Activities of Hans-Olaf HENKEL related to 2016/2215(INI)
Shadow reports (1)
REPORT on the inquiry into emission measurements in the automotive sector PDF (1 MB) DOC (179 KB)
Amendments (19)
Amendment 2 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital A
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 4 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital C a (new)
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 5 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital C b (new)
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 6 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital C c (new)
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 7 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital C d (new)
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 10 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 1
Paragraph 1
1. AIrrespective of costs, 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.
Amendment 12 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 2
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 not li, therefore, not to be mitxed toup with the Volkswagen vehicles equipped with prohibited defeat devicesscandal where compulsory laboratory tests were deceived.
Amendment 62 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 12
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 “as far as possible, ensure a balanced representation of relevant stakeholders, taking into account the specific tasks of the expert group and the type of expertise required”, as required by the horizontal rules for Commission expert groups of 10 November 2010.
Amendment 69 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 14
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 EUfound in the US in light-duty vehicles in 1995 and in high-duty vehicles in 1998. EU legislators were, therefore, warned about the potential usage of defeat devices long before the Volkswagen revelations in September 2015.
Amendment 77 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 15
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 clarificformer 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 derogation ons to the provisionsban on defeat devices, including the implementation of the ban, until the Volkswagen case foreseen in Article 5(2) of Regulation (EC) No 715/2007 should have been defined much more precisely.
Amendment 80 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 15 a (new)
Paragraph 15 a (new)
Amendment 84 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 16
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, claiming that such a decrease is necessary for the protection of the engine against damage in line with the derogations to the ban on defeat devices foreseen in Article 5(2) of Regulation (EC) No 715/2007. 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.
Amendment 86 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 16 a (new)
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 100 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 19
Paragraph 19
19. Member States contravened their legal obligation to monitor and enforce the ban on defeat devices set out in Article 5(2) of Regulation (EC) No 715/2007. None of them found the defeat devices installed in the Volkswagen vehicles. Moreover, according to our investigations, most Member States, and at least Germany, France, Italy and Luxembourg, had evidence that irrational emission control strategies, based on 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 152 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 36 a (new)
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)
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
Paragraph 37
Amendment 159 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 38
Paragraph 38
38. TWhe governance structure in place in the automotive sector, whereas the EU merely has regulatory power and, the responsibility to implement EU law on car emission measurement lies primarily with the Member States, prevents the efficient enforcement of EU legislation. The enforcement powers of the Commission are limited to initiating infringement procedures against Member States where a Member State has failed to apply EU law correctly.
Amendment 177 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 43
Paragraph 43