Amending Regulations (EC) No 561/2006, (EU) 2018/858, (EU) 2019/2144 and (EU) 2024/1257 of the European Parliament and of the Council as regards the simplification of technical requirements and testing procedures for motor vehicles and repealing Council Directive 70/157/EEC and Regulation No 540/2014 of the European Parliament and of the Council

Amendment 3

Philippe Olivier

Proposal for a regulation

Recital 1

Or. fr

Justification

Le seuil assoupli des 10% de véhicules thermiques neufs autorisés à horizon 2035 (dans le cadre de la clause de revoyure du Pacte Vert européen) n’est pas assez ambitieux compte tenu de l’ampleur des enjeux financiers et conjoncturels auxquels la filière automobile doit faire face : par conséquent, pour préserver à terme la compétitivité des constructeurs européens, il conviendrait de suspendre, ou même de supprimer, les objectifs irréalisables du "Pacte Vert" européen, ainsi que les objectifs annoncés dans le projet de règlement 2019/631 qui prévoit notamment de nouvelles règles contraignantes pour les constructeurs européens en matière d’approvisionnement en acier bas carbone.

Amendment 4

Michael Bloss, Virginijus Sinkevičius, Alice Kuhnke

Proposal for a regulation

Recital 1 a (new)

Or. en

Amendment 5

Michael Bloss, Virginijus Sinkevičius, Alice Kuhnke

Proposal for a regulation

Recital 2

Or. en

Amendment 6

Maria Grapini

Proposal for a regulation

Recital 2

Or. ro

Amendment 7

Pierfrancesco Maran, Matteo Ricci, Andreas Schwab, Jens Gieseke

Proposal for a regulation

Recital 2 a (new)

Or. en

Amendment 8

Pierfrancesco Maran, Matteo Ricci, Jens Gieseke

Proposal for a regulation

Recital 2 b (new)

Or. en

Amendment 9

Philippe Olivier

Proposal for a regulation

Recital 4

Or. fr

Justification

L’intégration progressive de pays candidats dans le marché représente un risque supplémentaire pour les constructeurs automobiles européens de voir leurs parts de marché diminuer : dans un contexte de marché particulièrement marqué par la concurrence internationale et extra-européenne, on voit s’implanter des usines asiatiques dans certains pays d’Europe de l’Est dans le simple but de contourner les mesures douanières européennes contre l’importation de véhicules chinois... Cette stratégie n’est pas sans concéquences pour les constructeurs européens et l’intégration, même progressive, de pays candidats pourrait permettre à ces pays de pouvoir coopérer avec les constructeurs asiatiques (en vue d’implantations d’usines ou de marchés de sous-traitance), facilitant ainsi la propagation des véhicules chinois sur le marché européen.

Amendment 10

Jonas Sjöstedt

Proposal for a regulation

Recital 4 a (new)

Or. en

Amendment 11

François Kalfon, Vivien Costanzo, Christel Schaldemose, Mohammed Chahim, Pierre Jouvet, Sakis Arnaoutoglou, Johan Danielsson, Laura Ballarín Cereza, Heléne Fritzon, Sérgio Gonçalves

Proposal for a regulation

Recital 5

Or. en

Amendment 12

Michael Bloss, Virginijus Sinkevičius, Alice Kuhnke

Proposal for a regulation

Recital 6

Or. en

Amendment 13

Rachel Blom, Roman Haider, Elisabeth Dieringer, Vilis Krištopans

Proposal for a regulation

Recital 6

Or. en

Amendment 14

Volker Schnurrbusch

Proposal for a regulation

Recital 6

Or. en

Amendment 15

Elisabeth Dieringer, Rachel Blom, Virginie Joron, Klara Dostalova, Roman Haider, Vilis Krištopans, Jaroslav Bžoch

Proposal for a regulation

Recital 6

Or. en

Amendment 16

François Kalfon, Vivien Costanzo, Christel Schaldemose, Mohammed Chahim, Pierre Jouvet, Sakis Arnaoutoglou, Johan Danielsson, Laura Ballarín Cereza, Heléne Fritzon, Sérgio Gonçalves

Proposal for a regulation

Recital 6

Or. en

Amendment 17

Michael Bloss, Virginijus Sinkevičius, Alice Kuhnke

Proposal for a regulation

Recital 7

Or. en

Amendment 18

François Kalfon, Vivien Costanzo, Christel Schaldemose, Mohammed Chahim, Pierre Jouvet, Sakis Arnaoutoglou, Johan Danielsson, Daniel Attard, Laura Ballarín Cereza, Heléne Fritzon, Sérgio Gonçalves

Proposal for a regulation

Recital 7

Or. en

Amendment 19

Elisabeth Dieringer, Rachel Blom, Virginie Joron, Klara Dostalova, Roman Haider, Vilis Krištopans, Jaroslav Bžoch

Proposal for a regulation

Recital 7

Or. en

Amendment 20

Rachel Blom, Elisabeth Dieringer, Roman Haider, Vilis Krištopans

Proposal for a regulation

Recital 7

Or. en

Justification

Such an exemption should reduce disproportionate administrative burdens for small and medium-sized enterprises and tradespeople, while leaving existing national traffic rules, enforcement powers and working-time rules unaffected

Amendment 21

Philippe Olivier

Proposal for a regulation

Recital 7

Or. fr

Justification

L’installation, à compter du 1er juillet 2026, d’un tachygraphe sur les véhicules utilitaires légers de plus de 2,5 tonnes affectés au transport de marchandises, est déjà prévue dans le cadre du "Paquet Mobilité". Ainsi, dans l’esprit du "Paquet Mobilité", l’installation d’un tachygraphe sur les véhicules utilitaires légers électriques à batterie d’un poids inférieur à 4,25 tonnes doit être appliquée dans le cadre du cabotage et des transports internationaux de marchandises : compte tenu de la concurrence des "VUL" (Véhicules Utilitaires Légers) utilisés par des transporteurs d’Europe de l’Est pour des missions de cabotage dans les pays d’Europe de l’Ouest tels que la France, l’installation d’un tachygraphe doit pouvoir permettre de lutter contre la concurrence déloyale et le dumping social liés au détachement de chauffeurs routiers issus de pays à bas couts. Ce dispositif permettrait également aux autorités d’améliorer les contrôles et de renforcer la sécurité routière, limitant ainsi les risques d’accidents liés à des temps de conduite excessifs.

