Awaiting Parliament 1st reading / single reading / budget 1st stage
2016/2215(INI) Inquiry into emission measurements in the automotive sector
Lead committee dossier: EMIS/8/07666
Legal Basis RoP 019
| Role | Committee | Rapporteur | Shadows |
|---|---|---|---|
| Lead | EMIS | GIESEKE Jens (EPP), GERBRANDY Gerben-Jan (ALDE) | REVAULT D'ALLONNES BONNEFOY Christine (S&D), HENKEL Hans-Olaf (ECR), SYLIKIOTIS Neoklis (GUE/NGL), EICKHOUT Bas (Verts/ALE), EVI Eleonora (EFD), PRETZELL Marcus (ENF) |
Legal Basis RoP 019
Subjects
Activites
-
2017/03/02
Committee report tabled for plenary, single reading
-
A8-0049/2017
summary
The Committee of Inquiry into Emission Measurements in the Automotive Sector adopted the report prepared by Jens GIESEKE (EPP, DE) and Gerben-Jan GERBRANDY (ALDE, NL) on the inquiry into emission measurements in the automotive sector. As a reminder, on 17 December 2015, the European Parliament decided to set up a Committee of Inquiry to investigate alleged contraventions and maladministration in the application of Union law in relation to emission measurements in the automotive sector. The Committee of Inquiry adopted the following conclusions: Laboratory tests and real-world emissions: the report noted the large discrepancies observed between the nitrogen dioxide emissions of most diesel cars measured during the type-approval process and those measured under real conditions. Members considered that emission control technologies (ECTs) available at the time of adoption of the Euro 5 and 6 NOx emission limits, when properly applied, already 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 the Euro 6 emission limits can be met in real-world conditions regardless of fuel type, if appropriate widely available technology is used. 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. In January 2011, the Commission launched the working group on real driving emissions - light duty vehicles (RDE-LDV). The RDE test was approved by the Technical Committee for Motor Vehicles (CTVM) on 28 October 2015. Members stated that the Commission failed to use the means at its disposal, at the level of the TCMV and of the RDE-LDV working group, to advance the decision-making process and ensure a timely adaptation of the type-approval tests to reflect real-world conditions. The Commission should have steered the RDE-LDV working group towards an earlier choice of the option of portable emission measurement systems (PEMS) testing. Moreover, the Member States’ failure to take an active part in the “Real Driving Emissions – Light Duty Vehicles” (RDE-LDV) working group constitutes maladministration. Members considered that the proposal for a lower NOx emission limit value for diesel cars is justified since there are standards in the world that are much stricter than those currently in force in the EU and because the technology already exists to reduce NOx emissions. In conclusion, the Commission lacked the political will and decisiveness to act upon the seriousness of the high NOx emissions and to give priority to the protection of public health that was at stake. Defeat devices: the report describes the different strategies used with regard to vehicles such as the use of banned defeated devices. It addresses the problems identified by the investigation with regard to the effective application of the ban on the use of defeat devices provided for in Union law. Defeat devices, which were banned by Regulation (EC) No 715/2007, were generally not considered among the possible reasons behind the discrepancies between laboratory and on-road NOx emissions. It was not generally suspected that they could be in actual use in any passenger car produced in the EU. Unlike in the case of heavy-duty vehicles, car manufacturers were not required to disclose or justify their emission strategies. Having such an obligation would facilitate controlling for defeat devices. The report noted that Member States contravened their legal obligation to monitor and enforce the ban on defeat devices set out in Regulation (EC) No 715/2007. Most Member States did not take steps to better understand the large discrepancies between emissions levels measured in the laboratory and on the road by carrying out additional tests. The Commission did not fulfilled its legal obligation to monitor the application of the prohibition on defeat devices when it was aware of any illegal practices by manufacturers in breach of Regulation (EC) No 715/2007. Type-approval and in-service conformity: the report analyses the functioning of the EU type-approval system and its alleged shortcomings, including regarding the provisions relating to in-service conformity and market surveillance. No specific EU oversight of vehicle type-approval is provided for in the current framework, and the rules are subject to a variety of interpretations across the Member States, partly on account of the absence of an effective system for exchanging information among type-approval authorities and technical services. The level of technical expertise and human and financial resources may vary substantially between type-approval authorities and technical services. Members considered that the Member States should have ensured that their type-approval authorities have sufficient human and financial resources to perform in-house testing. They should have considered the potential conflicts of interest arising from the contracting of technical services by car manufacturers for carrying out tests. Moreover, they should have not relied on tests performed in the car manufacturers’ certified laboratories under the supervision of technical services. The Commission should have taken a more prominent coordinating role to ensure the uniform application of the EU legal framework Enforcement and penalties: the report highlighted the problems in enforcing EU law on emission from light-duty vehicles as well as the penalties defined by the Member States. Members pointed out that they have applied neither financial nor legal penalties to car manufacturers in the aftermath of the emissions case. No mandatory initiatives to recall or retrofit non-conform vehicles were taken, and no type-approvals were withdrawn. Where recalls or retrofitting took place, this was done as a voluntary initiative by car manufacturers, following public and political pressure. National investigations have shown that a majority of diesel vehicles seem to employ defeat strategies. Inaction by the Member States authorities in this regard constitutes a contravention of EU law. In general, Member States have contravened their obligations to implement the EU law on car emissions under the current system.
-
A8-0049/2017
summary
-
2017/02/28
Vote in committee, 1st reading/single reading
-
2016/10/06
Committee referral announced in Parliament, 1st reading/single reading
Documents
- Committee report tabled for plenary, single reading: A8-0049/2017
| Amendments | Dossier |
| 205 |
2016/2215(INI)
2017/01/24
EMIS
205 amendments...
Amendment 1 #
Motion for a resolution Citation 5 a (new) - having regard to Directive 2008/50/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 May 2008 on ambient air quality and cleaner air for Europe,1a _________________ 1a OJ L 152, 11.6.2008, p.1.
Amendment 10 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 1 1.
Amendment 100 #
Motion for a resolution 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 conditions similar to the NEDC test cycle (temperature, duration, speed), were used in order to pass the type-approval test cycle.
Amendment 101 #
Motion for a resolution 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
Amendment 102 #
Motion for a resolution 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.
Amendment 103 #
Motion for a resolution 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, and in particular Member States whose national type approval authority type-approved the Volkswagen vehicles equipped with illegal software, 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 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 104 #
Motion for a resolution 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
Amendment 105 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 20 20. Member States do not seem to apply
Amendment 106 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 21 21. Most Member States did not take steps to better understand the large discrepancies between emissions levels measured in the laboratory and on the road by carrying out additional tests outside of the NEDC conditions.
