POSITION PAPER ON HARMONISATION OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR NON-ROAD MOBILE MACHINERY OCCASIONALLY TRAVELLING ON PUBLIC ROADS APRIL 2013

Transcription

1 POSITION PAPER ON HARMONISATION OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR NON-ROAD MOBILE MACHINERY OCCASIONALLY TRAVELLING ON PUBLIC ROADS APRIL 2013 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Manufacturers of non-road mobile machinery (NRMM) are faced with a variety of national legislations and homologation requirements for their machines to travel on public roads. For many years the non-road mobile machinery industry has alerted the EU on this situation, which represents a disproportionate economic and administrative burden and a huge discrepancy in the Internal Market without any advantage for public safety. Only a harmonised EU framework can allow easier and safer circulation of non-road mobile machinery on public roads. In support of Recital 6 of the recently adopted Regulation 167/2013, and recalling Vice President Antonio Tajani s letter of 25 July 2012, CECE, CEMA, EGMF, EUnited Municipal Equipment and FEM urge the European Commission to initiate an assessment process and allocate the necessary resources to prepare an appropriate regulatory instrument. 1

2 BACKGROUND Due to the lack of harmonisation at EU level, individual Member States have maintained and/or issued specific requirements to address safety of NRMM circulating on the road. However, this has led to a situation where this kind of equipment, which for all other aspects is covered by harmonised EU legislation, may not be developed and produced in a single version to fulfil those requirements. In fact, the multiplication of different requirements in the various EU Member States obliges manufacturers to produce many versions of the same machine model in order to sell it within the EU. This represents a disproportionate and unjustified economic and administrative burden which actually discourages competition. Recently the European Commission proposed to fill this gap in the Internal Market by including self-propelled mobile machinery intended for the use in agriculture or forestry in the scope of the proposal for a Regulation on the type approval agricultural and forestry vehicles in order to provide harmonised requirements for road safety of these vehicles. The result was the inclusion of recital 6 in the Regulation which requires the European Commission to assess the need for harmonising the laws of the Member States in that framework and to consider proposing a regulatory instrument in order to ensure a high level of safety. In addition, in his letter of 25 July 2012, Vice President Antonio Tajani assured CECE and CEMA that the European Commission will take due account of this commonly agreed recital in its future regulatory activities in the domain of NRMM. Finally, in its roadmap on the review of the internal market legislation for industrial products issued by DG Enterprise and Industry in November 2012, the European Commission has committed to solve the remaining gaps in the internal Market and to review legislative inconsistencies applying to industrial products. Over recent years we launched many initiatives to try to harmonise the safety requirements for circulation of NRMM within the Internal Market. Those included: - A proposal for a specific directive initiated by CECE. CEMA and FEM - A study conducted by IFO (Institut für Wirtschaftsforschung) in 2001 on the Restrictions of the Free Circulation of Off-road Machinery in the EU - Several standardisation activities, such as the development of EN in 2007 on the design requirements for circulation on the road of earthmoving machinery and the development of an ISO standard relative to the design requirements for machines intended to be driven on the road (ISO/DIS 17253) 2

