Explanatory Memorandum to COM(2017)275 - Amendment of Directive 1999/62/EC on the charging of heavy goods vehicles for the use of certain infrastructures - Main contents
Please note
This page contains a limited version of this dossier in the EU Monitor.
| dossier | COM(2017)275 - Amendment of Directive 1999/62/EC on the charging of heavy goods vehicles for the use of certain infrastructures. |
|---|---|
| source | COM(2017)275  |
| date | 31-05-2017 |
1. CONTEXT OF THE PROPOSAL
• Reasons for and objectives of the proposal
An efficient and reliable transport system is essential for the smooth functioning of the internal market and is a key sector of the economy. While road transport plays the most important role in the inland transport system, it is a source of a number of socio-economic and environmental challenges (e.g. climate change, air pollution, noise, congestion). Road pricing can play a key role in incentivising cleaner, more efficient operations, and its coherent design is crucial to ensuring fair treatment of road users and sustainable infrastructure financing.
Directive 1999/62/EC 1 provides the legal framework for charging heavy goods vehicles (HGVs) for the use of certain roads. The Directive aims to eliminate distortions of competition between transport undertakings by a step-wise harmonisation of vehicle taxes and establishment of fair mechanisms for infrastructure charging. It sets minimum levels of vehicle taxes for HGVs and specifies the modalities of infrastructure charging, including the variation of charges according to the environmental performance of vehicles.
So far, however, the Directive does not contain elements specifically contributing to the reduction of CO2 emissions from transport. CO2 emissions from road transport in 2014 were still 17% higher than in 1990. The highest share of these emissions originates from passenger cars (over 60%), while that of HGVs is increasing. Under current trends, the emission reduction will not be sufficient to achieve the EU goals set for 2030 and 2050.
Road infrastructure is degrading in many Member States because of inadequate maintenance. Public spending on road maintenance has decreased in the EU by about 30% between 2006 and 2013 and stood at 0.5% of GDP in 2013 (compared to 1.5% in 1975 and 0.8% in 2008). This leads to various negative economic, social and environmental impacts including increased vehicle operating costs, pollutant and noise emissions, increased journey times, accidents, and negative effects on the economy.
The current legislation only applies to HGVs, all other vehicles are left unaddressed. In this area, which includes in particular passenger cars, and absent specific limits, there is a risk of short-term vignettes being priced comparatively too high and hence of discrimination vis-à-vis occasional, mostly foreign users. Another potential problem of discrimination, common to all types of vehicles, is compensation of national users in case time-based charges are introduced.
The negative impacts of road transport represent significant costs to society. While cars and vans cause less damage to the infrastructure than heavy duty vehicles (HDVs, including HGVs and buses/coaches), passenger cars are at the source of about 2/3 of external costs (including the cost of climate change, air pollution, noise, accidents and other negative impacts) generated by road transport, or about 1.8-2.4% of GDP.
In addition, congestion is a persistent problem inside and outside urban areas; however, it has only been sporadically addressed by Member States. Road traffic peaks result in considerable social costs, which amount to 1% of EU GDP. Two thirds of these costs are attributable to passenger cars and 20-30% to interurban traffic.
The objective of the initiative is to make progress in the application of the polluter pays and user pays principles, thereby promoting financially and environmentally sustainable and socially equitable road transport.
The initiative contributes to the Regulatory Fitness Programme (REFIT), since it is intended to bring about an update to and simplification of certain provisions of the Directive.
• Consistency with existing policy provisions in the policy area
This initiative aims at addressing the shortcomings of existing legislation (Directive 1999/62/EC), i.e. at a better fulfilment of the legislation's objectives. The terms proposed would simplify certain provisions of the Directive, by removing the variation of tolls based on Euro emission class, whose benefits are now quickly diminishing, and by eliminating cumbersome notification requirements, in particular related to external cost charging.
In addition, it is proposed to include buses, passenger cars and vans in the scope of the Directive, thereby ensuring more consistent pricing of infrastructure use across the road transport sector. Given the issue of CO2 emissions explained above, it is also proposed that road charges reflect such emissions.