Amendment 22

Volker Schnurrbusch

Proposal for a regulation

Recital 7

Or. en

Amendment 23

François Kalfon, Vivien Costanzo, Christel Schaldemose, Mohammed Chahim, Pierre Jouvet, Sakis Arnaoutoglou, Johan Danielsson, Laura Ballarín Cereza, Heléne Fritzon, Sérgio Gonçalves

Proposal for a regulation

Recital 7 a (new)

Or. en

Amendment 24

François Kalfon, Vivien Costanzo, Christel Schaldemose, Mohammed Chahim, Pierre Jouvet, Sakis Arnaoutoglou, Johan Danielsson, Laura Ballarín Cereza, Heléne Fritzon, Sérgio Gonçalves

Proposal for a regulation

Recital 7 b (new)

Or. en

Amendment 25

Michael Bloss, Virginijus Sinkevičius, Alice Kuhnke

Proposal for a regulation

Recital 8

Or. en

Amendment 26

François Kalfon, Vivien Costanzo, Christel Schaldemose, Mohammed Chahim, Pierre Jouvet, Sakis Arnaoutoglou, Johan Danielsson, Laura Ballarín Cereza, Heléne Fritzon, Sérgio Gonçalves

Proposal for a regulation

Recital 8

Or. en

Amendment 27

Rachel Blom, Roman Haider, Elisabeth Dieringer, Vilis Krištopans

Proposal for a regulation

Recital 8

Or. en

Amendment 28

Elisabeth Dieringer, Rachel Blom, Virginie Joron, Klara Dostalova, Roman Haider, Vilis Krištopans, Jaroslav Bžoch

Proposal for a regulation

Recital 8

Or. en

Amendment 29

Volker Schnurrbusch

Proposal for a regulation

Recital 8

Or. en

Amendment 30

Andreas Schwab, Andrea Wechsler, Markus Ferber, Jens Gieseke, Zala Tomašič, Marion Walsmann, Engin Eroglu, Norbert Lins, Massimiliano Salini, Oliver Schenk, Christian Doleschal, Adina Vălean, Angelika Niebler

Proposal for a regulation

Recital 8

Or. en

Justification

Current EU legislation penalizes electric light commercial vehicles (3.5-4.25 tonnes) because their battery weight subjects them to tachograph and speed limiter requirements that equivalent fossil-fueled vans escape. This disparity hinders zero-emission adoption among SMEs, hurts manufacturer competitiveness, and undermines EU climate goals. To fix this and promote cleaner transport, the text proposes exempting these zero-emission N2 vehicles from these device mandates and removing strict regional transport restrictions.

Amendment 31

Maria Grapini

Proposal for a regulation

Recital 8

Or. ro

Amendment 32

Michael Bloss, Virginijus Sinkevičius, Alice Kuhnke

Proposal for a regulation

Recital 9

Or. en

Amendment 33

Stefano Cavedagna, Denis Nesci, Daniele Polato, Alexandr Vondra, Nicola Procaccini, Antonella Sberna, Pietro Fiocchi, Michele Picaro, Paolo Inselvini, Carlo Fidanza, Alberico Gambino, Carlo Ciccioli

Proposal for a regulation

Recital 9

Or. en

Amendment 34

François Kalfon, Vivien Costanzo, Christel Schaldemose, Mohammed Chahim, Pierre Jouvet, Sakis Arnaoutoglou, Johan Danielsson, Daniel Attard, Laura Ballarín Cereza, Heléne Fritzon, Sérgio Gonçalves

Proposal for a regulation

Recital 9

Or. en

Amendment 35

François Kalfon, Vivien Costanzo, Christel Schaldemose, Mohammed Chahim, Pierre Jouvet, Sakis Arnaoutoglou, Johan Danielsson, Daniel Attard, Laura Ballarín Cereza, Heléne Fritzon, Sérgio Gonçalves

Proposal for a regulation

Recital 10

Or. en

Amendment 36

Nikola Minchev, Valérie Devaux, Katri Kulmuni, Svenja Hahn, Andreas Glück

Proposal for a regulation

Recital 10 a (new)

Or. en

Amendment 37

Andreas Schwab, Andrea Wechsler, Markus Ferber, Jens Gieseke, Zala Tomašič, Marion Walsmann, Engin Eroglu, Norbert Lins, Oliver Schenk, Christian Doleschal, Angelika Niebler

Proposal for a regulation

Recital 10 a (new)

Or. en

Justification

To eliminate market fragmentation and the administrative burden arising from non-harmonized national end-of-series exemption procedures, such as varying quota or cut-off date mechanisms, the registration framework should be simplified. The current procedures create unnecessary bureaucracy for both the industry and national competent authorities. Hence, if a vehicle's production date precedes the application of a new legal requirement, its certificate of conformity should remain valid, thereby removing the need for burdensome end-of-series exemption procedures.

Amendment 38

François Kalfon, Vivien Costanzo, Christel Schaldemose, Mohammed Chahim, Pierre Jouvet, Sakis Arnaoutoglou, Johan Danielsson, Laura Ballarín Cereza, Heléne Fritzon, Sérgio Gonçalves

Proposal for a regulation

Recital 11

Or. en

Amendment 39

Elisabeth Dieringer, Rachel Blom, Virginie Joron, Klara Dostalova, Roman Haider, Vilis Krištopans, Jaroslav Bžoch

Proposal for a regulation

Recital 11

Or. en

Amendment 40

Nikola Minchev, Katri Kulmuni, Valérie Devaux

Proposal for a regulation

Recital 11

Or. en

Amendment 41

Volker Schnurrbusch

Proposal for a regulation

Recital 11

Or. en

Amendment 42

Maria Grapini

Proposal for a regulation

Recital 11

Or. ro

Amendment 43

Jonas Sjöstedt

Proposal for a regulation

Recital 11

Or. en

Amendment 44

Elisabeth Dieringer, Rachel Blom, Pál Szekeres, Virginie Joron, Klara Dostalova, Roman Haider, Vilis Krištopans, Jaroslav Bžoch

Proposal for a regulation

Recital 11 a (new)

Or. en

Amendment 45

Sigrid Friis, Gerben-Jan Gerbrandy, Yvan Verougstraete, Stine Bosse

Proposal for a regulation

Recital 11 a (new)

Or. en

(Regulation (EU) 2019/63 Regulation (EU) 2024/1257)

Amendment 46

Andreas Schwab, Andrea Wechsler, Markus Ferber, Zala Tomašič, Marion Walsmann, Engin Eroglu, Norbert Lins, Oliver Schenk, Christian Doleschal, Angelika Niebler

Proposal for a regulation

Recital 12

Or. en

Amendment 47

Stefano Cavedagna, Denis Nesci, Daniele Polato, Alexandr Vondra, Nicola Procaccini, Antonella Sberna, Pietro Fiocchi, Michele Picaro, Paolo Inselvini, Carlo Fidanza, Alberico Gambino, Carlo Ciccioli

Proposal for a regulation

Recital 12

Or. en

Amendment 48

François Kalfon, Vivien Costanzo, Christel Schaldemose, Mohammed Chahim, Pierre Jouvet, Sakis Arnaoutoglou, Johan Danielsson, Laura Ballarín Cereza, Heléne Fritzon, Sérgio Gonçalves

Proposal for a regulation

Recital 12

Or. en

Amendment 49

Elisabeth Dieringer, Rachel Blom, Virginie Joron, Klara Dostalova, Roman Haider, Vilis Krištopans, Jaroslav Bžoch

Proposal for a regulation

Recital 12

Or. en

Amendment 50

Volker Schnurrbusch

Proposal for a regulation

Recital 12

Or. en

Amendment 51

Michael Bloss, Virginijus Sinkevičius, Alice Kuhnke

Proposal for a regulation

Recital 12

Or. en

Amendment 52

Jonas Sjöstedt

Proposal for a regulation

Recital 12

Or. en

Amendment 53

Rachel Blom, Roman Haider, Elisabeth Dieringer, Vilis Krištopans

Proposal for a regulation

Recital 12 a (new)

Or. en

Amendment 54

François Kalfon, Vivien Costanzo, Christel Schaldemose, Mohammed Chahim, Pierre Jouvet, Sakis Arnaoutoglou, Johan Danielsson, Laura Ballarín Cereza, Heléne Fritzon, Sérgio Gonçalves

