Explanatory Memorandum to COM(2018)286 - Type-approval requirements for motor vehicles and their trailers, and systems, components and separate technical units, as regards safety of vehicle, occupants and road users - Main contents
Please note
This page contains a limited version of this dossier in the EU Monitor.
| dossier | COM(2018)286 - Type-approval requirements for motor vehicles and their trailers, and systems, components and separate technical units, as ... |
|---|---|
| source | COM(2018)286  |
| date | 17-05-2018 |
1. CONTEXT OF THE PROPOSAL
• Reasons for and objectives of the proposal
Technological change is touching all parts of society and the economy and transforming the lives of EU citizens. Transport is no exception to this trend. New technologies are radically changing the mobility landscape. Against this background, the EU and its industries must meet the challenge to become a world leader in innovation, digitisation, and decarbonisation. The Commission has therefore adopted a comprehensive approach to ensure that the EU's mobility policies reflect these political priorities in the form of three 'Europe on the Move' mobility packages.
Following the Low-Emission Mobility Strategy, the Commission adopted two mobility packages in May and November 2017 1 . These packages set out a positive agenda delivering on the low-emission mobility strategy and ensuring a smooth transition towards clean, competitive and connected mobility for all. The European Commission calls on the European Parliament and the Council to ensure the rapid adoption of these proposals.
This initiative is part of the Third 'Europe on the Move' mobility package, which delivers on the new industrial policy strategy of September 2017, and is designed to complete the process of enabling Europe to reap the full benefits of the modernisation of mobility. It is essential that tomorrow's mobility system is safe, clean and efficient for all EU citizens. The aim is to make European mobility safer and more accessible, European industry more competitive, European jobs more secure, and to be cleaner and better adapted to the imperative of tackling climate change. This will require the full commitment of the EU, Member States and stakeholders, including in strengthening the requirements for safety features in road vehicles.
Road safety is a pan-European issue that is addressed through an integrated approach. Policies are traditionally structured around three pillars: road users (drivers, pedestrians and cyclists), vehicles and infrastructure.
Over the past decades, road safety significantly improved. However, progress in the reduction of road fatalities rates has stalled in recent years. According to EU statistics, since 2013, there have been no significant decreases in the number of road fatality in the Union 2 . Whereas some Member States are still making considerable progress every year, some others are even recording increases in fatalities leading to stagnation in EU-wide road fatality rates.
A revised framework better adapted to the changes in mobility resulting from societal trends (e.g. more cyclists and pedestrians, an aging society) and technological developments is necessary. It is expected that without new initiatives on road safety in general, the safety-effects of the current approach can no longer off-set the increasing traffic volumes. The complex situation calls for a dynamic policy adjustment that addresses the major challenges in a consistent and effective way across the entire spectrum of road safety policies. In terms of vehicle safety, this implies mandating a broad range of advanced safety measures as standard equipment for the relevant vehicle categories and improved protection of vulnerable road users, such as pedestrians, cyclists and those of small stature and the elderly.
The current proposal addresses the main problem of persistent high number of road accidents that in turn leads to a high number of fatalities and severe injuries and provides measures to increase safety at vehicle level so as to either avoid and lower the number of accidents or lower the severity of un-avoided accidents to limit the number of fatalities and severe injuries. This proposal has to be viewed in close relation with other initiatives, part of the Third Mobility Package such as, for example, the proposed amendments to the directive on road infrastructure safety management 3 . They also aim at contributing to the reduction of the number of fatalities and injuries on EU roads and, thus, share a common horizon and interlink with each other. Moreover, certain in-vehicle systems, such as the lane-keeping system and the intelligent speed assistance, rely on a well-maintained road infrastructure (road marking, signs and cameras). Therefore, the road infrastructure and vehicle safety proposals complement each other in certain areas and enable in-vehicle systems to realise their full safety potential.
On the other hand, the overall vehicle and infrastructure safety framework needs to take into account developments in connected and automated driving, which are advancing at high speed. Therefore, there is also close link with the Commission's Strategy on Cooperative Intelligent Transport Systems (C-ITS) 4 and the proposal for an EU strategy for mobility of the future 5 . In order to become future-proof, vehicles not only have to be ready for the new technological developments in the infrastructure, but they will also have to take the lead and pave the way towards allowing fully automated driving. For this reason, mandating advanced safety features for vehicles still today will help the drivers to gradually get accustomed to the new features and will enhance public trust and acceptance in the transition toward autonomous driving.
