Europaudvalget 2023
KOM (2023) 0451
Offentligt
2734812_0001.png
EUROPEAN
COMMISSION
Brussels, 13.7.2023
SWD(2023) 256 final
PART 4/4
COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT
IMPACT ASSESSMENT REPORT
ANNEXES 10 TO 15 to the IMPACT ASSESSMENT REPORT
Accompanying the document
Proposal for a Regulation
of the European Parliament and of the Council on circularity requirements for vehicle
design and on management of end-of-life vehicles, amending Regulations (EU) 2018/858
and 2019/1020 and repealing Directives 2000/53/EC and 2005/64/EC
{COM(2023) 451 final} - {SEC(2023) 292 final} - {SWD(2023) 255 final} -
{SWD(2023) 257 final}
EN
EN
 kom (2023) 0451 - Ingen titel
Contents
ANNEX 10: LEGAL ENVIRONMENT ..................................................................................... 312
10.1 Legal Basis................................................................................................................ 312
10.2 Articulation with other EU policies and legislations ................................................ 313
ANNEX 11: 3R TYPE-APPROVAL DIRECTIVE EVALUATION REPORT.......................... 331
11.1 Introduction............................................................................................................... 333
11.1.1 P
URPOSE OF THE EVALUATION
............................................................................. 333
11.1.2 S
COPE OF THE EVALUATION
................................................................................. 335
11.2 What was the expected outcome of the intervention?............................................... 336
11.2.1 D
ESCRIPTION OF THE INTERVENTION AND ITS OBJECTIVES
.................................. 336
11.2.2 P
OINT OF COMPARISON
......................................................................................... 340
11.3 How has the situation evolved over the evaluation period?...................................... 341
11.3.1 C
URRENT STATE OF PLAY
..................................................................................... 341
11.3.2 M
EMBER
S
TATE IMPLEMENTATION OF THE
3R D
IRECTIVE
.................................. 343
11.4 Evaluation findings (analytical part)......................................................................... 345
11.4.1 T
O WHAT EXTENT WAS THE INTERVENTION SUCCESSFUL AND
WHY
?
345
I
NTERNAL COHERENCE OF THE
3R D
IRECTIVE AND COHERENCE WITH THE
ELV D
IRECTIVE
.................................................................................................................... 357
C
OHERENCE WITH THE
W
ASTE
F
RAMEWORK
D
IRECTIVE AND
REACH ............................. 358
C
OHERENCE WITH
ISO 22628:2002
AND
UNECE ............................................................... 359
11.4.2 H
OW DID THE
EU
INTERVENTION MAKE A DIFFERENCE AND TO
WHOM
? 360
11.4.3 I
S THE INTERVENTION STILL RELEVANT
? ............................................................. 362
11.5 What are the conclusions and lessons learned? ........................................................ 365
11.5.1 C
ONCLUSIONS
....................................................................................................... 365
11.5.2 L
ESSONS LEARNT
.................................................................................................. 370
11.6 Evaluation matrix...................................................................................................... 372
11.7 Overview of benefits and costs ................................................................................. 379
ANNEX 12: OVERVIEW OF PROJECTS AND RESEARCH .................................................. 385
12.1 Under Horizon 2020 programme: ............................................................................. 385
12.2 Under LIFE programme: .......................................................................................... 388
12.3 Under other programs: .............................................................................................. 390
ANNEX 13: SME TEST FOR THE PREFERRED OPTION ..................................................... 391
13.1 Step (1) − Identification of affected businesses ........................................................ 391
13.2 Step (2) consultation of SME stakeholders............................................................... 392
13.2.1 SME
S VIEWS RELATING TO MEASURES TO INCREASE THE RE
-
USE
OF VEHICLE PARTS
: ............................................................................................................... 394
13.2.2 R
ECYCLED CONTENT TARGET FOR PLASTICS
....................................................... 396
13.2.3 M
ATERIAL SPECIFIC RECYCLING TARGETS
........................................................... 397
13.2.4 E
XPORT RELATED REQUIREMENTS FOR THE USED VEHICLES
............................... 398
13.3 Step (3) assessment of the impact on SMEs ............................................................. 399
13.3.1 EPR
RELATED MEASURES
..................................................................................... 399
13.3.2 I
MPACTS ON COMPANIES INVOLVED IN THE DISMANTLING AND
RECYCLING SECTOR
: ............................................................................................................. 400
13.4 Step (4) minimising negative impacts on SMEs ....................................................... 403
13.4.1 EU-
WIDE MEASURES TO MITIGATE IMPACTS FOR
SME
S
...................................... 405
311
 kom (2023) 0451 - Ingen titel
ANNEX 14: IMPACTS OF THE PROPOSED MEASURES FOR THE AUTOMOTIVE
INDUSTRY IN THE INTERNATIONAL CONTEXT ...................................................... 407
14.1 Main findings ............................................................................................................ 407
14.1.1 D
ECARBONISATION EFFORTS BY VEHICLE MANUFACTURERS
.............................. 409
14.1.2 A
UTOMOTIVE GLOBAL SUPPLY CHAIN
.................................................................. 411
14.1.3 F
ACTORS FOR THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE
E
UROPEAN
AUTOMOTIVE INDUSTRY
....................................................................................................... 413
14.2 Conclusion ................................................................................................................ 414
ANNEX 15: CONTRIBUTION OF THE REVISION OF THE ELV AND 3R TYPE-
APPROVAL DIRECTIVES TO THE CIRCULARITY OF CRITICAL RAW
MATERIALS (CRM) .......................................................................................................... 415
15.1 Relevant information on CRMs in vehicles and relevant components ..................... 415
15.2 Expected 2035 and 2040 impacts of the measures for the circularity of the
relevant CRMs and other materials contained in the preferred option ..................... 419
15.2.1 M
EASURE
1: M
ANDATORY REMOVAL OF E
-
DRIVE MOTOR BY
AUTHORISED TREATMENT FACILITIES
: ................................................................................. 419
15.2.2 M
EASURE
2: D
ESIGN PROVISIONS FOR E
-
DRIVE MOTORS
: .................................... 423
15.2.3 M
EASURE
3: M
ANDATORY REMOVAL OF SELECTED EMBEDDED
ELECTRONIC COMPONENTS
(EEC)
GROUP BY AUTHORISED TREATMENT
FACILITIES
: ........................................................................................................................... 423
15.2.4 M
EASURE
4: R
EQUEST OF INFORMATION FROM
OEM
S ON SPECIFIC
CRM
S CONTAINED IN VEHICLES
,
AND THEIR LABELLING
: ................................................... 425
15.3 Suggestions for follow-up review clauses on CRM measures for vehicles .............. 426
15.4 Additional contribution of the potential extension of scope to circularity of CRMs 427
15.4.1 E
VIDENCE ON
CRM
CONTENT IN LORRIES
,
BUSES AND
MOTORCYCLES
: .................................................................................................................... 427
15.4.2 C
HALLENGES ON
CRM
RECOVERY FROM THE EXTENDED SCOPE
,
INCLUDING EXPORT AND MISS
-
MANAGEMENT
: .................................................................... 429
15.4.3 E
XPECTED IMPACTS OF INITIAL
CRM
MEASURES FOR PASSENGER
CARS IN CASE OF THE PROPOSED EXTENSION TO NEW VEHICLES
(
LORRIES
/
BUSES
/2-
WHEELERS
): ........................................................................................... 429
15.4.4 A
DDITIONAL
E
XPECTED IMPACTS OF THE PROPOSED EXTENSION
THE CURRENT LEGISLATION TO NEW VEHICLES
(
LORRIES
/
BUSES
/2-
WHEELERS
)
TO THE RECOVERY OF
CRM
AND THE IMPLEMENTATION OF THE
CRM A
CT OBJECTIVES
: ........................................................................................................ 431
 kom (2023) 0451 - Ingen titel
2734812_0004.png
A
NNEX
10: L
EGAL
E
NVIRONMENT
10.1 Legal Basis
Discussions on waste from ELVs dating back to the 1970s focussed on the concerns caused
by the illegal disposal of hazardous waste and the difficulties to treat plastic waste derived
from ELVs. Increasing quantities of plastic waste were found in the Light Shredder Residues
(LSR) and, due to its limited compacting characteristics, used a large amount of volume
within landfills. Incineration of plastic waste was also challenging as it required pre-treatment
operations. The treatment of exhaust gas of waste incinerators was less developed at that time.
In addition, other environmental and health risks, such as contamination of the metal scrap
with heavy metals, raised public concerns. All these factors determined the primary objective
of the ELV Directive, to minimise the impact of ELVs on the environment and to improve the
environmental performance of all the economic operators involved in the life-cycle of
vehicles, as defined in Article 175 of the Treaty establishing European Community
1
. Article
7(4) of the ELV Directive tasked the Commission to propose an amendment to the type-
approval Directive
2
and promote European standards relating to design for dismantling,
recoverability and recyclability of vehicles. As a result, Directive 2005/64/EC on the type-
approval of motor vehicles with regard to their reusability, recyclability and recoverability
(3R type-approval Directive) was adopted in 2005
3
. Based on the internal market legal base
(Article 95 TEC
4
), the 3R type-approval Directive constitutes one of the separate directives
within the framework of the EU vehicle type-approval system which was originally
established by Council Directive 70/156/EEC and which is now covered by the type-approval
Regulation (EU) 2018/858
5
. Article 7(4) of Directive 2000/53/EC required that the measures
to be adopted have to be incorporated into the vehicle type-approval procedure. It is a basic
principle of EU type-approval legislation that
Member States do not prohibit, restrict or
impede the placing on the market, the registration or the entry into service of vehicles,
systems, components or separate technical units that comply with the requirements of EU
type-approval.
To safeguard a consistency of rules between placing a product on the market
and the disposal of that product, a single binding set of EU rules is necessary.
It is therefore necessary that the legislative proposal replacing ELV and 3R type-approval
Directives is based on Article 114 of the TFEU, which is the appropriate legal basis for
measures that aim to establish or ensure the functioning of the internal market. This is
essential as it is designed to set out requirements which govern the placing of vehicles on the
EU market. Harmonised rules are necessary to ensure that all goods placed on the EU market
comply with similar conditions and that manufacturers can rely on a type approval issued by
1
2
TEC; in the current legal state, the wording corresponding to Article 175 TEC is expressed in Article 192 TFEU.
Council Directive 70/156/EEC of 6 February 1970 on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to the
type-approval of motor vehicles and their trailers (OJ L 42, 23.2.1970, p. 1–15).
3
OJ L 310, 25.11.2005, p. 10.
4
In the current legal state, the wording corresponding to Article 95 TEC is expressed in Article 114 TFEU.
5
OJ L 151, 14.6.2018, p. 1.
312
 kom (2023) 0451 - Ingen titel
2734812_0005.png
one Member State for the entire Internal Market. This is line with the overall regulatory
framework on type-approval for motor vehicles.
The change compared to the ELV Directive, which was based on the environmental
empowerment of Article 175 TEC (Article 192 TFEU) is justified as this proposal also
regulates the design aspects of vehicles and the free circulation.
The choice of Article 114 TFEU as a legal basis allows to build environmental-related
requirements as the core elements of conditions on the type-approval and thereby the placing
on the EU market of vehicles. It follows other examples of legislative proposals tabled by the
Commission recently, which also aim at covering in one single instrument
sustainability/circularity requirements applying to the whole lifecycle of products, like the
proposal for a Batteries Regulation, proposal for a Regulation on Eco-design for Sustainable
Products and the proposal for a Regulation on Packaging and Packaging Waste.
10.2 Articulation with other EU policies and legislations
The 3R type-approval Directive is the main EU-level instrument dealing with vehicles design
for recycling, re-use and recovery, and the ELV Directive regulates the requirements of
vehicles end-of life. There are also provisions on vehicles or provisions which are relevant for
vehicles in other EU legislation. Table 10.1 below lists and compares specific aspects of the
different initiatives, showing their interaction, with the ELV and 3R type-approval revision.
Table 10.1: Comparison of the ELV and 3R type-approval revision with specific aspects of other EU
initiatives
1
Legislative
legislative?
Critical Raw Materials (CRM) Act
6
and CRM Communication
7
non-
CRM Act: Legislative, mandatory.
Status: Commission proposal for a Regulation was adopted on 16 March
2023.
CRM Communication: Non-legislative.
The aim of the CRM Act is to ensure EU the access to a secure and
sustainable supply of critical raw materials in order to allow the EU to
achieve its climate and digital ambitions. The proposal aims to
strengthen different stages of CRMs value chains, diversify the EU
imports to reduce strategic dependencies, improve EU capacity to
monitor and mitigate risks of disruptions to the supply of CRMs, and
improve circularity and sustainability.
The proposal lays down list of critical raw materials and strategic raw
materials as well as the methodology for their review. It establishes a
framework to select and implement strategic projects eligible for
streamlined permitting processes and having a simplified access to
financial opportunities. The act develops a mechanism for coordinated
monitoring of CRMs supply chains and provides measures to mitigate
or
Brief description
6
Proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council establishing a framework for ensuring a secure and
sustainable supply of critical raw materials and amending Regulations (EU) 168/2013, (EU) 2018/858, 2018/1724 and (EU)
2019/1020 (COM/2023/160 final).
7
Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and Social
Committee and the Committee of the Regions: A secure and sustainable supply of critical raw materials in support of the twin
transition (COM(2023) 165 final).
 kom (2023) 0451 - Ingen titel
2734812_0006.png
supply risks, such as obligations for large importers and manufacturers to
regularly audit their supply chains and facilitate the joint purchases of
strategic raw materials. The proposal focuses also on CRMs circularity,
addressing in particular permanent magnets, for which it envisages
detailed information obligations. It also empowers the Commission to
establish in the future recycled content targets for certain CRMs include
in these magnets via delegated acts. The proposal enables Member States
to adopt and implement specific measures aim at circularity, particularly
with respect to waste streams with high CRM recovery potential.
The CRM Communication lays down actions to be taken in areas of
development of standards of CRMs-related industrial processes,
education and training, research and innovation projects, financing
CRM-related activities as well as establishing cooperation with partners
to strengthen supply chains of these materials. It recognises the need to
incentivise CRMs recycling by commercialisation of efficient recycling
technologies, designing products containing CRMs so that these
materials can be easily removed or accessed and requiring provision of
information on CRMs and their location in certain products. The
Communication specifically announces that the Commission will revise
the ELV Directive to include specific requirements for design and end-of
life treatment of vehicles focusing on CRM recovery. It also states that
the Commission should provide recommendations to Member States in
order to improve the separate collection of consumer electronics rich in
CRMs, consider introduction of measures promoting substitution of
CRMs in new products and review waste legislation in order to, where
relevant, establish specific rules of CRMs recovery from certain product
categories.
Interaction with the
The presence of CRMs used in vehicles are expected to increase due to
ELV and 3R type-
their electrification, therefore the new legislative proposal replacing ELV
and 3R type-approval Directives will be one of the key legal acts relevant
approval revision
from the CRM perspective.
The ELV Directive already contains provisions related to recovery and
recycling of CRMs from end-of life vehicles. Its revision aims to
strengthen recovery and recycling, by, inter alia, developing
requirements effectuating design for dismantling and design for
recycling, as well as to address the end-of life phase by reinforcing
collection of ELVs and their recycling.
Both proposals will address the issues related to CRMs present in
vehicles and their components, in particular providing information on
their presence in order to improve CRMs recycling and subsequent use
of recycled materials in new products.
The CRM Acts establishes requirements related to certain types of
permanents magnets
8
present in selected products, including motor
vehicles. Operators placing vehicles containing such magnets on the
market are obligated to mark them with label specifying type of magnets
contain in them, and, in the future, also to provide digitalized information
on the weight, location and chemical composition of all individual
magnets, presence of coatings, glues and any additives, as well as
8
Permanent magnet types addressed by CRM Act are: Neodymium-Iron-Boron; Samarium-Cobalt; Aluminium-Nickel-
Cobalt; Ferrite. All of described obligations stemming from CRM Act, except for labelling of product containing the magnet
specifying its type, do not apply to ferrite permanent magnets.
 kom (2023) 0451 - Ingen titel
2734812_0007.png
2
Legislative
legislative?
or
Brief description
information enabling access and removal of such magnets. CRM Act
requires operators placing products containing certain amount of such
magnets to inform about the share of neodymium, dysprosium,
praseodymium, terbium, boron, samarium, nickel and cobalt recovered
from post-consumer waste present in the permanent magnets
incorporated in the product. The Commission is also empowered to set
out recycled content targets for these CRMs via delegated acts after
2030.
The new proposal replacing ELV and 3R type-approval directives will
foresee an obligation for the manufacturers to draft declarations on the
CRM content in vehicles and present it during the type-approval process
and will require to remove parts and components containing CRMs prior
to vehicles’ shredding. It will also empower the Commission to set out
recycled content targets for these materials.
Despite the fact, that both initiatives concern CRMs present in vehicles,
their provisions will be complementary. To avoid legal uncertainty,
CRM Act contains clear rules specifying that in case of adoption of EU
harmonised legislation on recycling or recycled content of permanent
magnets
9
, this harmonised legislation will apply instead of provisions of
the CRM Act. The new Regulation replacing ELV and 3R type-approval
Directives would be an example of such legislation (lex
specialis).
Both analysed initiatives have the same objective, as they aim to improve
the recovery and recycling of CRMs and promote inclusion of such
recycled materials in new vehicles. Revision of ELV Directive is also
specifically listed in the CRM Communication, as it is a key element
from the CRM perspective.
Eco-design Directive
10
/ Eco-design for Sustainable Products
Regulation (ESPR) Proposal
11
non-
Legislative, mandatory.
Status: Directive in force; Commission proposal for a Regulation,
repealing this Directive, was adopted on 30 March 2022.
The Eco-design Directive establishes minimum product-related and,
where relevant, information requirements, for ‘energy-related products’,
on energy efficiency and other environmental aspects. This is being
operationalised via implementing regulations per product category, in
accordance with regular working plans. These regulations, for a given
product category, prevent the worst-performing products to enter the EU
market. Since the first Circular Economy Action Plan (2015) the
Commission systematically includes circular economy aspects (in
addition to energy efficiency) in product requirements under the Eco-
design Directive, including inter alia reparability, durability,
upgradability and recyclability when drafting new or revising existing
eco-design requirements.
The proposal for a Regulation on eco-design for sustainable products will
extend the Eco-design framework beyond energy-related products,
9
Articles 27(9) and 27 () of CRM Act.
Directive 2009/125/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 October 2009 establishing a framework for
the setting of ecodesign requirements for energy-related products (OJ L 285, 31.10.2009, p. 10–35).
11
Proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council establishing a framework for setting eco-design
requirements for sustainable products, amending Regulation (EU) 2019/1020 and repealing Directive 2009/125/EC
(COM/2022/142 final).
10
 kom (2023) 0451 - Ingen titel
2734812_0008.png
excluding food and feedstuff. It will also enable the setting of eco-design
requirements for groups of products sharing common characteristics. The
ESP Regulation is a framework regulation, it will enable the setting of
additional legislative measures which will strengthen products
sustainability and facilitate more informed choices for consumers. Eco-
design requirements to be set under ESPR will be mandatory. The ESPR
will enable the setting of requirements that improve information flows
through, inter alia, establishing a Digital Product Passport. The Digital
Product Passport would give access along the value chain to relevant
product characteristics (e.g. durability and reparability of products,
presence of substances of concern, handling at the end of life etc.), with
differentiated access to consumers, businesses and compliance
authorities were appropriate.
Interaction with the
The ESPR will enable the setting of appropriate minimum performance
ELV and 3R type-
and information requirements for a wider range of physical products,
including vehicles and its parts. However, the Directives under revision
approval revision
already lay down certain requirements and obligations related to vehicles
circularity. The 3R type-approval Directive requires that vehicles should
be constructed in such a manner, that they are reusable and/or recyclable
to a minimum of 85 % by mass, and reusable and/or recoverable to a
minimum of 95 % by mass. The ELV Directive sets out re-use, recycling
and recoverability at the corresponding levels. It also encourages vehicle
manufacturers to use recycled materials and limit the use of hazardous
substances and design vehicles suitable for dismantling and recycling.
Also, the design and manufacture of vehicles are subject to overall type-
approval legislation, in particular the type-approval Regulation
2018/858/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council
12
, which
lays down sector specific requirements for vehicles. These requirements
are much different from the rules applicable for other products placed on
the EU market, as they were established in order to address the
specificity of the automotive sector.
In addition it needs to be noted, the ESPR is based on the New
Legislative Framework: Regulation (EC) No 765/2008 of the European
Parliament and of the Council
13
and Decision No 768/2008/EC of the
European Parliament and of the Council
14
. However, the sector
automotive legislation related to type-approval do not follow the New
Legislative Framework. The procedure of obtaining a type-approval is
set out specifically for vehicles in its scope, in order to consider all the
modalities related to their design and use.
As the legal framework for vehicle design and end-of life already exists
and it takes into the account the characteristics of the automotive sector,
new requirements should be built on it rather than developed based on
the ESPR. However, it needs to be underlined, that the level of ambition
12
Regulation (EU) 2018/858 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 30 May 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, amending Regulations (EC) No 715/2007 and (EC) No 595/2009 and repealing Directive 2007/46/EC (OJ L 151,
14.6.2018, p. 1–218).
13
Regulation (EC) No 765/2008 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 9 July 2008 setting out the requirements
for accreditation and market surveillance relating to the marketing of products and repealing Regulation (EEC) No 339/93
(OJ L 218, 13.8.2008, p. 30–47).
14
Decision No 768/2008/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 9 July 2008 on a common framework for the
marketing of products, and repealing Council Decision 93/465/EEC (OJ L 218, 13.8.2008, p. 82–128).
 kom (2023) 0451 - Ingen titel
2734812_0009.png
in transition to circularity and sustainability will be similar in the new
legislative proposal replacing the ELV and 3R type-approval Directives
as it would be if new provisions were established through delegated acts
based on the ESPR.
Nonetheless, certain design requirements for vehicles or its parts could
be set out under ESPR. It could concern vehicles which are outside the
scope of this proposal, as well as other automotive related products, such
as tyres. It is intended to propose development of recycled content targets
for rubber via a delegated act prepared under the ESPR Framework.
The Commission has ensured complementarity and consistency between
the future legislation and the ESPR and delegated acts adopted on its
basis, for example for the definition of the respective requirements and
empowerments (e.g. using the same definition of ‘recycled content’) and
making use of the same methodologies for their implementation (e.g. on
measurement of recycled content).
3
Type-Approval Regulation
(EU) 2018/858
15
Legislative or non-
Legislative, mandatory.
Status: Regulation in force.
legislative?
The legal framework for the type-approval of motor vehicles aims at
Brief description
facilitating the free movement of automotive products in the internal
market by laying down common requirements designed to achieve
environmental, energy performance and safety objectives which are
specified in several separate legal acts. These legal acts deal with a
multitude of detailed technical requirements for different vehicle systems
and components and are frequently updated to adapt them to technical
progress while at the same time minimising the regulatory burden on
industry.
The type-approval Regulation sets the central procedural framework for
the requirements for the approval and market surveillance of motor
vehicles and their trailers, and of systems, components and separate
technical units intended for such vehicles. As such it lays down the rules
on conformity of vehicle types with the requirements of several pieces of
legislation which are listed in the Annexes to the Regulation. Once the
compliance with the various requirements of different legislations is
checked by the national type-approval authority, the vehicle type can be
placed on the market and registered in the internal market. It follows that
the placing on the market or registration of the vehicle type cannot be
refused for requirements for which the vehicle type has gone through the
type-approval procedure.
Interaction with the
The requirements of the 3R type-approval Directive are currently
ELV and 3R type-
controlled in the process of vehicle type-approval established by the
Type-Approval Regulation. With the inclusion of the 3R type-approval
approval revision
Directive and the ELV Directive in one new regulation, the requirements
that will be formulated in the new instrument for type-approval will also
need to be verified in accordance with the rules of Type-Approval
Regulation. Therefore, the new proposal will cross-refer to provisions of
the analysed regulation, not only for the type-approval procedures but
15
Regulation (EU) 2018/858 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 30 May 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, amending Regulations (EC) No 715/2007 and (EC) No 595/2009 and repealing Directive 2007/46/EC, (OJ L 151
14.6.2018, p. 1).
 kom (2023) 0451 - Ingen titel
2734812_0010.png
also in relation as market surveillance.
4
Euro 7 Regulation Proposal
16
Legislative or non-
Legislative, mandatory.
Status: Commission proposal for a Regulation was adopted on 10
legislative?
November 2022.
The general objective of the initiative is to ensure the proper functioning
Brief description
of the single market by setting more adequate, cost-effective and future-
proof rules for vehicle emissions as well as to ensure a high level of
environmental and health protection in the EU by further reducing air
pollutant emissions from road transport. This initiative will contribute to
achieving the general objective by pursuing the following three specific
objectives. It will reduce complexity of the current Euro emission
standards, provide up-to-date limits for all relevant air pollutants and
improve control of real-world emissions.
The proposal is in support of aims in the Ambient Air Quality Directive
17
by setting limits for pollutants which are currently also covered by rules
on the ambient air concentrations of specific air pollutants such as
Ammonia, particles or NOx. Key new elements are the alignment of
emission rules in a technology neutral way and by combining rules for
Light-Duty Vehicles and Heavy-Duty Vehicles. Furthermore, the
emission limits will be valid and verified in a wider and clearer defined
range of conditions.
Interaction with the
Both initiatives concern the environmental performance of vehicles and
ELV and 3R type-
their design. The requirements set out in these acts will be verified in
accordance with procedures established in the Type-Approval
approval revision
Regulation.
While the Euro 7 proposal aims at reducing vehicle emissions during a
longer part of a vehicle’s lifetime by extending durability requirements,
the revision of the ELV Directive focuses on designing the vehicles in a
more circular way, to facilitate the reuse, recycling and recovery of
vehicles and their parts and the actual treatment of the vehicle at the end
of its life. The new proposal will also contribute to achievement of
overall emission objectives of Euro 7 proposal, as it will limit the export
of non-roadworthy, often polluting, used vehicles outside the EU. This
proposal will also provide more detailed rules on removal and recycling
of certain vehicle components, such as emission control systems,
necessary to achieve the limit values in Euro 7 proposal, including
catalysts, which contain significant amounts of CRMs.
The Euro 7 proposal envisages also creation of Environmental Vehicle
Passport, a digital tool granting access to information on the
environmental performance of a vehicle at the moment of registration,
including the level of pollutant emission limits, CO
2
emissions, fuel
consumption, energy consumption, electric range and engine power, and
battery durability and other related values. The new proposal replacing
ELV and 3R type-approval Directives will build on this, extending the
scope of information that could be accessed via this passport to data
facilitating the disassembly, reuse, recycling and recovery of vehicles
16
Proposal for a regulation on type-approval of motor vehicles and engines and of systems, components and separate
technical units intended for such vehicles, with respect to their emissions and battery durability (Euro 7) (COM(2022) 586).
17
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 (OJ L 152, 11.6.2008, p. 1).
 kom (2023) 0451 - Ingen titel
2734812_0011.png
and their parts.
5
Waste Framework Directive
18
(WFD)
Legislative or non-
Legislative, mandatory.
Status: Directive in force; Commission proposal for amending directive
legislative?
expected to be adopted in 2023.
The WFD establishes horizontally applicable concepts and definitions
Brief description
related to waste generation and waste management, including waste
treatment, recycling and recovery. It lays down waste management
principles, which should contribute to the reduction of adverse impact of
the waste management to human health and the environment, with an
emphasis on waste prevention. It follows from the waste hierarchy laid
down in the WFD that waste prevention comes on top of the hierarchy
followed by preparation for re-use and recycling in second and third
place. Other recovery options, e.g. energy recovery shall finally take
precedence over disposal. Additionally, it outlines conditions for waste
to be considered a by-product and regulates the end-of-waste status.
Pursuant to Art. 9 of the WFD, Member States must undertake actions to
prevent waste generation, with measures encouraging the re-use of
products, promoting and supporting sustainable production and
consumption and reduction of hazardous substances in materials and
products. The WFD sets targets for the preparation for re-use and the
recycling of waste materials from municipal waste, which were increased
in the 2018 revision through the setting of targets for the years 2025,
2030 and 2035.
The WFD obliges Member States to ensure the functioning of Extended
Producer’s Responsibility (EPR) schemes, which is a set of measures
taken by Member States to ensure that producers of products bear
financial responsibility or financial and organisational responsibility for
the management of the waste stage of a product’s life cycle. The WFD
sets up a set of minimum requirements for EPR schemes to that end.
In the new Circular Economy Action Plan, adopted in March 2020, the
Commission committed to take steps towards:
- significant reduction of generation of waste,
- better use of secondary raw materials and
- environmentally sound waste management.
The Commission furthermore committed itself to assess feasibility of
harmonising the separate waste collection systems in the Member States.
The ongoing revision of the WFD is focused on textiles and food waste.
Another revision, of a larger scope, is envisaged for 2025.
Interaction with the
One of the aims of this proposal is to provide more clarity in the
ELV and 3R type-
determination when a used vehicle should be considered waste.
Therefore, the definition of end-of life vehicle will be revised, addressing
approval revision
the practical difficulties experienced in its application in the Member
States, but it will remain in line with the general definition of waste
provided for in the WFD.
The definition of “recycling” in the proposal for a Regulation will be
aligned with the definition in the WFD, in particular it will exclude
backfilling operations from its scope.
The ELV Directive revision envisages also clearer methodology to
18
Directive 2008/98/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 19 November 2008 on waste and repealing certain
Directives (OJ L 312 22.11.2008, p. 3).
 kom (2023) 0451 - Ingen titel
2734812_0012.png
6
Legislative
legislative?
or
Brief description
calculate recycling rates, ensuring that what is accounted as “recycled”
only includes materials which are effectively recycled, and not just
collected for recycling, and improving the reporting on recycling targets.
This change fits into the logic of the WFD, which aims to ensure high-
quality recycling. The WFD, through the Commission Implementing
Decision (EU) 2019/1004
19
adopted on its basis, provides for more
correct and precise measurement of the amounts of recycled waste, by
defining terms such as ‘calculation point’, ‘measurement point’ or
‘preliminary treatment’. This implementing act establishes specific rules
for calculation of recycled waste, indicating different calculation points
for various waste materials and recycling operations and provided rules
concerning reflecting the preliminary treatment operations in the
calculation. Further to these rules, data on waste recycling will be more
accurate, as currently all waste collected for recycling is reported as
recycled while all waste in practice is not currently effectively recycled.
Similar changes in the calculation of the amount recycled waste
stemming from ELVs will be done under the new legislative proposal.
The proposal will also contain provisions laying down EPR rules for
ELVs. The ELV Directive was adopted before the WFD. It contains
provisions on the responsibility of vehicles manufacturers for the end-of
life phase of vehicles. These provisions are however not aligned with the
provisions set out in the WFD. This will be adjusted with the revision of
the ELV Directive and the provisions on EPR would build on Articles 8
and 8a of the WFD.
Batteries Directive
20
/ Batteries Regulation (BR) Proposal
21
and final
compromise agreement text
22
non-
Legislative, mandatory.
Status: Directive in force; Commission proposal for a Regulation,
repealing this directive, was adopted on 10 December 2020. A final
compromise text was agreed by the co-legislators on 18 January 2023
and should be published in the course of 2023 in the EU Official Journal.
The Batteries Directive establishes general requirements for the
treatment and recycling of batteries at the end of their life, but does not
cover other aspects of the production and use phases of batteries, such as
electrochemical performance and durability, GHG emissions, or
responsible sourcing.
The
proposal for a Batteries Regulation aims to ensure that batteries
placed in the EU market are sustainable and safe throughout their entire
life cycle. The proposal introduces also progressive requirements to
minimise the carbon footprint over the life cycle of batteries. It
strengthens the functioning of the EU internal market for batteries and
promotes the circular economy by closing the materials loop.
The new Regulation lays takes over existing restrictions for mercury and
cadmium in batteries and defines a procedure for introducing new
19
Commission Implementing Decision (EU) 2019/1004 of 7 June 2019 laying down rules for the calculation, verification and
reporting of data on waste in accordance with Directive 2008/98/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council and
repealing Commission Implementing Decision C(2012) 2384 (notified under document C(2019) 4114).
20
Directive 2006/66/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 6 September 2006 on batteries and accumulators
and waste batteries and accumulators and repealing Directive 91/157/EEC (OJ L 266, 26.9.2006, p. 1–14).
21
Regulation of the European Parliament and the Council of [date] 2023 concerning batteries and waste batteries, amending
Directive 2008/98/EC and Regulation (EU) 2019/1020 and repealing Directive 2006/66/EC (OJ L […]).
22
Interinstitutional file: 2020/0353 (COD).
 kom (2023) 0451 - Ingen titel
2734812_0013.png
substance restrictions in batteries. It also includes provisions on
mandatory recycled content targets and requirements on electrochemical
performance and durability parameters. It obligates manufacturers to
draft carbon footprint declaration for certain battery types and to ensure
batteries’ removability and replaceability. It requires the economic
operators placing certain types of batteries on the market to implement
supply chain due diligence policies verified by a notified body and
conduct detailed risks assessment. The Regulation lays also down targets
on collection, recycling efficiencies and materials recovery.
Interaction with the
The Batteries Regulation will significantly contribute to putting the
ELV and 3R type-
automotive industry on a circular path with respect to batteries. This is
crucial due to the battery’s environmental footprint, in particular for
approval revision
batteries in future EV. However, it needs to be underlined, that the
environmental impact of vehicles is not limited to batteries, but covers
also the manufacture and end-of life treatment of other elements of
vehicles. Therefore, in order to address this need, the ELV needs to be
revised so that it complements the Batteries Regulation with a similar
objective to increase circularity.
The new proposal will be fully complementary with the Batteries
Regulation. Both initiatives are prepared in close cooperation, in the
view of significant increase in the electrification of passenger cars, buses
and, to a lesser extent, vans and lorries that can be observed nowadays
and the observed trend of its rapid growth.
All the batteries used in vehicles are within the scope of Batteries
legislation. Both: the design of batteries and their treatment, when
removed, is regulated by the Batteries Regulation. The new proposal
replacing ELV Directive will clearly oblige economic operators to ensure
that batteries used in vehicles are designed to allow for their removal, as
well as oblige the ATFs to remove the battery from the ELVs before
shredding, as a part of a depollution treatment of the vehicle.
The main overlaps between these two legal acts regard: (a) prohibition
using certain substances in automotive batteries, (b) treatment of waste
vehicle batteries.
The Batteries Regulation provides restrictions related to use of mercury
and cadmium in certain types of batteries. In case of cadmium, it foresees
an exemption for batteries used in vehicles that benefit from a derogation
under Annex II to ELV Directive. Moreover, the Batteries Regulation
indicates that all exemptions from restrictions on the use of lead,
mercury, cadmium or hexavalent set out in Annex II to the ELV
Directive (points 5(a) and 5(b) (lead) and 16 (cadmium)) concerning
batteries, should be complied with by battery manufacturers
23
. The
preferred policy option envisages, that these exemptions for the use of
lead and cadmium will, following a transition period, be taken up by the
Batteries Regulation and removed from the new regulation replacing
ELV Directive. Consequently, all batteries-related restrictions and
exemptions therefrom will be regulated in the Batteries Regulation.
The Batteries Regulation sets out comprehensive rules concerning the
design, collection, treatment and recycling of batteries. It also reinforces
Article 6(2) of the Batteries Regulation states: “In addition to the restrictions set out in Annex XVII of Regulation (EC) No
1907/2006 and in Annex II of Directive 2000/53/EC, batteries shall not contain substances for which Annex I contains a
restriction unless they comply with the conditions of that restriction”.
23
 kom (2023) 0451 - Ingen titel
2734812_0014.png
the principle of extended producer responsibility for the collection,
transport and treatment/recycling of all batteries, including those coming
from vehicles. Similar changes are contained in the future legislation on
ELV, for the rest of the vehicle. This will result in ensuring coherence
between these two initiatives.
