COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT Subsidiarity Grid 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) 64 final  COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT Subsidiarity Grid 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) 65 final} - {SWD(2023) 66 final}  
 
 
1.  Can the EU act? What is the legal basis and competence of the EUs’ intended action? 

1.1 Which article(s) of the Treaty are used to support the legislative proposal or policy 
initiative? 

Article 114 TFEU, under which the EU may adopt measures for the approximation of the 
provisions laid down by law, regulation or administrative action in Member States which have as 
their object the establishment and functioning of the single market. 

1.2 Is the nature of EU competence under this Treaty article shared or supporting? 

For product safety legislation for the single market, the EU has shared competence with the 
Member States (Article 4 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the EU (TFEU)). 

Subsidiarity does not apply to policy areas where the EU has exclusive competence, as defined in 
Article 3 of the TFEU1. The specific legal basis determines whether the proposal falls under the 
subsidiarity control mechanism. Article 4 TFEU2 sets out the areas where competence is shared 
between the EU and the Member States. Article 6 TFEU3 sets out the areas for which the EU has 
competence only to support action taken by the Member States. 

2.  Subsidiarity principle: Why should the EU act? 

2.1  Does the proposal fulfil the procedural requirements of Protocol No 24: 

-  Has there been a wide consultation before proposing the act? 
- 

Is there a detailed statement with qualitative and, where possible, quantitative indicators 
allowing an appraisal of whether the action can best be achieved at EU level? 

The consultation activities carried out include an inception impact assessment that ran over a 
four-week period, a 12-week public consultation in 23 languages on the Commission’s central 
public consultation webpage, a targeted consultation with Member States in 23 languages on the 
Commission’s central public consultation webpage, several workshops and regular consultations 
with interested parties at EU level.  

In particular, the following groups were consulted: 

 

the EU road-approval authorities and their technical services dealing with vehicle type 
approval; 
the Machinery Expert Group; 

 
  other interested stakeholders: representatives from the non-road mobile machinery 

industry, user associations, etc. 

The explanatory memorandum and the impact assessment (Chapter 3) contain a section on the 
principle of subsidiarity. 
In addition, Chapter 9 of the impact assessment report proposes several indicators to monitor and 
evaluate implementation of the regulation.  

1  https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/HTML/?uri=CELEX:12008E003&from=EN 
2  https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/HTML/?uri=CELEX:12008E004&from=EN 
3  https://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=CELEX:12008E006:EN:HTML 
4  https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/HTML/?uri=CELEX:12016E/PRO/02&from=EN 

1 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                           
2.2  Does the explanatory memorandum (and any impact assessment) accompanying the 

Commission’s proposal contain an adequate justification regarding the conformity with 
the principle of subsidiarity? 

The aim of this initiative is to harmonise the current situation of 27 different regulatory regimes 
in the Member States and improve the functioning of the single market. 
The different regulatory regimes in the Member States have created discrepancies in the single 
market, they are an economic and administrative burden and create barriers to the free circulation 
of self-propelled non-road mobile machinery. 
Harmonising the safety rules for the road approval of non-road mobile machinery can be done 
only at EU level. It is expected to reduce the administrative burden and provide a high degree of 
safety on the public roads. 
Regulatory action at EU level laying down EU-wide technical safety requirements for the road 
approval of non-road mobile machinery, and allowing market enforcement at the national level, 
ensures a coherent implementation of the technical safety requirements for non-road mobile 
machinery. As a result, it will increase the level of safety and enable the free movement of non-
road mobile machinery within the EU. 

2.3  Based on the answers to the questions below, can the objectives of the proposed action 
be achieved sufficiently by the Member States acting alone (necessity for EU action)? 

Currently, technical requirements and approval procedures for road approval of non-road mobile 
machinery are decided at Member State level. This legislation often differs between Member 
States, which means that manufacturers selling on several markets are obliged to tailor their 
production to comply with the rules in the target national markets and they must also have their 
vehicles tested in every Member State, which is time consuming and costly. Different national 
rules consequently hinder trade and undermine the establishment and functioning of the single 
market. 
It is therefore important to take an EU-level approach to approving this machinery. This initiative 
contributes to a more complete single market for non-road mobile machinery and to a high and 
uniform level of safety across Europe when non-road machinery circulates on public roads. It is 
therefore in line with the subsidiarity principle set out in Article 5 TEU.  

(a)  Are there significant/appreciable transnational/cross-border aspects to the problems being 

tackled? Have these been quantified? 

