Standard Form of an Explanatory Memorandum

8953/13 8953/13 ADD 1 8953/13 ADD 2 COM (2013) 195 final SWD(2013) 108 final SWD(2013) 109 final

EXPLANATORY MEMORANDUM ON EUROPEAN UNION LEGISLATION

Proposal for an amendment of Directive 96/53/EC of 25 July 1996 laying down for certain road vehicles circulating within the Community the maximum dimensions in national and international traffic and the maximum weights in international traffic.

COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT IMPACT ASSESSMENT Accompanying the document Proposal for a Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council amending Council Directive 96/53/EC laying down for certain road vehicles circulating within the Community the maximum authorized dimensions in national and international traffic and the maximum authorized weights in international traffic

COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT EXECUTIVE SUMMARY OF THE IMPACT ASSESSMENT Accompanying the document Proposal for a Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council amending Directive 96/53/EC laying down for certain road vehicles circulating within the Community the maximum authorised dimensions in national and international traffic and the maximum authorised weights in international traffic

Submitted by the Department for Transport 20 May 2013

SUBJECT MATTER

1. EC Directive 96/53/EC adopted in July 1996 requires Member States to set maximum authorised dimensions in national and international traffic and the maximum authorised weights in international traffic for HGVs, buses and coaches circulating on EU roads. The purpose of the Directive is to ensure that no-one has an undue advantage in terms of competition, to help facilitate the free movement of goods and to avoid damage with overweight vehicles to road infrastructures across the EU.

2. The Commission believes that given the advances in vehicle and infrastructure technology and general increases in cross-border road freight traffic, an update to some of the more out-dated standards of Directive 96/53 is necessary. Additionally, the public consultation regarding amendments to the Directive last year highlighted that the continued infringement of over-weight vehicles needs to be better addressed. 3. The Commission therefore proposes to amend 96/53/EC to allow manufacturers to develop more aerodynamic, fuel-efficient and safer vehicles, improve road safety and intermodal transport and to facilitate improved enforcement of vehicles that infringe the maximum weights and dimensions as set out in the Directive. 4. The proposals for improved aerodynamics of vehicles state that they will not only give fuel efficiency savings and reductions in carbon emissions, but will also give the driver a better field of vision, which the Commission believes will cut collisions with vulnerable road users. More detail is given in the Impact Assessment section of this Explanatory Memorandum. 5. Given that European heavy vehicle manufacturers are market leaders and the sector is one of the largest corporate investors in research and development, the Commission believes that the new aerodynamic cabins and rear flaps will provide an opportunity for manufacturers to develop new models, which would help support job creation and economic growth in Europe; the proposal would allow up to 2 metres increase in length at the rear of the vehicle and an unspecified length at the front for the new aerodynamics, for a transitional period. The proposal would give the Commission powers to adopt Delegated Acts specifying the detailed technical requirements, which would replace the transitional provisions. 6. Whilst the proposal does not allow for any increases in loading length for HGVs, it does allow for an increase in weight by one tonne for hybrid or electric lorries and coaches, to account for their heavier powertrains and battery components. It also allows for an increase in weight by one tonne for all buses and coaches, to accommodate the increased average weight of passengers and their luggage, of new mandatory safety equipment and new Euro 6 engines. 7. The Commission estimates that up to a third of heavy goods vehicles across the EU are overloaded, causing damage to road infrastructure and compromising road safety. To address this, the proposal paves the way for such enforcement mechanisms as on-board weighing systems linked to digital tachographs and weigh-in-motion stations on main roads and would allow for more consistent controls between Member States. The proposals for enhanced enforcement will, in the Commission’s view, have a positive effect on competition. 8. The proposal would also require Member States to establish a system for pre- selecting and targeting checks on vehicles or combinations of vehicles to ensure compliance with the Directive’s requirements, and stipulates a minimum threshold of one weighing per 2 000 vehicle kilometres for doing this. It also envisages harmonisation of technical specifications of onboard weighing equipment and would require Member States to improve data exchange at EU level regarding offences. The Commission also proposes to adopt Delegated Acts regarding harmonisation of additional technical specifications at EU level of onboard weighing equipment. 9. The Commission categorises infringements of the proposed Directive according to their severity and states the sanctions incurred. 10. The Commission is keen to promote intermodal transport and proposes to reduce red tape by allowing 45 foot containers to be switched more easily between ship, road and rail. The proposal states that there would be an increase in maximum length of vehicles involved in intermodal transport by 15cm to allow them to carry 45ft containers. 11. The proposal is accompanied by the Commission’s Impact Assessment and Impact Assessment Summary.