Amendment 107 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 21 21. Most Member States did not take steps to better understand the large discrepancies between emissions levels measured in the laboratory and on the road by carrying out additional tests outside of the NEDC conditions.
Amendment 108 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 21 a (new) 21 a. After the warnings of the JRC in 2013 regarding the possibility of the use of defeat strategies under normal conditions of use, the Commission should have taken additional measures to monitor and ensure that Member States carry out all necessary checks and that there is no infringement of EU legislation.
Amendment 109 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 22 22. The Commission ha
Amendment 11 #
Motion for a resolution 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 110 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 22 22. The Commission had no legal basis to search for defeat devices itself
Amendment 111 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 22 22. The Commission had
Amendment 112 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 22 22. The Commission had no legal basis to search for defeat devices itself, but had the legal obligation to oversee the Member States’ enforcement of the ban on defeat devices. However, in spite of the awareness of, and communication between the relevant Commission services on, possible illegal practices by manufacturers, the Commission neither undertook any further technical or legal research or investigation on its own nor requested any information or further action from the Member States to verify whether the law may have been infringed. This constitutes maladministration.
Amendment 113 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 22 22. The Commission had no legal basis
Amendment 114 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 22 22. The Commission had no legal basis to search for defeat devices itself, but had the legal obligation to oversee the Member States
Amendment 115 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 22 a (new) 22 a. In 2013, the Vice-president of the Commission responsible the implementation of Regulation (EC) No 715/2007 did not undertake adequate action upon a letter from the Commissioner for the Environment proposing to seek a collective response from the Commission in view of the concerns on vehicle emissions. The Commission failed to request information from Member States and pursue options (both at EU and national level) to deal with those vehicles in the existing fleet which do not comply with the legal emission limits in normal driving conditions. This constitutes maladministration.
Amendment 116 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 22 a (new) 22 a. Even if there was no concrete evidence that indicated cheating in emissions tests, the Commission should have launched an investigation to check if the car manufactures were using defeat devices in contravention with Article 5(2) of Regulation (EC) No 715/2007 and should have taken measures to prevent the fraud.
Amendment 117 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 22 b (new) 22 b. The Commission failed to monitor the development of national policies and the enforcement of the EU legislation by national authorities ensuring that there is no infringement of EU legislation. This constitutes maladministration.
Amendment 118 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 22 c (new) 22 c. The Commission failed to give a mandate to the JRC to investigate the possible illegal use of defeat devices as a possible explanation for the discrepancies between the laboratory and road emissions.
Amendment 119 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 23 a (new) 23 a. The Commission had to be aware of the likely use of defeat devices in practice, since its own Impact Assessment for the 2013 Clean Air Package clearly states that: "In addition to the intrinsic weakness of the NEDC, some vehicles seem to be designed to respect the limits only when tested on this cycle. Moreover, there is increasing evidence of illegal practices by some end users that defeat the anti-pollution systems to improve driving performance or save on the replacement of costly components" (footnote 39 of the Impact Assessment).
Amendment 12 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 2 2. There are large discrepancies between the NOx emissions of most Euro 3-6 diesel cars measured during the type- approval process with the New European Driving Cycle (NEDC) laboratory test, which meet the legal limit, and their NOx emissions measured in real driving conditions, which substantially exceed the limit. Those discrepancies affect most diesel cars and are
Amendment 120 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 23 a (new) 23 a. Moreover, research findings of the Commission's own science body, the Joint Research Centre, were pointing at the possible use of defeat devices and were seen by DG ENTR officials as "a clear case of hard cycle beating". The data of the Euro 5a diesel vehicle concerned was also part of a JRC report on eco- innovation, published in 2013, and in principle available to all Commission's officials.
Amendment 121 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 23 b (new) 23 b. Despite the clear indications of the possible illegal use of defeat devices, the Commission never made use of the provision under Regulation (EC) No 692/2008, which entitles it to request Member States' type approval authorities to provide information on the functioning of emission technology at low temperatures.
Amendment 122 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 23 c (new) 23 c. The Commission should have followed up on correspondence between the JRC and DG ENTR, DG ENV and DG CLIMA, discussing possible "strange" emission behaviour in 2008 and 2010. The justification for why no action was taken, due to a lack of any indication or clear evidence of the possible use of defeat devices by car manufacturers, is wrong, as indications were given in the correspondence, and constitute maladministration, as evidence cannot be found unless it is sought.
Amendment 123 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 24 24. The
Amendment 124 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 24 24. The Commission should have ensured that the JRC
Amendment 125 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 24 24. The Commission should have ensured that the JRC’s research findings and concerns discussed among the Commission services with regard to possible illegal practices by manufacturers reach the level of the hierarchy and lead to actions needed to correct the situation. Altogether, the Commission's lack of action constitutes maladministration.
Amendment 126 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 24 a (new) 24 a. The Commission should have shown more initiative and diligence as regards the possible use of illegal defeat devices by car manufacturers given the general suspicion and numerous indications thereof. The JRC should have received the mandate from the Commission to investigate whether the reported suspicious behaviours of certain vehicles have any illegal connotations.
Amendment 127 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 26 26. No specific EU oversight of vehicle type-approval is provided for in the current framework, and the rules are subject to a variety of interpretations across the Member States, partly on account of the absence of an effective system for exchanging information among type- approval authorities and technical services. To correct this shortcoming, several witnesses expressed views in favour of a new European agency dedicated to surveillance of motor vehicles, increased Commission oversight or extending the mandate of an existing agency.
Amendment 128 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 27 27. The
Amendment 129 #
Motion for a resolution 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 fact that car manufacturers are free to choose any of the existing type-approval authorities combined with a lack of a harmonised interpretation of the rules
Amendment 13 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 2 2. There are large discrepancies between the NOx emissions of most Euro 3-6 diesel cars measured during the type- approval process with the New European Driving Cycle (NEDC) laboratory test, which meet the legal limit, and their NOx emissions measured in real driving conditions, which substantially exceed the limit. Those discrepancies affect
Amendment 130 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 28 28. Directive 2007/46/EC states that the Commission has to be notified by the type-approval authority when it decides to reject a type-approval application. However, it is not clear what actions the Commission should take after such notification and how such follow-up actions are to be coordinated with the Member States. There is no clear and effective system in place to prevent a car manufacturer from applying for a type- approval in one Member State after an application for type-approval has been rejected by another Member State, or for a test to be conducted in another technical service after a model has failed to pass at a first technical service. In order to prevent possible relocation in the form of ‘technical dumping’, manufacturers could be compelled to provide the Commission with reasons justifying their choice of technical service.