The proposal is also fully in line with the Council conclusions based on the Valletta Declaration, in which transport ministers reconfirmed their commitment to improving road safety 6 and notably called upon the Commission to enhance the protection of road users, and in particular vulnerable road users, by ensuring the deployment of new safety features for vehicles.
• Consistency with existing policy provisions in the policy area
Directive 2007/46/EC 7 (to be replaced by a Regulation which will apply as of 1 September 2020 8 ) sets out harmonised safety and environmental requirements that motor vehicles have to comply with before being placed on the internal market, thus facilitating the free movement of vehicles. It provides a framework under which a multitude of separate regulatory acts with specific technical requirements for the different types of vehicles are operating.
In this context, the General Vehicle Safety Regulation (GSR) 9 , the Pedestrian Safety Regulation (PSR) 10 and the Hydrogen Safety Regulation (HSR) 11 are separate regulatory acts within the EU type-approval procedure. The technical requirements for the type approval of motor vehicles with regard to numerous safety and environmental elements have been harmonised at Union level in order to avoid requirements that differ from one Member State to another, and to ensure a high level of health and safety standards across the Union.
Article 17 of the GSR and Article 12 of the PSR both require that the Commission monitors technical developments in enhanced safety technologies and consider possible extension of the scope of the currently applicable vehicle safety features to other/all vehicle categories, mandating new advanced safety features in an updated Union legislation and improving the protection of vulnerable road users.
In compliance with the above mentioned requirements, this proposal provides for the necessary adjustments of the current Union legislation to technical progress and at the same time introduces new vehicle safety features with high potential of saving lives on roads.
The proposal is also consistent with Regulation (EU) 2015/758 12 , which requires from 31 March 2018 all new types of passenger cars and vans to be fitted with an eCall system, which in case of a serious crash automatically dials the European single emergency number 112. It is estimated that eCall could speed up emergency response times and save up to 2500 lives a year. While eCall helps mitigating the consequences of serious road accidents across the EU, the current proposal aims at avoiding road accidents or lowering the severity of un-avoided accidents to decrease the number of fatalities and severe injuries.
• Consistency with other Union policies
In more general terms, this proposal will contribute to the priorities linked to growth, jobs and investment in the Union, promoting the most efficient innovations and retaining quality jobs in Europe and to digitalisation of the internal market via the promotion of safety features that are considered key enabling technologies to boost and support the wide-scale deployment of automated vehicles in the Union.
2. LEGAL BASIS, SUBSIDIARITY AND PROPORTIONALITY
• Legal basis
The legal basis of this initiative is Article 114 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU).
• Subsidiarity (for non-exclusive competence)
The subsidiarity principle applies insofar as the proposal does not fall under the exclusive competence of the Union. The objectives of the proposal cannot be sufficiently achieved by the Member States for the following reasons:
Technical requirements for type-approval of motor vehicles with regard to numerous safety and environmental elements have been harmonised at Union level and action by Member States alone would undermine the whole vehicle type-approval system. Union action is necessary because of the need to avoid the emergence of barriers to the single market and will better achieve the objectives of the proposal because it will avoid fragmentation of the internal market which would otherwise arise and will enhance the safety and environmental performance of vehicles. The proposal therefore complies with the subsidiarity principle.
• Proportionality
As showed in the impact assessment, the proposal complies with the proportionality principle because it does not go beyond what is necessary in order to achieve the objectives of reducing the number of fatalities on Union roads, while at the same time ensuring the proper functioning of the internal market and providing for a high level of public safety and environmental protection.
This proposal reflects the highest safety standards for all vehicles, including light commercial vehicles (category N1), for which the costs for the preferred policy option (PO3) somewhat exceed the benefits. However, in this case additional considerations are taken into account, such as the need for policy coherence, ensuring a level playing field for all car manufacturers in the internal market, avoiding workers' exposure to higher risks and the possibility for manufacturers of lowering the costs due to economies of scale and the fact that light commercial vehicles often share platform and other hardware with passenger cars. Furthermore, since a lead time is provided for manufacturers to allow them to adapt to new requirements, the current proposal is seen as proportionate.
In addition, the proposal provides for simplification of the regulatory environment which will reduce the administrative costs for national authorities and industry. It is also concluded in the impact assessment that the envisaged policy measures will have no major impacts on SMEs (see Section 6.3).