SCRUTINY HISTORY

12. None for this document.

MINISTERIAL RESPONSIBILITY

13. The Secretary of State for Transport.

INTEREST OF THE DEVOLVED ADMINISTRATIONS

14. Scottish Government Ministers, Ministers of the Welsh Government and Northern Ireland Ministers have an interest and the devolved administrations have been consulted in the preparation of this EM.

LEGAL AND PROCEDURAL ISSUES

Legal basis

15. Article 91 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union.

European Parliament Procedure

16. The proposal will be subject to the ordinary legislative procedure.

Voting procedure

17. Qualified Majority voting

Impact on United Kingdom Law

18. Some consequential amendment of the Road Vehicles (Construction and Use) Regulations 1986 may be necessary. At this point, it is difficult to determine whether legislative changes will be needed until we see the content of the proposed legislation. If changes to the maximum length, weight or height of a vehicle are made, it is likely that we will need to amend the Road Vehicles (Construction and Use) Regulations 1986. Amendments may also be needed to the Road Vehicles (Authorised Weight) Regulations 1998. Application to Gibraltar

19. The proposal applies to Gibraltar.

Fundamental rights analysis

20. There are no fundamental rights affected by the proposed amendments to Directive 96/53/EC.

APPLICATION TO THE EUROPEAN ECONOMIC AREA

21. The proposal has been identified as having EEA relevance.

SUBSIDIARITY

22. Road freight transport is an international industry, as is the manufacture of road freight vehicles. The Government recognises that the design of future, more aerodynamic HGVs, buses and coaches together in a common format throughout the EU will have benefits which cannot be achieved by Member States acting alone.

POLICY IMPLICATIONS

23. The Government broadly welcomes the European Commission initiative.

24. In principle we would support amendments to the Directive to permit the use of aerodynamic devices that reduce fuel consumption and CO2 emissions, provided that road safety is not compromised and the maximum load length of vehicles is not increased. A Ricardo research study indicates that improved aerodynamics would reduce carbon emissions and give fuel savings along the lines of the Commission’s estimates.1

25. The Government agrees with the Commission’s assertion that improved aerodynamic designs of cabs would also be likely to make vehicles safer and better protect vulnerable road users by reducing blind spots in the driver’s vision under the windscreen. This is evidenced in a Transport Research Laboratory report that considered both the environmental and safety issues associated with lorry fronts.2

26. We would welcome the opportunity for UK industry to be involved in researching and developing more aerodynamic vehicles and agree with the Commission that this would be an excellent opportunity to help support job creation and economic growth in Europe.

27. The Government also welcomes the Commission’s proposal for an increase in weight by one tonne for hybrid or electric lorries and coaches, to account for their heavier powertrain and battery components. We would also want this

1 “Technology Roadmap for Low Carbon HGVs”. (Atkins, P. 2010). 2 “Safer aerodynamic frontal structures for trucks: final report” (Robinson, J; Knight, I; Robinson, T; Barlow, T and McCrae, I. TRL 2010) increase in weight to be extended to include gas powered vehicles due to the higher weights of the fuel tanks, which we will raise in negotiations.

28. We are also open to the proposal to increase the weight limit for all 2 axle passenger vehicles by 1 tonne, which would be welcomed by industry, subject to further detailed consideration.