• Consistency with other Union policies
The initiative is part of the Commission's effort to create an Energy Union, and of a series of proposals related to low-emission transport 2 , including the revision of CO2 emission Regulations for cars and vans, proposals for the certification and monitoring/reporting of CO2 emissions from lorries and buses; and related initiatives in the field of road transport, notably on the revision of the legislation on interoperable electronic tolling services and of the rules governing the internal market for road haulage and bus and coach services.
The proposed changes are in line with the goals set by the 2011 White Paper on transport 3 that called for moving towards full application of the polluter pays principle (enshrined in the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union) and the user pays principle in order to ensure more sustainable transport and infrastructure financing. To facilitate distance-based charging, the legislation on the interoperability of electronic toll collection 4 is revised in parallel. The proposed changes are also consistent with environmental legislation relating to vehicle emissions and noise.
Furthermore, with the extension of its scope, the initiative builds on certification procedures to be adopted with regard to the CO2 emissions of HDVs and on the Regulations governing pollutant and CO2 emissions from light duty vehicles. As far as the affected road network is concerned, the proposal refers to the revised Union guidelines for the development of the trans-European transport network.
2. LEGAL BASIS, SUBSIDIARITY AND PROPORTIONALITY
• Legal basis
The legal bases for Directive 1999/62/EC are Articles 71 and 93 of the EC Treaty (now Articles 91 and 113).
The provisions of the Directive affected by this proposal pertain to tolls and user charges, an area to which Article 91 TFEU applies.
As far as amendments of certain provisions of Chapter II of the Directive on vehicle taxes are concerned, these fall under Article 113 TFEU and are addressed in a separate legal proposal.
• Subsidiarity (for non-exclusive competence)
The EU shares competence with Member States to regulate in the field of transport pursuant to Article 4(2)(g) TFEU. However, an adaptation of the existing rules can only be operated by the Union itself. The extension of EU rules to other vehicle categories is justified by the impacts of those on the problems at EU- and global levels. Insofar as passenger cars, minibuses and vans are concerned, such inclusion would in particular help preventing the risk of Member States treating occasional users or vehicles registered abroad unequally. The inclusion of buses/coaches would help diminishing distortions of competition in the internal market for passenger transport by according preferential treatment (i.e. exemption from paying for the use of infrastructure) to these vehicles vis-à-vis rail transport, which is subject to such charging.
More generally, since all of these vehicles make use of the same road infrastructure and contribute to CO2 emissions, air pollution and congestion, their inclusion is justified in view of the identified problems.
• Proportionality
The proposed measures only contribute to achieving the objectives set, notably of a consistent application of the polluter pays and user pays principles, and do not go beyond what is necessary to this end.
The extension of the scope beyond HGVs is necessary in order to ensure that coherent rules are applied to all road vehicles and to be able to address the problems that are not only or not primarily related to HGV traffic (degrading infrastructure quality, high CO2 emissions from road transport, air pollution, noise, congestion, or the discrimination of foreign users).
Costs to Member States, businesses and citizens are limited compared to the potential benefits. The proposal does not impose the application of road charges by Member States, but harmonises the way such charges should be applied across the Union. It also does not imply any increase of the level of existing charges.
As part of the impact assessment, a number of possible policy measures have been discarded based on the proportionality principle, such as mandatory infrastructure charging or mandatory congestion charging.
• Choice of the instrument
Since the legal act to be amended is a Directive, the amending act should in principle take the same form.
3. RESULTS OF EX-POST EVALUATIONS, STAKEHOLDER CONSULTATIONS AND IMPACT ASSESSMENTS
• Ex-post evaluations/fitness checks of existing legislation
The Commission published its evaluation of Directive 1999/62/EC in 2013 5 . An external Evaluation of the implementation and effects of EU infrastructure charging policy since 1995 was published in January 2014 6 . The evaluations identified various problems linked to road charging of HGVs under the current legislative framework.
