked  to  non-road  mobile  machinery  circulating  on  public  roads  in 
their  country,  among  which  31  respondents  referred  to  road  accidents  that  led  to  the 
personal  injury  of  one  or  more  persons.  Respondents  also  mentioned  knowledge  of 
specific  accidents  related  to  movement  and  manoeuvring  of  heavy  equipment,  such  as 
street  sweeper  trucks  and  larger  construction  equipment.  The  accidents  appear  to  be 
caused by a lack of visibility when in motion because the operational devices are located 
under  the  cab  or  behind  the  driver,  or  related  to  manoeuvring  operations  that  require 
constant  reversing.  Other  accidents  appear  to  be  related  to  stability  issues  and  braking 
failure. Annex 2 includes a list of vehicle features that were mentioned during the public 
consultation as a cause or a contributor to these accidents. 

In addition, the Dutch Safety Board informed about an analysis done in the Netherlands 
in  2010.  Such  analysis  established  then  that  the  width  of  the  construction  vehicle,  in 
combination with narrow roads, is a major cause of accidents, as well as the fact that the 
driver's  view  is  often  blocked  by  parts  of  the  vehicle,  tools  or  charge.  In  addition,  the 
Dutch  Safety  Board  concluded  that  the  visibility  and  recognizability  of  agricultural 
vehicles  in  the  dark  could  be  a  problem.  These  conclusions  are  based  on  an  in-depth 
investigation of 11 serious accidents (in which a serious road injury or death  occurred) 
and the study of 73 fatal accidents involving agricultural vehicles51.  

50 “Study on the EU harmonisation of the requirements for the road circulation of mobile machinery”. Page 58. 
51 https://www.swov.nl/feiten-cijfers/factsheet/landbouwverkeer (in Dutch) 

18 

 
                                                           
Over  a  period  of  ten  years  (2006-2015),  an  average  of  11  road  deaths  per  year  in  the 
Netherlands were registered in accidents involving agricultural vehicles. Compared to the 
early  1990s,  the  average  number  of  road  deaths  resulting  from  accidents  involving  an 
agricultural  vehicle increased from  1% to  2% of the total  number of road deaths  in  the 
Netherlands. Agricultural vehicles include agricultural and forestry tractors (tractors) as 
well  as  self-propelled  work  equipment  used  for  agriculture,  construction,  ground,  road 
and hydraulic engineering and green maintenance. Due to ever-increasing scaling up in 
agriculture, companies own more and more lots spread over a larger area, which means 
that their agricultural vehicles travel greater distances on public roads. 

Although  the  accidents  reported  have  not  been  documented  as  caused  by  diverging 
legislation,  a  set  of  technical  requirements  agreed  by  all  EU  countries  would  likely 
increase and level the road safety of non-road mobile machinery across the EU. Indeed, 
because of the lack of available data and personal experiences with accidents, none of the 
manufacturers  and  distributors  interviewed  were  certain  about  the  positive  impact  of 
harmonisation on road accidents. However, from a normative point of view, most of the 
participating technical services, and almost half of the Member State authorities, believed 
that  having  a  harmonised  system  could  raise  standards  and  decrease  NRMM  road 
accidents in Europe. 

It must be noted that some Member States limit the road circulation speed for  non-
road mobile machinery at 40 km/h, for safety reasons. As regards potential damage of 
road  infrastructure,  the  relevant  requirements  are  the  maximum  axle  loading  and  the 
maximum  surface  contact  pressure  of  tyres  and/or  tracks.  However,  no  particular 
concerns have been raised in this area. 

Differences in rules will continue to widen as has  happened over the years, since it has 
been observed that Member States with stringent road approvals have gradually adapted 
them  following  the  path  of  other  type-approval  legislation,  while  countries  with  looser 
legislation do not tend to make them more stringent. Therefore, in the absence of a policy 
intervention,  a  market-driven  evolution  towards  standardisation  for  an  improved  safety 
across  the  EU  would  not  spontaneously  happen.  On  the  contrary,  a  harmonised  policy 
would  allow  manufacturers’  competitive  strategy  to  take  advantage  of  economies  of 
scale,  by  precisely  aligning  their  models  to  best  available  standards  without  any 
‘technical contradictions’ imposed by national legislations. 

As explained earlier in this section, technical requirements can be contradictory in areas 
such as markings, lights or warnings, where the requirements in terms of position, colour 
or shape may be different and overlap. Alignment of machinery models to best available 
standards is happening on functional safety, ruled by the Machinery Directive, but not on 
road safety, precisely due to diverging requirements. 

2.2.  What are the problem drivers? 

The  problem  drivers  were  explained  in  section  2.1  together  with  the  problems.  A 
summary is presented here below. 

Figure 4. Problem tree 

19 

 
2.3.  How will the problem evolve? 

If  no  EU-wide  action  were  taken,  Member  States  would  continue  setting  and  updating 
their  own  national  road  safety  legislation  for  non-road  mobile  machinery,  and  the 
divergences  would  remain  and  likely  increase,  as  they  have  been  doing  over  the  years. 
Indeed, several Member States have been aligning some of their procedures for non-road 
mobile machinery  to  what  is  done for other vehicles, while  other  Member States have 
taken no particular steps in that sense. In addition, in some Member States national acts 
are different per sector, e.g., for agricultural and construction equipment.  Therefore, the 
already  high  burden  and  cost  for  manufacturers  to  have  an  up-to-date  overview  of 
requirements and to comply with them in each MS would likely rise further in the future. 
In addition, the road safety standards would remain suboptimal. 

3.  WHY SHOULD THE EU ACT? 

3.1.  Legal basis 

The present initiative would be based on Article 114 of the Treaty on the Functioning of 
the European Union, and is fully justified since it aims to harmonise the existing different 
regulatory regimes in the 27 Member States and improve the functioning of the internal 
market. 

The different regulatory regimes in the Member States have created discrepancies in the 
single market,  adding economic and administrative burden and  creating  barriers  for the 
free circulation of non-road mobile machinery.  

The  harmonization  of  the  safety  rules  for  the  road  approval  of  non-road  mobile 
machinery can be done only at the EU level and is expected to reduce the administrative 
burden and provide a high degree of safety on the public roads. 

3.2. 

Subsidiarity: Necessity of EU action 

The internal market is  a competence that is shared between the Union and the Member 
States in accordance to Article 5 TEU. The principle of subsidiarity requires in particular 
that  the  Union  shall  only  act  if,  and  in  so  far  as,  the  objectives  of  the  proposed  action 

20 

ConsequencesDriversProblemsNon-harmonised/diverging requirements for the road circulation of mobile machinery in the EU Time for national approvals in each MSRegulatory charges for multiple approvalsDifferent requirements for circulation in  EU border regionsTime delay in the market introduction of new machinesAdditional administrative, logistics, translation and consulting costsAdditional manufacturing and design costsBarriers to market entry (in particular for SMEs)Reduced product innovationLowerprofit for firmsDifficulties for users when using machinery across intra-EU bordersHigher product prices  for usersTime delay in deliveriesTechnical provisions need regular updatesDiverging road safety requirements in MSUnequal road safety in the EUPotential increase of road accidentsNeed for authorities to adapt technical provisionsReduced/ differentiated access to machinesExistence of suboptimal machinesObjective 1Objective 2Objective 3Objective 4High compliancecosts for companies  
    
  
cannot be sufficiently achieved by the Member States, but can rather by reason of scale 
or effects proposed action, be better achieved at the Union level. 

Currently,  the  technical  requirements  for  road  approval  of  non-road  mobile  machinery 
and  the  respective  approval  procedures  are  decided  at  Member  State  level.  This 
legislation  set  by  Member  States  often  differs  and  manufacturers  selling  on  several 
markets are obliged to vary their production according to the Member States for which 
their products are intended and have their vehicles tested in every Member State, which 
is  time  consuming  and  costly.  Different  national  rules  consequently  hinder  trade,  and 
have a negative effect on the establishment and functioning of the internal market. 

It  is  therefore  important  to  approach  the  homologation  framework  for  these  machine 
vehicles  at  EU  level.  This  initiative  contributes  to  a  more  complete  internal  market  for 
non-road mobile machinery and to a high and equal level of road safety across Europe, 
and is therefore in line with the subsidiarity principle set out in Article 5 TEU. 

3.3. 

Subsidiarity: Added value of EU action 

Without  EU  intervention,  the  single  market  will  remain  fragmented,  and  requirements 
will continue to be formulated at national level, leading to ever widening differentiation 
in road approval requirements for non-road mobile machinery across the EU.  

Acting on the homologation framework for non-road mobile machinery at EU level is an 
important  means  to  achieve  a  fairer  and  deeper  internal  market  for  the  sector.  These 
results could not be achieved to a comparable degree by national legislation because the 
fragmentation in  approaches by different  national  /regional  legislation, creates a barrier 
entry to other EU countries, as manufacturer have to  customise their products  adapting 
them to the specific national requirements in each country. 

4.  OBJECTIVES: WHAT IS TO BE ACHIEVED? 

4.1.  General objectives 

The general objectives are: 

General  Objective 1: Ensure the free movement of  non-road mobile  machinery  within 
the single market by filling  an existing regulatory gap in the single market of non-road 
mobile machinery as regards road approvals; and 

General Objective 2: Increase road safety in the EU. 

4.2. 

Specific objectives 

The specific objectives are: 

  Specific  objective  1:  Eliminate  barriers  to  market  entry  (in  particular  for 

SMEs), and reduce market delays in the introduction of new machines  

This  objective  focuses  in  reducing  the  current  manufacturer’s  market  delays  in  the 
introduction of new machines in the EU countries, and thus lowering the market barriers, 
and as a result would favour intra-EU trade of machinery and improve the functioning of 
the  internal  market.  The  reduction  of  market  delays  would  improve  companies’ 

21 

 
profitability,  which  may  in  turn  reduce  their  prices  and  improve  their  competitiveness 
inside and outside Europe. 

Less market barriers would ensure an equal level of access to goods for all users, and a 
greater variety  of machinery  available in  the EU  market,  at  potentially lower prices for 
the benefit of users in all sectors involved (agricultural, forestry, construction, garden and 
municipal machinery). 

  Specific  objective  2:  Reduce  compliance  costs,  and  facilitate  product 

innovation 

This objective focuses in avoiding multiple homologations, and thus reducing the current 
manufacturer’s  multiple  compliance  costs  (such  as  manufacturing,  design,  logistics, 
administrative,  translation  and  consulting  costs)  generated  in  each  of  the  EU  market 
where they decide to market their non-road mobile machinery. Consequently, companies 
may  free  more  resources  for  product  innovation  and  may  lower  their  market  prices, 
increasing their export ability within and outside the EU, and improving the functioning 
of the internal market. 

  Specific objective 3: Facilitate use of machinery across intra-EU borders 

This objective focuses in allowing the use of machinery across intra-EU borders, in the 
many  border  areas  existing  within  the  EU,  for  the  benefit  of  rental  companies  and 
contractors working in such areas. 

  Specific  objective  4:  Ensure  high  and  equal  requirements  and  technical 
solutions for the road safety of non-road mobile machinery across the EU 

The objective of guaranteeing a high standard of road safety across the EU would create 
an opportunity to enhance the safety level required in some member states. 

In  theory,  road  safety  would  require  just  sufficiently  high  requirements.  In  practice, 
however,  complying  with  such  requirements  by  the  manufacturers,  as  well  as  ensuring 
their enforcement by the relevant authorities, would be very much facilitated by having 
equal requirements across the EU.  

Each  of  the  vehicle  features  that  are  relevant  for  road  circulation  (vehicle  masses, 
dimensions and structure, vehicle performance & control, road surface protection, vehicle 
awareness,  operator vision) needs to  be  regulated. Once there is  agreement  at  technical 
level on what should be requested considering the state of the art, there is not much room 
for deviations. 

5.  WHAT ARE THE AVAILABLE POLICY OPTIONS? 

The  policy  options  defined  as  possible  answers  to  achieve  the  objectives,  based  on  the 
problem analysis, range from no EU intervention (i.e., 27 sets of national legislation), to 
mutual  recognition,  harmonising  legislation  according  to  the  ‘new  approach’  and  the 
introduction of an EU road type-approval for non-road mobile machinery. 

22 

 
 
5.1.  What is the baseline from which options are assessed? 

Mutual  recognition  is  not  part  of  the  baseline.  Member  States  do  not  generally  accept 
other  Member  States’  road  approvals  in  their  territory,  because  of  the  highly  technical 
and  politically  sensitive  nature  of  this  area,  and  because  of  the  quite  different  systems 
currently existing the EU.  

The current compliance costs borne by manufacturers, distributors, rental companies, end 
users, and Member State authorities were explained in section 2.1. In the absence of EU 
action,  these  unnecessary  costs  due  to  multiple  legislation  for  one  same  purpose  will 
persist. Manufacturers will bear more and more the costs and burden to be familiarised 
and  comply  with  27  sets  of  road  safety  legislation.  As  a  result,  manufacturers  would 
decrease  profitability  and  investment  in  innovation,  hence  minimising  competitiveness 
inside and outside the EU.  

Since the baseline means no EU action, road approval authorities would continue to issue 
and  update  legislation  in  each  EU  country,  likely  leading  to  27  increasingly  diverging 
systems for road homologation. For Member States introducing more stringent rules over 
time,  costs  would  even  increase  in  the  baseline  option.  Therefore,  manufacturers  and 
distributors would continue bearing the compliance costs mentioned in section 2.1, if not 
more,  to  be  familiarised  and  comply  with  these  various  road  safety  rules.  As  a  result, 
manufacturers  and distributors would suffer decreased profitability, reduced investment 
in innovation and general loss of competitiveness inside and outside the EU.  

A similar effect will take place on rental companies and end users, for which costs would 
also increase in the baseline option. Differences in legal treatment of the same machinery 
by  different  Member  States  in  the  internal  market  entails  legal  uncertainty  for 
manufacturers  and  end  users  which  is  likely  to  reduce  free  circulation  of  this  type  of 
machinery  in  the  internal  market.  The  barriers  to  enter  the  market  and  the  decreased 
profitability  of  manufacturers  and  distributors  may  lead  to  less  variety  of  machinery 
types and versions for rental companies and end users, as well as to price increases for 
the  available  machines.  In  addition,  application  of  different  national  rules  for  cross-
border use of the machinery is likely to  continue to cause administrative burden to end 
users. 

As  regards  the  EU  Member  State  authorities,  with  no  EU  action,  road  approval 
authorities  would  continue  to  issue  and  update  legislation  in  each  EU  country,  likely 
leading to 27 increasingly diverging systems for road homologation. They will have the 
burden  to  adapt  the  national  technical  provisions  to  the  technical  progress.  Some 
authorities noted that this was a significant effort, since approval authorities in charge to 
check  the  entire  technical  file  need  to  have  the  competency  for  all  types  of  different 
machinery and different very specific technical aspects. 

In  absence  of  EU  action,  Member  States  that  currently  require  technical  services’ 
involvement  for  the  road  approvals  will  continue  to  do  so,  while  others  with  simpler 
systems not requiring their involvement will likely not involve them in the future. 

As  regards  competitiveness,  no  action  will  be  detrimental  for  companies’  profitability 
and innovation, and will keep market prices up, hence diminishing the competitiveness of 
the sector. 

23 

 
In relation to the single market, multiple diverging road approvals negatively affect the 
free movement of non-road mobile machinery, thus  creating a gap in  the single market 
and restrains the availability of machinery models in the market. Moreover, it hinders the 
cross-border use of non-road mobile machinery. 

As  regards  road  safety,  road  approval  authorities  would  continue  to  issue  and  update 
legislation  in  each  EU  country,  likely  leading  to  27  increasingly  diverging  systems  for 
road  homologation.  Road  safety  may  increase  in  those  countries  revising  their  own 
national  systems  towards  more  stringent  options;  however,  this  may  not  happen  in  the 
EU as a whole. 

On  environmental  impacts,  currently  there  is  no  uniform  noise  emission  limits  for  the 
road  circulation  of  non-road  mobile  machinery.  Noise  might  be  decreased  in  those 
countries  revising  their  own  national  systems  towards  more  stringent  options,  but  this 
will not happen in the EU as a whole. 

Overall, in a baseline scenario without EU policy, safety requirements of the design and 
manufacturing  of  non-road  mobile  machinery  intended  to  travel  on  public  roads  would 
continue to differ in each Member State.  

5.2.  Description of the policy options 

  Policy  option  1.  EU  approval  of  the  entire  mobile  machine  granted  by 

Member States authorities (‘old approach’ type of legislation). 

This  policy  option  follows  the  principles  of  the  EU  legislation  on  vehicles  e.g. 
Regulation 167/2013 on the approval of agricultural and forestry vehicles.  

Besides  the  general  requirements  e.g.  administrative,  functional  safety,  conformity 
assessment, the technical specifications to comply with the general requirements are also 
integrated in the legislation.  

The  conformity  assessment  process  includes  testing  of  the  products  and  issuing  a 
certificate of conformity. To perform the testing of the products, the manufacturer should 
either  involve  a  third  party  (most  of  the  cases)  which  is  a  competent  laboratory  called 
“technical service” or do it in-house. More specifically, third party involvement would be 
required  for  the  conformity  assessment  of  either  safety  critical  parts  (e.g.  breaking, 
steering) or both safety critical and non-safety critical parts. 

After performing the conformity assessment process, the manufacturer will ask the final 
approval for the whole non-road mobile machinery to the Member State authority, 
which will issue a ‘EU type-approval certificate’ if all requirements are met. Following 
to this, for every machine produced of that type, the manufacturer must issue a document 
called ‘certificate of conformity’, which certifies that the produced vehicle conforms to 
the approved vehicle type. 

Under this system, the market surveillance authorities from Member States will check on 
random basis the effective compliance of products to the approved type. 

Overall the manufacturer must carry out the following steps: apply the relevant technical 
requirements,  carry  out  the  tests  involving  a  third  party  body  or  not,  compile  the 
technical  file  of  the  product,  obtain  the  EU  type-approval  from  the  Member  States’ 
authorities and issue a certificate of conformity. 

24 

 
The  new  EU  legal  act  would  include  all  technical  specifications  for  components, 
systems and separate technical units like for other motor vehicles.  

This policy option includes two alternatives:  

1.a) Type-approval: 

For most components, systems and separate technical units the road approval (i.e., 
conformity  assessment)  would  involve  a  third  party  (independent  authorised 
body).  

This  is  the  case  in  the  current  legal  framework  for  vehicles,  such  as  passenger 
cars52. 

1.b) Simplified Type-approval: 

For  components,  systems  and  separate  technical  units  that  are  more  critical  for 
road safety (e.g., braking and steering), the conformity assessment would involve 
a third party (independent authorised body).  

For components, systems and separate technical units that are less critical for road 
safety (e.g. lights, mirrors), the conformity assessment would be based on reports 
or self-certifications by the manufacturer.  

For  components,  systems  and  separate  technical  units  that  are  relevant  for 
occupational  safety  only  (e.g.  cab  ventilation  and  filtration  system,  roll-over 
protective  structure,  falling-object  protective  structure),  no  requirements  will  be 
set up under the new regulation, since such features are covered by the Machinery 
Directive. 

This  is  the case  in  the current  legal  framework  for ‘R’ and ‘S’ categories under 
regulation 167/201353. 

  Policy  Option  2.  CE  marking  of  the  entire  mobile  machine  granted  by  the 

manufacturer (‘new approach’ type of legislation). 

This policy option follows the principles of the new approach EU legislation for the non-
road  use  of  non-road  mobile  machinery  (e.g.  Machinery  Directive),  where  only  the 
essential  safety  requirements  are  embedded  in  the  law,  but  not  the  detailed  technical 
specifications. Such detailed technical specifications may be found in related harmonised 
standards,  the  references  of  which,  if  published  in  the  OJEU,  give  presumption  of 
conformity with the legislation. Harmonised standards are voluntary. In alternative, other 
technical  solutions  can  be  proposed  by  manufacturers,  such  as  ISO  standards,  or  own 
specifications, as long as they prove that their level of safety is at least equal to the one 
granted by a full application of all relevant harmonised standards. 

52 Regulation (EU) 2018/858 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 30 May 2018 on the approval and 
market surveillance of motor vehicles and their trailers, and of systems, components and separate technical units 
intended for such vehicles, OJ L 151, 14.6.2018, p. 1–218. 

53 R (agricultural trailers) and S (agricultural interchangeable towed equipment) in Regulation (EU) No 167/2013 of the 
European Parliament and of the Council of 5 February 2013 on the approval and market surveillance of agricultural 
and forestry vehicles. 