Amendment 131 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 28 28. Directive 2007/46/EC states that the Commission has to be notified by the type-approval authority when it decides to reject a type-approval application. However, it is not clear what actions the Commission should take after such notification and how such follow-up actions are to be coordinated with the Member States. There is no clear and effective system in place to prevent a car manufacturer from applying for a type- approval in one Member State after an application for type-approval has been rejected by another Member State, or for a test to be conducted in another technical service after a model has failed to pass at a first technical service. In order to prevent ‘technical dumping’, manufacturers could be compelled to provide the Commission with reasons justifying their choice of technical service.
Amendment 132 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 29 29. There is an evident lack of control after type-approval
Amendment 133 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 29 29. There is an evident lack of control after type-approval, which is partly due to the current rules and partly due to uncertainty as to which authority is in charge of market surveillance. Effective conformity of production, in-service and end-of-lifecycle conformity checks to uncover cases where production vehicles and vehicles in use do not conform to the type-approved vehicle are often not in place or verified only through documents instead of physical tests carried out in the presence of the authorities
Amendment 134 #
Motion for a resolution 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 135 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 30 30.
Amendment 136 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 30 30. In-service testing for emissions is mostly conducted in the laboratories of car manufacturers and is currently limited to the NEDC laboratory tests required for type-approval, without considering alternatives like remote sensing technology for monitoring emissions in real driving conditions.
Amendment 137 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 31 31. The Member States should have ensured that their type-approval authorities have sufficient human and financial resources to perform in-house testing. They should have not relied to such an extent on tests performed in the car manufacturers’ certified laboratories under the supervision of technical services. There can be potential conflicts of interest arising from the contracting of technical services by car manufacturers for carrying out tests. This is a direct result of the current system set out in the EU type-
Amendment 138 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 31 31. The Member States should have ensured that their type-approval authorities have sufficient human and financial resources to either perform in-house testing or purchase reliable testing services. They should have not relied on tests performed in the car manufacturers’ certified laboratories under the supervision of technical services. The potential conflicts of interest arising from the contracting of technical services by car manufacturers for carrying out tests is a direct result of the current system set out in the EU type-
Amendment 139 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 31 31. The Member States should have ensured that their type-approval authorities have sufficient human and financial resources to perform in-house testing. They should have not relied only on tests performed in the car manufacturers
Amendment 14 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 2 2. There are large discrepancies between the NOx emissions of most Euro 3-6 diesel cars measured during the type- approval process with the New European Driving Cycle (NEDC) laboratory test, which meet the legal emission limit, and their NOx emissions measured in real driving conditions, which substantially exceed the limit. Those discrepancies affect most diesel cars and are not limited to Volkswagen vehicles equipped with prohibited defeat devices.
Amendment 140 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 32 Amendment 141 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 32 32. However, where technical services also offer consultancy services to car manufacturers on obtaining type-approval, as is the case in certain Member States, a potential conflict of interest arises due to the existence of an additional financial link between technical services and car manufacturers related to the provision of advice on how to successfully acquire type-approval. Member States should have investigated such potential conflicts of interests.
Amendment 142 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 32 32.
Amendment 143 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 33 33. The Member States should have ensured that type-approval authorities adequately audit technical services. Th
Amendment 144 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 33 33. The Member States should have ensured that type-approval authorities adequately audit technical services.
Amendment 145 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 33 33. The Member States should have ensured that type-approval authorities adequately audit technical services.
Amendment 146 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 33 33. The Member States should have
Amendment 147 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 34 34. The Member States’ failure to organise an efficient market surveillance system
Amendment 148 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 34 34. The
Amendment 149 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 34 34. The Member States’ failure to organise an efficient market surveillance system constitutes a contravention of EU law. The verification of the conformity of production and in-service conformity of light-duty vehicles is often based only on laboratory tests performed on the car manufacturers’ premises, even if current legislation does not prevent the use of different or additional tests.
Amendment 15 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 2 a (new) 2a. In any event, a distinction should be drawn between cases where the limits laid down in the European standards were exceeded and cases where prohibited defeat devices were used. Where limits were exceeded, this finding was the trigger for work to start on producing a new cycle of WLTC tests and a new requirement for real-driving emissions (RDE) tests; in the case of the prohibited defeat devices, the manufacturer’s intention to mislead (the authorities and the public) makes this a more serious matter than limits being exceeded under real driving conditions.
Amendment 150 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 34 34. The Member States’ failure to organise an efficient and reliable market surveillance system constitutes a contravention of EU law. The verification of the conformity of production and in- service conformity of light-duty vehicles is often based only on laboratory tests performed on the car manufacturers’ premises.
Amendment 151 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 35 35. The Member States should have communicated to the Commission, and kept it updated on, the name and powers of their bodies responsible for market surveillance.
Amendment 152 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 36 a (new) 36 a. The Commission should have clearly defined the derogations to the ban on defeat devices foreseen in Article 5(2) of Regulation (EC) No 715/2007.
Amendment 153 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 36 b (new) 36 b. The USA has a history of implementing fuel economy standards and only lately has taken action directly on greenhouse gas emissions from vehicles. The EU, in contrast, has developed an earlier focus on CO2 emissions from vehicles, which has substantially affected the EU automobile market. The EU and the USA legislators can mutually learn from each other, for the benefit of the climate protection, the consumer as well as the car industry. The Commission should have kept this in mind and should have initiated necessary steps for the harmonization of CO2 and NOx emission standards and emission testing procedures between the EU and the USA.
Amendment 154 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 37 Amendment 155 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 37 37.
Amendment 156 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 37 a (new) 37 a. In particular, the Commission should have examined how competition among type approval authorities and among testing services worked out in practice and should have submitted alternatives for this type of unnecessary and harmful competition.
Amendment 157 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 37 b (new) 37 b. The Commission failed to make use of the provision of Regulation (EC) No 692/2008, to request Member States type approval authorities for information on the functioning of emission technology at low temperatures.
Amendment 158 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 38 Amendment 159 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 38 38.