While 24 Member States have implemented some form of road charging and there has been a tendency to move towards network-wide distance-based tolling, this transition has been slow and there are persistent inconsistencies across the Union. The evaluation found great disparities in national road charging policies and concluded that the lack of harmonisation in both the type of charges (time-based vignettes, distance-based tolls, differentiated or not) and the type of charge-collecting technologies that are used results in additional administrative burden and costs both for public authorities and users.
While the Directive furthers the objectives set, a number of shortcomings were identified:
·The scope: it is possible to exempt HGVs below 12 tonnes, which leads to an uneven playing field in freight transport;
·Time-based charges allowed by the Directive are ineffective in covering infrastructure costs, incentivising cleaner, more efficient operations or reducing congestion;
·The application of external cost charging is too complex, while for the (mandatory) variation according to Euro emission classes, only the maximum variation is defined, and freedom left to Member States within this maximum;
·The variation of charges to fight congestion: the revenue-neutrality requirement appears to be too cumbersome to apply and could be seen as unfair if only applied to HGVs even though all road users contribute to congestion.
While the evaluation focused on the current terms of the Directive, the input from stakeholders has pointed at other relevant issues, including the need to reduce CO2 emissions from HDVs and to provide a framework for charging in respect of passenger cars (and other vehicle categories), notably in order to avoid discrimination of occasional (foreign) road users.
• Stakeholder consultations
Stakeholder consultations complied with the minimum standards for the consultation of interested parties set out in the Commission Communication of 11 December 2002 (COM(2002) 704 final).
Open and targeted consultation methods and various consultation tools were used.
1) A standard 12-week online open public consultation was organised via the website 'Your Voice in Europe' on the basis of questionnaires.
The open public consultation (OPC) ran from 8 July to 5 October, with late contributions also accepted. The OPC contained two sets of questions: one aimed at understanding the perceptions of users addressed to the general public, and a more technical one to experts.
The Commission received 135 responses to the questionnaires as well as 48 additional documents. The responses covered a variety of stakeholder groups, including transport undertakings (42%), consumers/citizens (14%), public authorities (13%), the construction industry (7%), public transport associations (4%), and tolling service/solution providers (4%).
2) Targeted consultation with specific stakeholders and specialists took place throughout the impact assessment process and involved:
a) a series of thematic seminars with stakeholders and Member States organised by the Commission during September and October 2015.
b) A conference on the road initiatives on 19 April 2016.
c) 21 interviews with stakeholders selected based on specific data needs carried out by the contractor preparing the impact assessment support study.
There was general support for measures to incentivise the use of fuel efficient vehicles, although less specific support for doing this through a variation of road charges. Many non-Member State interviewees supported the introduction of CO2-based variation and the phasing out of differentiation by Euro emissions class. While doubts have been expressed regarding its short-term feasibility, there was no obvious opposition to the revenue-neutral variation of charges based on CO2 emissions.
In relation to possible measures to ensure the quality of roads, there was a notable difference between, (1) the views expressed in the online public consultation and the views of most stakeholders interviewed, and (2) the views of the Member States interviewed. The majority of respondents to the first group generally supported the measures to ensure the quality of road infrastructure. On the other hand, Member States were generally not supportive of the measures.
For possible measures to avoid discrimination and ensure a level playing field, the views of Member States and other stakeholders differ again. Respondents to the online public consultation strongly supported the application of the user pays and polluter pays principles, and for the EU to ensure that vignette prices are set proportionately. Many additional contributions and non-Member State interviewees supported the phasing out of time-based user charges, so that charging can only be based on distance. On the other hand, Member States were divided on the need for further action in this respect.
With respect to ensuring an efficient transport system, the majority of respondents to the online public consultation believed that dealing with congestion should be left to Member States, with the most popular option for congestion charging being that it should apply to all vehicles. The need for any congestion charging to cover all vehicles, not just HGVs, was underlined by those who supported congestion charging. Member States were in general in favour of more flexibility.
• Collection and use of expertise
The problem definition was based on evaluations partly using external expertise (Evaluation of the implementation and effects of EU infrastructure charging policy since 1995, Update of the Handbook on external costs of transport 7 ), complemented by additional research.