The EU non-road mobile machinery sector is a significant producer and strong exporter of non-
road mobile machinery globally. 42% of the annual production value is exported to non-EU 
countries and 54% is traded intra-EU. Only 4% of production is sold in the EU country of 
production. Therefore, non-road mobile machinery producers are extremely reliant on road 
approval in other countries. 
In addition, one of the problems identified is the difficulties that end users and rental companies 
face in using machinery across intra-EU borders. For example, rural contractors and construction 
companies that provide services in multiple EU countries (such as harvesting crops or renting 
construction equipment) are not always able to use non-road mobile machinery across different 
borders. This generates further costs to adapt their non-road mobile machinery to different sets of 
requirements. 

(b)  Would national action or the absence of EU-level action conflict with core objectives of 

the Treaty5 or significantly damage the interests of other Member States? 

5  https://europa.eu/european-union/about-eu/eu-in-brief_en 

2 

 
 
                                                           
National action or the absence of EU level action would maintain, if not widen, the existing gap 
in the single market. 
All other vehicle types have harmonised road approval requirements at EU level (categories M: 
vehicles carrying passengers; N: vehicles carrying goods; 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). 
Other aspects of non-road mobile machinery are also harmonised, such as product safety6, 
pollutant emissions7, noise emissions8 and electromagnetic disturbances generated by these 
machines9. 

(c)  To what extent do Member States have the ability or possibility to enact appropriate 

measures? 

Member States will be responsible for enforcing the new regulation, following common market 
surveillance rules. Without common requirements for the road approval of non-road mobile 
machinery, the current gap in the single market would continue or even widen, since 
requirements in different EU countries could diverge further still. 

(d)  How does the problem and its causes (e.g. negative externalities, spill-over effects) vary 

across the national, regional and local levels of the EU? 

The  production  of  non-road  mobile  machinery  in  the  EU  is  highly  concentrated  in  a  few  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). 

Non-road mobile machinery in the EU is produced by both large and small manufacturers. Like 
in other segments of the machinery industry, a  few large companies control large shares of the 
market,  while  SMEs  tend  to  be  more  specialised  in  niche  markets.  An  estimation  of  size 
distribution indicates that SMEs account for 98% of all companies registered. Nevertheless, large 
companies contribute 82% of the sector’s revenue and 70% of employment10. 

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 of production11. 
Thus,  non-road  mobile  machinery  producers  are  extremely  reliant  on  road  approval  in  other 
countries. 

Users of mobile machinery are widely spread across the EU. 

6  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. 

7  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. 

8  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. 

9  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. 

10 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]. 

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

066341]. 

3 

 
 
 
                                                           
(e)  Is the problem widespread across the EU or limited to a few Member States? 

As  explained  above,  the  production  of  non-road  mobile  machinery  in  the  EU  is  highly 
concentrated in a few EU countries but users of mobile machinery are widely spread across the 
EU. 
In addition, a harmonised set of requirements ensuring a higher level of road safety while non-
road machinery is circulating on public roads will benefit all EU countries alike. 

(f)  Are Member States overstretched in achieving the objectives of the planned measure? 

Member  State  authorities  will  have  to  implement  the  new  regulation  for  an  EU  type-approval 
system for non-road mobile machinery. However, the authorities do not view this is as a problem 
or significant burden since they already have type-approval systems in place for categories M, N, 
O, T, C, R and S as explained earlier, and therefore they can make substantial synergies.  
Member  State authorities will  be  able  to  keep  the  current  national  approval systems  in  parallel 
with the EU type-approval regulation. National systems will grant approval applying only to the 
territory of that Member State. 

(g)  How do the views/preferred courses of action of national, regional and local authorities 

differ across the EU? 

During  the  consultation  process,  road-approval  authorities  across  Member  States  expressed 
support  for  an  EU  type-approval  system  for  non-road  mobile  machinery.  Such  road-approval 
authorities operate at national level. 

2.4  Based on the answer to the questions below, can the objectives of the proposed action be 
better achieved at EU level by reason of scale or effects of that action (EU added value)? 

Only  regulatory  action  at EU  level  laying  down  EU-wide  technical  safety  requirements  for  the 
road approval of non-road mobile machinery and enabling market enforcement at national level 
can ensure that the technical safety requirements for non-road mobile machinery are implemented 
coherently.  

(a)  Are there clear benefits from EU-level action?  