Amendment 16 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 3 3. The existence of the discrepancies, and their significant negative impact on attaining air quality objectives, in particular with regard to urban areas, had been known to the Commission, to the responsible authorities of the Member States and to many other stakeholders since at least 2004-2005 when the Euro 5/6 Regulation was being prepared. The discrepancies have been confirmed by a large number of studies by the Joint Research Centre (JRC) since 2010-2011 and other researchers since 20
Amendment 160 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 38 38. The
Amendment 161 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 38 a (new) 38 a. The initial test results performed by the national authorities in the framework of the diesel emissions screening campaign give credence to suspicions that Volkswagen case is not the only violation but the emissions scandal is more widespread and prevents the efficient enforcement of EU legislation.
Amendment 162 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 38 a (new) 38 a. One of the structural weaknesses of the current type-approval framework in Europe is that it is only the type-approval authority that granted a type-approval to a given vehicle that can effectively withdraw the certificate of conformity that was given to the vehicle concerned.
Amendment 163 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 39 Amendment 164 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 39 39. There is no unified practice in the EU for transparent access by consumers to information on recalls. The Commission should explore all the options available under the Treaty to penalise companies guilty of infringements under existing consumer protection legislation, and should work on a legislative framework which offers consumers genuine protection.
Amendment 165 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 39 a (new) 39a. The Commission should explore all the options available under the Treaty to penalise companies guilty of infringements, and should also work within a legislative framework which provides consumers with genuine protection.
Amendment 166 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 39 a (new) 39 a. The European legal framework does not foresee the possibility to compensate consumers if corrective measures such as mandatory recalls imposed by type approval authorities have an adverse impact on the original vehicles' performance (such as its durability, fuel economy or engine performance).
Amendment 167 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 40 40. The majority of the Member States did not launch or participate to any investigations. Some Member States were very reluctant to share the results of their investigations and the technical test data with the Commission and this committee of inquiry
Amendment 168 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 40 40.
Amendment 169 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 40 40.
Amendment 17 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 3 3. The existence of the discrepancies, and their significant negative impact on attaining air quality
Amendment 170 #
40.
Amendment 171 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 41 41. The Member States started to
Amendment 172 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 42 42. Member States have applied neither financial nor legal penalties to car
Amendment 173 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 42 42. Member States have applied neither financial nor legal penalties to car manufacturers in the aftermath of the emissions case. No mandatory initiatives to recall or retrofit non-conform vehicles were taken, and no type-approvals were withdrawn. Where recalls or retrofitting took place, this was done as a voluntary initiative by car manufacturers, following public and political pressure.
Amendment 174 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 42 42. Member States have applied neither financial nor legal penalties to car manufacturers in the aftermath of the emissions case. Only in some cases has the marketing of Euro 5 end-of-series Volkswagen vehicles equipped with a prohibited defeat device been banned. No mandatory initiatives to recall or retrofit non-conform vehicles were taken, and no type-approvals were withdrawn. Where recalls or retrofitting took place, this was done as a voluntary initiative by car manufacturers, following political pressure.
Amendment 175 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 42 a (new) 42 a. On the basis of the public results from the national investigations, in addition to the defeat device discovered by US authorities in Volkswagen engines, a majority of diesel vehicles seem to employ defeat strategies. Inaction by the Member States authorities to require manufacturers to remove - any temporal modulation of emission control devices, - thermal modulation beyond what is strictly necessary for engine protection, and - other strategies which result, inter alia, in higher emissions with hot start in laboratory conditions, constitutes contravention of EU law.
Amendment 176 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 43 Amendment 177 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 43 Amendment 178 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 43 43. Member States did not monitor and enforce appropriately the application of Regulation (EC) No 715/2007, notably in contravention of Article 5(1) on the obligation for manufacturers to design
Amendment 179 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 43 43. Member States, and in particular those which granted vehicle models type- approval, did not monitor and enforce appropriately the application of Regulation (EC) No 715/2007, notably in contravention of Article 5(1) on the obligation for manufacturers to design cars which comply with the regulation in normal use.
Amendment 18 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 3 a (new) 3 a. Although less so than for NOx emissions, there are also significant differences in the measured values of CO2 emissions and fuel consumption between laboratory tests and tests on the road;
Amendment 180 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 46 Amendment 181 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 46 a (new) 46 a. Furthermore, the Member States have not taken up their role to actively inform and support consumers to claim their rights in respect of the Volkswagen emissions case and possible involvement of other car-brands.
Amendment 182 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 47 47.
Amendment 183 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 47 47.
Amendment 184 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 47 47. Following a strict interpretation of Regulation (EC) No 715/2007, the Commission considered that it is the sole duty of the Member States, and not part of its responsibility as guardian of the Treaties, to investigate the possible illegal use of defeat devices.
Amendment 185 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 47 a (new) 47 a. The Commission did not take the initiative to push for a coordinated and mandatory recall program at EU level for cars of the Volkswagen group equipped with illegal defeat software.
Amendment 186 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 48 48. The Commission
Amendment 187 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 48 a (new) 48 a. The Commission should have asked for the emissions tests to be done in real driving conditions as set in the Regulation (EC) No 715/2007 since it was known that there was a difference between the results of the emissions in the laboratory and in the real driving conditions.
Amendment 188 #
49. The Commission did not sufficiently supervise the deadlines by which Member States had to report on the penalties put in place under Article 13 of Regulation (EC) No 715/2007 and Article 46 of Directive 2007/46/EC.
Amendment 189 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 49 a (new) 49 a. As guardian of the Treaties, the Commission should take infringement action, in the event that Member States do not act upon the findings of the recent investigations and require manufacturers to remove any temporal modulation of emission control devices, unnecessary thermal modulation, and other defeat strategies which result, inter alia, in higher emissions with hot start in laboratory conditions.
Amendment 19 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 4 4. Before September 2015, the discrepancies were generally attributed to the inadequacy of the NEDC laboratory test, which is not representative of real world emissions, and to the optimisation strategies put in place by car manufacturers to pass the laboratory test
Amendment 190 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 51 51. Despite the lack of summoning
Amendment 191 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 52 a (new) 52 a. Whilst the collection of written evidence via submission of written questions and questionnaires to both institutional and non-institutional parties was generally an effective means of evidence gathering, the written replies - essential for the committee to prepare each hearing - were often sent very late with little time left before the hearing to read and analyse the replies.
Amendment 192 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 53 53.
Amendment 193 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 54 54. Delays in the delivery of requested documentation represented a major obstacle in the work of the committee. The lengthy internal procedure in the Commission, which requires the College’s approval to react to requests from the committee, together with gaps in its archiving system, delayed the collection of evidence during the time available.