An external contractor assisted with a support study for the Impact Assessment 8 , which was concluded in April 2017.
• Impact assessment
The initiative is supported by an Impact Assessment, which has received a positive opinion, with reservations, from the Regulatory Scrutiny Board. The Board made recommendations requiring better justification of the objective related to CO2 emission reduction and clarifications regarding
–the differentiated treatment of road charging revenues,
–the deficiencies of the current legislation,
–the discarding of certain options and
–the expected impacts.
The comments have been taken into account in the revised impact assessment, providing further details and explanation, as indicated in Annex I of the impact assessment report. Among other adjustments, the following modifications were made to address the issues mentioned above:
–Explanations on the complementarity with other environmental charges/taxes and with CO2 standards were added in the problem definition and description of the problem drivers in particular. While the other instruments might have been effective, they have not been sufficient to curb CO2 emissions from transport to the extent required by the EU's commitments.
–Explanations on the reasons for different treatment of revenues generated by optional congestion charging were added in the annex describing the retained policy measures. One of the main reasons is related to the acceptability, fairness and the objective to counteract any regressive effect of the charge.
–Further explanation was added in the description of the evaluation and implementation of the current legislation as well as in that of the problem drivers, specifically referring to the role of the legislation and its deficiencies.
–The description of the reasons for discarding measures on mandatory road charging and generalised earmarking of revenues was complemented with further details.
–More detailed description of the expected impacts on CO2 emissions, on affected Member States, as well as on simplification were added in the relevant sections.
Four policy options were considered, reflecting an increasing level of regulatory intervention, subsequent options (PO1 to PO4) building on each other.
The first policy option (PO1) includes legislative changes to update only some provisions of the Directive and the extension of its scope to buses and coaches, vans and passenger cars in order to address all identified problems. The changes related to removing exemptions, updating reporting requirements and maximum values of external cost charges as well as the simplification of requirements for external cost charging. The option also includes the introduction of non-discrimination and proportionality requirements for charging light vehicles.
PO2 targets the issue of CO2 emissions, and includes the phasing out of time-based charges for HDVs. This option includes rules on the variation of infrastructure charges according to CO2 emissions for HDVs, and a phasing-out of the current variation according to Euro emission classes.
PO3 (with variants a and b) includes additional measures for light vehicles, addressing interurban congestion as well as CO2 and pollutant emissions from all vehicles (PO3b). Finally, PO4 would make external cost charging mandatory for HDVs and gradually phase out, for all vehicles, the possibility to resort to time-based charging, so that only distance-based charging would remain available.
The impact assessment, assuming a replacement of current time-based charging schemes by distance-based ones in PO2 to PO4 (the alternative for Member States being not to charge), clearly showed that PO4 was the most effective but would bring its benefits at the highest costs. PO1 could only contribute to achieving the objectives in a very limited way although at practically no cost. PO2 and PO3 were more balanced in their economic, social and environmental impacts and would achieve those results at a reasonable cost.
The impact assessment identified PO3b, the variant including the variation of charges for light vehicles according to their CO2 and pollutant emissions, as the preferred option, possibly complemented with the requirement of external cost charging on at least part of the network for HDVs and the phasing-out of time-based charging for light vehicles over a sufficiently long period. These are the measures retained in this proposal, which is thus situated between PO3b and PO4, but closer to PO4.
PO3b and PO4 would reduce congestion costs by 2.5-6% or €9-22 billion by 2030, provide additional toll revenues of €10-63 billion/year and help increase the investment in roads by 25-260% compared to the baseline.
They would significantly reduce the amount of CO2, NOx and particulate matter emissions from road transport. This would lead to a positive impact on public health, proportionate to the reduction in air pollution, and result in €370 million to €1.56 billion costs savings for air pollution and accidents by 2030, expressed as present value.
PO3b and PO4 would allow generating between 62,000 and 152,000 new jobs in case just 30% of the additional toll revenues were reinvested in road maintenance. In addition, all options would contribute to the equal treatment of EU citizens by halving the price of short term vignettes.
