Non-Road Mobile Machinery Transitional Provisions

Non-Road Mobile Machinery Transitional Provisions

United KingdomDiscussion Document

(Updated February 2012)

1.Background

1.1This document is an updated version of an informal discussion document offered in response to the European Commission’s request for comments on the current transitional provisions in the Non Road Mobile Machinery Emissions Directive (97/68/EC) and, in particular, upon a proposal for an amendment to those provisions tabled by France.

1.2The possible approaches outlined in the annexes to this document have been altered, in this updated version, in response to a number of comments that were offered on the original drafting.

2.United Kingdom Comments

2.1We agree with the Commission, that Article 10 (2) of the current text, dealing with end of series derogations, is redundant and could be deleted.

2.2We think that the French proposal is a valuable contribution to discussions on the future shape of the transitional provisions, but we believe that those discussions should consider other alternative approaches as well as that tabled by France.

2.3Whilst we acknowledge a number of problems with the current transitional provisions, we believe that potential changes need to be considered thoroughly, taking into account the views of all parties in order to produces a robust and lasting solution.

2.4We think that a good robust and lasting solution will have the following characteristics;

• It will simplify and clarify the current provisions.
• It will discourage the commercially and environmentally undesirable practice of stockpiling engines in anticipation of a new emissions stage.
• It will add no more than a minimal burden upon either manufacturers or authorities.
• It will facilitateeffective enforcement in the interests both of manufacturers and ofachievement of the desired environmental outcomes from the Directive.

2.5We believe that any proposal should be supported by an impact assessment which compares its environmental and business impact with that of both the current provisions and other alternative approaches.

2.6With a view to encouraging a fruitful discussion on the issue, we have outlined two possible alternative approaches in the annexes to this document. The second of these approaches is based largely upon the French proposal, but incorporates some ideas drawn from views expressed informally by representatives of other MemberStates and industry stakeholders. We regard all aspects of our outlined approaches as open for discussion, and will be happy to share the thinking behind them. None of the figures that we have used in our outlined approaches have yet been the subject of any cost benefit analysis.

Annex AExamples of Possible Approaches

A1.Engine Production Date as the Primary Control Criterion

A1.1General Requirements

A1.1,1Engines should be labelled with their date of manufacture.

A1.1.2Engines carrying European approval markings but intended for permanent export from the EU should carry an additional marking, as part of the type-approval number, to indicate that fact.

A1.1.3A facility should be set up which would permit point of sale enforcement agencies to check whether approvals purporting to be from other agencies are legitimate, and whether applications made to them for flexibility or derogations are additional to applications made to other approval authorities. This might be done either,

i)by setting up a European database to which approval authorities would be obliged to upload the details of approvals and derogations that they had granted, or

ii)by requiring approval authorities to publish on their own websites lists of the approvals and derogations that they have granted.

A1.1.4There should continue to be a date from which new type approvals will have to be for engines meetinga new stage.

A1.1.5There should be a “final production” date, 12 months later than the mandatory type-approval date, from which all engines producedwill have to meet the new stage unless they are to be placed on the market under the flexibility scheme (or under one of the existing derogations or exemptions in the Directive). Enforcement will be primarily by the type approval authority making checks at the engine manufacturers’ facilities that new production engines are of the relevant standard.

A1.1.6The definition of an “OEM” should be improved and clarified, if possible by aligning it with a better definition already in use elsewhere, so as to make it clearer which entities are entitled to the flexibility scheme allowances. This should be done in such a way as not to have any unintended consequences in terms of reputable companies currently acting within the spirit of the Directive being forced to change their commercial structures.

A1.2A Revised Flexibility Scheme

A1.2.1The duration of the flexibility scheme should be the same as that of the new stage, or four years in cases where no end date for the new stage exists. [this revised scheme should extend to all power categories] It should otherwise be identical with the existing scheme.

A1.3Provisions for Engines for Inland Waterway Vessels

A1.3.1There should be a “final production” date, 12 months later than the mandatory type-approval date, from which all newly producedengines will have to meet the new stage.

A1.3.2There should be a date, 24 months after the placing on the market date, after which all engines installed in inland waterway vessels must meet the new stage.

A1.4Provisions for Railcar and Locomotive Engines

A1.4.1There should be a “final production” date, 12 months later than the mandatory type-approval date, from which all engines producedwill have to meet the new stage unless placed on the market under the flexibility scheme for engines in this category (or under one of the existing derogations such as those for replacement railcar engines).

