REGULATORY SCRUTINY BOARD OPINION Proposal for a REGULATION on the approval and market surveillance of non-road mobile machinery circulating on public roads

EUROPEAN COMMISSION
Brussels, 6.2.2023
SEC(2023) 145 final
REGULATORY SCRUTINY BOARD OPINION
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}
{SWD(2023) 64 final}
{SWD(2023) 65 final}
{SWD(2023) 66 final}
Offentligt
KOM (2023) 0178 - SEK-dokument
Europaudvalget 2023
Brussels, RSB
Opinion
Title: Impact assessment / Road circulation requirements for mobile machinery
Overall opinion: POSITIVE WITH RESERVATIONS
(A) Policy context
Mobile machinery comprises machinery that is not suitable for carrying passengers or
transporting goods. It is specifically designed to perform certain works, such as construction or
material handling. Some requirements are already harmonised at the EU level. These include
machinery safety, electromagnetic compatibility and exhaust emissions. However, there are no
common rules for the road circulation of mobile machinery. This impact assessment aims to
harmonise the requirements for the road circulation of mobile machinery at EU level.
(B) Summary of findings
The Board notes the information provided in advance of the meeting and commitments to make
changes to the report.
However, the report still contains significant shortcomings. The Board gives a positive opinion
with reservations because it expects the DG to rectify the following aspects:
(1) The report does not sufficiently explain why mutual recognition does not work in this
sector and why promoting the respect of the mutual-recognition principle is not one of the
policy options.
(2) The report does not provide convincing evidence that a lack of harmonised rules results in
more accidents involving mobile machinery. It does not justify why the initiative aims at
equal requirements and technical solutions for road safety.
(3) The report is unclear about the methodology used to estimate costs and cost savings. It
does not present the reliability and robustness of the evidence base.
(4) It is unclear why the report does not assess the additional design elements as part of the
main policy options. It does not explain to what extent the assessment of impacts and the
choice of the preferred option would change if these design elements were taken into
account in the analysis.
This opinion concerns a draft impact assessment which may differ from the final version.
Commission européenne, B-1049 Bruxelles - Belgium. Office: BERL 08/010. E-mail: regulatory-scrutiny-board@ec.europa.eu
(C) What to improve
(1) The problem description should discuss in more detail why mutual recognition does not
function in the mobile machinery sector, despite being an area of technical regulation without
EU harmonisation. This would help to justify why there is no policy option aiming to promote
EUROPEAN COMMISSION
Regulatory Scrutiny Board
2
the practical implementation of the mutual recognition principle.
(2) The problem description should provide a clear overview of the different cost categories.
It should describe in more detail the costs incurred by manufacturers due to market entry delays,
distinguishing them clearly from the direct costs, also clarifying the incidence of on demand
production (which allows for adaptation) relative to mass production. Given the magnitude of
indirect costs, the report should explain how they are estimated and discuss whether they are
realistic or risk to be overestimated. It should specify which costs and savings correspond to
each of the affected groups (manufacturers, distributors, users, rental companies and
authorities).
(3) The report should justify why harmonised requirements would likely increase the level of
road safety of mobile machinery across the EU. It should explain why road safety requires equal
requirements and technical solutions, and not just sufficiently high requirements. This would
better support the choice of the preferred option, since the main determining factor is its higher
score on road safety.
(4) Road safety should be a secondary objective rather than one of the main specific objectives.
The report should clarify how this initiative will contribute specifically to road safety. It should
also specify whether all options can deliver on the objectives.
(5) The report should clarify what will be decided now, based on this analysis, and what will
be decided later through implementing legislation.
(6) The report should describe the methodology used to quantify costs and savings. The main
report should present the sources of information and main assumptions, providing more detail
in an annex. It should assess the reliability of the estimates and possible uncertainties affecting
the evidence base.
(7) The report should better justify why additional design elements affecting the scope and
take up of harmonised rules are assessed separately from the analysis of the main policy options.
It should consider how the impacts would change as a result of the choices made on these design
elements. In particular, the report should consider how the estimated impacts would change if
EU rules and national rules coexist or if the scope of application is narrowed. It should also
discuss whether the choice of the preferred option would change if these specific design
elements were part of the main policy options. The costs and benefits in the standardised table
in annex should be changed to incorporate the additional design elements that are part of the
preferred option.
Some more technical comments have been sent directly to the author DG.
3
(D) Conclusion
The DG must revise the report in accordance with the Board’s findings before launching the
interservice consultation.
If there are any changes in the choice or design of the preferred option in the final version of
the report, the DG may need to further adjust the attached quantification tables to reflect this.
Full title Proposal for a regulation of the European Parliament and of the
Council on the harmonisation of safety requirements for the road
circulation of mobile machinery
Reference number 2017/GROW/003
Submitted to RSB on 10 November 2021
Date of RSB meeting 8 December 2021
4
ANNEX: Quantification tables extracted from the draft impact assessment report
The following tables contain information on the costs and benefits of the initiative on which the Board
has given its opinion, as presented above.
If the draft report has been revised in line with the Board’s recommendations, the content of these tables
may be different from those in the final version of the impact assessment report, as published by the
Commission.
I. Overview of Benefits (total for all provisions) – Preferred Option
Description Amount Comments
Direct and indirect benefits
Compliance cost
reductions
EUR 748 million over 10 years EUR 512
million over 10 years Total: 1.2 billion
over 10 years
For manufacturers and distributors.
For end-users and rental companies
Competitiveness Not quantifiable
Internal Market Not quantifiable
Road Safety Not quantifiable
Reduced noise emissions Not quantifiable
II. Overview of costs – Preferred option
Citizens/Consumers Businesses Administrations
One-off Recurrent One-off Recurrent One-off Recurrent
Action (a)
Direct costs
Adaptation and compliance costs offset by much higher
savings. Net saving reported in previous table.
Not
significant
Not
significant
Indirect costs Adaptation and compliance costs offset by much higher
savings. Net saving reported in previous table
Not
significant
Not
significant
Electronically signed on 06/02/2023 09:37 (UTC+01) in accordance with Article 11 of Commission Decision (EU) 2021/2121