PO3 (a and b) would increase transport costs for freight by 1.1%, while costs for passenger transport would remain unchanged. In PO4, the costs for passenger and freight transport could increase by up to 1.3-2.0 percent, depending on the actual uptake of distance-based charging by Member States (potentially including those that currently do not charge certain vehicle categories). Authorities would have to support the cost of deployment of new tolling systems or expanding existing ones, which would amount, for the Member States concerned altogether, to €2-3.7 billion until 2030. Extension of road charging to new parts of the network and new user groups would increase the compliance costs for road users by €198 to €850 million/year from 2025 onwards.
Impacts on SMEs, including the entire road haulage sector would be limited since road charges only represent a small percentage of overall transport costs. Any cost increase is either passed on to clients (shippers) or could be compensated by tax reductions made possible via the amendment of Chapter II of the Directive related to vehicle taxation. Consumer prices would not increase by more than 0.1% on average even if 100% of the costs are passed on.
• Regulatory fitness and simplification
While the regulatory costs related to the initiative would increase with moving to distance-based tolling, as would the compliance costs for many market players; these costs would be outweighed by higher revenues (for Member States and toll chargers), better road quality and more reliable travel times (for road users), reduced negative environmental and health impacts (citizens), and related external costs borne by society (taxpayers).
The REFIT dimension of this proposal comes from the simplification and updating of the requirements for road charging so that they are fit for purpose, that is:
·replacing the obsolete system of variation according to Euro classes for HDVs with more adequate CO2 modulation of charges;
·simplification of the application of external cost charges for air pollution and noise (that is a better instrument than modulation by Euro class) by allowing the use of updated reference values without the need to do any calculation;
·simplification and updating of the application of mark-ups and facilitation of the application of congestion charges.
The simplifications concern mainly national authorities rather than businesses. However, these changes are accompanied by a separate proposal mentioned above, allowing the reduction of circulation taxes, which could make it possible to decrease the burden on hauliers (SMEs). Overall costs to road users, including citizens and business, are likely to increase, even if only to a small extent.
The initiative is expected to have a minor positive impact on competitiveness due to CO2-differentiated charging, leading to slightly higher uptake of low- and zero-emission vehicles, driving innovation. Increased uptake of congestion charging would be beneficial to the competitiveness of businesses, especially those that make use of just-in-time manufacturing.
• Fundamental rights
The proposal respects the fundamental rights and observes the principles recognised in particular by the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union.
4. BUDGETARY IMPLICATIONS
The proposal has no budgetary implications for the Union.
5. OTHER ELEMENTS
• Implementation plans and monitoring, evaluation and reporting arrangements
The impact assessment report lists a set of 7 core indicators that will be used for monitoring the progress related to the main policy objectives: the evolution of CO2 emissions from HDVs; the state of tolled road infrastructure; the proportionality and coverage of social costs by road charges; and the level of congestion on the inter-urban network in the EU.
In order to assess the impact of the legislation, it would be necessary to make a thorough evaluation once all the changes have been phased in. Five years after the new framework becomes applicable in its entirety would be the appropriate timeframe for such an evaluation. The effects of intermediate steps could be evaluated earlier.
The proposal includes specific reporting requirements for Member States related to revenues from road charging and the use of those revenues, as well as on the quality of toll roads.
• Explanatory documents (for directives)
Considering the scope of the proposal, the fact that it only amends Directive 1999/62/EC, which all Member States have transposed in full, it does not seem justified or proportional to require explanatory documents.
• Detailed explanation of the specific provisions of the proposal
The title is adjusted to reflect the extended scope.
Article 1 – Subject matter and scope
The article is modified to include into the scope of application of the rules on tolls and user charges vehicles other than HGVs. This is justified by the need to address a number of problems that do not only, or not even primarily, relate to HGVs.