• Choice of the instrument
The proposal concerns three interrelated regulations – the general vehicle safety, pedestrian safety and hydrogen safety – hence, the instrument chosen is also a regulation. Given the substantive amendments proposed, the fact that the provisions of the PSR and the HSR are to a large extent outdated and need to be replaced by the respective UN Regulations (No 127 and 134) and in view of further simplification of the legislation, it appeared appropriate to propose a new legal act to replace and repeal the three regulations and their outdated implementing measures altogether.
3. RESULTS OF EX-POST EVALUATIONS, STAKEHOLDER CONSULTATIONS AND IMPACT ASSESSMENTS
• Ex-post evaluations/fitness checks of existing legislation
The General Safety Regulation was not subject to an ex-post evaluation.
• Stakeholder consultations
The formal Commission’s public consultation on the proposal took place between 31 July and 22 October 2017 and was preceded by additional targeted consultations, namely:
–a general stakeholder engagement in July 2014 in the framework of the 124th meeting of the Working Group on Motor Vehicles (the Commission's expert group involving public and private stakeholders);
–a follow-up targeted (face-to-face) stakeholder two-day consultation event in October 2014.
–at the 131st meeting of the Working Group on Motor Vehicle, held on 16 February 2016, the Commission presented to the Member States and stakeholders a set of 19 potential measures that could be considered for the revision of the GSR and PSR;
–in November 2016, a further intensive stakeholder consultation took place (72 attendees representing 32 scholars/research organisations, safety advocacy groups, vehicle manufacturers, vehicle supplier industry, local/national governments and other relevant experts).
The key objectives of these extensive consultations were, on the one hand, to inform stakeholders of the Commission’s views on the way forward as regards vehicle safety, and, on the other hand, to present to all stakeholders in the most transparent way possible, all data, parameters, expert views and their sources that would form the backbone of the impact assessment in terms of data sets, in particular, the vehicle safety system voluntary uptake rates, technology cost, technology effectiveness and traffic victim target population. Those consultations also allowed the stakeholder’s judgement and validation of the key data used as being sufficiently and appropriately robust, relevant and up-to-date. The outcome of the consultations was subsequently used as a basis for the preparation of the proposal and the accompanying impact assessment.
• Collection and use of expertise
In March 2015, the Commission published the study Benefit and Feasibility of a Range of New Technologies and Unregulated Measures in the fields of Vehicle Occupant Safety and Protection of Vulnerable Road Users" 13 , in the context of the foreseen revision of the GSR and PSR. The study contains an overview of over 50 available safety measures that could contribute to reduce further road fatalities and injuries (including benefit/cost ratios).
In December 2016, the Commission published a report for the European Parliament and the Council entitled "Saving Lives: Boosting Car Safety in the EU” 14 . The staff working document accompanying that report 15 identifies and puts forward 19 potential regulatory measures that would be effective for further reducing road accidents and casualties.
16 In view of the preparation of the impact assessment to this initiative, in May 2017, the Commission published a second study 'In depth cost-effectiveness analysis of the identified measures and features regarding the way forward for EU vehicle safety' containing a more detailed cost benefit/effectiveness assessment for the selected 19 potential regulatory measures.
• Impact assessment
The initiative is supported by an impact assessment which received a positive opinion with reservations after having been reviewed on 17 January 2018 by the Regulatory Scrutiny Board (RSB). The reservations of the RSB concerned three main aspects:
- The RSB was of the opinion that the impact assessment report did not sufficiently delimit the expected contribution of this initiative within the comprehensive approach to road safety of the Safe System and it did not well explain the relationship and complementarity with the parallel road infrastructure safety initiative.
- The RSB also indicated that there was no coherence between the problem (stagnation in the reduction of road fatalities), its drivers, the objectives of the initiative and the design of options.
- The RSB pointed to the fact that the report was still not clear on how the individual measures were selected and what their estimated costs and benefits were, as well as the role and opinions of stakeholders in this process.
The opinion also noted the relevance of the REFIT dimension of the initiative and the need to deliver greater detail on the preference for policy option 3 for light commercial vehicles.