Proposal for a regulation

Recital 12 a (new)

Or. en

Amendment 55

Stefano Cavedagna, Denis Nesci, Daniele Polato, Alexandr Vondra, Nicola Procaccini, Antonella Sberna, Pietro Fiocchi, Michele Picaro, Paolo Inselvini, Carlo Fidanza, Alberico Gambino, Carlo Ciccioli

Proposal for a regulation

Recital 12 a (new)

Or. en

Amendment 56

Sigrid Friis, Yvan Verougstraete, Gerben-Jan Gerbrandy, Pascal Canfin, Stine Bosse

Proposal for a regulation

Recital 12 a (new)

Or. en

(Regulation (EU) 2019/613)

Justification

Plug-in hybrid vehicles are credited under the CO2 standards on the basis of type-approval values that depend heavily on the assumed electric driving share. If those assumptions do not reflect real-world use, the Regulation risks overestimating emissions reductions and weakening the transition to zero-emission mobility. Regularly assessing and updating the utility factor, including through manufacturer-specific corrections where necessary, would ensure that regulatory values reflect actual vehicle performance, protect the integrity of the CO2 standards and maintain a fair competitive framework for manufacturers investing in genuine electrification.

Amendment 57

Jens Gieseke

Proposal for a regulation

Recital 12 a (new)

Or. en

Justification

Highly efficient electric vehicles help reduce running costs for consumers, lower overall energy demand and reduce pressure on electricity systems. To ensure that the development of energy-efficient vehicles is promoted, a new super credit should be introduced.

Amendment 58

Elisabeth Dieringer, Rachel Blom, Virginie Joron, Klara Dostalova, Roman Haider, Vilis Krištopans, Jaroslav Bžoch

Proposal for a regulation

Recital 12 a (new)

Or. en

Amendment 59

Daniel Attard

Proposal for a regulation

Recital 12 a (new)

Or. en

Justification

To ensure that the proposed M1E category remains commercially viable for small and right-hand drive markets.

Amendment 60

Andreas Schwab, Andrea Wechsler, Markus Ferber, Zala Tomašič, Marion Walsmann, Engin Eroglu, Norbert Lins, Oliver Schenk, Christian Doleschal, Angelika Niebler

Proposal for a regulation

Recital 13

Or. en

Amendment 61

Vivien Costanzo, Christel Schaldemose, Mohammed Chahim, Pierre Jouvet, Sakis Arnaoutoglou, Johan Danielsson, Laura Ballarín Cereza, Heléne Fritzon, Sérgio Gonçalves

Proposal for a regulation

Recital 13

Or. en

Amendment 62

Michael Bloss, Virginijus Sinkevičius, Alice Kuhnke

Proposal for a regulation

Recital 13

Or. en

Amendment 63

Maria Grapini

Proposal for a regulation

Recital 13

Or. ro

Amendment 64

Stefano Cavedagna, Denis Nesci, Daniele Polato, Alexandr Vondra, Nicola Procaccini, Antonella Sberna, Pietro Fiocchi, Michele Picaro, Paolo Inselvini, Carlo Fidanza, Alberico Gambino, Carlo Ciccioli

Proposal for a regulation

Recital 13

Or. en

Amendment 65

Michael Bloss, Virginijus Sinkevičius, Alice Kuhnke

Proposal for a regulation

Recital 13 a (new)

Or. en

Amendment 66

Nikola Minchev, Valérie Devaux, Katri Kulmuni, Svenja Hahn, Andreas Glück

Proposal for a regulation

Recital 14

Or. en

Amendment 67

Elisabeth Dieringer, Rachel Blom, Virginie Joron, Roman Haider, Vilis Krištopans

Proposal for a regulation

Recital 14 a (new)

Or. en

Amendment 68

Andreas Schwab, Andrea Wechsler, Markus Ferber, Jens Gieseke, Zala Tomašič, Marion Walsmann, Engin Eroglu, Norbert Lins, Massimiliano Salini, Oliver Schenk, Christian Doleschal, Adina Vălean, Angelika Niebler

Proposal for a regulation

Recital 14 a (new)

Or. en

Justification

In order to determine the range in electric mode of hybrid vehicles with external recharging systems (plug in hybrid vehicles) Utility Factors (UF) apply. According to Regulation (EU) 2023/443 a new UF should apply as from 1st January 2027. Given the ongoing progress of the plug-in hybrid technology and its value to the European supply chain, related jobs and technological knowledge we believe that a further tightening of the UF would prematurely end investments into a technology which has so much more potential for Europe. In order to promote this technology and allow industry to continue to invest in it, it is proposed to freeze the current UF.

Amendment 69

François Kalfon, Vivien Costanzo, Christel Schaldemose, Mohammed Chahim, Pierre Jouvet, Sakis Arnaoutoglou, Johan Danielsson, Daniel Attard, Laura Ballarín Cereza, Heléne Fritzon, Sérgio Gonçalves

Proposal for a regulation

Recital 16

Or. en

Amendment 70

Michael Bloss, Virginijus Sinkevičius, Alice Kuhnke

Proposal for a regulation

Recital 16

Or. en

Amendment 71

Volker Schnurrbusch

Proposal for a regulation

Recital 16

Or. en

Amendment 72

Elisabeth Dieringer, Rachel Blom, Virginie Joron, Klara Dostalova, Roman Haider, Vilis Krištopans, Jaroslav Bžoch

Proposal for a regulation

Recital 16

Or. en

Amendment 73

Stefano Cavedagna, Denis Nesci, Daniele Polato, Alexandr Vondra, Nicola Procaccini, Antonella Sberna, Pietro Fiocchi, Michele Picaro, Paolo Inselvini, Carlo Fidanza, Alberico Gambino, Carlo Ciccioli

Proposal for a regulation

Recital 16 a (new)

Or. en

Amendment 74

Nicolás González Casares, Rosa Serrano Sierra, Javi López, Laura Ballarín Cereza, César Luena, Leire Pajín

Proposal for a regulation

Recital 16 a (new)

Or. en

Amendment 75

Valérie Devaux, Andreas Schwab, Michael Bloss, Merja Kyllönen, Grégory Allione, Benoit Cassart, Nikola Minchev, Katri Kulmuni, Jan-Christoph Oetjen

Proposal for a regulation

Recital 16 a (new)

Or. en

Amendment 76

Michael Bloss, Virginijus Sinkevičius, Alice Kuhnke

Proposal for a regulation

Recital 16 a (new)

Or. en

Amendment 77

Michael Bloss, Virginijus Sinkevičius, Alice Kuhnke

Proposal for a regulation

Recital 16 b (new)

Or. en

Amendment 78

Valérie Devaux, Nikola Minchev, Benoit Cassart, Jan-Christoph Oetjen

Proposal for a regulation

Recital 16 b (new)

Or. en

Amendment 79

François Kalfon, Vivien Costanzo, Christel Schaldemose, Mohammed Chahim, Pierre Jouvet, Sakis Arnaoutoglou, Johan Danielsson, Laura Ballarín Cereza, Heléne Fritzon, Sérgio Gonçalves

Proposal for a regulation

Recital 17

Or. en

Amendment 80

Antonín Staněk, Ondřej Knotek, Mathilde Androuët, Marie-Luce Brasier-Clain, Anne-Sophie Frigout, Jana Nagyová, Matthieu Valet, Valérie Deloge, Klara Dostalova

Proposal for a regulation

Recital 17

Or. en

Justification

Euro 7 largely preserves the Euro 6 framework, including emission limits and WLTP/RDE testing. However, while the low-temperature (-7°C) Type 6 test remains listed, its procedure and limits were omitted, creating a testing obligation without defined standards. The amendment removes the mandatory Type 6 test for type approval while retaining Euro 6 low-temperature limits, with compliance demonstrated through a manufacturer declaration of conformity.

