Subject: ACEA response to Commission Consultation document complementary provisions for Euro 5/6 and Euro VI

Transcription

1 Registered organisation: Subject: ACEA response to Commission Consultation document complementary provisions for Euro 5/6 and Euro VI Introduction: ACEA is pleased to provide the following comments to the Commission s consultation document on the six specific issues mentioned. The issues to be proposed to the European Parliament and Council must be accompanied by a full and robust impact assessment of technical feasibility, need and cost. Whatever process is agreed between the Commission and the co-legislators, i.e. co-decision alone or co-decision and delegated acts, it must afford all stakeholders the opportunity for input. 1. Potential to reduce fuel consumption through eco-driving: ACEA supports the general aim of encouraging eco-driving. As shown on the ACEA website: See: eco-driving training can lead to a reduction in fuel consumption of up to 25% after training, with a significant long-term effect of 7% under every-day driving conditions. ACEA and its members are working to encourage and support eco-driving but we agree that more should be done, for example through actions in the member states to raise eco-driving awareness as well as encourage eco-driving training and education for all drivers, of new and old vehicles as well as for learner drivers in driving schools. ACEA is actively involved in the ECOWILL project as an Advisory Board Member and other ACEAmembers are similarly involved. The overall objective of ECOWILL is to promote the eco-driving philosophy, i.e. mass roll-out of short duration Eco-driving training for higher drivers acceptance by conveying eco-driving tips & benefits to end-users (private and professional drivers). To achieve highest possible impact, beside licensed drivers, ECOWILL is also explicitly aiming at learner drivers education in eco-driving to be integrated into learner drivers curriculum for driving schools in Europe according to a do it first, do it right approach. For details of the ECOWILL project, see: The Commission consultation paper indicates that eco-driving is insufficiently exploited. We don t think that is the case at all; rather, eco-driving as a beneficial driving style easy to learn and to apply is not sufficiently communicated, promoted and supported. Eco-driving does not only depend on signals coming from the vehicle dashboard. Eco-driving techniques work for drivers of old and new vehicles reaching the entire existing vehicle parc in Europe, not only focused on the buyers of new vehicles.

2 Concerning FCM and GSI, there are, of course, such devices available already in most new vehicles and these are seen as appropriate solutions to help further reduce CO2 and fuel consumption and these are in combination with eco-driving and improving driver education (an integrated approach). Contrary to the statement in the consultation paper, FCM are not costly options and they are designed to perform according to the decisions taken by each manufacturer. Therefore, ACEA sees no need for legislation to address FCM for the following reasons: Manufacturers are taking the necessary measures to improve the CO2 performance of their vehicles and the inclusion of FCM is already part of those measures. Devices are already available in most new vehicles designed according to manufacturer s decisions. We see no need for technical prescriptions that could only aim to commonise the technical performance of FCM. Integration of FCM requires major dashboard changes and causes additional issues for the smaller segment vehicles which are at the lower cost end of the market with less space for additions to the dashboard display. Lead-time and cost for dashboard revisions is substantial. We think the manufacturer is best placed to decide on the technical measures to help him achieve his future CO2 targets. We don t need to repeat our experience with the GSI legislation. A proposal for GSI came very late, it was constantly changing, the evaluation methods have not been fully tested and the result is that industry has little lead-time before GSI becomes mandatory. There is no need to go through a similar process for FCM. As promised by the Commission in its declaration to the Council dated 30 th March 2009, the Commission is committed to the need for proposals to be underpinned by a comprehensive assessment of the impacts and benefits. We await the Commission s analysis of the impacts and benefits of FCM. A word of caution. We are entering the likelihood that drivers will be faced with distraction from safe driving by an overdose of dashboard messages and feedback systems. Safety must always be a top priority and the use of additional dashboard devices should pose no risk in order to be acceptable. From eco-driving training in Germany it was observed that an FCM indicating the current fuel consumption can be a safety risk due to significant driver distraction (i.e. the driver s eyes are distracted by the changing value of the FCM rather than keeping his eyes on the road). Concerning the application of GSI to commercial vehicles, note that this would require an amendment to the General Safety Regulation which presently limits the scope of application of GSI to all types of category M1 vehicles from 1 st November ACEA sees no need to extend the application of GSI to light commercial vehicles. 2. Application of the ammonia limit to categories of heavy-duty vehicles: Concerning the Commission proposal to change the scope of the ammonia limit so that it only applies to diesel vehicles equipped with NOx reduction systems using urea dosing ACEA agrees with this sensible proposal. It should have been done in this way in Regulation 595/2009 but the co-decision process simply overlooked this issue. ACEA already sent a proposal on this issue to the Commission in November 2010 (see attached Annex 1). 3. Mass limitation defining the application of the light-duty or heavy-duty emission regulations: ACEA already sent a proposal to the Commission on this issue and the ACEA document is on the website of the 13 th October TCMV (see attached Annex 2). In the short term industry needs the Commission and legislators to resolve the issues of double testing due to non-uniform interpretation of mass of the vehicle in running order and the validity of Euro V certificates of conformity. However, ACEA recognises that a longer term solution needs to be established in the legislation through a co-decision proposal. 2