Article 2 – Definitions
The following definitions are modified:
·'trans-European road network': the definition is updated to be in line with the corridor approach set out in the revised TEN-T Guidelines in Regulation (EU) No 1315/2013;
·'toll'; the definition is reworded so as to take account of the option provided for in Article 7da to provide for a congestion charge;
·'vehicle': the new definition proposed encompasses all “heavy duty vehicles” and all “light duty vehicles”, i.e., in addition to the goods vehicles already covered now, situated above the 3,5 tonnes limit, passenger cars, minibuses and vans as well as coaches and buses;
·'vehicle of [a certain EURO] category' and type of vehicle: the definition is reworded so as to include coaches and buses.
The definitions of congestion, congestion charge, transport operator, different vehicle types, including zero-emission vehicles, as well as substantially amended tolling arrangement are added in order to provide legal clarity as regards specific terms and to better specify the scope of certain provisions.
The definition of weighted average external cost charge is deleted as the requirement to calculate it is removed.
Article 7 – Tolls and user charges
Paragraph 1 is divided in two paragraphs so as to differentiate between the networks mainly used by international traffic (the trans-European road network and motorways) and other roads. It is proposed that provisions on non-discrimination, proportionality of charges and on the collection and payment of tolls and user charges also apply to other roads.
To progress with the application of the polluter pays and user pays principles, and to gradually decrease the disparities among different charging schemes, paragraphs 6 and 7 are added with a view to phase out the use of time-based user charges (vignettes) first for HGVs and buses/coaches, then, at a later stage, for passenger cars and vans, on the networks used by international transport. The proposed dates allow sufficient time for Member States to adapt their charging systems, where applicable. Differentiated treatment of HDVs and LDVs is warranted by their different impact on infrastructure and by the lower level of maturity of charging LDVs.
In order to ensure fair treatment of hauliers, paragraph 9 is added to remove the possibility to exempt HGVs below 12 tonnes from road charging, and to extend the scope of application of any charging system to coaches/buses. The latter is justified by the comparable impact of buses/coaches on roads.
Article 7a – User charges: proportionality and equal treatment
Article 7a sets upper limits to user charges and to the relative price difference between annual and sub-annual vignettes. In this context, the following changes are proposed.
Paragraph 1 is divided in two paragraphs in order to specify that the existing requirements apply to HGVs and buses/coaches.
New paragraph 3 concerns passenger cars and specifies upper limits for relative price differences between annual and sub-annual vignettes, reflecting relevant use patterns, based on available data 9 . It also sets the date by which existing vignette schemes have to be adapted. Paragraph 4 addresses the same issue in respect of minibuses and vans.
Article 7c – External-cost charging
In respect of paragraph 1, it is proposed to introduce reference values instead of maximum values (set out in Annex IIIb). Paragraph 5 is added requiring the application of external-cost charging on at least those parts of the tolled network where air pollution and noise generated by heavy duty vehicle traffic is most significant, e.g. due to the size of the population exposed.
Article 7da – Congestion charging
New Article 7da allows the application of congestion charges – on top of the infrastructure charge – with a view to effectively addressing the issue of interurban congestion. To avoid discrimination of the users of any vehicle category, any such congestion charge has to be applied to all vehicle categories in a proportionate and even-handed manner. Maximum charge levels and equivalence factors between vehicles are specified in Annexes V and VI.
Article 7f – Mark-ups
It is proposed to extend the possibility to apply mark-ups beyond mountainous regions, while keeping the other pre-existing conditions for their application (regular congestion or significant environmental damage and the reinvestment of the revenues in a TEN-T project). Paragraph 4 is deleted as it has not helped the financing of priority projects but may hinder the application of external-cost charging. Since mark-ups and congestion charges are both intended to address congestion, they should not be cumulated (paragraph 5).
Article 7g – Variation of charges, in particular for heavy duty vehicles
It is proposed to phase out the variation of charges according to the Euro emission class of the vehicle. A new paragraph 4 is added to introduce the variation of infrastructure charges according to the CO2 emission of HDVs, as soon as possible after the necessary certified CO2 emission data become available. Once operational, the provision will incentivise the use of the cleanest and most efficient HDVs.