Amendment 81

Kateřina Konečná

Proposal for a regulation

Recital 17

Or. en

Amendment 82

Andreas Schwab, Andrea Wechsler, Markus Ferber, Jens Gieseke, Zala Tomašič, Marion Walsmann, Engin Eroglu, Norbert Lins, Oliver Schenk, Christian Doleschal, Angelika Niebler

Proposal for a regulation

Recital 17

Or. en

Justification

To maintain a high level of environmental protection while avoiding redundant physical testing, the legal obligation to comply with low-temperature emission limits should be preserved by reintroducing Euro 6 low-temperature emission limits.

Amendment 83

Alexandr Vondra, Beatrice Timgren, Stefano Cavedagna, Ondřej Krutílek, Claudiu-Richard Târziu, Laurence Trochu, Adrian-George Axinia, Aurelijus Veryga

Proposal for a regulation

Recital 17

Or. en

Justification

Regulation (EU) 2024/1257 (Euro 7) was intended to preserve the Euro 6 framework for light-duty emissions. However, while the low-temperature Type 6 test remains formally “required”, the related procedure and limit values were not transposed, creating legal uncertainty. The Automotive Omnibus removes mandatory Type 6 approval testing. This amendment ensures that compliance with Euro 6 low-temperature limits remains enforceable through manufacturer declaration and market surveillance.

Amendment 84

Jan-Christoph Oetjen, Andreas Glück, Svenja Hahn, Marjan Šarec, Benoit Cassart

Proposal for a regulation

Recital 17

Or. en

Justification

Regulation (EU) 2024/1257 (Euro 7) was intended to largely preserve the Euro 6 framework. However, while the low-temperature test remains listed as required, the corresponding procedure and emission limits were not transposed, creating a legal gap. The Automotive Omnibus proposal removes the mandatory test, which could weaken low-temperature emission control compared to Euro 6. The amendment closes this gap by retaining compliance with Euro 6 low-temperature limits through manufacturer declarations and market surveillance.

Amendment 85

Jana Nagyová

Proposal for a regulation

Recital 17

Or. en

Justification

Regulation (EU) 2024/1257 (Euro 7) was adopted with the clear legislative intent to largely carry over the Euro 6 framework for light-duty vehicle exhaust emissions, except where explicitly modified or where new requirements were introduced. This continuity is reflected in the retention of Euro 6 limit values in Annex I and of the WLTP and RDE test procedures in Annex III. Under Euro 6, low-temperature exhaust emissions are addressed through a dedicated laboratory test at –7 °C (Type 6), including specific emission limit values defined in UN Regulation No. 83. In the current Euro 7 legal text, however, the low-temperature test is only listed as “required” in Annex V, while the corresponding test procedure and legally binding emission limit values are not transposed. This creates a regulatory gap: a formal testing obligation exists without defined limit values, undermining legal certainty and disrupting alignment with both Euro 6 and the relevant UN framework. The European Commission’s Automotive Omnibus proposal deletes the mandatory Type 6 test at type-approval. While this contributes to simplification and cost reduction, it would, in the absence of explicit legal reference values, structurally weaken the Euro 7 framework compared to Euro 6 with regard to low-temperature emission control. This situation appears to result from an unintended omission rather than a deliberate policy choice to relax environmental protection. The proposed amendment therefore clarifies that the dedicated low-temperature laboratory test is no longer required at type-approval, while maintaining the underlying legal obligation to comply with low-temperature emission limits as carried over from Euro 6.

Amendment 86

Merja Kyllönen, Andreas Schwab, Jan-Christoph Oetjen, Eero Heinäluoma, Pekka Toveri, Sebastian Tynkkynen

Proposal for a regulation

Recital 17

Or. en

Amendment 87

Katri Kulmuni, Valérie Devaux, Nikola Minchev, Anna-Maja Henriksson, Merja Kyllönen, Elsi Katainen, Aura Salla, Mika Aaltola, Jan-Christoph Oetjen

Proposal for a regulation

Recital 17

Or. en

Amendment 88

Michael Bloss, Virginijus Sinkevičius, Alice Kuhnke

Proposal for a regulation

Recital 17

Or. en

Amendment 89

Jonas Sjöstedt

Proposal for a regulation

Recital 17

Or. en

Amendment 90

Katri Kulmuni, Valérie Devaux, Nikola Minchev, Anna-Maja Henriksson, Merja Kyllönen, Elsi Katainen, Aura Salla, Mika Aaltola

Proposal for a regulation

Recital 17 a (new)

Or. en

Justification

Operational experience in several regions of the Union indicates that emission control systems relying on reagents, in particular Selective Catalytic Reduction systems using AdBlue, may encounter reliability and performance challenges under extreme low-temperature conditions. This may reduce the effectiveness of emission control in real-world operation and contribute to increased emissions of pollutants, notably nitrogen oxides (NOx). Such technical limitations may also result in significant economic and environmental costs, including increased repair and maintenance costs, premature replacement of components and delays in fleet renewal, thereby hindering the uptake of newer, more fuel-efficient and lower-emission vehicles. It is therefore appropriate to clarify that proportionate and technology-neutral adaptations of such systems, including alternative technical solutions and, where appropriate, alternative approved reagents under specific operating conditions, should be capable of being approved, provided that equivalent emission performance is ensured. This should improve the reliability and effectiveness of emission control systems throughout the Union while reducing unnecessary administrative and economic burdens and supporting the Union's environmental and climate objectives.

Amendment 91

Merja Kyllönen, Andreas Schwab, Jan-Christoph Oetjen, Sebastian Tynkkynen, Eero Heinäluoma, Pekka Toveri

Proposal for a regulation

Recital 17 a (new)

Or. en

Justification

Operational experience in several regions of the Union indicates that emission control systems relying on reagents, in particular Selective Catalytic Reduction systems using AdBlue, may encounter reliability and performance challenges under extreme low-temperature conditions. This may reduce the effectiveness of emission control in real-world operation and contribute to increased emissions of pollutants, notably nitrogen oxides (NOx).Such technical limitations may also result in significant economic and environmental costs, including increased repair and maintenance costs, premature replacement of components and delays in fleet renewal, thereby hindering the uptake of newer, more fuel-efficient and lower-emission vehicles. It is therefore appropriate to clarify that proportionate and technology-neutral adaptations of such systems, including alternative technical solutions and, where appropriate, alternative approved reagents under specific operating conditions, should be capable of being approved, provided that equivalent emission performance is ensured. This should improve the reliability and effectiveness of emission control systems throughout the Union while reducing unnecessary administrative and economic burdens and supporting the Union's environmental and climate objectives.