3 Double testing due to spanning the band of reference mass: Clarification of the legislation to establish a more practical basis for the scope that allows downwards extension of heavy-duty Euro VI approvals and upwards extension of light-duty Euro 5 & 6 approvals within certain boundaries that are related to actual vehicle products. Validity of Euro V heavy-duty certificates of conformity: Clarification of the legislation to exclude from Euro 5 those vehicles approved to Euro V. Emission limits for category M2 vehicles: The definition of special social needs (SSN) vehicles in Regulation 715/2007 applies to category M1 vehicles, rather than to category M vehicles. This results in a situation where a minibus having 8 seats (in addition to the driver s seat) can be approved to the category N1 class III emission limits but a minibus with just one additional seat must be approved to the far more stringent passenger car emission standards. ACEA does not believe that the intention of the legislation was to discourage production of vehicles in this category. The legislation places manufacturers of larger minibuses at a competitive disadvantage. ACEA requested the Commission to rectify this anomaly in the comitology discussions that led to Regulation 692/2008 but comitology was not the legally correct route. The opportunity now exists right to make the appropriate change in the co-decision package which the Commission is preparing so that category M2 vehicles face the same emission limits as category N1 (class III) and N2 vehicles. The fourth Annex of the attached ACEA paper (see attached Annex 2) provides proposals for codecision on the above three issues. 4. Low ambient temperature emissions: ACEA would agree that the Type 6 emission limits are perhaps not matched to the more recent Euro emission standards. According to the EEA report published in June 2011 (1), NMVOC projections for the EU27 are 14% below the aggregated emission ceiling given in Annex I and marginally below the Annex II ceiling (2). Therefore, since there are no longer any CO air quality issues within the EU and the EU s NMVOC emissions appear under control with the present measures, any justification for lower cold start emission limits should be assessed not only on the basis of technical feasibility but also according to real environmental need and cost-benefit analysis. On the question of NOx, has the Commission analysed the information being provided according to Article 3(9) of Regulation 692/2008, i.e. However, when applying for type-approval, manufacturers shall present to the approval authority with information showing that the NOx aftertreatment device reaches a sufficiently high temperature for efficient operation within 400 seconds after a cold start at 7 C as described in the Type 6 test. If the data shows that NOx aftertreatment systems are quickly reaching light-off, would there be any additional benefit by having a cold start test for NOx? Article 14(5) of Regulation 715/2007 says The Commission shall review the emission limits set out in Table 4 of Annex I for the carbon monoxide and hydrocarbon tailpipe emissions after a cold start test and shall present, as appropriate, a proposal to the European Parliament and to the Council with a view to tightening the emission limits. This appears to imply that the right to decide the emission limits rests with the co-legislators of the European Parliament and the Council. (1) (2) NEC Directive status report 2010, EEA Technical report No 3/2011. Annexes I and II to the NECD define aggregated emission ceilings for the EU-27. The Annex I EU-27 ceilings represent the aggregation of individual Member State ceilings defined in that Annex. The Annex II EU-27 ceilings are stricter than those of Annex I and are designed with the aim of attaining by 2010, for the European Union as a whole, the interim environmental objectives set out in Article 5 of the NECD (i.e. a reduction of acidification and health- and vegetation-related ground-level ozone exposure by 2010 compared with the 1990 situation). There is no separate ceiling for NH3 defined in Annex II to the NECD. 3

4 Whether the Commission chooses to send a proposal for low temperature emission limits to the European Parliament and Council for co-decision or request the European Parliament and Council grant the Commission a mandate to set limits by a delegated act depends on the advice of the Commission legal service and the reaction of the member states. However, in both cases, the Commission must be obliged to make a full and robust cost-impact assessment to justify a proposal for new CO, HC (and NOx limits) measured during the cold start test. Considering the time required to complete the legal process, new limits can only apply for Euro 6 vehicles and should apply from a date that affords industry sufficient lead-time, especially if the new limits may likely require major design changes and use of new technology. It should also be mentioned that the decision this year on a second step Euro 6 gasoline direct injection PN limit will have a major effect on the necessary emission control technology, its placement in the exhaust and especially if a GPF or 4WC would be required. As such, developments to achieve the PN limit cannot be held back by waiting for a decision on cold start limits these limits will also have a major effect on the design of (close coupled) emission control technology. 5. Limit value for NO2 in Euro 6: Whether the Commission chooses to send a proposal for an NO2 limit to the European Parliament and Council for co-decision or request the European Parliament and Council grant the Commission a mandate to set an NO2 limit by a delegated act depends on the advice of the Commission legal service and the reaction of the member states. However, in both cases, the Commission must be obliged to make a full and robust cost-impact assessment to justify a proposal for a new NO2 limit. Since the Commission has engaged the RDE process to apply a more stringent test method to diesel NOx emissions, the question arises what will an NO2 limit additionally achieve? NO2 is a consequence of the exhaust aftertreatment device so measures to reduce NOx will provide a proportional reduction in NO2. The mg/km emission of NO2 from new vehicles are an order of magnitude lower compared to older vehicles. If urban hot-spot NO2 emissions are the concern, then rather than setting a limit for new vehicles, the Commission and the member states would better address steps to eliminate older vehicles or vehicles retro-fitted with high NO2 emitting technologies and introduce other measures to stimulate fleet renewal. 6. Accounting for the GHG effects of methane emissions as CO2 equivalent and increase or remove the positive-ignition engine THC limit: Without evaluating all the pros and cons of such an approach as would affect the pollutant emission and CO2 legislation and future targets, ACEA does not agree that methane (expressed as CO2 equivalent) should be added into CO2eq figures for the vehicle. The CO2 targets are based on CO2 only and adding methane means the need to start new impact assessments on a proposal that appears to offer little significant benefit for the environment. Adding new measurements and calculation methods will not help reduce the current problems with the CO2 monitoring system. Given the small amount of methane emissions compared to the CO2 emissions there is no real added value for the environment to track methane emissions. Industry has a passenger car CO2 regulation that is fixed towards 2020 with tough targets but a stable regulatory environment. We want it to remain that way. 4