7
Waste Shipment Regulation
24
(WSR) / Waste Shipment Regulation
Proposal
25
Legislative or non-
Legislative, mandatory.
Status: Regulation in force; Commission proposal for a Regulation,
legislative?
repealing the previous one, was adopted on 17 November 2021.
The Waste Shipment Regulation applies to shipments of waste:
Brief description
Between EU countries within the EU borders or transiting via
non-EU countries;
Imported into the EU from non-EU countries;
Exported from the EU to non-EU countries;
In transit through the EU, on the way from or to non-EU
countries.
Shipments of hazardous waste from the EU to non-OECD countries are
prohibited, while shipments of hazardous waste between Member States
or from the EU to OECD countries are subject to the “prior information
and consent procedure”.
Shipments of “green-listed” non-hazardous
wastes within the EU and OECD do not usually require the prior consent
of the authorities, but information requirements apply.
In applying the regulation all parties involved must ensure that waste is
managed in an environmentally sound manner, respecting EU and
international rules, throughout the shipment process and when it is
recovered or disposed of.
The proposal for a new WSR adopted in November 2021 aims to (a)
improve the functioning of internal market for waste fit for re-use and
recycling, which would result in boosting the market for secondary raw
materials, (b) guarantee that waste are shipped outside the EU only when
they can be managed in environmentally sound manner and (c) tackle
illegal shipments of waste.
The proposal simplifies procedures for shipments of waste within the EU
through their digitalisation.
The proposal would allow the export of waste to non-OECD countries
only if they notify to the Commission their willingness to import EU
waste and demonstrate ability to deal with it in a sustainable manner.
Exports of waste to OECD countries will be closely monitored.
Economic operators engaged in such export activities will be obligated to
set up third party audit schemes to ensure that the facilities treating their
waste manage it in an environmentally sound manner.
The proposal strengthens enforcement of the Regulation, lays down more
stringent provisions on inspections and penalties and enables OLAF to
investigate waste trafficking in the EU.
Interaction with the
The new legislative proposal replacing the ELV Directive will not
ELV and 3R type-
contain any specific provisions on the shipment of ELVs. All shipments
24
Regulation (EC) No 1013/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 14 June 2006 on shipments of waste (OJ
L 190, 12.7.2006, p. 1).
25
Proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council on shipments of waste and amending Regulations
(EU) No 1257/2013 and (EU) No 2020/1056 (COM/2021/709 final).
 kom (2023) 0451 - Ingen titel
2734812_0015.png
approval revision
8
Legislative
legislative?
or
Brief description
of ELVs, within the EU as well as with third countries, will continue to
be governed by rules of the WSR. As, prior to their depollution, ELVs
are classified as hazardous waste, their export to a third country outside
the OECD is banned.
The new legislative proposal replacing the ELV Directive also aims to
clarify when a used vehicle becomes an ELV, which is crucial for
determination if the WSR applies to shipment of such vehicles. This
clarification will be done by amending the definition of ELV, taking into
consideration the existing waste shipment correspondents’ guidelines
26
.
The new legislative proposal will also establish restrictions regarding the
export of used vehicles not classified as ELVs. Such exports will be
authorised only provided that the vehicle has a valid roadworthiness
certificate. This change is not directly linked with the WSR, as it will not
establish similar procedures as when exporting waste, but is necessary to
avoid the export of old polluting and not roadworthy vehicles to third
countries.
Regulation on Registration, Evaluation, Authorisation and
Restriction of Chemicals
27
(REACH)
non-
Legislative, mandatory.
Status: Regulation in force; Commission proposal for amending
regulation expected to be adopted in 2023.
REACH is the key Union legal instrument to ensure the safe use of
chemical substances, as such, in mixtures or in articles. REACH aims to
ensure a high level of protection of human health and the environment
from risks resulting from the intrinsic properties of chemicals, as well as
the free circulation of substances on the internal market, while enhancing
competitiveness and innovation. REACH is organised around four
processes, namely the registration, evaluation, authorisation and
restriction of chemicals. Manufacturers and importers of substances are
generally required to gather information on the properties of their
chemical substances and to identify the uses and conditions under which
they can be safely used. Substances manufactured or imported in
quantities exceeding 1 tonne per year must be submit a registration
dossier to ECHA containing information about the substance. The
European Chemicals Agency (ECHA) is empowered to assess the
completeness and compliance of the registrations during the evaluation
process.
Restrictions of substances included in Annex XVII to REACH ban or
limit the manufacturing, placing on the market or use of the substances
concerned (varying from a complete ban to a restricted use under specific
conditions), including as part of articles (term ‘article’ is understood
under REACH as products). Restrictions can be adopted in case of an
unacceptable risk to human health or the environment (Art.68(1)),
following a dedicated procedure involving the agency ECHA (Art. 69-
73), or, via a simplified procedure, that does not require the involvement
26
27
Cf :
https://ec.europa.eu/environment/pdf/waste/shipments/correspondents_guidelines9_en.pdf
Regulation (EC) No 1907/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 18 December 2006 concerning the
Registration, Evaluation, Authorisation and Restriction of Chemicals (REACH), establishing a European Chemicals Agency,
amending Directive 1999/45/EC and repealing Council Regulation (EEC) No 793/93 and Commission Regulation (EC) No
1488/94 as well as Council Directive 76/769/EEC and Commission Directives 91/155/EEC, 93/67/EEC, 93/105/EC and
2000/21/EC (OJ L 396 30.12.2006, p. 1).
 kom (2023) 0451 - Ingen titel
2734812_0016.png
Interaction with
ELV and 3R
approval revision
9
Legislative or
legislative?
Brief description
Interaction with
ELV and 3R
approval revision
of ECHA for substances presenting specific hazards (carcinogenicity,
germ cell mutagenicity or reproductive toxicity on Categories 1A and
1B) and could be used by consumers (Art. 68(2)).
The Chemicals Strategy for Sustainability announces the targeted
revision of the REACH Regulation, which will be limited to achieving
the specific aims set out in the strategy. Considered measures include,
among others, extending the generic approach to risk management
(currently in REACH Art 68(2), restrictions based on hazardousness) to
other categories of substances and strengthening enforcement. The
revision will not impact the scope of REACH.
the
The main interplay between these two legal acts regard restrictions on
type-
use of certain substances in vehicles and its parts. Although these
products fall into the scope of REACH, the current Annex XVII applies
to them only to the extent to which vehicles are covered in some specific
substance restrictions. Specific restrictions on use of lead, mercury,
cadmium or hexavalent chromium, as well as exemptions from them, are
laid down in ELV Directive.
The preferred option envisages that:
(a) any new vehicle-related limitation in uses of certain substances will
be addressed under REACH or as appropriate under the Batteries
Regulation or be covered under the POPs Regulation, using the existing
procedures;
(b) existing restrictions under ELV on four substances will be maintained
in the new Regulation and reviewed via delegated acts with the support
of ECHA. The scope of the assessment of exemptions for the four
substances remaining under ELV legislation will be widened so that it
would cover not only the cases of ‘unavoidable use’ of these substances
(Article 4(2) of the ELV Directive) but also socio-economic, health and
environmental impacts
28
.
The possibility of a transfer of the restrictions on the four substances and
any exemptions therefrom to REACH can be reassessed in the future
once the ongoing REACH review is concluded and sufficient
implementation time has elapsed to assess its functioning.
Regulation on persistent organic pollutants (POPs)
29
non-
Legislative, mandatory.
Status: Regulation in force.
The Stockholm Convention
30
is implemented in the EU through the
POPs Regulation, which bans or limits the production of persistent
organic pollutants and their use in both chemical products and articles.
the
The POPs Regulation applies to vehicles. Restrictions on POPs affect not
type-
only the substances and materials used for the production of new
vehicles but also the treatment of materials recovered from ELVs, which
subsequently may impact the ability of ELV operators to fulfil the targets
specified in new proposal.
The most important POP-related issue for the treatment of ELVs relates
to the presence and disposal of the flame retardant decabromodiphenyl
28
It will be similar as the assessment used when evaluating applications for authorisation under REACH.
(EU) 2019/1021 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 June 2019 on persistent organic pollutants
(OJ L 169, 25.6.2019, p. 45–77).
30
More
information
on
the
Stockholm
Convention
on
Persistent
Organic
Pollutants
http://www.pops.int/TheConvention/Overview/TextoftheConvention/tabid/2232/Default.aspx
29
Regulation
 kom (2023) 0451 - Ingen titel
2734812_0017.png
ether (DecaBDE) and other POP-BDE in shredder residue. The disposal
and recovery of waste containing such POPs and the placing on the
market or recovered materials from ELVs containing POPs is regulated
through the POPs Regulation. The recently adopted Regulation that
amends the waste annexes of the POPs Regulation
31
further reduces the
limit values for substances such as POP-PBDEs and HBCDD in waste
and introduces limits on newly listed substances such as PFOA and
PFHxS.
10
Directive on the Restriction of Hazardous Substances in Electrical
and Electronic Equipment (RoHS)
32
Legislative or non-
Legislative, mandatory.
Status: Directive in force.
legislative?
The RoHS Directive aims to prevent the risks posed to human health and
Brief description
the environment related to the management of electronic and electrical
waste. It does this by restricting the use of specific hazardous substances
in electronic and electrical equipment (EEE) if they can be substituted by
safer alternatives. These restricted substances include certain heavy
metals, flame retardants and plasticizers. It thus includes a set of
restrictions for a specific sub-set of products.
The RoHS Directive also promotes the recyclability of EEE, as EEE and
its components that have become waste contain fewer hazardous
substances due to the restrictions.
The RoHS Directive empowers the Commission to, by means of
delegated acts, change or add restrictions with a view to achieving the
objectives set out in Article 1, i.e. to contribute “to the protection of
human health and the environment, including the environmentally sound
recovery and disposal of waste EEE.”
Interaction with the
RoHS Directive, similarly as WEEE Directive, excludes from its scope
ELV and 3R type-
of application (a) means of transport for persons or goods, except for
electric two-wheel vehicles which are not type-approved, and (b)
approval revision
equipment which is specifically designed, and is to be installed, as part of
another type of equipment that is excluded or does not fall within the
scope of the Directive, which can fulfil its function only if it is part of
that equipment, and which can be replaced only by the same specifically
designed equipment. Therefore, also in this case, the new legislation on
ELV will be complementary to the existing legal act on EEE.
It also needs to be noted, that there is a group of EEE used in vehicles,
which falls into the scope of RoHS Directive, for example equipment
which is not specifically designed for vehicles but could be used in them.
This EEE shall be compliant with RoHS Directive requirements.
As in certain situations determination of whether a given EEE falls into
the scope of ELV or RoHS Directive was in practice problematic, the
new legislative proposal on ELV aims to provide a clearer distinction
between the scopes of these two legal acts.
It should be also noted, that the rationale of restrictions and derogations
therefrom is based on different principles in these two regimes. The ELV
Directive focuses on the criterion of ‘avoidability’ of certain uses of the
31
Regulation (EU) 2022/2400 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 November 2022 amending Annexes IV
and V to Regulation (EU) 2019/1021 on persistent organic pollutants (OJ L 317, 9.12.2022, p. 24–31).
32
Directive 2011/65/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 8 June 2011 on the restriction of the use of certain
hazardous substances in electrical and electronic equipment (OJ L 174, 1.7.2011, p. 88–110).
 kom (2023) 0451 - Ingen titel
2734812_0018.png
heavy metals in a given application, whereas the RoHS Directive takes
into account the availability of substitutes, the socioeconomic impact of
substitution, potential adverse impacts on innovation and, where
relevant, life-cycle thinking on the overall impacts of the exemption.
This distinction will be kept also in the future legislation.
11
European Climate Law
33
Legislative or non-
Legislative, mandatory.
Status: Regulation in force.
legislative?
The European Climate Law writes into law the goal set out in the
Brief description
European Green Deal for Europe’s economy and society to become
climate-neutral by 2050. The law also sets the intermediate target of
reducing net greenhouse gas emissions by at least 55% by 2030,
compared to 1990 levels and envisages
a process for setting a 2040
climate target.
Interaction with the
The revision of the ELV Directive contributes to achieving climate
ELV and 3R type-
neutrality both for the automotive sector and other connected industrial
sectors. With the electrification of the vehicle fleet, the production and
approval revision
end-of life stages become relevant for the carbon footprint of a vehicle,
compared to the use phase. The new legislation will contribute to
decreasing the carbon footprint of vehicles through new measures
favouring the use of secondary materials in the production of new
vehicles. Secondary materials to be used in the automotive sector
generally have a lower carbon intensive footprint than primary materials.
This is especially the case for aluminium, steel, copper and CRMs like
magnesium and REEs which are energy intensive to produce. The same
counts for plastics from fossil fuel based production where recycling
avoids incineration at end-of life and related carbon emissions. In
addition, the new legislation will lay down new measures to increase the
quality of metal scraps from ELVs, so that they can be used for high
quality recycling/reprocessing by the steel or aluminium industry. The
use of scrap is one of the main drivers for the decarbonisation of these
industries.
12
Regulation on emission standards for new passenger cars and vans
34
and proposal of its amendment
35
Legislative or non-
Legislative, mandatory.
Status: Regulation in force; Commission proposal for amending
legislative?
regulation was adopted on 14 July 2021.
A compromise text was agreed by the co-legislators on 16 November
2022 and should be published in the course of 2023 in the EU Official
Journal.
This regulation lays down CO
2
emission performance requirements for
Brief description
33
Regulation (EU) 2021/1119 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 30 June 2021 establishing the framework for
achieving climate neutrality and amending Regulations (EC) No 401/2009 and (EU) 2018/1999 (‘European Climate Law’)
(OJ L 243, 9.7.2021, p. 1–17).
34
Regulation (EU) 2019/631 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 April 2019 setting CO
2
emission
performance standards for new passenger cars and for new light commercial vehicles, and repealing Regulations (EC) No
443/2009 and (EU) No 510/2011 (OJ L 111, 25.4.2019, p. 13–53).
35
Proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council amending Regulation (EU) 2019/631 as regards
strengthening the CO
2
emission performance standards for new passenger cars and new light commercial vehicles in line
with the Union’s increased climate ambition (COM/2021/556 final).
 kom (2023) 0451 - Ingen titel
2734812_0019.png
new passenger cars and light commercial vehicles in order to contribute
to the achievement of the reduction targets from the Paris Agreement
36
. It
sets CO
2
reduction targets for the EU fleet for new registrations of
vehicles categories M
1
and N
1
. The Regulation contains also incentives
for the update of zero- and low-emission vehicles.
The proposal for amending this regulation aims to align its ambition in
order to contribute to the achievement of the reduction targets from the
European Climate Law and sets more ambitious EU fleet targets for 2030
and lays down a 100% EU fleet-wide reduction target for new passenger
cars and new vans to apply from 1 January 2035 onwards.
Interaction with the
The Regulation on CO
2
emission standards focuses on the emissions
ELV and 3R type-
generated in the use phase of vehicles categories M
1
and N
1
. The new
regulation replacing ELV and 3R type-approval Directives will focus on
approval revision
the manufacture and end-of life phase of these vehicles. In the view of
the ongoing electrification process of the automotive fleet, in particular
for these vehicles categories, the emissions generates during the
production and treatment phase. As described above, reduction of CO
2
emissions will be achieved mainly by ensuring high quality recycling,
strengthening the possibility to retrieve secondary raw materials from the
ELVs and stimulating their use in the manufacture of new cars.
Therefore, the new legislative proposal will be complementary to
regulation on emission standards.
13
Regulation setting CO
2
emission performance standards for new
heavy-duty vehicles
37
and proposal of its amendment
38
Legislative or non-
Legislative, mandatory.
Status: Regulation in force; Commission proposal for amending
legislative?
regulation was adopted on 14 February 2023.
This regulation lays down CO
2
emission performance requirements for
Brief description
new heavy-duty vehicles in order to contribute to the achievement of the
reduction targets from the Paris Agreement. It sets CO
2
reduction targets
for the EU fleet for 2025 and 2030 – respectively 15% and 30% –
compared to the reported emissions generated in the period 1 July 2019 –
30 June 2020. The Regulation contains also incentives for the update of
zero- and low-emission vehicles.
The proposal for an amending regulation sets CO
2
emissions reduction
targets for certain types and sub-groups of heavy-duty vehicles and
introduces binding CO
2
emissions reduction targets for heavy-duty
vehicles for 2035 and 2040 onwards, respectively 65% and 90% –
compared to the reported emissions generated in the period 1 July 2019 –
30 June 2020. It also widens the scope of this instrument i.e. to vehicles
belonging to M
2
, M
3
, O
3
and O
4
and provides new rules on the
monitoring and reporting.
Interaction with the
The Regulation on CO
2
emission standards focuses on the emissions
ELV and 3R type-
generated in the use phase of vehicles within its scope. The new
36
37
Paris Agreement
(OJ L 282, 19.10.2016, p. 4).
Regulation (EU) 2019/1242 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 June 2019 setting CO
2
emission
performance standards for new heavy-duty vehicles and amending Regulations (EC) No 595/2009 and (EU) 2018/956 of the
European Parliament and of the Council and Council Directive 96/53/EC (OJ L 198, 25.7.2019, p. 202–24).
38
Proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council amending Regulation (EU) 2019/1242 as regards
strengthening the CO₂ emission performance standards for new heavy-duty vehicles and integrating reporting obligations,
and repealing Regulation (EU) 2018/956 (COM(2023) 88 final).
 kom (2023) 0451 - Ingen titel
2734812_0020.png
approval revision
14
Legislative
legislative?
or
regulation replacing ELV and 3R type-approval Directives will focus on
the manufacture and end-of life phase of these vehicles. Certain
obligations will apply also to these heavy-duty vehicles: using certain
heavy metals in their components will be restricted, manufacturers will
have to provide information on their dismantlability and users will be
obliged to hand them to the authorised treatment facilities at their end-of
life. The carbon footprint of these vehicles will be decreased, as valuable
secondary raw materials, having a much less carbon intensive footprint
than primary material will be retrieved from the vehicles and made
available for the manufacture of new vehicles. The new regulation will
also improve the quality of recycling operations, in particular with
respect to steel and aluminium scrap, what will also contribute to the
decarbonisation of automotive sector.
Directive on Vehicle Registration Documents
39
non-
Legislative, mandatory.
Status: Directive in force; Commission proposal for a revision of this
directive expected to be adopted in 2023.
The Directive harmonises the form and content of vehicle registration
Brief description
certificates. Such certificates should be recognized by other Member
States for identification of vehicle in international traffic or for its re-
registration in another Member State. The Directive obliges the Member
States to record electronically data on all vehicles registered on their
territory and to ensure, that technical vehicle data is made available for
the purpose of periodic roadworthiness testing.
The directive specifies also, that in the event that the competent authority
of a Member State receives notification that a vehicle has been treated as
an ELV, the registration of that vehicle shall be cancelled permanently
and information to that effect should be added to the electronic register.
Interaction with the
One of the objectives of the ELV revision is to address the problem of
ELV and 3R type-
‘missing vehicles’. This will be done, inter alia, by introducing changes
regarding registration, re-registration and de-registration of vehicles.
approval revision
Firstly, the scope of information exchanged among the Member States
should also include reasons of vehicles’ de-registration. Secondly,
Member States should report to the Commission the number of vehicles
registered, de-registered, treated as ELVs and shipped outside the EU,
and to this end, the Commission Decision 2005/293/EC
40
will be
supplemented.
The new legislative proposal replacing the ELV Directive aims also to
introduce more stringent rules on export of used vehicles allowing for
such exports provided that such a vehicle has a valid roadworthiness
certificate. In order to ensure proper enforcement, the Vehicle
Identification Number (VIN) of such vehicles should be made available
to customs authorities
Introducing of these changes would be done through the future
roadworthiness package
41
. The objective of the latter is to ensure better
39
40
Council Directive 1999/37/EC of 29 April 1999 on the registration documents for vehicles (OJ L 138, 1.6.1999, p. 57–65).
Commission Decision 2005/293/EC of 1 April 2005 laying down detailed rules on the monitoring of the reuse/recovery
and reuse/recycling targets set out in Directive 2000/53/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council on end-of-life
vehicles (OJ L 94, 13.4.2005, p. 30–33).
41
Tougher vehicle testing rules to save live (europa.eu), Vehicle safety – revising the EU’s roadworthiness package
(europa.eu)
 kom (2023) 0451 - Ingen titel
2734812_0021.png
exchange of relevant vehicle roadworthiness data at EU level in order to
enforce road safety measures more effectively. Although the objective of
revisions are different, close cooperation within the Commission on these
proposals would ensure the cohesion of these two initiatives and
achievements of theirs objectives.
15
Roadworthiness Directives
42
Legislative or non-
Legislative, mandatory.
Status: Directives in force; Commission proposals for revision of these
legislative?
directives expected to be adopted in 2023.
The Roadworthiness Directives aim to increase road safety in the EU and
Brief description
to ensure the environmental performance of vehicles, by means of
regular testing of vehicles throughout their operational lifetime. They
contribute also to reducing air pollutant emissions by detecting more
effectively vehicles that are over-emitting due to technical defects, as the
rules require periodic technical inspections and roadside inspections.
In the view of digital transformation of EU road transport, the revision of
these Directives aims to improve road safety, contribute to more
sustainable and smarter mobility and to facilitate and simplify the free
movement of people and goods in the Union. The specific objectives
include ensuring the functioning of modern electronic safety
components, advanced driver assistance systems and automated
functions during the vehicles’ lifetime, performing meaningful emission
tests during vehicle inspections and improving the electronic storage,
read-out and exchange of roadworthiness-relevant vehicle identification
and status data between EU Member States as well as performance data,
building amongst others also on the digitalisation of administrative
documents and certificates.
Interaction with the
One of the objectives of the ELV revision is to increase the collection of
ELV and 3R type-
ELVs in the EU. This aim is to be achieved, inter alia, by introducing
requirements concerning export of used vehicles outside the EU, making
approval revision
exports dependent on the vehicles being roadworthy. Therefore, the
assessment of vehicle’s roadworthiness will be even more important
under the new legal framework. Introducing these requirements will
contribute to increasing the safety on the roads also outside the EU, as
well as the level of environmental protection.
16
Clean Vehicles’ Directive
43
Legislative or non-
Legislative, mandatory.
Status: Directive in force.
legislative?
The directive aims at promoting and stimulating the market for clean and
Brief description
energy-efficient vehicles. It requires Member States to ensure that
contracting authorities and contracting entities take into account lifetime
energy and environmental impacts, including energy consumption and
emissions of CO
2
and of certain pollutants, when procuring certain road
transport vehicles categories. The Directive defines ‘clean light-duty
42
Directive 2014/45/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 3 April 2014 on periodic roadworthiness tests for
motor vehicles and their trailers and repealing Directive 2009/40/EC (OJ L 127, 29.4.2014, p. 51–128) and Directive
2014/47/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 3 April 2014 on the technical roadside inspection of the
roadworthiness of commercial vehicles circulating in the Union and repealing Directive 2000/30/EC (OJ L 127, 29.4.2014, p.
134–218).
43
Directive (EU) 2019/1161 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 June 2019 amending Directive 2009/33/EC
on the promotion of clean and energy-efficient road transport vehicles (OJ L 188, 12.7.2019, p. 116–130).
 kom (2023) 0451 - Ingen titel
2734812_0022.png
vehicles’ by referring to emission levels and ‘clean heavy-duty vehicles’
referring to types of fuels used by this vehicle. The Directive sets
separate targets for each Member State, depending on the vehicle
category, for the periods 2.08.2021 – 13.12.2025 and 01.01.2026 –
31.12.2030. It applies to vehicles procured through purchase, lease, rent
or hire-purchase contracts, public service contracts and service contracts.
Interaction with the
The Directive aims to ensure, that public authorities procure vehicles that
ELV and 3R type-
do not emit certain amounts of substances to the air during the usage
phase. It does not allow for addressing other important environmental
approval revision
aspects, such as circularity in design – it mentions recyclability aspects
only in a recital
44
, which focuses further on batteries. This legal
instrument cannot be used currently to address issues of vehicles’
reusability, recyclability and recoverability.
Therefore, in order to ensure that circularity is also taken into account
then procuring vehicles, the revision of the Clean Vehicles’ Directive,
currently planned for 2027, will aim to include minimum green public
procurement criteria related to vehicles circularity – their recyclability,
reusability and recoverability characteristics in the revised Directive.
44
Recital 20.
 kom (2023) 0451 - Ingen titel
A
NNEX
11: 3R T
YPE
-
APPROVAL
D
IRECTIVE
E
VALUATION REPORT
EVALUATION of Directive 2005/64/EC on the type-approval of motor vehicles with
regard to their reusability, recyclability and recoverability (‘3R’ Type-approval
Directive)
Contents
ANNEX 11: 3R TYPE-APPROVAL DIRECTIVE EVALUATION REPORT.......................... 331
11.1 Introduction............................................................................................................... 333
11.1.1
11.1.2
P
URPOSE OF THE EVALUATION
............................................................................. 333
S
COPE OF THE EVALUATION
................................................................................. 335
11.2 What was the expected outcome of the intervention?............................................... 336
11.2.1
11.2.2
D
ESCRIPTION OF THE INTERVENTION AND ITS OBJECTIVES
.................................. 336
P
OINT OF COMPARISON
......................................................................................... 340
11.3 How has the situation evolved over the evaluation period?...................................... 341
11.3.1
11.3.2
C
URRENT STATE OF PLAY
..................................................................................... 341
M
EMBER
S
TATE IMPLEMENTATION OF THE
3R D
IRECTIVE
.................................. 343
11.4 Evaluation findings (analytical part) ......................................................................... 345
11.4.1 T
O WHAT EXTENT WAS THE INTERVENTION SUCCESSFUL AND
WHY
?
345
I
NTERNAL COHERENCE OF THE
3R D
IRECTIVE AND COHERENCE WITH THE
ELV D
IRECTIVE
.................................................................................................................... 357
C
OHERENCE WITH THE
W
ASTE
F
RAMEWORK
D
IRECTIVE AND
REACH ............................. 358
C
OHERENCE WITH
ISO 22628:2002
AND
UNECE ............................................................... 359
11.4.2 H
OW DID THE
EU
INTERVENTION MAKE A DIFFERENCE AND TO
WHOM
? 360
11.4.3 I
S THE INTERVENTION STILL RELEVANT
? ............................................................. 362
11.5 What are the conclusions and lessons learned? ........................................................ 365
11.5.1
11.5.2
C
ONCLUSIONS
....................................................................................................... 365
L
ESSONS LEARNT
.................................................................................................. 370
11.6 Evaluation matrix...................................................................................................... 372
11.7 Overview of benefits and costs ................................................................................. 379
 kom (2023) 0451 - Ingen titel
2734812_0024.png
Glossary
Term or acronym
3R
Meaning or definition
Reusability, recyclability and recoverability (also reuse, recycling and
recovery)
Directive 2005/64/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26
October 2005 on the type-approval of motor vehicles with regard to their
reusability, recyclability and recoverability and amending Council
Directive 70/156/EEC
European Automobile Manufacturers Association
Authorised Treatment Facility
Carbon-fibre-reinforced plastic
End-of-life vehicles
Directive 2000/53/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 18
September 2000 on end-of life vehicles
European Union
The 27 Member States of the European Union
International Dismantling Information System
German Federal Motor Transport Authority (Kraftfahrt-Bundesamt)
Regulation (EC) No 1907/2006 of the European Parliament and of the
Council of 18 December 2006 concerning the Registration, Evaluation,
Authorisation and Restriction of Chemicals (REACH)
Small and medium enterprises
Staff Working Document
Treaty establishing the European Community
Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union
United Nations Economic Commission for Europe
3R Directive
ACEA
ATF
CFRP
ELV
ELV Directive
EU
EU-27
IDIS
KBA
REACH
SMEs
SWD
TEC
TFEU
UNECE
 kom (2023) 0451 - Ingen titel
2734812_0025.png
11.1 Introduction
Directive 2005/64/EC on the type-approval of motor vehicles with regard to their
reusability, recyclability and recoverability
45
(hereinafter, the “3R Directive”) was
adopted in 2005. This Directive is part of the EU type-approval framework, which
ensures that motor vehicles meet certain safety, environmental, and technical standards
before they can be sold and used in the European Union (EU). The framework is based
on several pieces of EU legislation that set out the requirements for type approval. The
type-approval process is administered by national type-approval authorities and involves
the review of technical and test data and the performance of tests to ensure that the
vehicles meet the required standards.
The 3R Directive is the main piece of EU legislation linking the design of new vehicles
with their reusability, recyclability and recoverability. The main motivation for its
adoption was the need to ensure coherence between the type-approval procedures
46
and
the obligations contained under the Directive 2000/53/EC on end-of-life vehicles
47
(hereinafter referred to as the “ELV Directive”). The latter contains rules on the
collection, treatment and recovery of end-of-life vehicles and their components, as well
as restrictions on hazardous substances in new vehicles.
Neither the 3R Directive, nor the ELV Directive have undergone substantial revision
since their respective adoptions in 2005 and 2000. Meanwhile, the way type-approval is
carried out in the EU has known plenty of changes. The European regulatory framework
has been revised to restore the confidence in the type-approval system and to include
controls during market surveillance. Regulation (EU) 2018/858
48
has introduced from
September 2020 new related EU type-approval rules (better quality and independence of
vehicle type-approval and testing authorities, more controls of technical services, more
checks on the roads, new EU wide recalls and penalties).
11.1.1 11.1.1 Purpose of the evaluation
This evaluation is being carried out following the presentation of the European Green
Deal
49
in December 2019 as a new growth strategy that will foster the transition to a
climate-neutral, resource-efficient and competitive economy. Both the European Green
Deal and the new Circular Economy Action Plan
50
contain a commitment to review the
legislation on end-of-life vehicles with the aim to “promote more circular business
models by linking design issues to end-of-life treatment, consider rules on mandatory
recycled content for certain materials, and improve recycling efficiency”. This is in line
with the New Industrial Strategy
51
, which promotes continued efforts towards sustainable
45
Directive 2005/64/EC
on the type-approval of motor vehicles with regard to their reusability, recyclability and
recoverability.
46
Council Directive 70/156/EEC
on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to the type-approval
of motor vehicles and their trailers.
47
Directive 2000/53/EC
on end-of life vehicles.
48
Regulation (EU) 2018/858
on the approval and market surveillance of motor vehicles and their trailers, and of
systems, components and separate technical units intended for such vehicles.
49
COM(2019) 640 final,
The European Green Deal.
50
COM(2020) 98 final,
A new Circular Economy Action Plan.
51
COM(2020) 102 final,
A New Industrial Strategy for Europe,
COM(2021) 350 final,
Updating the 2020 New
Industrial Strategy: Building a stronger Single Market for Europe’s recovery.
333
 kom (2023) 0451 - Ingen titel
2734812_0026.png
product design to strengthen the competitiveness of Europe’s industry. The reason for
this being that, increasing circularity in the automotive sector can deliver substantial
material savings throughout the value chain and production processes, generate extra
value and unlock economic opportunities.
To confirm the need for a review of the end-of-life vehicle legislation, an evaluation of
the ELV Directive
52
was carried out and published in March 2021. This evaluation also
touched upon some of the 3R elements and illustrated that the 3R Directive provides
useful information how to demonstrate reusability, recyclability and recoverability.
However, some of its provisions were found to be unclear, leaving room for
interpretation that could weaken its objectives. In addition, the evaluation of the ELV
Directive pointed out that no monitoring mechanism for the implementation of the 3R
rates has been put in place by the Member States or the vehicle manufacturers. Lastly,
this evaluation raised that the 3R Directive has not appeared to incentivise the transition
to a circular economy in the automotive sector. While the latter was not an explicit
objective of the Directive, it potentially affects its relevance in today’s context of the new
Circular Economy Action Plan.
Although the evaluation of the ELV Directive contains brief conclusions on the
functioning of the 3R Directive, no formal evaluation of the latter has so far been carried
out. Hence, the purpose of this evaluation of the 3R Directive is to analyse to what
extend the Directive has achieved its objectives and has led to environmental
improvements. In line with the Better Regulation Guidelines
53
, the evaluation examines
five evaluation criteria, namely: the effectiveness, efficiency, coherence, EU added value
and relevance. In particular, the evaluation investigates the following:
Effectiveness:
the extent to which the actions defined under the Directive have been
implemented and whether this has resulted in achieving the 3R objectives;
Efficiency:
assessing whether the obligations arising from the implementation of
the 3R Directive have been implemented in a cost-effective way and if there is a
potential for further synergies to strengthen delivery while minimising costs and
administrative burden, including impact on SMEs;
Coherence:
assessing coherence of the 3R Directive with the EU wide policy
objectives on circular economy, as well as possible inconsistencies and overlaps of
the 3R Directive with other related EU legislation;
EU added value:
assessing what has been the added value of the 3R Directive
compared to what Member States could have achieved acting alone at national or
international level;
Relevance:
assessing whether the issues addressed by the 3R Directive still match
current needs and contribute to solutions to issues addressed by wider EU policies
on circular economy, climate change, plastics, resource efficiency, raw materials,
etc.
52
SWD(2021) 60 final
Commission Staff Working Document Evaluation of Directive (EC) 2000/53 on end-of-life
vehicles.
53
https://ec.europa.eu/info/sites/default/files/br_toolbox_-_nov_2021_-_chapter_6.pdf
334
 kom (2023) 0451 - Ingen titel
Since the adoption of the 3R Directive in 2005, the automotive sector has undergone
considerable changes. The ongoing transition to greener, decarbonised mobility
represents a further transformation of the business model and manufacturing practices of
the sector, notably with the increase in rare earth elements used in electric vehicles,
which are mainly imported from China. In addition, the current geo-political landscape
and the related supply chain disruptions and corresponding shortages of the early 2020s
stress the relevance of moving towards more circularity in the automotive industry
through improving recycling efficiency on the one hand and increasing the use of
recycled materials in the production of new vehicles on the other hand. In that way, a
further circular transition would allow for improved mitigation of price volatility and
supply risk.
The Commission decided to follow a back-to-back approach in which the evaluation of
the 3R Directive and the joint impact assessment for the revision of both the ELV and the
3R Directive are conducted in parallel as a single process. The findings of the 3R
evaluation will be used to provide further reflection on where improvements may be
needed at the vehicle design and type-approval stage to further facilitate the transition to
a circular automotive industry. Potential issues or pitfalls of the back-to-back approach
were identified on a continuous basis. An example of this is the formulation of problems
identified and preliminary policy options following the evaluation, which were
subsequently targeted in the impact assessment of the joint revision of the ELV and the
3R Directive.
11.1.2 11.1.2 Scope of the evaluation
This evaluation covers Directive 2005/64/EC on the type-approval of motor vehicles with
regard to their reusability, recyclability and recoverability and Commission Directive
2009/1/EC amending, for the purposes of its adaptation to technical progress, Directive
2005/64/EC (the 3R Directive).
It should be noted that the current 3R Directive only sets requirements for the light-duty
segment –i.e., M1 and N1 vehicles (cars and vans). Today, no similar legislation is in
place for the heavy-duty segment, or for L-category vehicles (which include
motorcycles). This is consistent with the scope of the ELV Directive, from which the 3R
Directive derives.
The evaluation covers the period from the adoption of the 3R Directive in 2005 up until
the recent past (2022). Geographically, the evaluation focuses on the achievements of the
3R Directive in the European Union. Hence, the evaluation covers the EU-27 Member
States and additionally considers the implementation in former Member State, the United
Kingdom. Therefore, this report analyses both the issues deriving from the nature of the
legislation itself as well as those deriving from its transposition and implementation in
Member States, including monitoring and enforcement.
However, the EU automotive sector is not an isolated sector, since many of the
manufacturers and their suppliers selling vehicles on the EU market are global players.
These players come in direct contact with other requirements in terms of vehicle design
and production on other major market, which will be considered throughout the analysis.
335
 kom (2023) 0451 - Ingen titel
2734812_0028.png
This staff working document is supported by a study on the evaluation of the 3R
Directive and the impact assessment for the review of the ELV and the 3R Directive and
its effectiveness, which was carried out from August 2020 to December 2022
54
.