Amendment 194 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 54 54. Delays in the delivery of requested documentation represented a major obstacle in the work of the committee. The documents were of varying quality, some of them were very hard to read and, therefore, to use. The lengthy internal procedure in the Commission, which requires the College
Amendment 195 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 54 a (new) 54 a. The Commission deliberately obstructed and delayed the delivery of documents and information to the Committee to impede the use of such information for hearings of previous Commissioners and officials. This breaches the principle of sincere cooperation between the institutions.
Amendment 196 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 55 Amendment 197 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 55 55. The procedure followed to grant access to the minutes of the regulatory committee (based on explicit consent by the 28 Member States) was unnecessarily cumbersome, lengthy and based on a very narrow interpretation of the law. The access to those documents was too limited, which led to possible mistakes or important information not being taken into account. It should not be followed again in the future.
Amendment 198 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 56 56. Cooperation with
Amendment 199 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 58 Amendment 2 #
Motion for a resolution Recital A A. whereas, on the basis of a proposal by the Conference of Presidents, Parliament decided on 17 December 2015 to set up a Committee of Inquiry to investigate alleged contraventions and maladministration in the application of Union law in relation to emission measurements in the automotive sector as well as to investigate the alleged failure of the Commission to introduce tests reflecting real-world driving conditions in a timely manner and to adopt measures addressing the use of defeat mechanisms, as provided for in Article 5(3) of Regulation (EC) No 715/2007;
Amendment 20 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 4 4. Before September 2015, the discrepancies were generally attributed to the inadequacy of the NEDC laboratory test, which is not representative of real world emissions, and to the optimisation strategies put in place by car manufacturers to pass the laboratory test, not to the possible use of prohibited defeat devices.
Amendment 200 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 58 58. The obligation under Article 5 of Decision 95/167/EC to contact the Member States through the Permanent Representations
Amendment 201 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 59 59. The collection of written evidence via questionnaires from non-institutional parties was
Amendment 202 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 60 Amendment 203 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 61 61. Given the temporary nature of committees of inquiry, collecting evidence in an efficient and timely manner is essential. In doing so, it is essential that the committee prioritises gathering facts by asking the technical experts relevant questions. The approach taken by the committee to devote the first months of its mandate to hearing technical experts before moving on the political level proved successful. Ideally, the hearings should start only once the first phase of evidence collection is concluded.
Amendment 204 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 61 61. Given the temporary nature of committees of inquiry, collecting evidence in an efficient and timely manner is essential. The approach taken by the committee to devote the first months of its mandate to hearing technical experts before moving on the political level proved successful. Ideally, the hearings should start only once the first phase of evidence
Amendment 205 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 61 a (new) 61 a. In order to facilitate the work of the European Parliament's committees of inquiry, given they work under considerable time pressure to scrutinise a huge amount of documents, it is essential that the rules governing the treatment of confidential information by the European Parliament, and in particular the access rights of members' accredited parliamentary assistants (APAs) to "other confidential information" (OCI), are reviewed.
Amendment 21 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 4 4. Before September 2015, the discrepancies were generally attributed to the inadequacy of the NEDC laboratory test, which is not representative of real world emissions, and to the optimisation strategies put in place by car manufacturers to pass the laboratory test, not to the use of prohibited defeat devices, although in 2013 a study conducted by the JRC discussed the possible use of defeat devices similar to those later discovered in Volkswagen vehicles. Evidence gathered by the committee suggested that car manufacturers are deliberately calibrating ECTs in their cars so that their effectiveness is reduced outside of the boundary conditions of the NEDC test.
Amendment 22 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 5 5.
Amendment 23 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 5 a (new) 5a. At the time that Regulation (EC) No 2007/715 was being drafted, a different type of test was already available. That test was the Common Artemis Driving Cycle, also used by vehicle manufacturers. It was able to recreate driving conditions that were much more similar to normal on-road use.
Amendment 24 #
5 a. At the same time, the development of a new, more realistic, laboratory test procedure, the so called Worldwide Harmonized Light vehicles Test Procedure (WLTP), that is due to replace the obsolete NEDC, took an extremely long time, and the test will be mandatory as part of the type approval process of all new vehicle types from 1 September 2017 onwards and for all new vehicles one year later. The WLTP has been chosen by the Commission and Member States as the test procedure for CO2 emissions, other pollutant emissions and fuel consumption measurements for the purpose of type approval.
Amendment 25 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 5 b (new) 5 b. From the evidence gathered and from internal exchanges of emails in the Commission, it is clear that vehicle manufacturers strongly resisted the introduction of PEMS at any stage of type approval and delayed the work of the RDE-LDV working group, insisting on the application of the random laboratory cycle as an "easier procedure" for emission compliance, leaving the door open for possible cycle-beating.
Amendment 26 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 6 6. The excessive length of the process leading to the introduction of regulatory RDE tests can be explained only in part by the complexity of the development of a new test procedure, the time needed for the technological development of PEMS, and the length of the decision-making and administrative processes at the EU level.
Amendment 27 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 6 6. The excessive length of the process leading to the introduction of regulatory RDE tests can be explained only in part by the complexity of the development of a new test procedure, the time needed for the technological development of PEMS, and the length of the decision-making and administrative processes at the EU level. The delays were
Amendment 28 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 6 6. The excessive length of the process leading to the introduction of regulatory RDE tests cannot be
Amendment 29 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 6 6. The excessive length of the process leading to the introduction of regulatory RDE tests can be explained only in part by the complexity of the development of a
Amendment 3 #
Motion for a resolution 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 30 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 6 a (new) 6 a. The car industry put considerable pressure on the European Commission and Member States and that is why they delayed action on reducing toxic emissions by passenger vehicles.
Amendment 31 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 6 a (new) 6 a. The RDE test endorsed by the TCMV on 28 October 2015 introduced a "temporary conformity factor" of 2.1 with the effect of allowing vehicles to emit 168 mg/km of NOx in the RDE test applicable to all new vehicles from September 2019 (new vehicle types from September 2017), i.e. four years after the entry into force of the Euro 6 80mg/km limit value. A "final conformity factor" of 1.5 applies to all new vehicles from 2021 (new vehicle types from 2020) with the effect of allowing vehicles to emit 120 mg/km of NOx in the RDE test.
Amendment 32 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 6 a (new) 6 a. It is debatable, as confirmed by several experts, whether there is a need to include any conformity factor in the RDE procedure, given that they remain in clear contradiction with the results of several independent tests carried out on Euro 6 cars, which showed NOx conformity factors below the value of 1.5 or even much lower than 1 are already achievable. Moreover, conformity factors are not justifiable from a technical perspective and do not reflect an obvious need to develop new technology, but rather allow the ongoing use of technology with less efficiency, while efficient technology is present on the market but has low penetration levels for economic reasons today.