5

6

7 Subject: (a) Double testing faced by vehicle types with variants spanning the light-duty / heavy-duty border. Executive Summary: (i) Due to non-uniform interpretation of mass of the vehicle in running order as applied to vehicles built in multistages. (ii) Due to spanning the band of reference mass. (b) Validity of Euro V heavy-duty certificates of conformity. (c) Emission limits for Category M 2 vehicles. HIGH PRIORITY ISSUES: (a)(i) Double testing due to non-uniform interpretation of mass of the vehicle in running order : Euro 5 (& 6) applies to vehicles of category M 1, M 2, N 1 and N 2 with a reference mass not exceeding 2610kg. Such an approval may be extended to the same category of vehicles having a reference mass not exceeding 2840kg. The reference mass of a vehicle refers to the mass of the vehicle in running order and this is defined in section 2.6 of Annex I to Directive 2007/46/EC. In case of incomplete vehicles (where the manufacturer does not fit the bodywork), the reference mass is that of the incomplete vehicle. Some type-approval authorities have indicated an intention to refuse registration if a vehicle exceeds the reference mass of 2840 kg when it is completed. The same incomplete vehicle would need to be type-approved according to both Euro 5 and Euro V to cover eventual light or heavy bodywork that is fitted a different approval procedure but the technology on the vehicle achieves the same level of emission control. Timing Critical. From 1 st January 2012, the Euro 5 emission requirements and the new scope of the emission regulations will apply to all registrations of category N 1 classes II and III and category N 2 vehicles. Consequences Manufacturers are trapped - no time to develop and approve new versions, high cost and resource commitment for no environmental benefit, deletion of some vehicle models, loss of sales and market position. Immediate solution no change to the legislation is needed. Urgent clarification by the Commission using an appropriate procedure that the definition of mass of the vehicle in running order is applied uniformly by all authorities. (b) Validity of Euro V heavy-duty certificates of conformity: Directive 2008/74/EC amended section 1 of Directive 2055/55/EC in order to specify that for vehicles of category N 1, N 2 and M 2 with a reference mass below 2610 kg, new type approvals may continue to be granted up to 1 st September 2009 / 1 st September 2010 and extensions may continue to be granted up to 1 st January 2011 / 1 st January 2012.

8 The intention of this amendment was to simplify the scope of the dedicated emissions legislation and to create a reasonable transitional period until Euro VI applied. Vehicle manufacturers adapted their product in good faith on the basis that such type approvals would remain valid until Euro VI becomes mandatory for all new registrations, i.e. 31 st December Some type approval authorities have declared that they will consider Euro V type approvals as being invalid from 1 st January Timing Critical. From 1 st January 2012, Euro V certificates would be invalid 2 years earlier than expected and all vehicles below 2610kg would need to be approved to Euro 5. Consequences Manufacturers are trapped - no time to develop and approve new versions, high cost and resource commitment for no environmental benefit, deletion of some vehicle models, loss of sales and market position. Immediate solution no change to the legislation is needed. Urgent clarification by the Commission using an appropriate procedure that the amendment to section 1 in Directive 2008/74/EC deals with the granting of approvals not the ending of approvals and that such Euro V approvals remain valid until Euro VI becomes mandatory. ISSUES FOR COMMISSION CO-DECISION PACKAGE (IN PREPARATION): The following issues can be included in the foreseen co-decision proposal the Commission plans for the second semester of 2011: (a)(ii) Double testing due to spanning the band of reference mass: Clarification of the legislation to establish a more practical basis for the scope that allows downwards extension of a heavy-duty approval and upwards extension of a light-duty approval within certain boundaries that are related to actual vehicle products. (b) Validity of Euro V heavy-duty certificates of conformity: Clarification of the legislation to exclude from Euro 5 those vehicles approved to Euro V. (c) Emission limits for category M 2 vehicles: The definition of special social needs (SSN) vehicles in Regulation 715/2007 applies to category M 1 vehicles, rather than to category M vehicles. This results in a situation where a minibus having 8 seats (in addition to the driver s seat) can be approved to the category N 1 class III emission limits but a minibus with just one additional seat must be approved to the far more stringent passenger car emission standards. ACEA does not believe that the intention of the legislation was to discourage production of vehicles in this category. The legislation places manufacturers of larger minibuses at a competitive disadvantage. ACEA requested the Commission to rectify this anomaly in the comitology discussions that led to Regulation 692/2008 but comitology was not the legally correct route. The opportunity now exists right to make the appropriate change in the co-decision package which the Commission is preparing so that category M 2 vehicles face the same emission limits as category N 1 (class III) and N 2 vehicles. ACEA 25 th July