25 

 
                                                           
The manufacturer must  perform the following steps. i) Apply the essential and detailed 
safety  requirements  related  to  the  risks  (e.g.  braking  performance,  steering,  visibility, 
etc.)  ii)  Carry  out  the  testing  of  the  product  following  the  relevant  detailed  technical 
specifications; iii) Compile a technical file; iv) Issue a declaration of conformity; and v) 
Affix  the  CE  marking  that  indicates  the  compliance  of  the  product  with  the  legal 
framework requirements. 

Under this system, the market surveillance authorities from Member States will check on 
random basis the effective compliance of products placed on the market. 

It is a system largely based on self-declaration by manufacturers, who then affix the CE 
marking on the machinery to indicate that the machinery  conforms to the provisions of 
the  legislation,  and  where  there  is  no  obligation  to  involve  a  third  party54.  This  is  the 
“new approach” type of legislation and is used for example in the Machinery Directive. 

The  options  1a,  1b  and  2  can,  in  principle,  be  implemented  through  either  a 
directive or a regulation. 

Each of these options includes three aspects to be further assessed: 

  Mandatory or not: The new legislation may be: 

o  Mandatory.  Replaces  the  current  27  national  rules55.  All  member  states 
would  introduce  the  new  harmonised  system,  which  will  replace  their 
current 
for  homologation  of  non-road  mobile  machinery. 
Manufacturers  will  need  to  do  the  road  approval  for  a  new  model  only 
once, and in one EU country, and will be able to sell their machinery EU 
wide; or 

rules 

o  Optional. An alternative to the current 27 national rules56. Member States 
would introduce the new harmonised system, but would keep their current 
rules for homologation of non-road mobile machinery; hence, they would 
manage a double  approval  system. Manufacturers can choose whether to 
apply  for  the  EU  road  approval  for  a  new  model  only  once,  in  one  EU 
country,  and sell it EU wide, or continue using  the national  approvals  in 
the countries where they sell their machinery. 

  Scope  (propulsion):  The  new  legislation  may  include  (or  not)  towed 

equipment. 

o  Cover  both  self-propelled  and  towed  machinery:  The  new  legislation 
would cover not only self-propelled but also the towed machinery; or 

54 Some ‘new approach’ legislation require the involvement of a third party (competent laboratory), so called “notified 

body”. For instance, it is always requried in case of a lift under the Lifts Directive. In the case of the Machinery 
Directive, the involvement of a notified body is required only for certain machinery (listed in Annex IV of the 
directive) and only if harmonised standards do not exist or the manufacturer has chosen not to follow them. Annex 
IV of the Machinery Directive includes machinery considered to have a high risk factor (e.g. because they are 
manually loaded/unloaded, hand held, hand fed, portable, etc.) or which serve a critical protective function 
(e.g.guards, ROPS, FOPS, logic units to ensure safety functions, etc.). Mobile machinery is not included in Annex IV 
at this stage. Other ‘new approach’ legislation, such as the Low Voltage Directive, do not require at all the 
involvement of a notified body. In this impact assessment, option 2 does not require the involvement of a notified 
body, since non-road mobile machinery are not listed in Annex IV of the Machinery Directive. 

55 As in Reg. 167/2013 for tractors (categories T1, T2 and T3). 
56 As in Reg. 167/2013 for agricultural trailers (category R), agricultural interchangeable towed equipment (category 

S), track-laying tractors (category C) and special purpose wheeled tractors (categories T4.1 and T4.2). 

26 

 
                                                           
o  Cover  only  self-propelled  non-road  mobile  machinery:  The  new 
legislation  would  cover  only  self-propelled  machinery,  since  there  is  a 
number of EU type-approval legislation covering already towed vehicles, 
such  as  the  categories  O  (trailers),  R  (agricultural  trailers)  and  S 
(agricultural interchangeable towed equipment). 

  Scope (speed): The new legislation may limit (or not) the scope to non-road 
mobile machinery with a maximum design speed not exceeding 40 Km/h. 

o  Cover  all-speed  non-road  mobile  machinery.  The  new  legislation 
would  cover  all  speed  self-propelled  machinery,  independently  of  the 
maximum  design  speed,  hence  also  faster  non-road  mobile  machinery 
will be subject to a harmonised approval system; or 

o  Cover  only  non-road  mobile  machinery  with  a  maximum  design 
speed  up  to  40  Km/h.  The  legislation  would  cover  only  slow  non-road 
mobile  machinery.  40  km/h  is  also  the  speed  beyond  which  technical 
requirements  become  more  stringent.  In  addition,  some  Member  States 
have  established  a  road  circulation  speed  limit  for  non-road  mobile 
machinery at 40 km/h. 

Annex  5  to  this  report  details  the  vehicle  features  that  must  be  regulated  in  order  to 
ensure  safety  on  the  road,  which  would  be  the  same  for  all  options.  Both  the  technical 
specifications in option 1 or the essential safety requirements in option 2 would relate to 
this list of vehicle features detailed in Annex 5 as being relevant for road safety. This list 
was developed based on current national solutions and discussed with the working group 
created  for  this  initiative57,  including  industry  and  user  associations,  Member  States 
authorities and their technical services. Due to the very technical nature of these vehicle 
features, there are no real policy choices to be made on them. 

The assessment of the mandatory/optional legislation and scope choices are not assessed 
as included in the main options, but separately. 

5.3.  Options discarded at an early stage 

The following options were discarded at an early stage: 

-  Mutual  recognition  of  existing  national  legislation.  The  homologation  of  a 
non-road mobile machinery in one EU country under current national rules would 
be granted if  homologation was already  granted  by another EU country,  even if 
the  rules  complied  with  in  both  countries  are  divergent.  Mutual  recognition 
applies  to  products  that  are  not  subject  to  EU  harmonisation  legislation  or  only 
partly  covered by it;  this  is  the case, for example, of a wide range of consumer 
products  such  as  textile,  footwear,  childcare  articles,  jewellery,  tableware  or 
furniture. 58 

The  external  study  carried  out  in  2016  analysed  the  possibility  of  mutual 
recognition  for  the  sector.  Mutual  recognition  would  require  that  trust  exists  in 

57 CIRCABC interest group “New legislative initiative - Road circulation approval requirements for non-road mobile 

machinery”. 

58 SWD(2017) 471: Impact Assessment Accompanying the document Proposal for a Regulation of the European 
Parliament and of the Council on the mutual recognition on goods lawfully marketed in another Member State. 
Available at: https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:52017SC0471&from=EN  

27 

 
 
 
                                                           
the requirements of other Member States, and that there is some conversion rather 
than divergence between EU countries. With the current diverging rules, Member 
States with more stringent requirements would very unlikely recognize and accept 
on  their  market  non-road  mobile  machinery  complying  with  less  strict 
requirements. Moreover, if such a mutual recognition system were ever agreed by 
Member  States  and  put  in  place,  companies  could  try  to  obtain  approval  in 
countries  with  less  stringent  requirements  (“shopping”  certificates  at  preferred 
authorities), which would be undesirable for a proper functioning of the system. 
For more details, see “Study on the EU harmonisation of the requirements for the 
road circulation of non-road mobile machinery”59. 

As a result, this policy option was discarded early in the process.  It  appeared in 
itself  to  be  attractive,  as  it  would  not  require  harmonisation  at  an  EU  level. 
However, since current requirements are quite diverging among Member States, 
and  road  safety  is  considered  of  great  importance,  national  road  approval 
authorities were very protective of their systems, and appeared to lack trust in the 
requirements  of  other  Member  States,  reducing  the  feasibility  of  actual  mutual 
recognition and hence the potential gains.  

-  Hybrid  approach  with  a  mix  of  ‘new  approach’  and  ‘type-approval’ 
legislation.  A  new  EU  legal  act  would  include  all  technical  specifications  for 
components, systems  and separate technical units that are more critical  for road 
safety, whereas for systems  and separate technical  units  that are less critical  for 
road  safety,  the  technical  specifications  would  be  detailed  in  harmonised 
standards. 

This  option  was  explored,  despite  the  complexity  of  combining  two  different 
approaches  to  safety  legislation.  However,  during  several  discussions  and 
workshops  with  stakeholders,  and  during  the  public  consultation,  it  appeared 
clearly  that  all  stakeholders  (including  road  approval  authorities  and  industry) 
considered a hybrid option as too complex and difficult to implement, hence not 
worth pursuing60. 

6.  WHAT ARE THE IMPACTS OF THE POLICY OPTIONS? 

The  impacts  linked  to  this  initiative  are  mainly  economic  and  social.  The  are  no 
significant environmental impacts linked to this initiative. 

The analysis of impacts in this section (and the cost estimates provided in section 2.1) is 
based on the costs and benefits study. Based on the study survey data, the potential costs 
were calculated under each of the policy options.  

It  was  assumed  that  only  direct  costs  differ  across  policy  options.  Indirect  costs 
(measured  though  the  cost  of  market  delays)  were  assumed  to  be  equal  for  all  policy 
options as they relate to divergent requirements. 

A key finding of the costs and benefits study was that the introduction of harmonised 
legislation would reduce the costs of compliance (direct and indirect) by around one 

59 “Study on the EU harmonisation of the requirements for the road circulation of mobile machinery”. Page 68.  
60 Public consultation outcomes available at: https://ec.europa.eu/info/law/better-regulation/have-your-
say/initiatives/1198-Road-circulation-requirements-for-mobile-machinery/public-consultation_en. 

28 

 
 
 
 
                                                           
fifth,  proving  that  a  significant  cost  saving  could  be  achieved  through  EU  action. 
Manufacturers,  distributors,  rental  companies,  and  end  users  could  save  from  18%  to 
22% of their compliance costs, depending on the selected policy option (more details 
will be presented later in this section under each of the policy options, and in Annex 4). 
This roughly translates into €1 to €1.3 billion over ten years. That is to say, the sheer 
benefit of having  to  go through one single approval  as opposed to  several  approvals  in 
different  countries,  would  make  the  biggest  difference  in  terms  of  cost  savings  and 
burden reduction for the industry. The reason for this is that the biggest costs are indirect, 
as  explained  in  the  previous  section.  Such  costs,  derived  from  market  delays,  will  be 
importantly reduced from the moment the approval system is a unique one across the EU. 

6.1. 

Policy Option 1.a – Type-approval  

The  policy  options  in  the  costs  and  benefit  study  were  not  the  same  as  in  this  report. 
Option 1a in this report corresponds to ‘option 1a sub option a’ in the costs and benefit 
study carried out in 201961. 

6.1.1 Economic impacts 

6.1.1.1 Impact on manufacturers and distributors (large enterprises and SMEs) 

Option 1a is  the most  expensive  policy option, where  a manufacturer  or a distributor 
must obtain certification from an authorised, and normally public sector associated, third 
party  (i.e., a ‘Technical  service’)  for  each component  and separate technical  unit.  With 
this  option,  industry  would  benefit  from  a  potential  net  cost  saving  of  18  %  of  their 
compliance  costs.62  Considering  the  baseline  compliance  costs  of  €3 561  million,  this 
option would bring a net average cost saving of €641 million over ten years. 

Since SMEs account for 18% of the market revenues, it can be therefore estimated that 
the  net  benefits  for  SMEs  are  18%  of  the  total  amount,  i.e.,  €115  million  over  ten 
years. 

The manufacturers were of the view that this option requires a lot of effort, remains quite 
costly, and because of this, is the least beneficial63. This is also in line with the findings 
of the impact assessment study.  

As  a  further  illustration,  the  manufacturers’  feedback  stressed  the  extent  of  the 
administrative  costs  and  burdens  involved  in  undertaking  a  ‘traditional’  type-approval 
procedure64. One large manufacturer in Sweden explained that whereas tractors generally 
are  similar,  there  are  thousands  of  different  specialised  mobile  machines  that  are 
engineered  to  perform  specific  functions65.  Therefore,  among  other  things,  under  a 
‘traditional’  type-approval  procedure,  the  testing  of  each  component  and  separate 

61 The policy options were defined in a different way in the 2019 study. To correctly interpret the results of the study, 

the equivalence is stated at the beginning of each section in this chapter. 

62 “Cost/benefit analysis study for Impact Assessment on road circulation of Non-road mobile machinery”. Page 20. 

The manufacturers and distributors interviewed for the costs and benefits study based this judgement on their 
experience in implementing Regulation 167/2013 on the approval of agricultural and forestry vehicles, which, even if 
different, remains the most comparable return of experience. 

63 Public consultation outcomes available at: https://ec.europa.eu/info/law/better-regulation/have-your-
say/initiatives/1198-Road-circulation-requirements-for-mobile-machinery/public-consultation_en. 

64 “Cost/benefit analysis study for Impact Assessment on road circulation of Non-road mobile machinery”. Page 19. 
65 Still, tractors and regulation 167/2013 are the closest comparison to non-road mobile machinery, although the 

necessary differences must be considered. 

29 

 
                                                           
technical  unit  would  be  unnecessarily  complex  and  would  also  result  in  a  major 
administrative burden for industry given the associated documentation requirements. 

6.1.1.2 Impact on rental companies and end users 

As indicated in the baseline option, when this has not been dealt with by manufacturers 
or  distributors,  EU  rental  companies  and  end  users  presently  incur  costs  of 
approximately  €2  442  million  over  ten  years  to  comply  with  the  current  safety 
requirements  and  to  obtain  the  necessary  certification  and  approvals  for  the  road 
circulation  of  non-road  mobile  machinery.  This  amount  includes  both  the  direct  and 
indirect costs. 

The  main  direct  costs  experienced  by  end  users  relate  to  the  need  to  adapt  non-road 
mobile  machinery  to  meet  national  road  safety  requirements,  if  this  has  not  been  dealt 
with  by  manufacturers  or  distributors.  The  main  indirect  costs  for  end  users  stem  from 
lost earnings due to the delay and/or unpredictable delivery of machines.  

The main direct costs for rental companies stem from familiarisation with the legislation 
for  the  road  approval  of  non-road  mobile  machinery,  technical  and  administrative 
procedures  that  include  fixing  national  vehicle  compliance  or  warning  signs  to  meet 
national  road  safety  requirements,  adapting  machinery  (e.g.  change  of  type  of  tyres)  or 
sending  it  back  to  manufacturers.  The  main  indirect  costs  experienced  by  rental 
companies  come  from  time  delays  due  to  having  to  follow  the  national  road  safety 
requirements for the machinery produced in other Member States. 

The costs and benefits study suggested that the  costs of compliance could be reduced 
by roughly one fifth66.  The costs and benefit study did not gather any information about 
the  impacts  the  different  options  would  have  on  end  users  and  rental  companies 
(intermediaries)  as  these  stakeholder  groups  are  at  the  end  of  the  non-road  mobile 
machinery  supply  chain  and  are  not  likely  to  differentiate  between  the  various  ways  to 
harmonise the non-road mobile machinery requirements.  

However, it can be reasonably assumed that a more burdensome legislation implies more 
and costlier adaptations of machinery. Thus, option 1a would be the costlier for end users 
and rental companies, similarly to what happens for manufacturers. Therefore, it can be 
inferred  that,  by  introducing  a  full  type-approval  system  in  this  area,  a  cost  saving  of 
€439  million  (18%)  could  be  achieved  by  rental  companies  and  end  users  over  ten 
years. 

A positive aspect for rental companies and end users is that they will be able to use non-
road  mobile  machinery  in  borderline  areas  easily,  without  any  burden  due  to  different 
requirements  in  neighbour  EU  countries.  They  will  also  have  access  to  a  wider  choice 
and more innovative types of non-road mobile machinery, independently of the country 
they  are  based  in.  However,  these  effects  come  from  the  harmonisation,  and  are 
independently of the policy option chosen. 

On  the  other  side,  although  the  overall  economic  impact  is  clearly  positive  for  users, 
being this option the costlier for manufacturers, it may lead to relatively higher prices for 
users, if compared to options 1b and 2. In that sense, users’ associations shared the views 

66 “Cost/benefit analysis study for Impact Assessment on road circulation of Non-road mobile machinery”. Page 28. 

30 

 
                                                           
of  the  manufacturers,  in  that  option  1a  requires  more  effort  and  remains  quite  costly; 
hence, it is in their view not the preferred way forward.  

6.1.1.3 Impact on Member States authorities 

In  total,  all  EU  Member  State  authorities  currently  spend  around  €23 million  over 
ten  years  on  the  enforcement  of  existing  rules  for  the  requirements  of  the  road 
approval  of  non-road  mobile  machinery67.  The  enforcement  activities  usually  include 
tasks such as granting the approval for non-road mobile machinery, market surveillance, 
vehicle conformity spot checks, and the removal and storage of non-conforming vehicles. 

The  costs  of  harmonisation  strongly  depend  on  the  current  domestic  conformity 
assessment  system.  The  results  of  a  targeted  consultation68  suggest  that  some  of  the 
Member States (e.g., Denmark and Bulgaria) do not yet have an established system either 
for  Approval  or  Market  Surveillance  for  the  road  approval  of  non-road  mobile 
machinery. Any harmonisation attempt would increase costs to such authorities, because 
they  will  have  to  establish  the  system.  Such  authorities  are  unable  to  speculate  on  the 
expected costs, because they have no system to compare the policy with. 

On the other hand, there are Member States that have well-established systems for road 
approval  of  non-road  mobile  machinery  and  can  provide  reasonable  input  to  the 
assessment of the potential costs of different policy options (e.g., Germany). Their data 
show that they do not expect any cost savings from the potential harmonisation of  non-
road mobile machinery legislation at EU level. On the contrary, data show that switching 
from  an  old  system  to  a  new  one  and  complying  with  a  harmonised  EU  Regulation 
carries some cost implications. 

Member  States  that  have  a  stringent  system  in  place  do  not  expect  substantial  one-off 
compliance  costs  (e.g.,  Germany,  France),  while  those  that  have  not  very  demanding 
systems do. In addition, the authorities do not expect substantial costs for implementing 
the new rules. Hence, harmonisation costs are mostly driven by enforcement costs69. 

Member  States  that  have  an  intermediate  system  can  have  different  cost  impact 
depending  on  the  option.  For  example,  MS  authorities  in  Spain  would  spend  €342  000 
more under the option 1a (compared against the baseline) over ten years70. 

Member states authorities believe that for road circulation and road safety, it is preferable 
a type-approval procedure, like for all other vehicle categories. However, many of them 
recognise that non-road mobile machinery is a peculiar case. They drive on the road only 
occasionally,  they  are  subject  to  national  traffic  rules  specific  to  such  machinery  to 
ensure the safety of the road, they have many design specificities (due to the work they 
are designed to perform) and producers are often small manufacturers (SMEs). Thus, in 

67 “Cost/benefit analysis study for Impact Assessment on road circulation of Non-road mobile machinery”. Page 31. 
68 Working document ‘NRMM-2019.03 MS Targeted Consultation Feedback’ summarising the findings of the targeted 

consultation carried out by the Commission on differences between member states approval systems for the road 
circulation of non-road mobile machinery. Available in the library section of the CIRCABC interest group “New 
legislative initiative - Road circulation approval requirements for non-road mobile machinery”. 

69 Enforcement costs are defined as enforcement of the existing rules for the requirements for the road circulation of 
non-road mobile machinery. For example, such costs can include the following tasks: granting the approval of the 
machinery; customs/market surveillance; vehicle conformity spot checks; removal and storage of non-conforming 
vehicles. 

70 “Cost/benefit analysis study for Impact Assessment on road circulation of Non-road mobile machinery”. Page 32. 

31 

 
                                                           
their  view,  it  would  be  important  to  reduce  the  associated  administrative  procedures  as 
much as possible, and a full type-approval option would seem not proportionate.71 

6.1.1.4 Impact on technical services 

Option 1a, where third party testing and involvement is required for the whole machine, 
is expected to increase the revenue for almost half of the  technical service respondents, 
while  the  other  respondents  did  not  expect  a  significant  change.  This  is  likely  to  be  an 
overestimate,  as  some  participants  did  not  consider  the  effect  of  harmonisation  itself, 
which will lead to less testing overall.  