A  costs  and  benefits  study  carried  out  by  the  Commission  in  2019  indicated  that,  by  setting 
uniform requirements at EU level, the non-road mobile machinery sector could save 18% to 22% 
of their compliance costs, which translates into €672 million to €873 million over 10 years. 

(b)  Are there economies of scale? Can the objectives be met more efficiently at EU level 
(larger benefits per unit cost)? Will the functioning of the single market be improved? 

There are economies of scale at the manufacturer’s level because with one single approval they 
will be able to sell their machinery in all EU countries. 

(c)  What are the benefits in replacing different national policies and rules with a more 

homogenous policy approach? 

A  homogenous  policy  approach  will  allow  the  free  movement  of  non-road  mobile  machinery 
within the EU and an easier use of  non-road mobile machinery in cross-border operations, and 
will contribute to a higher level of safety when non-road machinery circulates on public roads. 

(d) Do the benefits of EU-level action outweigh the loss of competence of the 
Member States and the local and regional authorities (beyond the costs and 

4 

 
 
benefits of acting at national, regional and local levels)? 

The  benefits  of  EU-level  action  outweigh  by  far  the  loss  of  competence  of  Member  State 
authorities. Overall, Member State authorities support the idea of an EU regulation for the road 
approval of non-road mobile machinery as it is already used for all other on-road vehicle types. 

(e)  Will it improve legal clarity for those having to implement the legislation? 

A  co-decision  act  will  list  all  the  vehicle  features  covered  when  non-road  mobile  machinery 
circulates on public roads. 
Delegated  acts  will  be  adopted  to  prescribe  in  detail  the  technical  and  administrative 
requirements  and  the  conformity  assessment  procedures  to  be  followed  by  manufacturers. 
Manufacturers will present for each vehicle feature, depending on how critical it is to road safety, 
different  types  of  documentation, such  as a  third-party  test report, a  manufacturer’s  test  report, 
manufacturer’s drawings and schematics (assessed by a third party or directly by the authorities), 
a  manufacturer’s  certificate,  and  type-approval  certificates.  The  type-approval  authority  would 
check all documentation for the entire machine. 

3. Proportionality: How the EU should act 

3.1   Does the explanatory memorandum (and any impact assessment) accompanying the 

Commission’s proposal contain an adequate justification regarding the proportionality 
of the proposal and a statement allowing appraisal of the compliance of the proposal 
with the principle of proportionality? 

The policy options considered are set out in the bullet points below. 

- 

  Option 0 - Baseline: ‘no action’. 
  Option  1  -  EU  approval  of  the  entire  mobile  machine  granted  by  Member  State 
authorities (old approach). This policy option follows the principles of the EU legislation 
on vehicles, where the technical specifications to comply with the general requirements 
are integrated in the legislation. 
1.a) Type approval: for most components, systems and separate technical units the road 
approval would involve a third party. 
1.b) Simplified type approval: for components, systems and separate technical units that 
are more critical for road safety, 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, the conformity assessment would be based on reports or 
self-certification by the manufacturer. 

- 

  Option 2 - CE marking of the entire mobile machine granted by the manufacturer (new 
approach).  This  policy  option  follows  the  principles  of  the  new  EU  legislation  on  the 
non-road  use  of  mobile  machinery  (e.g.  the  Machinery  Directive)  where  only  the 
essential  safety  requirements  are  embedded  in  the  law,  not  the  detailed  technical 
specifications. 

In principle, all options can be implemented by issuing either a directive or a regulation. 

The following aspects of the legislation were also assessed:  

(i)  making it mandatory (replacing the current 27 national rules), or optional (an alternative 

to the current 27 national rules);  

(ii)  including (or not) towed equipment in the scope; and  
(iii) limiting (or not) the scope to non-road mobile machinery with a maximum design speed 

not exceeding 40 Km/h. 

5 

 
 
 
 
 
The  type-approval  system  where  technical  specifications  are  detailed  in  the  legislation  is  the 
widely accepted and trusted framework for road safety in Europe. It should be simplified to  be 
proportionate  and  take  account  of  the  characteristics  of  non-road  mobile  machinery  (low 
circulation  frequency).  In  the  case  of  individual  approvals  (marketed  only  in  one  country)  or 
small  series,  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 provisions of the new regulation.  