9 Introduction: The auto industry is confronted with major problems dealing with the change of the scope of the emissions legislation in Regulation (EC) No 715/2007 and Regulation (EC) No 595/2009. Firstly, the change in scope of Regulation (EC) No 715/2007, which came as a result of the co-decision procedure between the European Parliament and the Council, means that vehicles types with variants that span the nominal 2610 kg 2840 kg range face an uncertain application of the emissions legislation. A frequent and critical case of this is due to the interpretation of the reference mass applied to vehicles built in multiple stages. The existing definitions of reference mass and mass of vehicle in running order allows vehicles to be tested without bodywork (if the vehicle manufacturer does not fit the bodywork). However, some approval authorities are demanding that if a completed vehicle exceeds the upper range of 2840 kg, it should be tested to the heavy-duty legislation. In this extremely critical case of multi-stage approval vehicles, but also for any vehicles with reference masses spanning the crossover, this results in variants of the same vehicle type needing to be tested to the light or the heavy-duty emissions legislation, depending on the final mass of the vehicle. This forces double testing for the same vehicle type and it will apply from 1 st January 2012 when Euro 5 (and the new scope) becomes mandatory for all types of category N 1 classes II and III and category N 2 vehicles. Secondly, industry is facing a new and unexpected request from some type-approval authorities who question the validity of Euro V certificates of conformity (as granted according to section 1 in Annex I of Directive 2008/74/EC). They believe such certificates shall be invalid from 1 st January This is contrary to the understanding of industry that such certificates of conformity would be valid until the mandatory Euro VI date of 31 st December This request will impose a severe burden and costs on industry to re-approve such vehicles for no benefit. Thirdly, category M 2 vehicles are penalised by having to meet the same emission limits as passenger cars. For example, this anomaly results in a situation where a minibus having 8 seats (in addition to the driver s seat) may fall under the special social needs (SSN) definition and be approved to the lightcommercial vehicle (i.e. Category N 1 class III) emission standards but a minibus with just one additional seat (category M 2 ) must be approved to the far more stringent passenger car emission standards. This will have unintended commercial consequences unless corrected before Euro 5 applies to all registrations. For all three issues, the legislation, or the interpretation of legislation, is causing industry severe difficulties in terms of commercial business, resources and costs. These difficulties can be resolved easily without affecting the environmental benefits of Euro 5 and Euro V. The Commission is preparing a co-decision regulation that can amend the legislation to deal with these issues. However, since time is pressing particularly for issues (a)(i) and (b), ACEA requests the Commission and the member states (and approval authorities) to urgently reach a common interpretation that will give industry the necessary confidence and stability of commonly applied legislation until an amending regulation can be agreed through the co-decision process of the European Parliament and Council. More details of these three issues are provided in points (a) to (c) below and in the Annexes. In points (d) and (e) ACEA concludes the issues and provides reasonable recommendations for immediate actions and how the legislation should be amended to provide a stable and fair regulatory platform. 3

10 (a) Double Testing : The reference mass of a vehicle is the parameter that determines which emissions legislation is applicable, i.e. Euro 5 or Euro V, for vehicles of categories M 1, M 2, N 1 and N 2. Reference Mass is defined as follow: 2.2. Reference mass means the mass of the vehicle in running order less the uniform mass of the driver of 75 kg and increased by a uniform mass of 100 kg. Mass of the vehicle in running order is the mass defined in section 2.6 of Annex I to Directive 2007/46/EC, as follows: 2.6. Mass of the vehicle with bodywork and, in the case of a towing vehicle of category other than M 1, with coupling device, if fitted by the manufacturer, in running order, or mass of the chassis or chassis with cab, without bodywork and/or coupling device if the manufacturer does not fit the bodywork and/or coupling device (including liquids, tools, spare wheel, if fitted, and driver and, for buses and coaches, a crew member if there is a crew seat in the vehicle) ( o ) (maximum and minimum for each variant). Despite what appears to be a clear definition that, in case of incomplete vehicles the reference mass is the one of the incomplete vehicle, some type-approval authorities have indicated an intention to refuse registration if a vehicle (type-approved according to light-duty legislation) exceeds the reference mass of 2840 kg when completed. The consequence will be that the same incomplete vehicle type will need a double emissions certification (light and heavy-duty) depending on the type of bodywork to be fitted and completed on the vehicle. The Commission has recognised this unjustified situation and it has already indicated the intention to solve the problem in a forthcoming co-decision package due to be prepared in the second semester of 2011: There is an embarrassing need of two type approvals (and therefore at least slightly different designs) for some vehicle platforms depending on the type-specific equipment, which may place some vehicles of the platform above and others below the mass limits separating LD and HD vehicles (1). The approach to solve this problem is to modify the scope of the emissions legislation via the co-decision process and a proposal is expected sometime around Q3/Q4 in While ACEA supports such a legal clarification, the co-decision process will not provide that solution until sometime around end-2012 (more realistically mid-2013). Since the new scope of the emissions legislation applies from 1 st January 2012, the co-decision approach will arrive too late to solve the immediate double testing issue. The consequences of the above situation are as follows: Manufacturers will be forced to develop new engine versions, either investing millions of Euros to do so or restricting its products and ceasing the production of some engines. This will result in a loss of competitiveness and sales. The extremely short time until 1 st January 2012 will lead to a major disruption of the market, will severely penalise vehicle manufacturers who will have to assign precious resources to a new product of a type that was already closed and risks that the introduction of Euro VI and Euro 6 products will be delayed. This situation does not constitute better regulation and the aims of CARS21. It poses a significant additional and unwarranted burden on vehicle manufacturers at a time when the industry is still in the process of recovering from the economic crisis. Annex 1 provides additional information on the seriousness of this double testing issue for vehicle manufacturers. (1) See Commission paper tabled at MVEG on 24 th February 2011, agenda item 4, point 2 in the table. See: &vm=detailed&sb=title 4