Technical  services  are  the  only  stakeholder  group  in  favour  of  option  1a.  Despite 
this,  they  recognise  that  elements  of  simplification  of  this  type-approval  process  as 
proposed in option 1b are practical and appropriate for the market.72  

In  general,  technical  services  stakeholders  would  prefer  policy  options  that  provide  the 
certification  of  each  system  component  and  technical  unit  to  those  policy  options  that 
allow  self-testing.  Despite  this,  they  recognised  that  it  would  be  expensive  and 
complicated to test the whole machine. This is because there are many different types of 
machines  requiring  different  methods  of  testing.  Several  of  the  third  party  testing 
respondents  to  consultations  stated  that  they  performed  tests  on  non-road  mobile 
machinery very rarely. They argued that their scope of testing is not large enough.  One 
interviewee  even  stated  that  the  type-approval  option  is  the  ‘hardest’  option  and 
’impossible’ to implement because of the costs associated with investing in the testing of 
the entire machine. 73 

6.1.1.5 Impact on competitiveness  

This option will have an overall net positive effect on profitability and innovation, hence 
on  competitiveness,  in  comparison  with  the  baseline,  thanks  to  the  net  savings  that 
manufacturers  will  benefit  from  avoiding  multiple  approvals,  market  entry  barriers  and 
delays. 

However, when compared to the other options, this option is the costlier, and might lead 
to  relatively  higher  prices  for  users,  and  thus  competitiveness  could  be  enhanced  to  a 
lesser extent than with options 1b and 2. 

6.1.1.6 Impact on single market 

Harmonisation of road approvals, independently of the policy option chosen, will have a 
positive  effect  in  the  proper  functioning  of  the  single  market  thanks  to  a  harmonised 
approval system, accepted in all EU countries. It will also stimulate cross border sale and 
use of non-road mobile machinery, and a wider choice of more innovative machinery. 

71 Working document ‘NRMM-2021.02 Public Consultation outcomes rev. 1’ summarising the views of all 

stakeholders on the several policy options. Available in the library section of the CIRCABC interest group “New 
legislative initiative - Road circulation approval requirements for non-road mobile machinery”. 

72 Position paper ‘NRMM-2021.12 VdTÜV-DGGrowC3_feedback NRRM_010621’ from the Association of Technical 
Inspection Agencies. Available in the library section of the CIRCABC interest group “New legislative initiative - 
Road circulation approval requirements for non-road mobile machinery”. 

73 “Cost/benefit analysis study for Impact Assessment on road circulation of Non-road mobile machinery”. Page 35. 

32 

 
                                                           
6.1.2 Social impacts 

6.1.2.1 Road Safety 

One of the topics addressed through the consultations regards the degree of safety of non-
road  mobile  machinery  and  the  incidence  of  accidents,  depending  on  the  regulatory 
approach.  

There is a lack of good data on the number of road accidents involving non-road mobile 
machinery, due to their infrequency and to the fact that in some member states non-road 
mobile machinery data are not isolated (e.g. are merged with tractors data). Furthermore, 
non-road mobile machinery is not meant to go often on the road, and in several countries, 
for  example,  Bulgaria74,  it  is  completely  forbidden  to  drive  some  types  of  non-road 
mobile machinery on public roads. 

In some cases where there are recorded accidents, these appeared to have occurred due to 
a  lack  of  machine  maintenance  or  the  recklessness  of  users  in  driving  the  machinery. 
However,  in  some  other  cases,  as  reported  in  section  2.1,  problem  5,  it  has  been 
established that the width of the construction vehicle, in combination with narrow roads, 
is a major cause of accidents, as well as the fact that the driver's view is often blocked by 
parts of the vehicle, tools or charge. In addition, the visibility and recognizability of non-
road mobile machinery in the dark can be a problem.  

The  lack  of  available  data  mattered  for  the  stakeholders’  opinion  on  whether 
harmonisation  would  decrease  the  incidence  of  accidents.  Because  of  the  lack  of 
available  data  and  personal  experiences  with  accidents,  none  of  the  manufacturers  and 
distributors interviewed were certain about the positive impact of harmonisation on road 
accidents.  Despite  this,  from  a  normative  point  of  view,  most  of  the  technical  services 
and  almost  half  of  the  Member  State  authorities  believed  that  having  a  harmonised 
system could raise standards and decrease NRMM road accidents in Europe75.  

Option 1a includes not only the safety requirements, but also the technical specifications 
to  comply  with  the  safety  requirements  are  integrated  in  the  legislation;  therefore,  it 
ensures  high  and  equal  requirements  and  technical  solutions  across  the  EU.  Hence, 
option 1a presents the maximum benefit in terms of road safety. 

6.1.3 Environmental impacts 

As  explained  in  section  1.2  of  this  report  dealing  with  the  political  and  legal  context, 
Regulation  (EU)  2016/1628  lays  down  the  requirements  relating  to  gaseous  and 
particulate  pollutant  emission  limits  and  type-approval  for  internal  combustion  engines 
for non-road mobile machinery. Thus,  regulating  pollutant  emissions  is  not  in  scope of 
this initiative. 

As regards noise emissions, section 1.2 of this report mentions the existence of Directive 
2000/14/EC  relating  to  the  noise  emission  in  the  environment  by  equipment  for  use 
outdoors. However, this directive does not deal with all non-road mobile machinery, only 
with  part  of  it76.  In  addition,  Directive  2000/14/EC  sets  up  'sound  power  level'  limit 

74 “Cost/benefit analysis study for Impact Assessment on road circulation of Non-road mobile machinery”. Page 37. 
75 “Cost/benefit analysis study for Impact Assessment on road circulation of Non-road mobile machinery”. Page 39. 
76 As an example, Directive 2000/14/EC includes 'dozers (<500 kW)', but the biggest dozer models go beyond 500 kW. 

33 

 
                                                           
values,  which  are  measured  immediately  close  to  the  machine,  and  not  'sound  pressure 
levels', which are measured at a certain distance, as in Regulation (EU) 167/2013. Limits 
to 'sound pressure levels' are more relevant for road circulation. 

All  policy  options  considered  in  this  impact  assessment  will  include  a  requirement  on 
noise emission limits. In principle, such requirement will be implemented in a different 
way depending on the policy option selected. Option 1a would impose that compliance 
with  road  circulation  noise  emission  limits  is  third  party  tested.  However,  because  the 
noise  limits  will  be  the  same  in  all  policy  options,  all  options  have  the  same  positive 
impact as regards noise emissions. 

No other environmental impacts are expected. 

6.2. 

Policy Option 1.b – Simplified type-approval  

The  policy  options  in  the  costs  and  benefit  study  were  not  the  same  as  in  this  report.  
Option 1b in this report corresponds to ‘option 1b sub option c’ in the costs and benefit 
study carried out in 201977. 

6.2.1 Economic impacts 

6.2.1.1 Impact on manufacturers and distributors (large enterprises and SMEs) 

Option  1b  is  an  intermediate  option  in  terms  of  cost.  According  to  this  option,  a 
manufacturer or a distributor must obtain certification from an authorised, and normally 
public  sector  associated,  third  party  (i.e.,  a  ‘Technical  service’)  for  critical  components 
and separate technical units associated to use of the non-road mobile machinery on public 
roads, but they can rely on self-certification or self-testing for items deemed less critical.  

With  this  option,  manufacturers  and  distributors  would  save  on  average  21%  of  their 
compliance  costs  (20%  for  large  enterprises  and  38%  for  SMEs).  Considering  the 
baseline compliance costs of €3 561 million, this option would bring a net average cost 
saving of €748 million over ten years. 

Since SMEs account for 18% of the market revenues, it can be therefore estimated that 
the  net  benefits  for  SMES  are  18%  of  the  total  amount,  i.e.,  €134  million  over  ten 
years. 

During  consultation  with  stakeholders78,  the  manufacturers’  associations79  expressed 
unanimously  the  view  that  option  1b  is  preferred  in  terms  of  legal  procedures  for 
compliance.  

77 The policy options were defined in a different way in the 2019 study. To correctly interpret the results of the study, 

the equivalence is stated at the beginning of each section in this chapter. 

78 Working document ‘NRMM-2021.02 Public Consultation outcomes rev. 1’ summarising the views of all 

stakeholders on the several policy options. Available in the library section of the CIRCABC interest group “New 
legislative initiative - Road circulation approval requirements for non-road mobile machinery”. 

79 CEMA (Agricultural equipment), CECE (Construction equipment), FEM (Material handling equipment), EUnited 

(Municipal equipment), EGMF (Garden machinery), and others (Axema, Ansemat, VDMA, Evolis). 

34 

 
                                                           
6.2.1.2 Impact on rental companies and end users 

As explained in policy option 1a, the costs and benefits study suggested that the costs of 
compliance could be reduced by roughly one fifth80, but did not gather any information 
about the impacts the different options would have on rental companies and end users.  

However, it can be reasonably assumed that, as regards direct  costs, a less burdensome 
legislation implies less frequent and less costly adaptations of machinery if compared to 
option  1a.  Option  1b  would  be  the  intermediate  for  rental  companies  and  end  users, 
similarly  to  what  happens  for  manufacturers  and  distributors.  Therefore,  it  can  be 
inferred that, by introducing a simplified type-approval system in this area, a cost saving 
of  €512  million  (21%)  could  be  achieved  by  rental  companies  and  end  users  over  ten 
years. 

As  option  1a,  option  1b  will  allow  rental  companies  and  end  users  to  use  non-road 
mobile  machinery  in  borderline  areas  easily,  without  any  burden  due  to  different 
requirements is neighbour EU countries. They will also have access to a wider choice and 
more innovative types of non-road mobile machinery, independently of the country they 
are based on. 

On the other side, although the net economic impact of option 1b is clearly positive for 
end users, option 1b is the intermediate in terms of cost for manufacturers. Therefore, if 
manufacturers decide to  pass  on to  customers part of their compliance costs, option 1b 
might lead to relative lower prices for users than option 1a, and to relative higher prices 
for users than option 2. 

The  two  main  user  associations  in  the  sector81  shared  the  manufacturers’  opinion  that 
option 1b was preferable as it was the most proportionate, striking a reasonable balance 
between  more  stringent  conformity  procedures  for  critical  vehicle  features  and  less 
stringent procedures for non-critical vehicle features.  

6.2.1.3 Impact on Member States authorities 

As  explained  in  policy  option  1a,  an  EU  harmonisation  would  result  in  limited  cost 
impacts  for  Member  State  authorities82.  However,  the  less  complex the  option,  the  less 
cost  for  the  implementation  by  the  authorities,  hence,  impacts  of  option  1b  for  road 
approval authorities are lower than for option 1a but higher than for option 2.  

During  consultation  with  stakeholders,  all  member  states  authorities  responding  (9  in 
total)83 expressed preference for option 1b in terms of legal procedures for compliance 
and proportionality. 

6.2.1.4 Impact on technical services 

Option 1b could increase the revenue of technical services, but less than option 1a. 

80 “Cost/benefit analysis study for Impact Assessment on road circulation of Non-road mobile machinery”. Page 28. 
81 CEETTAR (European Organisation of Agricultural, Rural and Forestry Contractors) and Copa-Cogeca (Farmer and 

Agri-Cooperatives associations). 

82 “Cost/benefit analysis study for Impact Assessment on road circulation of Non-road mobile machinery”. Page 31. 
83 Public consultation outcomes available at: https://ec.europa.eu/info/law/better-regulation/have-your-
say/initiatives/1198-Road-circulation-requirements-for-mobile-machinery/public-consultation_en. 

35 

 
                                                           
6.2.1.5 Impact on competitiveness 

As option 1a, this option will have an overall net effect on profitability and innovation, 
hence on competitiveness, in comparison with the baseline, thanks to the net savings that 
manufacturers  will  benefit  from  avoiding  multiple  approvals,  market  entry  barriers  and 
delays. 

If manufacturers decide to pass on to customers part of the compliance costs, this option 
might lead to relatively lower prices for users than option 1a, and relatively higher prices 
for  users  that  option  2,  and  thus  competitiveness  could  be  enhanced  to  a  higher  extent 
than with option 1a and to a lesser extent than with option 2. 

6.2.1.6 Impact on single market 

Same as in policy option 1a. 

6.2.2 Social impacts 

6.2.2.1 Road Safety 

As explained in  policy  option 1a,  almost  half of  the Member State  authorities believed 
that  having  a  harmonised  system  could  raise  standards  and  decrease  NRMM  road 
accidents in Europe84.  

The  requirements  in  options  1a  and  1b  are  similar,  being  the  main  difference  between 
both the need for involving a third party (for all items in option 1a and only for critical 
items in option 1b). Third party testing procedures are used in the current type-approval 
legislation, and this option would include them only for the critical items, for the sake of 
proportionality.  Since  option  1a  has  more  stringent  conformity  procedures  for  more 
component than option 1b, option 1b presents less benefits for the road safety of option 
than option 1a. 

6.2.3 Environmental impacts 

As explained in policy option 1a, all policy options considered in this impact assessment 
will  include  a  requirement  on  noise  emission  limits.  Option  1b  would  impose  that 
compliance  with  road  circulation  noise  emission  limits  is  third  party  tested,  for  it  is 
considered  critical.  However,  because  the  noise  limits  will  be  the  same  in  all  policy 
options, all options have the same positive impact as regards noise emissions. 

Similarly to policy option 1a, no other environmental impacts are expected. 

6.3. 

Policy Option 2 – CE Marking (New approach type of legislation) 

The  policy  options  in  the  costs  and  benefit  study  were  not  exactly  the  same  as  in  this 
report.  Option  2  in  this  report  corresponds  to  ‘option  2  sub  option  b’  in  the  costs  and 
benefit study carried out in 201985. 

84 “Cost/benefit analysis study for Impact Assessment on road circulation of Non-road mobile machinery”. Page 39. 
85 The policy options were defined in a different way in the 2019 study. In order to correctly interpret the results of the 

study, the equivalence is stated at the beginning of each section in this chapter. 

36 

 
 
                                                           
6.3.1 Economic impacts 

6.3.1.1 Impact on manufacturers and distributors (large enterprises and SMEs) 

Option 2 is the less costly option, as the manufacturers would carry out a self-declaration 
and affix the CE marking on the machinery to  indicate that the machinery conforms  to 
the  provisions  of  the  legislation,  without  obligation  to  involve  a  third  party.  Industry 
would  save  on  average  22  %  of  their  compliance  costs  (21%  for  large  enterprises 
and 39% for SMEs).  Considering the baseline  compliance costs of  € 3 561 million,  to 
comply,  this  option  would  bring  a  net  average  cost  saving  of  €783  million  over  ten 
years. 

Since SMEs account for 18% of the market revenues, it can be therefore estimated that 
the  net  benefits  for  SMES  are  18%  of  the  total  amount,  i.e.,  €  140  million  over  ten 
years. 

Despite  being  the  less  costly  option  for  manufacturers,  the  main  manufacturers’ 
associations86,  expressed  the  view  that  this  would  not  be  their  preferred  option. 
Manufacturers  are  often  producing  not  only  mobile  machinery,  but  also  other  vehicles, 
such  as  tractors,  and  they  are  used  to  the  type-approval  legislation.  They  know  how  it 
works,  what  they  can  expect,  and  they  can  make  internal  synergies.  The  main  industry 
associations  answered  the  public  consultation  in  favour  of  option  1b.  In  addition, 
according to the manufacturers’ feedback during the costs and benefit study, it appeared 
that  third  party  testing  procedures,  as  requested  in  options  1a  and  1b,  improved 
companies  reputation,  in  the  eyes  of  customers,  who  see  third  party  ‘sign-off’  as  a 
guarantee of safety, and that the absence of such a review may affect their future sales. 
Thus, if manufacturers were given the flexibility to independently manage the conformity 
assessment process, many would anyhow likely use third party testing services to reduce 
any  end-user  concerns  regarding  product  safety87.  Interviews  with  industry  players 
confirmed  the  impression  that  consumers  and  authorities  accept  non-road  mobile 
machinery more easily if a third party has been part of the process. Several manufacturers 
did  not  prefer  the  self-testing  option  for  critical  features,  such  as  braking  and  steering, 
under the CE marking procedures, stating that it would result in reputational costs.  

When it comes to the description of technical  requirements, the  associations’ view was 
that  working  with  basic  requirements  in  the  legal  text  and  detailed  requirements  in 
harmonised standards would  be less suitable. The legislation should already  include  all 
technical requirements, either directly or by referencing recognised standards. Since the 
legislation  is  going  to  be  new,  there  would  be  no  harmonised  standards  related  to  this 
legislation at the time the latter is published. The creation of such harmonised standards 
is  likely  to  be  a  lengthy  process,  which  would  significantly  delay  the  clear  benefits 
provided by the legislation. Further, the voluntary nature of harmonised standards might 
not be suitable for road safety legislation.88 

86 CEMA (Agricultural equipment), CECE (Construction equipment), FEM (Material handling equipment), EUnited 

(Municipal equipment), EGMF (Garden machinery), and others (Axema, Ansemat, VDMA, Evolis). 

87 “Cost/benefit analysis study for Impact Assessment on road circulation of Non-road mobile machinery”. Page 16. 
88 Public consultation outcomes available at: https://ec.europa.eu/info/law/better-regulation/have-your-
say/initiatives/1198-Road-circulation-requirements-for-mobile-machinery/public-consultation_en. 

37 

 
                                                           
6.3.1.2 Impact on rental companies and end users 

As  explained  in  policy  option  1a,  the  costs  and  benefit  study  did  not  gather  any 
information  about  the  impacts  the  different  options  would  have  on  rental  companies 
(intermediaries) and end users as these stakeholder groups are at the end of the non-road 
mobile  machinery  supply  chain  and  are  not  likely  to  differentiate  between  the  various 
ways to harmonise the non-road mobile machinery requirements.  

However, it can be reasonable assumed that, as regards direct  costs, a less  burdensome 
legislation  is  faster  to  apply  and  lead  to  less  market  delays.  As  far  as  direct  costs  are 
concerned,  in  option 2 the legislation sets  only the essential  requirements, thus  there is 
more  flexibility  in  the  manufacturer’s  design,  which  then  leads  to  less  need  for 
modifications of the machinery by the end user to comply with the road approvals. Thus, 
option 2 would be less costly for rental companies and end users than options 1a and 1b, 
similarly  to  what  happens  for  manufacturers.  Therefore,  it  can  be  inferred  that,  by 
introducing a simplified type-approval system in this area, a cost saving of €537 million 
(22%) could be achieved by rental companies and end users over ten years. 

Option 2 will allow rental companies and end users to use non-road mobile machinery in 
borderline  areas  easily,  without  any  burden  due  to  different  requirements  is  neighbour 
EU countries. They will also have access to a wider choice and more innovative types of 
non-road mobile machinery, independently of the country they are based on.  

On  the  cost  side,  the  economic  impact  of  option  2  is  clearly  the  most  positive  for  end 
users if compared to options 1a and 1b. This option not only avoids multiple  approvals 
but  diminishes  the  compliance  costs  compared  to  the  baseline  in  those  member  states 
which currently have type-approval-like legislation for non-road mobile machinery. Such 
lower compliance costs, if passed on to end users, could mean lower prices in the market 
less compliance costs. 

Despite this, the main user associations in the sector89 shared the manufacturers’ opinion 
that option 2 was not preferable. Instead, a type approval system should be used, as for 
all other vehicles.  

6.3.1.3 Impact on Member States authorities 

As explained in policy option 1a, an EU harmonisation would not result in average cost 
savings  for  Member  State  authorities90.  However,  the  less  complex  the  option,  the  less 
cost  for  the  implementation  by  the  authorities,  hence,  impacts  of  option  2  for  road 
approval authorities are lower than for options 1a and 1b.  

Member  States  that  have  stringent  or  intermediate  approval  systems  could  have  a  cost 
saving if switching to a simpler system. For instance, under the CE marking option 2 the 
Spanish authorities would potentially save around €1.8 million over ten years91. 

During  consultations  with  stakeholders,  none  of  the  Member  States  authorities 
responding92 preferred option 2. They considered it as non-adequate for road safety and 

89 CEETTAR (European Organisation of Agricultural, Rural and Forestry Contractors) and Copa-Cogeca (Farmer and 

Agri-Cooperatives associations). 

90 “Cost/benefit analysis study for Impact Assessment on road circulation of Non-road mobile machinery”. Page 31. 
91 “Cost/benefit analysis study for Impact Assessment on road circulation of Non-road mobile machinery”. Page 32. 
92 Public consultation outcomes available at: https://ec.europa.eu/info/law/better-regulation/have-your-
say/initiatives/1198-Road-circulation-requirements-for-mobile-machinery/public-consultation_en. 

38 

 
                                                           
wanted to keep control of the approval of the whole machine. The also feared that in case 
approval of the whole machine would be left to manufacturers, more ex-post control and 
enforcement would be needed, hence what appears as the least costly procedure could in 
the end become the most expensive.  