Amendment 33 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 6 b (new) 6 b. It is justified to propose a lower NOx emission limit for diesel cars since there are standards in the world that are much more demanding than the current European standards and because the technology already exists to reduce the NOx emissions since EU car manufacturers are placing diesel cars on the US market that have to comply with much lower NOx emission limits.
Amendment 34 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 6 b (new) 6 b. The introduction and application of conformity factors at the agreed levels could be considered a de facto blanket derogation from the applicable emissions limits for a considerable amount of time and thus run counter to the aims and objectives of the basic Regulation (EC) No 715/2007 given that the established conformity factors did not only reflect the measurement uncertainty of PEMS, but have been adapted further to the demands for more leniency by Member States and car manufacturers, without technical justification.
Amendment 35 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 6 c (new) 6 c. The Commission in its initial draft for the second RDE package had proposed to the TCMV conformity factors towards the lower end of the 1.6-2.2 range for the first phase and of the 1.2-1.6 range for the second phase. The initial proposal was based on conformity factors identified at the lower end of identified ranges and thus corresponded to the strongest environmental objectives.
Amendment 36 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 6 d (new) 6 d. Notwithstanding the reasons mentioned the Commission lacked the political will and decisiveness to act upon the seriousness of the high NOx emissions and to give priority to the protection of public health of citizens that was at stake;
Amendment 37 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 7 7. The
Amendment 38 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 7 7. The Member States’ failure to take an active part in the “Real Driving Emissions - Light Duty Vehicles” (RDE- LDV) working group constitutes maladministration. With the exception of a few Member States, such as the UK, the
Amendment 39 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 7 Amendment 4 #
Motion for a resolution Recital C a (new) C a. whereas the former Commissioner for Industry and Entrepreneurship Günter Verheugen, responsible for drafting Regulation (EC) No 715/2007, admitted in the EMIS hearing on 30 August 2016 that derogations to the ban on defeat devices provided for in Article 5(2) of Regulation (EC) No 715/2007 should have been defined much more precisely;
Amendment 40 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 7 7. The Member States’ failure to take an active part in the “Real Driving Emissions - Light Duty Vehicles” (RDE- LDV) working group constitutes maladministration.
Amendment 41 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 8 8. The analysis of the minutes of the RDE-LDV working group and of the Technical Committee on Motor Vehicles (TCMV) shows that some Member States
Amendment 42 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 8 8. The analysis of the minutes of the RDE-LDV working group and of the Technical Committee on Motor Vehicles (TCMV) shows that some Member States, including in particular France, Italy and Spain, acted on several occasions to delay the adoption process of the RDE tests and to favour less stringent testing methods. In addition, several Member States could prevent
Amendment 43 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 8 8. The analysis of the minutes of the RDE-LDV working group and of the Technical Committee on Motor Vehicles (TCMV) shows that some Member States
Amendment 44 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 8 8. The analysis of the minutes of the RDE-LDV working group and of the Technical Committee on Motor Vehicles (TCMV) shows that some Member States
Amendment 45 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 8 a (new) 8 a. The Member States contravened their legal obligation to monitor that the manufacturers equip vehicles so that the components likely to affect emissions are designed, constructed and assembled so as to enable the vehicle, in normal use, to comply with Article 5(1) of Regulation (EC) No 715/2007 and its implementing measures.
Amendment 46 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 8 a (new) 8 a. The analysis of minutes of the TCMV meetings shows that many Member States (Italy, Spain, France, Slovak Republic, Romania, Hungary, Czech Republic, Bulgaria, Poland, United Kingdom and Austria), strongly opposed the more ambitious Commission proposal for conformity factors for NOx limits, and instead settled for higher conformity factor values corresponding to weaker environmental objectives. Some Member States presented a different position to the public and to the participants of the TCMV.
Amendment 47 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 8 a (new) 8 a. The Commission did not make appropriate use of the information generated by the JRC in 2009 and 2010, and deliberately diminished the relevance of the findings by not publishing full details including vehicle types. This constitutes maladministration. In addition to the creation of an RDE working group, the Commission should have investigated on potential defeat devices and pursued Member States action regarding the discrepancies measured between NEDC tests and emissions on the road.
Amendment 48 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 9 Amendment 49 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 9 9. The Commission
Amendment 5 #
Motion for a resolution Recital C b (new) C b. whereas the Comparative study on the differences between the EU and US legislation on emissions in the automotive sector published by the Directorate General for Internal Policies of the European Parliament in September 2016 ascertains that the EU fleet average targets for CO2 emissions are currently more ambitious than those adopted for emissions in the US and that on the contrary the US federal standards are (broadly) more ambitious for NOx;
Amendment 50 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 9 a (new) 9 a. Despite the issue of pollutant emissions from vehicles being not only a highly sensitive and political issue, but also a subject of high concern to the EU citizens, the Commission did not make any attempts to advance the decision- making process by making use of the possibility envisaged in the Regulatory Procedure with Scrutiny to bring forward the proposal to the level of the Council to increase political awareness and to exercise additional pressure on obstructing Member States. The Commission's failure to act in a timely manner on its responsibility to keep the test procedure under review and to revise it to reflect real world conditions constitutes maladministration.
Amendment 51 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 10 Amendment 52 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 10 10. As the entity responsible for the process and agenda of the RDE-LDV working group, the Commission should have steered the RDE-LDV working group towards an earlier choice of the option of PEMS testing, as that option was suggested in Recital 15 of the Euro 5/6 Regulation, was widely supported within the RDE- LDV group, and the JRC had already concluded in November 2010 that PEMS testing methods were sufficiently robust.
Amendment 53 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 10 10. As the entity responsible for the
Amendment 54 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 10 10. As the entity responsible for the process and agenda of the RDE-LDV working group, the Commission, and more specifically DG ENTR, should have steered the RDE-LDV working group towards an earlier choice of the option of PEMS testing, as that option was suggested in Recital 15 of the Euro 5/6 Regulation, was widely supported within the RDE- LDV group, and the JRC had already concluded in November 2010 that PEMS testing methods were sufficiently robust. This constitutes maladministration.
Amendment 55 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 10 a (new) 10 a. The Commission (DG ENTR) delayed the RDE introduction date for compliance purposes on several occasions. It can be estimated that the total delay for introduction of the RDE test for compliance purposes in the framework of legally established emission limits while taking into account the inaccuracy of the measurement equipment equals 6 years (2020 for new vehicles instead of planned 2014 and 2021 for all vehicles instead of 2015).