11 (b) Validity of Euro V heavy-duty type approvals: The transitional provisions laid down in Directive 2005/55/EC and as amended by Directive 2008/74/EC. In that Directive, section 1 in Annex I state: 1. This Directive applies to the control of gaseous and particulate pollutants, useful life of emission control devices, conformity of in-service vehicles/engines and onboard diagnostic (OBD) systems of all motor vehicles, and to engines as specified in Article 1 with the exception of those vehicles of category M 1, N 1, N 2 and M 2 for which type approval has been granted under Regulation (EC) No 715/2007 of the European Parliament and of the Council. From 3 January 2009 up to the dates specified in Article 10(2) of Regulation (EC) No 715/2007 for new approvals and in Article 10(3) of that Regulation for extensions, type approvals may continue to be granted under this Directive for vehicles of category N 1, N 2 and M 2 with a reference mass below 2610 kg. The second paragraph of the above text indicates that for vehicles of category N 1, N 2 and M 2 with a reference mass below 2610 kg, new type approvals may continue to be granted up to 1 st September 2009 / 1 st September 2010 and extensions may continue to be granted up to 1 st January 2011 / 1 st January The latter provision for extensions implies that such an extension will remain valid after 1 st January 2012 otherwise such a provision would be useless an extended type approval would cease to be valid from the latest date when such extension could be granted. On the other hand the validity of a type approval, granted according to Articles 2(7) and 2(8) of Directive 2005/55/EC, as amended by Directive 2008/74/EC, continue to apply. This means: such vehicles can t be prohibited from sale etc if they meet the full requirements for Euro V or EEV. from 1 st October 2008 new type-approvals can only be granted according to Euro V or EEV. from 1 st October 2009 all new registrations / sales etc must meet Euro V or EEV. The intention of the above amendment by Directive 2008/74/EC to section 1 in Annex I was to simplify the scope of the dedicated emissions legislation and to create a reasonable transitional period until Euro VI applied. Therefore, vehicle manufacturers adapted their product in good faith on the basis that such type approvals would remain valid until Euro VI becomes mandatory for all new registrations, i.e. 31 st December However a new and entirely disappointing situation has come up with type approval authorities in some member states declaring that they will consider Euro V type approvals granted under the provisions of Directive 2008/74/EC as being invalid at the date specified in Article 10(3) of Regulation (EC) No 715/2007, namely from 1 st January From that date the provisions of Regulation (EC) No 715/ 2007 should be applied for vehicles of category N 1, N 2 and M 2 with a reference mass below 2610 kg. It should be borne in mind that the provisions of Article 8(2) of Regulation (EC) No 595/2009 permit certificates of conformity granted according to the previous legislation to remain valid until 31 st December The consequences of the above situation and the surprising views of some type-approval authorities are as follows: The intention of vehicle manufacturers is to continue to invest significant finances and resources into the final development and production of Euro VI for vehicles having, in general, a reference mass above 2380 kg. If vehicle manufacturers now face the situation that existing Euro V certificates of conformity for category N 1, N 2 and M 2 vehicles < 2610 kg will cease to be valid 2 years earlier than expected (according to some approval authorities), they will have to provide and re-certify (with extreme urgency) a specific Euro 5 version. The creation of a specific Euro 5 version before 1 st January 2012 that will be valid only for a short period is practically impossible and makes absolutely no commercial sense. The extremely short time until 1 st January 2012 will lead to a major disruption of the market, will severely penalise vehicle manufacturers who will have to assign precious resources to a short lifetime product and risks that the introduction of Euro VI products will be delayed. 5

12 The creation of a specific Euro 5 version that will be valid only for a short period will have no significant impact on air quality as it merely continues the technology of the current Euro V products. This situation does not constitute better regulation and the aims of CARS21. It poses a significant additional and unwarranted burden on vehicle manufacturers at a time when the industry is still in the process of recovering from the economic crisis. Annex 2 provides additional information on the seriousness of this issue for vehicle manufacturers. 6