Since it is proposed to separately regulate congestion charging (new Article 7da, cf. above), it is also proposed to phase out the possibility of revenue-neutral variation of charges according to time of day, type of day, or season (cf. amendment in paragraph 1, previously paragraph 3).
Article 7ga – Variation of charges for light duty vehicles
New Article 7ga specifies the modalities for the variation of tolls and user charges according to the environmental performance of passenger cars, minibuses and vans. The variation shall be based on emissions of both CO2 and air pollutants, as specified in Annex VII. This provision should incentivise the use of cleaner and more efficient vehicles.
Article 7h – Notifications
It is proposed to amend paragraph 3 so as to simplify the prior information of the Commission in respect of intended external cost charging, by confining the information to basic elements. To facilitate the introduction of external cost charging, it is proposed to remove paragraph 4 on the requirement of a prior Commission decision.
Article 7j – Collection and payment of tolls and user charges
In paragraph 3 and 4, it is proposed to add a reference to congestion charges in order to ensure that all possible charge elements are collected and paid in a coherent manner.
Article 7k – Compensations
It is proposed to limit the possibility to provide compensations to the case in which tolls are introduced (as opposed to user charges). This is to eliminate existing potential for discrimination of non-resident users.
Article 9 – Use of revenues
New paragraph 3 requires revenues from congestion charging to be used to address problems of congestion, e.g. by supporting alternative transport solutions or removing bottlenecks.
An amendment to paragraph 1 is proposed to update the review clause and to be in line with the simplification of Annex IIIb.
Article 11 – Reporting
Paragraph 1 is amended to update reporting requirements on tolls, toll revenues and the use of revenues, to include also information on the quality of toll roads. The existing point (e) in paragraph 2 is removed and new points (e) to (i) are added to include information on revenues from congestion charging, on total revenues from road charging, on the use of those revenues; and an evaluation of road maintenance and the level of congestion. Paragraph 3 is added to specify a minimum set of indicators related to the evaluation of the quality of toll roads. Paragraphs 4 and 5 are added to allow the Commission to define harmonised indicators by an implementing act and to report on the application of those indicators by Member States.
In Section 3 of Annex 0 it is proposed to remove the references to EEV vehicles and to add a table with Euro VI emission limits, so as to take account of Regulation (EC) No 595/2009.
In Annex III the proposed changes reflect the inclusion of coaches and buses into the scope of the Directive.
It is proposed to confine Sections 2, 3 and 4 of Annex IIIa to cases where a Member State intends to apply higher external-cost charges than the reference values specified in Annex IIIb. Certain provisions of section 4.2 are updated to take account of recent legislation on the sound level of motor vehicles.
In Annex IIIb, it is proposed to replace maximum weighted average external-cost charges for air pollution and noise with reference values for external costs charging, including the cost of both air pollution and noise generated by HGVs (Table 1) and coaches (Table 2). The values are calculated in light of the Update of the Handbook on External Costs of Transport 10 . The values may be multiplied by 2 not only in mountainous areas, but also around agglomerations.
In Annex IV, it is proposed to include a reference to 7- and 8- or 9-axle combinations into the table on vehicle combinations.
New Annex V, linked to proposed Article 7da (on congestion charging), lays down minimum requirements for levying a congestion charge, including as regards the parts of the network and time periods covered. Roads are categorised as metropolitan and non-metropolitan in order to differentiate between more or less densely populated areas. To ensure even-handed and proportionate pricing, equivalence factors are set out for different vehicle categories. Section 2 requires that the calculation of charges is transparent and the amounts per vehicle category and time periods for each concerned road segment are publically available and that they have to be adjusted regularly in order to keep the scheme effective.
New Annex VI, equally linked to Article 7da, limits the amount of the congestion charge per km based on marginal congestion costs provided by the Update of the Handbook on External Costs of Transport.
New Annex VII is linked to proposed Article 7ga, regarding the variation of tolls and user charges for light duty vehicles in accordance with environmental performance and it specifies the emission categories for the purposes of such variation. Reference is made to CO2 and air pollutant emissions taking account of EU-wide standards and the latest and most accurate measurement procedures.