29. We are concerned about the proposals for the Commission to be empowered to adopt delegated acts under Articles 8, 9 (relating to front and rear aerodynamics respectively) and Article 12 (relating to specifications for weighing equipment and procedures). This would give the Commission very broad powers for an indeterminate period to specify and then at any time revise the technical specifications for vehicles and for enforcement equipment and procedures. We will seek to limit these powers in the course of negotiations, preferably setting such important details in legislative acts and ensuring that any delegated powers, where they are appropriate, are limited to a maximum of 5 years.

30. The proposal states that before the adoption of these delegated acts, Member States would be able to authorise the use of vehicles with the new aerodynamic devices, in the absence of harmonised technical requirements, and that meet the basic requirements.

31. The Government’s concern here is that these provisions would compel the UK to accept vehicles with devices authorised by other Member States that could have a negative effect on the safety of our roads. In the absence of harmonised requirements, the Government will seek the inclusion of provisions that would allow Member States to refuse visiting vehicles so equipped from using their roads.

32. The Government is also concerned that there are no provisions for an implementation period so some manufacturers that are ready to implement some of the proposals immediately, in particular at the rear of the vehicle, may gain a commercial advantage over others.

33. The Government also has some concerns about the proposals that the aerodynamic features at the front and at the rear of the vehicle should be certified by Member States. The proposal does not give any detail on how this would be achieved – it is one of the details to be decided by delegated acts. There is therefore a significant risk that this requirement could incur significant costs for Government and for industry and could be unnecessarily bureaucratic. It may well be preferable for the implementation of such standards to become part of the existing type approval process as set out in the Framework Directive 2007/46/EC, rather than set up a separate certification scheme.

34. Proposals to aid fuel efficiency by changing regulations including on weights and dimensions for more aerodynamically efficient vehicles in principle should be in the UK’s interest.

35. The Government accepts the Commission’s intention to allow vehicles exceeding certain dimensions for international transport to cross borders where two adjoining Member States allow their use for national transport. However, the proposed amendment only specifies vehicle length and does not make clear the position on vehicles exceeding 4 metres in height, which is the maximum height the Directive allows for international transport. This could potentially give rise to problems between the UK and the Republic of Ireland, which currently both allow vehicles over 4 metres high to operate nationally and between the two countries.

36. We therefore consider that the amendment needs to include provisions that would make clear that vehicles exceeding 4 metres high can cross borders where adjoining Member States allow their use. This would confirm that goods vehicles exceeding 4 metres high can continue to travel between the UK and the Republic of Ireland.

37. The Government has concerns regarding the proposed requirement to establish a system for pre-selecting and targeting checks on vehicles or combinations of vehicles to ensure compliance.

38. The Vehicle and Operator Services Agency consider that this would mean the installation of approximately 70 ANPR/WIMS (automatic number plate recognition combined with weigh in motion technology) systems at each of their enforcement weighbridges. VOSA already has eight such systems in place for targeting overloaded vehicles. Alternatively, the proposal would allow these checks to be enabled by onboard systems installed in vehicles. This would lead to additional costs for operators, as well as for VOSA in obtaining the equipment to communicate with these onboard devices. This is unlikely to be preferable to the use of ANPR/WIMS technology.

39. Additionally, VOSA’s weighing activity is already highly targeted, which means that vehicles are only weighed if they appear to be obviously overloaded. This new proposal would mean that their enforcement strategy would need to change dramatically to ensure compliance. Sifting for overloaded vehicles on the scale suggested would mean a marked change to the number of vehicles actually weighed. We consider that our current enforcement practices are sufficiently rigorous and well targeted to ensure safety and compliance and do not need to be modified in the way that the Commission proposes.