The methodology followed for the evaluation of the 3R Directive included a stakeholder
consultation and the performance of ten targeted interviews with type-approval
stakeholders, followed by targeted consultation through a survey of additional
stakeholders (type-approval authorities, technical services, vehicle manufacturers and
component suppliers) and a targeted review of the 3R Directive and its linkages to the
ELV Directive
55
.
This evaluation of the 3R Directive has several limitations. Firstly, it is difficult to
accurately measure the environmental impact of the directive, as this would have
required long-term data collection and analysis, both on the design characteristics of new
vehicles as they enter the EU market and on their treatment at their end of life. Due to a
lack of detailed monitoring requirements in both the 3R and the ELV Directives, such
detailed historic data are not available. Second, the impact of the 3R Directive on the
automotive industry and the wider economy is difficult to isolate from that of the 3R
Directive and from technical progress and general automotive industry trends towards
greater sustainability. The costs and benefits of the directive for vehicle manufacturers,
consumers, and the environment (and their complex interactions across value chains)
were particularly difficult to assess quantitatively.
11.2 What was the expected outcome of the intervention?
To minimise the environmental impact of vehicles as they reach their end-of-life stage,
vehicle manufacturers should take incorporate waste minimisation into vehicle design
considerations. The 3R Directive therefore establishes the link between the design and
production stages of certain road vehicles and their end-of-life treatment by setting type-
approval requirements for these vehicles regarding their reusability, recyclability and
recoverability. It lays down the administrative and technical provisions for the
implementation of the minimum rates for the reuse and recovery of end-of-life vehicles
set out in Article 7 of the ELV Directive. Vehicles of categories M1 and N1 can only be
placed on the European internal market if the manufacturer is able to demonstrate that
vehicles are either re-usable, recyclable, or recoverable at least up to the ‘3R rates’ of
reusability, recyclability and recoverability set by the 3R Directive.
11.2.1 11.2.1 Description of the intervention and its objectives
The evaluation of the ELV Directive describes how discussions on waste from ELVs date
back to the 1970s. Back then, the main concerns were the illegal disposal of hazardous
waste and the difficulties to treat plastic waste derived from ELVs. Increasing quantities
Baron, Y.; Kosińska-Terrade, I.; Loew, C.; Köhler, A.; Moch, K.; Sutter, J.; Graulich, K.; Adjei, F.; Mehlhart, G.:
Study to support the impact assessment for the review of Directive 2000/53/EC on End-of-Life Vehicles by Oeko-
Institut, June 2023.
55
The fourteen-week public stakeholder consultation was carried out between 20 July and 26 October 2021 as well as
an extensive targeted stakeholder consultation carried out late 2021 and early 2022, stakeholder workshops and
Member State meetings in March 2022, and extensive desk research.
54
336
 kom (2023) 0451 - Ingen titel
2734812_0029.png
of plastic waste were found in the Light Shredder Residues
56
(LSR) and, due to their
limited compacting characteristics, took up a large amount of volume within landfills,
while their incineration was challenging as it required pre-treatment operations.
57
In
addition, other environmental and health risks, such as contamination of the metal scrap
with heavy metals, raised public concerns.
As a response, under the Article 175(1) TEC (current Article 192 TFEU), the ELV
Directive was adopted in 2000 to minimise the impact of ELVs on the environment and
to improve the environmental performance of all the economic operators involved in the
life-cycle of vehicles. To achieve this, the ELV Directive set rules on the collection,
treatment and recovery of end-of-life vehicles and their components, as well as
restrictions on hazardous substances in new vehicles. These rules include quantified
targets (by weight) for the re-use and recycling (85%) of ELVs
as well
as re-use and
recovery (95%) of components
from ELVs.
For such targets to be achieved, the ELV Directive requires that vehicles should be
designed and manufactured in a way that allows this. The need to incorporate end-of-life
measures in the design of new vehicles was first realised in the 1990s.
58
At that time,
bilateral agreements were concluded between vehicle manufacturers and Member States
– first in France and the Netherlands, later in other Members States – that aimed at
setting realistic recycling and recovery targets. Subsequently, the concept of ‘design to be
recycled’ was brought into the design criteria of vehicles meant for the EU market by
vehicle manufacturers active in research in recycling processing.
To translate the above into binding legal requirements at EU level, the ELV Directive
committed to the preparation of an amendment for the European vehicle type-approval
legislation in which new vehicle models are tested and granted type-approval to meet a
minimum set of regulatory and technical requirements before being placed on the EU
market (Article 7(4) of the ELV Directive).
Figure 11.1 gives an overview of how the overarching needs or problems were translated
into general and specific objectives for the 3R Directive. These objectives were in turn
translated into specific activities at EU level. That way, the 3R Directive aimed at
ensuring the dual objectives of (i) ensuring the coherence between the type-approval
procedures for new vehicles and the obligations contained in the ELV Directive and (ii)
protecting the environment and human health by reducing the final disposal of waste
from ELVs while ensuring the proper functioning of the Internal Market. The
intervention logic of how the Directive was expected to work can be summarised along
two main actions:
56
Light
Shredder Residue are all the light fractions left over from recycling ELVs. This material contains many
different materials: plastics, rubber, glass, sand, textiles, wood, metals, and others.
57
The treatment of exhaust gas of waste incinerators was less developed at that time.
58
COM(2004) 162 final.
Proposal for a Directive on the type-approval of motor vehicles with regard to their re-
usability, recyclability and recoverability and amending Council Directive 70/156/EEC.
337
 kom (2023) 0451 - Ingen titel
2734812_0030.png
Figure 11.1 – Intervention logic of type-approval Directive 2005/64/EC on vehicle reusability,
recyclability and recoverability
A. Set administrative and technical provisions for the type-approval of vehicles with a
view to ensuring their component parts and materials can be reused, recycled and
recovered
The main requirements set in place by the 3R Directive directly translates the targets of
the ELV Directive into design requirements for vehicles. In particular, the 3R Directive
prescribes that M1 and N1 vehicles (cars and vans) shall be constructed as to be:
reusable and/or recyclable to a minimum of 85 % by mass, and;
reusable and/or recoverable to a minimum of 95 % by mass.
To verify this, the 3R Directive includes three main administrative and technical
elements. A first element introduced in the 3R Directive is the preliminary assessment of
the manufacturer to be carried out by the competent authority before granting any type-
approval. Through this assessment, the manufacturers must demonstrate that they
manage properly the collection of relevant data received from their suppliers with a view
to calculating the recyclability and recoverability rates for any version within a vehicle
type to be produced. In this context, the manufacturers should inform the authorities of
the strategy they recommend in the field of re-use, recycling and recovery. After the
338
 kom (2023) 0451 - Ingen titel
2734812_0031.png
competent authority has completed all necessary checks of the preliminary assessment, it
will issue a certificate of compliance to ascertain that the manufacturer satisfies the
obligations under the Directive. This certificate is designated ‘Certificate of Compliance
with Annex IV to Directive 2005/64/EC’.
Secondly,
compliance with the requirements of the Directive shall be verified in
accordance with general rules on vehicle type-approval.
During the type-approval
process, the manufacturers shall demonstrate that the vehicle type has been designed and
constructed to meet the above rates. The calculation of these shall be carried out on
calculation sheets conform to the standards ISO 22628:2002
59
to be submitted to the
type-approval authority or designated technical service. Subsequently, the latter issues a
validation of the calculation in the light of the above documentation of the certificate of
compliance and should conduct physical controls on vehicle prototypes to verify the
information submitted by the manufacturer and its suppliers.
Third, in-line with the commonly applied worst-case approach in vehicle type-approval
and for the sake of simplification, detailed calculations are restricted to those vehicles
within the type that are expected to constitute the greatest challenge in reusability,
recyclability and recoverability – i.e., reference vehicle(s).
B. Set specific provision to ensure that the re-use of component parts does not give rise
to safety or environmental hazards
To ensure that road safety and the protection of the environment are not impaired by the
re-use of component parts, the 3R Directive contains a list of component parts, which are
not allowed to be re-used in the construction of new vehicles (Table 11.1). These parts
play a key role in the protection of vehicle occupants and in the general safe use of
vehicles making that reusing them in another vehicle after being dismantled from end-of-
life vehicles would entail many risks.
Table 11.1 - List of component parts deemed to be non-reusable from Annex V of Directive
2005/64/EC
–
List of component parts deemed to non-reusable
All airbags (1), including cushions, pyrotechnic actuators, electronic control units and
sensors
Automatic or non-automatic seat belt assemblies, including webbing, buckles, retractors,
pyrotechnic actuators
Seats (only in cases where safety belt anchorages and/or airbags are incorporated in the seat)
Steering lock assemblies acting on the steering column
Immobilisers, including transponders and electronic control units
Emission after-treatment systems (e.g., catalytic converters, particulate filters)
Exhaust silencers
59
ISO 22628:2002
on Road vehicles — Recyclability and recoverability — Calculation method.
339
 kom (2023) 0451 - Ingen titel
2734812_0032.png
While separate legislation on safety and environmental vehicle type-approval was
already in place
60
, there was not yet any harmonised legislation to ensure that reused
component parts continue to offer the same level of performance that is required to
obtain type-approval. Component parts such as catalytic converters and exhaust silencers,
dismantled from end-of-life vehicles, cannot be guaranteed to offer the required level of
environmental protection. In addition, it is extremely difficult to check whether
dismantled parts from end-of-life vehicles will meet the durability requirements as
provided for in the relevant separate legislation on the Euro standards for vehicle
emissions.
61
Similarly, separate legislation was already in place providing test procedures
to ensure that component parts such as safety belts and airbags operate safely in the case
of accidents.
62
The test procedures entailed resistance tests to traction as well as
durability tests on retractors, which can only be performed on prototype parts
representative of production parts. Such tests performed on reusable component parts
would render them unfit for use.
To adapt 3R to technical progress, the Directive underwent a minor amendment in
Commission Directive 2009/1/EC.
63
This amendment was appropriate to ensure that
competent authorities can verify –for the purpose of reusability, recyclability and
recoverability– the existence of contractual arrangements between the vehicle
manufacturer concerned and his suppliers and the communication of arrangements.
11.2.2 11.2.2 Point of comparison
The achievements of the 3R Directive will be assessed and compared to a baseline. In
this context, the baseline is defined by the date of entry into force of the Directive (2005).
Back then, no formal impact assessment of the intervention with an assessment of how
the situation would have developed and what could have happened in the absence of the
intervention (i.e., counterfactual) was carried out, which limits the possibility to present a
comprehensive overview of the original baseline. Nevertheless, the evaluation considers
the situation prior to the adoption of the Directive. Considering that the ELV Directive
was adopted in 2000, the additional achievements of the 3R Directive over the initial
achievements of this closely linked Directive will be assessed to the extent possible.
As indicated above, the ELV Directive committed to the preparation of an amendment to
the European vehicle type-approval legislation in which new vehicle models are tested
and granted type-approval to meet a minimum set of requirements regarding their
reusability, recyclability and recoverability before entering the EU market. Still, the ELV
Directive includes some other provisions to improve vehicle design and production in
this context.
60
In this respect, most of the component parts listed as non-reusable cannot be tested on new vehicle types because the
test procedures already required destructive or durability tests to be performed on several samples.
61
At the time of the proposal of the 3R Directive, Euro 3 was in the process of being revised for the purpose of Euro 4.
62
Commission Directive 96/37/EC
of 17 June 1996 adapting to technical progress Council Directive
74/408/EEC relating to the interior fittings of motor vehicles (strength of seats and of their anchorages)
OJ L 186, 25.7.1996, p. 28.
63
Commission Directive 2009/1/EC
of 7 January 2009 amending, for the purposes of its adaptation to technical
progress, Directive 2005/64/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council on the type-approval of motor
vehicles with regard to their reusability, recyclability and recoverability.
340
 kom (2023) 0451 - Ingen titel
2734812_0033.png
Firstly, the Directive requires Member States to promote the prevention of waste by
encouraging the design and production of new vehicles which take into full account and
facilitate the dismantling, reuse and recovery, in particular the recycling, of end-of life
vehicles, their components and materials.
Secondly, under the ELV Directive the Member States shall require in each case the
relevant economic operators to publish information on the design of vehicles and their
components with a view to their recoverability and recyclability.
Although it is highly unlikely that these two provisions – one being an encouragement
and the other being an information requirement – would have the same results on the
actual reusability, recyclability and recoverability of end-of-life vehicles as the 3R type-
approval Directive, the ELV Directive provisions could in principle have led to some
improvements in the baseline after 2000. However, the evaluation of the ELV Directive
64
which dived into the specific achievements of the provisions on vehicle design and
production, contradicts this assumption. The evaluation found that the provisions in the
ELV Directive are insufficiently specific and measurable, while several enforcement
problems were also identified for the whole ELV Directive. No information is available
which shows that Member States have taken measures in this context. Therefore, we can
assume that these provisions had little to no impact on the design and manufacturing of
new vehicles making it unlikely that the ELV Directive alone has resulted in new
vehicles being easier to dismantle and recycle than they were in 2000.
Some interesting initiatives have been adopted by some car manufacturers, notably to
promote the reuse of spare parts, the remanufacturing of components or recycling of
materials, as well as the use of recycled materials. These initiatives were taken on a
voluntary basis and cannot be traced back to the implementation of the ELV Directive
and 3R Directive. This shows that due to business incentives, some improvements in
vehicle design for reusability, recyclability and recoverability would most probably still
have taken place, even in the absence of the 3R Directive.
Due to a lack of data, this evaluation cannot quantify what share of today’s
improvements is a direct result of the 3R Directive distinctly from the share due to the
ELV Directive or other business incentives.
11.3 How has the situation evolved over the evaluation period?
11.3.1 11.3.1 Current state of play
The 3R Directive indicates that the preliminary assessment of the manufacturer and the
issuing of a certificate of compliance in accordance with the 3R prescriptions shall be
carried out by a competent body. The competent body may be a technical service or type-
approval authority, provided its competence in this field is properly documented.
Since there are no reporting requirements for Member States on the implementation of
the Directive, evaluating the 3R implementation comes with challenges. Still, the new
type-approval framework Regulation reinforces the type-approval testing of new cars and
64
See footnote 52.
341
 kom (2023) 0451 - Ingen titel
2734812_0034.png
vans on the EU market and where tests and investigations show non-compliance, the
market surveillance authority of the Member State can decide to demand a recall or, in
severe cases, full withdrawal from the market.
For the 3R Directive to contribute to circularity of the automotive sector, vehicle types
that are granted a 3R type-approval first need to find their way to the European vehicle
fleet before eventually being treated at an Authorised Treatment Facility (ATF) as an
end-of-life vehicle. Article 10 of the 3R Directive illustrates that the requirements were
to be implemented in type-approval in three distinct stages. These stages are summarised
in Table 11.2. Only from July 2010 on, five years after the adoption of the Directive,
were all new cars and vans entering the EU market required to be type-approved in line
with the 3R prescriptions. Considering that the service life of vehicles routinely spans
twenty years and beyond, the share of vehicles type-approved under the 3R regime in the
vehicles that are currently reaching the end-of-life stage is still expected to be limited
(with differences across EU Member States).
Table 11.2 – Implementation roadmap of the 3R Directive in type-approval
Implementation stages of 3R Directive in type-approval
1
2
3
Allowed for new type of vehicles / new vehicles*
Required for new type of vehicles
Required for new vehicles
12/2006
12/2008
07/2010
*Article 7 on the reuse of component parts also applied from this date.
In addition, observations from other type-approval legislation indicate that most vehicle
manufacturers are not early implementers of new type-approval requirements. Taking
this into account, Figure 11.2 makes a rough visualisation of the share of 3R type-
approved vehicles in the current EU vehicle fleet for cars and vans.
65
In 2020, only about
55% of cars and vans in the EU vehicle fleet were expected to be 3R type- approved. To
put these developments in the context of ELVs, Figure 11.3 displays the annual number
of new registrations of 3R type-approved vehicles against the annual number of vehicles
leaving the EU fleet and the share of ELVs in this last number. In every year of the 8-
year period, the new vehicle registrations for cars and vans 3R type- approved outweigh
the number of vehicles leaving the fleet which confirms the continuous growth in the EU
fleet.
65
This approximation of the cumulative number of registered vehicles conform to the 3R Directive does not consider
new vehicles conform to the Directive before July 2010 and/or early termination of new vehicles conform with the
Directive.
342
 kom (2023) 0451 - Ingen titel
2734812_0035.png
Figure 11.2 – Approximation of 3R type-approved vehicles in the EU vehicle fleet for cars and
vans between 2011 and 2019, based on: ACEA66
Figure 11.3 – Annual number of vehicle registrations in comparison to the number of vehicles
leaving the EU fleet between 2012 and 2019, based on: ACEA
67
and Eurostat
68
11.3.2 11.3.2 Member State implementation of the 3R Directive
Many national and Commission reports have been published regarding the
implementation of the ELV Directive. However, the progress of the implementation of
the 3R Directive has not been documented in the same manner throughout Member
66
ACEA, 2022. Size and distribution of the EU vehicle fleet; ACEA, 2022. Passenger car registrations in Europe
1990-2021, by country; ACEA, 2022. Vehicles in use Europe 2011-2021.
67
See footnote 66 (ACEA data).
68
Eurostat, 2021.
End-of-life vehicle statistics.
343
 kom (2023) 0451 - Ingen titel
2734812_0036.png
States. All Member States transposed the Directive 2005/64/EC within their national
deadlines between 2006 and 2007. Subsequently, Directive 2009/1/EC, amending the 3R
Directive, was transposed in all Member States between 2009 and 2010.
69
An overview
of the national transposition is presented in Table 11. 3.
Table 11. 3 – Overview of national transposition of 3R Directive and amendment 2009/1/EC
70
Member State
Austria
Belgium
Bulgaria
Croatia
Cyprus
Czechia
Denmark
Estonia
Finland
France
Germany
Greece
Hungary
Ireland
Italy
Latvia
Lithuania
Luxembourg
Malta
Netherlands
Poland
Portugal
Romania
Slovakia
Slovenia
Spain
Sweden
United Kingdom
Transposition 3R Directive
2005/64/EC
11.10.2007
03.10.2006
27.10.2006
2011
24.02.2006
06.08.2013
03.03.2006
01.06.2006
27.07.2006
09.05.2007
31.12.2005
18.04.2007
26.12.2006
25.04.2006
18.07.2007
04.07.2006
16.11.2006
07.04.2006
25.07.2006
07.12.2006
15.11.2006
16.05.2007
20.10.2005
15.12.2006
11.08.2006
23.02.2006
2006
2007
Transposition amendment
2009/1/EC
27.04.2010
01.10.2009
21.05.2010
2011
12.02.2010
06.08.2013
08.03.2010
13.06.2011
18.09.2009
06.05.2009
15.04.2009
17.02.2010
2010
04.05.2010
24.10.2009
31.12.2009
16.01.2010
14.01.2010
06.11.2009
29.06.2009
2010
12.03.2010
26.11.2009
03.02.2010
28.08.2009
27.03.2009
2010
2009
To date, no infringements have been recorded in relation to the 3R Directive,
which
could suggest that Member States are effectively implementing the measures regarding
the reusability, recyclability and recoverability of motor vehicles. However, this could
also be a direct result of the lacking reporting or monitoring obligations upon Member
States in the 3R Directive that hamper its enforcement.
69
The only exception being Croatia, which only became a Member State in 2013 and transposed the Directive
2009/1/EC in 2011.
70
Based on information from
https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/NIM/?uri=celex:32005L0064
and
https://eur-
lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/NIM/?uri=CELEX:32009L0001.
344
 kom (2023) 0451 - Ingen titel
2734812_0037.png
In general, this absence of reporting and monitoring obligations makes it particularly
difficult to obtain extensive data regarding the progress of the Directive’s
implementation. Moreover, Member States have differing monitoring and market
surveillance methods which hampers consistent practice. As an example, the
implementation of the 3R Directive in Member State Germany is elaborated further in
Box 11.1.
Box 11.1 – German implementation of the 3R Directive
In Germany, the Federal Motor Transport Authority (KBA) is the designated entity for
market surveillance regarding the 3R Directive. Amongst other measures, the KBA
oversees awarding manufacturers the ‘certificate of compliance with Annex IV’ once
they have an adequate 3R management strategy in place. Audi – which is part of
Volkswagen Group – was the first German brand that fulfilled the requirements of the
Directive even before its implementation, with most of its vehicle models being
recyclable to a high degree.
71
Later, also other German brands including BMW,
Volkswagen and Mercedes started to publish reports concerning their vehicle recycling
strategies. In the meantime, Germany set up a list of designated test laboratories to assist
the KBA with the attribution of the compliance certificate to vehicle manufacturers.
72
The German federal state of Sachsen-Anhalt published a handbook on how to monitor
the implementation of the ELV Directive, including what is required under the 3R
Directive to put vehicles on the EU market.
73
11.4 Evaluation findings (analytical part)
This section provides the analysis and the results for the five evaluation criteria of
effectiveness, efficiency, relevance, coherence, and EU added value. The findings
presented are based on the results from desk research, as well as results obtained through
stakeholder consultations.
11.4.1 11.4.1 To what extent was the intervention successful and why?
This section provides the analysis and the results for the evaluation criteria of
effectiveness, efficiency, and coherence.
11.4.1.1 Effectiveness
Evaluation question 1:
To what extent have the objectives of the 3R Directive been met
and monitored
Overall conclusion:
The 3R Directive has been effective in ensuring that the
recyclability, reusability and recoverability rates of vehicles under its scope (as evaluated
according to the ISO 22628:2002 standard at the type-approval stage) mirror the
71
72
Automobilwoche, 2007.
Audi erfüllt als erster EU-Richtlinie zum Recycling.
KBA, 2022.
Designated test laboratories (EU).
73
Ministerium für Landwirtschaft und Umwelt
(sachsen-anhalt.de) (pp. 10-11).
345
 kom (2023) 0451 - Ingen titel
2734812_0038.png
requirements of the ELV Directive on vehicle recycling, reuse and recovery at end of
life.
However, recyclability, recoverability and reusability have an uneven treatment in the 3R
Directive, which focuses mostly on recyclability and does not directly address
reusability. This is, to a considerable extent, driven by the ISO 22628:2002 standard
(Road Vehicles – Recyclability and recoverability – Calculation method). Whereas reuse
is implicitly covered by these the recyclability and recoverability rates, it is not specified
individually and thus there can be no requirement to report on reusability individually in
the calculation. The ISO 22628:2002 standard does define “reusability” separately and
specifies criteria for when a component can be considered as “reusable, recyclable or
both based on its dismantlability”. The logic of the standard results in no obligation for
manufacturers to provide separate data about the total weight and composition of
components with a greater potential for reuse.
A core part of the 3R type-approval process relates to the specification of components
and materials that are considered as recyclable. This is addressed in the ELV “pre-
treatment” and “dismantled” fractions that are covered by the ISO 22628:2002 standard
calculation. It is also addressed in the ISO 22628:2002 standard calculation section on
“metal separation” (i.e., all metals separated from the vehicle through shredding) and on
non-metallic residue treatment (specification of recyclable materials). On the other hand,
the 3R Directive does not distinguish between treatment technologies, aside from the
differentiation into pre-treated, dismantled, metal separation and non-metallic residue
treated fractions. If a treatment type falls under the definition of recycling
74
, it will be
counted towards achieving the reuse and recycling target. Thus, there is no prioritisation
of technologies that achieve higher recycling qualities or that reduce the losses of certain
materials.
In that sense, we can conclude that the 3R Directive has ensured the required levels of
recyclability and recoverability of the vehicles, but the method to qualify the recyclability
of the different components of the vehicles has resulted in a simplified process that
provides little granularity and does not support the most advanced recycling
technologies.
The 3R Directive has also ensured that reused components do not cause any safety or
environmental risk by providing a list of components parts that are banned from being
reused in new vehicles (such as airbags, seat belts and steering locks), and that the
materials used for the construction of a vehicle type comply with the provisions of
Article 4(2)(a) of the ELV Directive on the prevention of use of lead, mercury, cadmium
and hexavalent chromium in new vehicles.
Overall compliance with the requirements of the 3R Directive has been ensured by the
strength of the type-approval framework, which is upheld by the application of the
available enforcement mechanisms by EU Member State authorities. There is, however,
no systematic monitoring or studies that compare between the targets reported in type-
approval declarations of vehicle manufacturers for specific vehicle types and between
their actual performance at end-of-life.
Linked to the ELV Directive definition under Article 2(7): “‘recycling’ means the reprocessing in a production
process of the waste materials for the original purpose or for other purposes but excluding energy recovery. Energy
recovery means the use of combustible waste as a means to generate energy through direct incineration with or without
other waste but with recovery of the heat.”
74
346
 kom (2023) 0451 - Ingen titel
Effect of 3R Directive on achieving the targets ELV Directive
When assessing the interaction between the ‘3R requirements’ of the 3R Directive and
those of the ELV Directive, it is important to note the semantic differences between
them: whereas the requirements of the 3R Directive are on recyclability, reusability and
recoverability (i.e., on circularity potential of vehicles as evaluated at the design and
production stages), ELV Directive 3R requirements are on recycling, reuse and recovery
rates (i.e., on effective treatment rates at the end-of-life stage). Moreover, the
requirements apply to different actors (3R Directive requirements concern Member
States and vehicle manufacturers, whereas the ELV Directive requirements concern the
Member States) and at various levels (the 3R Directive operates at the vehicle type level,
ant the ELV Directive looks at aggregated annual level for the ‘average vehicle’, i.e., for
the flow of end-of-life vehicles, with no recycling rate targets applying specifically to
vehicle types or vehicle manufacturers). Therefore, although the nominal values of the
3R rates of both directives are the same (85% for reuse (reusability) and/or recycling
(recyclability) and 95% reuse (reusability) and/or recovery (recoverability), the targets
have distinct meanings and carry different consequences for authorities and economic
operators.
A second point to consider (also more generally when considering the interaction
between both Directives, beyond the 3R rates) is that the effect of 3R Directive
provisions on ELV Directive targets is mediated by the useful life of vehicle types and
the rate at which vehicles reach the end of life: at any given point, the vehicles reaching
authorised treatment facilities include vehicles that have been type approved decades
ago, vehicles that only very recently entered the market, and everything in between.
A third and last point to consider is that, whereas every Member State in the EU hosts
Authorised Treatment Facilities that process end-of-life vehicles, the number of 3R type
approvals performed per Member State varies largely. Some Member States have not
issued any 3R type approvals since Directive 2005/64/EC came into force (e.g., Latvia,
Finland) but do report on type approvals for second stage of N category vehicles. Some
Member States perform 3R type approvals regularly (between 6 and 9 annually).
The 3R Directive has remained as part of the EU type-approval framework for motor
vehicles through two major overhauls: after two revisions, Directive 70/156/EC on
the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to the type-approval of
motor vehicles and their trailers (referred to in the 3R Directive) was repealed by
Directive 2007/46/EC, which was in turn repealed by Regulation 2018/858/EU (Figure
11.4).
The changes made in the Regulation on type approval following the amendment
prescribed in Annex VI of Directive 2005/64/EC have been maintained throughout the
revisions. Therefore, the Regulation on type approval from 2018 further relates to the 3R
Directive (step 5 in Figure 11.4). Based on the amendment that 3R Directive, Annex VI
stipulates for the general type approval that, if the manufacturer does not meet the
requirements of the 3R Directive, no type approval shall be granted.
347
 kom (2023) 0451 - Ingen titel
2734812_0040.png
Figure 11.4 – Timeline of amendments of ELV Directive, 3R Directive and related type-approval
legislation. Source: Oeko-Institut.
According to the 3R Directive (recital 2), to facilitate the treatment of vehicles at their
end of life, ‘manufacturers should be requested to include [reusability, recyclability and
recoverability] at the earliest stages of the development of new vehicles’. This is
rephrased in recital 15 of the 3R Directive which states that ‘the objective of this
Directive [is] to minimize the impact of end-of-life vehicles on the environment by
requiring that vehicles be designed from the conception phase with a view to facilitating
reuse, recycling and recovery’. Both recitals point out the importance of the design phase
to ensure the effectiveness of the ELV Directive.
The 3R Directive has therefore acted as the link between the vehicle design and
production stages and the end-of-life stage by requiring that the design of a vehicle type
meets the requirements that ensure that it will not hinder the achievement of the ELV
Directive 3R targets that are relevant at the end-of-life stage of a vehicle. It is by virtue of
the slow replacement of old vehicles by new vehicles compliant with 3R Directive, and
by the gradual arrival of these vehicles at the end-of-life stage, that the flow of end-of-
life vehicles being treated at authorised treatment facilities became increasingly more
reusable, recyclable and recoverable. This is visible both in the historic and recent data
for the attainment of ‘3R rates’ for ELVs by the different EU Member States (Figures
11.5 and 11.6).
348
 kom (2023) 0451 - Ingen titel
2734812_0041.png
Figure 11.5 – Total recovery and reuse rate of end-of-life vehicles (% of weight of vehicles),
2008-2020. Source: Eurostat, 2021. End-of-life vehicle statistics.
Figure 11.6 – Reuse/recovery and reuse/recycling rate for end-of-life vehicles (% of weight of
vehicles), 2008-2020. Source: Eurostat, 2021. End-of-life vehicle statistics.
349
 kom (2023) 0451 - Ingen titel
Remaining obstacles in vehicle design
Under the ISO 22628:2002 calculation method, all materials considered to be recyclable
(even to a low degree) are fully accounted for compliance with the “reuse and recycling”
target. Two limitations are observed here in terms of the 3R type-approval process
facilitating recycling by fostering the necessary changes in vehicle design.
For the case of materials for which there are no available recycling capacities in the EU
at the time of type approval, the application of the ISO 22628:2002 standard leads to a
material being considered recyclable when there are technologies which have been
successfully tested, at least on a laboratory scale. The logic behind this is that vehicles
have a long service life (it is not rare for vehicle to remain in use for more than 20 years,
although a minority of vehicles can have much longer or much shorter lives, e.g., if they
are wrecked in an accident) in which it can be expected that a technology at laboratory
stage would reach maturity in terms of available recycling capacities. However, it is
observed that vehicles that have been type-approved may include materials in substantial
amounts that end up being poorly recyclable at end of life.
For materials that can be recycled, the ISO 22628:2002 standard prescribes that the full
weight of the material is considered for the calculation of the share of the vehicle that is
reused and recycled. Material losses during waste operations are not taken into
consideration, even though materials are not recycled at 100% efficiency. In addition,
there is no differentiation in this case between high-quality recycling (which generates
secondary raw materials that can be used in vehicle manufacture or equivalent uses) and
downcycling, such as backfilling or construction filling materials.
Achievements of the 3R Directive in preventing safety and environmental hazards from
reuse of components
The ELV Directive (in Art. 7(4)) refers to 3R targets as the only provision for which the
type-approval shall be used to ensure the compliance. In addition, Art. 7(5) of ELV
Directive states that amendment of Directive 70/156/EEC should also take consideration
that the reuse of components does not give rise to safety or environmental hazards.
Article 7 of the 3R Directive refers to the list of ‘Component parts deemed to be non-
reusable’ specified in its Annex V that cannot count toward recyclability and
recoverability rates and that cannot be used in the construction of vehicles covered by
type approval legislation. These parts (which include, among others, airbags, electronic
control units and sensors, seat belt assemblies, emission after-treatment systems and
exhaust silencers) play a key role in the protection of vehicle occupants and in the
general safe use of vehicles.
During the stakeholder consultation, upon being asked the question ‘One of the
objectives of the 3R Directive is to prevent safety and environmental hazards through
restrictions on re-use of certain component parts (e.g., airbags, seat belt assemblies). Has
this objective been achieved in your view?’, of the 34 stakeholders that responded, nine
agreed that the objective had been met, five did not agree and the rest did not know.
There is no evidence that these safety critical parts are reused in the construction of new
vehicles. The type-approval framework (beyond the 3R Directive) effectively prevents
350
 kom (2023) 0451 - Ingen titel
such reuse because the test procedures for such test components require destructive or
durability tests to be performed on several samples.
Reporting and monitoring the achievements of the 3R Directive
The lack of monitoring provisions in the 3R Directive has led to an absence of dedicated
monitoring of compliance with the 3R Directive. In any case, because the 3R Directive is
incorporated in the type-approval framework, type-approval authorities in each EU
Member State are responsible for ensuring that the vehicle types comply with the
provisions of the 3R Directive before the type approval can be granted and the type can
be placed in the market. It is likely that the relative simplicity and lack of ambiguity of
the text of the 3R Directive has facilitated a uniform application of its provisions by type-
approval authorities in the different Member States.
Hazardous substance and plastic coding provisions are specifically part of the checks to
be performed by the competent body (3R Directive, Annex IV). The legal text states that
‘the competent body shall ensure that the manufacturer has taken the necessary
measures’ and that ‘the vehicle manufacturer shall be required to demonstrate’ that
compliance is ensured. There are additional explanations as to what is accepted as a
necessary measure, e.g., supply chain management and communication with the
manufacturer’s staff. It is expected that where the competent body is checking these
requirements, they will find the requested information, as the legal text appears clear for
this aspect. In both cases, that is point 3.1(f) of Annex IV for the coding and Article 6(2)
of the 3R Directive and subsequently article 4.1 and 4.2 of Annex IV for the hazardous
substances, there is a reference made to the ELV Directive. These requirements being
checked in the preliminary assessment means that they are not checked for each vehicle
type to be approved. The 3R Directive, Annex II (‘Information Document for EC vehicle
type approval’) does not contain an information request on hazardous substances or
material coding. Therefore, documents and data as to how the manufacturer organizes the
information flows on hazardous substances and plastic coding in his value chain is being
checked every two years with the update of the preliminary assessment. But, for the types
approved, there is no indication whether they contain hazardous substances, e.g., where
ELV Directive annex II exemptions cover the use of a prohibited substance in a material
and/or component part. On the other hand, the masses obtained in the steps of the ISO
22628:2002 standard calculation, i.e., recyclability and recoverability are indicated for
each new type to be approved.
One instrument to ensure circularity of vehicles is the ‘strategy for dismantling, reuse of
component parts, recycling and recovery of materials’. The manufacturer submits the
strategy for dismantling etc. during the preliminary assessment phase (described in
Article 6 of the 3R Directive). Although the consultation process confirmed that the
strategies of the vehicles manufacturers are checked and approved by type-approval
authorities, in practice this strategy does not go beyond commitments to certain strategic
goals of the company and is not specific to the vehicles to be type-approved. It can be
assumed that this is because there are no explicit requirements as to the content of the
strategy, except for that it ‘shall take into account the proven technologies available or in
development at the time of the application for a vehicle type approval’. The purpose of
the dismantling strategy is not fully clear, and whether its current implementation is
relevant to the achievement of the goals of the 3R Directive goals may be questionable.
351
 kom (2023) 0451 - Ingen titel
2734812_0044.png
During the evaluation, it was investigated whether type-approval authorities performed
any sort of monitoring of the (actual) achievability of the (potential) 3R targets in the
type approval phase at end-of-life; i.e., whether the recyclability, reusability and
recoverability (potentials) translated into corresponding effective 3R when the vehicles
were disposed of. Most are not performing such monitoring, or even studies that look at
this aspect, and only one type-approval service provider taking part in the consultation
would occasionally visit authorised treatment facilities to see how dismantling is
performed and check how this compares with the data provided by the vehicle
manufacturer at type approval. This highlights the need to ‘close the circle’ and bridge
information and cooperation gaps between vehicle manufacturers, type-approval
authorities and vehicle dismantlers and recyclers.
Evaluation question 2:
How effective are the 3R provisions in verifying a vehicle’s
reusability, recyclability and recoverability?
Overall conclusion:
The 3R type-approval process requires manufacturers to compile
various data on the vehicle being type-approved as a means of showing its potential
reusability, recyclability and recoverability. Though the 3R type-approval process
requires manufacturers to specify recycled amounts separately, it does not require a
differentiation between qualities of recycling (high quality recycling vs. downcycling). It
also does not require taking recycling inefficiencies into account. For this reason, it
cannot be considered effective in facilitating recycling of components and material parts
to their highest recycling potential.