A1.4.2There should be a new flexibility scheme applying to engines for railcars and locomotives, in which the number of engines placed in the scheme by each machine builder is limited to the numbers in the table below, and which should have a duration of [four] years from the mandatory type-approval date for each stage.

Engine Category (kW) / Number of Engines
Up to 560 / [50]
Over 560 / [15]

A1.5Comments on this Approach

A1.5.1The approach involves an increase in the numbers of engines in the flexibility scheme, and the introduction of a limited permanent flexibility scheme for the rail sector, in order to compensate for the increased business risk that results from the loss of the sell-off period.

A1.5.2The approach proposes a special marking for engines bearing type-approval markings but intended for permanent export from the EU. These engines will often meet a lower standard than that currently permitted in the EU,and the intention of this marking is to ensure that they can easily be identified if they are ultimately placed on the EU market. A requirement for engines to be marked with their production date, however, might make this special marking unnecessary.

A1.5.3The approach has the virtue of simplicity, and the virtue of easing enforcement, but it does not address the problem of engine stockpiling.

A2.Placing on the Market Date Retained as the Primary Control Criterion

A2.1General Requirements

A2.1.1Engines should be labelled with their date of manufacture.

A2.1.2Engines carrying European approval markings but intended for permanent export from the EU should carry an additional marking as part of the type-approval numberto indicate that fact,

A2.1.3A facility should be set up which would permit enforcement agencies to check whether approvals purporting to be from other agencies are legitimate, and whether applications made to them for flexibility or derogations are additional to applications made to other approval authorities. This might be done either,

i)by setting up a European database to which approval authorities would be obliged to upload the details of approvals and derogations that they had granted, or

ii)by requiring approval authorities to publish on their own websites lists of the approvals and derogations that they have granted.

A2.1.4There should continue to be a date from which new type approvals will have to be for engines meetinga new stage.

A2.1.5There should be a “placing on the market” date, 12 months later than the mandatory type-approval date, from which all engines placed on the market will have to meet the new stage unless placed on the market under the flexibility scheme (or under one of the existing derogations).

A2.1.6The definition of the legal entity that constitutes an “OEM” should be improved and clarified, perhaps by aligning it with a definition already in use elsewhere.

A2.2A Revised Flexibility Scheme

A2.2.1The duration of the flexibility scheme should be the same as that of the new stage, or four years in cases where no end date for the new stage exists. [and should extend to all power categories]

A2.2.2Machine builders should be permitted to apply for permission for their engine suppliersto place on the market a number of engines meeting only the superseded standard equal to [25] percent of one year’s average production by the machine builder of machines with engines in that power category.

A2.2.3The numbers of engines in the tables should be increasedproportionatelyto the increased percentage allowance,

A2.3ALink Between the Production Dates of Engines and Machines

A2.3.1There should be alink between the production dates of engines and machines, but it shouldbe one which does not involve extending the scope of the Directive to control the placing on the market of machines,

This link might be achieved by replacing the current two year sell-off period for engines produced before the “placing on the market” date with a new provision. The new provision might require engines placed on the market during the transition to a new stage to be fitted to machines within a reasonable period of time. An example of the way in which this might be done for engines other than rail and inland waterway engines by altering the text of the final paragraphs of Article 9(4a) is shown here;

“For each categoryall categories with placing on the market dates prior to 1st October 2014, the above requirements shall be postponed by two years in respect of engines with a production date prior to the said date.

For all categories, except categories for railway and inland waterway engines, with placing on the market dates on or after 1st October 2014,

i) After the type approval date set out in Article 9(3) for engines of that category, Member States shall only permit the placing on the market of engines that do not comply with that category when

a)the engines have been or are intended to be fitted into machines with a production date(1) which is no later than the calendar year following that in which the engine concerned is produced and

b)the engines are approved to the most recent previous stage of emission limits

ii)The requirements of paragraph 4a of Article 9 shall be postponed until the end of the second calendar year following that in which the engine was produced for engines with a production date prior to the said date.

Thepermission granted for one stage of emission limit valuesshall be terminated with effect from the mandatory implementation of the next stage of limit values.”

Footnote (1) As identified by the marking of machinery requirements set out in section 1.7.3 of the Essential Health and Safety Requirements of Annex I to Directive 2006/42/EC,

A2.4Provisions for Engines for Inland Waterway Vessels

A2.4.1There should be a time limit of [36] months from the type-approval date for a new stage for the fitting of engines meeting the old stage into vessels

A2.4.2There should be a date, [24] months after the placing on the market date, after which all engines installed in inland waterway vessels must meet the new stage.