6.3.1.4 Impact on technical services 

Option 2 would clearly reduce the revenue of technical services, although this could be 
mitigated  by  the  fact  that  manufacturers  would  likely  continue  to  use  them.  Technical 
services  respondents  highlighted  that  the  loss  would  be  greater  for  smaller  technical 
services  and  those  that  are  specialised  in  non-road  mobile  machinery  and  deal  more  or 
solely  with  this  type  of  vehicles.  However,  it  is  very  rare  that  a  technical  service  only 
tests non-road mobile machinery93.  

6.3.1.5 Impact on competitiveness 

As  options  1a  and  1b,  this  option  will  have  an  overall  net  effect  on  profitability  and 
innovation, hence on competitiveness, in comparison with the baseline, thanks to the net 
savings  that  manufacturers  will  benefit  from  avoiding  multiple  approvals,  market  entry 
barriers and delays. 

As explained in section 6.3.1.2, this option may lead to end user prices relatively lower 
that  option  1a  and  1b,  and  thus  competitiveness  could  be  enhanced  to  a  higher  extent. 
However, the lack of third party certification could be a disadvantage as it may be seen as 
a lower certification for safety, and this may offset by far the potential advantage linked 
to lower prices. 

6.3.1.6 Impact on single market 

Same as in policy option 1a. 

6.3.2 Social impacts 

6.3.2.1 Road Safety 

In option 2 the legislation would include only the essential safety requirements, but the 
detailed  technical  specifications  would  be  either  described  in  harmonised  standards, 
which  are  voluntary,  or  alternative  solutions  could  be  proposed  by  manufacturers,  who 
then  should  proof  an  equal  level  of  safety.  Therefore,  option  2  could  ensure  high 
requirements  and  technical  solutions;  however,  ‘equal’  requirements  and  technical 
solutions  would  not  be  granted  by  option  2.  Indeed,  option  2  allows  manufacturers  to 
either follow the harmonised standards or propose other solutions, thus allows different 
technical  solutions  depending  on  the  manufacturer.  Such  different  technical  solutions 
would be less coherent with the type-approval frameworks for other vehicles, and more 
complex  to  handle  for  rental  companies  and  end  users  when  in  charge  of  individual 
approvals. In EU countries with looser legislation option 2 might be an improvement, but 
in  EU  countries  with  stricter  legislation,  option  2  might  not  be  an  improvement  if 
compared to the baseline. Therefore option 2 is not as good as 1a and 1b in terms of road 
safety. 

93 “Cost/benefit analysis study for Impact Assessment on road circulation of Non-road mobile machinery”. Page 35. 

39 

 
                                                           
6.3.3 Environmental impacts 

As  explained  in  policy  options  1a  and  1b,  all  policy  options  considered  in  this  impact 
assessment  will  include  a  requirement  on  noise  emission  limits.  Option  2  would  allow 
that  the  manufacturer  self-certifies  the  compliance  with  such  limits.  However,  because 
the noise limits will be the same in all policy options, all options have the same positive 
impact as regards noise emissions. 

Similarly to policy options 1a and 1b, no other environmental impacts are expected. 

6.4.  Directive or regulation 

The new policy intends to set out the technical requirements to be complied with when 
granting EU type-approval,  so  it must be highly  detailed and leave  practically no room 
for discretion for Member States when transposing them.  

If a directive were chosen, some Member States would simply make direct reference to 
this  directive,  while  others  would  develop  a  completely  new  legislative  text  meant  to 
correctly  transpose  those  requirements.  This  has  led  in  the  past  in  other  areas  to 
difficulties for manufacturers, as national transpositions may slightly differ for example 
concerning  dates  of  publication  and  entry  into  force  and  even  different  interpretations 
between  type-approval  authorities  with  regard  to  the  substantive  requirements.  This  is 
particularly  problematic  in  this  case  where  the  requirements  are  highly  technical,  very 
detailed,  and  likely  to  regularly  amended  due  to  adaptations  to  technical  progress. 
Transpositions would use resources in national administrations without adding any value 
in terms of safety or environmental protection.  

The  impacts  estimated  for  policy  options  1a,  1b  and  2  are  similar  in  the  case  of  a 
directive  or  a  regulation,  since  the  technical  requirements  are  fully  harmonised  and  no 
real deviation will be allowed in the case of a directive. The main difference in terms of 
impacts  would  be  the  additional  transposition  costs  for  Member  States  in  case  of  a 
directive.  However,  these  costs  are  limited  if  compared  with  the  estimated  costs  and 
benefits of the options. 

6.5.  Mandatory versus optional 

The new framework may be mandatory or optional.  

Mandatory means that all Member States  would introduce the new harmonised system, 
which  will  replace  their  current  rules  for  homologation  of  non-road  mobile  machinery. 
Manufacturers will need to do the road approval for a new model only once, and in one 
EU country, to sell it EU wide. This is the case today with the type-approval regulations 
for M, N, O, T1, T2, T3 and C categories. 94 

94 M: vehicles carrying passengers; N: vehicles carrying goods; O: Trailers; L: 2- and 3-wheel vehicles and 

quadricycles; C: tracked agricultural and forestry tractors; T: wheeled agricultural and forestry tractors, among 
which:  
 

T1wheeled tractors, with the closest axle to the driver having a minimum track width of not less than 1 150 
mm, with an unladen mass, in running order, of more than 600 kg, and with a ground clearance of not more 
than 1 000 mm; 
T2: wheeled tractors with a minimum track width of less than 1 150 mm, with an unladen mass, in running 
order, of more than 600 kg, with a ground clearance of not more than 600 mm; if the height of the centre of 
gravity of the tractor (measured in relation to the ground) divided by the average minimum track for each 
axle exceeds 0,90, the maximum design speed shall be restricted to 30 km/h; 

 

40 

 
                                                           
Optional means that all Member States would introduce the new harmonised system, but 
could  keep  their  current  rules  for  homologation  of  non-road  mobile  machinery;  hence, 
they would manage a double system. Manufacturers can choose whether to do the road 
approval for a new model only once, in one EU country, and sell it EU wide, or continue 
using the national approvals in the countries where they sell their machines.  This is the 
case today with the type-approval regulations for T4, R and S categories. 95 

Mandatory: replaces the current 27 national rules 

Technical  Services  were  the  only  stakeholder  favouring  a  mandatory  policy,  invoking 
the commitment towards an ever-closer union among the Member States.96 

No other consulted stakeholders were in favour of a mandatory policy97. Non-exporting 
manufacturers would bear higher costs to adapt and comply with the new framework, 
particularly if they sell in markets with current less stringent road approval legislation for 
non-road  mobile  machinery.  User  associations98  were  of  a  similar  opinion.  Member 
States  participating  to  the  consultations  considered  it  best  to  have  an  optional  policy 
instead,  and  switch  to  a  mandatory  policy  later,  once  there  is  some  experience 
accumulated.  They  mentioned  the  fact  that  in  the  long  term,  some  national  authorities 
will  align  their  national  approvals  to  the  new  EU  legal  framework  anyway  (as  it 
happened with tractors) and a later switch to a mandatory legislation would likely happen 
smoothly. 

Optional: an alternative to the current 27 national rules 

As  explained  above,  all  consulted  stakeholders  prefer  an  optional  framework,  with 
the exception of the technical services99.  

Manufacturers saw the advantage of flexibility: large companies or SMEs that export to 
several  EU  countries  would  benefit  from  the  new  policy,  while  companies  that  are  not 
export  oriented  could  choose  to  keep  complying  with  the  current  national  approvals  in 
the few countries where they sell their machines. User associations100 were of a similar 
opinion. 

Member States participating to the consultations101 considered it best to have an optional 
policy  in  a  first  step,  although  most  of  them  would  see  a  conversion  into  a  mandatory 
framework  later.  EU  authorities  are  used  to  handle  both  EU  harmonised  policy  and 

 

T3: wheeled tractors with an unladen mass, in running order, of not more than 600 kg. 

95 T4: special purpose wheeled tractors; R: agricultural trailers; S: agricultural interchangeable towed equipment. 
96 Position paper ‘NRMM-2021.12 VdTÜV-DGGrowC3_feedback NRRM_010621’ from the Association of Technical 
Inspection Agencies. Available in the library section of the CIRCABC interest group “New legislative initiative - 
Road circulation approval requirements for non-road mobile machinery”. 

97 Working document ‘NRMM-2021.02 Public Consultation outcomes rev. 1’ summarising the views of all 

stakeholders on the several policy options. Available in the library section of the CIRCABC interest group “New 
legislative initiative - Road circulation approval requirements for non-road mobile machinery”. 

98 CEETTAR (European Organisation of Agricultural, Rural and Forestry Contractors) and Copa-Cogeca (Farmer and 

Agri-Cooperatives associations). 

99 Working document ‘NRMM-2021.02 Public Consultation outcomes rev. 1’ summarising the views of all 

stakeholders on the several policy options. Available in the library section of the CIRCABC interest group “New 
legislative initiative - Road circulation approval requirements for non-road mobile machinery”. 

100 CEETTAR (European Organisation of Agricultural, Rural and Forestry Contractors) and Copa-Cogeca (Farmer and 

Agri-Cooperatives associations). 

101 Public consultation outcomes available at: https://ec.europa.eu/info/law/better-regulation/have-your-
say/initiatives/1198-Road-circulation-requirements-for-mobile-machinery/public-consultation_en. 

41 

 
                                                                                                                                                                            
national  approvals  in  parallel.  This  is  already  the  case  with  categories  R  and  S  under 
Regulation 167/2013.  

In  the  case  of  an  optional  policy,  the  impacts  estimated  for  options  1a,  1b  and  2  will 
depend  on  the  level  of  adherence  of  manufacturers  to  the  new  EU  legal  framework. 
Considering that, as described in section 1.3, only 4% of the non-road mobile machinery 
produced  in  the  EU  is  sold  in  the  EU  country  where  production  takes  place,  in  many 
instances it will be interesting for manufacturers to apply for an EU road approval102. The 
4%  is  estimated  to  correspond  to  cases  where  manufacturers  either  market  their 
machinery only in one country, or are produced in small series.  

As  regards  Member  States  authorities,  they  will  have  to  bear  the  additional  costs  of 
setting up the new EU road approval system, while at the same time keeping the national 
system103. However, these additional costs are limited104.  

In any case, the benefits of a voluntary EU system are likely to be much higher than the 
costs of maintaining parallel systems. The costs and benefits study done in 2019 showed 
that the authorities spend around €23 million over ten years on the enforcement of road 
circulation rules, a much lower order of magnitude than the costs that economic operators 
currently incur (€3 561 million over ten years for manufacturers and distributors, and €2 
442  million  over  ten  years  for  rental  companies  and  end  users).  New  EU  rules  would 
bring  around  savings  amounting  to  one  fifth  of  the  costs  for  manufacturers  and 
distributors  as  well  as  rental  companies  and  end  users.  In  the  case  of  a  voluntary 
framework,  it  can  be  assumed  that  all  large  enterprises  (accounting  for  66%  of  the 
sector’s  revenues)  would  apply  for  the  EU  regulation  for  their  new  machinery.  In 
addition, export-oriented SMEs for which the EU rules will be advantageous will likely 
apply  for  it  too,  so  a  majority  of  the  estimated  savings  will  still  be  realised.  Each 
manufacturer  will  make  its  own  business  case.  The  voluntary  framework  will  be 
available to be used if more convenient to them; and it will be more convenient from the 
moment a company sells their machinery in several countries.  

Out  of  19  authorities  responding  to  the  targeted  consultation,  only  3  estimated  a 
significant additional cost (> 20%) to enforce new EU rules, corresponding to countries 
where  road  circulation  rules  are  very  loose  or  non-existing  today,  while  the  other  16 
countries declared that some effort (< 20%) or limited effort (<5%) would be required as 
compared to today. This means that the costs are higher to set up a system for those who 
do  not  have  it,  than  to  run  two  parallel  systems.  In  addition,  there  are  many  synergies 
with  other  road  approvals  for  other  vehicle  types,  such  as  the  network  of  technical 
services already in place for other vehicles. Hence, the fact of adding a new system while 
keeping the old one is not seen as an issue by road authorities. Member States are also 
quite used to such parallel systems, which worked well for categories R and S under the 
tractors regulation 167/2013. 

102 In addition to this 4%, some other cases where machinery is sold only in few EU countries may stay under the 

national systems. 

103 A comparison between the estimate of costs of keeping the national rules with the benefits for 4% of production of 
the non-road mobile machinery produced in an EU country and sold in that EU country could not be established. 
However, it must be considered that the existing national rules are already implemented, and the costs for keeping 
them are minimal. The biggest cost for authorities would be the cost of having a new system in place. 

104 It must be noted that, even if the new framework is optional, Member States may decide to align they current rules 

to the new EU framework. In such case, manufacturers will not have a real choice in that country, other than 
applying the harmonised framework. This may set the ground to convert the optional legislation in a mandatory one 
in a future revision. 

42 

 
                                                           
6.6. 

Include (or not) towed equipment 

Cover both self-propelled and towed machinery.  

The legislation would cover all self-propelled and towed machinery. As a result, the new 
policy  would  become  more  complex,  since  requirements  for  towed  machinery  are 
different from those for self-propelled machinery. 

equipment,  material  handling 

Construction 
equipment 
manufacturers were in favour of the full scope, since they produce a towed equipment 
types  that  they  considered  could  be  covered  by  the  new  policy.  User  associations  and 
technical  services  were  neutral,  and  so  were  the  agricultural  and  garden  machinery 
manufacturers. Most Member States were not in favour. 

and  municipal 

Cover only self-propelled non-road mobile machinery. 

The legislation would cover only self-propelled machinery, giving the fact that there is a 
number  of  type-approval  legislation  covering  already  towed  vehicles,  such  as  the 
categories O (trailers), R (agricultural trailers) and S (agricultural interchangeable towed 
equipment). 

The  total  annual  production  non-road  mobile  machinery  in  2019  amounted  to  12.5 
billion,  of  which  the  self-propelled  machinery  accounted  to  €10  billion  (80%  of  the 
total  non-road  mobile  machinery  production  value),  whereas  the  towed  equipment 
accounted  for  €2.5  billion  (20%  of  the  total  production  value).  However,  most  of  the 
towed  machinery  market  is  for  agricultural  applications,  and  therefore  covered  by  the 
existing type-approval under Regulation 167/2013 (categories ‘R’ and ‘S’ as indicated in 
section 1.2). Other towed equipment falls under existing type-approval stem for category 
‘O’  under  Regulation  2018/858.  The  few  towed  equipment  types  that  would  remain 
uncovered would be a small part of the market, sold in low volumes, and in a first step 
properly addressed by the current national approval systems. Thanks to this limit to the 
scope, misuse of the new policy for categories already covered under existing legislation 
would  be  prevented,  while  the  objective  to  legislate  for  most  cases  would  still  be 
fulfilled. 

Most Member States participating to the consultations preferred not to include any 
towed  equipment.    Many  of  the  towed  machinery  types  are  towed  by  trucks  at  truck 
speed,  therefore  the  existing  framework  category  O  trailers,  with  potential  future 
adaptations, seemed more adequate.  

If the scope would exclude the towed equipment not currently included in categories R, S 
and O, which are estimated to be less than 10%105 of the market of the non-road mobile 
machinery, the  projected savings  will also  be reduced by less than 10%.  This has  been 
considered in the comparison of options and in Annex 3. 

6.7.  Limit (or not) the scope to a maximum design speed up to 40 Km/h 

Cover all non-road mobile machinery, independently of the maximum design speed. 

this  case, 

In 
legislation  would  cover  all  speed  self-propelled  machinery, 
independently  of  the  maximum  design  speed.  In  this  option,  requirements  that  are 

the 

105 The share of towed machinery is calculated based on Eurostat statistics and related PRODCOM codes. 

43 

 
                                                           
more stringent will be set up for machinery with maximum design speeds over 40 km/h, 
which is around 10% of the total self-propelled mobile production value.  

Manufacturers  were  in  favour  of  the  full  speed  range,  which  would  allow  having  a 
framework covering all non-road mobile machinery and according to them, would really 
fill the gap in the internal market106.  

Some  Member  States  were  against  the  full  speed  range  because  they  saw  a  risk  of 
‘cherry  picking’,  i.e.,  manufactures  misusing  the  new  framework  for  their  fast  vehicles 
that  should  find  their  place  in  the  existing  type-approval  system107.  This  risk  would  be 
higher  in  some  identified  borderline  areas  (e.g.,  mobile  cranes108),  and  a  maximum 
design speed limit was considered very effective in preventing such cases. 

Cover  only  non-road  mobile  machinery  with  a  maximum  design  speed  up  to  40 
Km/h. 

The legislation would cover only ‘slow’ self-propelled machinery, which is the majority 
of  the  non-road  mobile  machinery  market,  and  the  kind  of  machinery  that  deserves  a 
dedicated  harmonised  approval  system.  In  this  way,  it  would  be  prevented  that  fast 
vehicles  find  their  way  out  of  the  full  type-approval  legislation  (Regulations  2018/858, 
167/2013  and  168/2013  on  motor  vehicle  categories  M,  N,  O,  L,  T,  C)  and  into 
simplified approval system, thus putting at risk the existing level of road safety. 

Among  the  €12.5  billion  annual  production  of  self-propelled  machinery,  90% 
corresponded to machinery designed to reach a maximum road speed of 40 Km/h or less 
while 10% related to machinery designed for a road speed higher than 40 Km/h (10% 
of the total) 109. 

It must also be considered that some Member States limit the circulation speed of  non-
road mobile machinery to 40 km/h, since they consider that such vehicles should not be 
allowed to run faster. A maximum design speed limit in the new framework would hence 
discourage  manufacturers  to  produce  equipment  with  maximum  design  speeds  over  40 
km/h.  

Most  Member  States  participating  in  consultation  favoured  this  limitation  of  the 
scope and considered that any fast non-road mobile machinery should find a place in the 
current  type-approval  legislation.  Road  safety  risks  are  proportional  to  the  road  speed, 
thus  a  simplified  framework  for  fast  non-road  mobile  machinery  seemed  to  be  not 
coherent. User associations were also in favour of a maximum design speed limit in the 
scope, while technical services were neutral110.  

106 Working document ‘NRMM-2021.03 Feedback from last workshop’ summarising the views of all stakeholders. 
Available in the library section of the CIRCABC interest group “New legislative initiative - Road circulation 
approval requirements for non-road mobile machinery”. 

107 Working document ‘NRMM-2021.03 Feedback from last workshop’ summarising the views of all stakeholders. 
Available in the library section of the CIRCABC interest group “New legislative initiative - Road circulation 
approval requirements for non-road mobile machinery”. 

108 ‘A vehicle of category N3, not fitted for the carriage of goods, provided with a crane whose lifting moment is equal 
to or higher than 400 kNm’, is considered as a ‘special purpose vehicle’ in the sense of Regulation 2018/858. This 
regulation deals with the approval and market surveillance of motor vehicles and their trailers, and of systems, 
components and separate technical units intended for such vehicles. 

109 The share of ‘slow’ self-propelled machinery is calculated based on estimates provided by the industry. 
110 Working document ‘NRMM-2021.03 Feedback from last workshop’ summarising the views of all stakeholders. 
Available in the library section of the CIRCABC interest group “New legislative initiative - Road circulation 
approval requirements for non-road mobile machinery”. 

44 

 
                                                           
If  the  scope  would  be  limited  to  vehicles  under  40  km/h  max  design  speed,  which  are 
estimated at 10% of the market, the projected savings will also be reduced by 10%. This 
has been taken into account in the comparison of options and in Annex 3 to this report. 

7.  HOW DO THE OPTIONS COMPARE? 

When  comparing  the  estimated  economic  impacts  of  the  different  policy  options,  the 
differences between them are the potential net savings for manufacturers and distributors, 
as well as for rental companies and end users ranging from between 18% (option 1a) to 
21%  (option  1b)  and  22%  (option  2)  against  the  baseline  costs.  However,  these 
differences suggest that a careful consideration of the proposed policy option is required 
so that the assumed beneficial effects for the internal market can be maximised. 

As  discussed  above,  the  major  driver  of  compliance  costs  is  market  delays.  Most  of 
manufacturers  and  distributors  expect  reduced  delays  under  the  harmonised  system. 
However,  none  of  the  survey  respondents  believe  that  the  delays  will  be  cut  out 
completely. Despite the common rules and regulations in the EU, the manufacturers and 
distributors expect that some administrative and technical requirements will remain. 

As  might  be  expected,  policy  options  that  require  greater  involvement  of  third  party 
bodies  would  result  in  higher  costs  compared  to  other  options  that  provide  more 
independence to the manufacturer to manage the compliance procedures without external 
oversight. This cost difference may be mitigated by the fact that, as explained in option 2, 
manufacturers  and  distributors  may  still  decide  to  have  recourse  to  third  party  tests  or 
checks even if it is not imposed by the legislation.  