The scope of the ISO 22628:2002 standard refers to its use for the purpose of calculating
the “recyclability rate” and the “recoverability rate”. Reuse is covered by these two rates
but is not specified individually and thus there is also no requirement to report on reuse
individually in the calculation. The standard defines “reusability” separately and specifies
criteria for when a component can be considered as “reusable, recyclable or both based
on its dismantlability”, however, here too, there is no obligation for manufacturers to
provide separate data about e.g., the total weight and composition of components with a
potential for reuse.
Components removed for reuse or recycling prior to the shredder can be specified in the
data provided on the “pre-treated” fraction and on the “dismantled” fraction. For the
former, the standard specifies a list of components and materials for which data must be
provided. Many of these component parts and materials appear under the ELV Directive
Annex I, part 3 and 4 (e.g., depollution and removal requirements), though not all. For
the latter, i.e., the ‘dismantled fraction’, there is no specification, however the calculation
format provided in Annex A of the standard requires that data provided is specified in
relation to a specific component. In practice, it is understood that each manufacturer will
specify different components in this section, “based on the dismantling strategy”
75
.
The method of calculation set out through the reference to the ISO 22628:2002 standard
refers to specification of components that can be dismantled and reused, but it does not
require manufacturers to address reuse separately in their 3R type approval applications.
It can be understood that manufacturers rarely refer in their calculation to components
that can be reused as it is not possible to make a meaningful assumption of what
75
This observation is based on documents submitted as examples of type-approval submissions by a Type-approval
Authority), and confirmation with other stakeholders (Member State Type-approval Authorities).
352
 kom (2023) 0451 - Ingen titel
2734812_0045.png
components will be dismantled and reused in practice at end of life (because this depends
on several factors, notably the state of the parts once the vehicle reaches its end of life,
and the future demand for such parts).
However, different type approval documents submitted to the consultants as part of the
stakeholder input suggest that the number of components specified can vary greatly. Of
two submission examples, one specified a single component (material composition was
not specified) and the other close to twenty, of which all were composed of plastic aside
from a reference to glass. Based on the component types and composition, the
consultants assume that, in the latter case, the components were considered dismantlable
for the purpose of recycling. As dismantled components can be relevant for reuse and/or
recycling, it is concluded that a vehicle can achieve the 3R rates required at type approval
without referring to components that are relevant for reuse. This was explicitly confirmed
in a stakeholder interview and, more generally, most stakeholders stated that the
verification of reusability of parts and components of ELVs is not facilitated by the 3R
Directive.
Most stakeholders who were interviewed or surveyed (e.g., Member State type-approval
authorities but also vehicle manufacturers) support this view and specified that reuse is
not taken into consideration in the type-approval process. Various stakeholders
(including two vehicle manufacturers) explained that reuse is solely based on market
demand and that, in principle, every part is reusable – however it is not possible in the
design phase to estimate what will be reused when the demand is not yet known.
Evaluation question 3:
What are (other) benefits of the 3R Directive for industry,
environment and citizens?
Overall conclusion:
The other benefits of the 3R Directive are tied to the benefits of the
ELV Directive as far as the former plays a supporting role towards the objectives of the
latter. In this light, the environmental benefits of the 3R include avoided damages to the
environment due to improved handling of ELVs (i.e., increased rates of recovery,
recycling and reuse made possible by the changes in vehicle design supported by the 3R
Directive). Indirect benefits may include the lower environmental damage associated
with resource extraction avoided due to recycling and reuse of materials and components
from ELVs and avoided damage to human health due to exposure to hazardous
substances whose use is limited by 3R. Other social benefits include the employment and
income generation for employees across the EU in the dismantling sector and other
economic operators, the majority of which are small and medium enterprises (SMEs).
76
In addition, new employment may have been created at vehicle manufacturers in relation
to vehicle design considerations to ensure continued compliance of vehicles to be type
approved. As the range of design changes could vary between vehicles it is not possible
to estimate the range of this impact.
No evidence was found of a significant impact of the 3R Directive on spare part
availability (and, through it, of reduced costs of repairs for consumers).
76
See Evaluation of Directive (EC) 2000/53 of 18 September 2000 on end-of-life vehicles SWD(2021) 61 final,
section 5.1.
353
 kom (2023) 0451 - Ingen titel
2734812_0046.png
A precise quantification of these benefits that is distinct from the previous estimate of the
benefits of the ELV Directive is not possible from the (qualitative) evidence basis for the
evaluation of the 3R Directive.
11.4.1.2 Efficiency
Evaluation question 4:
What are the regulatory costs related to the 3R Directive and are
they affordable for industry and consumers? Has the 3R Directive caused unnecessary
regulatory burden or complexity?
Overall conclusion:
The regulatory costs of the 3R Directive derive from the increased
obligation on vehicle manufacturers to report to Member State authorities at the type
approval stage, from the changes to vehicle design necessitated by compliance with 3R
provisions, and from the administrative support that Member State authorities need to
provide to keep the 3R Directive as part of the type approval process.
The administrative costs for vehicle manufacturers and type-approval authorities are
modest compared to other aspects of type approval which are more cost intensive such as
safety or pollutant emissions (with more physical tests and engineering development
requirements) and which have seen a faster path of regulatory development in the period
covered by the evaluation.
The compliance costs of the 3R Directive for vehicle manufacturers are expected to be
passed to customers in full. Since the 3R Directive has been fully phased in since 2010 (it
applies to all newly registered vehicles under its scope), these costs are not expected to
increase in the future in absence of further regulatory intervention.
Regulatory costs of the 3R Directive, regulatory burden and complexity
When asked the question ‘Since its adoption in 2005, do the economic and environmental
benefits achieved by the 3R Directive in your view outweigh the cost of its
implementation?’, of a total of 31 participating stakeholders, twenty did not provide an
answer, however of those that did, the majority (five stakeholders) considered that
benefits are high or that costs are low (three stakeholders) or both (one stakeholder).
Only two stakeholders stated that benefits are too low and costs too high and one
stakeholder that benefits are too low.
The main costs of the 3R Directive for vehicle manufacturers relate to the provision of
the necessary supporting information to justify compliance for each type approval of
vehicles under scope. Unlike other aspects covered by type approval (vehicle safety,
emissions), the demonstration of compliance does not require the performance of
physical tests and is instead performed on a documentary basis. Information is provided
in the two steps of the 3R type approval, this is i) the preliminary assessment, and ii) the
type approval as such. The requirements as to what data must be provided, are listed in
Annex I (Requirements), Annex II (Information Document for EC vehicle type
approval), and IV (Preliminary Assessment).
The design of 3R provisions is such that the burden on vehicle manufacturers can be
partially mitigated when appropriate. For example, the 3R Directive makes use of the
concept of a reference vehicle to avoid the need to conduct repeated detailed calculations
under the ISO 22628:2002 process. The selection of a reference vehicle takes account of
the version within a type that will constitute the greatest challenge regarding reusability,
354
 kom (2023) 0451 - Ingen titel
2734812_0047.png
recyclability and recoverability. The 3R Directive, however, makes clear that all vehicles
covered by the type must comply, and that the selection of the reference vehicle should
be performed jointly by the manufacturer of the vehicle and the type-approval authority.
The exemptions applicable to special purpose vehicles (e.g., motorcaravans, armoured
vehicles, ambulances, hearses and others), multi-stage built vehicles belonging to
category N1 (provided that the base vehicle complies with the Directive) and vehicles
produced in small series have kept the type approval effort proportionate for SMEs.
Since the exempted vehicles are still covered by the ELV Directive, this has not
measurably hindered the recycling rates at end of life.
In other cases, the information required by the 3R Directive can be reused elsewhere. The
preliminary assessment of the manufacturer (according to Article 6(3) of the 3R
Directive) requires that the manufacturer prepare a strategy for dismantling, reuse,
recycling and recovery
77
. Although the consultation clarified that this strategy and the
documents that vehicle manufacturers prepare for the exchange of information using the
IDIS platform
78
are not the same, one vehicle manufacturer declared that they provide to
IDIS an adapted version of the strategy prepared to comply with Article 6(3) of the 3R
Directive. This indicates that the information needed to prepare the 3R strategy is already
available in a structured manner within manufacturers.
Compliance with provisions on coding of plastic parts and parts containing hazardous
substances are also checked in the preliminary assessment, thus, not per vehicle type, but
only whether manufacturers handle data properly and completely over the value chain.
This too has a moderating effect on the administrative burden on both vehicle
manufacturers and type-approval authorities.
Box 2 – The ELV Directive and the 3R Directive: together or separate?
During the consultation process for the revision of the ELV Directive, stakeholders were
asked about the possibility of merging the ELV and the 3R Directives together under one
legal text. No stakeholder clearly indicated their preference for a merge of 3R Directive
and ELV Directive. The participating Member States that perform 3R type approvals
were not in favour of a merge with the ELV Directive. China was provided as an
example where one legal instrument is in place, but the European market would be more
diverse, according to stakeholders.
An ACEA position paper refers to the positions of the automotive industry in relation to
the merge of 3R Directive and ELV Directive: ACEA “call[s] for the current legal
framework to be maintained.” Rather than focusing on recyclability, they would like to
77
According
to the definition in the 3R Directive, strategy’ means a large-scale plan consisting of coordinated actions
and technical measures to be taken as regards dismantling, shredding or similar processes, recycling and recovery of
materials to ensure that the targeted recyclability and recoverability rates are attainable at the time a vehicle is in its
development phase.
78
This is an industry-led platform for the exchange of manufacturer-compiled information to promote the
environmental treatment of End-of-Life-Vehicles, safely and economically (see: IDIS | The International Dismantling
Information System (idis2.com)).
355
 kom (2023) 0451 - Ingen titel
2734812_0048.png
see their engagement in the field of emission reductions during the use phase, i.e.,
strategies focusing on light weight, acknowledged framing it Design for Sustainability.
79
However, the co-existence of two separate legal acts (ELV Directive and 3R type-
approval Directive) brings with it the risk that the provisions that are ‘mirrored’ (e.g., the
3R rates, or the hazardous substance prohibitions) lose coherence if amendments are not
made to both pieces of legislation at the same time. The merging of the two existing
Directives would ensure this coherence, and it could also simplify the regulatory
framework by gathering all requirements into a single act, also contributing to a stronger
EU market integration (especially at the end-of-life stage, where there is no equivalent to
the harmonisation effect provided by the type-approval framework). Lastly, merging the
two Directives would be beneficial to circularity in the automotive sector, helping to
bridge the gaps between vehicle design and production and the end-of-life stage.
Evaluation question 5:
To what extent has 3R Directive been cost-effective? Are the
costs proportionate to the benefits attained?
Overall conclusion:
As previously discussed in Evaluation question 4, there is no
evidence to suggest that the 3R Directive has resulted in excessive costs for industry,
authorities or consumers. At the same time, the evaluation of the effectiveness of the 3R
Directive suggests that it has had a positive effect in promoting environmentally friendly
design practices in the automotive industry (albeit with limited results in the promotion
of reuse). This positive effect was acknowledged by vehicle manufacturers and type-
approval authorities alike, although it was not backed up by data.
However, given the difficulty in precisely quantifying the costs and benefits of both the
ELV Directive and the 3R Directive, and in performing an allocation of the qualitative
benefits between the two pieces of legislation, the cost-effectiveness of the 3R Directive
cannot be evaluated in detail. The targeted survey asked ‘since its adoption in 2005, do
the economic and environmental benefits achieved by the 3R Directive in your view
outweigh the cost of its implementation?’ About 16% of replies stated that the
environmental benefits are high, while 10% stated that the costs were low. This indicates
that stakeholders broadly shared the view that the 3R Directive has led to environmental
advantages at a reasonable cost.
11.4.1.3 Coherence
Evaluation question 6:
To what extent is the EU legislation on circularity in the
automotive industry coherent?
Overall conclusion:
The 3R Directive was found to be internally coherent and coherent
with the ELV Directive. The mirrored ‘3R requirements’ in both directives are seen as a
strong element that ensures the coherence between the two texts, despite the differences
in meaning of the two sets of requirements (potential rates at type approval vs. effective
rates at end-of-life).
79
ACEA
“want to point out that, for the necessary new and innovative materials for achieving the ambitious goals of
targeted carbon neutrality by 2050, there might not yet be available appropriate recycling technologies for vehicles on
an industrial scale.”
356
 kom (2023) 0451 - Ingen titel
2734812_0049.png
The 3R Directive was also found to remain coherent with the type-approval framework
even though it is the last directive remaining that is a main legal text of the overall
framework (the others being regulations) and despite some legal references needing an
update to improve clarity.
Internal coherence of the 3R Directive and coherence with the ELV Directive
It could be argued that the 3R Directive was set up as a market oversight instrument to
support the ELV Directive (i.e., waste legislation). However, from the interviews and
workshop participants, specifically the EU Member State representatives’ workshop, it
became clear that the 3R Directive is more often connected to the general type-approval
legislation rather than to the ELV Directive, as usually, both are handled in the Member
States in ministries of transport or finance. If expected by the regulator that in the future,
the 3R Directive is a means to link the design and production of vehicles with their end-
of-life stage, and that the 3R Directive shall contribute to the ELV Directive objectives
and effectively ensure that vehicles put on the market are more circular, such intention is
to be made more explicit in the 3R legal text and to be communicated to stakeholders.
One of the elements that more strongly ensures the internal coherence of the 3R Directive
and the coherence of the 3R Directive with the ELV directive is the mirrored ‘3R
requirements’ in both Directives
80
. In absence of improvements in the (potential)
reusability, recyclability and recoverability of newly type-approved vehicles, it becomes
difficult to meet the (effective) recovery, recycling and reuse targets down the line as the
vehicles reach their end-of-life stage, although improvements in recycling and end-of-life
treatment are also needed to increase those rates (and thereby the circularity of the
vehicles in the scope of both directives).
The scopes of ELV Directive and 3R Directive are similar but not identical. Both include
M1 vehicles (passenger cars) and N1 vehicles (light-commercial vehicles). The ELV
Directive includes three-wheel motor vehicles but excludes motor tricycles, both defined
in the type-approval of two- or three-wheel vehicles and quadricycles
81
. In terms of the
exemptions, small series and multi-stage built vehicles are exempt from the 3R Directive
but not from the ELV Directive. Special purpose vehicles are exempt from the 3R
Directive too; however, they are in scope of ELV Directive (although exempt from Art. 7
provisions on the reuse, recycling and recovery rates, so that they do not enter the
calculations for the overall 3R rates at end-of-life). There is no evidence that these minor
differences in scope have had a detrimental effect on the achievement of the goals of
either directive, especially considering how limited the exemptions are in terms of
relative share of ELVs.
The questions of the evaluation refer to the future possible requirements and the future
legislation to cover the hazardous substance requirements. For the moment, coherence in
80
The nominal values of the 3R rates are the same (85% for reuse (reusability) and/or recycling (recyclability) and
95% reuse (reusability) and/or recovery (recoverability), although the targets have distinct meanings and carry different
consequences for authorities and economic operators (cf. answer to evaluation question 1).
81
Council Directive 92/61/EEC of 30 June 1992 relating to the type-approval of two or three-wheel motor vehicles
(repealed by Directive 2002/24/EC, again repealed by Regulation (EU). No 168/2013 of the European Parliament and
of the Council of 15 January 2013 on the approval and market surveillance of two- or three-wheel vehicles and
quadricycles).
357
 kom (2023) 0451 - Ingen titel
2734812_0050.png
relation to the substance prohibitions is ensured as far as the legal text of 3R Directive
makes a direct reference to ELV Directive Art. 4(2) for the hazardous substances. On the
other hand, for the coding of plastic parts, there is no reference to ELV Directive Art.
8(1), but only to Commission Decision 2003/138/EC
82
. Thus, coherence with any
changes to ELV Directive Article 8(1), or new part coding standards introduced through
other legislation adopted in line with ELV Directive Art. 8 would not be automatically
ensured.
The 3R Directive is also seen as coherent with the overall EU type-approval framework,
even after the two overhauls that the framework has undergone since the time that the 3R
Directive entered into force. Any future modifications to 3R type approvals should at
least ensure an update of the legal references (from the old Directive 70/156/EEC to the
current Regulation (EU) 2018/858 governing the type approval of and market
surveillance of motor vehicles and their trailers, and of systems, components and separate
technical units intended for such vehicles). The exemptions of the 3R Directive
applicable to certain vehicles (special purpose vehicles, multi-stage built vehicles
belonging to category N1 and vehicles produced in small series) are found to be
consistent with the normal functioning of the type-approval framework.
Evaluation question 7:
To what extent is the 3R Directive externally coherent with
other EU legislation and policy developments?
Overall conclusion:
In terms of coherence with other EU waste legislation (notably the
Waste Framework Directive
83
) and with other EU legislation aimed at promoting
sustainability, such as REACH. The 3R Directive is also coherent with the broader
objectives of the EU to promote sustainability and reduce waste, but further efforts are
needed to increase circularity in the automotive sector and address the remaining
challenges, especially those related to the electrification of road vehicles.
Coherence with the Waste Framework Directive and REACH
The various levels of the waste hierarchy are being addressed in a different manner in the
3R Directive. Waste prevention and reuse are not being promoted through the 3R
Directive. Also, the 3R Directive does not provide an incentive to improve recyclability
with an increasing ambitious level, especially if the 3R targets are being achieved across
most of the EU Member States. It is thus likely that the 3R Directive is not effective in
ensuring that vehicles placed on the EU market increase in circularity, which would not
be fully coherent with the aims of the Waste Framework Directive or with high-level
political goals of the European Green Deal. It is estimated that current trends towards
greater electrification of the vehicle fleet, or the increased use of new materials for
vehicle construction (which, in turn, are motivated by policy initiatives under the
European Green Deal) could contribute to make this situation worse.
82
2003/138/EC: Commission Decision of 27 February 2003 establishing component and material coding standards for
vehicles pursuant to Directive 2000/53/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council on end-of-life vehicles.
83
Waste Framework Directive, Directive 2008/98/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 19 November
2008 on waste and repealing certain Directives (OJ L 312, 22.11.2008, p. 3) as last amended by Directive (EU)
2018/852 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 30 May 2018 (OJ L 150, 14.6.2018, p. 141).
358
 kom (2023) 0451 - Ingen titel
The key for ensuring that the 3R Directive is effectively addressing substance
prohibitions is the direct cross-reference to Art. 4(2) in the ELV Directive. It should be
possible to add the direct cross-reference to another legislation, e.g., REACH, if deemed
necessary in the future. In the case of merging ELV Directive and 3R Directive and
should hazardous substance provisions of the ELV Directive be moved to another
legislation, (e.g., REACH), it might be relevant that the (dynamic) reference to the
legislation where hazardous substance provisions will be regulated in the future is
amended to ensure compliance is checked through the 3R approval process.
Alternatively, any legislation addressing prohibitions for vehicles in the future would
need to address how compliance is to be ensured or how the future 3R type-approval
process works in relation to hazardous substance provisions.
Coherence with ISO 22628:2002 and UNECE
Looking at the wording of the targets, the ELV Directive refers to a reusable and/or
recyclable and, secondly to a reusable and/or recoverable target. This is a different
wording compared to the outcome of calculations according to the ISO 22628:2002
standard which is a “recyclability rate” and “recoverability rate.” However, these
differences in framing, also in relation to reuse, are not perceived to result in any
problems in the implementation, except for reuse not playing a role in the ISO
calculations, as indicated by stakeholders.
From the formulation of the targets of the 3R Directive, this can only be a
potential
or
hypothetical recyclability and recoverability, since the various masses of materials
included in the calculation are ‘considered recyclable for the purpose of the calculation’.
In the ISO 22628:2002 standard, recyclability is a yes or no decision, while in practice,
different recycling efficiencies are achieved for different materials. Hence, the rates
calculated through the ISO 22628:2002 standard do not represent the final shares of what
is effectively recycled. But, from how the ELV Directive requirement is formulated, and
given that no further discrepancy between the wordings of Art. 7 of the ELV Directive,
3R Directive and ISO 22628:2002 could be identified, it is concluded that the standard is
coherent with the objectives of the 3R Directive.
However, a minor point was identified, where coherence between ISO standard and EU
legislation (ELV Directive & 3R Directive) was not ensured: In relation to the
assessment of dismantled component parts to be considered reusable or recyclable, (a)
accessibility, fastening and dismantling technology shall be assessed in relation to the
dismantlability, (b) safety and environmental hazards shall be assessed in relation to
reuse, and (c) material composition and proven recycling technology shall be assessed in
relation to recyclability (requested in step 2 in the ISO calculation). Interviewees were
asked how the classification of component parts into reusable parts and recyclable parts
is done. One vehicle manufacturer answered that “the reusability of vehicle components
is usually possible for all components unless they are explicitly excluded by law, or they
are wearing parts. Which vehicle components are reused in practice depends on the
requirements over the life of a vehicle. This cannot be foreseen by the vehicle
manufacturer.” This suggests that the assessment of dismantled components to be
considered reusable or recyclable according to the three criteria mentioned is of no
particular importance for manufacturers in the compilation of the 3R type approval.
359
 kom (2023) 0451 - Ingen titel
2734812_0052.png
The stakeholder consultation also addressed the importance of coherence between the 3R
Directive and UNECE Regulation No. 133 (used for international type approvals beyond
the EU) in the workshop, explaining that it also made the process more efficient for
vehicle manufacturers, i.e., as they did not need to perform the type-approval process
multiple times for the same vehicle type in different world regions. The evaluation
questions asked whether it is ensured that vehicles placed on the market following a type
approval under UNECE Regulation No. 133 also comply with the relevant provisions
that are required for vehicles that are type approved based on the 3R Directive, and vice
versa.
Minor deviations in the criteria for the selection of the worst-case vehicle were found.
Another aspect is, that the definition of recovery in the UNECE Regulation No. 133
differs from that included in the 3R Directive and ELV Directive. The latter refers to a
list of recovery processes agreed under the Waste Framework Directive. Hence, the
definition in ELV Directive is more detailed than the UNECE Regulation No. 133
definition. However, it was neither mentioned by stakeholders nor were there any other
indications that pointed out or concluded that this discrepancy between the definitions
was problematic. As the 3R Directive has been the main source for the UNECE
regulation, and given that there are only slight differences that are not substantial to the
objectives and main provisions, it is assumed that the 3R Directive is coherent with the
UNECE Regulation No. 133. A stakeholder reported that his company was applying for
type approvals under the UNECE regulation.
11.4.2 11.4.2 How did the EU intervention make a difference and to whom?
Evaluation question 8:
What is the added value resulting from having a 3R Directive at
EU level?
Overall conclusion:
The 3R Directive is deemed to have created EU added value
throughout the years it has been in force, with positive impacts in the automotive sector
and in the completion of the EU Single Market. The 3R Directive was also successfully
turned into an international UNECE Regulation supporting global harmonisation of type
approvals.
11.4.2.1 EU added value
The examination of EU added value of the 3R Directive assesses the benefits of
developing legislation at EU level, compared to individual action by Member States
through the development of their own comparable legislation, or through other combined
international efforts, like those of the United Nations Economic Commission for Europe
(UNECE). The following analysis is of qualitative nature, having used inputs from
stakeholders and previous experience from the type-approval legislation.
When asked ‘In your view, does it make sense to move away from a type-approval
Directive on vehicle reusability, recyclability & recoverability to a type-approval
regulation on vehicle reusability, recyclability & recoverability?’, 60% of the
stakeholders agreed with this thesis. This clear result assumes that the relevant actors
acknowledge the added value of regulating 3R on the EU level, by asking for even more
360
 kom (2023) 0451 - Ingen titel
EU intervention. As such, the EU should consider expanding its current 3R Directive into
a Regulation, while respecting the principle of subsidiarity in accordance with EU law.
The evaluation of ELV Directive already pointed out the advantages of having these
issues regulated at EU level, rather than the Member States’ individual national level.
Given that the environmental impact of the automotive industry (i.e., pollution, non-
recyclable waste, etc.) is affecting all Member States, it was deemed important to
prioritise EU legislation supporting the completion of the EU Single Market and to
prevent that diverging national regulations emerge.
This is even more so the case for the 3R Directive, considering that the vehicles
manufactured in the EU are also sold, transported and disposed of across the Union.
Thus, harmonised and coherent regulations concerning the type-approval of vehicles with
regard to their reusability, recyclability and recoverability on the EU level are of utter
importance for the effective protection of the environment and the functioning of the
Single Market.
EU added value of 3R Directive compared to action at national level
During the stakeholder workshop, participants were asked ‘How high do you estimate the
added value of having EU harmonised rules for vehicles reusability, recyclability and
recoverability, compared to what could have been achieved at merely national level?’
50% answered that the added value is significantly higher and 38% stated it is somewhat
higher. These results underline that stakeholders recognise the need and the advantages
of having coherent regulations on the EU level. This is supported by the increased
numbers of manufactured vehicles that are made of recoverable, recyclable and/or
reusable materials in Member States that are significant actors in the automotive industry
(e.g., France, Germany).
The ELV Directive evaluation had also shown previously that the recorded numbers of
ELVs across Member States had also increased after the introduction of the ELV
Directive, also confirming that EU level regulations in the domain of sustainability of the
automotive sector offer a significant added value compared to individual national actions.
As already stated, given the cross-border nature of road transport, vehicle manufacturing
and air pollution, EU directives in this sector promote the functioning of a sustainable EU
internal market.
The development and governing of reusability, recyclability and recoverability standard
for the automotive sector at EU level is key to prevent harm to the functioning of the
Internal Market. While local or national initiatives could in theory replace EU action,
they would also create considerable obstacles for automotive industry to enter national
markets, as numerous standards are expected to arise. This shows that national action
poses great risks for the internal market.
EU added value of 3R Directive compared to action at international level
A different approach to action at EU level usually entails action at the international level;
i.e., via the UNECE World Forum for Harmonization of Vehicle Regulations. The
361
 kom (2023) 0451 - Ingen titel
2734812_0054.png
UNECE intends to establish “global” harmonisation of certain technical regulations, with
mutual recognition of type approvals amongst its agreements’ signatories, which include
all 27 EU Member States. UNECE regulations are legally binding for its signatories, who
must transpose the UNECE provisions to their national legal framework.
In relation to the type-approval of vehicles with regard to their reusability, recyclability
and recoverability, the UNECE adopted a very similar regulation to the 3R Directive,
namely UNECE Regulation No. 133 (Uniform provisions concerning the approval of
motor vehicles with regard to their reusability, recyclability and recoverability), which
entered into force in 2014. Therefore, the EU is a driving force behind various measures
taken by the UNECE, especially regarding more environmentally friendly and
sustainable actions, including established regulations No. 49 and No. 83, which aligned
with the EU’s Euro VI and Euro 6. The adoption of a global 3R a few years after the 3R
Directive was put in place, confirms the EU’s role as a source of global standards.
During the stakeholder workshop, participants were asked ‘How high do you estimate the
added value of having EU harmonised rules for vehicle reusability, recyclability and
recoverability, compared to what could have been achieved at merely national level?’
From 34 stakeholders that answered, 30 agreed that the harmonised rules have a higher or
somewhat higher added value than national legislation (others did not know). In another
instance, participants were asked a question regarding equivalence with UNECE
legislation: ‘For the purpose of obtaining an EU Whole Vehicle Type Approval, a
certificate in accordance with UNECE Regulation No. 133 is accepted as alternative to
the 3R Directive. How important is it to keep such equivalence with UNECE legislation
and why?’ The stakeholders that replied to this statement made clear that there is a need
to maintain this equivalence with UNECE legislation, mostly because of the global
nature of the automotive industry considering the role of export/import of vehicles. They
especially mentioned that there are European countries that are signatories to the UNECE
without being EU Member States, making harmonised regulations even more important.
While the respondents emphasized the importance of continued global harmonisation,
many underlined the need for the EU to lead regarding 3R type approval legislation and
‘disregard any negative influences from the UNECE’, which might slow down progress
and effectiveness.
As such, it can be assumed that, in the absence of EU level action, (minimum) standards
on type-approval of vehicles regarding their reusability, recyclability and recoverability
under the auspices of UNECE would only be promoted by like-minded and similarly
developed countries (e.g., EU Member States and third countries) promoting similarly
advanced requirements. Nonetheless, the level of stringency adopted would most
probably be the lowest common denominator necessary to satisfy UNECE contracting
parties that would take more time to adopt and implement the established regulations.
11.4.3 11.4.3 Is the intervention still relevant?
Evaluation question 9:
To what extent do the 3R objectives correspond to the current
needs?
362
 kom (2023) 0451 - Ingen titel
2734812_0055.png
Overall conclusion:
The 3R rates are currently being met by vehicles at type approval
without significant problems. At the same time, the corresponding 3R rates at the end-of-
life stage are largely being fulfilled by EU Member States, but this could change if the
material composition of vehicle changes over time (e.g., through the introduction of new,
lightweight materials).
Current relevance of designing vehicles for reusability, recyclability and recoverability
The 3R Directive does not provide an incentive to improve recyclability with an
increasing ambitious level, provided the 3R rates are met at type approval (and, albeit
indirectly, as long as the 3R targets are being attained across most of the Member States).
As for future provisions on circularity, the level of effectiveness will depend on whether
the future provisions fine-tune or amend those that are already being covered with lower
ambition today, e.g., amendments of the 3R targets or adding new materials to be coded.
As it stands today, the 3R Directive does not sufficiently differentiate between non-
recyclable and recyclable materials if technologies are available at the laboratory stage of
development and above (i.e., only a low level of development of recycling technologies
for the material is required for it to qualify as fully recyclable). In practice, this allows
vehicles making use of high volumes of non-recyclable to be placed on the market in
some cases, such as carbon-fibre-reinforced plastics (CFRPs) which is increasingly used
in vehicles to reduce their weight. For example, BMW placed the first units of the i3
model on the market in 2013, using carbon fibres as a main material for the vehicle body
instead of metal to reduce the weight of the vehicle and achieve better efficiency. Based
on interviews with waste management operators, capacities for the recycling of this
material are still not available for ELV waste management, resulting in a large share of
the vehicle weight not being recycled.
Considering that most vehicles sold today do not use CFRPs in significant quantities and
yet the 85% reuse and recycling target is not significantly over-achieved, with the trend
towards lightweight materials, this could affect the achievability of the 3R targets in the
mid-term (as these vehicles are increasingly produced and become progressively more
relevant in the ELV waste stream). On the other hand, an increase in use of a non-
recyclable material in the vehicle fleet could be sufficient in some cases for recycling
capacities to develop over time, having a positive effect on the 3R rates at the end-of-life
over time. Should any requirements be introduced in relation to non-recyclables (e.g.,
obligatory dismantling) it would be beneficial for them to be addressed under 3R
Directive to at least ensure that the use and localisation of such materials is
communicated to waste operators to ensure the application of appropriate treatment
technologies.
Although it has been shown throughout this evaluation that the 3R Directive has been
less successful in promoting the reusability of vehicle parts, there is no evidence that the
list of parts that are explicitly excluded from reuse has lost relevance.
363
 kom (2023) 0451 - Ingen titel
2734812_0056.png
Evaluation question 10:
To what extent can the 3R Directive cover new challenges
linked to the transformation of the automotive industry?
Overall conclusion:
The transformation of the automotive industry will bring about
challenges to the 3R Directive. The increase of vehicles with electrified powertrains on
EU roads will pose challenges at their end-of-life (because electric vehicle batteries are
difficult to recycle, and there are potential safety risks associated with their disposal, and
recycling infrastructure is at present limited) but also at the design and production stages.
Compared to their conventional counterparts from about two decades ago, today’s
electric vehicles contain an increasingly complex mix of materials that includes
electronic components and increasing amounts of electronic components that lower the
recyclability of new vehicles as currently evaluated under the 3R Directive. In some
cases, parts may be software-locked by the vehicle manufacturer for security reasons,
which further limits reuse.
On the other hand, many vehicle manufacturers are already making efforts to increase the
circularity of products by applying novel design solutions and standardisation of
materials or exploring modular solutions to component design that facilitate disassembly
and increase vehicle repairability. Other manufacturers are increasingly becoming
involved in directly managing the end-of-life phase of their products (with a special focus
on electric vehicle batteries and other electric powertrain components, which contain
valuable materials). These efforts are currently not rewarded by the 3R Directive, which
does not cover circularity aspects beyond the simple calculation of the 3R rates.
During the evaluation of the ELV Directive, more than 50% of the consulted
stakeholders noted that the increased use of electrified vehicles will increase waste
management costs for ELVs. It is thought that dismantling may temporarily become less
profitable as costs for storage, equipment, safety (e.g., against fires from lithium-ion
batteries) and transportation may increase. The new Regulation on Batteries is expected
to improve circularity in the design of batteries of EVs. The articulation with the ELV
Directive and the 3R Directive will be important. In addition to the batteries, ELVs from
EVs contain very costly components such as electric motors, which may generate income
for the dismantlers. Rare earth elements, which are used for permanent magnets in EVs
(average weight of 1-2 kg of permanent magnets per electric vehicle), platinum group
metals for catalytic converters (77% use share in automotive catalysts) and precious
metals from electric and electronic systems in vehicles are also increasingly found in new
vehicles. However, dismantlers are not currently experienced with such components and
the markets for them is not yet developed.
The circularity challenges associated to the electrification of vehicles is not limited to the
end-of-life stage. Compared to the conventional vehicles that were produced at the start
of the evaluation period, todays’ vehicles are made up of an increasingly complex mix of
materials that includes electronic components and increasing amounts of electronic
components that could lower the recyclability of new vehicles as currently evaluated
under the 3R Directive, potentially to a point where compliance with 3R rates becomes
challenging for new types being brought on the EU market.
Also in the context of the evaluation of the ELV Directive, ATFs referred to the
phenomenon of software-locked components or assemblies (e.g., window wiper motors,
364
 kom (2023) 0451 - Ingen titel
2734812_0057.png
inverters, navigation systems, and others) which require a proprietary software key to be
installed in a new vehicle after removal. This may be an obstacle for reuse as a
component removed without the key will not be reusable and the necessary software key
does not have to be provided for free. This is understood to particularly affect
establishments that work with multiple vehicle models and brands and that do not have
contracts with specific OEMs. Vehicle manufacturers on the other side claim that the
locks are of importance for the safety of vehicles, anti-theft and data security.
On the other hand, some vehicle manufacturers are already making efforts to introduce
more circularity into their products and services. For example, Renault tries to integrate
more circularity through using “recycled and recoverable materials” such as recycled
textiles in the battery-electric Renault ZOE. They also consider how certain vehicle
components could be used for other purposes, such as in the case of second life for
batteries.
84
Renault also refers to reconditioning of parts (or remanufacturing) to allow
their use when repairing other vehicles. With a look to the future, BMW has set an aim to
build a recycled electric car by 2040, referring not only to its composition from recycled
materials but also to its being emission free. Whereas BMW states that its new cars are
currently made with close to 30% recycled materials, the new circular-based approach
should increase this to 50% recycled content
85
.
11.5 What are the conclusions and lessons learned?
11.5.1 11.5.1 Conclusions
To minimise the environmental impact of vehicles as they reach their end-of-life stage,
vehicle manufacturers should take incorporate waste minimisation into vehicle design
considerations. The 3R Directive lays down administrative and technical rules to ensure
that the parts and materials of vehicles under its scope may be reused, recycled and
recovered as much as possible. It makes sure that the reused components do not cause
any safety or environmental risks.
The 3R Directive therefore establishes the link between the design and production
stages of certain road vehicles and their end-of-life treatment by setting type-
approval requirements for these vehicles regarding their reusability, recyclability
and recoverability.
The 3R Directive applies to new models and models already being
produced of vehicles belonging to the M1 (passenger cars), and N1 (light commercial
vehicles, i.e., vans) categories. The legislation does not apply to special purpose vehicles
(such as armoured cars and ambulances), to vehicles produced in multiple stages or
vehicles produced in small series.