Amendment 92

Valérie Devaux, Nikola Minchev, Benoit Cassart, Jan-Christoph Oetjen

Proposal for a regulation

Recital 17 a (new)

Or. en

Amendment 93

Jonas Sjöstedt

Proposal for a regulation

Recital 17 a (new)

Or. en

Amendment 94

Jonas Sjöstedt

Proposal for a regulation

Recital 17 b (new)

Or. en

Amendment 95

François Kalfon, Christel Schaldemose, Mohammed Chahim, Pierre Jouvet, Sakis Arnaoutoglou, Johan Danielsson, Laura Ballarín Cereza, Heléne Fritzon, Sérgio Gonçalves

Proposal for a regulation

Recital 18 a (new)

Or. en

Amendment 96

Nikola Minchev, Valérie Devaux, Katri Kulmuni, Svenja Hahn, Andreas Glück

Proposal for a regulation

Recital 18 a (new)

Or. en

Amendment 97

Zala Tomašič

Proposal for a regulation

Recital 18 a (new)

Or. en

Justification

A review clause would ensure that the application timeline remains aligned with technological developments, industrial readiness and the competitiveness of the European automotive sector.

Amendment 98

Daniel Attard

Proposal for a regulation

Recital 18 a (new)

Or. en

Amendment 99

Elisabeth Dieringer, Rachel Blom, Virginie Joron, Klara Dostalova, Roman Haider, Vilis Krištopans, Jaroslav Bžoch

Proposal for a regulation

Recital 19

Or. en

Justification

The obligation to collect real-world consumption data linked to the vehicle identification number (personal data within the meaning of Regulation (EU) 2016/679) was introduced to compensate for the inadequacy of laboratory test procedures discredited by the 2015 emissions scandal. With Real Driving Emissions testing under Regulation (EU) 2017/1151 and WLTP now providing validated on-road measurements, that rationale has been entirely superseded. Continuously tracking the routes, fuel consumption and timing of every vehicle owner in the Union, linked to a unique vehicle identification number, to verify compliance with the Union's own type-approval tests constitutes mass surveillance of private property that is neither necessary nor proportionate. Where the Union's test procedures prove inadequate, the appropriate remedy is to improve those procedures and not to access the private property of citizens. The legal basis for this data collection should therefore be deleted in its entirety.

Amendment 100

François Kalfon, Vivien Costanzo, Christel Schaldemose, Mohammed Chahim, Pierre Jouvet, Sakis Arnaoutoglou, Johan Danielsson, Laura Ballarín Cereza, Heléne Fritzon, Sérgio Gonçalves

Proposal for a regulation

Recital 19

Or. en

Amendment 101

Alexandr Vondra, Beatrice Timgren, Stefano Cavedagna, Ondřej Krutílek, Claudiu-Richard Târziu, Laurence Trochu, Adrian-George Axinia, Aurelijus Veryga

Proposal for a regulation

Recital 19

Or. en

Justification

On-Board Monitoring (OBM) does not provide real-time compliance verification. Rather, monitoring data are collected and transmitted at defined intervals, providing periodic oversight of vehicle performance rather than continuous compliance assessment.

Amendment 102

Jens Gieseke, Zala Tomašič, Angelika Niebler

Proposal for a regulation

Recital 19 a (new)

Or. en

Justification

The purpose of this amendment is to ensure a realistic implementation timeline for C3-class tyres by extending by two years the deadlines set out in Article 11(6) and Article 15(2) and (3) of Regulation (EU) 2024/1257.The work on C1-class tyres has demonstrated the complexity of developing test methods, performance limits and equivalence provisions. As similar work for C3-class tyres is already facing delays due to these challenges, the current timeline is no longer considered feasible and should be adjusted accordingly.

Amendment 103

Michael Bloss, Virginijus Sinkevičius, Alice Kuhnke

Proposal for a regulation

Recital 19 a (new)

Or. en

Amendment 104

Michael Bloss, Alice Kuhnke, Virginijus Sinkevičius

Proposal for a regulation

Recital 19 b (new)

Or. en

Amendment 105

Elisabeth Dieringer, Rachel Blom, Virginie Joron, Roman Haider, Vilis Krištopans

Proposal for a regulation

Recital 20 a (new)

Or. en

Amendment 106

François Kalfon, Vivien Costanzo, Christel Schaldemose, Mohammed Chahim, Pierre Jouvet, Sakis Arnaoutoglou, Johan Danielsson, Laura Ballarín Cereza, Heléne Fritzon, Sérgio Gonçalves

Proposal for a regulation

Recital 20 a (new)

Or. en

Amendment 107

Andreas Schwab, Andrea Wechsler, Markus Ferber, Jens Gieseke, Marion Walsmann, Engin Eroglu, Norbert Lins, Massimiliano Salini, Oliver Schenk, Christian Doleschal, Adina Vălean, Angelika Niebler

Proposal for a regulation

Recital 20 a (new)

Or. en

Amendment 108

François Kalfon, Vivien Costanzo, Christel Schaldemose, Mohammed Chahim, Pierre Jouvet, Sakis Arnaoutoglou, Johan Danielsson, Laura Ballarín Cereza, Heléne Fritzon, Sérgio Gonçalves

Proposal for a regulation

Recital 20 b (new)

Or. en

Amendment 109

Jan-Christoph Oetjen, Andreas Glück, Svenja Hahn, Marjan Šarec

Proposal for a regulation

Article 1 – paragraph 1 – introductory part

Or. en

Amendment 110

Michael Bloss, Virginijus Sinkevičius, Alice Kuhnke

Proposal for a regulation

Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 1

Regulation (EC) No 561/2006

Article 13 – paragraph 1 – point 1

Or. en

Justification

Vans over 3.5 tonnes still pose a serious road safety risks due to their weight. The mandatory use of tachographs ensures adherence to safety laws, prevents fatigue-related accidents, and promotes fair working conditions. This will also contribute to incentivise a more rapid shift to lighter electric vans and avoids any loopholes for more high risk pick-up truck trucks.

Amendment 111

François Kalfon, Vivien Costanzo, Christel Schaldemose, Mohammed Chahim, Pierre Jouvet, Sakis Arnaoutoglou, Johan Danielsson, Laura Ballarín Cereza, Heléne Fritzon, Sérgio Gonçalves

Proposal for a regulation

Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 1

Regulation (EC) No 561/2006

Article 13 – paragraph 1 – point 1

Or. en

Justification

Tachographs are the primary instruments for enforcing drivers’ rest and working time obligations under Regulations (EC) No 561/2006 and (EU) No 165/2014. Exempting battery-electric N2 vehicles below 4,25 tonnes from these requirements risks undermining enforcement for a growing segment of the commercial fleet, increasing fatigue related risks and creating pressure on drivers to forgo adequate rest. The risks associated with long working hours and delivery pressure are not reduced by electrification.

Amendment 112

Jan-Christoph Oetjen, Andreas Glück, Svenja Hahn, Marjan Šarec

Proposal for a regulation

Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 1 – introductory part

Regulation (EC) No 561/2006

Article 13 – paragraph 1 – point 1

Or. en

Amendment 113

Daniel Buda

Proposal for a regulation

Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 1

Regulation (EC) 561/2006

Article 13 – paragraph 1 – point 1

Or. ro

Justification

It is important to have clear wording regarding the scope, using terms enshrined in type-approval legislation. Thus, it would be best to avoid generic wording such as ‘vehicles propelled by means of electricity’ and use clear technical categories.