The  following  tables  provide  information  comparing  the  policy  options  in  terms  of 
effectiveness (how each option achieves the specific objectives), efficiency (cost-benefit 
analysis) and coherence with other pieces of EU law. 

Table 4. Comparison of policy options (PO) against the effectiveness criterion 

Objective 1: Eliminate 
barriers to market entry (in 
particular for SMEs), and 
reduce market delays in the 
introduction of new 
machines 

Objective 2: Reduce 
compliance costs, and 
facilitate product 
innovation 

Objective 3: 
Facilitate use of 
machinery across 
intra-EU borders 

PO0 

0 
++ 

0 
+ 

0 
+++ 

PO1a 

One harmonised full type-
approval policy instead of 
27 national ones will 
facilitate market entry and 
eliminate delays linked to 
multiple EU countries’ 
approvals. The length of the 
harmonised procedure 
would be the longest, since 
for all components the road 
approval would involve a 
third party. However, this 
would be offset by far by 
the benefit of having a 
unique road approval 
allowing road circulation 
across the EU. 

One harmonised full type-
approval policy would 
eliminate the multiple 
approvals, so it would be 
beneficial. However, it is 
the most expensive option 
for manufacturers, 
distributors, rental 
companies and end users. 
It allows companies to 
save money on 
compliance costs so that 
they can invest more in 
innovation, although less 
than under the other 
options.  

A harmonised full 
type-approval 
policy would 
grant equal 
requirements 
across borders, so 
it would facilitate 
the use of 
machinery across 
intra-EU borders. 

Objective 4: Ensure high 
and equal requirements 
and technical solutions for 
the road safety of non-
road mobile machinery 
across the EU 
0 
++ 

The safety requirements 
and the technical 
specifications to comply 
with the safety 
requirements are 
integrated in the 
legislation, and third party 
conformity assessment is 
required for all 
components, therefore, it 
ensures high and equal 
requirements and 
technical solutions across 
the EU.  

PO1b 

+++/++ 

++ 

+++ 

+ 

45 

 
 
One harmonised simplified 
type-approval policy instead 
of 27 national ones will 
facilitate market entry and 
eliminate delays linked to 
multiple EU countries’ 
approvals. The length of the 
harmonised procedure 
would be shorter than in 1a 
and offset by far by the 
benefit. 

One harmonised 
simplified type-approval 
policy would eliminate 
the multiple approvals, so 
it would be beneficial. In 
addition, it is less 
expensive for 
manufacturers, 
distributors, rental 
companies and end users 
than the full type-
approval. It allows 
companies to save money 
on compliance costs so 
that they can invest more 
in innovation (more than 
in 1a but less than in 2) 

A harmonised 
simplified type-
approval policy 
would grant equal 
requirements 
across borders, so 
it would facilitate 
the use of 
machinery across 
intra-EU borders. 

+++ 

+++ 

+++ 

PO2 

One harmonised ‘self-
assessment’ type policy, 
instead of 27 national ones 
will facilitate market entry 
and eliminate delays linked 
to multiple EU countries’ 
approvals. The length of the 
harmonised procedure 
would be the shortest. 

One harmonised ‘self-
assessment’ type would 
eliminate the multiple 
approvals, so it would be 
beneficial. In addition, it 
is the least expensive 
option for manufacturers. 
However, this option 
implies possible 
reputational risks for 
manufacturers, 
distributors, rental 
companies and end users. 
It allows the highest 
savings on compliance 
costs, so that companies 
can invest more in 
innovation. 

A harmonised 
‘self-assessment’ 
type policy would 
grant equal 
requirements 
across borders, so 
it would facilitate 
the use of 
machinery across 
intra-EU borders. 

The safety requirements 
and the technical 
specifications to comply 
with the safety 
requirements are 
integrated in the 
legislation and third party 
conformity assessment is 
required for critical 
components only, 
therefore, it ensures high 
and equal requirements 
and technical solutions 
across the EU, but it is 
less beneficial for road 
safety than option 1a. 

+/- 
Manufacturers can follow 
the harmonised standards 
or propose other 
solutions; hence, this 
option allows different 
technical solutions 
depending on the 
manufacturer. Therefore, 
‘equal’ requirements and 
technical solutions would 
not be granted. In EU 
countries with looser 
legislation option 2 might 
be an improvement, but in 
EU countries with stricter 
legislation, option 2 might 
mean a step back in road 
safety enforcement. 

The  comparison  between  policy  options  1a,  1b  and  2  shows  that  option  1a  and  1b  are 
more effective than option 2 in terms of road safety but not in terms of reducing market 
delays and compliance costs.  

46 

 
 
 
In terms of costs, all options would allow companies to save money on compliance costs 
so that they can invest more in innovation. In addition, by not needing multiple design to 
match different approval rules, such innovation can be focussed on  innovative features. 
This is even more the case in option 2, which is the least expensive option. 

However,  when  it  comes  to  road  safety,  while  ‘high’  requirements  and  technical 
solutions  could  be  equally  met  by  all  three  options,  ‘equal’  requirements  and  technical 
solutions  would  not  be  met  by  option  2.  The  reason  for  this  is  that  the  new  approach 
allows  manufacturers  to  either  follow  the  harmonised  standards  or  propose  other 
solutions;  hence,  option  2  allows  different  technical  solutions  depending  on  the 
manufacturer.  Such  different  technical  solutions  would  be  less  coherent  with  the  type-
approval  frameworks  for  other  vehicles,  and  more  complex  to  handle  for  rental 
companies and end users when in charge of individual approvals. 

Indeed,  under  option  1  (a  or  b)  the  safety  requirements,  but  also  the  technical 
specifications  to  comply  with  the  safety  requirements,  are  integrated  in  the  legislation; 
this ensures high and equal requirements and technical solutions across the EU. 

In option 2 the legislation includes only the essential safety requirements, but the detailed 
technical  specifications  can  be  either  described  in  harmonised  standards,  which  are 
voluntary,  or  alternative  solutions  can  be  proposed  by  manufacturers,  who  then  should 
proof  an  equal  level  of  safety.  Therefore,  option  2  can  ensure  high  requirements  and 
technical solutions; however, ‘equal’ requirements and technical solutions would not be 
granted  by  option  2,  since  it  allows  different  technical  solutions  depending  on  the 
manufacturer.  Such  different  technical  solutions  would  be  less  coherent  with  the  type-
approval  frameworks for other vehicles (cars, trucks, trailers, motorbikes, tractors, etc.) 
for  which  detailed  and  equal  requirements  are  embedded  in  the  legislation,  and  more 
complex  to  handle  for  rental  companies  and  end  users  when  in  charge  of  individual 
approvals. 

In  addition  to  the  better  acceptability  by  Member  States  of  equal  technical  solutions, 
option 1 foresees ex-ante checks of the entire machine by the authorities, as it is done in 
the approval frameworks for other vehicles, and even in some of the national frameworks 
(the  more  stringent  ones),  as  opposed  to  the  ex-post  market  surveillance  proposed  in 
option 2. Ex-ante approval by the authorities is more costly, but potentially safer, since 
machinery  is  checked  before  it  circulates  on  the  road.  Option  1a  requires  conformity 
procedure  with  third  party  involvement  for  most  components,  systems  and  separate 
technical  units, and presents  the maximum stringency. Option  1b is more proportionate 
than  1a  since  it  requires  conformity  procedure  with  third  party  involvement  only  for 
critical items (e.g., braking and steering). 

The following Tables 5, 6 and 7 on alternative elements (mandatory/optional and scope) 
are relative, to be compared among themselves, for any given option selected in table 4 
(1a, 1b or 2). However, it is explained later in this section how the estimated impacts of 
the  three  main  options  would  be  affected  when  the  voluntary  take-up  and  the  limited 
scope of the companies affected are considered. 

47 

 
Table 5. Comparison of economic impacts on stakeholder groups (costs/benefits)111 against 
baseline.  

Technic
al 
Services 

No 
impact 

Policy option 

Manufacturers and 
distributors 

Rental companies 
and end users 

Member States 
Authorities 

Option 0: 
Baseline 

Option 1a: 
Type- 
approval 

Option 1b: 
Simplified 
type-approval 

Option 2: CE 
marking 

Compliance costs will be 
at least as high as today: 
€3.561 million over 10 
years, if not higher. 

Compliance costs 
will be at least as 
high as today: €2.442 
million over 10 years, 
if not higher. 

Enforcement costs 
will be at least as 
high as today: €23 
million over 10 years, 
if not higher. 

Net average cost saving of 
18% of their compliance 
costs (16% for large 
enterprises and 26% for 
SMEs): €641 million over 
10 years. 
Net average cost saving of 
21% of their compliance 
costs (20% for large 
enterprises and 38% for 
SMEs): €748 million over 
10 years. 
Net average cost saving of 
22%  of  their  compliance 
costs 
large 
enterprises  and  39%  for 
SMEs):  €783 million over 
10 years. 

(21% 

for 

Net average cost 
saving of 18% of 
their compliance 
costs: €439 million 
over 10 years. 

Net average cost 
saving of 21% of 
their compliance 
costs: €512 million 
over 10 years. 

Net average cost 
saving of 22% of 
their compliance 
costs: €537 million 
over 10 years. 

Cost increase for 
most Member States, 
but negligible. 

Increase 
in 
revenue 

Increase 
in 
revenue 
(lower 
than in 
1a) 

Decrease 
in 
revenue 

Cost increase for 
some Member States, 
but negligible 

Cost decrease for 
some Member States, 
but negligible. 
Potentially offset by 
additional ex-post 
enforcement costs 

Table 6. Comparison of policy options against social and environmental impacts 

Policy Options 

Option 0 

Option 1a: Type- 
approval 

Option 1b: 
Simplified type -
approval 

Option 2: CE 
marking 

Social impacts 
No change 
++ 
Detailed standards for road 
safety 
++ 
Detailed standards for road 
safety 
+/- 
Harmonised standards for road 
safety, voluntary 

Environmental impacts 
No change 
+ 
Compliance with road circulation noise emission limits set up 
and third party tested 
+ 
Compliance with road circulation noise emission limits set up 
and third party tested 
+ 
Compliance with road circulation noise emission limits set up 
and self-certified by the manufacturer  

Table 7. Comparison of policy options against the coherence criterion 

Policy Options 

Net effect 

PO0 

PO1a 

PO1b 

PO2 

No coherence, since the existing national rules are diverging among themselves and from the 
type-approval framework existing for other vehicles. 
This option would be coherent with the existing EU type-approval road safety framework for 
motor vehicles, but not for categories comparable to non-road mobile machinery, such as R 
(agricultural trailers) and S (agricultural interchangeable towed equipment), which are covered 
by the Machinery Directive as regards occupational safety. 
This option would be the most coherent, since this option would be similar to the existing EU 
type-approval road safety framework for categories R and S. 
This option would stay coherent with the Machinery Directive, which follows the new 
approach. However, it would lack coherence with the rest of the road approval legislation, 
which follows the old approach. This option would be even less coherent than the baseline, 
which consists of current national approvals, many of which are type-approval systems. 

0 

+ 

++ 

- 

111 The 2019 costs and benefit study calculated economic impacts on stakeholder groups as net benefits. 

48 

 
 
 
                                                           
Table 8. Comparison of mandatory/optional policy against the effectiveness criterion 

Objective 1: 
Eliminate barriers to 
market entry (in 
particular for SMEs), 
and reduce market 
delays in the 
introduction of new 
machines 

Objective 2: Reduce compliance 
costs, and facilitate product 
innovation 

Objective 3: 
Facilitate use 
of machinery 
across intra-EU 
borders 

Objective 4: 
Ensure high and 
equal 
requirements and 
technical solutions 
for the road safety 
of non-road 
mobile machinery 
across the EU 

Mandatory 

++ 

++ 

++ 

++ 

A mandatory policy 
for road circulation 
would facilitate 
market entry and 
eliminate delays 
linked to multiple EU 
countries’ approvals. 

A mandatory policy would imply 
costs for all manufacturers to adapt 
to the new requirements, including 
those selling in one EU country 
only. 
Member States will replace their 
current road approval systems by 
the new system. 

A mandatory 
policy would 
facilitate the 
use of 
machinery 
across intra-EU 
borders. 

A mandatory 
policy will 
contribute to 
higher safety 
standards for all 
road approvals.  

++ 

++ 

+ 

+ 

Optional 

An optional policy 
for road circulation 
would facilitate 
market entry and 
eliminate delays 
linked to multiple EU 
countries’ approvals. 

An optional policy would imply 
costs for manufacturers to adapt to 
the new requirements when 
exporting, with the subsequent 
benefits of reducing the number of 
approvals. Non-exporting 
manufactures will not have the 
obligation to adapt. Member States 
will handle a double road approval 
system. Member states would bear 
additional costs; however, they are 
not expected to be significant. 

With an 
optional  
policy, take-up 
would be lower 
and thus the 
use of 
machinery 
across intra-EU 
borders would 
be facilitated 
only partially. 

An optional policy 
will contribute to 
higher safety 
standards for road 
approvals done 
under the new 
policy. 

As regards whether the benefits for the relatively small share of mobile machines that are 
not exported compensate for the additional costs of maintaining the national rules on top 
of the EU rules in the case of an optional policy, it must be considered that the existing 
national rules are already implemented, and the costs for keeping them are minimal. The 
biggest cost for authorities would be the cost of having a new system in place, and this 
would  happen  with  a  mandatory  option  too,  so  this  is  not  a  difference.  Moreover, 
Member States authorities do not regard this parallel system as a problem; they dealt with 
it already with categories R and S under Regulation 167/2013. 

The comparison between a mandatory and optional policy shows that a mandatory policy 
would  be  more  effective  in  facilitating  use  of  machinery  across  intra-EU  borders  and 
ensuring  equal  road  safety  standards  across  the  EU.  Both  options  would  be  equally 
efficient  in  reducing  compliance  costs  and  facilitating  product  innovation,  as  well  as 
eliminating barriers to market entry. 

It is difficult to properly estimate the potential take-up of an optional policy. In section 
1.3 it is explained that only 4% is sold in the EU country where production takes place. 
This may be taken as proxy to those machines intended for one market only, and/or those 
produced in small series, for which manufacturers may be more interested in applying for 
the national approvals. Taking this 4% as a proxy of the turnover that might stay under 
the current national approval because of manufacturers’ choice, the benefits calculated 
in Table 5 for each of the policy options would decrease by a 4%. 

49 

 
 
 
 
Table  9.  Comparison  of  policy  scope  with/without  towed  equipment  against  the 
effectiveness criterion 

Objective 1: Eliminate 
barriers to market entry (in 
particular for SMEs), and 
reduce market delays in the 
introduction of new machines 
++ 

Objective 2: Reduce 
compliance costs, 
and facilitate 
product innovation 

++ 

Objective 3: 
Facilitate use 
of machinery 
across intra-
EU borders 

++ 

With 
towed 
equip. 

A policy covering all self-propelled and towed non-road mobile 
machinery would address the whole market. 

++ 

++ 

++ 

Without 
towed 
equip. 

A policy covering only self-propelled non-road mobile machinery 
would not tackle R, S and O category vehicles (estimated at 20% of the 
total market), considering the such categories are or can be already 
under existing type-approval legislation. 

Objective 4: Ensure high and 
equal requirements and 
technical solutions for the road 
safety of non-road mobile 
machinery across the EU 

- 
Towed equipment already has 
dedicated frameworks, that may 
be expanded to cover any 
necessary categories 
+ 

Avoids duplication of approval 
frameworks 

The  comparison  between  policy  including  all  non-road  mobile  machinery  or  only  self-
propelled shows that including only self-propelled be more effective. Although including 
all towed equipment would allow covering the whole machinery segment, it would need 
better  ex-post  enforcement  to  prevent  manufacturers  misapplying  the  new  policy  for 
vehicles  that  fall  better  under  existing  type-approval  legislation,  at  the  expense  of  road 
safety.  Indeed,  most  towed  equipment  can  be  already  homologated  today  under  the 
existing type-approval legislation for categories O (trailers), R (agricultural trailers) and 
S  (agricultural  towed  equipment).  Proposing  in  parallel  a  simplified  framework  for  the 
same vehicles would create a dual system, with the risk of the simplified one becoming a 
‘catch-all’ regulation or allowing ‘cherry picking’ by manufacturers. 

By including only self-propelled non-road mobile machinery it is estimated that 20% of 
the non-road mobile machinery market would not be impacted by the new policy. In that 
case, the benefits calculated in Table 5 for each of the policy options would decrease 
by 20%. 

Table 10. Comparison of policy scope with/without maximum design speed limit against the 
effectiveness criterion 

Objective 1: Eliminate 
barriers to market entry (in 
particular for SMEs), and 
reduce market delays in the 
introduction of new machines 

Objective 2: Reduce 
compliance costs, 
and facilitate 
product innovation 

Objective 3: 
Facilitate use of 
machinery across 
intra-EU borders 

+++ 

++ 

+++ 

All 
speeds 

A policy covering all non-road mobile machinery, independently of the 
maximum design speed, would address the whole market. However, it would 
require better ex-post enforcement. 

Up to 
40 km/h 

++ 

++ 

++ 

A policy covering non-road mobile machinery with a maximum design speed 
up to 40 Km/h only, would leave a part of the market uncovered, although 
small (10% of the self-propelled non-road mobile machinery market), 
considering that most non-road mobile machinery is designed for low road 
circulation speeds. 

Objective 4: Ensure high 
and equal requirements 
and technical solutions for 
the road safety of non-
road mobile machinery 
across the EU 
- 
A simplified framework is 
not fit for purpose for fast 
vehicles 
+ 

A simplified framework is 
fit for purpose for vehicle 
speeds up to 40 km/h 

The  comparison  between  policy  including  all  speeds  or  not  shows  that,  although 
including all speeds would allow covering the whole machinery segment, it would need 
better  enforcement  against  misapplication  of  the  new  policy  to  vehicles  that  fall  better 
under  existing  type-approval  legislation,  at  the  expense  of  road  safety.    Indeed, 
borderlines  with  existing  type-approval  legislation  are  naturally  defined  by  the  speed 

50 

 
 
 
limit, preventing any misuse of the new regulation (‘cherry picking’ by manufacturers / 
‘catch-all’ regulation). 

In addition, a maximum design speed limit would focus on slow machinery, which is the 
category that really needs a dedicated new policy, and which covers most of the market 
(around 90% of total), and on a simplified system. Indeed, 40 km/h is more in line with a 
simplified  regulation,  since  for  speeds  under  40  km/h  requirements  are  less  stringent. 
Finally,  a  maximum  design  speed  limit  would  discourage  manufacturers  to  produce 
vehicles with design speeds higher than what is recommended for road safety reasons. 

By setting a maximum design speed limit at 40 km/h it is estimated that not more than 
10% of the non-road mobile machinery market would be not impacted by the new policy. 
In that  case,  the benefits calculated in Table 5 for each of the policy options would 
decrease by 10%. 

Table 11. Comparison of stakeholder views on the policy options (majority of views) 

Policy option 

Member States road 
approval authorities  

Manufacturers 
and distributors 

Rental companies 
and end users 

Technical 
services 

PO 0: Baseline 

PO 1a: Type-approval 

PO 1b: Simplified 
type -approval 
PO 2: CE marking 
Directive 
Regulation 

Mandatory 

Optional 

Self propelled and 
towed machinery in 
scope 
Only self propelled 
machinery in scope 
No maximum design 
speed limit 
Maximum design 
speed limit 40 Km/h 

- 

- 

Preferred 

- 
- 
Preferred 
Preferred optional at 
first, and mandatory 
later on 

- 

- 

Preferred 

- 
- 
Preferred 

- 

- 

- 

Preferred 

- 
- 
Preferred 

- 

- 

Preferred 

- 

- 
- 
Preferred 

Preferred 

Preferred 

Preferred 

- 

Preferred 

- 

Preferred  

- 

Preferred 

Preferred 

- 

Preferred  

- 

Preferred 

- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

Both  the  technical  specifications  in  option  1  and  the  essential  safety  requirements  in 
option  2  would  relate  to  the  list  of  vehicle  features  detailed  in  Annex  5 as  relevant  for 
road safety. This list details the vehicle features that must be regulated in order to ensure 
safety on the road and would be the same for all options. As explain in section 5, the list 
was developed based on current national solutions and was discussed with the working 
group  composed  of  the  industry  and  user  associations,  Member  States  authorities  and 
their technical services112.  