According to the 3R Directive, new vehicles may only be sold in the EU if they may be
reused and/or recycled to a minimum of 85% by mass or reused and/or recovered to a
minimum of 95 % by mass. The reusability, recyclability and recoverability rates (the so-
called 3R rates) are calculated using a dedicated international standard (ISO 22628:2002
84
85
https://group.renault.com/en/news-on-air/news/circular-economy-moving-up-a-gear/
Circular economy: sustainable into year 2040 | BMW.com
365
 kom (2023) 0451 - Ingen titel
Road Vehicles – Recyclability and recoverability – Calculation method) which provides
a simplified methodology for the estimation of the recyclability and recoverability of the
vehicle as a whole according to the mass and material composition of its constituent
parts. For a material to qualify as recyclable under the ISO 22628:2002 calculation, only
a low level of development of existing recycling technology is required. Therefore, the
ISO 22628:2002 calculation yields optimistic (potential) recyclability rates, which are
difficult to be effectively achieved at the end-of-life stage of the vehicles.
Beyond the 3R rates, the 3R Directive requires manufacturers to have strategies in place
to properly manage the reusability, recyclability and recoverability requirements of the
legislation. If national authorities consider these strategies satisfactory, the manufacturer
receives a certificate of compliance, which is valid for at least two years. This is an
additional instrument of the 3R Directive meant to ensure circularity of vehicles.
Although the consultation process confirmed that the strategies of the vehicles
manufacturers are checked and approved by type-approval authorities, in practice this
strategy does not go beyond commitments to certain strategic goals of the company and
is not specific to the vehicles to be type-approved. The usefulness of the dismantling
strategy, and whether its current implementation effectively contributes to the goals of
the 3R and ELV Directives is unclear.
The 3R Directive limits the reuse of certain component parts, such as airbags, seat belts
and steering locks since they could present safety and environmental risks. Hazardous
substance and plastic coding provisions are specifically part of the checks to be
performed by the competent body.
Interaction between the 3R Directive and the ELV Directive
The 3R Directive was adopted with the aim to ensure coherence between the type-
approval procedures on one side and the obligations contained under the ELV Directive
on the other side. The latter contains rules on the collection, treatment and recovery of
end-of-life vehicles and their components, as well as restrictions on hazardous substances
in new vehicles which mirror the requirements of the former. Although the nominal
values of the 3R rates of both directives are the same (85% for reuse (reusability) and/or
recycling (recyclability) and 95% reuse (reusability) and/or recovery (recoverability) and
sometimes used interchangeably, the targets have distinct meanings and carry different
consequences for authorities and economic operators. Whereas the requirements of the
3R Directive are on reusability, recyclability and recoverability (i.e., on circularity
potential of vehicles as evaluated at the design and production stages), ELV Directive 3R
requirements are on recycling, reuse and recovery rates (i.e., on effective treatment rates
at the end-of-life stage). Moreover, the requirements apply to different actors (3R
Directive requirements apply to vehicle manufacturers, ELV Directive requirements
apply to Member States) and at various levels (the 3R Directive operates at the vehicle
type level, ant the ELV Directive looks at aggregated annual level for the ‘average
vehicle’, i.e., for the flow of end-of-life vehicles, with no recycling rate targets applying
specifically to vehicle types or vehicle manufacturers).
Effectiveness
366
 kom (2023) 0451 - Ingen titel
The 3R Directive has been effective in ensuring that the recyclability, reusability and
recoverability rates of vehicles under its scope mirror the requirements of the ELV
Directive on vehicle recycling, reuse and recovery at end of life. Looking at the historic
data on achievement of the 3R rates by EU Member States at end-of-life stage, a positive
trend is observed throughout the years of application of both Directives, although it is not
possible to isolate the effect of the 3R Directive form these data. The increases in
recyclability and recoverability as reported (in aggregate manner) at the end-of-life stage
came about in a gradual way. This is to be expected, considering that the effect of 3R
Directive provisions on ELV Directive targets is mediated by the useful life of vehicle
types and the (variable) rate at which vehicles reach the end of life.
Although the 3R Directive has been effective in relation with the 3R Rates at the type
approval stage, during the evaluation it became clear that the recyclability, recoverability
and reusability have an uneven treatment in the 3R Directive, which focuses mostly on
recyclability and does not directly address reusability. This is to a considerable extent
driven by the ISO 22628:2002 standard, which does not specify reusability rates
individually. On the other hand, the ISO 22628:2002 standard (and, as a result, the 3R
Directive) does not distinguish between treatment technologies with a sufficient degree
of granularity; if a treatment type falls under the definition of recycling (which covers
technologies at the early stage of development, and therefore with low recycling
efficiencies) it will be fully counted towards achieving the reuse and recycling target.
Thus, the 3R Directive provides no prioritisation of technologies that achieve higher
recycling qualities or that reduce the losses of certain materials. This could give rise to
problems at the end-of-life stage for materials for which there are no available recycling
capacities in the EU at the time of type approval, although this is mitigated by the fact
that vehicles usually have a long service life in which it can be expected that recycling
technology and the availability of recycling capacities improves.
The lack of monitoring provisions in the 3R Directive has led to an absence of dedicated
monitoring of compliance with the 3R Directive , although this shortcoming was
mitigated by the incorporation of 3R Directive is incorporated into the type-approval
framework, whereby type-approval authorities in each EU Member State are responsible
for ensuring that the vehicle types comply with the provisions of the 3R Directive before
the type approval can be granted and the type can be placed in the market, including the
provisions on hazardous substances and coding of plastic parts.
Efficiency
The administrative costs for vehicle manufacturers and type-approval authorities are
modest compared to other aspects of type approval, such as safety or pollutant emissions.
The lack of regulatory development of the 3R Directive would indicate that these costs
have remained stable throughout the evaluation period.
The main costs of the 3R Directive for vehicle manufacturers relate to the provision of
the necessary supporting information to justify compliance for each type approval of
367
 kom (2023) 0451 - Ingen titel
vehicles under scope. In some instances, the compliance costs are mitigated by the design
of the 3R Directive (e.g., by using a reference vehicle to limit the number of vehicles for
which the 3R rates need to be calculated, or through the exemptions applicable to certain
vehicles, or by checking the compliance with provisions on coding of plastic parts and
parts containing hazardous substances at the manufacturer level instead of at the vehicle
type level).
The compliance costs of the 3R Directive for vehicle manufacturers are expected to be
passed to customers in full, with no evidence emerging during the evaluation to suggest
that the 3R Directive has resulted in excessive costs for industry, authorities or
consumers. At the same time, the evaluation of the effectiveness of the 3R Directive
suggests that it has had a positive effect in promoting environmentally friendly design
practices in the automotive industry (albeit with limited results in the promotion of
reuse). Given the difficulty in precisely quantifying the costs and benefits of both the
ELV Directive and the 3R Directive, an in performing an allocation of the qualitative
benefits between the two pieces of legislation, the cost-effectiveness of the 3R Directive
could not be evaluated in detail, although during the stakeholder consultation shared the
view that the 3R Directive had led to environmental advantages at a reasonable cost.
Coherence
The 3R Directive was found to be internally coherent and coherent with the ELV
Directive. The mirrored ‘3R requirements’ in both directives are seen as a strong element
that ensures the coherence between the two texts. The scopes of the ELV Directive and
the 3R Directive are similar but not identical. There is no evidence that these minor
differences in scope have had a detrimental effect on the achievement of the goals of
either directive, especially considering how limited the exemptions are in terms of
relative share of ELVs. The 3R Directive was also found to remain coherent with the
type-approval framework even though it is the last directive remaining that is a main
legal text of the overall framework (the others being regulations) and despite some legal
references needing an update to bring them in line with Regulation (EU) 2018/858.
The evaluation of the 3R Directive did not reveal any major coherence issues with other
EU waste legislation (notably the Waste Framework Directive) and with other EU
legislation aimed at promoting sustainability, such as REACH. In relation to the Waste
Framework Directive, it was found that the various levels of the waste hierarchy are
being addressed in a different manner in the 3R Directive, with waste prevention and
reuse not being promoted through the 3R Directive. The lesser emphasis on reuse is
attributed to the logic of the ISO 22628:2002, which was otherwise found to work
coherently within the 3R type approval process. Also, the 3R Directive does not provide
an incentive to improve recyclability beyond the current 3R targets, and thereby to
increase their circularity. This situation would not be fully coherent with the aims of the
Waste Framework Directive or with high-level policy goals of the European Green Deal.
Finally, the 3R Directive and UNECE Regulation No. 133 (used for international 3R type
approvals of beyond the EU), were found to be fully coherent, as a consequence of the
368
 kom (2023) 0451 - Ingen titel
latter being based on the former. It was found that changes in 3R legislation in the EU
would necessitate changes at the UNECE level to preserve coherence and ensure a high
level of harmonisation that is highly valued by the automotive industry.
EU added value
The 3R Directive is deemed to have created EU added value throughout the years it has
been in force, with positive impacts in the automotive sector and in the completion of the
EU Single Market. These impacts were, however, only possible to be evaluated in a
qualitative manner, and without being disentangled from the positive impacts brought
about by the ELV Directive. Considering that the vehicles manufactured in the EU are
also sold, transported and disposed of across the internal borders of the Union and
beyond, the EU added value of the 3R Directive (and, by extension, of the type-approval
framework) is particularly clear, and this was recognised by stakeholders. A clear further
indication of the EU added value of the 3R Directive is the fact that it was successfully
turned (with only very minor adaptations) into an international UNECE Regulation
supporting global harmonisation of type approvals, further cementing the EU’s
regulatory leadership in this domain.
Relevance
The relevance of the 3R Directive will be tested by the ongoing transformation of the
automotive industry. This is especially true of the increase of vehicles with electrified
powertrains on EU roads will pose challenges at their end-of-life. Compared to their
conventional counterparts from about two decades ago, today’s electric vehicles contain
an increasingly complex mix of materials that includes electronic components and
increasing amounts of electronic components that lower the recyclability of new vehicles
as currently evaluated under the 3R Directive. The use of materials such as CFRPs may
see a further increase, driven by the pursuit of lower vehicle weight and greater energy
efficiency. In some cases, parts may be software-locked by the vehicle manufacturer for
security reasons, which further limits reuse. Should these trends continue, a decreasing
level of recyclability could make type approval increasingly difficult to achieve.
Challenges associated to electrification and broader industry trends affecting the design
of new vehicles will become apparent also at the end-of-life stage. For example, electric
vehicle batteries are singularly difficult to recycle, and there are potential safety risks
associated with their removal from end-of-life vehicles disposal, and recycling
infrastructure is at present limited. Whereas this may not pose an immediate problem
(electric vehicles do not yet dominate new registrations, and they are still a small share of
overall ELVs), the importance of these issues will grow as more electrified vehicles
reach the end-of-life stage.
There are also positive signs that point towards increased sustainability and circular
thinking, even in absence of regulatory intervention: many vehicle manufacturers are
already making efforts to increase the circularity of products by applying novel design
solutions and standardisation of materials or exploring modular solutions to component
369
 kom (2023) 0451 - Ingen titel
design that facilitate disassembly and increase vehicle repairability. Other manufacturers
are increasingly becoming involved in directly managing the end-of-life phase of their
products and closing material loops. Electric vehicle batteries and other electric
powertrain components such as permanent magnets from electric motors could be a
source of valuable critical raw materials upon recycling.
11.5.2 11.5.2 Lessons learnt
The evaluation of the 3R Directive confirmed that it has been, and remains, a useful piece
of legislation whose role cannot be understood without putting it in context with the
objectives of the ELV Directive and the functioning of the EU type approval framework,
whereby EU Member State authorities national authorities certify that a vehicle type
meets all EU safety, environmental and conformity of production requirements before
authorising it to be placed on the EU market, and ensure that the relevant requirements
continue to be met thereafter through market surveillance activities.
By acting at the design and production stages of the life of vehicles as products, the 3R
Directive has supported a broad achievement of the goals of the ELV Directive
(especially increasing the recycling and recovery of vehicles at the end-of-life stage, and
limiting the use of certain hazardous substances in new vehicles).
The fact that the effect of reusability, recyclability and recoverability measures applied at
the design stage of vehicles can only be translated into effective gains in reuse, recycling
and recovery once the vehicles reach their end of life in significant numbers (usually with
decades-long delays) complicates the evaluation of the 3R Directive, especially in terms
of effectiveness. It appears, however, that the design costs to make new vehicle types
compliant with 3R rates have remained reasonable throughout the evaluation period, and
a tangible increase in the 3R rates at the end-of-life stage is apparent across Member
States if one adopts a long-term perspective.
Although it can be concluded from the evidence supporting the evaluation that the 3R
Directive has been an effective piece of legislation with clear EU added value, and that it
has worked in a coherent manner with related pieces of EU legislation (including the
type-approval framework itself, and the UNECE regulation that was developed from it),
there were several shortcomings in its implementation. First, it was clear from the
evaluation that the focus of the 3R rates calculation method supported by the ISO
22628:2002 standard was on recyclability and recoverability, with a lesser emphasis on
reusability. Second, the lack of granularity of the ISO 22628:2002 to qualify the
recyclability of materials may have resulted in a lack of support for more efficient
recycling technologies. And third, the lack of inclusion of additional circularity aspects
(notably, recycled content provisions) and of mechanisms to monitor and reward over-
compliance with 3R rates may have resulted in lower overall circularity improvements
that could have benefited both the automotive and the recycling industries. The exclusion
of heavy-duty vehicles and L-category from the scope of the 3R Directive is consistent
with the scope of the ELV Directive, from which the 3R Directive derives. If the scope of
370
 kom (2023) 0451 - Ingen titel
ELV is expanded to these vehicles in the future, a consistent expansion of the scope
should apply to 3R type-approval legislation.
On the other hand, industry-led initiatives (e.g., the establishment of dismantling
information databases, or the voluntary circularity commitments made by several ‘front-
runner’ vehicle manufacturers) indicate that the EU automotive industry is ready to
respond proactively to environmental challenges despite an uncertain context of rapid
transformations, including a dramatic shift toward electrified powertrains in new
passenger cars. Any review of the 3R Directive will need to account for this, and adapt
the existing framework to ensure it supports further improvements in circularity and
increased collaboration between vehicle manufacturers, recyclers and EU and Member
State authorities.
371
 kom (2023) 0451 - Ingen titel
2734812_0064.png
11.6 Evaluation matrix
Table 11.4 – Evaluation matrix: Effectiveness
Evaluation criterion 1: Effectiveness
Question
Sub-question
Judgement
criteria
Indicator
Data sources
EQ1 : To what extent have the objectives of the 3R Directive been met and monitored?
1.1. To what extent
has the 3R Directive
facilitated meeting
the reusability,
recyclability and
recoverability targets
of the ELV
Directive?
Gap between the
achieved targets on
reuse, recycling
and recovering of
end-of-life
vehicles and the
targets in the ELV
Directive
Degree to which
the 3R Directive
has contributed to
achieving ELV
targets
Achieved targets on
reuse, recycling and
recovering of end-
of-life vehicles,
including for
different materials
Literature review:
evaluation of the ELV
Directive, JRC study
86
,
impact assessment study
Öko
87
1.2. Which obstacles
in vehicle design to
meeting these targets
still remain?
List of obstacles in
designing vehicles
taking into account
reusability,
recyclability and
recoverability
Degree to which
the safety and
environmental
hazards arising
from reuse of
components have
been resolved by
3R
Extent to which
reported/monitored
information is
available and
complete
Estimated
contribution of 3R
Directive to
achieving targets on
reuse, recycling and
recovering of end-
of-life vehicles
Obstacles in
designing vehicles
taking into account
reusability,
recyclability and
recoverability
Reported safety and
environmental
hazards from reuse
of components both
before 3R Directive
and since the 3R
Directive
List of
reported/monitored
information on
achievements 3R
Directive
1.3. To what extent
has the 3R Directive
prevented safety and
environmental
hazards through
restrictions on re-use
of certain component
parts?
1.4. To what extent
are these
achievements
monitored? Is there
insufficient data to
ensure full
effectiveness?
Literature review: impact
assessment study Öko
Stakeholder input from
e.g. MS and EU officials,
(re)manufacturers,
recyclers, NGOs,
academics
Literature review: impact
assessment study Öko
Stakeholder input from
e.g. MS and EU officials,
(re)manufacturers,
recyclers, NGOs,
academics
Literature review: impact
assessment study Öko
Stakeholder input from
e.g. MS and EU officials,
(re)manufacturers,
recyclers, NGOs,
academics
Literature review:
impact assessment study
Öko
Stakeholder input from
e.g. MS and EU officials,
(re)manufacturers,
recyclers, NGOs,
academics
86
Maury, T., Tazi, N., Torres De Matos, C., Nessi, S., Antonopoulos, I., Pierri, E., Baldassarre, B., Garbarino, E., Gaudillat,
P. and Mathieux, F., Towards recycled plastic content targets in new passenger cars, EUR 31047 EN, Publications Office of
the European Union, Luxembourg, 2022, ISBN 978-92-76-51784-9 (online), doi:10.2838/834615 (online), JRC12900.
87
Baron, Y.; Kosińska-Terrade, I.; Loew, C.; Köhler, A.; Moch, K.; Sutter, J.; Graulich, K.; Adjei, F.; Mehlhart, G.: Study to
support the impact assessment for the review of Directive 2000/53/EC on End-of-Life Vehicles by Oeko-Institut, June 2023.
372
 kom (2023) 0451 - Ingen titel
2734812_0065.png
EQ2: How effective are the 3R
provisions in verifying a
vehicle’s
reusability,
recyclability
and
recoverability?
/
Degree to which
the type-approval
provision are able
to verify a
vehicle’s actual
reusability,
recyclability and
recoverability
Verified vehicle
reusability,
recyclability and
recoverability
versus actual
reusability,
recyclability and
recoverability
Literature review: impact
assessment study Öko
Stakeholder input from
e.g. MS and EU officials,
(re)manufacturers,
recyclers, NGOs,
academics
EQ3: What are other benefits of the 3R Directive for industry,
environment and citizens?
/
Degree to which
economic,
environmental and
social indicators
improved
following the
introduction of the
3R Directive
Innovation in
vehicle design
taking into account
reusability,
recyclability and
recoverability
Health and
environmental
indicators
Vehicle prices
Indicators of
competitiveness and
Single Market
Literature review: impact
assessment study Öko
Stakeholder input from
e.g. MS and EU officials,
(re)manufacturers,
recyclers, NGOs,
academics
373
 kom (2023) 0451 - Ingen titel
2734812_0066.png
Table 11.5– Evaluation matrix: Efficiency
Evaluation criterion 2: Efficiency
EQ5: To what extent has 3R Directive been cost- EQ4: What are the regulatory costs related to the 3R
effective? Are the costs proportionate to the Directive and are they affordable for industry and
benefits attained?
consumers? Has the 3R Directive caused unnecessary
regulatory burden or complexity?
Question
Sub-question
Judgement
criteria
Indicator
Data sources
4.1. What are the
regulatory costs related
to the 3R directive and
are they affordable for
industry and
consumers?
Implementation
costs high/low
in comparison
to price vehicles
and other costs
for industry
Implementation
costs for industry
Literature review: impact
assessment study Öko
Stakeholder input from e.g.
MS and EU officials,
(re)manufacturers,
recyclers, NGOs,
academics
Desk research
Literature review: impact
assessment study Öko
Stakeholder input from e.g.
MS and EU officials,
(re)manufacturers,
recyclers, NGOs,
academics
Desk research
4.2. Is there any
evidence that the
implementation of the
3R Directive has caused
unnecessary regulatory
burden or complexity?
Extent to which
administrative
cost and burden
can be
considered
unnecessary
Administrative
costs linked to 3R
Directive, reported
administrative
burden or
complexity
/
Degree to which
benefits of the
3R Directive are
proportionate or
outweigh the
related costs
Implementation
cost 3R Directive
Benefits 3R
Directive
Literature review: impact
assessment study Öko
Stakeholder input from e.g.
MS and EU officials,
(re)manufacturers,
recyclers, NGOs,
academics
Desk research
374
 kom (2023) 0451 - Ingen titel
2734812_0067.png
Table 11.6 – Evaluation matrix: Coherence
Evaluation criterion 3: Coherence
Question
Sub-question
Judgement
criteria
Indicator
Data sources
EQ6: To what extent is the EU legislation on circularity
in the automotive industry coherent?
6.1. To what extent is the 3R
Directive internally coherent?
Number and
relevance on
inconsistencies in
the 3R Directive
List of
inconsistency
issues in the 3R
Directive
6.2. To what extent are the 3R
Directive and the ELV
Directive coherent?
Number and
relevance on
inconsistencies
between the 3R
Directive and the
ELV Directive
List of
inconsistency
issues between
the 3R Directive
and the ELV
Directive
EQ7: To what extent is the 3R Directive externally
coherent with other EU legislation and policy
developments?
7.1. Are the 3R requirements
and the related type-approval
process coherent with the
overall type-approval
framework, with safety type
approval and emissions type
approval? To what extent is the
scope of the 3R Directive
coherent?
Number and
relevance on
inconsistencies
between the 3R
Directive and the
type-approval
framework
Share of vehicles
and vehicle waste
covered by the 3R
Directive
List of
inconsistency
issues between
the 3R Directive
and the type-
approval
framework
List of vehicle
categories
covered in type-
approval
legislation
Different vehicle
categories in
number and in kg
waste
Literature
review:
impact
assessment
study Öko
Stakeholder
input
from e.g. MS and EU
officials,
(re)manufacturers,
recyclers,
NGOs,
academics
Desk research
Literature review:
evaluations of the
ELV Directive and
other type-approval
legislation
Stakeholder input
from e.g. MS and EU
officials,
(re)manufacturers,
recyclers, NGOs,
academics
Literature review:
impact assessment
study Öko
Stakeholder input
from e.g. MS and EU
officials,
(re)manufacturers,
recyclers, NGOs,
academics
Desk research
375
 kom (2023) 0451 - Ingen titel
2734812_0068.png
7.2. Are the 3R provisions
coherent with the EU waste
legislation?
Number
and
relevance
of
inconsistencies
List
of
inconsistency
issues
7.3. Is the 3R Directive
coherent with REACH?
Number
and
relevance
of
inconsistencies
List
of
inconsistency
issues
7.4. Is the 3R Directive
coherent with ISO 22628: 2002
and international regulations
such as UNECE Regulation
No. 133?
Number
and
relevance
of
inconsistencies
List
of
inconsistency
issues
7.5. Is the 3R Directive
coherent with other EU
legislation?
Number
and
relevance
of
inconsistencies
List
of
inconsistency
issues
Literature
review:
impact
assessment
study Öko
Stakeholder
input
from e.g. MS and EU
officials,
(re)manufacturers,
recyclers,
NGOs,
academics
Desk research
Literature
review:
impact
assessment
study Öko
Stakeholder
input
from e.g. MS and EU
officials,
(re)manufacturers,
recyclers,
NGOs,
academics
Desk research
Literature
review:
impact
assessment
study Öko
Stakeholder
input
from e.g. MS and EU
officials,
(re)manufacturers,
recyclers,
NGOs,
academics
Desk research
Literature
review:
impact
assessment
study Öko
Stakeholder
input
from e.g. MS and EU
officials,
(re)manufacturers,
recyclers,
NGOs,
academics
Desk research
376
 kom (2023) 0451 - Ingen titel
2734812_0069.png
Table 11.7 – Evaluation matrix: EU added value
Evaluation criterion 4: EU added value
Question
Sub-question
Judgement criteria
Indicator
Data sources
EQ8: What is the added value resulting from having a 3R Directive at EU level?
8.1. What is the added value
of 3R Directive compared to
what could have been
achieved at merely national
level?
Weighing
(dis)advantages of
having rules on
vehicle design and
production taking
into account their
reusability,
recyclability and
recoverability at
Member State
level
Weighing
(in)consistency
between the needs
and challenges of
the 3R Directive
the needs of the
internal market
(Dis)advantages
of having rules
on 3R vehicle
design and
production at
Member State
level
Literature review:
evaluations of the ELV
Directive and other type-
approval legislation
Stakeholder input from e.g.
MS and EU officials,
(re)manufacturers, recyclers,
NGOs, academics
The needs and
challenges of
the 3R
Directive and
the needs of the
internal market
Literature review:
evaluations of the ELV
Directive and other type-
approval legislation
Stakeholder input from e.g.
MS and EU officials,
(re)manufacturers, recyclers,
NGOs, academics
Literature review:
evaluations of the ELV
Directive and other type-
approval legislation
Stakeholder input from e.g.
MS and EU officials,
(re)manufacturers, recyclers,
NGOs, academics
8.2 What is the added value of
3R Directive compared to
what could have been
achieved at international
level?
Weighing
(dis)advantages of
having rules on
vehicle design and
production taking
into account their
reusability,
recyclability and
recoverability at
international level
Degree to which
withdrawing the
existing EU
intervention would
lead to negative
consequences
(Dis)advantages
of having rules
on 3R vehicle
design and
production at
international
level
8.3 Do the needs addressed by
3R Directive continue to
require harmonisation action
at EU level?
Negative
consequences
of withdrawing
the 3R
Directive
Literature review:
evaluations of the ELV
Directive and other type-
approval legislation
Stakeholder input from e.g.
MS and EU officials,
(re)manufacturers, recyclers,
NGOs, academics
377
 kom (2023) 0451 - Ingen titel
2734812_0070.png
Table 11.8 – Evaluation matrix: Relevance
Evaluation criterion 5: Relevance
Question
Sub-question
Judgement criteria
Indicator
Data sources
EQ9: To what extent do the 3R objectives correspond to the current needs?
9.1 To what extent does
designing vehicles taking
into account reusability,
recyclability and
recoverability correspond
to the current needs and EU
ambitions?
Gap between
ambitions in
targets for vehicle
reusability,
recyclability and
recoverability (do
not) and the
current needs and
EU ambition
List of current
needs for
circular
automotive
industry and
vehicle design
for circularity;
List of
ambitions of
wider EU
initiatives (e.g.
CEAP, EU
Green Deal and
Industrial
policy)
Reported
concerns
regarding reuse
of certain (new)
components
Literature review:
evaluations of the ELV
Directive and other
evaluations (Waste
Shipment Regulation,
REACH, ROHS)
Stakeholder input from e.g.
MS and EU officials,
(re)manufacturers, recyclers,
NGOs, academics
9.2 Is the current list of
non-reusable component
parts still fit to prevent
from today’s safety or
environmental hazards?
Degree to which
the list of
components covers
all safety and
environmental
hazards from reuse
of component parts
of relevance today
Literature review:
evaluations of other type-
approval legislation
Stakeholder input from e.g.
MS and EU officials,
(re)manufacturers, recyclers,
NGOs, academics
EQ10: To what extent can the 3R Directive cover new
challenges linked to the transformation of the
automotive industry?
10.1 To what extent can the
3R Directive cover
technological developments
in the automotive industry
(e.g. the growing share of
electric vehicles)?
Degree to which
the objectives of
the 3R Directive
can continue to be
met taking into
account
technological
development.
List of
technological
developments in
the automotive
vehicles,
especially for
vehicles in the
scope, affecting
today’s
reusability,
recyclability and
recoverability
practices
(incl. growing
share electric
and hybrid
vehicles,
increased use of
lightweight
Literature review:
evaluations of the ELV
Directive and other type-
approval legislation
Stakeholder input from e.g.
MS and EU officials,
(re)manufacturers, recyclers,
NGOs, academics
378
 kom (2023) 0451 - Ingen titel
2734812_0071.png
materials in
vehicles like
plastics, carbon-
fibres, fibre-
reinforced
(plastics)
materials;
electronic
components,
which contain
strategic and/or
critical raw
materials
(CRMs))
11.7 Overview of benefits and costs
Table 11.1. Overview of benefits and costs identified in the evaluation
379
 kom (2023) 0451 - Ingen titel
2734812_0072.png
Citizens/Consumers
Businesses
88
Administrations
89
Environmental costs
Quantitati Comment Quantitati Comment Quantitati Comment Quantitativ Comment
ve
ve
ve
e
[Cost or Benefit description]:
Complianc
e costs of
businesses
are
expected to
be passed
on to
consumers.
Because
the cost of
a type
approval is
spread over
all the
vehicles in
the type,
this has a
small
impact on
final
vehicle
prices.
Costs for
OEMs that
submit an
application
for type
approval:
Fees for
applying
for type
approval
varies
depending
on
certificate
type (0-
600€)
90
Based on
input of a
single
OEM,
processing
an
application
or type
approval
takes
between
0.5-2 FTE
and they
prepare
around 30
application
s per
annum.
Assuming
that an
OEM
processes
30 3RTAs
per annum
suggests
that the
burden of
compliance
is between
15-60 FTE
per OEM.
It is noted
that as
3RTA is
internationa
lly
compliant,
not all
submission
s will take
place in the
Costs for
type
approval
authorities
from
checking
and
approving
application
s for 3R
Type
approval:
estimated
at “< 0.25
years FTE
per 3R
Type
approval
and at 1.5-
2.5 years
FTE in
total per
annum per
MS.
One
authority
estimated
the costs
for the
process at
“< 0.25
years FTE
per each 3R
type
approval.
From
inputs of
MS who
perform 3R
Type
approvals it
is
concluded
that 6-9 3R
Type
approvals
are
performed
per annum.
Though the
data is not
exhaustive,
it can be
assumed
that only
between 5-
10 MS
perform 3R
type
approvals.
Admin
istrati
recur
rent
ve
costs
88
This includes impacts for OEMs on the one side and for Type approval service providers who provide support in the
preparation of documentation for type approval (the latter can be considered similar to certification bodies). One type
approval service provider gave information as part of an interview with a Member State (MS) type approval authority.
Others did not participate. Input was furthermore provided to consultation efforts in the form of answers to survey questions:
OEMs were interviewed, 1 OEM provided answers to the survey confidentially and an association also provided general
input in writing, however not answering the survey questions.
89
Data is based on input form 5 MS Type approval Authorities that participated in stakeholder consultation activities based
on a survey of questions. One MS was interviewed, three provided the filled-out survey, 1 provided short input per email,
relating to the survey but only to a few of the aspects addressed therein.
90
Based on a survey of MS Type approval authorities, it is not clear whether these fees apply only to 3R Type approvals or
have a different scope – one MS specified only one fee while another gave different fees but said not to have done and 3R
ones: Some MS have not performed any TAs since Directive 2005/64/EC came into force (e.g., Latvia, Finland) but do
report on Regular TAs for second stage of N vehicles. Some perform 3R Type approvals regularly.
380
 kom (2023) 0451 - Ingen titel
2734812_0073.png
EU and not
all models
will be
marketed in
the EU, i.e.,
the sum
cannot be
allocated in
total to the
Directive.
Costs for
Type
approval
service
providers:
Costs of
increasing
knowhow
of vehicle
compositio
n and
related
likelihood
of
complying
with the 3R
Targets:
Partial
costs:
Organisatio
n and
participatio
n in visits
at ATFs to
observe the
dismantling
process.
One Type
approval
service
provider
stated that
they
perform
visits at
ATFs to
see how the
dismantling
is
performed
in practice,
feeding
into their
knowledge,
however
this was
necessarily
of the
vehicle
models
they type
approved
and it could
be
understood
that a visit
is not
performed
every year.
Costs related
to resource
efficiency: in
cases where
large
amounts of
“non-
recyclable
materials”
such as
reinforced
plastics are
contained in
the vehicle
and assumed
to be
recyclable
due to a
TRL≥4, such
materials
Imple
menta
recur
rent
tion
costs
Adjust
ment
costs
381
 kom (2023) 0451 - Ingen titel
2734812_0074.png
will probably
be shredded
and mixed
with other
fractions,
possibly
contaminatio
n other
fractions and
increasing
recycling
costs.
Benefit of
type
approval
for
consumers:
as the 3R
Type
approval
applies
throughout
the EU and
as it is
linked to
the
internationa
l UN ECE
Regulation
133 which
is very
similar,
consumers
have the
benefit of
being to
purchase or
sell second
hand
vehicles
between
borders
without the
need to
recertify
the type
approval of
the
vehicle
91
Benefits for
OEMs: as
the 3R
Type
approval
applies
throughout
the EU and
Benefi
one-
off
ts
Benefi
recur
rent
ts
91
This applies to the base vehicle which is affected by the 3R Type approval. In the case of second stage type approvals this
may differ as the vehicle may change at different stages of its lifetime, however this is understood to be out of scope of this
review.
382
 kom (2023) 0451 - Ingen titel
2734812_0075.png
is also
compliant
internationa
lly, OEMs
have the
benefit of
harmonisati
on as they
only need
to perform
a single
type
approval
for new
models
they intend
to place on
the market,
which then
applies in
all
countries
where that
model is
marketed.
Benefits for
Type
approval
service
providers:
these
establishme
nts are
hired by the
OEMs to
certify and
thus
support the
preparation
of type
approval
application
s. Data was
not made
available
on the
revenue for
such
services;
however, it
would be
expected to
incur for
every type
approval
performed
by the
company.
[benefits
not quanti-
fiable]
Indire recu
ct
rrent
Benefits for Basis for
MS: where assumption
383
 kom (2023) 0451 - Ingen titel
2734812_0076.png
benefit
s
type
approved
vehicles are
placed on
the market
of an MS in
which it
was not
type
approved,
that MS has
benefit of
cars being
placed on
the market
that are
considered
to comply
with ELV
requiremen
t, without
having had
any
administrati
ve costs to
ensure the
compliance
. [benefits
not quanti-
fiable]
: The 3R
Type
approval is
harmonised
not just for
the EU but
also
internationa
lly.
384
 kom (2023) 0451 - Ingen titel
2734812_0077.png
A
NNEX
12: O
VERVIEW
O
F
P
ROJECTS
A
ND
R
ESEARCH
Since 2000, under the Horizon 2020 and LIFE, the EU has funded around 100 of different
projects which have contributed to higher scale of knowledge, expertise in advancement of
relevant ELV treatment operations, material recovery, reduced use of rare earth materials and
manufacturing/recycling costs. The subsections below provide the overview of the key
ongoing and completed projects and research in the field.
12.1 Under Horizon 2020 programme:
1. Circular Process for Eco-Designed Bulky Products and Internal Car Parts (2017-2021)
ECOBULK
92
aims at demonstrating and implementing a new Circular Economy model for
bulky composite products in automotive, furniture and building component industrial sectors,
with high potential of cross-sectoral replicability and transferability to other industrial
sectors, to promote greater re-use, upgrade, refurbishment and recycling of these products.
ECOBULK is a large-scale demonstration project that develops different pilot activities and
demonstrations at different levels. The initial planning for manufacturing, demonstration and
validation of the newly designed circular products have already started in ECOBULK by
generating a master plan for the demonstration activities. This preliminary demo plans total 7
EU-countries, 11 demonstrators and in 21 individual demonstrations all over the Europe
during years 2019-2021 within the three
product sectors automotive, furniture
(indoor/outdoor) and building and construction.
2. Removing hazardous substances to increase recycling rates of WEEE, ELV and CDW
plastics (2019-2022)
The EU-funded NONTOX project
93
targets two waste streams: end-of-life vehicles (ELV)
and construction and demolition waste (CDW). It will develop technologies to remove
hazardous substances from these two waste streams. The project investigates the
thermochemical conversion of non-target plastics and side streams to increase system
efficiency by increasing the range of final products and applications. The project aims to
develop an economically competitive recycling process that can produce safe and high-
quality secondary plastic materials from contaminated plastic waste.
3. New industrial sorting systems based on laser spectroscopy (LIBS), magnetic
induction, and machine vision for recycling of non-ferrous metals (2014)
SMEs and research organisations in the EU-funded SHREDDERSORT project
94
have
developed and demonstrated a new industrial sorting system to separate non-ferrous shredder
scrap into cast aluminium (Al), wrought Al, and non-Al categories. Compared to the unsorted
material, the sorted categories are better suited for recycling into secondary metals, have a
higher market value, and will reduce the use of raw materials.