The rules would only cover self-propelled machinery since the vast majority of towed equipment 
can already be currently type-approved under other vehicle categories.  The machinery in scope 
would  have  a  maximum  design  speed  limit  set  at  40  km/h  to  prevent  misuse  of  the  new 
framework by manufacturers of faster vehicles at the expense of road safety, most of which could 
already  be type-approved  under current  vehicle  categories. Maximum  noise emission  limits for 
road circulation will be set.  

Lastly, since the technical requirements will be highly detailed and will leave practically no room 
for discretion by the Member States when transposing them, a regulation is preferred. Therefore, 
the preferred policy option is 1.b (simplified type approval) – optional – covering self-propelled 
machinery only (not towed), with a maximum design speed limit of 40 km/h, and in the form of a 
regulation. 

3.2  Based on the answers to the questions below and information available from any impact 
assessment, the explanatory memorandum or other sources, is the proposed action an 
appropriate way to achieve the intended objectives? 

There is a wide consensus among stakeholders that Option 1b is the most effective, efficient and 
coherent. It is the most proportionate option as it keeps compliance costs under reasonable limits. 
It is the most coherent option as it mirrors the existing simplified type-approval legislation for 
comparable vehicle categories R (agricultural trailers) and S (agricultural interchangeable towed 
equipment). 

(a)  Is the initiative limited to those aspects that Member States cannot achieve satisfactorily 

on their own, and where the EU can do better? 

The initiative is limited to aspects that Member States cannot achieve satisfactorily on their own, 
and where only the EU can do better. Only an EU-level road approval system can facilitate free 
circulation in all EU Member States. 
The option  of  mutual  recognition for the sector  was discarded  at  an  early  stage  in  the  process. 
The external study carried out in 2016 analysed the option of mutual recognition for the sector. 
Mutual recognition would require trust in the requirements of other Member States and a degree 
of  conversion  rather  than  divergence  between  EU  countries.  With  the  current  diverging  rules, 
Member States with more stringent requirements were very unlikely to recognise and accept on 
their  market  non-road  mobile  machinery  complying  with  less  strict  requirements.  Moreover,  if 
the  Member  States  were  to  agree  on  and  put  in  place  a  mutual  recognition  system,  companies 
could try to obtain approval in Member States with less stringent requirements (or ‘shop around’ 
for  certificates  at  preferred  authorities),  which  would  be  undesirable  in  terms  of  the  sound 
functioning of the system12. 

(b)  Is the form of EU action (choice of instrument) justified, as simple as possible, and 

12 ‘Study on the EU harmonisation of the requirements for the road circulation of mobile machinery’. Page 68. ECORYS, 2016. Available at: 

https://ec.europa.eu/growth/content/final-report-eu-harmonisation-requirements-road-circulation-mobile-machinery-0_en. 

6 

 
 
 
 
                                                           
coherent with the satisfactory achievement of, and ensuring compliance with the 
objectives pursued (e.g. choice between regulation, (framework) directive, 
recommendation, or alternative regulatory methods such as co-legislation, etc.)? 

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. 

(c)  Does the proposed EU action leave as much scope for national decision as possible while 
achieving satisfactorily the objectives set? (e.g. is it possible to limit EU-level action to 
minimum standards or use a less stringent policy instrument or approach?) 

The  new  legal  framework  will  set  out  the  technical  requirements  to  be  complied  with  when 
granting  EU  type-approval,  but  the  enforcement  and  market  surveillance  will  be  under  the 
responsibility of Member State authorities. 
Member  States  will  not  be  able  to  prohibit,  restrict  or  impede  the  placing  on  the  market,  the 
registration or entry into service of non-road mobile machinery that comply with the Regulation. 

(d)  Does the initiative create financial or administrative costs for the EU, national 

governments, regional or local authorities, businesses or citizens? Are these costs 
commensurate with the objective to be achieved? 

Administrative costs for the non-road mobile machinery sector are estimated at 4% of the total 
compliance  (direct  and  indirect)  cost.  The  initiative  reduces  the  burden  significantly  for  the 
sector, which will be able to save €846 million over 10 years. By applying the 4% to this amount, 
the sector is estimated to achieve a savings of €3.4 million/year in administrative costs. 
Some  administrative  costs  will  be  borne  by  Member  State  authorities,  but  thanks  to  synergies 
with existing type-approval systems for other vehicles, they do not consider the costs significant. 

(e)  While respecting EU law, have special circumstances applying in individual Member 

States been taken into account? 

No special circumstances applying to any individual Member State were identified in preparation 
of this initiative. 

7