Amendment 114

Jonas Sjöstedt

Proposal for a regulation

Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 1

Regulation (EC) No 561/2006

Article 13 – paragraph 1 – point 1

Or. en

Amendment 115

Elisabeth Dieringer, Rachel Blom, Virginie Joron, Roman Haider, Vilis Krištopans

Proposal for a regulation

Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 1

Regulation (EC) No 561/2006

Article 13 – paragraph 1 – point 1

Or. en

Justification

The Union has already set 4,25 tonnes as the relevant limit for these vehicles: Directive (EU) 2025/2205 lets category-B licence holders drive goods vehicles up to 4,25 tonnes. Keeping the tachograph threshold at 3,5 tonnes for non-electric vans contradicts that choice and splits one vehicle class by powertrain for no functional reason. Deleting the propulsion criterion restores coherence within Union law. The detailed reasons are set out in recitals (6) to (8).

Amendment 116

Luis-Vicențiu Lazarus

Proposal for a regulation

Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 1

Regulation (EC) No 561/2006

Article 13 – paragraph 1 – point 1

Or. en

Amendment 117

Jan-Christoph Oetjen, Andreas Glück, Svenja Hahn, Marjan Šarec

Proposal for a regulation

Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 1

Regulation (EC) 561/2006

Article 13 – paragraph 1 – point 1

Or. en

Justification

To accelerate the deployment of zero-emission vans and avoid further fragmentation of the Internal Market, the tachograph exemption should apply EU-wide to the vehicles concerned, in line with the proposed speed limiter exemption. Limiting the exemption to domestic goods transport ensures that cross-border operations and cabotage remain subject to driving time and rest period rules, including the installation and use of a tachograph.

Amendment 118

Merja Kyllönen, Elsi Katainen, Maria Guzenina, Pekka Toveri, Sebastian Tynkkynen, Jens Gieseke, Katri Kulmuni

Proposal for a regulation

Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 1 a (new)

Regulation (EC) No 561/2006

Article 3 – paragraph 1 – point i a (new)

Or. en

Justification

In order to accelerate the deployment of zero-emission vans for the transport of goods, and to avoid further unnecessary fragmentation of the EU Internal Market, the tachograph exemption should be applied EU-wide for the vehicles concerned, in accordance with the proposed speed limiter exemption. The limitation of the exemption to domestic transport of goods will ensure that cross-border-transport and cabotage still take place in compliance with the rules on driving times and rest periods, as well as requiring installation and use of a tachograph.

Amendment 119

Stefano Cavedagna, Denis Nesci, Daniele Polato, Alexandr Vondra, Nicola Procaccini, Antonella Sberna, Pietro Fiocchi, Michele Picaro, Paolo Inselvini, Carlo Fidanza, Alberico Gambino, Carlo Ciccioli

Proposal for a regulation

Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 2

Regulation (EC) 561/2006

Article 13 – paragraph 1 – point 2

Or. en

Amendment 120

Andreas Schwab, Andrea Wechsler, Markus Ferber, Jens Gieseke, Zala Tomašič, Marion Walsmann, Engin Eroglu, Norbert Lins, Oliver Schenk, Christian Doleschal, Angelika Niebler

Proposal for a regulation

Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 2

Regulation (EC) No 561/2006

Article 13 – paragraph 1 – point 2

Or. en

Justification

Exemption for non-commercially used motorhomes from the social legislation in road transport

Amendment 121

Stefano Cavedagna, Denis Nesci, Daniele Polato, Alexandr Vondra, Nicola Procaccini, Antonella Sberna, Pietro Fiocchi, Michele Picaro, Paolo Inselvini, Carlo Fidanza, Alberico Gambino, Carlo Ciccioli

Proposal for a regulation

Article 1 – paragraph 1 a (new)

Regulation (EC) 561/2006

Article 3 – paragraph 1 – point i a (new)

Or. en

Amendment 122

Andreas Schwab, Andrea Wechsler, Markus Ferber, Jens Gieseke, Zala Tomašič, Marion Walsmann, Engin Eroglu, Norbert Lins, Oliver Schenk, Christian Doleschal, Angelika Niebler

Proposal for a regulation

Article 1 – paragraph 1 a (new)

Regulation (EC) No 561/2006

Article 3 – paragraph 1 – point i a (new)

Or. en

Justification

Exemption for non-commercially used motorhomes from the social legislation in road transport

Amendment 123

François Kalfon, Vivien Costanzo, Christel Schaldemose, Mohammed Chahim, Pierre Jouvet, Sakis Arnaoutoglou, Johan Danielsson, Laura Ballarín Cereza, Heléne Fritzon, Sérgio Gonçalves

Proposal for a regulation

Article 2 – paragraph 1 – point 1

Regulation (EU) 2018/858

Article 5 – paragraph 4

Or. en

Amendment 124

Andreas Schwab, Markus Ferber, Jens Gieseke, Zala Tomašič, Marion Walsmann, Engin Eroglu, Norbert Lins, Oliver Schenk, Christian Doleschal, Angelika Niebler

Proposal for a regulation

Article 2 – paragraph 1 – point 1

Regulation (EU) 2018/858

Article 5 – paragraph 4

Or. en

Justification

Network code compliance for communication of pure electric vehicles (PEV) and off-vehicle charging hybrid electric vehicles (OVC-HEC) with the charging infrastructure, the electricity grid and the stationary power systems capable of supporting smart and bidirectional charging functionalities should be verified at EU level during vehicle type approval.

Amendment 125

Kateřina Konečná

Proposal for a regulation

Article 2 – paragraph 1 – point 1

Regulation (EU) 2018/858

Article 5 – paragraph 4

Or. en

Amendment 126

Antonín Staněk, Mathilde Androuët, Marie-Luce Brasier-Clain, Anne-Sophie Frigout, Matthieu Valet, Valérie Deloge, Viktória Ferenc

Proposal for a regulation

Article 2 – paragraph 1 – point 1

Regulation (EU) 2018/858

Article 5 – paragraph 4

Or. en

Justification

The AFIR regulation already indirectly ensures communication and physical interoperability between PEVs, OVC-HEVs, charging infrastructure, the electricity grid, and systems supporting smart and bidirectional charging. The missing element is EU-level network code certification. Verifying compliance during vehicle type approval would indirectly ensure ISO 15118-20 compatibility, support V2G readiness, and avoid regulatory duplication while remaining technically feasible for manufacturers.

Amendment 127

Alexandr Vondra, Ondřej Krutílek

Proposal for a regulation

Article 2 – paragraph 1 – point 1

Regulation (EU) 2018/858

Article 5 – paragraph 4

Or. en

Justification

Communication and interconnection between pure electric vehicles (PEVs), plug-in hybrid vehicles (OVC-HEVs), charging infrastructure, the electricity grid and stationary power systems are already indirectly covered by AFIR. The missing link is EU-level network code certification, not national requirements, to ensure interoperability and vehicle-to-grid (V2G) readiness. Verifying compliance during type approval would support ISO 15118-20 compatibility while avoiding regulatory duplication.