Contents
- The following additions were made in the final impact assessment to address these reservations:
- The executive summary of the impact assessment report and the opinion of the RSB are published under these links:
- The impact assessment examined three broad policy options:
- The expected benefits are as follows:
- The expected costs are as follows:
- The overall benefit/cost indicators:
- Chapter I (Subject matter, Scope and Definitions):
- Chapter II (Articles 4 to 11):
- Chapter III (Final provisions):
- Article 14 refers to the implementation dates for the different safety requirements as specified in Annex II. The respective implementation dates for the newly introduced requirements are as follows:
– clarifications on the relationship and complementarity of this initiative with the parallel initiative on road infrastructure safety are provided in Section 1.4.;
– the initiatives are put into the context of the common baseline approach, explaining their respective contributions to the common objectives and the methodologies of the studies behind them so as to show how avoidance of double counting is ensured (details provided in Section 2.1. and Annex 4);
– details on the Safe System approach as well as more possible reasons for the stagnation in the reduction of road fatalities rates (in the context of accident sources, population diversity, road user factors and general driving behaviour concerns) are also added to Section 2.1.;
– a new Section 2.2., which binds the main road safety problems to those linked to vehicles and vehicle safety performance, is included with the aim of better comprehension of the structure of the problem definition and the drivers that are arguably of a less holistic nature, but much more to the point on vehicle system level, while being still fully relevant;
–– the intervention logic in Sections 5.1. to 5.4. is made more consistently linked to the main problems, objectives and options. Changes in the naming of the objectives and options clarify that this initiative is not focussing on the protection of specific groups of traffic participants, while neglecting the others, and the objectives are further clarified with the notion of protection in case of an accident together with potential to completely prevent and avoid accidents from happening altogether;
– Section 5 now explains the interaction and role of the stakeholders in the process of selection of individual measures and assessment of their benefits and effectiveness (in multiple steps), as well as how the final costs and benefits assessment of individual measures vis-à-vis clustered measures are developed through stakeholder input;
– Section 2.8. is modified to better explain the expected simplification of the legislative framework, the way forward in terms of possible outdated regulatory dispositions, and giving indications on future updates of vehicle safety rules; and
– justification and clarification of the choice to include light commercial vehicles in policy option 3 are added to Section 8 pointing out that most European manufacturers already provide for safer than currently required vehicles, the level playing field for manufacturers, vehicle design synergies, cost sharing, stakeholder opinions and the increased risk of harm to a limited category of people, namely workers using light commercial vehicles in their workplace.
The executive summary of the impact assessment report and the opinion of the RSB are published under these links:
[…]
[…]
·Option 1 Generalisation of mature and widely available safety features consists on mandating safety features/systems for which technology is mature. They will mainly protect car occupants. Implementation will start from the date of application of the Regulation.
·Option 2 Introducing widely available and less commonly available safety features as standard equipment consists of Option 1 plus safety features that are currently also available and fitted to the vehicle fleet, but which are less common and need more time to fully mature for all vehicle categories and market segments (implementation starts from 24 months after the date of application of the Regulation). It also contains measures ensuring driver's attention to the driving task and an overall protection of vulnerable road users.
·Option 3 Introduction of a full set of safety features boosting innovation consists of Option 2 plus additional safety solutions that are feasible and already exist in the marketplace, although with a low fitment rate and market uptake, but have the potential to maximise the overall casualties savings in the Union and to boost safety solution innovation in the key automotive sector. The only feature with an extended implementation date in comparison to the two previous options is the requirement for direct visibility of vulnerable road users by the drivers of trucks (implementation starts from 48 months after the date of application of the Regulation).
The preferred choice is option 3. This option is expected to prevent the highest number of fatalities and severe injuries for vehicle occupants and vulnerable road users at an overall acceptable cost. It also ensures a consistent and non-discriminatory approach towards all vehicle categories.
• It is expected that over a 16 year period, the introduction of the new safety features will help to reduce fatalities by 24 794 and serious injuries by 140 740.
• The present value benefit is EUR 72.8 billion.
• It is also expected that there will be reduced road congestion due to avoided collisions, although these benefits could not be quantified. There should however be a reduced loss of time (citizens), increased productivity (businesses), and better use of existing road infrastructure (administrations).
• It is finally also expected that there will be reduced vehicle emissions and improved air quality due to speed assistance systems and tyre pressure monitoring, although these benefits could also not be quantified.
• The anticipated total costs (one-off and ongoing production costs) for car manufacturers will amount to EUR 57.4 billion present value cost.
• No substantial increases in vehicle retail prices are expected due to the proposed new vehicle safety measures in the medium and long term and consequently no extraordinary impact on vehicle sales numbers was modelled for the cost-benefit analysis.
• No specific additional costs are expected for national administrations, as the new vehicle safety features will become part of the existing type-approval framework.
• It represents an overall net benefit of EUR 15.4 billion.