112 Working document ‘NRMM-2019.06 Technical requirements’ summarising the findings of the targeted 

consultation carried out by the Commission on differences between member states requirements for the road 
circulation of non-road mobile machinery. Available in the library section of the CIRCABC interest group “New 
legislative initiative - Road circulation approval requirements for non-road mobile machinery”. 

51 

 
 
 
                                                           
Due to the very technical nature of these requirements, there are no real policy choices to 
be  made  on  the  technical  specifications.  The  assessment  of  the  main  policy  options 
would not change substantially if choices were made in relation to the additional design 
elements, because the main cost elements are not linked to the requirements, but to the 
requirements not being harmonised. 

8.  PREFERRED OPTION 

8.1. 

Simplified  type-approval,  optional,  covering  self-propelled  machinery 
only and with a maximum design speed limit up to 40 km/h 

It  seems  more  adequate  for  the  new  legal  framework  to  be  a  type-approval  system 
following the old approach, where technical specifications are detailed in the legislation, 
which is the widely accepted and trusted framework for road safety in Europe. This type-
approval should be simplified to be proportionate and take account of the characteristics 
of non-road mobile machinery (low circulation frequency, special road circulation rules 
in  EU  Member  States,  many  design  specificities  due  to  the  work  they  are  intended  to 
perform  and  often  manufactured  by  SMEs).  There  is  a  wide  consensus  on  the  fact  that 
option 1b is the most effective, efficient and coherent.  

A  harmonised  simplified  type-approval  policy  for  road  circulation  will  have  the 
following implications for the stakeholders involved.  

  Manufacturers  and  distributors  will:  i)  have  an  easier  market  entry  ii)  eliminate 
delays linked to multiple EU countries’ approvals, iii) benefit from a reduction by 
a fifth of the compliance costs; iv) enhance their competitiveness in and outside 
the EU. 

  Rental companies and end users will: i) benefit from a reduction by a fifth of the 
compliance costs; ii) easily use and re-sell machinery across intra-EU borders; iii) 
have  more  choice  of  non-road  mobile  machinery;  iv)  have  access  to  more 
innovative designs. 

  Member States authorities: will need to adapt to the new systems, however this is 

not seen as a problem or a significant burden by the affected authorities. 

  Technical services: will need to adapt to the new system, and will see an increase 
on  workload  and  revenue,  although  this  may  be  mitigated  by  the  fact  that 
approvals  will  likely  decrease  in  number  since  manufacturers  will  have  to 
undergo them in one EU country only. 

  Road users: will benefit from harmonised rules that ensure high road safety across 

the EU. 

It is the most proportionate option, as thanks to the balanced combination of third party 
approval  for  critical  vehicle  features  and  self-certification  for  less  critical  vehicle 
features, it keeps compliance costs under reasonable limits. It is the most coherent option, 
since  it  is  similar  to  the  existing  simplified  type-approval  legislation  for  comparable 
vehicle  categories  R  (agricultural  trailers)  and  S  (agricultural  interchangeable  towed 
equipment). 

52 

 
An  optional  policy  seems  more  adequate,  to  allow  for  manufacturers  to  either  benefit 
from the new policy to streamline the market launches across the EU, or to keep applying 
for national approvals if more convenient for their business model. Although this results 
in  a  higher  burden  for  authorities,  that  would  need  to  keep  a  double  approval  system 
running, this seems not to be a major problem for them, since are already doing so in a 
number of areas (such as the R and S categories of towed equipment). 

However,  the  national  systems  will  still  be  an  option  for  individual  approvals 
(marketed only in one country) and small series. In such cases, manufacturers can either 
opt  to  apply  the  new  legislation  or  keep  applying  for  national  approval.  However, 
manufacturers who opt to follow national rules will not benefit from the free movement. 
Threshold limits for small series would be defined in the new framework. 

The  new  framework  will  harmonise  technical  requirements  for  the  road  circulation  of 
self-propelled  machinery  only,  since  most  of  the  towed  equipment  should  be  type-
approved under other vehicle categories (categories O, R and S). 

The  new  framework  will  set  up  a  maximum  design  speed  limit  at  40  km/h  to  the 
machinery  in  scope,  which  would  be  instrumental  to  avoid  scope  overlaps  with  the 
existing  type-approval  legislation  and  would  prevent  the  application  of  the  new 
framework to faster vehicles, at the expense of road safety. Faster vehicles will have to 
find their place in the full type-approval legislation, for the benefit of road users. 

The new legislation will set up maximum noise limits not higher than the current limits 
in  the  tractors  Regulation  (EU)  167/2013,  resulting  in  an  environmental  benefit.  In 
addition, the new legislation will include a clause to have such limits revised to adapt to 
any improvements in the state of the art. 

One-in, one-out: The total benefit of the initiative is estimated at €846 million over 10 
years for manufacturers, distributors, rental companies, and end users, i.e., €84,6 million 
per  year.  Since  the  administrative  cost  is  estimated  at  4%  of  the  total,  the  overall 
administrative saving is calculated as €3,38 million per year. 

8.2.  Choice of the instrument: a regulation. 

The  new  legal  framework  will  set  out  the  technical  requirements  to  be  complied  with 
when  granting  EU  type-approval.  Both  the  enacting  terms  and  their  annexes  will  be 
highly  detailed  and  leave  practically  no  room  for  discretion  of  Member  States  when 
transposing them. In addition, the requirements are highly technical, detailed, and subject 
to regular adaptations to technical progress. Regulations are used for all type-approval of 
vehicles,  including  Regulation  167/2013  covering  tractors,  agricultural  trailers,  and 
agricultural  tower  equipment  (categories  ‘R’  and  ‘S’).  Consequently,  a  regulation  is 
preferred. 

The co-decision act will list all vehicle features relevant for road safety when the non-
road  mobile  machinery  is  circulating  on  the  public  roads.  On  the  contrary,  vehicle 
features  relevant  for  occupational  safety  when  the  mobile  is  performing  the  work  for 
which it has been designed, will continue to be regulated exclusively by the Machinery 
Directive. Annex 5 to this report describes the safety features that would be covered by 
the new legal framework. The co-decision act will also include a transitional period from 
the entry into application of the new regulation, after which the new framework will be 
mandatory for the non-road mobile machinery in scope. 

53 

 
Delegated  acts  will  be  adopted  to  prescribe  in  detail  the  technical  and  administrative 
requirements  as  well  as  conformity  assessment  procedures  to  be  followed  by 
manufacturers.  Manufacturers  would  present  for  each  vehicle  feature,  depending  on  its 
criticality  for  road  safety,  different  types  of  documentation,  such  as  a  third  party  test 
report, a manufacturer’s test report, manufacturer’s drawings, schematics, etc. (assessed 
by  a  third  party  or  directly  by  the  authorities),  a  manufacturer’s  certificate,  a  type-
approval  certificate,  etc.113  The 
the 
documentation for the entire machine.  

type-approval  authority  would  check  all 

The  non-road  mobile  machinery  fulfilling  the  requirements  laid  down  in  the  new 
regulation will not be subject to any further technical requirements in the Member States. 
National vehicle registration (and issue of a license plate for road circulation) and any 
machine circulation permits will stay under the responsibility of each Member State but 
will not justify any additional testing or technical requirements. The new framework will 
not  affect  Member  States  prerogative  to  regulate  non-technical  requirements  for  road 
circulation  such  as  speed  limits,  prohibition  to  circulate  in  certain  areas  (such  as 
maximum  weights  allowed  for  certain  bridges,  or  maximum  weights  allowed  to  drive 
across a town), driver licence requirements, etc. 

9.  HOW WILL ACTUAL IMPACTS BE MONITORED AND EVALUATED? 

Once implemented, the actual impacts of the chosen policy option need to be monitored 
and compared to the objectives and the expected impacts. A Commission’s Expert Group 
on  the  road  circulation  of  non-road  mobile  machinery  is  being  set  up  with  all 
stakeholders  of  the  non-road  mobile  machinery  sector.  This  group  will  meet  at  regular 
frequency  to  analyse  and  follow-up  of  the  implementation  of  the  regulation  in  all  EU 
countries. 

At least the following indicators are proposed to collect the necessary information:  

1.  Number  of  EU  approvals  for  new  non-road  mobile  machinery  granted  in  each 

Member State; 

2.  Number of national approvals granted in the calendar  year previous to the entry 
into  force  of  the  new  regulation,  and  the  number  of  national  approvals  for  new 
non-road mobile machinery granted in each Member State every year after; 

3.  Reporting on road accidents with non-road mobile machinery by Member States; 

4.  Direct costs of compliance: This indicator can only be assessed through a survey-
based  exercise,  as  conducted  in  the  framework  of  the  impact  assessment  study. 
Conducting such a survey again  after full implementation of the new legislation 
would provide a comparative figure; 

5.  Indirect  costs  of  compliance  (market  delays):  through  a  survey-based  exercise, 

after full implementation of the new legislation. 

Table 12. performance indicators114 

113 List non-exhaustive. 
114As regards possible synergies in data collection with other initiatives such as the Machinery directive, a new 

dedicated reporting is not proposed. In addition, considering that road authorities are different from the authorities 
dealing with the Machinery directive, no easy synergies could be found. 

54 

 
                                                           
Indicator 

Definition 

Use of EU 
type-
approvals  

Use of 
national 
approvals  

Road 
accidents 

Direct costs 
of 
compliance 
with EU 
type-
approval 
Indirect 
cost 
savings 
with EU 
type- 
approval 

Number of EU 
type-approvals 
for new non-
road mobile 
machinery 
granted in each 
Member State 
Number of 
national 
approvals for 
new non-road 
mobile 
machinery 
granted in each 
Member State 

Reporting on 
road accidents 
with non-road 
mobile 
machinery by 
Member States 
Direct cost of 
compliance for 
EU type-
approval per 
each new type 
of machinery 
Indirect cost 
savings with EU 
approval per 
each new type 
of machinery 

Unit of 
measurement 
Number of EU 
approvals 
granted 

Data 
source 
Member 
States 

Number of 
national 
approvals 
granted 

Member 
States 

Number of 
accidents, 
seriousness of 
accidents 

Member 
States 

Euro 

Euro 

Stakehol
der 
survey 

Stakehol
der 
survey 

Frequency  Baseline  

4 years 
after the 
entry into 
application 
of the new 
regulation 

4 years 
after the 
entry into 
application 
of the new 
regulation 

4 years 
after the 
entry into 
application 
of the new 
regulation 
4 years 
after the 
entry into 
application 
of the new 
regulation 
4 years 
after the 
entry into 
application 
of the new 
regulation 

Zero 

Average of the 
number of national 
approvals granted 
in the 5 last 
calendar years115 
previous to the 
entry into 
application of the 
new regulation 
NA (disaggregated 
data not available 
in most countries) 

Direct cost of 
compliance for 
national approval 
of a similar 
machinery type 

Indirect cost of 
compliance with 
national approvals 
for similar models 
before the EU 
type-approval was 
in place 

The new regulation should be evaluated within 5 years after its entry into force. 

115An average is proposed, as one specific year may be affected by extraordinary circumstances and thus be not 

representative. 

55 

 
 
 
 
                                                           
Annex 1: Procedural information 

1.  LEAD DG, DeCIDE PLANNING/CWP REFERENCES 

This  initiative  on  the  harmonisation  of  technical  safety  requirements  for  the  road 
circulation  fills  a  gap  in  the  single  market  for  non-road  mobile  machinery,  and  thus 
contributes  to  ensuring  a  deeper  and  fairer  single  market,  which  is  one  of  the 
Commission’s priorities. 

The lead DG for this initiative is  the DG for Single market,  Industry, Entrepreneurship 
and  SMEs  (DG  GROW).  The  Directorate  in  charge  is  Directorate  H  -  Construction  & 
Machinery.  

The initiative is coded in Decide Planning with the reference 2017/GROW/003. 

2.  ORGANISATION AND TIMING 

The timing for adoption of the new act by the Commission is March 2023.  

The Inter-service consultation took place in September/October 2022. 

3.  CONSULTATION OF THE RSB 

This impact assessment was sent to the RSB on 10/11/2021. 

A meeting with the RSB took place on 8/12/2021. 

The RSB issued its opinion on 10/12/2021, following which this impact assessment was 
revised as follows:   

RSB recommendations 

(B) Summary of findings 
(1) The report does not 
sufficiently explain why 
mutual recognition does not 
work in this sector and why 
promoting the respect of the 
mutual-recognition principle is 
not one of the policy options. 

(2) The report does not 
provide convincing evidence 
that a lack of harmonised rules 
results in more accidents 
involving non-road mobile 
machinery. It does not justify 
why the initiative aims at 
equal requirements and 
technical solutions for road 

Revisions introduced 

Section 2 on problem description now discusses in more detail 
why mutual recognition does not function in the non-road 
mobile machinery sector, despite being an area of technical 
regulation without EU harmonisation. In addition, the analysis 
on why mutual recognition does not work and would not work 
in the future has been further expanded in sections 5.1 and 5.3, 
explaining why a policy option aiming to promote the practical 
implementation of the mutual recognition principle was 
discarded. 
Section 7 explains better why harmonised requirements would 
likely increase the level of road safety of non-road mobile 
machinery across the EU, and why road safety requires equal 
requirements and technical solutions, and not just sufficiently 
high requirements. This supports the choice of the preferred 
option, since a main determining factor is its higher score on 
road safety. 
The assessment of the options in section 6 explains how this 
initiative will contribute specifically to road safety and specifies 

56 

 
 
safety. 

(3) The report is unclear about 
the methodology used to 
estimate costs and cost 
savings. It does not present the 
reliability and robustness of 
the evidence base. 

(4) It is unclear why the report 
does not assess the additional 
design elements as part of the 
main policy options. It does 
not explain to what extent the 
assessment of impacts and the 
choice of the preferred option 
would change if these design 
elements were taken into 
account in the analysis. 

(C) What to improve 
(1) Mutual recognition 

(2) The problem description 
should provide a clear 
overview of the different cost 
categories.  

(3) Why harmonised 
requirements  

(4) Road safety as secondary 
objective 

(5) New policy versus 
implementing legislation. 

whether all options can deliver on the objectives. Section 4 on 
specific objective discusses the limitations of road safety as an 
objective of the new policy, and how, despite this, road safety 
would be enhanced by the adoption of the proposed policy. 
Section 2 on problem description provides now a clear 
overview of the different cost categories, describing in more 
detail the costs incurred by each of the affected groups 
(manufacturers, distributors, rental companies, end users and 
authorities). Section 2 explains as well how indirect costs are 
estimated and discuss whether they are realistic or risk to be 
overestimated, and specifies which costs and savings 
correspond to. Additional clarifications on the methodology 
used to estimate costs and cost savings, the sources of 
information and main assumptions, have been added in sections 
2 and 6, as well as in this Annex 1, where the reliability of the 
estimates has been assessed, as well as the possible 
uncertainties affecting the evidence base. 
The report justifies in section 6 why additional design elements 
affecting the obligatory nature as well as the scope of 
harmonised rules are assessed separately from the main policy 
options. In section 7, it also calculates the impacts as a result of 
the choices made on these design elements. In particular, the 
report considers in section 7 how the estimated impacts would 
change if EU and national rules coexist or if the scope of 
application is narrowed. It also clarifies that the choice of the 
preferred option would not change in light of these specific 
design elements. The costs and benefits in the standardised table 
in Annex 3 has been changed to incorporate the additional 
design elements that are part of the preferred option. 

The problem description section 2 discusses in more detail why 
mutual recognition does not function in the mobile machinery 
sector, despite being an area of technical regulation without EU 
harmonisation, and why as a consequence there is no policy 
option aiming to promote the practical implementation of the 
mutual recognition principle. 
The problem description section 2 describes in more detail the 
costs incurred by manufacturers due to market entry delays, 
distinguishing them clearly from the direct costs, and how they 
are estimated, per each of the affected groups (manufacturers, 
distributors, users, rental companies and authorities). Annexes 1 
and 4 include more details on data limitations and calculation 
methods. 
Section 6 explains why harmonised requirements would likely 
increase the level of road safety of mobile machinery across the 
EU, and why road safety requires equal requirements and 
technical solutions, and not just sufficiently high requirements.  
Section 4 explains clearly that that road safety is a secondary 
objective rather than one of the main specific objectives. 
Section 6 clarifies how this initiative will contribute specifically 
to road, and how and to what extend each of the options can 
deliver on the objectives set.  
Section 8 clarifies what is decided now, based on this impact 
assessment, and what will be decided later through 
implementing legislation. 

57 

 
 
 
 
(6) Methodology used to 
quantify costs and savings 

(7) Assessment of additional 
design elements 

Section 6 presents the sources of information and main 
assumptions, providing more detail in Annexes 1 and 4, 
assessing the reliability of the estimates and possible  
uncertainties affecting the evidence base.  
Section 6 explains why additional design elements affecting the 
scope and take up of harmonised rules are assessed separately 
from the analysis of the main policy options and considers how 
the impacts would change as a result of the choices made on 
these design elements. The costs and benefits table in Annex 4 
include the additional design elements that are part of the 
preferred option. 

4.  EVIDENCE, SOURCES AND QUALITY 

Two studies supporting this impact assessment were carried out by external contractors: a 
‘Study on the EU harmonisation of the requirements for the road circulation of non-road 
mobile  machinery’116  and  a  complementary  ‘Cost-benefit  analysis  study  for  impact 
assessment  on  road  circulation  of  non-road  mobile  machinery’117.  The  Commission’s 
consultants  carried  out  a  number  of  interviews  and  complemented  them  through  desk 
research.  

The Commission gathered also evidence through public and targeted consultations, four 
workshops held with all stakeholders and several other meetings with stakeholders. 

Sources  have  been  chosen  as  reliable  as  possible.  Similar  data  were  cross-checked 
whenever  possible.  It  is  acknowledged  that  some  data  are  estimates;  in  order  to 
compensate  for  possible  inaccuracies,  throughout  this  document  benefits  have  been 
estimated in a conservative manner. 

Quantification of impacts has been consistently attempted, but sometimes limitations of 
data have made possible only a qualitative analysis. 

  A  lack  of  granularity  in  the  categorisation  of  the  non-road  mobile  machinery 
sector  in  the  structural  business  statistics,  where  PRODCOM  codes  do  not  allow  a 
high  degree  of  accuracy  (see  Annex  4).  In  such  cases,  a  proxy  was  used  when 
possible; 

The baseline figures of the cost and benefit conducted in 2019 study complemented the 
findings of the previous study conducted in 2016. According to the analysis conducted in 
2016,  the  total  compliance  costs  for  manufacturers  account  for  €1.5  billion.  The  2019 
analysis was building on these figures but amending the methodology to better represent 
market  composition.  The  main  difference  between  figures  in  both  studies  lies  in  the 
methodological approach to extrapolation of the sample. In the 2019 a tailored approach 
to  capture  the  different  capacities  of  EU  Member  States  was  chosen,  while  the  2016 
study  looked  at  the  EU  as  a  whole.  Another  major  difference  in  these  studies  is  the 
sample itself.  First,  the  second study  received more survey responses. Second, the data 
collection process included more detailed questions to the manufacturers and distributors. 
These  features  improved  the  precision  of  the  analysis  and  produced  more  reliable 

116 “Study on the EU harmonisation of the requirements for the road circulation of mobile machinery”. ECORYS, 

2016. 

117 “Cost/benefit analysis study for Impact Assessment on road circulation of Non-road mobile machinery”, PPMI, 

2019. 

58 

 
 
                                                           
conclusions. Despite these methodological differences, both studies found that the most 
important  driver  of  the  compliance  costs  is  the  market  delays  that  manufacturers  (and 
distributors) incur due to differences in the legislation of the EU Member States. 

The cost and benefits study team consulted 90 economic operators, of which: 

  39  were  manufacturers  of  non-road  mobile  machinery  (of  which  30%  SMEs) 
from 11 Member States, representing around 50% of the total industry turnover. 

  37  rental  companies  and  end  users,  95%  of  which  were  SMEs,  across  11  EU 

Member States. 

Compliance  costs  for  manufacturers  and  distributors  were  estimated  at  4%  of  the 
industry’s revenue.  

Compliance costs for rental companies and end users were estimated as follows:  

1.  Data  collection  though  surveys,  interviews  and  desk  research.  Including 
reviewing the survey answers for their plausibility and logic and filling in missing 
answers based on the available data and assumptions. 

2.  Calculation  of  direct  and  indirect  baseline  and  harmonisation  costs  for  each 
survey  respondent  based  on  the  cleaned  (and  imputed  where  necessary)  survey 
questionnaire answers.  

3.  Calculation of total baseline and harmonisation costs for each survey respondent 

over ten years using a recommended 4% discount rate. 