Amendment 128

Nikola Minchev, Valérie Devaux, Katri Kulmuni

Proposal for a regulation

Article 2 – paragraph 1 – point 1

Regulation (EU) 2018/858

Article 5 – paragraph 4

Or. en

Amendment 129

Jonas Sjöstedt

Proposal for a regulation

Article 2 – paragraph 1 – point 1

Regulation (EU) 2018/858

Article 5 – paragraph 4

Or. en

Amendment 130

Elisabeth Dieringer, Rachel Blom, Virginie Joron, Roman Haider, Vilis Krištopans

Proposal for a regulation

Article 2 – paragraph 1 – point 1

Regulation (EU) 2018/858

Article 5 – paragraph 4

Or. en

Justification

Mandating bidirectional capabilities forces vehicle owners to subsidise grid-balancing costs through degradation of their private property. V2G is not prohibited and owners who consent may participate, but a delegated-act framework for mandatory technical requirements would inevitably serve as the legal basis for compelling participation through infrastructure access conditions. The battery of a private vehicle is not a public grid asset. The empowerment must therefore only concern unidirectional smart charging.

Amendment 131

Michael Bloss, Virginijus Sinkevičius, Alice Kuhnke

Proposal for a regulation

Article 2 – paragraph 1 – point 1

Regulation (EU) 2018/858

Article 5 – paragraph 4

Or. en

Amendment 132

Henrik Dahl

Proposal for a regulation

Article 2 – paragraph 1 – point 1

Regulation (EU) 2018/858

Article 5 – paragraph 4

Or. en

Amendment 133

Volker Schnurrbusch

Proposal for a regulation

Article 2 – paragraph 1 – point 1

Regulation (EU) 2018/858

Article 5 – paragraph 4

Or. en

Amendment 134

Jana Nagyová

Proposal for a regulation

Article 2 – paragraph 1 – point 1

Regulation (EU) 2018/858

Article 5 – paragraph 4

Or. en

Justification

The communication and physical interconnection of pure electric vehicles (PEV) and off-vehicle charging hybrid electric vehicles (OVC-HEV) with the charging infrastructure, the electricity grid, and the stationary power systems capable of supporting smart and bidirectional charging functionalities is already indirectly guaranteed through the AFIR regulation. It is the network code certification on EU level, not on national level, that is the missing link in ensuring interoperability and V2G readiness while avoiding regulatory duplication. Under this proposal, network code compliance would be verified during vehicle type approval, indirectly ensuring ISO 15118_20 compatibility and offering a pragmatic, balanced compromise between regulatory objectives and technical feasibility for manufacturers.

Amendment 135

Andreas Schwab, Andrea Wechsler, Markus Ferber, Jens Gieseke, Zala Tomašič, Marion Walsmann, Engin Eroglu, Oliver Schenk, Christian Doleschal, Angelika Niebler, Norbert Lins

Proposal for a regulation

Article 2 – paragraph 1 – point 1 a (new)

Regulation (EU) 2018/858

Aricle 49

Or. en

((32018R0858))

Justification

To eliminate market fragmentation and the administrative burden arising from non-harmonized national end-of-series exemption procedures, such as varying quota or cut-off date mechanisms, the registration framework should be simplified. The current procedures create unnecessary bureaucracy for both the industry and national competent authorities. Hence, if a vehicle's production date precedes the application of a new legal requirement, its certificate of conformity should remain valid, thereby removing the need for burdensome end-of-series exemption procedures.

Amendment 136

Jan-Christoph Oetjen, Andreas Glück, Svenja Hahn, Marjan Šarec

Proposal for a regulation

Article 2 – paragraph 1 – point 1 a (new)

Regulation (EU) 2018/858

Article 49

Or. en

(32018R0858)

Justification

The current End-of-Series rules require manufacturers or owners to apply for exemptions when vehicles are not registered before new regulatory requirements take effect. As procedures vary across Member States, this creates unnecessary administrative burdens and legal uncertainty without providing clear benefits. Since storing vehicles is costly, there is no incentive to stockpile them anyway. Therefore, a valid Certificate of Conformity should remain valid if the vehicle was manufactured before the new rules apply.

Amendment 137

Jan-Christoph Oetjen, Andreas Glück, Svenja Hahn, Marjan Šarec

Proposal for a regulation

Article 2 – paragraph 1 a (new)

Regulation (EU) 2018/858

Article 48

Or. en

Justification

The current End-of-Series rules require manufacturers or owners to apply for exemptions when vehicles are not registered before new regulatory requirements take effect. As procedures vary across Member States, this creates unnecessary administrative burdens and legal uncertainty without providing clear benefits. Since storing vehicles is costly, there is no incentive to stockpile them anyway. Therefore, a valid Certificate of Conformity should remain valid if the vehicle was manufactured before the new rules apply.

Amendment 138

Andreas Schwab, Andrea Wechsler, Markus Ferber, Jens Gieseke, Zala Tomašič, Marion Walsmann, Engin Eroglu, Norbert Lins, Oliver Schenk, Christian Doleschal, Angelika Niebler

Proposal for a regulation

Article 2 – paragraph 1 a (new)

Regulation (EU) 2018/858

Article 48 – paragraph 1

Or. en

(02018R0858-20240701)

Justification

To eliminate market fragmentation and the administrative burden arising from non-harmonized national end-of-series exemption procedures, such as varying quota or cut-off date mechanisms, the registration framework should be simplified. The current procedures create unnecessary bureaucracy for both the industry and national competent authorities. Hence, if a vehicle's production date precedes the application of a new legal requirement, its certificate of conformity should remain valid, thereby removing the need for burdensome end-of-series exemption procedures.

Amendment 139

François-Xavier Bellamy, Isabelle Le Callennec

Proposal for a regulation

Article 2 – paragraph 1 – point 1 a (new)

Regulation (EU) 2018/858

Article 29 – paragraph 3a (new)

Or. en

Amendment 140

Henrik Dahl

Proposal for a regulation

Article 2 – paragraph 1 – point 1 a (new)

Regulation (EU) 2018/858

Article 5 – paragraph 4a (new)

Or. en

Amendment 141

Henrik Dahl

Proposal for a regulation

Article 2 – paragraph 1 – point 1 b (new)

Regulation (EU) 2018/858

Article 5 – paragraph 4b (new)

Or. en

Amendment 142

Henrik Dahl

Proposal for a regulation

Article 2 – paragraph 1 – point 1 c (new)

Regulation (EU) 2018/858

Article 5 – paragraph 4c (new)

Or. en

Amendment 143

Henrik Dahl

Proposal for a regulation

Article 2 – paragraph 1 – point 1 d (new)

Regulation (EU) 2018/858

Article 5 – paragraph 4d (new)

Or. en

Amendment 144

Pierfrancesco Maran, Matteo Ricci, Andreas Schwab

Proposal for a regulation

Article 2 – paragraph 1 a (new)

Regulation (EU) 2018/858

Article 41 – paragraph 5a (new)

Or. en

(32018R0858)

Amendment 145

Pierfrancesco Maran, Matteo Ricci, Andreas Schwab

Proposal for a regulation

Article 2 – paragraph 1 b (new)

Regulation (EU) 2018/858

Article 43a (new)

Or. en

(32018R0858)

Amendment 146

Pierfrancesco Maran, Matteo Ricci, Andreas Schwab

Proposal for a regulation

Article 2 – paragraph 1 c (new)

Regulation (EU) 2018/858

Article 22 – paragraph 6a (new)

Or. en

(32018R0858)

Amendment 147

Nicolás González Casares, Rosa Serrano Sierra, Javi López, Laura Ballarín Cereza, César Luena, Leire Pajín

Proposal for a regulation

Article 3 – paragraph -1 (new)

Regulation (EU) 2019/2144

Article 7 – paragraph 5a (new)