40. The proposed penalties for non-compliance largely align with current UK practice. However, the Government considers that it is for Member States to decide upon their enforcement regimes and what penalties to levy, and therefore considers that this provision is unnecessary and should not be included in the Directive. Additionally, we have concerns about the proposal to restrict overhanging loads (for example, on car transporters) and we will look at the implications of this in more detail in the negotiations.

41. The Government is generally supportive of the principle that shippers should be responsible for weight declarations and should make them more accurately than often happens. We also welcome, alongside industry, the proposal to reduce bureaucracy by allowing 45 foot containers to be switched more easily between ship, road and rail. We also welcome the proposal to allow for an increase in the length of vehicles involved in intermodal transport by 15cm to allow them to carry 45ft containers. CONSULTATION

42. The Government has had informal consultation with the Freight Transport Association, the Road Haulage Association, the Society of Motor Manufacturers and Traders and the Confederation of Passenger Transport about the proposal.

43. Their views have been reflected in the Policy Implications section of this EM.

44. We shall continue our ongoing consultation with stakeholders in the lead up to and during the course of the negotiations.

IMPACT ASSESSMENT

45. The Government has not produced an Impact Assessment on the proposal but intends to undertake an Impact Assessment Checklist on the Commission’s proposal during negotiations, since part of the proposal would necessitate significantly changing part of our current enforcement regime, the cost implications of which are cited below in the Financial Implications section of this EM.

46. The Commission’s Impact Assessment has considered three policy packages, preferring option 2 as in their view the benefits obtained are far greater than the costs and is more likely to achieve the main objectives of environmental, safety and enforcement improvements.

47. The Commission estimates that improved aerodynamics, such as more rounded, streamlined cabins and rear tail flaps, would reduce the fuel consumption of long-distance road haulage by 7–10% thus making a very important economic and environmental contribution. This equates to approximately € 5,000 (£4,222) saved in fuel costs per annum for a typical long-distance lorry covering 100,000 km. It is also estimated that the cut in greenhouse gas emissions would be approximately 7.8 tonnes of CO2 for the same long-distance lorry covering 100,000 km.

48. The Commission give a projected estimate for 2030 for carbon reduction (in 1000s of tonnes) between 13,538 and 54,153 (for 25% to 100% of heavy goods vehicles, buses and coaches in the EU with the improved aerodynamics) and a total fuel saving (in millions of Euros) of between €10,935 (£9,232) and €43,739 (£36,929) - again for 25 – 100% of EU vehicles with the improved aerodynamics.

49. The new shaped cabins would provide less risk of injury to vulnerable road users involved in a collision than traditional flat fronted HGVs. The new shape would also improve the driver’s field of vision, in particular for vulnerable road users in front of the vehicle. The Commission estimates that these improved road safety characteristics would save between 300 to 500 lives of vulnerable road users per annum, across the EU.

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS 50. The Government does not currently have high level figures for the financial impact of the proposal on the UK; however, we intend to undertake more detailed financial analysis.

51. The requirement to establish a system for pre-selecting and targeting checks on vehicles or combinations of vehicles to ensure compliance would pose the most significant financial impact on the Government: VOSA has estimated that the additional 60 systems that would be required would involve an initial capital spend of around £6m, with about £1.5m ongoing costs per year. Additional manpower would also need to be found, increasing the costs further.

52. This equates to approximately £100,000 capital investment per weighing in station, compared with the €50,000 to €75,000 (£42,215 – £63,323) estimate in the Commission’s impact assessment.

53. The Presidency has not yet indicated when negotiations will commence, but it is envisaged that they will begin sometime in the early summer. The proposal is not expected to be included in a Council agenda during the current Presidency. The timetable for consideration by the European Parliament is not yet known.

54. The Commission envisages that the new trucks could be on the roads by 2018-2020. Certain features such as aerodynamic devices at the rear of the vehicle could be on the road sooner as these can easily be added to existing vehicle designs, but radically redesigned vehicle cabs could take much longer to develop.

Stephen Hammond MP Parliamentary Under-secretary of State for Transport Department for Transport