9 Amendments of Luděk NIEDERMAYER related to 2016/2215(INI)
Amendment 3 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital C a (new)
Recital C a (new)
C a. whereas the market share of diesel-powered passenger cars grew in the European Union during the last decades to a level where they represent more than half of new cars sold in almost every Member State; whereas this sustained growth in market share of diesel vehicles also came about as a result of EU climate policy, as diesel technology has a significant advantage over petrol engines when it comes to CO2 emissions; whereas at the combustion stage, diesel engines produce far more pollutants other than CO2, which are significantly and directly harmful to public health, such as NOx, SOx and particulate matter, than do petrol engines; whereas mitigation technologies for these pollutants exist and are deployed in the market;
Amendment 11 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 1
Paragraph 1
1. Available emission control technologies (ECTs), when properly applied, allowed diesel cars to meet the Euro 5 NOx emission limit of 180 mg/km and the Euro 6 NOx emission limit of 80 mg/km by the date of their respective entry into force, in real world conditions and not only in laboratory tests. Evidence shows that Euro 6 emission limits can be met in real world conditions regardless of fuel type, if appropriate widely available technology is used. This implies that some car manufacturers have opted to use technology that assures compliance with emission limits only in laboratory test, not for technical reasons but for economic reasons.
Amendment 73 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 14
Paragraph 14
14. Defeat devices, as defined in Article 3(10) of Regulation (EC) No 715/2007, were generally not considered among the possible reasons behind the discrepancies between laboratory and on- road NOx emissions and it was not generally suspected that they could be in actual use in any passenger car produced in the EU before the Volkswagen revelations in September 2015. The increasing difference between laboratory test results and the experience of a driver in real world conditions was often attributed to a combination of many factors including allowed margins for laboratory tests.
Amendment 91 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 17
Paragraph 17
17. No authority searched for defeat devices or proved the illegal use of defeat devices before September 2015. No Member State authority or technical service performed any tests other than the NEDC in the scope of type-approval, which in itself cannot point to the use of a defeat device. The vast majority of car manufacturers present on the EU market declared that they use the derogations to the ban on defeat devices foreseen in Article 5(2) of Regulation (EC) No 715/2007. The legality of the use of the derogations is subject to ongoing investigations and court cases. Unlike in some non-EU countries, neither government authorities nor courts took a clear decision on the issue of the limits of use of this derogation.
Amendment 95 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 18 a (new)
Paragraph 18 a (new)
18 a. Experts have noted the consensus view that the pre-emptive checking and possible detection of a fraudulent emissions system defeat device through unrestricted access to the vehicle's proprietary software is not a viable method, due to the extreme complexity of such software. Unrestricted access to such software would also present significant risk of disclosure of intellectual property rights' protected technology, which in turn could have a negative effect on innovation in the automotive sector.
Amendment 101 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 19
Paragraph 19
19. Member States contravened their legal obligation to monitor and enforce the ban on defeat devices set out in Article 5(2) of Regulation (EC) No 715/2007. None of them found the defeat devices installed in the Volkswagen vehicles. Moreover, according to our investigations, most Member States, and at least Germany, France, Italy and Luxembourg, had evidence that irrational emission control strategies, based on were not focused on use of a car in real world conditions but were rather responding to conditions similar to the NEDC test cycle (temperature, duration, speed), were used in order to pass the type-approval test cycle. Ongoing investigations and court cases at national level will decide if emission control strategies used by car manufacturers constitute an illegal use of defeat devices or a lawful application of the derogations.
Amendment 128 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 27
Paragraph 27
27. The level of technical expertise and human and financial resources may vary substantially between type-approval authorities and technical services, and the lack of a harmonised interpretation of the rules can lead to competition among themsetup of type-approval process within the EU and the organisation of type-approval process in some Member States has lead in practice in some cases to competition among type-approval authorities and also among technical services. Car manufacturers are, in principle, free to address the type-approval authority and technical service with the most flexible and least stringent interpretation of the rules, as well as the lowest fees. If this is the case, it can in some instances worsen compliance with relevant legislation and create a form of regulatory arbitrage.
Amendment 134 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 29 a (new)
Paragraph 29 a (new)
29 a. In addition to the above mentioned weaknesses of type-approval and conformity production procedures, all laboratory tests rely on data on Road Load parameters that are not subject to conformity testing by authorities and cannot be subject to independent testing, as the data are not provided by car manufactures. As confirmed by several studies, for most cars used in real world conditions, higher Road Load leads to lower emissions calculated for such cars in laboratory tests.
Amendment 143 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 33
Paragraph 33
33. The Member States should have ensured that type-approval authorities adequately audit technical services. This constitutes maladministration. The choice of the technical service is prime auditing was only very rariely the choice of the car manufacturer, and the role of the type-approval authority is often just to validate the procedure at the end. The possibility available to type-approval authorities to audit technical services and to challenge the choice of technical service is very rarely usedused. This can constitute maladministration, regardless of the fact that there is no evidence of manipulation of the results by technical services.