A2.4.3An example of the way in which this might be done, once again by altering the text of the final paragraphs of Article 9(4a) is shown here;

For all categories of inland waterway engines with placing on the market dates on or after 1st October 2014,

i) After the type approval date set out in Article 9(3) for engines of that category, Member States shall only permit the placing on the market of engines that do not comply with that category when

a)the engines have been or are intended to be fitted into vessels(2) within [36] months of that type-approval date and

b)the engines are approved to the most recent previous stage of emission limits

ii)The requirements of paragraph 4a of Article 9 shall be postponed until the end of the second calendar year following that in which the engine was produced for engines with a production date prior to the said date.

Thepermission granted for one stage of emission limit valuesshall be terminated with effect from the mandatory implementation of the next stage of limit values.”

Footnote (2) As defined by the date of theinstallation test referred to in paragraph 4 of article 8a.02 of Directive 2006/87/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council (as amended),

A2.5Provisions for Railcar and Locomotive Engines

A2.5.1There should be a link between the production dates of engines and of railway vehicles similar to that proposed above for general non-road machines, but making use of the first issue of a safety certificate for use of the vehicle on a European railway in place of the production date.

A2.5.2An example of the way in which this might be done, once again by altering the text of the final paragraphs of Article 9(4a) is shown here;

For all categories of locomotive and railcar engines with placing on the market dates on or after 1st October 2014,

i) After the type approval date set out in Article 9(3) for engines of that category, Member States shall only permit the placing on the market of engines that do not comply with that category when

a)the engines have been or are intended to be fitted into locomotives or railcars(3) within [36] months of that type-approval date and

b)the engines are approved to the most recent previous stage of emission limits

ii)The requirements of paragraph 4a of Article 9 shall be postponed until the end of the second calendar year following that in which the engine was produced for engines with a production date prior to the said date.

Thepermission granted for one stage of emission limit valuesshall be terminated with effect from the mandatory implementation of the next stage of limit values.”

Footnote (3) As defined by the first issue of a safety certificate permitting the operation of the locomotive or railcar on any railway in the European Union,

A2.5.3There should be a new flexibility scheme applying to engines for railcars and locomotives,in which the number of engines placed in the scheme by each machine builder is limited to the numbers in a table like that below, and which should have a duration of [four] years from the mandatory type-approval date for each stage.

Engine Category (kW) / Number of Engines
Up to 560 / [50]
Over 560 / [15]

A2.6Comments on this Approach

A2.6.1The approach involves a small increase in the numbers of engines in the flexibility scheme, and the introduction of a limited permanent flexibility scheme for the rail sector, in order to compensate for the increased business risk that results from the restrictions that it places on the sell-off period. Analysis might show that no increase in the numbers of engines permitted in the flexibility scheme was actually required at all, and any eventual number should certainly be based upon some analysis of commercial and environmental impacts.

A2.6.2The new provisions in this area are intended to improve implementation and assist manufacturers by more strongly discouraging stockpiling of engines.

A machine builder who wished to stockpile engines for any significant period of time would have to purchase them before the final type-approval date, and so usually at least one year before the final placing on the market date. This means that he or she would have to store them for significantly longer than he currently has to. This requirement would both strongly discourage stock-holding and assist in spreading demand on the engine manufacturer, but would not prevent a machine builder who had a compelling reason to hold stock from choosing to do so.

A2.6.3The approach proposes a special marking for engines bearing type-approval markings but intended for permanent export from the EU. These engines will often meet a lower standard than that currently permitted in the EU, and the intention of this marking is to ensure that they can easily be identified if they are ultimately placed on the EU market.

The requirement for engines to be marked with their production date, however, might make this special marking unnecessary.

A2.6.4The approach is the simplest that we can think ofthat addresses the problem of engine stockpiling. It deliberately avoids placing any requirements upon the machines to which the engines are fitted beyond a requirement that it should be possible to establish, in the case of inland waterway vessels and railway vehicles, when the engine was fitted. (The requirement that it should be possible to tell when other machines were manufactured is already imposed by the Machinery Directive).

Annex BExplanatory Flowcharts for the “Placing on the Market Control Criterion” Outlined in Annex A

B1The flowcharts in this annex illustrate the effect of the outline text presented with the suggestion in Annex A for an approach retaining “placing on the market” as the primary control criterion (that is, the approach outlined in A2, above) and are offered as a possible aid to discussion.