13 (c) Emission limits for Category M 2 vehicles: Article 3(2) of Regulation 715/2007 limits the definition of vehicles designed to fulfil SSN to category M 1 vehicles, rather than to category M vehicles. Unfortunately, the significance of the subscript was not noticed until after Regulation 715/2007 had been adopted. This results in a situation where a minibus having 8 seats (in addition to the driver s seat) may fall under the SSN definition and be approved to the light-commercial vehicle (i.e. Category N 1 class III) emission standards but a minibus with just one additional seat must be approved to the far more stringent passenger car emission standards. The SSN derogation for minibuses exists only in recognition of the fact that these vehicles are based upon the design of category N 1 vehicles. Therefore, limiting the SSN derogation to vehicles having seats for no more than 8 passengers is quite irrational. Many minibuses with more than 8 seats are used as school buses and transport for the elderly, which clearly fulfil special social needs. ACEA does not believe that the intention of the legislation was to discourage production of vehicles in this category. However, the current text will do just that by placing the manufacturers of larger minibuses at a competitive disadvantage by having to invest more by having to attain more stringent emission standards. In 2008 ACEA asked the Commission to amend the definition of SSN to category M vehicles in the proposal that eventually became Regulation 692/2008. The Commission could not do that in comitology but the opportunity should be taken now to make the appropriate change in the co-decision package which the Commission is preparing so that category M 2 vehicles face the same emission limits as category N 1 (class III) and N 2 vehicles. Annex 3 provides additional information on the seriousness of this issue for vehicle manufacturers and body-builders. 7

14 (d) Conclusions: Double testing is not justified and there appears to be a willingness by the legislator to correct this distortion. As a robust legal solution (i.e. a co-decision amendment) will only arrive after 1 st January 2012 it will not address the current urgent concerns. Another additional approach is urgently needed in the interim period. The early ending of the validity of Euro V certificates of conformity during the transition to Euro VI was not the intention when Directive 2008/74/EC was drafted and agreed. This would be in contradiction with Articles 2(7) and 2(8) of Directive 2005/55/EC. Category M 2 vehicles are being unduly punished by having to face the same emission limits as for passenger cars. This should be corrected by grouping category M 2 vehicles in the same emissions limits as for category N 1 (class III) and N 2 vehicles. (e) Recommendations for action: ACEA requests that the Commission urgently undertake a clarification to ensure common interpretation of the legislation and thereby avoid double testing of vehicles built in multiple stages. This is very simple and does not require any new proposal clarify that the definition of mass in running order (in cases where the manufacturer does not fit the bodywork) means without the bodywork so completed vehicles approved to the light-duty emissions legislation may extend above 2840 kg when completed. ACEA requests that the Commission urgently clarify the situation to ensure that certificates of conformity granted according to Directive 2005/55/EC, as amended by Directive 2008/74/EC, remain valid until Regulation (EC) No 595/2009 comes into force, i.e. such certificates of conformity become invalid from 31 st December Again, this does not mean a new proposal just sensible interpretation of the existing legislation. Such actions for an interim common interpretation to avoid double testing and clarify the validity of Euro V certificates of conformity must be communicated urgently to the member states and TAAM at the very next opportunity. Category M 2 vehicles should be put into the same emission limit classification as category N 1 (classes II and III) and category N 2 vehicles. The forthcoming Commission co-decision package, to be agreed by the co-legislators, will contain proposals to amend the legislation for these 3 issues. Annex 4 contains ACEA s proposals on these 3 issues for co-decision. ACEA 25 th July

15 ANNEX 1 avoiding the immediate double testing burden: What is the cost of developing / adapting HD engines to cover affected products that can no longer use LD / HD route? Example 1: Up to 5 million per engine power rating for the necessary development and test programs. Total costs roughly 35 million covering 7 engine power ratings of diesel and petrol engines (power ratings also differ according to engine cylinders). Example 2: Category N 1 vehicles use a range of engine capacities and power ratings covering LD and HD routes. The HD approvals (> 2840kg) have different customer requirements they don t require high power, weight, cost engines presently use LD engine. This flexibility is ended by the double testing issue. Option 1 Reduce power rating of existing heavy-duty engine - up to 2M for the necessary development and test programs. However, customers of vehicle types that would be a light basic chassis-cab design (to accept a higher load carrying capacity) would not choose a heavy engine, which also costs more. This option results in loss of market opportunities. Option 2 Develop a new lower capacity engine for these HD applications up to 10M for the necessary development and test programs. What is the timeline for the type-approval of those developments / adaptations? Such adaptation exercises will take months including technical adaptations and type-approval work for emissions and fuel consumption/co2. The type-approval work takes at least 10 months. Vehicle numbers on both routes (chassis & engine dynamometer testing)? Example 1: 3,000 units per year covering all engine types that would be installed in heavy M 1, N 2 and N 2 vehicles. Example 2: 2,000 6,500 units per year (depending on manufacturer) would require a new lower power rated engine. How does the emission control technology on the product compare between a LD and HD approval? There are no differences in the actual emissions control technology. Diesel engines will utilise oxidation catalyst, EGR, DPF. Petrol engines will utilise 3-way catalyst and O2 sensor. The tested emissions are measured in different ways and the units are different (mg/km mg/kwh). However, the same technology to control emissions gives optimal performance for both LD and HD. 9