• The ‘best estimate’ benefit to cost ratio of the preferred option is BCR 1.27
• Regulatory fitness and simplification
This proposal is not expected to have any significant impact on the regulatory burden for manufacturers or national authorities, as vehicle type-approval is already covered by the existing legislative framework and the inclusion of any new safety features is to be integrated within that framework.
Although the relevant vehicle testing and certification procedures can be performed within the existing type-approval infrastructure available in the Member States, additional testing and certification cost will be applicable. These costs are however insignificant 17 in relation to the overall cost of the development of a new vehicle model (typically ranging from several hundred millions to several billions euros).
The currently applicable GSR did not only introduce a range of vehicle safety measures, but also aimed to achieve simplification based on the CARS21 High Level Group recommendations 18 by replacing 38 EC Directives with equivalent and world-wide harmonised UN Regulations. In the same vein, this proposal is to repeal several EU Regulations implementing the GSR, PSR and HSR and to replace them by equivalent UN Regulations, to which the Union has adhered to in the meantime. It also further simplifies the legislation by consolidating these three regulations in one single legislative act.
• Fundamental rights
The proposal may impact individuals’ rights guaranteed under Article 7 and 8 of the Charter, as regards privacy and protection of personal data. Some of the data collected in the event data recorder or through the systems to be installed in the vehicle, such as driver drowsiness and attention monitoring or advanced distraction recognition, may be personal data relating to an identified or identifiable natural person. An identifiable natural person is one who can be identified, directly or indirectly, in particular by reference to an identifier such as a name, an identification number, location data, an online identifier or to one or more factors specific to the physical, physiological, genetic, mental, economic, cultural or social identity of that natural person. Any processing of personal data should be carried out in accordance with EU legislation on data protection, in particular the General Data Protection Regulation 19 .
4. BUDGETARY IMPLICATIONS
The proposal will have no implications on the Union budget.
5. OTHER ELEMENTS
• Implementation plans and monitoring, evaluation and reporting arrangements
The European Commission will continue to monitor technical progress developments in the automotive sector and, wherever appropriate, will propose to amend the relevant legislation in order to include new safety features. It will also continue to actively participate and lead the vehicle standard harmonisation process at international level (United Nations Economic Commission for Europe − UNECE).
In order to make the new Regulation future proof, it has been deemed more appropriate to address any review of these vehicle safety rules in a more dynamic fashion, namely linked to the overall technical progress and occurrences of new safety needs. In this context, the international regulatory developments through UNECE as well as the frequent need for the adaptation of those rules tend to prompt this reviewing process automatically.
The Commission is determined to promote and support the development as soon as possible of the detailed technical requirements for the advanced vehicle systems at the UNECE level. Nevertheless, The Commission is committed to establish those requirements under the EU type-approval framework should the preparation at UNECE does not advance at the required speed. The Commission will also endeavour to ensure that the UN Regulations adopted with the support of the Union are defined according to the highest standards of road safety technology available and are regularly updated.
On the other hand, the introduction of an event (accident) data recorder (EDR), storing a range of crucial vehicle data over a short timeframe before, during and after a triggering event (most commonly airbag deployment), should be seen as an important step in the right direction to obtain an EU-wide in-depth accident data, which does not exist today on an enough extensive scale, but is indispensable for a comprehensive monitoring of the road safety performance of vehicles. The information from the EDR will facilitate the in-depth road safety analysis and assessment of the effectiveness of specific safety measures. For this reason Member States should be strongly encouraged to perform more thorough accident analysis on Union roads and make available comprehensive reporting on a national basis. In this context Member States should also be further stimulated in their activities to analyse and improve road safety on national level through different knowledge sharing platforms at their disposal 20 .
• Explanatory documents (for directives)
Not applicable.
• Detailed explanation of the specific provisions of the proposal
In general terms, this proposal refers to Regulation (EU) 2018/[…] on the approval and market surveillance of motor vehicles and their trailers, and of systems, components and separate technical units intended for such vehicles, since both Regulations share a compatible time line for their application.
Article 1 – Following the proposed consolidation of the GSR and PSR, the subject matter of the GSR is maintained in this proposal with the addition of a reference to the requirements for protection of vehicle occupants and vulnerable road users.
Article 2 – In general, the scope of the GSR is preserved, however, at the level of the currently applicable vehicle safety features and related exemptions, the scope of application has been extended to cover also other vehicle categories (or all of them) and to remove the respective exemptions (for example, the current exemptions linked to SUVs and vans are eliminated).
Article 3 – A range of new definitions is included to cover the newly introduced vehicle safety features.