4.  Calculating total NRMM volumes in the EU based on PRODCOM market data. 
Since there was no market turnover data available for rental companies and end 
users, production data expressed in units sold was used. 

5.  Deriving  total  baseline  and  harmonisation  costs  for  each  survey  respondent  per 
one  unit  of  non-road  mobile  machinery  they  use/rent.  Deriving  an  average 
baseline  and  harmonisation  cost  per  one  unit  of  NRMM  for  those  respondents 
whose costs were greater than zero (about one third of all respondents).  

6.  Calculating  total  baseline  and  harmonisation  cost  to  rental  companies  and  end 
users in the EU, using average cost for the share of respondents whose costs were 
greater than zero and the number of non-road mobile machinery units used in the 
EU. 

The 2016 study estimated the EU production value at €10.3 billion. The 2019 costs and 
benefit study updated the estimate, giving an EU production value of €11.9 billion. The 
EU production value has been recalculated with 2019 data to €12.5 billion, which is the 
one considered in this report. In all cases, the production value under the different codes 
has been corrected by applying the % of machinery that is  NRMM, as  agreed with  the 
sector experts during the 2016 study. 

It  was  assumed  that  only  direct  costs  differ  by  the  policy  options.  Indirect  costs 
(measured though the cost of market delays) were assumed to be constant as they relate 
to  divergent  requirements.  The  next  step  was  to  calculate  the  present  value  of  the 
compliance  costs  for  each  of  the  survey  respondents  at  the  baseline  and  for  all  of  the 
policy sub-options. Baseline and potential harmonisation costs were later extrapolated to 
match  the  whole  industry  based  on  the  total  turnover  of  the  EU  non-road  mobile 
machinery market. 

59 

 
 
  Limitations  on  accidents  data,  where  non-road  mobile  machinery  data  are  not 

isolated in national statistics. 

As regards limitations on accidents data (of which more details are provided in Annex 2), 
most  countries  present  non-road  mobile  machinery  data  together  with  tractors  data, 
without distinction. In addition, causes of accidents are not available, hence it is difficult 
to capture if and how many accidents are due to a lack of necessary safety requirements 
for  the  road  circulation  of  non-road  mobile  machinery  in  some  EU  countries.  Despite 
this, there is consensus in that a harmonisation of safety requirements across the EU will 
have positive effects on the level of safety on the road across the EU.  

60 

 
 
 
Annex 2: Stakeholder consultation 

Annex 2.1 Chronological overview 

Numerous consultations over this file have been taking place over time, as follows: 

- 

In 2016: 

o  Surveys to 35 stakeholders as input for a study on the EU harmonisation 
of the requirements for the road circulation of non-road mobile machinery 
carried out in 2016118; 

- 

In 2017: 

o  Feedback on the Inception Impact Assessment119; 
o  Workshop 1: organised in June 2017, aiming at collecting views from the 
national authorities (ministries of transport) on the possible policy options 
forward; 

- 

In 2018: 

o  Workshop 2: organised in February 2018, for a more in-depth discussion 
on  the  preferred  policy  option  and  initiating  a  debate  on  technical 
requirements120; 

- 

In 2019: 

o  Surveys to  90 stakeholders as input for a costs and benefit  study  carried 

out in 2019121; 

o  A  targeted  consultation  for  Member  States  in  23  EU  languages  was 

carried out between May and September 2019 via EU survey122; 

o  Workshop  3:  organised  in  December  2019,  addressed  to  member  state 
authorities, 
technical  services,  notified  bodies  and  Europe-wide 
stakeholder organisations, to share the outcomes of the costs and benefits 
study  and  the  targeted  consultation,  and  to  further  discuss  the  policy 
options, scope and technical requirements123; 

- 

In 2020: 

o  A  public  consultation  in  23  EU  languages  via  EU  survey  was  launched 

and open during 12 weeks from Nov. 2020 to Feb. 2021124; 

- 

In 2021: 

o  Workshop 4: organised in May 2021 with all main stakeholders, to share 
the main findings of the public consultation process and make progress on 
policy options, scope and technical requirements125. 

118 “Study on the EU harmonisation of the requirements for the road circulation of mobile machinery”. ECORYS, 

2016. 

119 Available at: https://ec.europa.eu/info/law/better-regulation/have-your-say/initiatives/1198-Road-circulation-

requirements-for-mobile-machinery_en. 

120 Working documents are available in the library section of the CIRCABC interest group “New legislative initiative - 

Road circulation approval requirements for non-road mobile machinery”. 

121 “Cost/benefit analysis study for Impact Assessment on road circulation of Non-road mobile machinery”, PPMI, 

2019. 

122 Working document ‘NRMM-2019.03 MS Targeted Consultation Feedback’ summarising the findings of the 

targeted consultation carried out by the Commission on differences between member states approval systems for the 
road circulation of non-road mobile machinery. Available in the library section of the CIRCABC interest group 
“New legislative initiative - Road circulation approval requirements for non-road mobile machinery”. 

123 Working documents, such as ‘NRMM-2019.07 Draft Minutes Workshop NRMM 9 Dec 2019 rev1’ summarising 
discussion with stakeholders, are available in the library section of the CIRCABC interest group “New legislative 
initiative - Road circulation approval requirements for non-road mobile machinery”. 

124 Public consultation outcomes available at: https://ec.europa.eu/info/law/better-regulation/have-your-
say/initiatives/1198-Road-circulation-requirements-for-mobile-machinery/public-consultation_en. 

61 

 
 
 
 
 
                                                           
- 

In 2022: 

o  Workshop 5: organised in June 2022 with all main stakeholders, to share 
and  gather  feedback  on  the  main  features  of  the  legislative  proposal  for 
the road approval of non-road mobile machinery under preparation126. 

In addition, several bilateral meetings with stakeholders have been organised for a deeper 
analysis on certain aspects of the file. 

Annex 2.2 Inception Impact Assessment (IIA) 

The  Inception  Impact  Assessment  for  this  initiative  was  launched  in  2017,  with  a 
feedback period running from 20 November 2017 to 18 December 2017. The number of 
total responses were 19, of which 10 from manufacturers and users associations, 8 from 
companies and 1 from a EU citizen. A majority of the respondents (15) expressed support 
for  harmonising  the  safety  requirements  for  the  road  circulation  of  non-road  mobile 
machinery. 

Annex 2.3 Studies 

  Study on the EU harmonisation of the requirements for the road circulation 

of mobile machinery (Ecorys, 2016). 

The  aim  of  this  study  was  to  substantiate  the  problem  analysis  and  assess  it  in  a 
qualitative and quantitative manner and compares costs and benefits of possible solutions 
(policy options). 

To  address  the  objectives  of  the  study,  first  the  contractor  defined  the  sector  based  on 
Eurostat  PRODCOM  codes  (including  expert  judgement  from  sector  representatives). 
Then  they  conducted  a  technical  investigation  based  on  desk  research,  interviews  and 
legislative review, outlining the key requirements causing difficulties for the industry and 
the  areas  of  strongest  divergence  between  Member  States.  Finally,  they  quantified  the 
problem and its impacts and compared them based on the Standard Cost Model (SCM) 
and a sector survey with 29 manufacturers capturing almost 70% of the EU market. 

  Costs  and  benefits  of  the  policy  options  for  EU  harmonisation  of  the 
requirements for the road circulation of non-road mobile machinery (PPMI, 
2019) 

This study built on the existing evidence, updating, improving and filling in the gaps to 
measure  the  possible  economic  impacts  of  different  harmonisation  options.  The  cost-
benefit  analysis  conducted  in  this  study  provided  the  evidence  base  for  identifying  the 
best  policy  option,  with  the  largest  long-term  net  benefit  for  society,  including  the 
affected economic operators and EU citizens in all the EU Member States. 

This  study  estimated  the  the  costs  and  benefits  of  harmonisation  through  surveys, 
interviews and desk research. The study team consulted 90 economic operators, of which 

125 Working documents, such as ‘NRMM-2021.05 Draft Minutes Workshop NRMM 6 May 2021’ summarising 

discussions with stakeholders, are available in the library section of the CIRCABC interest group “New legislative 
initiative - Road circulation approval requirements for non-road mobile machinery”. 

126 Working document ‘NRMM-2022.02 220608_Presentation Workshop NRMM 08.06’, available in the library 

section of the CIRCABC interest group “New legislative initiative - Road circulation approval requirements for non-
road mobile machinery”. 

62 

 
 
                                                                                                                                                                            
39 were manufacturers of non-road mobile machinery, representing around 50 % of the 
total  industry  turnover.  They  also  defined  the  sector  based  on  PRODCOM  data,  which 
allowed  data  for  the  entire  EU  market  to  be  extrapolated.  The  findings  of  this  study, 
therefore,  represent  the  net  benefit  of  harmonisation  of  the  requirements  for  road 
circulation throughout the EU. 

The study covered all stakeholder groups: manufacturers, intermediaries, end users, third 
parties and Member State authorities. It utilised the existing data on road safety and road 
accidents in the EU. However, the limited availability of the existing data constituted the 
main limitation of the study. Overall, the lack of statistics on non-road mobile machinery 
road accidents combined with expert interviews suggest that such machines do not cause 
many accidents on public roads. Another limitation stemmed from many MS authorities 
finding  it  very  difficult  to  contemplate  the  potential  costs  that  harmonisation  would 
bring. Therefore, their survey data must be treated with some caution. 

Annex 2.4 Workshops 

  Workshop in June 2017, collected views from the national authorities (ministries 
of  transport)  on  the  possible  policy  options  forward.  The  objective  of  the 
workshop  was  to  investigate  the  potential  effects  of  a  change  from  the  existing 
nationally  regulatory  approaches  to  EU  harmonised  legislation  based  entirely  or 
partially  on  "new  approach"  principles  (certification  by  the  manufacturer  based 
on  technical  documentation  and  self-testing  and/or  certification  by  notified 
bodies, as well as technical specification in European harmonised standards). 

  Workshop  in  February  2018  allowed  a  more  in  depth  discussion  on  the  policy 

options available and initiating a debate on technical requirements; 

  Workshop  in  December  2019,  addressed  to  member  state  authorities,  technical 
services, notified bodies and Europe-wide stakeholder organisations, to share the 
outcomes  of  the  costs  and  benefits  study  and  the  targeted  consultation,  and  to 
further discuss the policy options, scope and technical requirements; 

  Workshop in May 2021 with all main stakeholders, to share the main findings of 
the public consultation  process  and make progress on policy options, scope and 
technical  requirements.  The  policy  option  for  a  simplified  type-approval 
regulation was identified as preferred, with wide stakeholder consensus. 

Annex 2.5 Targeted Consultation to Member States’ authorities 

The  purpose  of  the  targeted  consultation  was  to  gather  Member  States  views  on  a  new 
EU  legislation,  their  current  conformity  assessment  procedures  of  the  non-road  mobile 
machinery  and the  efforts needed by their  authorities to  enforce new harmonised rules. 
19 Member States replied. 

17 Member States were in favour of a new EU legislation for the following reasons: 

  To implement a real single market also for this sector.  

  To  reduce  certification  costs  for  manufacturers  who  sell  non-road  mobile 
machinery in several European countries, as well as the costs of compliance and 
research and development.  

63 

 
  Because the primary purpose of the machine is not road circulation.  

  To avoid the burden for authorities to adapt all technical provisions in the MS to 
the technical progress in all Member States. Some noted that approval authorities 
in charge to check the total technical file are mainly administrative authorities and 
do not have the competency for all types of different machinery and different very 
specific technical aspects. 

  To guarantee a minimum common level of road safety in Europe.  

2 Member States were against, arguing that non-road mobile machinery traffic has not 
resulted in a high number of accidents, or not highlighted as a problem. 

Current  conformity  assessment  procedures  for  non-road  mobile  machinery  are  of 
following types, depending on the Member State: 

  Based on a third party testing/approval: Austria, France (for agricultural self-
propelled  machinery  only,  but  not  for  construction  machinery),  Germany,  Italy, 
Portugal, Slovak Republic, Spain; or  

  Not  based  on  a  third  party  testing/approval:  Belgium,  Cyprus,  Denmark, 
Estonia, Finland, Greece, Ireland, Latvia, Luxembourg, Malta, Romania, Sweden: 

o  Based  on  documentation  from  the  manufacturer  (Belgium,  Luxembourg, 

Greece) 

o  Based on internal production control (Estonia) 
o  CE Declaration of Conformity Machinery Directive (Finland, Latvia) 
o  In-house certification (Sweden) 

Additional efforts needed by Member States authorities to enforce harmonised rules 
on the requirements for the road circulation of non-road mobile machinery. Among the 
19 authorities responding: 

  4 MS expected limited effort (<5%):  Cyprus, Germany, Italy, Sweden 

  12  MS  expected  some  effort  (<20%):  Austria,  Luxembourg,  Finland,  Latvia, 

Belgium, Romania, France, Estonia, Spain, Malta, Slovakia, Portugal 

  3  MS  expected  significant  effort  (>20%):  Denmark,  Ireland,  Greece.  It  requires 
resources  for  implementation,  communication  with  stakeholders  -  including 
enforcement,  internal  training,  etc.  Depending  on  the  model  chosen  for  the 
harmonized rules, the scope may be larger or smaller, but in any case, much more 
work  is  expected  than  in  a  day  when  manufacturers  simply  have  to  live  up  to 
requirements and standards (Denmark) 

Annex 2.6 Public Consultation 

The consultation was open during 12 weeks between 10 November 2020 and 2 February 
2021 via the EU Survey online system in 23 EU languages, and received 74 answers. 

  Questions  1  to  21  aimed  at  characterising  the  respondents  in  several 

stakeholder groups  

 Responses by stakeholder type: 

64 

 
Number of responses

Enterprise, business professional or business…

Institutions of national authorities, technical services…

End user/customer or user/customer association or…

Research centre

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

Responses by country of origin: 

Country of respondents

30
25
20
15
10
5
0

Responses by sector of activity: 

65 

 
 
 
 
Responses by organisation size: 

Responses by yearly turnover size: 

66 

 
 
 
Responses by percentage of sales / acquisitions involving intra EU annual trade: 

  Questions  22  to  31  aimed  at  characterising  the  extent  of  the  problems  this 

initiative aims to address. 

As regards questions 22 and 23 on knowledge about accidents linked to the non-road 
mobile machinery circulating on public roads, 36 out of 74 respondents replied to be 
aware of such accidents in their country, among which 31 referred to road accidents that 
led to the personal injury of one or more persons.  

The lack of specific statistics available on this subject was mentioned, and when existing, 
the lack of disaggregated data to identify the vehicle types involved and the causes of the 
accident. Despite this, respondents mentioned accidents related to heavy equipment, such 
as street sweeper trucks and larger construction equipment, related to the moves of large 
equipment  with  operational  devices  operating  under  the  cab  or  behind  the  driver,  or 
related to operations that require constant reversing. Other accidents mentioned relate to 
refuse collection vehicles (RCV), stability issues, braking or steering, lack of visibility, 

67 

 
 
 
 
poor  maintenance  (e.g.  broken  lamps)  particularly  in  old  machinery,  or  a  wrong 
behaviour of the driver. 

As  regards  question  24  on  whether  certain  vehicle  features  are  a  cause  or  a 
contributor to these accidents, the following were mentioned: 

Vehicle features 
Vehicle performance & control 
(braking system, steering system, 
turning radius, maximum design 
speed, speedometer) 

Vehicle masses, dimensions and 
structure (maximum authorized 
mass, maximum length /width 
/height, vehicle structure integrity, 
swinging upper structure) 
Road surface protection 
(maximum axle loading, 
maximum surface contact 
pressure, tyres and tracks) 
Vehicle awareness (audible 
warning device, lighting, 
signalling installation, side 
reflectors, rotating beacon, 
external sound level) 

Operator vision (field of vision, 
windscreen wipers, rear-view 
mirrors, sun visor, glazing and 
installation) 

Vehicle components related to 
functional safety (vehicle 
structure integrity, heating 
/ventilation/filtration systems, 
mechanical couplings/towing 
devices, fuel tank pressurization 
and leakage, guards and fenders, 
operator controls related to 
circulation, unauthorised use 
prevention) 
Other 

Cause or contributor to accidents 

  Manipulation of the maximum vehicle speed 
  Leaving the driver's seat and the vehicle without the parking 

brake activated. 

  Mobile machines is that are overlooked by other road users, 

especially because of the difference in speed 

  When  braking,  the  load  concentrates  on  the  front  and 

detaches itself from the main frame. 

  Different handling of maximum dimensions at national level 
leading to problems with road safety when crossing borders.  

  Height and width  
  Upper structure 
  Stability issues due to loads at speed 
  Tyre plated/air loss 

  Mobile machines often turn into places where normal traffic 
does  not,  such  as  driveways  to  fields,  small  forest  roads, 
construction  sites.  Thus,  other  road  users  do  not  expect  the 
vehicle to turn there; this is especially dangerous at left turns 

  Marking of the width of the vehicle not good enough 
  Low  position  of  headlights;  recommendable  to  have  high-
positioned  headlights  with  turning  signals,  brake  lights  and 
make-up  lights  on  slow-moving  vehicles  where  there  are 
often cars right behind that hide the headlights 

  Reversing  or  sudden  movements  of  large  construction 

 

equipment or street sweeper trucks 
Impairment of visibility by persons or goods (e.g. to the rear 
or  to  the  side,  where  other  vehicles  or  bicycles  can  be 
overlooked,  or  where  the  road  border  cannot  be  seen 
correctly  and  the  machine  may  trespass  and  fall  in  a  ditch). 
Camera  solutions  could  alleviate  the  blind  spots  caused  by 
the design of these machines 

  Obstructed view due to inappropriate attachments 
  Obstructed  view  due  to  attachments  exceeding  the  front 
dimension (also due to deviating national requirements) 
  Poor  visibility  of  sweeper’s  operational  devices  under  or 
behind  the  driver's  cabin  coupled  with  human  tendency  to 
lean or observe the operational equipment. 

  Stability  issues  due  to  design  issues  (stability  criteria 

 

calculation errors) 
In vehicles with an open cab, the driver is unprotected from 
hazards in road traffic 

  Trailer incorrectly coupled/defective coupling device  
  Deficiency related to load or carriage of persons 

Inappropriate attachments  

 
  Continuous reversing of construction equipment in populated 

areas 

68 

 
  Operating errors  
  Deficiencies in the condition of the vehicle 

The following country statistics were provided: 

Netherlands:  The  Dutch  Safety  Board  established  in  2010  that  the  width  of  the 
construction vehicle, in combination with narrow roads, is a major cause of accidents, as 
well  as  the  fact  that  the  driver's  view  is  often  blocked  by  parts  of  the  vehicle,  tools  or 
charge.  In  addition,  the  Dutch  Safety  Board  concluded  that  the  visibility  and 
recognizability of agricultural vehicles in the dark could be a problem. These conclusions 
are  based  on  an  in-depth  investigation  of  11  serious  accidents  (in  which  a  serious  road 
injury  or  death  occurred)  and  the  study  of  73  fatal  accidents  involving  agricultural 
vehicles127.  

Over  a  period  of  ten  years  (2006-2015),  an  average  of  11  road  deaths  per  year  in  the 
Netherlands were registered in accidents involving agricultural vehicles. Compared to the 
early  1990s,  the  average  number  of  road  deaths  resulting  from  accidents  involving  an 
agricultural  vehicle increased from  1% to  2% of the total  number of road deaths  in  the 
Netherlands. Agricultural vehicles include agricultural and forestry tractors (tractors) as 
well  as  self-propelled  work  equipment  used  for  agriculture,  construction,  ground,  road 
and hydraulic engineering and green maintenance. Due to ever-increasing scaling up in 
agriculture, companies own more and more lots spread over a larger area, which means 
that their agricultural vehicles travel greater distances on public roads. 

France: The ONISR (National Inter ministerial Observatory for Road Safety) centralises 
accident  data,  although  non-road  non-road  mobile  machinery  is  not  isolated  in  these 
statistics.  The  ONISR  databases  distinguish  in  particular  light  vehicles,  heavy  goods 
vehicles,  mopeds,  agricultural  tractors,  etc.  Assuming  that  the  categories  “special 
machinery”  and  “other  vehicles”  correspond  to  non-road  non-road  mobile  machinery 
(special  machinery  +  public  works  machinery  +  self-propelled  agricultural  machinery), 
the below data were obtained 128: 

yrs. 