16 How do the LD & HD test requirements compare? Test type Regulations 715/2007 & 692/2008 Directive 2005/55/EC, 2005/78/EC and 2008/74/EC Regulations 595/2009, 582/2011 and xxx/2011 Regulated emissions CO, NMHC, NOx, PM, PN CO, NMHC, CH4, NOx, PM, smoke opacity Emission cycle(s) NEDC (mg/km & #/km) ESC/ETC (g/kwh), ELR (opacity m -1 ) CO, THC, NOx, (NH3), PM, PN WHSC/WHTC (mg/kwh & #/kwh) PN limit N 1 class III & N 2 from Euro 5b date (1 st January 2013 for new types) Not applicable but an engine with DPF will meet PN limit Euro 5 ( /km) Applicable OBD CO, NMHC, NOx, PM NOx, PM NOx, PM NOx control system Prevention of engine starting. Torque limitation to 75% on N 1 /N 2, M 2 Torque limitation to 75% and speed limitation to 20km/h In Service Conformity (ISC) period 100,000km / 5 years N 1 /M 2 100,000km / 5 years N 2 (<16t) 200,000km / 6 years N 1 /M 2 160,000km / 5 years N 2 (<16t) 300,000km / 6 years ISC tests Using NEDC Type-approval test or PEMS Using PEMS Off-cycle emissions RDE in preparation Not applicable but ETC covers the complete engine map to a great extent WNTE control area Conclusion: With RDE, the stringency of Euro 6 and Euro VI will be technically equivalent. What are the market implications if a manufacturer cannot afford double testing? Withdrawal from the market with loss of sales, market position and reputation in the affected vehicle segment. Customers may not be able to find alternative choices of vehicles if other manufacturers in the same vehicle segment face the same problems. Distortion of competition the legislation is unduly affecting certain manufacturers affected by double testing. Manufacturers with narrower vehicle ranges are not (necessarily) affected and could benefit from another manufacturer s problems. 10

17 ANNEX 2 validity of Euro V type-approvals: If Euro V type-approvals do not remain valid until 31 st December 2013 (as manufacturers have planned for) and instead are cancelled from 1 st January 2012 (as some type-approval authorities have declared), the consequences will be as follows: Affected vehicles holding a Euro V type-approval will have to be re-certified (with extreme urgency) to the Euro 5 requirements. The creation of a specific Euro 5 version (before 1 st January 2012) that will be valid only for a short period is practically impossible and makes absolutely no commercial sense. It will have no significant impact on air quality as moving from Euro V to Euro 5 merely continues the application of the same technology. Euro 5 re-development in the extremely short time until 1 st January 2012 is impossible. If forced, manufacturers may choose to re-develop a product to Euro 5 but it will take a long time and re-direct precious resources away from the development of the Euro VI and 6 product lines. If a manufacturer cannot re-develop and type-approve to Euro 5 in very short time remaining to 1 st January 2012 or to a (slightly) longer time frame, the only alternative is to stop production of affected types with consequence loss of revenue for the curtailment of a vehicle line at a date far earlier than was foreseen at the time the model was being developed and the commercial decisions were taken to go into production. If Euro V type-approvals are invalid from 1 st January 2012 it will lead to a major disruption of the market and severely and unfairly penalise vehicle manufacturers. Example: For one particular major manufacturer, a complete line of commercial vehicle production will be affected. This means 7 versions (5 diesel engines and 2 petrol engines). For each engine type there are two different gearboxes (manual and automatic). For each engine type there are four different final transmission ratios. Each version must cover two inertia classes (2040kg and 2270kg). This means, per engine: 1 engine 2 gearboxes 4 final transmission ratios 2 inertia classes = 16 emission type-approvals. Calibration work for Euro 5 (chassis based test on NEDC) includes calibration of the engine emissions map, calibration for OBD including distinct ECUs, calibration of regeneration strategy of DPF. Normally such calibration work (including winter evaluations) takes 2 years. To complete a Euro 5 type-approval requires at least 3 pre-tests and 3 official running of the NEDC. Per engine this means running (3 + 3) 16 emission type-approvals = running 96 NEDC tests. So, for this complete line of commercial vehicle production (7 engines) the manufacturer will need to conduct 7 96 NEDC tests approximately NEDC tests (allowing for some invalid tests). Add to that everything else that is part of a Euro 5 type-approval (e.g. evaporative emissions and RMI), to re-approve this Euro V product to Euro 5 by 1 st January 2012 is simply impossible. To re-approve over a longer timeframe is possible but extremely costly, a waste of resources and will provide no air quality benefit. 11