92
93
https://cordis.europa.eu/project/id/730456
https://cordis.europa.eu/project/id/820895
94
https://cordis.europa.eu/article/id/128556-new-industrial-sorting-systems-based-on-laser-spectroscopy-libs-magnetic-
induction-and-machin
385
 kom (2023) 0451 - Ingen titel
2734812_0078.png
4. Controlled Closed Loop Recycling for Life-Cycle Optimised Industrial Production
(2005-2007)
The Conclore project
95
aimed to develop a viable, low-emission system for manufacturing
100 %-recyclable single-component car interior products. Materials can be recovered at the
end of the vehicle's useful life and be recycled into another product — in any sector. By
focusing on modifications to the production of automotive parts, the concept involved
reintegration of recycled polymer material with quality equal to that of virgin material.
5. Automotive Residue Valorization (2016)
The AUTOREVAL project
96
aimed at the total elimination of landfill disposal, as regards
car-fluff, with the related environmental impact and transportation costs. In the context of this
project a new kind of innovative industrial plant was to be developed, which should be able
to process and convert ASR (Automotive Shredder Residue or car fluff) and ELT (End of
Life Tyres) rubber, into fuel products, reducing the environmental impact and making more
efficient the entire automotive sector. In this way, materials transformed into fuels will be
used as energy source by the players of the sector, contributing in this way to the
development of a circular economy that embraces the whole vehicles life.
6. Advanced Reluctance Motors for Electric Vehicle Applications (2016)
To enable a large scale adoption of EVs, a new generation of electric drive systems is needed
to reduce dependency on rare earth materials, while improving energy efficiency, power
density and reducing manufacturing/recycling costs. The ARMEVA
97
project developed a
new rare-earth-free generation of advanced reluctance motors.
7. Robust recycling technology that separates different plastic types from a mix of
plastic waste to produce a plastic material directly marketable to manufacturers
(2017-2018)
The technology developed within the TRIBOSORT project
98
allows to 1) recycle all ultimate
scrap residues from ELV and WEEE, 2) separate its valuable plastic components with a
purity of 95% minimum, 3) provide an industrial scale solution with a production capacity of
1.5t/h 4) produce a final recycled plastic material directly marketable to manufacturers, 5)
provide a Recycle certificate along with our final products.
8. X-ray sensor for the recognition of polymer type, additive and fillers in black and
coloured plastics for recycling and analysis (2019-2020)
The black plastics, which represent 30-50% of plastic scraps in Waste Electric and Electronic
Equipment (WEEE) and End-of-Life Vehicles (ELV), end up as residue and are disposed in
landfills, buried or exported outside EU, because the existing plastic sorting technologies are
not able to sort black plastics based on the type of polymer and to identify the presence of
additives such as Brominated Flame Retardants (BFR) and pollutants which are forbidden by
95
96
https://cordis.europa.eu/article/id/86900-simpler-structures-for-improved-auto-recycling
https://cordis.europa.eu/project/id/717514
97
https://cordis.europa.eu/project/id/605195
98
https://cordis.europa.eu/project/id/790321
386
 kom (2023) 0451 - Ingen titel
2734812_0079.png
EU directives on recycling. The SELEX project
99
exploits for the first time a combination of
X-ray solutions allowing: 1) to discriminate polymers used in the plastic matrix both for
coloured and black plastics; 2) to provide quantitative information about presence of fillers,
additives and pollutants present in the polymer matrix, including BFR.
9. Supporting the Electric Vehicle REVOLUTION through maximising EV Range and
End-of-Life Vehicle Recovery through optimisation of recycled plastics and advanced
light materials (2021-2023)
The REVOLUTION project
100
aims at overcoming the challenges hindering the use of
recycled materials, but more broadly, restricting the widespread adoption of circular economy
principles in the automotive industry. REVOLUTION will use machine learning and artificial
intelligence to optimise the input of recycled materials and injection moulding process to
deliver high-quality parts.
10. Advanced Light materials for sustainable Electrical Vehicles by Integration of eco-
design and circular economy Strategies
The LEVIS
101
project developed multi-material structural parts using thermoplastic-based
carbon fibre reinforced plastics/metal hybrid materials integrated with a structural health
monitoring system. The aim was to achieve a significant weight reduction while keeping the
mechanical in-service performance of the targeted parts. As such, new sustainable materials
and suitable manufacturing and assembly procedures as well as advanced simulation
methodologies/workflows and innovative sensing/monitoring technologies were developed.
11. Leading the TRansion of the European Automotive SUpply chain towards a circulaR
futurE (2021-2024)
The fact that the car industry has little involvement in CRM recovery from end-of-life
vehicles (ELVs) led to the development of the idea of the TREASURE project
102
. The
TREASURE project will develop a scenario analysis and simulation tool to assess the
positive and negative implications of circular economy practices and principles in car
manufacturing to facilitate the adoption of CRM recovery and circular economy in this
sector.
12. Advanced and sustainable recycling processes and value chains for plastic-based
multi-materials (2018-2022)
The MultiCycle project aimed
103
to introduce an advanced and sustainable recycling process
as well as the value chains for plastic-based multi-materials. This process will be
demonstrated in fibre reinforced thermoplastic composites for the automotive sector from
which plastics constitute around 16% of End-of-Life Vehicles weight, i.e. ca. 1 million
tons/year in EU.
99
X-ray sensor for the recognition of polymer type, additive and fillers in black and coloured plastics for recycling and
analysis | SELEX Project | Fact Sheet | H2020 | CORDIS | European Commission (europa.eu)
100
https://cordis.europa.eu/project/id/101006631
101
https://cordis.europa.eu/project/id/101006888
102
https://cordis.europa.eu/project/id/101003587
103
https://cordis.europa.eu/project/id/820695
387
 kom (2023) 0451 - Ingen titel
2734812_0080.png
13. Optimising quality of information in Raw Materials data collection across Europe
(2017-2019)
The ORAMA project
104
focuses on optimising data collection for primary and secondary raw
materials in Member States. For End-of-Life Vehicles the focus is on developing ‘INSPIRE-
alike’ protocols. ORAMA will demonstrate how to create more robust Material Systems
Analysis studies and reliable Sankey diagrams for stocks and flows of specific raw materials.
12.2 Under LIFE programme:
1. A novel and efficient sorting process for post-shredder ELVs to meet and overcome
ELV directive targets (2014-2017)
The LIFE CARWASTE project
105
aims to contribute to the effective life-cycle management
of cars through an innovative process to exploit currently landfilled waste material produced
at end-of-life. More specifically, it plans to develop and demonstrate an innovative
technology and process to facilitate the re-use of ‘fluff’ materials in cement and steel plants.
2. Aim to realise 95% ELV-recycling in the Netherlands by means of post shredder
technology (2011-2015)
The PST project's
106
main objective was to reach an ELV recycling rate of 95% by the end of
2014 and thus allow the Netherlands to comply with the ELV Directive. It planned to do this
by demonstrating and optimising a PST plant using the VW-SiCon process in the Dutch
province of Gelderland. The PST project beneficiary ARN Recycling reported an End-of-Life
Vehicles (ELV) recycling rate of 83.7% for material recycling and a total of 96.1% for
recycling and energy recovery for 2012; and 86.1% and 96.0%, respectively, for 2014.
3. Industrial Platform Demonstrator to achieve 95% recycling of the "end-of-life
vehicle" (2011-2015)
The objective of the LIFE project ICARRE 95
107
was to demonstrate how to recycle 95% of
End-of-Life Vehicles (ELVs) at a regional scale (up to 30 000 ELVs per year) and to create a
model that can be applied and exported to other sites and countries in France and Europe. To
reach its objective, the project concentrated its efforts on plastics, foams, glass, textiles and
catalytic converters. The project aimed to outline an effective process for dismantling
recovered car and to develop a cradle-to-cradle process for recycling the targeted
components.
4. High performance devulcanized masterbatches for End-of-Life Tire reuse in high-
volume technical compounding applications (2020-2024)
The LIFE GREEN VULCAN project
108
aims at increasing the reuse rate of rubber waste with
an innovative and environmentally-friendly devulcanisation technology. The project
104
105
https://cordis.europa.eu/project/id/776517
https://webgate.ec.europa.eu/life/publicWebsite/project/details/3968
106
https://webgate.ec.europa.eu/life/publicWebsite/project/details/3397
107
https://webgate.ec.europa.eu/life/publicWebsite/project/details/3343
108
https://webgate.ec.europa.eu/life/publicWebsite/project/details/5357
388
 kom (2023) 0451 - Ingen titel
2734812_0081.png
contributes to the implementation of the End-of-Life Vehicles Directive by enabling
increased recycling rates.
5. ELV DEPOLLUTION BAY -equipped island for the management of materials and
components for end of life vehicles (2017-2019)
The main objective of the LIFE De-BAY
109
project was to lower the environmental impact of
ELVs by developing more efficient recovery systems and techniques for small and medium-
sized dismantlers. This technology would be validated and demonstrated within fully-
equipped and integrated depollution islands at two pilot dismantling sites. The aim was to
enable the recovery of larger amounts of vehicle materials and components (e.g. plastics,
glass and filters) and up to 99% of all ELV fluids by weight, in a much faster and more
efficient way than is possible using current tools and systems. The main environmental
benefits demonstrated by the project were the increased/improved recovery of spent fuels and
other fluids from ELVs, and the reduction of hazardous materials and not-recoverable wastes
sent to landfills. On a yearly basis, for example: +50 000 l/year more petrol recovered, +12
000 l/year engine oil, +5 000 l/year brake fluids, and +1 700 kg/year air conditioning
refrigerants.
6. Recycling of textile fibres from end-of-life tyres for production of new asphalts and
plastic compounds (2015-2018)
The project REFIBRE-LIFE
110
aimed to overcome the two main existing barriers limiting
ELT fibre recycling. Its overall objective was that 100% of the ELT fibre material is
transformed into a useful secondary raw material within a ‘circular economy’ approach. The
project’s objectives were, among others, to construct and validate an innovative industrial
pilot plant to treat, clean and process ELT fibres, making them recyclable and re-usable and
produce new materials (plastic compounds and asphalts) that have been modified with the
fibre.
7. Boosting circular economy of plastics from end-of-life vehicles through recycling
into high added-value applications(2018-2022)
The LIFE CIRC-ELV project
111
aims to boost plastic recycling rates in the automotive sector
by recycling polypropylene in end-of-life cars and reusing it in new products. Substituting
virgin plastics with the recycled kind would contribute to the EU circular economy package.
It would also support the Waste Framework Directive and ELV Directive by closing the
manufacturing loop for plastics used in car manufacturing and tackle the depletion of fossil
resources from which they are currently derived.
8. Low energy chemo-thermal recycling of carbon fibre composites, a central step to a
circular economy for CFRP products (2022-2025)
The current manufacturing methods for CFRP parts produce large quantities of scrap. This
material is made up of in-production scrap, end-of-life components (e.g. automotive parts,
109
110
https://webgate.ec.europa.eu/life/publicWebsite/project/details/4685
https://webgate.ec.europa.eu/life/publicWebsite/project/details/4241
111
https://webgate.ec.europa.eu/life/publicWebsite/project/details/4918
389
 kom (2023) 0451 - Ingen titel
2734812_0082.png
aircraft wings, wind turbine blades, sporting and consumer goods) and full-scale test articles.
The LIFE CFCycle project
112
aims to implement and evaluate a low-energy approach for
recycling carbon fibre reinforced polymers (rCF). This will be achieved by a low-temperature
and low-pressure chemical recycling process known as chemolysis. The objective is to
recycle at least 2 000 tonnes CFRP scrap per year from automotive parts, aircraft wings and
wind turbo blade to establish a supply chain for CFRP scrap and to demonstrate the
suitability of the recycled material in at least three applications. The project contributes to the
implementation of the End-of-Life Vehicle (ELV) Directive, which requires that 85% of each
vehicle manufactured after January 2015 must be re-used or recovered.
12.3 Under other programs:
1. Selective recovery of non-ferrous metal automotive shredder by combined
electromagnetic tensor spectroscopy and laser-induced plasma spectroscopy (2014-
2016)
The SHREDDERSORT project
113
aims at developing a new dry sorting technology for non-
ferrous automotive shredder. First, shredder will be separated into different metals, based on
their conductivity. To this end, a new electromagnetic sensing technique combined with a
vision system will be used.
2. Future Availability of Secondary Raw Materials (2022-2026)
The FutuRaM project
114
will address, among others, the waste stream of End-of-Life
Vehicles. It seeks to (1) develop knowledge on the availability and recoverability of
secondary raw materials (SRMs) within the European Union (EU), with a special focus on
critical raw materials (CRMs), to enable fact-based decision making for their exploitation in
the EU and third countries, and (2) disseminate this information via a systematic and
transparent Secondary Raw Materials Knowledge Base (SRM-KB).
112
113
https://webgate.ec.europa.eu/life/publicWebsite/project/details/5682
https://cordis.europa.eu/project/id/603676
114
https://cordis.europa.eu/project/id/101058522
390
 kom (2023) 0451 - Ingen titel
2734812_0083.png
A
NNEX
13: SME
TEST FOR THE PREFERRED OPTION
As indicated in Annex 4 of this impact assessment, the preferred option would impact large
companies involved in the manufacturing of vehicles as well as the steel and plastics
industries. As it would also impact SMEs, this Annex provides an analysis (based on the
methodology for “SME test” laid out in the Commission Better Regulation Guidelines
115
), on:
1.
2.
3.
4.
the types of SMEs affected by the measures contained in the preferred option;
how they have been consulted in the development of this impact assessment;
what the expected impacts on these SMEs are;
how possible negative impacts on these SMEs have been minimised.
13.1 Step (1) − Identification of affected businesses
116
The categories of SMEs affected by the proposed measures have been identified based on
their activities (dismantling; shredding/recycling; repair and garage shops; export of used
vehicles).
Dismantlers:
there are approximately 12 000 “authorised treatment facilities” (ATFs) in
the EU, which are on the frontline for the dismantling of ELVs. Most of them are SMEs.
Some others are integrated in larger companies which also carry out shredding activities.
A number of them also have contractual links with vehicle manufacturers, while others
are completely independent. They receive ELVs from their last owners, carry out their
depollution and remove the most valuable parts and components. They make most of their
business in the commercialisation of these parts removed (to be reused) and the sale of
depolluted ELVs to shredders. Many of them also deal with used vehicles that they
purchase and sell inside or outside the EU. They are directly affected by the provisions of
the ELV Directive on collection, treatment and depollution, as well as on recycling/re-use
and recovery targets. While they have to abide by the EU requirements, they face
competition (both to receive ELV but also when selling spare parts) from the informal
sector which collect ELVs and dismantle them in less environmentally sound manner
(and without an authorisation to do so).
Shredding/recycling companies:
there are a few hundred
117
companies in the EU active
in the sorting, shredding and processing of ELVs and waste fractions resulting from
ELVs. Some of them are linked to large waste management companies while others are
SMEs. They buy depolluted ELVs from ATFs, shred them, sort the resulting waste, sell
the resulting sorted and shredded materials to industries using secondary materials as
115
See
tool
#23
in
https://commission.europa.eu/law/law-making-process/planning-and-proposing-law/better-
regulation/better-regulation-guidelines-and-toolbox/better-regulation-toolbox_en
116
See as well as Annex 4.
117
See the supporting study for the impact assessment, which refers to data collected in 2014 according to which 350
shredders are established in the EU. According to Eurostat, there are shredders equipped for ELVs in all EU Member States
except Luxembourg and Malta.
391
 kom (2023) 0451 - Ingen titel
2734812_0084.png
feedstock in their production processes, and send residual waste to landfills or for
incineration with energy recovery. Such companies are not evenly equipped with modern
technologies, some of them having invested in “post-shredding technologies” allowing to
better sort and decontaminate materials mixed during the shredding process, while others
rely on more basic technology. They have traditionally been focusing on the
commercialisation of ferrous and non-ferrous scrap, which are by far the most profitable
waste fractions from ELVs. A large share of this metal scrap is exported outside the EU.
Some shredding companies have however been investing in plastics recycling and in
improved technologies for metal recovery and have called for the establishment of
recycled content obligations for these materials in new vehicles to support their activities.
Repair shops and garages:
The sector of the maintenance and repair of motor vehicles
in the EU is composed of around 450 000 companies which are mostly micro SMEs with
fewer than 10 employees
118
. They would be mainly affected by measures impacting the
purchase and selling of used parts and components. They are indeed important actors in
the market of spare parts: this is the case both for new spare parts, which they buy from
vehicle manufacturers or spare part suppliers, and used spare parts stemming from ATFs
or other garages. Measures dedicated to support reuse of remanufactured and used parts
would enlarge the supply of used parts to these stakeholders, but could also generate
additional burden for them compared to the baseline scenario, especially if the measures
imply obligations.
Companies involved in the export of used vehicles:
most companies exporting used
vehicles outside the EU are SMEs. This is the case of some garages or ATFs for which
the purchase/sale of used vehicles in just one part of their regular business activities.
There are also companies which exercise exclusively these activities, buying used cars
from garages, insurance companies or individual owners, and organising their export to
non-EU countries.
13.2 Step (2) consultation of SME stakeholders
The review process for the ELV Directive started in 2018 and included extensive consultation
of the stakeholders affected by this legislation, especially SMEs. The first consultations took
place in the context of the evaluation of the ELV Directive
119
. They were followed by
consultations carried out as part of the present impact assessment (Open Public Consultation
on the Impact Assessment for joint review of the ELV Directive and 3R type-approval
Directive
120
, specific consultation for 3R type-approval aspects, additional targeted
consultations and bilateral discussions with different groups of stakeholders). The review of
the ELV Directive was also covered by an opinion from the “Fit for future platform
121
” which
reflected views from stakeholders. Particular attention was paid to reach out to SMEs during
118
119
Annual detailed enterprise statistics for trade (NACE Rev. 2 G) [SBS_NA_DT_R2__custom_4698656]
End-of-life vehicles: evaluation of the ELV Directive published (europa.eu)
120
https://ec.europa.eu/info/law/better-regulation/have-your-say/initiatives/12633-End-of-life-vehicles-revision-of-EU-
rules_en
121
https://cor.europa.eu/en/our-work/Pages/Fit-for-Future-opinion-on-End-of-life-vehicles-and-3R-type-approval.aspx
392
 kom (2023) 0451 - Ingen titel
2734812_0085.png
these consultations, either through their umbrella federations at EU or national levels, or
directly.
The analysis of the OPC for the impact assessment carried out from July to October 2021
illustrates how SMEs took part in the consultation process. Among the 208 stakeholders
which contributed to this consultation, 62.5% were SMEs or organisations representing the
interests of SMEs (130 responses), covering a wide geographical scope.
Among others, these stakeholders included for example the European association for national
associations of automotive recyclers in Europe (EGARA
122
); the Association of ATFs in
Catalonia (AETRAC
123
); the French Private Companies Association for Waste Management
(FNADE
124
); the French federation of companies working on services linked to automotive
sector, including repair (Mobilians
125
); the French Federation of Craft Businesses in the
automotive sector and in mobility services (FNA
126
); Gremi de Recuperació de Catalunya
127
;
a Finnish ATF (Suomen Autopurkamoliitto r.y)
128
; a Czech metal waste processor
(DEMONTA Trade SE
129
); the German association of recycling companies
(Bundesvereinigung Deutscher Stahlrecycling- und Entsorgungsunternehmen e.V.
130
).
In terms of sectoral representation, vehicle manufacturers, importers, suppliers (50), together
with waste management operators (dismantlers, ATFs – 47, recyclers, shredder operators –
45) represented the major groups of stakeholders.
122
123
https://egaranet.org/
https://aetrac.org/
124
https://www.fnade.org/fr
125
https://www.mobilians.fr/
126
https://fna.fr/
127
https://www.gremirecuperacio.org/sobre-nosotros/
128
https://www.autopurkamoliitto.fi/
129
https://www.demontagroup.cz/
130
https://www.bdsv.org/der-verband/
393
 kom (2023) 0451 - Ingen titel
2734812_0086.png
13.2.1 13.2.1 SMEs views relating to measures to increase the re-use of vehicle parts:
The OPC included a specific question, addressed to the professional audience, on which
measures would contribute to increase the reuse of vehicles parts, from
189 responses totally
received, 130 came from SMEs mostly representing the ELV dismantling sector. 84 of
them supported the view that the introduction of an obligation for repair shops to offer
used spare parts (together with new spare parts) to their customers would contribute to
increase the reuse of vehicle parts.
75 of them were of the opinion that car manufacturers
should be obliged to enable ATFs to unlock parts with digital keys so that these parts could
be reused after dismantling. Additionally, 66 of the respondents representing the SMEs
agreed that the manufacturers should be obliged to provide the dismantling centres
information about the parts. 54 of the participants in this category supported the measure to
remove certain parts of ELVs before shredding with the aim to support reuse.
394
 kom (2023) 0451 - Ingen titel
2734812_0087.png
395
 kom (2023) 0451 - Ingen titel
2734812_0088.png
13.2.2 13.2.2 Recycled content target for plastics
Out of 130 responses from SMEs, 71 strongly agreed or agreed with setting a recycled
content target for plastics. 30 of these SMEs belonged to dismantling sector or ATFs, while
15 represented the recycling sector. Only 11 of SMEs in these sectors opposed to setting a
mandatory target on use of recycled plastic in new vehicles. Taking the total number of
SMEs, 36 (or 27.8 %) of them did not agree, while 28 (or 21.5%) remained neutral.
When asked to indicate
other materials for which recycled content targets should be
considered,
most of the SMEs representing dismantling, ATFs, vehicle producers,
manufacturers, suppliers and recycling sector chose
glass, platinum group metals, REEs,
aluminium alloys, other CRMs and steel alloys and magnesium as the most potential
candidates.
396
 kom (2023) 0451 - Ingen titel
2734812_0089.png
From the SMEs cluster, the distribution of the responses to this question is provided below:
13.2.3 13.2.3 Material specific recycling targets
When inquired about establishing a material-specific targets, on the overall, the SMEs were
supportive, 83 of them agreed as it would increase the separate recycling, while 70 also noted
397
 kom (2023) 0451 - Ingen titel
2734812_0090.png
the increase of the quality of recycling. Although 70 participants admitted that the
establishment of the material specific targets would increase costs, 45 also acknowledged that
setting such targets would increase the revenues from the sale of recycled materials.
In this context, 28 ELV management operators also agreed that such regulatory approach on
recycling targets would have a positive impact on innovation development. SMEs specified
that the major impacts are expected in increasing i) innovative eco-design of products; ii)
high-quality recycling; and iii) innovative recycling opportunities and processes.
13.2.4 13.2.4 Export related requirements for the used vehicles
70 % of all the participants of the OPC represented SMEs and were in favour of new EU-
wide export related measures for used vehicles. Assessing the individual responses received,
64 of SME stakeholders agreed with idea to introduce a requirement to provide a valid
roadworthiness certificate as a mandatory condition to authorise the export of a used vehicle
to a non-EU country. This response was followed by the support to better enforce the existing
ban on export of ELVs (57), while 49 suggested to focus on illegal export of ELVs by
improving the traceability of vehicles and introducing mandatory criteria to distinguish waste
vehicles from used vehicles.
398
 kom (2023) 0451 - Ingen titel
2734812_0091.png
Taking the overall scope of respondents, the main responses were received from dismantling
ATF, recycling sector and vehicle producers, manufacturers, suppliers and importers. 8 car
dealers and representatives specialising in import/export of used vehicles responded to this
question; 3 of them identified themselves as SMEs.
13.3 Step (3) assessment of the impact on SMEs
13.3.1 13.3.1 EPR related measures
Stakeholders were asked to provide their opinion whether it is necessary to compensate the
authorised treatment facilities (ATFs) for their dismantling efforts that, under the current
conditions, are not economically viable, in order to ensure a high quality of recycling.
Overall, more than 64% of stakeholders representing SMEs agreed that it is necessary
to compensate the costs incurred by the ATFs.
The dismantling and recycling sector alone
was represented by 65 SMEs. 40 of them were in favour, while 9 of them indicated as I don’t
know/ no opinion.
Out of 18 individual respondents who identified themselves as vehicle
producers, suppliers or importers, 8 individuals disagreed with such an approach.
From the SMEs cluster, the distribution of the responses to this question is provided below:
399
 kom (2023) 0451 - Ingen titel
2734812_0092.png
13.3.2 13.3.2 Impacts on companies involved in the dismantling and recycling sector:
The economic viability of SMEs in the
dismantling sector
is already fragile. Under the
baseline scenario, they will face considerable challenges within a 10- to 15-year horizon,
due to the consequences of the shift to electric vehicles. The dismantling of EVs will
indeed require an evolution of their business model, notably investments for new
technologies and infrastructure.
For SMEs in the dismantling sector, the measures in the preferred option consisting in
increasing the number of parts and components to be removed prior to the shredding
phase will generate important extra costs. These costs would be partly offset by additional
revenues, notably linked to the sales of used spare parts, which will be considerably
encouraged through measures designed to improve the market for such parts. In the same
vein, valuable components removed prior to shredding (parts containing plastics,
aluminium, CRMs) and sent for high quality recycling will command higher prices than
when these components are sent to shredders. Taking advantage of the digitalisation
process will be critical in empowering the smaller and often family-run companies to
reach out to new market players by connecting to online platforms and distant
400
 kom (2023) 0451 - Ingen titel
marketplaces at both local and international levels. In addition, the ‘pull-effect’ from the
mandatory target on recycled content for plastics are expected to boost the
competitiveness of dismantlers, as they would become the primary supply spots of the
high-demand high-quality secondary materials. The measures designed to address the
problems of “missing vehicles” will also have a considerable effect for the dismantling
sector, as this will result in an important extra volume of ELVs of up to 3.2 million units
delivered to ATFs in 2035, and thereby a considerable increase in their turnover. For the
extra costs linked to the proposed measures which cannot be offset through market
conditions, the measures proposed on EPR will be key to ensure that vehicle
manufacturers provide the necessary financial support to dismantlers so that they
maintain their competitiveness and face down unfair competition from the informal
sector.
Based on the elements presented above, it clear that an important number of factors will
influence the competitiveness of SMEs in the dismantling sector. The proposed measures,
especially to increase the collection of ELVs, will lead to an important additional
economic activity and increased turnover. According to the modelling from the main
impact assessment, it would also lead to the creation of about 8,000 jobs in 2035
compared to the baseline related to implementation of the recycled content, quality of
recycling and collection related measures. The expected increase in the demand for spare
parts, improvements in their distribution and the fluctuations of prices of secondary
materials (i.e., spare parts for re-use and materials destined for recycling) will be essential
elements to determine the profitability of ATFs. While it remains challenging to provide
an accurate projection of the costs and revenues for SMEs from the measures contained in
the preferred option, it is estimated that they would be able to increase their
competitiveness, with a higher turnover and additional employees, and an overall
increased net revenue of 2 million EUR in 2035.
For SMEs involved in the
sorting, shredding and recycling
of ELV waste, the most
impactful measures are those:
(i)
(ii)
on better collection of ELVs, which would mean that additional ELVs would be
supplied to shredding and recycling plants;
on recycled content, which should ensure an increased market share for recycled
plastics [and steel] through ensuring a steady supply from these recyclates to
industries processing them into new products, and boost their competitiveness;
designed to increase the quality of recyclates and improve the treatment of waste,
especially the requirements for selective treatment of a list of parts and
components (as described in Measure 13b) and new requirements on the ban on
the landfilling for automobile shredders residues and on mixing of ELV scrap
with WEEE and other scraps during shredding and post-shredding technologies.
These measures would require investments, notably for the companies which are
currently not operating modern shredding and post shredding technologies.
(iii)
Overall, the proposed measures would have a substantial impact on SMEs active in this
sector, with a large increase in turnover and also new investment needs. And in that case
again, the measures proposed on EPR are meant to ensure that extra costs which cannot
401
 kom (2023) 0451 - Ingen titel
2734812_0094.png
be offset under normal market conditions should be borne by vehicle manufacturers to
support the recycling sector. As for SMEs in the dismantling sector, the overall economic
impact on shredding and recycling companies will be highly dependent on the prices of
recyclates, which cannot be predicted with certainty. Taking these uncertainties into
consideration and based on the model used for this impact assessment, the overall
economic impact for the shredding sector has been assessed as representing a net cost of
190 million € in 2035 compared to the baseline, while it would be of 265 million € net
revenues for the recycling sector. As indicated above, the extra costs for the shredding
sector would be compensated by contributions from the vehicle manufacturers through
EPR schemes, so that the competitiveness of the shredding sector would not be affected.
The social impact would translate in the creation of 6 000 jobs for the whole sorting,
shredding and recycling sector.
Overall, the proposed measures should support the competitiveness of
SMEs in the
dismantling and recycling sector
through new market opportunities. It is however likely
that a number of SMEs might not be able or willing to adapt their business models or
invest in the technologies necessary to meet the new requirements. In addition, the
measures proposed on the design/production of vehicles, as well as those on EPR, could
also encourage vehicle manufacturers to play a greater role in management of ELV waste.
This could take the form of contractual arrangements with existing actors in the waste
management, or of a more direct intervention through direct investments in this field. As
a result, it is likely that the proposed measures could lead to a concentration of actors in
the dismantling and recycling sectors and a reduction in the number of SMEs in this field.
It should be underlined that this trend for concentration is expected to happen under the
baseline scenario, as some vehicle manufacturers intend to exercise a higher control over
the recovery of materials contained in electric vehicles, due to their value and relevance
for their industry. The proposed measures under the preferred option could exacerbate
this trend but it is expected that a concentration of the sector would take place in any
event under the baseline scenario.
Impact on companies in the maintenance and repair of vehicles:
For the SMEs in this
sector, the most impactful measure assessed as part of this report is the measure requiring
them to offer used spare parts together with new spare parts to their customers (as is
currently the case in France). Adopting this measure would be up to EU Member States.
This would represent an additional burden compared to the baseline. This will be the case
especially for the companies which are not currently used to proposing used spare parts to
their customers, as they would have to carry out an additional task. In practice, this new
measure would translate in spending a certain amount of time to search for used spare
parts. There are many online platforms offering used spare parts for sale, thus facilitating
search for the appropriate one.
Impact on companies involved in the export of used vehicles:
They will be affected by
the measures designed to ensure a better control on the interdiction to export ELVs
outside the OECD, as well as by the new measures governing the export of used vehicles
(only authorised upon presentation of a roadworthiness certificate). The companies
specialised in the export of used cars will be the most impacted. They would incur costs
linked to the obligation for them to carry out roadworthiness tests for vehicles which are
currently exported after the certificate has expired. In addition, they are likely to see a
402
 kom (2023) 0451 - Ingen titel
decrease in revenues linked to a reduction in the export of used vehicles which do not
meet the conditions to obtain a roadworthiness certificate. They would then have to sell
these vehicles as ELVs to ATFs in the EU, at a much lower price than what they could
have obtained for exporting them. The overall net economic impacts for this sector have
been assessed to reach a loss of 510 million EUR costs by 2035 compared to the baseline
scenario.
13.4 Step (4) minimising negative impacts on SMEs
The negative impacts of the preferred option have been minimised through (i) a careful
design and adaptation of the measures to ensure that their cost remains proportional to the
expected benefits and are not excessive for SMEs and (ii) the introduction of mechanisms of
compensation by vehicle manufacturers for possible extra costs linked to the proposed
measures, which could be not offset under normal conditions by SMEs (through the
establishment of “extended producer responsibility” schemes).
Companies in the dismantling/recycling sector:
The measures impacting companies in
the dismantling and recycling sector have been devised in a way to reflect the different
situations in the Member States, their degree of technological development, the need to
remain technology-neutral and avoid excessive costs. This is in particular the case for the
obligations to ensure an improved treatment of ELV and their related scrap: one of the
most important measures in that regard is the obligation for dismantlers and shredding
companies to operate a selective treatment of a list of parts and components contained in
ELV. The definition of the items contained in this list has taken into consideration the
associated costs and benefits linked to their selective dismantling. As a result, the
preferred option did not retain the suggestions made during the consultation process to
include a number of components (as reflected in Measure 14c, which does not form part
of the preferred option), in view of the high costs linked to their dismantling compared to
the environmental and economic benefits. The preferred measure in that regard is
Measure 14b, which includes a shorter list. In addition, the obligation for selective
treatment is less stringent than the suggestion made during the consultation process that
the items contained in the list should all be removed manually by dismantlers before the
shredding stage. This remains an option, but the selective treatment can also be operated
by shredding companies if they provide evidence that the quality of the scrap resulting
from shredding will be of similar quality than for components removed priori to
shredding. This was an important demand by the shredding operators.
The costs linked to the new requirements for the SMEs in the dismantling and recycling
sector are also mitigated through (i) measures designed to stimulate the market for
recyclates and re-use of spare parts and (ii) financial contribution by vehicle
manufacturers to offset compliance costs which cannot be absorbed under normal market
conditions (through EPR schemes).
The measures designed to improve the market for recyclates are in the first place the
requirements on the mandatory use of recycled plastics (and potentially steel), which will
403
 kom (2023) 0451 - Ingen titel
ensure that a steady supply of recycled plastic and steel from ELV scrap is channelled
towards the production of new vehicles. These measures correspond to a longstanding
request by the dismantling and recycling industry and have proven to be very effective in
boosting the recycling of plastics when they were first implemented at the EU level for
bottles made of Polyethylene terephthalate (PET). The measures designed to boost the
market for the re-use and remanufacturing of spare parts described in Measure 14b will
one the other hand provide a larger access for ATFs to the market of spare parts and help
them better compete with informal actors.
The measure foreseeing the establishment of EPR schemes will in addition ensure that
the dismantlers and recyclers can benefit from financial support channelled by the
vehicle manufacturers to offset compliance costs. In this case, this means that SMEs in
the dismantling and recycling sector will not have to face along the extra-costs of
measures designed to improve the collection and treatment of ELV waste but would be
able to rely on the financial contribution of large companies (vehicle manufacturers).
While calling for the establishment of such schemes, the dismantling and recycling
sector has also emphasised that EPR schemes should not be used by the vehicle
manufacturers to impose their practices and business models towards them. They have
insisted in particular on the need that they should be adequately represented in the
governing bodies of Producer Responsibility Organisations and that there is an oversight
by public authorities on the functioning of the EPR schemes. These concerns have been
taken into account in the preferred option, which includes explicitly these points.
companies in the maintenance and repair of vehicles:
In view of the relatively limited
input received by SMEs in this sector in the consultation, the very small size of many of
companies and the concern that a mandatory obligation could place an unnecessary
burden on them, the preferred option did not retain the measure making it mandatory at
EU level for these companies to offer used spare parts together with new spare parts to
their customers. Rather, it provides that Member States should put in place a set of
measures to promote the market and acceptance for used spare parts. This could include
an obligation on garages to provide offers for used spare parts (as described above), but
this would remain at the discretion of the Member States and not be an EU wide
obligation.
Companies involved in the export of used vehicles:
the measure on the export of used
vehicle has been devised in a way which does not constitute a blanket ban. During the
consultation process, suggestions were made to ban the export from the EU to third
countries of all used vehicles which would be over a certain age or not complying with
Euro emissions. This would have led to a prohibition of export for a wide range of
vehicles, even those which are still roadworthy, without the possibility for exporters to
overcome it. This suggestion has not been retained in the preferred package, which
foresees rather than the export is conditioned upon the presentation of a valid
roadworthiness certificate. Exporters could then be able to continue exporting used
vehicles for which the certificate has expired, on the condition that they ensure that the
vehicle continues to be roadworthy and obtain the required certificate before export.
404
 kom (2023) 0451 - Ingen titel
2734812_0097.png
While this would represent a cost, it is deemed proportionate to the aim of the measure,
which is to avoid the export of non-roadworthy vehicles outside the EU, and consistent
with the obligations applying to vehicles on the EU road which cannot be driven without
such certificate.
13.4.1 13.4.1 EU-wide measures to mitigate impacts for SMEs
The impact assessment has taken into account that the attainment of higher quality treatment
of ELV, the uptake of recycled materials in new vehicles, a wider re-use of materials and the
design of more circular vehicles can only succeed if the European companies are ready to
engage in new circular business models and are equipped to do so. This requires new
technologies, investments and reforms that unlock the full potential of such investments. This
is the case for SMEs in automotive and recycling sectors, which need to be modernised,
extend their capacity in meeting upgraded treatment requirements, customers’ needs and keep
up with the digitalisation of the processes.