3 - An attempt to use the Mutual Recognition Regulation EC 764/2008 to ensure free circulation of mobile machinery across the member states. Despite all these efforts, our industry still suffers from the current lack of harmonisation. MACHINERY CONCERNED For the purpose of this document, non-road mobile machinery (NRMM) is to be intended as any mobile self-propelled machine, transportable industrial equipment or vehicle with or without bodywork, not intended for the transport of passengers or goods on the road. This definition covers construction equipment, agricultural equipment, garden machinery, municipal equipment and material handling equipment The following types of vehicles are NOT to be considered as NRMM: 1) Special purpose vehicles as defined in directive 2007/46/EC, machinery mounted on a motor vehicle chassis; 2) Motor vehicles falling under the scope of directive 2007/46/EC, 2002/24/EC and Regulation 168/2013 3) Agricultural or forestry vehicles falling under the scope of the new agricultural vehicles Mother regulation (Regulation 167/2013) THE OUTCOME OF THE 2001 IFO STUDY The study carried out by the Institut für Wirtschaftsforschung (IFO) in 2001on behalf of the European Commission s services outlined that the following administrative and economic burdens are imposed on manufacturers by the absence of harmonisation in the field of NRMM. Three categories of costs were identified by the IFO report as the most relevant: 1. Additional workload during the development phase is necessary to meet the different requirements defined by Member States. Additional logistic efforts in all of the manufacturing processes to control the production variants are also implied. 2. Considerable delays in the introduction of new products (the IFO reports mentions an average of 15 weeks ). 3. Compliance costs including road approval procedure costs (documentation requirements being very different from country to country). The manufacturer must prepare several different (partially overlapping) sets of documentation to submit to the authorities. Sometimes this documentation has also to be translated. This category also includes the costs for multiple testings and multiple third-party certifications. COSTS/DIFFICULTIES GENERATED BY THE CURRENT SITUATION The costs, as outlined in the 2001 IFO report, still exist, but they have increased as some Member States introduced new requirements since the study was completed. In addition, a number of new local requirements have been introduced further to the access of 12 new countries to the European Union. As outlined above, due to the lack of harmonised legislation, each Member State is free to set different requirements to ensure an appropriate level of safety on roads. This has resulted in an illogical situation for the industry which has a negative effect on the EU s inherent and fundamental desire to have a competitive internal free market. 3

4 In fact, national legislations diverge when it comes to homologation of NRMM. This generates generic costs repeated each time that a national homologation is required for NRMM: Logistic costs (For each country transfer from the dealer/branch to the test facilities or from the factory to the place where the local agency representative will perform the tests) Inventory costs/ administrative costs (Substantial assets immobilized due to non availability of the machines) Time needed to get all type approval (From 1 to 12 months to get the type approval) Internal staff costs (More resources dedicated to follow the tests: technicians / engineers) Administrative fees (Need for validation of data each time by the local administration: test results, drawings, chemical composition, traveling of personel, etc...) Translation costs Consulting costs Examples of differences in the national legislations include: signalling devices and plates, lights, indications of the maximum speed, lamps covers but also additional design changes like adding a mechanical device securing the shovel, etc. In addition to the costs incurred directly for the different countries, the time and money spent by the manufacturer s homologation organization should also be taken into account. This time is spent in presenting the same machines and conducting the same and/or different tests during the homologation procedures for the different countries. INDUSTRY RECOMMENDATION The European Commission should propose a harmonised regulatory instrument in order to ensure a high level of safety for the circulation of non-road mobile machinery on public roads, taking into account existing EU legislation. The industry remains at the European Commission s disposal for any assistance. 4

5 About CECE, CEMA, EGMF, EUnited Municipal Equipment, FEM CECE, the Committee of European Construction Equipment ( is the recognised organisation representing the European construction equipment and related industries. CECE is a European network consisting of a secretariat in Brussels and national association offices in 14 different European countries. The industry behind CECE comprises companies. In 2011, these equipment manufacturers had a total turnover of 23 billion and employed people directly. CEMA is the European association representing the agricultural machinery industry ( In the agricultural machinery sector, there are some manufacturers, that generated a turnover of around 26 billion in people work in this sector and a further people work in distribution and maintenance. The companies are mainly small and medium-sized manufacturers. The sector covers around 450 different machine types. EGMF, the European Garden Machinery industry Federation, was created in 1977 ( Its original members were European manufacturers of garden equipment for domestic, municipal and recreational use, and the national associations representing these manufacturers in France, Germany and the UK. Currently, EGMF members comprise 20 European manufacturers and 7 National Associations EUnited Municipal Equipment is the European Association of Municipal Equipment Manufacturers ( The association represents the leading manufacturers of mobile machines used in municipalities and other public areas. FEM, the European Materials Handling Federation ( was created in It represents, defends and promotes European manufacturers of materials handling, lifting and storage equipment. FEM speaks for 15 members representing some companies (mostly SMEs) employing people directly and with an annual turnover of 50 billion (2011). 5