18 ANNEX 3 emission limits for Category M 2 vehicles: The application of the passenger car emission limits to category M 2 vehicles will have unintended negative economic, social, and environmental impacts, i.e: Economic: The Regulation will result in higher costs and likely lower sales for manufacturers of larger minibuses. Approximately 20,000 minibuses having more than eight seats are registered each year in Europe. Requiring these minibuses to meet the more stringent passenger car emission standards will add significantly to their production cost. Increased costs will lead to fewer models of larger minibuses and some manufacturers will regard the sector as being uneconomic. The European Commission s impact assessment on the Euro 5 and Euro 6 light-duty emissions standards (2) suggested that removing the derogation for vehicles that currently make use of it might have positive effects, because it would encourage manufacturers to develop cleaner engines for these vehicles and so facilitate their export into the North American market. This ignores the fact that [diesel] engines for minibuses represent a small fraction of all engines produced for light-commercial vehicles (category N 1 classes II and III). Developing special engines specifically for larger minibuses and making any other necessary chassis/body modifications makes no commercial sense, except in cases where vehicles sales are relatively high in this case, the sales volume is very low. Social: The Regulation will result in a loss of amenity to those who currently make use of larger minibuses, many of whom will be either in education, be elderly requiring local authority transportation or relatively disadvantaged members of society. Without the right emission categorisation needed to sustain the market for larger minibuses, customers will be faced with a smaller range of vehicles within which the larger minibuses are more expensive from which to choose the vehicle right for their use. Being forced to choose smaller minibuses will mean more journeys to carry the same number of passengers if they had used a larger minibus with increased pollutant and CO 2 emissions and/or the loss of transport capacity for customers. Although difficult to quantify, the social impact is not one that can be ignored. Environmental: The Regulation is likely to lead to a small negative impact upon air quality. Without the right emission categorisation for larger minibuses, such vehicles having to meet a Euro 5 NOx standard of 180mg/km rather than a NOx standard of 280mg/km for the smaller minibuses that can take advantage of the SSN derogation. There is no impact on particulate mass or particle number emissions since the same standards apply to all vehicle categories. While the lower NOx emissions from larger minibuses may be good for the environment, higher prices for such vehicles would encourage operators to: buy a smaller minibus having higher NOx emissions and make more journeys, or; keep older models in service for longer than they currently would = higher NOx and particulate mass emissions, or; use passenger cars instead = more journeys and with no certainty that the cars would be new models. Either way, manufacturers of larger minibuses are being penalised there appears to be no environmental benefit. (2) European Commission Euro 5 impact assessment, COM (2005)

19 ANNEX 4 ACEA proposals for co-decision: Regarding avoidance of problems for vehicle types spanning the band of reference mass: Article 2 of Regulation (EC) No 715/2007 Current text Article 2 Scope 1. This Regulation shall apply to vehicles of categories M 1, M 2, N 1 and N 2 as defined in Annex II to Directive 70/156/EEC with a reference mass not exceeding 2610 kg. 2. At the manufacturer s request, type approval granted under this Regulation may be extended from vehicles covered by paragraph 1 to M 1, M 2, N 1 and N 2 vehicles as defined in Annex II to Directive 70/156/EEC with a reference mass not exceeding 2840 kg and which meet the conditions laid down in this Regulation and its implementing measures. ACEA proposal Article 2 Scope 1. This Regulation shall apply to vehicles of categories M 1, M 2, N 1 and N 2 as defined in Annex II to Directive 70/156/EEC with a reference mass not exceeding 2610 kg. 2. At the manufacturer s request, type approval granted under this Regulation may be extended from vehicles covered by paragraph 1 to M 1, M 2, N 1 and N 2 vehicles as defined in Annex II to Directive 70/156/EEC with a reference maximum mass not exceeding kg and which meet the conditions laid down in this Regulation and its implementing measures. 3. This Regulation shall apply without prejudice to Article 2 of Regulation (EC) No 595/2009. Explanation: Point 2 permits upwards extension of an approval to vehicles with a maximum mass 5000kg. Annex II of Directive 2007/46/EC says where reference is made to maximum mass in the following definitions, this means technically permissible maximum laden mass as specified in item 2.8 of Annex I. The use of maximum mass in point 2 is therefore consistent and at a level that is a reasonable limit. Point 3 Article 2 of Regulation 595/2009 recognises that Article 2(2) of Regulation 715/2007 allows upwards extension of an approval to vehicles with a reference mass 2840kg. Similarly, this amendment to Article 2 of Regulation 715/2007 applies similar recognition to the extension possibilities in Article 2 of Regulation 595/2009. As it would be unworkable to change the inertia classes for existing approvals and WLTP will bring a rework of the inertia class system, this proposal retains the current system and limits the vehicles which could be covered by extension by use of a maximum mass. This has the advantage over reference mass of being known at an early stage in the build process. Article 2 of Regulation (EC) No 595/2009 Article 2 Scope This Regulation shall apply to motor vehicles of categories M 1, M 2, N 1 and N 2 as defined in Annex II of Directive 2007/46/EC with a reference mass exceeding 2610 kg and to all motor vehicles of 13 Article 2 Scope This Regulation shall apply to motor vehicles of categories M 1, M 2, N 1 and N 2 as defined in Annex II of Directive 2007/46/EC with a reference mass exceeding 2610 kg and to all motor vehicles of