Cumulative 
2015-19 
Special machinery 
Other vehicles 
Total 

Total accidents 

553 
1691 
2244 

Killed in 
accident 
62 
86 
148 

Killed in 
vehicle 
15 
38 
53 

Injured in 
vehicle 
274 
904 
1178 

Italy:  Italian  authorities  made  an  evaluation  for  agricultural  machinery  accidents  on 
public  roads  related  to  years  2010  –  2015.  Data  were  coming  from  ISTAT  (Italian 
National Institute of Statistics) and regarded cases where at least one person was injured 
and  at  least  one  agricultural  machinery  was  involved.  Unfortunately,  ISTAT  does  not 
distinguish between agricultural tractors and other agricultural machinery (e.g. combines 
or sprayers). However, it was assumed that most of the cases were related to agricultural 
tractors, because statistically their presence on the road is more common. Some findings 
from this evaluation were the following: 

  Only 0.2 % of all road accidents saw an Ag machinery involved; 

127 https://www.swov.nl/feiten-cijfers/factsheet/landbouwverkeer (in Dutch) 
128 Accidents involving self-propelled agricultural machinery could sometimes be registered under the category 

‘agricultural tractors’. The number of accidents is therefore indicative and to be taken with care. 

69 

 
 
 
                                                           
  On average, around 250 accidents per year where the root-cause is associated to 

the machinery and/or its driver; 

  About 80% of these accidents were generated by a wrong behaviour of the driver; 
  As for the other 20%, considering  average age of machinery (> 20 years), cases 

were mainly related to poor maintenance (e.g. broken lamps, etc.); 

  Accidents associated to braking or steering were on average 3 per year (< 1.5%); 
  Other technical items were irrelevant from a statistical point of view. 

Germany:  According to data on traffic accidents from  the Federal  Statistical  Office of 
Germany, approximately 2,000 accidents with personal injury (fatalities as well as minor 
and serious injuries) occurred per year with drivers of agricultural tractors. 129 

Austria:  Tractors  and  non-road  mobile  machinery  are  classified  together  in  accident 
data130:  

Vehicle Types 
Tractors and non-
road mobile 
machinery – 
Number of 
accidents 
Tractors and non-
road mobile 
machinery – 
Number of fatal 
accidents 

2010  2011  2012  2013  2014  2015  2016  2017  2018  2019 

149 

143 

125 

156 

131 

109 

154 

146 

179 

133 

8 

6 

4 

4 

9 

3 

3 

5 

9 

8 

To question 25 on problems created by divergences in national safety requirements 
for road circulation of non-road mobile machinery, respondents answered as follows: 

Problems 

Different  requirements  for  circulation  of  non-road  mobile  machinery 
within EU border regions  
Additional administrative, logistics, translation and consulting costs for 
multiple approvals 
Longer  time  to  place  a  new  type  of  machine  in  the  market  as  it  needs 
national approval 
Additional  manufacturing  and  design  costs  to  comply  with  multiple 
requirements  
Regulatory charges (fees) for multiple approvals in each EU country  
Other problems 

Number of 
responses 
(%) 
58 (78%) 

55 (74%) 

54 (73%) 

51 (69%) 

49 (66%) 
3 (4%) 

129https://www.destatis.de/DE/Themen/Gesellschaft-Umwelt/Verkehrsunfaelle/Publikationen/Downloads-

Verkehrsunfaelle/verkehrsunfaelle-jahr-2080700187004.pdf?__blob=publicationFile  
https://www.destatis.de/DE/Themen/Gesellschaft-Umwelt/Verkehrsunfaelle/Publikationen/Downloads-
Verkehrsunfaelle/verkehrsunfaelle-jahr-2080700197004.pdf?__blob=publicationFile In both documents the relevant 
statistics related to tractors (Landwirtschaftlichen Zugmaschinen) can be found in p.87 

130https://www.statistik.at/web_de/statistiken/energie_umwelt_innovation_mobilitaet/verkehr/strasse/unfaelle_mit_pers

onenschaden/019874.html  (in German) 

70 

 
 
 
                                                           
To  question  26  on  consequences  created  by  divergences  in  national  safety 
requirements  for  road  circulation  of  non-road  mobile  machinery,  respondents 
answered as follows: 

Consequences 

Additional  burden  for  users  when  using  machinery  across  intra-EU 
borders  
Time delay in the market introduction of new machines  
Higher product prices for users  
Some companies decide not to sell mobile machine in certain markets 
Less  variety  of  mobile  machines  available  on  the  market  in  your 
country  
Less innovation in the machine design  
Substandard road safety in certain EU countries 
Other problems 

Number of 
responses (%) 
51 (69%) 

50 (67%) 
48 (65%) 
47 (63%) 
43 (58%) 

35 (47%) 
23 (31%) 
3 (4%) 

Respondents  provided  the  following  additional  explanations  on  problem  drivers  and 
consequences: 

  Difficulties in obtaining and understanding national requirements; 
  Difficulties  in  the  cross-border  use  of  machinery  customers  in  border  regions, 
users  unable  to  obtain  multiple  registration  for  a  product,  distortion  of 
competition for contractors in border regions; 

  Major difficulties in marketing second-hand machinery in other EU countries, as 
vehicles  registered  in  one  country  must  be  converted  or  the  documentation 
modified, if they are sold in another country with different requirements; 

  Different requirements create a diversity of variants, which has a negative impact 
on  the  required  design  and  development  time.  It  also  leads  to  additional  costs, 
such as increased storage and logistics costs due to the greater diversity of parts 
or increased training costs for production personnel; 
  Multiple assessments by technical services are costly; 
  Need to follow multiple national approvals and their developments and revisions; 
  Diverging national road traffic regulations regarding for instance allowed weight, 
dimensions and  speed, mandatory signalling, etc. makes it more difficult to have 
the same approval on all types of vehicles; 

  Country  specific  product  exports 

increase  complexity  for  development, 
organisation,  marketing  opportunities,  time  to  market.  Burden  even  higher  for 
small series of machines, often not worth the effort;  

  Longer  time  to  market,  adding  to  the  seasonality  of  some  businesses  (e.g. 
agricultural machinery) where new machines must be launched in certain periods 
of the year, before the season starts; 

  Distortion  of  competition  and  market  barriers.  If  the  effort  to  meet  the  specific 
requirements  in  one  market  is  too  high  in  relation  to  the  expected  number  of 
machines sold, the machinery will not be offered on that market; 

  Since development budgets are limited, multiple variants inevitably lead to time 
and  cost  constraints,  some  of  which  do  not  allow  for  innovation,  creating  a 
barrier to innovation. In addition, machines will be built in such a way that they 

71 

 
 
can be approved in as many countries as possible without major adjustments and 
the technically best solution might not then be implemented; 

  SMEs in particular often lack the necessary resources (staff, specific knowledge 
of the rules) to carry out the necessary research themselves. Therefore, external 
consultants (law firms, engineering firms, technical services) are often required.  
  Lack of harmonisation within the EU Member States can trigger different levels 

of safety requirements. 

With  regard  to  question  31  on  impacts  of  the  COVID-19  pandemic,  respondents 
answered as follows: 

  Manufacturers reported high impacts, such as delayed or broken supply chains, 
borders  between  different  countries  closed  at  times,  factory  closures  for  several 
weeks  during  fist  lockdown,  reduction  of  production  capacity,  introduction  of 
shift  operations  to  reduce  the  number  of  employees  per  shift  in  order  to  reduce 
contacts,  lack  of  sales  and  demonstrations  events,  payment  delays,  decreased 
turnover and higher costs. Business delivering to municipalities saw budget  and 
orders  reduced  for  city  cleaning,  road  maintenance  and  winter  services  due  to 
reduced  tax  revenues,  e.g.  reduced  trade  tax  revenues  due  to  closed  businesses, 
shops  and  restaurants  and  upcoming  insolvencies,  and  are  therefore  purchasing 
less machinery and requesting fewer services in these areas. 

  Users in agriculture and forestry reported impacts, such as the security of supply 

for any necessary products (diesel, plant protection products, seeds, etc.). 

  Industry  Associations  reported  limited  impacts,  such  as  need  to  use  virtual 
formats  only  partially  suited  to  certain  topics  and  tasks,  and  the  lack  of  social 
contacts  over  a  long  period  made  difficult  to  communicate  with  members  and 
contact persons. 

  Approval authorities and technical services had to reduce staff capacity due to 
the  hygiene  rules  imposed  by  the  coronavirus  outbreak,  inspectors  were  not 
allowed  to  travel  and  on-the-spot  checks  were  difficult  or  impossible,  delaying 
the testing and certification of machinery; 

  Questions 32 to 50 aimed at gathering feedback on possible solutions to the 

problems this initiative aims to address.  

To  question  32  on  the  need  for  an  EU-wide  initiative  to  harmonise  the  currently 
diverging national requirements for road circulation of non-road mobile machinery, 90% 
of respondents replied that there is a need for such initiative. Respondents gave the 
following reasons: 

Reasons 

Easier to sell machines in other EU countries for manufacturers  
Users can easily use machinery across intra-EU borders  
Faster approval procedures for manufacturers  
Lower costs for manufacturers  
Lower product prices for users  
Increased safety 

Number of responses 
(%) 
54 (73%) 
54 (73%) 
51 (69%) 
48 (65%) 
41 (55%) 
38 (51%) 

To  question  38  on  the  impact  of  EU  harmonised  legislation  on  non-road  mobile 
machinery  related  to  road  circulation  on  cross-border  trade  opportunities  within 
the EU, businesses answered as follows: 

72 

 
 
 
Highly positive (increase in trade by over 20%)

Positive (increase in trade by over 10%)

Neutral (no change in trade)

I do not know

0

5

10

15

20

25

The policy options considered in the questionnaire were the following: 

1.  EU  approval  of  the  whole  mobile  machine  granted  by  Member  States  authorities. 
National Authorities approve the whole mobile machine for road circulation. There are 
two alternatives: 

  1.a) Type-approval The EU legal text includes all technical specifications for all 

parts of the mobile machine. 

  1.b) Hybrid approach For parts of the mobile machine that are more critical for 
road  safety  (e.g.  braking,  steering),  the  EU  legal  text  includes  all  technical 
specifications;  For  parts  of  the  mobile  machine  that  are  less  critical  for  road 
safety (e.g. cabin heating, mirrors, wheel guards, registration plate), the EU legal 
text 
technical 
specifications are described in harmonised standards. 

the  basic  requirements,  while 

includes  only 

the  detailed 

2.  CE  marking  of  the  whole  mobile  machine  granted  by  the  manufacturer.  The 
manufacturer declares that the mobile machine meets all legal requirements. There is no 
need for national authorities to approve the mobile machine for road circulation. For the 
whole machine and for all parts, the EU legal text includes only the basic requirements, 
while the detailed technical specifications are described in harmonised standards.  

To question 45 on the policy option that best achieves the objective of having an EU-
wide  road  approval  system  for  non-road  mobile  machinery,  61%  (n=45)  of 
respondents answered policy option 1.b., 18% (n=13) answered policy option 2 and 14% 
(n=10) answered policy option 1.a.  

Most  respondents  found  that  policy  option  2  would  be  too  lenient  and  it  would  be 
impossible  to  monitor  what  the  manufacturer  will  comply  with,  policy  option  1a  could 
increase  costs  unnecessarily,  and  policy  option  1b  would  be  the  best  compromise  for 
safety, cost and enforcement.  

The views by stakeholders’ group were as follows: 

  Respondents  from  manufacturers,  distributors,  and  users’  associations  preferred 

option 1b.  

  Respondents from EU authorities identified policy options 1.a or 1.b as the most 

effective. 

  Respondents from and technical services preferred option 1a. 

73 

 
 
 
Annex 3: Who is affected and how? 

1.  PRACTICAL IMPLICATIONS OF THE INITIATIVE 

A  harmonised  simplified  type-approval  legislation  for  road  circulation  will  have  the 
following implications for the stakeholders involved: 

-  Manufacturers and distributors:  

o  will  have  an  easier  market  entry  and  will  eliminate  delays  linked  to 

multiple EU countries’ approvals; 

o  will benefit from a reduction by a fifth of the compliance costs; 
o  will  benefit  from  the  balanced  combination  of  third  party  approval  for 
critical  vehicle  features  and  self-certification  for  less  critical  vehicle 
features, hence keeping compliance costs under reasonable limits; 

o  will enhance their competitiveness in and outside the EU. 

-  Rental companies and end users: 

o  will benefit from a reduction by a fifth of the compliance costs; 
o  will easily use and re-sell machinery across intra-EU borders; 
o  will have more choice of non-road mobile machinery; 
o  will have access to more innovative designs. 

-  Member States authorities: 

o  will  need  to  adapt  to  the  new  systems,  however  this  is  not  seen  as  a 

problem or a significant burden by the affected authorities. 

-  Technical services: 

o  will need to adapt to the new system, and will see an increase on workload 
and revenue, although this may be mitigated by the fact that approvals will 
likely decrease in number since manufacturers will have to undergo them 
in one EU country only. 

-  Road users: 

o  Road users: will benefit from harmonised rules that ensure high road 

safety across the EU. 

Is the most coherent option, since it is similar to the existing type-approval legislation for 
comparable vehicle categories.  

2.  SUMMARY OF COSTS AND BENEFITS 

The costs and benefits have been calculated based on the estimations made in Table 5 for 
policy  option  1b,  corrected  by  removing  the  4%  (optional  policy),  20%  (towed 
equipment) and 10% (maximum design speed of 40 km/h). 

I. Overview of Benefits (total for all provisions) – Preferred Option 

Description 

Amount 

Comments 

Direct and indirect benefits 

74 

 
 
 
Compliance cost reductions 

One-in, one-out 

€748 * (100-20%-10)% * (100-4)% = €502 
million over 10 years, of which: 
€134 * (100-20%-10)% * (100-4)% = €90 
million over 10 years 
€512 * (100-20%-10)% * (100-4)% = €344 
million over 10 years, of which: 
€344*18% = €62 million over 10 years 
Total: €846 million  
Total for SMEs: €152 million over 10 years  

Total benefit of the initiative is: €846 million 
over 10 years, i.e., €84,6 million per year, Since 
the administrative cost is estimated at 4% of the 
total, the overall administrative saving is 
calculated as €3,38 million per year. 

For manufacturers and distributors 

For manufacturing and distributing SMEs 

For rental companies and end users  

For rental companies and end users SMEs131 

For companies (manufacturers, distributors, 
rental companies and end users) 

Competitiveness 

Not quantifiable 

Internal Market 

Road Safety 

Not quantifiable 

Not quantifiable 

II. Overview of costs – Preferred option 

Citizens/Consumers  

Businesses 

Administrations 

One-off 

Recurrent 

One-off 

Recurrent 

One-off 

Recurrent 

Direct costs 

Compliance costs offset by much higher savings. Net saving 
reported in previous table. 

Not 
significant 

Not 
significant 

Action (a)   

Indirect costs 

Compliance costs offset by much higher savings. Net saving 
reported in previous table 

Not 
significant 

Not 
significant 

131 The costs and benefits study considered the benefits for the SMEs belonging to the manufacturers and distributors 
group. Rental companies and end users include also many SMESs, therefore the overall economic benefit for SMEs 
is higher. To estimate this overall benefit, since the % of SMEs in the rental companies and end users market 
revenues is unknown, it has been considered the same percentage (18%) as for the manufacturers and distributors 
group, where SMEs account for 18% of the market revenues. 

75 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                           
Annex 4: Analytical methods 

The following categorisation of the non-road mobile machinery sector is based on non-
road mobile machinery annual production values in the Eurostat statistics, and the related 
PRODCOM codes:132 

Source: 2019 Sold production, exports and imports by PRODCOM list (NACE Rev. 2) - annual data 
[DS-066341] (n.e.c.:  not elsewhere classified, n.e.s: not elsewhere specified) 

132 The % of machinery under these codes that is non-road mobile machinery was agreed with stakeholders during the 
“Study on the EU harmonisation of the requirements for the road circulation of mobile machinery”. ECORYS, 2016. 

76 

PERIOD 2019PRCCODE/INDICATORSSelf-propelledTowedSelf-propelledIA towedTotal28221433 - Mobile lifting frames on tyres and straddle carriers20%53.556.380053.556.38028221530 - Self-propelled works trucks fitted with lifting or handling equipment, non-powered by an electric motor20%662.061.1980662.061.19828221570 - Works trucks, self-propelled, not fitted with lifting or handling equipment, of the type used in factories, warehouses, dock areas or airports for short distance transport of goods; tractors of the type used on railway station platforms100%550.000.0000550.000.00028221850 - Loading machinery specially designed for agricultural use100%615.005.9160615.005.91628303900 - Agricultural... forestry machinery, n.e.c.; lawn or sports-ground rollers100%1.373.247.93501.373.247.93528305340 - Straw or fodder balers, including pick-up balers100%0819.329.843819.329.84328305420 - Potato-diggers and potato harvesters50%78.179.195078.179.19528305450 - Beet-topping machines and beet harvesters50%98.000.000098.000.00028305480 - Root or tuber harvesting machines (excluding potato-diggers and potato harvesters, beet-topping machines and beet harvesters)50%20.513.430020.513.43028305915 - Combine harvester-threshers100%1.635.848.58901.635.848.58928305930 - Agricultural threshing machinery (excluding combine harvester-threshers)100%76.881.002076.881.00228305945 - Forage harvesters (excluding self-propelled)50%026.099.05926.099.05928305960 - Forage harvesters, self-propelled50%235.704.5320235.704.53228305970 - Harvesting machines (excluding combine harvester threshers, root or tuber harvesting machines, forage harvesters)100%750.806.1160750.806.11628306050 - Sprayers and powder distributors designed to be mounted on or drawn by agricultural tractors (excluding watering appliances)20%0142.152.444142.152.44428307040 - Self-loading or unloading trailers and semi-trailers for agriculture100%01.343.072.9821.343.072.98228308630 - Forestry machinery100%1.227.222.79201.227.222.79228922150 - Wheeled dozers (excluding track-laying)100%82.876.000082.876.00028922210 - Motor graders, levellers and scrapers20%16.000.000016.000.00028922310 - Ride-on compaction equipment and the like20%210.591.4320210.591.43228922450 - Wheeled or crawler front-end shovel loaders (excl. specially designed for underground use)20%466.583.5870466.583.58728922500 - Self-propelled mechanical shovels, excavators and shovel loaders, with a 360 degree revolving superstructure, except front-end shovel loaders10%500.000.0000500.000.00028922630 - Self-propelled mechanical shovels, excavators and shovel loaders (excl. self-propelled mechanical shovels with a 360° revolving superstructure and front-end shovel loaders)10%0111.020.509111.020.50928922650 - Self-propelled earth moving, excavating... machinery, n.e.c.20%40.553.410040.553.41028922810 - Dumpers for off-highway use90%934.399.6720934.399.67228923030 - Snow-ploughs and snow-blowers50%74.717.407074.717.40729105950 - Concrete-mixer lorries10%40.000.000040.000.00029105990 - Other special-purpose motor vehicles n.e.c.10%290.524.6340290.524.63428923090 - machinery for public works, building..., having individual functions100%2.116.20102.116.20128304030 - Mowers for lawns, parks or sports grounds, powered non-electrically, with the cutting device rotating in a horizontal plane 50%363.3580363.35828304050 - Motor mowers for lawns, parks or sports grounds, powered non-electrically, with the cutting device rotating in a vertical plane or with cutter bars 50%244.0000244.000TOTAL10.035.996.7872.441.674.83612.477.671.623% of TOTAL80%20%100%% of NRMM EU27TOTALS_2019 (in Euro) 
 
                                                           
Annex 5: Vehicle features 

Here below are reported the vehicle features relevant for road safety when the non-road 
mobile machinery is circulating on the public roads, to be included in the new legislation, 
as per discussions held in several workshops organised with all involved stakeholders: 

1.Vehicle structure integrity 

2. Maximum design speed, speed governor and speed limitation devices and speedometer 

3. Braking devices 

4. Steering 

5. Field of vision 

6. Windscreen wipers  

7. Glazing and installation 

8. Indirect vision devices 

9. Lighting and lighting installation 

10. Vehicle exterior and accessories in on road position, including working equipment 
and swinging structure 

11. Audible warning devices and installation  

12. Heating systems, defrost and demist 

13. Registration plate spaces 

14. Statutory plate and marking 

15. Dimensions 

16. Masses, including maximum on-road laden mass 

17. Fuel tanks 

18. Tyres 

19. Reverse gear 

20. Tracks 

21. Mechanical couplings 

22. Driver and other occupants’ seating positions and restrain systems 

23. Operator’s manual for road use  

24. Operator’s controls for on-road use  

25. On road information, warnings and markings 

26. Other subjects 

27. Sound level (external) 

77