The EU has put in place in the last years an unprecedented level of public financial support
for investments which are specifically geared towards the green transition. This represents
considerable opportunities for all actors in the waste sector, which are mostly SMEs, and the
industries processing waste to accelerate the transition to the circular economy. It includes
funding available under the Multiannual Financial Framework for the period 2021-2027,
especially the
European Structural and Investment Funds
131
. In addition, the
Recovery
and Resilience Facility (RRF)
132
, including REPowerEU
133
,
which is the key instrument at
the heart of the €807 billion
NextGenerationEU
134
, supports reforms and investments (with
more than €11 billion until 2026) in 21 Member States for innovative and advanced solutions
for separate collection, sorting, reuse and recycling, as well as fostering the development and
adoption of circular economy innovations.
Circular economy is also embedded in the matrix of the
Horizon Europe
135
programme on
research, notably its partnership on circularity
136
. It is one of the pillars of the
Programme
for the environment and climate action (LIFE) 2021–2027
137
,
the only EU funding
instrument entirely dedicated to environmental and climate objectives, with an allocation of
€5 billion for the period 2021-2027. Thanks to these programmes, the EU supports more than
200 000 businesses every year. EU Funding is available for all types of companies of any size
and sector including entrepreneurs, start-ups, micro companies, small and medium-sized
enterprises. More information on projects under these programmes which are particularly
targeting the design and recycling of ELVs is provided in Annex 9 of this report.
131
132
https://ec.europa.eu/regional_policy/index.cfm/en/funding/accessing-funds/
https://ec.europa.eu/info/business-economy-euro/recovery-coronavirus/recovery-and-resilience-facility_en
133
https://commission.europa.eu/publications/guidance-recovery-and-resilience-plans-context-repowereu_en
134
https://ec.europa.eu/info/strategy/recovery-plan-europe_en
135
https://research-and-innovation.ec.europa.eu/funding/funding-opportunities/funding-programmes-and-open-calls/horizon-
europe_en
136
https://ec.europa.eu/commission/presscorner/detail/en/ip_21_1122
137
Regulation (EU) 2021/783 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2021 establishing a Programme for
the Environment and Climate Action (LIFE), and repealing Regulation (EU) No 1293/2013 (OJ L 172, 17.5.2021, p. 53–78).
405
 kom (2023) 0451 - Ingen titel
2734812_0098.png
The European Investment Bank
is also a key player in supporting the transition to a
circular economy and has recently stepped up its engagement in this field
138
.
The European
Investment Fund
139
provides specific support to European SMEs in the form of business
loans, microfinance, guarantees and venture capital.
The InvestEU programme
also
supports circular economy approaches, including in SMEs, by mobilising public and private
investment through an EU budget guarantee
140
.
Finally, there are a number of different platforms established to coordinate and streamline the
support for the SMEs at the EU level. For instance, the Enterprise Europe Network (EEN)
141
helps businesses innovate and grow on an international scale. It is the world’s largest support
network for SMEs with international ambitions. It brings together experts from member
organisations that are renowned for their excellence in business support, including chambers
of commerce and industry, regional development organisations, universities and research
institutes and innovation agencies. Such cooperation mechanism supports the SMEs in
dealing with different challenges in running their businesses across different sectors.
See “The EIB Circular Economy Guide Supporting the circular transition”, published in 2020 and available at:
https://www.eib.org/attachments/thematic/circular_economy_guide_en.pdf
139
https://www.eif.org/
140
https://investeu.europa.eu/what-investeu-programme/investeu-fund_en
141
https://een.ec.europa.eu/about-enterprise-europe-network
138
406
 kom (2023) 0451 - Ingen titel
2734812_0099.png
A
NNEX
14: I
MPACTS OF THE PROPOSED MEASURES FOR THE
AUTOMOTIVE INDUSTRY IN THE INTERNATIONAL CONTEXT
14.1 Main findings
The European automotive industry has been continuously growing since 1980.
Thanks to
the technological progress resulting in the emerge of more fuel-efficient and electric
vehicles
142
, this growth has further enhanced.
Today Europe is the second biggest vehicle
manufacturer in the world
143
,
whereas 12.1 million
vehicles produced in the EU accounts
for 15.3%
of the total motor vehicle production worldwide. Passenger cars represent 82 % of
all the vehicles produced in the EU
144
. Although compared to 2020, manufacturing of
passenger cars dropped by 7.7 % in 2021,
the EU maintained its global competitiveness by
delivering 9.9 million cars
145
.
Based on ACEA statistics, every year the European automobile industry exports 5 747
063 motor vehicles
146
, with a positive trade balance of 2 182 321 units. In 2021, over
3 million passenger cars were imported to the EU
147
.
According to JRC estimates in the
study on the recycled content for plastics
148
, the import of new vehicles manufactured in non-
EU countries presents 30% of the total number of vehicles traded in the EU, while the export
of the EU manufactured vehicles to third countries is 46%. The number of manufactured
vehicles would increase by 1.3 times in the EU, which can be translated into 19.3 million
vehicles in 2030 and accordingly 19.5 million – in 2035 (vs. 14.9 and 15.0 million of the EU
sales)
149
.
142
https://www.mckinsey.com/~/media/mckinsey/industries/automotive%20and%20assembly/our%20insights/a%20long%20te
rm%20vision%20for%20the%20european%20automotive%20industry/race-2050-a-vision-for-the-european-automotive-
industry.pdf
143
https://www.acea.auto/figure/world-motor-vehicle-production/
144
https://www.acea.auto/figure/eu-motor-vehicle-production-by-type/
145
https://www.acea.auto/figure/eu-passenger-car-production/
146
https://www.acea.auto/figure/eu-motor-vehicle-trade-by-vehicle-type-in-units/
147
In 2021, the EU imported 458,769 passenger cars from Turkey, followed by China (435,080) and Japan (401,276). More
information available at:
https://www.acea.auto/figure/eu-motor-vehicle-imports-main-countries-of-origin-in-units/
148
Maury, T., Tazi, N., Torres De Matos, C., Nessi, S., Antonopoulos, I., Pierri, E., Baldassarre, B., Garbarino, E., Gaudillat,
P. and Mathieux, F., Towards recycled plastic content targets in new passenger cars, EUR 31047 EN, Publications Office of
the European Union, Luxembourg, 2023, ISBN 978-92-76-51784-9 (online), doi:10.2838/834615 (online), JRC129008.
149
Ibid.
407
 kom (2023) 0451 - Ingen titel
2734812_0100.png
Table 14.1 Overview of the main countries of origin of passenger car imports in the EU (in units),
ACEA, 2021.
To enter the EU market, manufacturers must adhere to a variety of legal requirements:
i)
all imported vehicles to the EU must be type-approved. This process involves
demonstrating that the vehicles meet the essential safety and environmental
requirements of the EU. Certificate of compliance, granted during the type-
approval process, shall include the appropriate documentation and describe the
strategy recommended by the manufacturer to ensure dismantling, reuse of
component parts, recycling and recovery of materials
150
;
vehicles must be designed in way that meets the EU safety standards established
in Vehicle General Safety Regulation
151
, such as the electronic stability control,
lane departure warning, advanced emergency braking systems;
Vehicles shall be labelled
152
and to include the information on the fuel efficiency
and emissions. This information helps consumers in taking decisions before
purchasing cars and encourage the manufacturers to reduce the fuel consumption
in new cars.
ii)
iii)
150
151
Article 6(5) of the current 3R type-approval Directive.
https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/ALL/?uri=CELEX:32019R2144
152
https://climate.ec.europa.eu/eu-action/transport-emissions/road-transport-reducing-co2-emissions-vehicles/car-
labelling_en
408
 kom (2023) 0451 - Ingen titel
2734812_0101.png
All manufacturers placing their vehicles on the EU market shall comply with the EU specific
rules on the fuel efficiency and Euro emissions standards. The expected impacts of the new
legislation are comparable to those analysed under the impact assessment of the Euro7
proposal
153
which introduces the emission compliance requirements for all motor vehicles put
on the EU market, i.e., manufactured and imported to the EU. Based on the compiled
evidence, the assessment reveals, most of EU trade partners for the vehicle production,
namely the United States, United Kingdom, China, Japan, South Korea, and Switzerland, are
developing more stringent standards or are already following the Euro standards. It is in
particular relevant for countries, participating in the EU single market as a part of EFTA
agreement. It was also revealed that the manufacturers are able to adjust the vehicles’
emission control systems to the markets that do not require compliance with the Euro
emission standards, e.g. China or the United States.
Similar reasoning can be applied for assessing the impacts across the global producers
regarding the proposed design-related requirements for vehicles that would be placed on the
EU market. In this context, it is important to take into account that it is a common practice
upon which the vehicle manufacturers worldwide adapt to specific market requirements by
designing and producing vehicles that meet the requirements to those markets. Manufacturers
align to the markets by offering a range of models fitted to the preferences of the customers.
This may include different engine types, trim levels, and other aspects.
Overall, manufacturers adapt to EU requirements by using a variety of strategies and
technologies to design vehicles that are compliant with the regulations and that meet the
preferences and needs of customers in that market. Manufacturers also often adapt to specific
requirements by localizing their production in that market. According to the European
Automobile Manufacturers’ Association (ACEA), currently 301 automobile factories operate
across Europe, producing passenger cars, light commercial vehicles, heavy-duty vehicles,
buses, engines and batteries, with 194 of these plants being situated within the EU itself
154
.
14.1.1 14.1.1 Decarbonisation efforts by vehicle manufacturers
Although there are no global or the EU wide recycled content requirements for vehicles,
many manufacturers have already taken efforts to include higher shares of secondary
materials and thus to decarbonise their production lines. Substitution of primary materials
with the recycled content reduce the carbon footprint and also brings significant cost savings
to the producers. These are examples of car manufacturers already integrating recycled
content: an average of just under 30 % of BMW Group vehicles are currently made from
recycled and reused materials. It is intended to gradually expand this figure to 50 %
155
. BMW
Group has set itself the target of increasing the proportion of secondary materials in the
thermoplastics used in new vehicles from currently around 20 % to an average of 40 % by
2030
156
. PEUGEOT 508 has an average of 31% recycled and natural materials in the vehicle;
Stellantis
157
plans to boost recycled material content in vehicles by 35%
158
. Toyota aims to
153
Proposal for a Regulation on type-approval of motor vehicles with respect to their emissions and battery durability (Euro
7) COM(2022) 586 final
154
https://www.acea.auto/figure/interactive-map-automobile-assembly-and-production-plants-in-europe/
155
https://www.bmw.com/en/magazine/sustainability/circularity-at-bmw.html
156
https://www.press.bmwgroup.com/global/article/detail/T0403390EN/revolution-in-the-car-industry:-parts-made-from-
recycled-fishing-nets?language=en
157
Stellantis N.V. is a multinational automotive manufacturing corporation formed in 2021 on the basis of a 50–50 cross-
border merger between the Italian-American conglomerate Fiat Chrysler Automobiles and the French PSA Group.
409
 kom (2023) 0451 - Ingen titel
2734812_0102.png
increase the use of recycled plastics by more than three times compared to current levels by
2030 – and fully switch to leather-free interiors by that time
159
. In 2021, Ford used post-
consumer nylon in a battery box and 50% of post-consumer PP, ocean plastics and
nanocellulose PU foam in various applications. Ford Motor expects that by 2035, half of its
plastics will come from recycled or renewable materials, and that the company will be
completely carbon-neutral by 2050
160
. Volvo, the Swedish manufacturer, set the ambition by
2025 to reach 25 % of its used plastics to be bio-based or from recycled materials, and 25%
of steel with 40% aluminium coming from recycled sources
161
. To have a common industry-
supported definition and approach for measuring recycled content of automotive products, a
group of vehicle manufacturers, such as Ford Motor Company, General Motors, Honda
Development & Manufacturing of America, LLC (HDMA), Stellantis, Toyota Motor North
America, and their suppliers has recently adopted guidance
162
.
These facts shows that the automobile industry is already taking initiatives in finding
solutions that would lead to a more efficient and cost-saving production process of vehicles,
by foreseeing optimal use of secondary materials, particularly steel. As these actions are
voluntary, they are not currently supported or incentivised by law. Introduction of mandatory
recycled content targets would send a clear signal to the automotive sector and credibility to
the market players in terms of providing a balanced supply and demand of the secondary
materials in a long term.
In addition to voluntary actions at the company level, different countries, where the vehicle
manufacturers are established, implement national policies in order to accelerate
decarbonisation of the steel industry. These include the following examples:
China which is responsible for producing well over half of the world’s steel in 2020
has announced it will be putting a price on steel emissions, possibly as soon as
2023
163
. They further announced as part of the 14th Five-Year-Plan (2021-2025) that
it will be prioritising the creation of a circular economy
164
, seeking to increase the use
of scrap steel to 320 million tonnes by 2025, an increase of around 30% relative to
estimates for 2020. This follows India – the world's second largest steel producer in
2020 – releasing their own Steel Scrap Recycling Policy
165
, aiming to promote a
circular economy in the steel sector by facilitating steel recycling across the product
life cycle.
The EU is in the process of developing a carbon border adjustment mechanism
166
for
steel, while the United States
167
has announced that it is considering the same. These
158
https://www.reuters.com/business/autos-transportation/stellantis-set-boost-recycled-material-content-vehicles-2022-10-
11/
159
https://www.toyota-
europe.com/sustainability/circularity#:~:text=Recycling%20of%20Plastics,free%20interiors%20by%20that%20time.
160
https://corporate.ford.com/articles/sustainability/recycling-plastic-water-bottles.html
161
https://www.volvocars.com/intl/v/sustainability/circular-economy
162
https://waste-management-world.com/artikel/automotive-industry-develops-new-guidance-for-measuring-recycled-
content-of-automotive-products/
163
https://www.asiafinancial.com/china-carbon-market-expansion-delayed-caijing
164
http://english.www.gov.cn/policies/policywatch/202107/08/content_WS60e639b0c6d0df57f98dc92b.html
165
https://pib.gov.in/newsite/PrintRelease.aspx?relid=194359
166
https://ec.europa.eu/commission/presscorner/detail/en/qanda_21_3661
167
https://ustr.gov/sites/default/files/files/reports/2021/2021 Trade Agenda/Online PDF 2021 Trade Policy Agenda and 2020
Annual Report.pdf
410
 kom (2023) 0451 - Ingen titel
2734812_0103.png
policies would apply tariffs on imported emissions-intensive goods from jurisdictions
with weak or absent emissions policy in an effort to limit carbon leakage and
incentivise stronger emissions measures overseas.
France
168
and Japan
169
recently released roadmaps for decarbonising the iron and steel
sector, setting out specific targets and laying out concrete steps for their steel sectors,
with the national plan calling for emission reductions of 31% by 2030.
Germany, which is the biggest vehicle manufacturer of the EU, announced
earmarking 7 billion EUR
170
for green hydrogen. It also includes EUR 55 million for
steel production run by hydrogen.
These already now ongoing practices are expected to affect the driving forces of the market
for secondary metals, and accordingly to balance the supply-demand of low-carbon steel. It is
an important factor for the automotive industry which is the major “client” for steel sector
operating at the local, regional and global scale.
14.1.2 14.1.2 Automotive global supply chain
The automotive industry is functioning on global supply chain for several reasons:
(a) Access to production materials. Manufacturing of vehicles requires a range of
different materials (ferrous, non-ferrous metals, plastics, etc.). By having a global
supply chain, producers can access these materials from different parts of the world.
By outsourcing certain parts of the production process to countries, vehicle producers
reduce the overall cost of production and increase profits.
(b) Competitiveness advantage. A well-functioning global supply chain provides the
vehicle manufacturers with advantage to be able to quicker respond to changing
market demands and trends.
(c) Expertise. Certain automotive components or processes may be better managed by
suppliers who hold the specialized expertise. For this reason, a global supply chain
gives the vehicle manufacturers the access to a wider pool of suppliers and their
specialized knowledge.
Taking in to account the above aspects, the global supply chain plays a central role for the
smooth functioning of the automotive industry. In this context, the implementation of the
foreseen design requirements builds on this model. The future Regulation aims to respect
these principles and does not disrupt but rather to improve the business working model.
Introduction of recycled content targets for plastics would allow the manufacturers exporting
vehicles to the EU to maintain their competitiveness within the global supply chain. It would
not restrict the vehicle manufacturing companies – established both at the EU and in third
countries – to source their recycled plastics or steel from outside the EU if they can verify
that that this content used in their production is indeed recycled materials based on the
specification criteria (e.g. minimum % share of closed-loop). Being within a global supply
168
169
https://www.conseil-national-industrie.gouv.fr/files_cni/files/csf/mines-metallurgie/plan_siderurgie_france.pdf
https://www.meti.go.jp/english/press/2021/1027_002.html
170
https://www.iea.org/policies/11561-package-for-the-future-hydrogen-strategy
411
 kom (2023) 0451 - Ingen titel
2734812_0104.png
chain, manufacturers are in a position find the best quality materials for their production
needs. The global supply chain allows manufacturers to source materials from the most cost-
effective and efficient sources, regardless of geographical location. As a result, with a
possibility to source recycled content from outside the EU, manufacturers enjoy broader
access to a pool of suppliers specialising in the concrete areas.
Therefore, introduction of the new design-related requirements for vehicles takes into account
the fact that the global nature of the supply chain is an important aspect of the automotive
industry. Along these lines, it is therefore, important to set the same legal requirements for
both the EU manufacturers of vehicles and importers for the following reasons:
Legal clarity. Common requirements simplify the process of importing and selling
vehicles in the EU, reducing costs and administrative burdens for companies
operating in the market.
Fair competition. By setting up the same requirements for both the EU manufacturers
and importers, a level playing field is ensured.
Market stability. Consistent and uniform legal requirements ensure stability and
predictability in the EU automotive market. This attracts investment, foster growth in
the industry.
Consumer protection. Same level of requirements ensures that all vehicles made
available on the EU market meet the same requirements.
Today, many countries where the automobile industry is established, regulate end-of-life
treatment. In South Korea, end of life treatment of vehicles has been managed by the Act on
Resource Circulation of Electrical & Electronics and ELVs since 2008, which is similar to
the EU WEEE and ELV Directives
171
. It regulates the restricted use and prohibition of toxic
substances (e.g., cadmium, hexavalent chromium, lead, and mercury) in vehicles and
promotes their recycling by establishing a resource-circulation system of ELVs. It set a
mandatory target recycling rate of 95% including 10% energy recovery as a maximum in the
beginning of 2015. In Japan, legislation on ELV recycling was implemented in 2005 based on
the shared EPR concept. Automobile manufacturers including importers take responsibility
for the collection and recycling of ELVs
172
. The Circular Economy Promotion Law
173
in
China was designed to reduce waste and promote sustainability. The provisions and targets
for recycling and waste reduction, as well as regulations for the management of waste, apply
to the automotive industry and the vehicles it produces
174
. Overall, these regulations set
recycling requirements mainly focussing on the recovery of metals, plastic, and other
materials from end-of-life vehicles for re-use.
Since the late 2000s, China has adopted the circular economy as a national priority and
defined vehicle remanufacturing as a strategic sector. Remanufacturing uses approximately
171
Jang, Y.-C.; Choi, K.; Jeong, J.-h.; Kim, H.; Kim, J.-G. Recycling and Material-Flow Analysis of End-of-Life Vehicles
towards Resource Circulation in South Korea. Sustainability 2022, 14, 1270. https:// doi.org/10.3390/su14031270.
172
https://mdpi-res.com/d_attachment/sustainability/sustainability-14-01270/article_deploy/sustainability-14-
01270.pdf?version=1643006861
173
https://leap.unep.org/countries/cn/national-legislation/circular-economy-promotion-law-peoples-republic-china
174
The dismantlement or reutilization of waste motor vehicles shall be conducted in accordance with the relevant laws and
administrative regulations (Article 38)
https://ppp.worldbank.org/public-private-
partnership/sites/ppp.worldbank.org/files/documents/China_CircularEconomyLawEnglish.pdf
412
 kom (2023) 0451 - Ingen titel
2734812_0105.png
60% less energy and 70% fewer materials than making new products. Vehicle
remanufacturing in particular has a huge market potential in China, with its existing stock of
365 million vehicles, and an automotive repair and maintenance market worth 157 billion
USD annually
175
. There are also other exemplary business cases towards support for the
market of used and remanufactured spare parts. Renault Group established an ambitious
policy designed to boost the remanufacturing of vehicles parts and components, thereby
reducing the use of virgin materials. This approach has led to generate revenues of nearly 120
million EUR in 2019 alone from remanufacturing activities. By 2025, Renault expects to
generate 200 million EUR through its recently planned recycling business
176
. Volvo currently
remanufactures 36 different component groups, including engines, gearboxes, turbo
compressors and clutches. In 2021, Volvocars International saved over 4,000 tonnes of CO
2
by remanufacturing over 37,000 parts
177
.
Similar to the situation in recycled content, manufacturers already integrate different
elements of circularity into the manufacturing policies. A number of companies publish this
information on their websites in a form of strategies, annual sustainability reports
178
or
general overviews
179
. Among other information, these documents include the overview on the
innovations, investment into R&D, long term climate neutrality objectives, social and
corporate responsibility in sourcing materials, measures taken to increase resource
efficiency
180
and decrease cost of production. Therefore, new requirement for the
manufacturers to prepare and implement circularity strategies for vehicles would complement
the current practices by defining common criteria for content and presentation.
14.1.3 14.1.3 Factors for the development of the European automotive industry
Europe is the birthplace of the automobile and has a long history of developing breakthrough
innovations
181
. Representing 27 percent of the region’s total R&D investments, the
automotive industry is Europe’s largest R&D investor. In 2021, Automotive R&D investment
(EU) was equal to 58.8 billion Eur. Moreover, Europe has the right talent and human capital
to continue successful automotive innovations and has a number of globally leading
universities along the ACES trends: 13 out of 17 universities globally leading in the area of
electrification are based in Europe; also 4 out of 17 in autonomous driving and 8 out of 19 in
connectivity.
175
176
https://ellenmacarthurfoundation.org/circular-examples/advancing-vehicle-remanufacturing-in-china-the-role-of-policy
More information available at:
https://ellenmacarthurfoundation.org/circular-examples/groupe-
renault,https://www.reuters.com/markets/europe/renault-expects-11-billion-revenue-new-recycling-business-2021-11-30
177
https://www.volvocars.com/intl/v/sustainability/circular-economy
178
E.g. Nissan:
https://www.nissan-global.com/EN/SUSTAINABILITY/LIBRARY/SR/2022/,
Hyundai:
https://www.hyundai.com/eu/about-hyundai/sustainability/sustainability.html;
Stellantis:
https://www.stellantis.com/content/dam/stellantis-corporate/sustainability/csr-
disclosure/fca/fca_2020_sustainability_report.pdf;
Ford:
https://www.ford.co.uk/experience-ford/sustainability
179
Examples: BMW
https://www.bmwgroup.com/en/sustainability.html;
Kia:
https://www.kia.com/eu/about-
kia/sustainability/
180
E.g. Toyota Europe
https://www.toyota-europe.com/sustainability/circularity
181
More information available at:
https://www.mckinsey.com/~/media/mckinsey/industries/automotive%20and%20assembly/our%20insights/a%20long%20te
rm%20vision%20for%20the%20european%20automotive%20industry/race-2050-a-vision-for-the-european-automotive-
industry.pdf
413
 kom (2023) 0451 - Ingen titel
The EU contributes to this development by providing a number of different funding
opportunities for both public and private sector, through Horizon 2020, LIFE programmes.
More information on the projects is provided in Annex 11 of the IA.
14.2 Conclusion
From the legal point of view, future requirements would apply equally both to European
producers and to importers and would be consistent with the EU’s international obligations
on the trade relationships and the WTO, considering that the requirements are non-
discriminatory and justified for reasons linked to environmental protection. The new
legislation will in due course be notified under the TBT Agreement.
Moreover, the EU manufacturers would not be put in the more advantageous position, as the
majority of the manufacturers, representing the most popular brands of the imported vehicles
to the EU, already integrate business practices to optimise the functioning of their production
lines and the increase the efficiency in material use. These aspects are comparable to the
measures proposed under the preferred option of this impact assessment.
Therefore, the design related requirements to be foreseen under the future legislation would
be complementary to the current set of the EU rules and would apply in a proportionate and
non-discriminatory manner for both importers and those manufacturers established in the EU.
Such regulatory approach would therefore not affect the international competitiveness of the
EU or third parties.
414
 kom (2023) 0451 - Ingen titel
2734812_0107.png
A
NNEX
15: C
ONTRIBUTION OF THE REVISION OF THE
ELV
AND
3R
T
YPE
-
APPROVAL
D
IRECTIVES TO THE CIRCULARITY OF CRITICAL
RAW MATERIALS
(CRM)
The Commission proposal for a Critical Raw Materials Act adopted in March 2023 contains
a series of measures linked inter-alia to the development of Critical Raw Materials (CRMs)
value chains in the EU, and to the diversification of supply and partnership to reduce supply
risks. It contains measures designed to increase the circularity of products containing CRMs
and the recycling capacity for these products in the EU. Considering that new vehicles
contain substantial quantities of CRMs (see sections 15.1 and 15.4.1 below), and that at the
same time end-of-life vehicles represent an important source of secondary raw materials, the
joint revision of the ELV and Type Approval Directives represents a key opportunity to
improve the recovery of CRMs used by the automotive industry, hence already contributing
to the objectives of the CRM Act. Furthermore, the extension of the scope of the EU
legislation on ELV and 3R type-approval to new vehicles such as lorries, buses and two-
wheelers broadens the EU capability to recover higher quantities of CRMs from vehicles,
which represents an additional boosting contribution to the CRM Act circularity objectives.
This annex summarises key information and data related to proposed measures for circularity
of CRMs in the preferred package, including: 15.1) Relevant information (EU import
reliance, market share, main and expected future use) on CRMs in vehicles and relevant
components containing these CRMs; 15.2) expected 2035 and 2040 impacts of these
measures for the circularity of the relevant CRMs 15.3) suggestions for follow-up review
clauses on CRM circularity measures, and 15.4) additional contribution of the potential ELV
and Type-Approval directives extension of scope to a higher circularity of CRM. The data
presented in this Annex have been compiled by the Commission Joint Research Centre, and
is a part of a study to be published later in 2023
182
.
15.1 Relevant information on CRMs in vehicles and relevant components
There are
more than 60 materials
used in ICEVs (internal combustion engine vehicles) and
EVs (electric vehicles), although only a dozen of materials represents up to 95% of the total
weight of the vehicles. From a CRMs perspective, most of the value of an ELV is not in the
most abundant materials and CRM content differs significantly between ICEVs and EVs
183
.
ICEVs mainly contain cerium (Ce), lanthanum (La), palladium (Pd), platinum (Pt) and
rhodium (Rh) in the catalytic converter, whereas EVs contain
many CRMs in the electric
power train:
namely neodymium (Nd), praseodymium (Pr) and dysprosium (Dy) in the
REPMs (rare-earth permanent magnets)
of the e-motor, lithium (Li), cobalt (Co),
manganese (Mn), and nickel (Ni) in the battery (batteries types and materials are covered by
182
Nacef Tazi, Martina Orefice, Charles Marmy, Yifaat Baron, Maria Ljunggren, Patrick Wäger, Fabrice Mathieux, Initial
analysis of selected measures to improve the circularity of Critical Raw Materials and other materials in passenger cars, EUR
31468 EN, Publications Office of the European Union, Luxembourg, 2023, ISBN 978-92-68-01625-1, doi: 10.2760/207541,
JRC132821
183
Amund N. Løvik, Charles Marmy, Maria Ljunggren, Duncan Kushnir, Jaco Huisman, Silvia Bobba, Thibaut Maury,
Theodor Ciuta, Elisa Garbossa, Fabrice Mathieux, Patrick Wäger, Material composition trends in vehicles: critical raw
materials and other relevant metals. Preparing a dataset on secondary raw materials for the Raw Materials Information
System, EUR 30916 EN, Publications Office of the European Union, Luxembourg, 2021, ISBN 978-92-76-45213-3,
doi:10.2760/351825, JRC126564.
415
 kom (2023) 0451 - Ingen titel
2734812_0108.png
the adopted Battery Regulation). A trend valid for both ICEVs and EVs is the higher and
higher amount of electrics and electronics
184
, which corresponds to a higher content of
silver (Ag), gold (Au), Dy, Nd and Pd. The possible future deployment of fuel cells vehicles
might also require large amounts of Pd and Pt for the appropriate catalyst.
Larger requests of copper
185
(Cu) and other base metals such as aluminium (Al) are occurring
due to the transition from ICEVs towards EVs. Moreover,
metals alloys often contain
CRMs:
4xxx and 5xxx Al-alloys contain respectively silicon metal (Si) and magnesium
(Mg), beside to other metals as Cu and Mn while steel laminations (also named electrosteel or
Si-steel) contain up to 3.5 wt.% of Si, and high-strength steel is relevant for the content of
niobium (Nb). Similarly, Mg alloys are made-up also of Al and Mn and, in general, the
automotive sector corresponds to 50% of the Mg demand in Europe
186
. In Table 15.1Table
15.1 a summary on import reliance, current use in the automotive sector and market share for
the automotive or all the EU sectors and future demand of some critical and precious metals
are reported. Through the parameters in Table 15.1 Table 15.1, an analysis of the relevancy
of CRMs in ELV is provided together with failures in the EU strategic autonomy and in
circularity of the same materials, which might be mitigated by one or more measures. The
parameters were already defined in the methodology for establishing the EU list of CRMs
187
and the data, in particular, were extracted from the Raw Material Information System -
RMIS
dataset
188
. A circularity failure is observed when the circularity of a CRM contained in key
components is not maximized, e.g. because of technical limitations or because of market
reasons (e.g. limited demand of secondary raw materials). In the criticality assessment, the
parameter on the market share provides insight on the importance of a material for the EU
economy, in particular in terms of end-use applications. It is significantly important to know
the current and expected market share of the automotive industry for given CRMs to suggest
a product or specific waste policy measures.
184
Bobba, S., Carrara, S., Huisman, J., Mathieux, F., & Pavel, C. (2020). Critical Raw Materials for Strategic Technologies
and Sectors in the EU - a Foresight Study, doi:10.2873/58081
185
On 2023 CRM list
186
European Commission, study on the EU’s list of Critical Raw Materials (2020), Factsheets on Critical Raw Materials.
187
European Commission, Directorate-General for Internal Market, Industry, Entrepreneurship and SMEs, Pennington, D.,
Tzimas, E., Baranzelli, C., et al.,
Methodology for establishing the EU list of critical raw materials : guidelines,
Publications
Office, 2017,
https://data.europa.eu/doi/10.2873/769526
188
https://rmis.jrc.ec.europa.eu/
416
 kom (2023) 0451 - Ingen titel
2734812_0109.png
Table 15.1 Summary of key features of relevant CRMs contained in vehicles
List of
materials
Rare earth
elements
(REEs) -
Nd, Pr and
Dy
Silicon
metal
EU
import
reliance
Current use in the automotive
sector
Market share of the
Expected future use in the Why the EU should act to mitigate current
automotive industry (CRM,
automotive sector
circularity failure
**
?
2020)
Nd demand expected to
increase by 11 fold by 2032;
PM e-drive motors share in the
EU fleet expected to be 77%
in 2040;
Environmental concerns of REEs mining,
processing and smelting; no EU recycling of REE,
but they are lost in ferrous fractions or into
landfill; building up know-how in REEs recycling
will also thrive know-how of REEs processing
value chain at EU level
100%
No specific data for the
automotive sector.
Permanent magnets (PMs) for electric
100*% end use for PMs in
(drive and not drive) motors
different sectors (automotive,
wind energy…)
Mainly in steel laminations of the e-
drive motors. It is also used in Al-
alloys.
63%
No specific data for the
automotive sector.
Exponential increase of steel
Currently lost in the recycling of Si-steel as
38*% use in (steel laminations
lamination in e-drive motors
common steel
and electronics, both for different due to EU fleet electrification.
sectors.
Increase of Ga due to more
electronic components and to
electrification of EU fleet
Ga
31%
No specific data for the
automotive sector.
Mainly in integrated circuits, sensors 70*% use for manufacturing
integrated circuits, sensors and
LEDs for different sectors.
Lack of information of Ga use in vehicles; current
practices lead to no EU recycling from ELVs.
Pd
Mainly in autocatalysts, but also in
93% of
87% in autocatalysts and 4%* in
electronics and printed circuits boards
primary Pd
electronics (general)
and semiconductors.
8% use of Ag in the automotive
sector.
11%* use of Au in electronic
applications.
Increase of Pd due to more
electronic components and to
electrification of EU fleet
Increase the use of Ag in
vehicles due to the need of
higher electrical properties,
durability and oxide resistance
Current sorting and recycling practices lead to
losses of this material; underuse of urban mine
potential to generate Secondary Raw Materials
(SRM)
Not CRMs but current sorting and recycling
practices prevent the full recovery of precious
metals from controllers units; underuse of ELV
potential to generate SRM;
Au mainly used in electronics as
Unknown
Precious
contact material, also for wires for
for Au, 40%
metals (Au
of primary integrated circuits or transistors. Ag
used in electronics car applications
and Ag)
Ag
and solders.
Source: JRC elaboration, based on RMIS dataset.
https://rmis.jrc.ec.europa.eu/
*EU end-use sector, not specifically related to automotive sector
**
It is considered that a
CRM or a CRM based component is characterised by a circularity failures if circularity principles are hindered, due either to technical challenges of market failures (no
demand of recycled materials
).
417
 kom (2023) 0451 - Ingen titel
2734812_0110.png
While platinum group metals (PGM) in catalytic converters are already recovered due to their
high market values,
Pd from car electronics and controllers
are not targeted in the current
sorting and recycling processes.
Precious metals (Au and Ag)
in the same vehicle controllers can
also be targeted together with Pd, as their recovery potentials from ELV are not maximised.
REEs
from ELVs are not recycled at all. REEs are present in several components of both ICEVs
and EVs: for instance, glass windows and catalytic converters do have La and Ce (albeit not
recovered); electronics, actuators and small motors do have REPMs even if they belong to specific
ICEVs segments as found from indirect evidence of shredded ICEVs. However, undoubtedly, the
largest consumption of
REPMs
is
in the e-drive train motors. Si-steel in steel laminations
can
also be targeted together with REEs in e-drive motors. It has been reported that the current and
expected 2035-2040 EU passenger car fleet would rely mainly on REPM e-drive motors,
containing the highest concentration of REEs (Nd, Dy and Pr) in vehicles. A second type of e-
motors does not have REPMs but a Cu induction coil (labelled in the JRC report as REPM-free e-
motors). This later expected market share would be less than 23% in the forecasted period of
2035-2040. REEs have a very high future supply risk and are crucial to e-motor as well as other
EU strategic sectors. At the same time, their expected increased use in the coming years make
them a priority target to be legislated. As electric motors are developing in all sectors, there is also
currently an untapped potential related to re-use opportunities of electric motors coming from end-
of-life vehicles. Finally, it is supposed that vehicles also have significant amounts of
gallium Ga,
in integrated circuits, sensors and microchips,
but little to no data are available for these two
materials.
REEs in REPMs
and
Si-steel in steel laminations,
both in
e-drive motor,
are used here as
examples to illustrate current
circularity failures.
The baseline scenario for e-motors is, once
reaching an Authorised Treatment Facility (ATF) that they are not disassembled from the car hulk
prior to shredding, and therefore leading to REPM and Si-steel loss, while copper contaminates
some ferrous and non-ferrous metals fractions.
Figure 15.1 reports the forecasted amounts (in number per year) of e-motors collected at ATF
level.
Figure 15.1: Forecasted (number of) e-motors from EVs (passenger cars) expected to enter ATF in the EU
418
 kom (2023) 0451 - Ingen titel
2734812_0111.png
Source: JRC 2023
189
. It is assumed here an average of one e-drive motor per EV.
REPM e-motors contain circa 1.2 kg of REPMs, up to 5 kg of Cu and up to 23 kg of Si-steel.