Following a similar logic as in the currently applicable GSR, Article 4 sets out the general technical requirements for type-approval of vehicles, systems, components and separate technical units and provides a list of safety areas, for which detailed rules are further developed (or need to be developed) in secondary legislation. Reference is made to Annex I that lists all the UN Regulations which shall apply on a compulsory basis in the EU, and to Annex II, which contains detailed information on the relevant vehicle safety requirements, their scope of application and the related secondary legislation, whether it already exists or whether it needs to be developed as part of the initiative.
This proposal also envisages empowerment for the Commission to amend lay down detailed rules and technical requirements in delegated acts and to amend Annexes I and II to take account of technical progress and regulatory developments at United Nations and Union level.
Article 5 extends the scope of the currently applicable requirement to fit passenger cars with a tyre pressure monitoring system to cover all vehicle categories.
Article 6 mandates a range of advanced vehicle safety features for all vehicles (e.g. the intelligent speed assistance; driver drowsiness and attention monitoring/distraction recognition systems; reversing detection; alcohol interlock installation facilitation).
Article 7 lays down the specific requirements for cars and vans and, in particular requires them to be equipped with an event (accident) data recorder and to be designed and constructed with an enlarged head impact protection zone for vulnerable road users.
Article 8 lays down the requirements for frontal protection systems.
Article 9 lays down the specific requirements for trucks and busses and, in particular requires them to be equipped with a detection and warning system for vulnerable road users in close proximity of the front and nearside of the vehicle and to be designed and constructed in such a way so as to improve the visibility of vulnerable road users from driver's seat.
The Commission does not propose to modify advanced emergency braking systems for trucks and buses to autonomously brake upon detection of vulnerable road users, as is proposed for passenger cars and light commercial vehicles. The accident analysis underpinning the initiative points to a run-over risk of pedestrians and cyclists when they are in very close proximity of the driver’s cab, i.e. in what are known as “blind zones”, and when the heavy duty vehicle is moving very slowly (straight or turning) or taking-off from a standstill. However, the detection systems linked to autonomous braking may not work as effectively at these slow speeds. In other words, no systems are available today that would effectively prevent this type of slow speed run-over event and it is uncertain if and when they will exist. The assessment indicated that this is not a mere matter of system programming. Instead, the preparatory research has supported that the signalling of the presence of a vulnerable road user to the driver is more effective when the latter can directly observe their presence through mirrors or improved windscreens and side windows that do not contain blind zones. In turn, pedestrians and cyclists are expected to feel safer in traffic because they can have eye contact with drivers of improved cabs. However, if autonomous braking in these instances becomes technically feasible, the relevant regulation can and should be adapted to technical progress.
Article 10 lays down the specific requirements for hydrogen-powered vehicles and Annex V contains the material qualification requirements for the hydrogen systems and their components.
Article 11 lays down specific requirements for automated vehicles and, in particular provides a list of areas of safety, for which detailed rules and technical provisions need to be further developed as a basis for the deployment of automated vehicles.
It is proposed to empower the Commission to adopt delegated acts with the aim to update the annexes to technical progress and regulatory developments, as well as to lay down detailed rules concerning the specific procedures, tests and technical requirements for the type-approval of vehicles, systems, components and separate technical units with regard to the specific requirements set out in this proposal. Article 12 specifies the terms of the delegated powers conferred to the Commission in that respect.
Article 13 sets out transitional provisions.
Article 14 refers to the implementation dates for the different safety requirements as specified in Annex II. The respective implementation dates for the newly introduced requirements are as follows:
–the bulk of the safety measures will start to apply from the date of application of the Regulation for new types and 24 months after this date to all newly produced vehicles;
–a limited number of measures (three in total) will apply from 24 months after the date of application of the Regulation for new types and 48 months after the date of application to all new vehicles;
–the requirements on the improved direct visibility for trucks and buses (Article 9(4)) need a longer implementation timeline as they will require a complete redesign of the cab – it will apply from 48 months after the date of application of the Regulation to new types and from 84 months after the application date to all new trucks and busses.
Article 15 introduces the necessary changes in Annex II to Regulation (EU) 2018/[…] that stem from the adoption of this proposal.
Article 16 repeals the three regulations (on general vehicle safety, pedestrian safety and hydrogen safety) and their outdated secondary legislation 21 .
Article 17 provides for the date of application of this regulation as of 36 months from the date of its entry into force. This will allow the Commission to adopt the respective delegated acts in advance and to provide sufficient lead time to manufacturers to adjust to the new requirements.