Amendment 56 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 10 b (new) 10 b. The CARS 2020 proposal, explicitly delayed necessary emissions regulations in order to protect the car industry from 'regulatory burden' in the aftermath of the economic and financial crisis. Ensuring compliance with existing EU emissions standards was superseded by the economic concerns of an industrial sector.
Amendment 57 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 11 Amendment 58 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 11 11.
Amendment 59 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 11 a (new) 11 a. The Commission Directorate General in the lead for implementing the regulation privileged industrial interests over the protection of health and respect of EU air quality legislation. The failure to tackle serious non-respect of EU internal market standard and air pollution source policy instrument constitutes maladministration.
Amendment 6 #
Motion for a resolution Recital C c (new) Cc. whereas the Comparative study on the differences between the EU and US legislation on emissions in the automotive sector published by the Directorate General for Internal Policies of the European Parliament in September 2016 ascertains that in the EU, manufacturers are not obliged to seek prior approval for their reliance on exemptions for defeat devices, or even to identify any such devices when applying for type approval, and whereas in the US, manufacturers are required to provide full details of any auxiliary emissions control devices to the EPA;
Amendment 60 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 11 a (new) 11 a. The issue of pollution and its effects on public health and the environment was not given sufficient attention by the Commission's competent Industry DG (DG ENTR, subsequently DG GROW) despite calls for more action by the Commission's Environment DG (DG ENV) and it's likely that the relevant emissions legislation and its enforcement in the Union would be have been more robust if DG ENV was responsible. In a reply to a DG ENTR Interservice Consultation dated 16 November 2005 on the proposal for a Euro 5 emission limit, DG ENV gave a suspended opinion arguing that that it was justified to push for a lower NOx limit for diesel cars because standards elsewhere in the world were much more demanding than the proposed 200mg/km and that EU car makers were demonstrating their technical and economic capacity to comply with the much stricter NOx standard in the United States of 44mg/km.
Amendment 61 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 11 b (new) 11 b. More pro-active involvement of DG ENV in the development of emissions legislation by bringing it forward to the level of the College of Commissioners could have contributed to more robust emissions legislation.
Amendment 62 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 12 12. Over half of the RDE-LDV working group participants consisted of experts from car manufacturers and other automotive industries. This can inter alia be attributed to the lack of sufficient technical expertise in the Commission departments.
Amendment 63 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 12 12. Over half of the RDE-LDV working group participants consisted of experts from car manufacturers and other automotive industries
Amendment 64 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 12 12. Over half of the RDE-LDV working group participants consisted of experts from car manufacturers and other automotive industries. This can inter alia be attributed to the lack of sufficient technical expertise in the Commission departments. While the Commission consulted a wide range of stakeholders and ensured open access to the RDE-LDV group, it should have taken further steps to
Amendment 65 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 12 a (new) 12 a. The Commission should have acted to mitigate the central role played by the overrepresented industry representatives in the work of the RDE- LDV working group, who constantly delayed its work by re-opening topics that were considered clarified or even decided upon.
Amendment 66 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 13 13. The Commission should have consistently taken meaningful and complete minutes of the RDE-LDV working group meetings.
Amendment 67 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 13 13. The Commission should have consistently taken meaningful and complete minutes of the RDE-LDV working group meetings. This constitutes maladministration. Furthermore, it is regrettable that no minutes were taken of the MVEG meetings.
Amendment 68 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 13 a (new) 13 a. The conformity factors set in Commission Regulation (EU) No 2016/427, at a level which results in a de facto blanket derogation from the applicable emissions limits set out in Annex I to Regulation (EC) No 715/2007 for a substantial period of time, run counter to the aims and content of that regulation, and consequently the European Parliament Committee on Legal Affairs recommended that the RDE test be considered ultra vires as exceeding the empowerment contained in Article 5(3) of Regulation (EC) No 715/2007, thus contravening EU law.
Amendment 69 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 14 14. Defeat devices were
Amendment 7 #
Motion for a resolution Recital C d (new) C d. whereas the Comparative study on the differences between the EU and US legislation on emissions in the automotive sector published by the Directorate General for Internal Policies of the European Parliament in September 2016 ascertains that in the EU there has been no clarification of how the definition of defeat devices should be implemented, which could have helped to ensure uniformity of understanding among manufacturers and regulatory authorities, and whereas, on the contrary, the EPA has provided manufacturers and evaluators with a range of advisory circulars providing further interpretative details;
Amendment 70 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 14 14. Defeat devices were generally not considered among the possible reasons behind the discrepancies between
Amendment 71 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 14 14. Defeat devices 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, despite the fact that such devices were found in the US in light-duty vehicles in 1995 and in heavy-duty vehicles in 1998.
Amendment 72 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 14 14. Defeat devices 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. However, the Commission and the Member States were informed about the possibility of the use of defeat strategies under normal conditions of use ever since the conclusions of the JRC's 2013 report titled "A complementary emissions test for light-duty vehicles" were presented to them.
Amendment 73 #
Motion for a resolution 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 74 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 14 14. Despite the evidence that Commission services were suspecting the use of defeat devices, the Commission officials heard by the committee of inquiry claimed defeat devices 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.
Amendment 75 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 14 14. Defeat devices were
Amendment 76 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 14 14. Defeat devices were
Amendment 77 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 15 15. The
Amendment 78 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 15 15. The scope and provisions of the ban on defeat devices has never been disputed by anyone. No Member State or car manufacturer ever questioned or asked for clarification on the provisions on defeat devices, including the implementation of the ban, until the Volkswagen case.
Amendment 79 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 15 15. The ban on defeat devices has never been disputed by anyone. No Member State or car manufacturer ever questioned or asked for clarification on the provisions on defeat devices, including the implementation of the ban
Amendment 8 #
Motion for a resolution 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,
Amendment 80 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 15 a (new) Amendment 81 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 16 16. Some
Amendment 82 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 16 16. Some emission control strategies applied by car manufacturers point towards the possible use of
Amendment 83 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 16 16. Some emission control strategies applied by car manufacturers point towards the possible use of prohibited defeat devices. For instance, some manufacturers decrease the effectiveness of ECTs outside specific
Amendment 84 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 16 16. Some emission control strategies applied by car manufacturers point towards the possible use of prohibited defeat devices. For instance, some manufacturers decrease the effectiveness of ECTs outside specific
Amendment 85 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 16 16. Some emission control strategies applied by car manufacturers point towards the possible use of prohibited defeat devices. For instance, some manufacturers decrease the effectiveness of ECTs outside specific “thermal windows” close to the temperature range prescribed by the NEDC test, which are not justifiable by the technical limitations of the ECTs. Others modulate ECTs to decrease their efficiency after a certain time from the start of the engine, close to the duration of the test, has elapsed. Moreover, in many cases, emissions measured on a test cycle after a certain period following engine start are unjustifiably higher than on the same cycle with measurements done immediately after engine start. These strategies possibly imply a conscious approach of car manufactures to circumvent type- approval rules contrary to the principle of good faith and the spirit of Regulation (EC) No 715/2007.