REPM-free e-motors do not contain REEs but still contain similar amount of Si-steel and up to 10
kg of Cu. As the know-how of REEs recycling and the lack of recycling infrastructures in Europe
currently prevent from recovering REEs from REPM, the potential quantities above would be
diluted (downcycled) in the ferrous and non-ferrous fractions or send to landfill if no relevant
measures would mitigate such circularity failures.
15.2 Expected 2035 and 2040 impacts of the measures for the circularity of the relevant
CRMs and other materials contained in the preferred option
190
The measures aiming at improving circularity of CRMs and other relevant materials are reminded
in this section and are assessed against three dimensions:
Impact on material flows and on production of Secondary Raw Materials (SRM)
Environmental based assessment
Socio-economic assessment.
Impacts on innovation as well as administrative burdens are also captured in this analysis of
impacts. While the full assessment is available in the JRC report
191
, initial selected expected
impacts are reported below.
15.2.1 15.2.1 Measure 1: Mandatory removal of e-drive motor by authorised treatment facilities:
Linked to the option PO3A, M13a in Annex 7.2.3
The scope of this measure only targets EVs (PHEV+HEV+BEV).
The assessed measure on e-drive motors is thus targeting circa. 2.5 million ELV reaching EU
ATFs in 2035, and circa. 5 million ELV at ATF level in 2040. Of those motors, it is also
forecasted that 2.3 million and 4.3 millions permanent magnets e-motors from ELV would be
separately collected from ATFs in 2035 and 2040. The SRM production estimated is presented in
Table 15.9Table 15.9.
189
Nacef Tazi, Martina Orefice, Charles Marmy, Yifaat Baron, Maria Ljunggren, Patrick Wäger, Fabrice Mathieux, Initial analysis
of selected measures to improve the circularity of Critical Raw Materials and other materials in passenger cars, EUR 31468 EN,
Publications Office of the European Union, Luxembourg, 2023, ISBN 978-92-68-01625-1, doi: 10.2760/207541, JRC132821.
190
Steel, copper, aluminium
191
Nacef Tazi, Martina Orefice, Charles Marmy, Yifaat Baron, Maria Ljunggren, Patrick Wäger, Fabrice Mathieux, Initial analysis
of selected measures to improve the circularity of Critical Raw Materials and other materials in passenger cars, EUR 31468 EN,
Publications Office of the European Union, Luxembourg, 2023, ISBN 978-92-68-01625-1, doi: 10.2760/207541, JRC132821
419
 kom (2023) 0451 - Ingen titel
2734812_0112.png
Table 15.9: 2035 and 2040 SRM production from measure 1. Units in kt.
Material (kt)
REPM materials (REEs, Fe, Co, ...)
Si-steel*
Copper
Aluminium
2035
0.35
7.1
8.1
23.8
2040
1.4
31.2
19.1
52.7
Source: JRC, 2023. *it is considered here the recovery of silicon steel as a separate flow. However, further
assessment is ongoing to assess this recovery’s feasibility
.
For SRM from REPM recycling, the potential corresponding flows available for recycling due to
this measure are up to 2 kt in 2035 and 4.2 kt in 2040. Since the assumed 2035 and 2040 recycling
rate for magnets would be respectively 18% and 35%, the output flows (e.g. REEs, Fe, Co)
produced would be up to 0.35 kt in 2035 and up to 1.4 kt in 2040. Such flows would in principle
cover, in closed loop perspective, 3% to 12% of the expected e-drive motors 2035-2040 EU
demand scenarios (for passenger cars), with contributions to the reduction of supply disruptions
and to the EU strategic autonomy.
This measure would also increase reuse flows. The potential of reuse of permanent magnet is
relevant for e-drive motors as well as other markets and can also contribute to remanufacturing
strategies, implying the creation of further incentives for reuse and the development of second-
hand products and markets. In this sense, the content of Dy, which increase the resistance to
demagnetization, will be a significant parameter in the REPM composition.
The assessment of environmental impacts of changing the End of Life (EoL) handling of e-drive
motors is based on a review of life cycle assessments (LCA) on e-drive motors and NdFeB
magnets. Based on a first analysis, this measure would lead to a reduction of climate change
impacts thanks to separate removal and recycling of the e-drive motor, instead of shredding it with
the car hulk. The potential incorporation of secondary REOs to replace primary REOs into new
products would significantly lower the environmental impacts and hazardous (connected to
generation of radioactive waste) from primary mining. The reduction of resource scarcity is also
significant.
From socio-economic dimension, this measure would lead to a further job creation at ATF level
and would lead to an increased turn over at ATF and recyclers level thanks to the expected surplus
of SRM flows from e-drive motors removal.
The cost of removal of e-motors, revenues at ATF level as well as those returned that incur from
their recycling or reuse were assessed. Initial results estimate a 10 minutes removal time of e-
motor for recycling purposes at ATF level, and 20 minutes non-destructive removal time for reuse
purposes. The assessment was based on a labour cost of 35€ per hour, 8 working hours a day and
200 days of work per annum representing a single job. 19€ and 129€ of additional logistic costs
for the ATF per e-motor in case of removal (for recycling) and disassembly (for reuse) were
therefore calculated. Such costs cover logistics not related to the removal actions, like costs of
storage of removed motors or their inclusion in a sales platform in the case of reuse and may have
420
 kom (2023) 0451 - Ingen titel
2734812_0113.png
some overlap with the costs estimated for removal. Revenues for recyclers were based on the same
sources as the ones used in the ELV impact assessment main support study
192
.
Thus, the partial socio-economic impacts would be:
Overall, costs for ATF operators can be allocated to two main entries (see Table 15.10Table
15.10): i.e., removal activities and its accompanying logistic costs. It is assumed that the costs
for removal operations would be up to 15 M€ in 2035 and up to 29 M€ in 2040. The ATF
logistic costs (transport, storage…) would be up to 50 M€ in 2035 and up to 96 M€ in 2040.
The difference of costs between the assessed years is also linked to the significant increase of
EVs reaching EoL over the years. Collected e-motor flows from ATF would in principle be
diverted to reuse or recycling purposes. Overall, the main challenge towards the feasibility of
this measure relies on the development of magnet recycling infrastructure as well as market
opportunities for e-motor materials (including REPM but also electric steel). Furthermore, the
development of markets for reused e-motor would lead to higher environmental savings
compared to recycling routes, the latter may create economical pressure to favour reuse of e-
motors rather than recycling where the motors are still intact (meaning that recycling and its
benefits could still take place at a later point in time).
Revenues are distributed over ATFs (see Table 15.10Table 15.10) and recyclers (see Table
15.11Table 15.11). Thanks to this measure, it is estimated an overall ATF additional revenue
up to 98 M€ in 2035 and 214 M€ in 2040, respectively. The additional revenues at recyclers’
level are expected to be respectively circa. 68 M€ in 2035 and up to 181 M€ in 2040. Here
also, the higher increase of revenues is also due to the higher share of EVs reaching EoL over
the assessed years. Recyclers’ revenues consider here the recycling of REPM materials,
assuming the establishment of future recycling facilities. In a conservative scenario, where no
magnet recycling is considered, revenues will decrease to 56 M€ for recyclers in 2035 and 130
M€ for recyclers in 2040. Revenues are considered as conservative as the separate treatment of
e-motor might generate additional revenues thanks to the production of other metals flows
such as secondary Si-steel or secondary copper.
Looking only at the costs expected for ATFs and the end-of-life HEV, PHEV and BEV being
collected for treatment, it is estimated that the cost of the measure per vehicle for the ATF
would be around 25€ over the assessed years. The benefits for the ATF are currently lower
than expected costs and so would not cover the burden of implementation. Though the
expected revenues to recyclers would help set off gradually the burden in 2035 and completely
in 2040, the cost calculations are initial and some form of compensation (through the EPR) or
allocation of revenues (through an increase in the cost recyclers are willing to pay ATFs)
would be needed for ATFs to retain economic feasibility. This assessment only considers the
EVs fleet since they contain e-motors. In case of all ELV flow considered, it is estimated that
the cost of the measure per vehicle (all drive trains considered) for the ATF would be around
7€ in 2035 and 12€ in 2040.
Baron, Y.; Kosińska-Terrade, I.; Loew, C.; Köhler, A.; Moch, K.; Sutter, J.; Graulich, K.; Adjei, F.; Mehlhart, G.: Study to
support the impact assessment for the review of Directive 2000/53/EC on End-of-Life Vehicles by Oeko-Institut, June 2023
192
421
 kom (2023) 0451 - Ingen titel
2734812_0114.png
Table 15.10: ATF economic assessment
2035
15 M€
50 M€
25 €
7€
98 M€
2040
29 M€
96 M€
25 €
12 €
214 M€
ATF dismantling costs
ATF logistic costs
cost per vehicle reaching ATF [only EVs reaching ATFs]
cost per vehicle reaching ATF [all vehicles reaching ATFs]
ATF revenues
Table 15.11: Recyclers economic assessment
2035
revenues
68 M€
2040
181 M€
130 M€
Recyclers
w/ magnets
Recyclers revenues
56 M€
w/o magnets*
*Considering revenues from recycling electrosteel as steel in general.
Jobs to be created at ATF level would be up to 270 in 2035 and 520 in 2040, should the e-
motor measure be applied. Removal of e-motors can also be performed in (semi-) automated
process, leading to a decrease of destructive removal time to less than 1 minute. The use of
(semi-) automated processes might decrease the forecasted jobs to be created at ATF level, but
will require an investment in equipment. Impacts are not expected to change in cases where
the e-motor would be disassembled for reuse purposes, instead of recycling routes, as at
present equipment only shortens the time needed for destructive removal. Employment at
recyclers’ level is not assessed because of lack of data. The latter is dependent on the future
development of EU recycling facilities to recover Nd and magnet materials.
Overall conclusions stemming from this partial socio-economic impact assessment describe the
benefits and some main challenges towards higher efficiency of this measure to fulfil its objective
of improving REE circularity. As compared to the baseline, this measure leads to a higher job
creation and additional revenues for both ATFs and recyclers. The reuse of e-motors could
generate even further revenues for ATFs and may motivate ATFs to perform non-destructive reuse
should the demand for second hand motors develop. Additional costs are generated due to the
separate sorting and recovery of e-motors. The level of benefits and thus also of their ration to
costs is highly dependent on whether robust REE recycling processes and market will develop by
2040. Clearly, this measure contribute to setting-up such an infrastructure and market in the EU.
Overall, more benefits than burdens are stemming from this measure, when compared to the
baseline option when e-motors are shredded with the car hulk. EPR might support the additional
burden at ATF level in order to ease the implementation of this measure in the early times where
the total revenues related to this measure do no suffice for the practice to be economically feasible.
Another opportunistic benefit related to the removal of e-drive motors from passenger cars would
be linked to the optimisation of costs related also to the collection and removal of batteries from
ELVs. As the Battery Regulation would require 100% collection of EVs batteries, treatment and
removal costs might be allocated to batteries and near-by components such as e-drive motors or
inverters, leading to a decreased ATF burdens related to the removal of e-drive motors.
422
 kom (2023) 0451 - Ingen titel
2734812_0115.png
This measure would also have a positive impact on innovation and R&D devolvement in EU. The
available e-drive motors flows would thrive research, innovation and the development of new
recycling technologies to increase the recovery of SRM from these flows. It is unlikely that such
measure would hinder advances in performance and new technology approaches.
15.2.2 15.2.2 Measure 2: Design provisions for e-drive motors:
Linked to the option PO1B, M7 design requirements in A7.2.1
This measure would be applied for new types put on the EU market and would enhance the eco-
design of e-drive motors in future vehicles. The core of the measure is defining design constraints
on the OEM to provide clear and succinct instruction on the disassembly operations. Such
instructions should include a list of interfering components and parts to be taken out to reach the
e-drive motor, the different tools required as well as the number of fastening techniques to unlock
and extract the e-drive motor. This measure also ensures that the design of the vehicle and joining,
fastening or sealing techniques do not prevent disassembly operations. While this measure would
not markedly influence the potential SRM production from e-drive motors recycling, nor their
environmental impacts, the estimated reporting and design costs might be slightly impacted.
The assessed measure would require OEM investments in the reporting of instructions and reports
to be provided to ATF to ease the disassembly of the e-drive motor. Besides, in order to ensure
eco-design provisions and possibly optimise disassembly operations at ATF level to extract the e-
drive motor, R&D costs would be generated at OEM level to enable technologies and processes.
Such costs are aligned with the five strategic R&D areas identified by the European Council for
Automotive R&D
193
. However, it is expected that these R&D costs allocated to the ease of
disassembly design of the e-drive motors would be distributed over the next decade and are also
aligned with most of the OEMs perspective towards the development of sustainable vehicles and
improved mobility, see for example the BMW I vision circular
194
, or Renault Re-factory
195
. This
measure is not foreseen to hinder innovation and the development of new technologies.
From ATF perspective, the measure aims to facilitate disassembly operations of the e-drive motor
when present in the ELV. It is then expected a decrease in removal and disassembly times as well
as the optimisation of ATF costs.
15.2.3 15.2.3 Measure 3: Mandatory removal of selected embedded electronic components
(EEC) group by authorised treatment facilities:
Linked to the option PO3B – M13b, A7.2.3
The JRC analysis
196
is building mostly on methodologies and results from the recent project EVA
II
197
, conducted by Empa for the (Swiss) federal office of the environment (FOEN). This measure
would apply to selected electronic components embedded in vehicles. The key characteristic of
193
194
https://www.eucar.be/strategic-pill%E2%80%8Bars/
https://www.press.bmwgroup.com/global/article/detail/T0341253EN/the-bmw-i-vision-circular?language=en
195
https://www.renaultgroup.com/en/news-on-air/news/station-flins-re-factorys-incubator-opens-its-doors/
196
Nacef Tazi, Martina Orefice, Charles Marmy, Yifaat Baron, Maria Ljunggren, Patrick Wäger, Fabrice Mathieux, Initial analysis
of selected measures to improve the circularity of Critical Raw Materials and other materials in passenger cars, EUR 31468 EN,
Publications Office of the European Union, Luxembourg, 2023, ISBN 978-92-68-01625-1, doi: 10.2760/207541, JRC132821
197
Marmy, C., Capelli, M., Boni, H., Bartolome, N., & Marseiler, U. (2023).
Projekt EVA II - Synthese –Schlussbericht
423
 kom (2023) 0451 - Ingen titel
those components is that they require electricity to function, either from an external source
through a cable, or with the help of an internal battery. These components were shortlisted by the
JRC from four main categories: Controllers, Headlights, Actuators and Cables. Such components
contain base and strategic metals (steel, Al and Cu), plastics but also precious metals and CRM
such as Palladium (Pd) and Gallium (Ga). Pd content is expected to increase due to more
electronic components and due to the electrification of the EU fleet.
Those metals are mostly lost at the end-of-life if the components are not removed from ELVs prior
to their recycling, because car recycling processes are currently optimized to recover basis metals
such as Fe, Al or Cu. In order to improve the performance of the recovery of CRM and precious
metals from vehicles, the measure requires the removal of selected electronic components
embedded in vehicles in order to recycle them separately in e-waste recycling facilities, which are
optimized for precious metals recovery. Electronic components recycling infrastructure is already
well established in Europe. Initial JRC analysis shortlisted the following components to be
dismantled prior to shredding:
Inverter (for EVs);
Control module/valve box of automatic transmission;
Infotainment control unit (sound, navigation and multimedia).
The JRC analysis reports the analysis of impacts of embedded electronic components; see Table
21 of the JRC report for potential secondary raw material produced from each assessed category,
see table 22 of the JRC report on the environmental impacts of the recycling of each assessed
category, see figure 9 of the JRC report on the cost distribution over waste management operators,
assessed per category of EEC). Afterwards, the shortlisting rational is introduced and the potential
additional benefits at EU level of the three components are presented in Table 15..
As also stated in the additional opportunistic benefits linked to the removal and collection of EVs
batteries (covered by the Battery Regulation), near-by components would be more accessible after
such removal, leading to a decreased allocated ATF costs related to their treatment and removal.
The inverter (for EVs) is positively affected by this synergy and its related removal costs would
decrease thanks to the removal of EVs battery.
424
 kom (2023) 0451 - Ingen titel
2734812_0117.png
Table 15.5: Potential additional benefits of the shortlisted components, calculated at EU level
2035
3,397
15.1
0.6
2040
3,628
16.1
0.7
5.9
Secondary Cu, in t
Secondary precious metals (Au and Ag), in t
Secondary Pd, in t
Estimated separate recycling costs of the three
5.9
components, per car, in € (based on EVA II project)
Estimated net additional environmental benefits of
68,956
the three components, per fleet, in t
CO
2eq
73,651
15.2.4 15.2.4 Measure 4: Request of information from OEMs on specific CRMs contained in
vehicles, and their labelling:
Linked to the option PO1A – M3 – A7.2.1
The measure on declaration of CRMs has already been applied previously in the context of eco-
design regulations, in particular on requirements for servers and data storage products
198
: this
regulation requests (in Annex II, section 3.3) manufacturers to declare compulsory information on
CRMs content (mainly Cobalt and Neodymium) at component level. This measure was introduced
to address the lack of information on present CRMs in the targeted products and to provide
relevant information for recyclers to decide to disassemble such components materials and invest
in recovery infrastructure, and for policy makers to take further measures in the future building on
solid knowledge.
Considering the previous experience on servers and data storage products, a similar measure can
be applied to REEs at REPM level of e-drive motors and Ga in size fixed controller category in
order to address the same lack of information. The assessment of the impacts of this measure
presented in this section is largely based on the assessment presented in the Impact Assessment of
the Eco-design regulation proposal for enterprise servers.
It was stated in the SWD on servers and data storage products that
199
, once separated, Nd scrap
can be further processed to recover the CRM. Due to the different types and sizes of e-drive motor
technologies available in the EU market, a mandatory information requirement at this component
level could inform on the presence, location and the exact amount of the targeted CRMs that the e-
drive motor contains, and this would encourage the separation at early stages of disassembly in the
authorised treatment facilities. Similar mandatory information requirement could be applied to Ga
content at controllers’ level larger than 10 cm
2
and sensors. A previous JRC study had mentioned
198
199
https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?qid=1553786820621&uri=CELEX%3A32019R0424
https://ec.europa.eu/transparency/documents-register/api/files/SWD(2019)106_0/de00000000060780?rendition=false
425
 kom (2023) 0451 - Ingen titel
2734812_0118.png
the lack of information on the use of this CRM in vehicles, in particular Ga
200
. Additionally to the
initial assessment on information on weight and location of REEs in e-drive motors, further
requested information on number of permanent magnets, their coating and whether gluing was
used in their assembly within the rotor could significantly increase the dismantler and recycler
knowledge to adapt the necessary operations to efficiency extract the permanent magnets from the
e-drive motor.
The available standards on material efficiency, including those developed under CEN/CLC/JTC
10
201
(e.g EN 45558 - General method to declare the use of CRMs in energy-related products)
could also be used to ease the enforcement of this requirement at e-drive motor level.
Labelling parts or products with specific material content (to ease its depollution or sorting) would
in principle incentivise the dismantling and separate collection of the e-drive motor at authorised
treatment facilities.
As for expected economic impacts, no costs for transposition into national legislation is foreseen
since the form of the envisaged legislation is an EU regulation (linked to 3R type-approval). The
estimated compliance costs for OEMs would be mainly concentrated in reporting and
documentation delivery from supplier to OEMs. Since the automotive industry is already equipped
with material and component communication channels (e.g. IMDS, IDIS), costs of compliance are
estimated to be limited. From EoL value chain perspective, additional costs could be related to the
search of relevant information in documentation but in principle these would largely be
compensated by additional revenues from the sales of CRMs. The estimated overall additional
costs for ATFs and recyclers are then supposed to be low to medium. This measure adapted to the
e-drive motors would increase ATFs and recyclers knowledge on this component and it is likely to
increase recycling, reuse, and remanufacturing actions as well as relevant investment in recovery
infrastructure.
It is estimated that limited additional direct socio-economic and environmental benefits would be
generated from the implementation of this measure 4 (linked to M3). However, it is expected that
the quality of treatment and of output flows of secondary raw materials (hence of value) that will
be generated by measures 1 (linked to M13a) and 2 (linked to M7) on e-drive motors and the
measure 3 (linked to M13b) on selected EEC components is likely to be enhanced thanks to this
measure on CRM information request. It is also unlikely that this requirement would impact
negatively job creation. This measure is not intended to hinder innovation and the development of
new technologies.
15.3 Suggestions for follow-up review clauses on CRM measures for vehicles
The measures presented in this report could in the future be complemented by others, to be
potentially mentioned in review clauses. Follow-up (potentially more ambitious) measures might
tackle further circularity failures by addressing other CRMs and components (e.g. Ga or Ti) when
more data are available, or by introducing new targets (e.g. recycled content or recycling
200
Amund N. Løvik, Charles Marmy, Maria Ljunggren, Duncan Kushnir, Jaco Huisman, Silvia Bobba, Thibaut Maury, Theodor
Ciuta, Elisa Garbossa, Fabrice Mathieux, Patrick Wäger, Material composition trends in vehicles: critical raw materials and other
relevant metals. Preparing a dataset on secondary raw materials for the Raw Materials Information System, EUR 30916 EN,
Publications Office of the European Union, Luxembourg, 2021, ISBN 978-92-76-45213-3, doi:10.2760/351825, JRC126564.
201
https://standards.cencenelec.eu/dyn/www/f?p=205:7:0::::FSP_ORG_ID:2240017&cs=18A65BEA4289B745403E9407952618CE3
426
 kom (2023) 0451 - Ingen titel
2734812_0119.png
efficiency for REEs or Mg) when initial recycling infrastructures will be operational in the EU.
These pre-requisites would be necessary to trigger CRM recycling and thrive investments as well
as innovation in the automotive sector.
15.4 Additional contribution of the potential extension of scope to circularity of CRMs
As mentioned in the main SWD document, the ELV and Type-Approval directives apply to
passenger and light commercial vehicles; M1 and N1, respectively. It was stated that 85% of the
EU vehicles fleet falls within the current scope of the ELV/Type-Approval directives. The
remaining is therefore not covered and represents circa. 52 million vehicles that include trucks
(lorries), busses, two- and three- wheelers, estimated in the core document to account 4.13 million
tons of materials. In the context of ensuring higher circularity of vehicles and ensuring alignment
with the circularity objectives of the CRM Act, the present section provides additional
information, from a CRM perspective, to support the possibility of including additional vehicles
within the scope of the ELV/Type-Approval; namely lorries, buses and motorcycles (two- or three
wheelers).
15.4.1 15.4.1 Evidence on CRM content in lorries, buses and motorcycles:
Newest environmental standards and constraints for heavy-duty vehicles (EU 2019/1242) and
EURO 6/7 standards will require the integration of additional technology devices in vehicles to
ensure alignment with 2025 and 2030 targets
202
. These controllers included in vehicles would lead
to the increase of specific CRMs in vehicles. For instance, controllers would be included for
exhaust gas control, leading to more Cu or Pd/Pt in vehicles. The electrification or hybridization
of the power train to reduce CO
2
emissions would also increase contents of Cu, Si-steel, REPM
and others CRMs in these vehicles. While an average passenger BEV is equipped with one e-drive
motor of 45 kg and an average peak of 100 kW, an electric truck drivetrain could afford multiple
e-drive motors and reach for instance a peak power of 490 kW
203
. This would lead to the
significant increase of numbers and mass of e-drive motors in the truck drivetrain. Volvo FH
electric drivetrain is for example equipped with 2 to 3 electric motors, the Tesla Semi is also
propelled using three e-drive motors, similar to those used in Tesla model 3. The introduction of
electric lorries, buses and motorcycles will also increase CRM content in batteries, especially
lithium, nickel and cobalt
204
. It is also estimated that PGM average content in lorries will raise by
30%, with palladium covering the major share of PGM used in automotive applications (compared
to platinum and rhodium
205
). Pd content in a class 7/8 heavy duty truck catalyst can be up to
60g
206,207
. Assuming same Pd content for buses, and considering EoL vehicles from these two
categories, the untapped potential of Pd in EoL vehicles from these two vehicle categories is
presented below in Table 15.6.
Table 15.6: Untapped recovery potential of Pd from lorries and buses catalysts, calculated at EU level
202
203
Colpier, L, Chazalette, B, Gaudeau, O, Cor, O, Etude recyclage poids lourds, rapport final-mise à jour, Ademe, 2021
https://www.volvotrucks.com/en-en/trucks/trucks/volvo-fh/volvo-fh-electric.html
204
IEA (2021),
The Role of Critical Minerals in Clean Energy Transitions,
IEA, Paris https://www.iea.org/reports/the-role-of-
critical-minerals-in-clean-energy-transitions.
205
Johnson Matthey, PGM market report, May 2022.
206
Based on an LNG Heavy Duty Truck, World Platinum Investment Council-WPIC. Platinium quarterly presentation. Q4 2019,
March 2020.
207
Compared to an average of 3.9g to 5.6 g per passenger car autocatalyst. WPIC, April 2021
427
 kom (2023) 0451 - Ingen titel
2734812_0120.png
2035
Vehicle category
2040
2035
2040
Pd content (ton)
Number of vehicles reaching EoL
289,992
32,972
310,292
35,057
17.4
2
Lorries
Buses
18.6
2.1
Source: EoL data from IA main study, Pd content from World Platinum Investment Council (March, 2020)
Pd is widely used in catalytic converters and to a lesser extent in vehicle electronics. The
automotive industry (all vehicle categories) is the largest consumer of Pd, covering more than
80% of supply annually.
In order to ensure higher performances, OEMs are also relying on REPM motors for heavy
vehicles, leading to the use of Rare Earth elements and Si-steel laminates in the engine. Based on
IDTechEx benchmark on electric motors used in vehicles, most of e-lorries (all types of truck), e-
buses and electric two-wheelers are propelled with permanent magnet motors, relying heavily on
laminated Si-steel and also rare earth materials, see Table 15.7.
Table 15.
7
: Motor types in vehicles (e-lorries, e-buses and electric two-wheelers) and main CRMs used
Vehicle
Electric two-
wheelers (EU
brands)
Electric two-
wheelers (non EU
brands)
Electric lorries
Motor type
Main CRMs used
Permanent magnet synchronous Laminated Si-steel
motor - PMSM, with a typical REE in magnets
weight of 19 kg
Brushless DC motor - BLDC, Laminated Si-steel
with a typical weight from 4 kg to REE in magnets
15 kg
More than 93% are based on Laminated Si-steel
PMSM and permanent magnet REE in magnets
assisted reluctance motor - PMAR
motors
More than 99% of full and plug-in Laminated Si-steel
hybrid buses are PMSM
REE in magnets
Source: IDTechEx, 2021
and
and
and
Electric buses
and
Consequently, more CRMs are expected to be used in electric motors for hybrid and electric
trucks, buses and motorcycles. This includes REE materials (Neodymium and Dysprosium) but
also Si-steel, Terbium, Niobium and also Cobalt. The fleet electrification would also generate an
increase of electric and electronic devices (e.g. inverter), leading to the increase of copper,
precious metals (gold and silver) and PGM, as stated in the JRC report.
Besides, electric infrastructure would lead to higher CRMs demand, with a slightly higher demand
for truck infrastructure, compared to passenger vehicles ones. Infrastructure includes charging
428
 kom (2023) 0451 - Ingen titel
2734812_0121.png
station, post and connexions to the grid, as modelled by Raghavan et al.
208
. Other scenarios
illustrated by the latter reference also describe higher metal demands for hydrogen fuel cell
electric cars and trucks implying significant demand for PGMs.
Thus, these vehicles categories contain relevant CRMs in their drivetrain, electric and electronic
devices, with an even higher content for trucks and buses due to the increase of their overall
weight and the multiplication of e-drive motors used to reach higher performances. These vehicles
also contain significant shares of steel and aluminium in their bill of materials.
15.4.2 15.4.2 Challenges on CRM recovery from the extended scope, including export and miss-
management:
As stated in the main document (see section 2.4 Problem area 4), these vehicles do not currently
abide by specific legal requirements on their design or end-of-life phases, leading in principle to
the loss of important share of secondary raw materials, including CRMs. Main circularity failures
are related to:
Design phase: circularity or design for recycling are not necessarily integrated as a
requirement in the design of these vehicles. In addition, lack of information of CRM
content and location in these vehicles could prevent EU dismantlers and recyclers to
properly recover these materials from collected vehicles.
Collection phase: the main challenge is related to the absence of structured and
professional end of life value chain to properly collect and manage end of life vehicles
such as truck, buses
209
. Main EU authorised treatment facilities (ATFs) are generally
designed to collect and treat M1 and N1 vehicle categories. They do not treat two- and
three- wheelers neither. This failure compromises circularity and guaranteed
environmentally sound management of waste stemming from these vehicles. This failure is
also worsened by the export trends of end of life trucks and buses from EU to third part
countries, leading to the loss of significant amount of materials from Europe (estimated to
be up to 4.13 million in 2019). Current ATF facilities are certainly not prepared to
appropriately treat these vehicles and recover CRMs. Collection of e-motorbikes is
currently not established and will benefit from the collections targets for Light Means of
Transport (LMT) proposed by the battery regulation.
Recovery phase: the absence of reuse and/or recycling incentives of these vehicles prevent
the proper reuse and recycling of parts and materials, including CRMs. These vehicles are
also likely to be mainly exported outside Europe at their end of life.
15.4.3 15.4.3 Expected impacts of initial CRM measures for passenger cars in case of the
proposed extension to new vehicles (lorries/buses/2-wheelers):
A wider scope covering new vehicles such as lorries, buses and motorcycles will mathematically
increase the fleet size targeted by the ELV/3RTA directives, and mathematically increase number
and mass of CRM-rich components potentially targeted. This could in principle lead to the
development or creation of new business models in EU internal markets, but also reduce
environmental hazards stemming from these EoL vehicles.
208
Raghavan, S. S., Nordelöf, A., Ljunggren, M., & Arvidsson, R. (2023). Metal requirements for road-based electromobility
transitions in Sweden.
Resources, Conservation and Recycling, 190,
106777
209
Colpier, L, Chazalette, B, Gaudeau, O, Cor, O, Etude recyclage poids lourds, rapport final-mise à jour, Ademe, 2021
429
 kom (2023) 0451 - Ingen titel
From a CRM perspective, the extension of vehicle scope to lorries, buses and motorcycles would
enhance the transition to a circular economy and improve the performances of measures (see
above) already assessed for passenger vehicles, which are:
-
Measure 1:
mandatory removal of e-drive motors by authorised treatment facilities, linked
to the option
PO3A, M13a:
This measure can be strongly impacted by the scope extension , as the number of e-drive motors
covered would significantly increase, leading in principle to a linear increase of impacts assessed
for passenger vehicles e-drive motors.
As the majority of motor types of the new scope are based on several permanent magnet motors
with REPM, it is expected an increase of secondary raw materials (REPM materials, Si-steel,
copper and aluminium) production from this measure. The increase of e-drive motor’s flow size
could also in principle increase reuse flows. Both recycling and reuse flows are expected to
contribute to the reduction of supply disruptions and to the EU strategic autonomy.
From a socio-economic perspective, a scope extension would increase the number of motors
targeted, leading to similar impacts assessed for passenger vehicles, but with a higher extent.
Assuming:
that the extension of scope would increase the number of vehicles collected by 15%,
that trucks and lorries contain significant number of REPM motors,
It can be then assumed that at least 17.5% (=15%/85%) of additional REPM motors and additional
mass of CRMs would be collected and treated (JRC
rough estimates).
Additionally, a positive synergy is foreseen with batteries removal obligations described in the
Battery Regulation. This would lead to a cost optimisation at ATF level of batteries near-by
components, hence reducing e-drive motors removal costs.
-
Measure 2:
design provisions for e-drive motors, linked to the option
PO1B, M7:
The new scope to be covered by eco-design requirement would increase dismantlers and recyclers
capacity to effectively manage e-drive motors from the extended scope. A better design that
facilitates disassembly operations of e-drive motors will decrease removal and disassembly times
as well as the optimisation of ATF costs, leading to even further optimised impacts of the measure
1 (PO3A, M13a).
-
Measure 3:
mandatory removal of selected small parts by authorised treatment facilities,
linked to the option
PO3B, M13b:
Similarly to measure 1, and based on the expected electrification of the new scope, an increased
flow of copper, PGM and precious metals are expected to be recovered, especially from lorries
and buses. Thus, a very positive contribution is also foreseen in case of scope extension. The
inverter removal from EVs would also in principle benefit from removal obligations of batteries
described in the Battery Regulation, hence reducing its removal costs at ATF level from the
extended scope.
430
 kom (2023) 0451 - Ingen titel
-
Measure 4:
request of information from OEMs on specific CRMs contained in targeted
vehicles, and their labelling, linked to the option
PO1A, M3:
As most of motor types included in the scope extension are REPM materials, providing
information on location, content and characteristics of REEs in e-drive motors would significantly
increase dismantlers and recyclers information and support their decision on rare earth permanent
magnet proper end of life management.
An increase of scope’s size would have the same expected impacts as assessed for passenger
vehicles, both for REE in e-drive motors and Ga in controllers.
15.4.4 15.4.4 Additional Expected impacts of the proposed extension the current legislation to
new vehicles (lorries/buses/2-wheelers) to the recovery of CRM and the implementation of
the CRM Act objectives:
Additional measures assessed in the main document could also support further recovery of CRM
in case of scope extension to lorries, buses and motorcycles. Main additional benefits are linked
to:
-
Requirements for manufacturers to provide additional information to dismantlers/recyclers
on recycling/dismantling (M28):
Similarly to the analysis of impacts of measure 4 for passenger cars (linked to M3), this measure is
strongly linked to the improved circular design of vehicles under the scope of the ELV/3RTA
directives. It is expected an improved dismantler and recycler knowledge on CRM based parts,
their location, CRM content characteristics and the relevant information to properly dismantle and
recycle CRM from wastes stemming from these vehicles. This measure is also in strong synergy
with M30a, should these vehicles need to be properly treated in authorised treatment facilities.
-
Mandatory treatment of End of Life vehicles in authorised treatment facilities (M30a):
The implementation of EURO 6 rules should in principle decrease the export of lorries and buses
to third part countries, leading to the increase of wastes stemming from these vehicles in the EU.
This would develop new business models related to the end of life management of these vehicles
to properly collect and treat them. It is unsure if the current authorised treatment facilities would
be able to collect and treat large sized vehicles such as lorries and trucks, as they are more
designed for the treatment of M1 and N1 vehicles. It is expected in short terms a higher additional
investments at ATF level to ensure their capacity to receive and treat lorries and buses. If new
types of ATF are to be created, they will have to fully consider the novel CRM components of
these types of vehicles. However, the expected impacts of this scope extension will lead to higher
material recovery from wastes stemming from these vehicles as well as the increase of CRM flows
available for recycling. It is also expected an additional jobs created at waste management
operators level and also an increase of their revenues related to the management of materials
stemming from this new scope. Similarly to measure 1 for passenger cars (linked to M13a), a
positive cost-revenue ratio is foreseen in the medium-long terms, as new business model related to
this scope extension should emerge.
The CRM Act is clearly supporting actions on CRM recovery to be included in the revision of the
ELV/3RTA directives, based on its current scope (limited to M1 and N1 vehicles). In overall
431
 kom (2023) 0451 - Ingen titel
terms, a scope extension to lorries, buses and motorcycle would lead to a higher circularity of
CRMs contained in these vehicles. It would also ensure the implementation of CRM Act
objectives related to the design and recycling of CRM from all vehicle categories. These vehicles,
if properly treated in authorised treatment facilities including through mandatory separate
dismantling and recovery of selected CRM-rich parts prior to shredding and supported by an
increased knowledge of CRM content would in principle contribute to reach the CRM Act 15%
recycling targets aimed. It should also in principle support reuse flows and the creation of
secondary markets for (CRM) parts in the EU.
The scope extension of the ELV/3RTA directive would then be inclusive and encourage the
setting-up of up-to-date treatment and recovery facilities for these vehicles and contribute to the
development of CRM value chains in Europe.
432