Amendment 86 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 16 a (new) 16 a. The contradictory statements of the current industry Commissioner Bieńkowska and her predecessor Verheugen concerning the clarity of the to the ban on defeat devices foreseen in Article 5(2) of Regulation (EC) No 715/2007 show a necessity of legally binding implementation guidelines.
Amendment 87 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 16 a (new) 16 a. Following the Volkswagen scandal, some car manufacturers have adjusted their thermal windows to allow their existing emissions control technologies to operate within a much broader temperature range.
Amendment 88 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 16 b (new) 16 b. The evidence gathered confirmed that car manufacturers - who are responsible for ensuring that no prohibited defeat device is used in their vehicles - interpret the rules established in Article 5(2) of Regulation (EC) No 715/2007 in such a way that they are optimising their vehicles in order to simply pass the test cycle and comply with the letter of the law, but not necessarily the spirit. At the same time, the car manufacturers clearly disregarded the provisions set in Article 5(1) of the above- mentioned Regulation, obliging them to equip their vehicles so that the components likely to affect emissions are designed, constructed and assembled so as to enable the vehicle, in normal use, to comply with the Regulation and its implementing measures.
Amendment 89 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 16 b (new) 16 b. Optimisation strategies that reduce the effectiveness of ECTs can be attributed to commercial choices made by the car manufacturer to achieve different objectives, such as reducing fuel consumption, increasing user convenience, reducing costs by using cheaper parts or addressing design constraints. These objectives are not covered by the exemptions on the prohibition on the use of defeat devices.
Amendment 9 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 1 1.
Amendment 90 #
Motion for a resolution 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, that has to be used in the scope of type-approval
Amendment 91 #
Motion for a resolution 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
Amendment 92 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 17 17. No EU or Member State 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.
Amendment 93 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 18 18. Unlike in the case of heavy-duty vehicles, car manufacturers were not required to disclose or justify their emission strategies.
Amendment 94 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 18 18. Unlike in the case of heavy-duty vehicles, car manufacturers were not required to disclose or justify their emission strategies.
Amendment 95 #
Motion for a resolution 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 96 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 18 a (new) 18 a. There is no consistent application of EU law in the 28 Member States, thus creating uncertainty in the interpretation of legal provisions and undermining the single market.
Amendment 97 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 18 b (new) 18 b. Between 2005 and 2015, the EIB granted loans to the Volkswagen Group in the order of EUR 4.3 billion. Of these about EUR 3.1billion concerned loans for RDI investments for emissions reduction of (passenger and commercial vehicle) engines. It is still unclear, pending ongoing investigations by OLAF and EIB, whether there is a link between the loans received by Volkswagen and the illegal software installed.
Amendment 98 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 19 19. No Member State
Amendment 99 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 19 19.
source: 597.535
|
History
(these mark the time of scraping, not the official date of the change)
2017-04-07Show (1) Changes | Timetravel
| activities/3 |
|
2017-04-06Show (1) Changes | Timetravel
| activities/3 |
|
2017-04-01Show (1) Changes | Timetravel
| activities/3/date |
Old
2017-04-05T00:00:00New
2017-04-04T00:00:00 |
2017-03-31Show (2) Changes | Timetravel
| activities/2/docs/0/text |
|
| procedure/summary |
|
2017-03-17Show (2) Changes | Timetravel
| activities/3/date |
Old
2017-04-04T00:00:00New
2017-04-05T00:00:00 |
| activities/3/type |
Old
Indicative plenary sitting date, 1st reading/single readingNew
Debate in plenary scheduled |
2017-03-05Show (2) Changes | Timetravel
| activities/2/docs |
|
| other/0/commissioner |
Old
BULC VioletaNew
BIEŃKOWSKA Elżbieta |
2017-03-04Show (2) Changes | Timetravel
| activities/2 |
|
| procedure/stage_reached |
Old
Awaiting committee decisionNew
Awaiting Parliament 1st reading / single reading / budget 1st stage |
2017-03-02Show (2) Changes | Timetravel
| activities/1 |
|
| procedure/Modified legal basis |
Rules of Procedure of the European Parliament EP 150
|
2017-02-16Show (1) Changes | Timetravel
| other/0/dg/url |
Old
http://ec.europa.eu/dgs/transport/index_en.htmNew
http://ec.europa.eu/info/departments/mobility-and-transport_en |
2017-01-15Show (1) Changes | Timetravel
| activities/1/date |
Old
2017-03-13T00:00:00New
2017-04-04T00:00:00 |
2017-01-13Show (2) Changes | Timetravel
| procedure/dossier_of_the_committee |
EMIS/8/07666
|
| procedure/stage_reached |
Old
Preparatory phase in ParliamentNew
Awaiting committee decision |
2016-12-18Show (2) Changes | Timetravel
| activities/0/committees/0/shadows/1 |
|
| committees/0/shadows/1 |
|
2016-12-17Show (2) Changes | Timetravel
| activities/0/committees/0/shadows/1 |
|
| committees/0/shadows/1 |
|
2016-12-07Show (4) Changes | Timetravel
| activities/0/committees/0/rapporteur/0/mepref |
Old
4f1adcbeb819f207b3000135New
53b2da32b819f205b000006d |
| activities/0/committees/0/rapporteur/0/name |
Old
ZALBA BIDEGAIN PabloNew
GIESEKE Jens |
| committees/0/rapporteur/0/mepref |
Old
4f1adcbeb819f207b3000135New
53b2da32b819f205b000006d |
| committees/0/rapporteur/0/name |
Old
ZALBA BIDEGAIN PabloNew
GIESEKE Jens |
2016-11-26Show (2) Changes | Timetravel
| activities/0 |
|
| committees/0/shadows/5/group |
Old
ECRNew
ENF |
2016-10-08Show (5) Changes
| activities |
|
| committees |
|
| links |
|
| other |
|
| procedure |
|