Or. en

(32019R2144)

Amendment 148

Nicolás González Casares, Rosa Serrano Sierra, Javi López, Laura Ballarín Cereza, César Luena, Leire Pajín

Proposal for a regulation

Article 3 – paragraph -1 a (new)

Regulation (EU) 2019/2144

Article 7 – paragraph 6

Or. en

(32019R2144)

Amendment 149

Michael Bloss, Virginijus Sinkevičius, Alice Kuhnke

Proposal for a regulation

Article 3 – paragraph 1

Regulation (EU) 2019/2144

Article 9 – paragraph 5a

Or. en

Amendment 150

Jonas Sjöstedt

Proposal for a regulation

Article 3 – paragraph 1

Regulation (EU) 2019/2144

Article 9 – paragraph 5a

Or. en

Amendment 151

Daniel Buda

Proposal for a regulation

Article 3 – paragraph 1

Regulation (EU) 2019/2144

Article 9 – paragraph 5a

Or. ro

Justification

It is important to have clear wording regarding the scope, using terms enshrined in type-approval legislation. Thus, it would be best to avoid generic wording such as ‘vehicles propelled by means of electricity’ and use clear technical categories.

Amendment 152

François Kalfon, Vivien Costanzo, Christel Schaldemose, Mohammed Chahim, Pierre Jouvet, Sakis Arnaoutoglou, Johan Danielsson, Laura Ballarín Cereza, Heléne Fritzon, Sérgio Gonçalves

Proposal for a regulation

Article 3 – paragraph 1

Regulation (EU) 2019/2144

Article 9 – paragraph 5a

Or. en

Amendment 153

Elisabeth Dieringer, Rachel Blom, Virginie Joron, Klara Dostalova, Roman Haider, Vilis Krištopans, Jaroslav Bžoch

Proposal for a regulation

Article 3 – paragraph 1

Regulation (EU) 2019/2144

Article 9 – paragraph 5a

Or. en

Justification

Vans in the 3,5–4,25t band often enter category N2 because of the extra weight of successive mandatory safety requirements introduced in the last decades, not a higher-risk profile, and are typically operated by SMEs and tradespeople in national transport. Requiring a speed limiter only for non-electric vans of the same class adds cost and paperwork without any gain in safety, since type-approval safety tests apply regardless of propulsion. A technology-neutral exemption mirrors the tachograph rule and the scope of UN Regulation No 89.

Amendment 154

Volker Schnurrbusch

Proposal for a regulation

Article 3 – paragraph 1

Regulation (EU) 2019/2144

Article 9 – paragraph 5a

Or. en

Amendment 155

Luis-Vicențiu Lazarus

Proposal for a regulation

Article 3 – paragraph 1

Regulation (EU) 2019/2144

Article 9 – paragraph 5a

Or. en

Amendment 156

Valérie Devaux, Andreas Schwab, Michael Bloss, Merja Kyllönen, Grégory Allione, Benoit Cassart, Nikola Minchev, Katri Kulmuni, Jan-Christoph Oetjen

Proposal for a regulation

Article 3 – paragraph 1 a (new)

Regulation (EU) 2019/2144

Article 8a (new)

Or. en

(32019R2144)

Amendment 157

Michael Bloss, Virginijus Sinkevičius, Alice Kuhnke

Proposal for a regulation

Article 3 – paragraph 1 a (new)

Regulation (EU) 2019/2144

Article 14 – paragraph 2 a (new)

Or. en

(32019R2144)

Justification

No impact assessment was conducted under this legislative proposal and thus a proper evaluation should be undertaken as part of the review of 2019/2144.

Amendment 158

Andreas Schwab, Andrea Wechsler, Markus Ferber, Jens Gieseke, Zala Tomašič, Marion Walsmann, Engin Eroglu, Norbert Lins, Oliver Schenk, Christian Doleschal, Angelika Niebler

Proposal for a regulation

Article 3 – paragraph 1 a (new)

Regulation (EU) 2019/2144

Article 9 – paragraph 5b (new)

Or. en

(32019R2144)

Justification

These amendments relate to brake emissions limits for heavy and light duty vehicles. Because a 90% CO2 reduction target allows internal combustion and hybrid vehicles to remain available after 2035, the proposed brake particle emission limits must be overhauled to accommodate various powertrain technologies rather than just plug-in electric vehicles. Furthermore, future limits for heavy-duty vehicles must balance urban and suburban driving impacts with the rapid rise of electrified fleets on a cost-benefit basis, aligned with the review of Regulation (EU) 2024/1257.

Amendment 159

François Kalfon, Vivien Costanzo, Christel Schaldemose, Mohammed Chahim, Pierre Jouvet, Sakis Arnaoutoglou, Johan Danielsson, Laura Ballarín Cereza, Heléne Fritzon, Sérgio Gonçalves

Proposal for a regulation

Article 3 – paragraph 1 a (new)

Regulation (EU) 2019/2144

Article 6 – paragraph 1 – point ga (new)

Or. en

(32019R2144)

Justification

Charging points are frequently located in remote or isolated areas, where occupants may face situations in which safely exiting the vehicle to interrupt a charging session is not possible. A standardised in-vehicle mechanism enabling the driver to interrupt charging at any time addresses this safety gap. The technical specifications, including interface and interoperability requirements with existing charging standards, shall be defined by the Commission by means of a delegated act under Article 12, ensuring alignment with relevant standards.

Amendment 160

Jan-Christoph Oetjen, Benoit Cassart, Andreas Glück, Svenja Hahn, Marjan Šarec

Proposal for a regulation

Article 4 – paragraph 1 – point -1 (new)

Regulation (EU) 2024/1257

Article 3 – subparagraph 2 – point 50a (new)

Or. en

(32024R1257)

Justification

Introducing a category for vehicles running exclusively on eligible fuels ensures technologicalneutrality and a level playing field with battery-electric vehicles.

Amendment 161

Jan-Christoph Oetjen, Andreas Glück, Svenja Hahn, Marjan Šarec

Proposal for a regulation

Article 4 – paragraph 1 – point -1 (new)

Regulation (EU) 2024/1257

Article 3 – subparagraph 2 – point 50c (new)

Or. en

(32024R1257)

Justification

In case of operating a vehicle with non-eligible fuels an inducement system is needed. The fuel inducement system shall be designed to in the last stage disable the vehicle in the event that fossil fuels have been introduced, but only after a flexible, escalating warning system has alerted the driver to the situation.

Amendment 162

Jan-Christoph Oetjen, Andreas Glück, Svenja Hahn, Marjan Šarec

Proposal for a regulation

Article 4 – paragraph -1 (new)

Regulation (EU) 2024/1257

Article 3 – paragraph 2 – point 50b (new)

Or. en

(32024R1257)

Justification

This approach guarantees legal coherence across EU legislation.

Amendment 163

Jan-Christoph Oetjen, Andreas Glück, Svenja Hahn, Marjan Šarec

Proposal for a regulation

Article 4 – paragraph -1 (new)

Regulation (EU) 2024/1257

Article 3 – paragraph 2 – point 50c (new)

Or. en

(32024R1257)

Justification

To be able to verify that a vehicle is running exclusively on eligible fuels, a “fuelling monitor” is needed to prove that the respective vehicle is solely supplied with these eligible fuels.

Amendment 164

Stefano Cavedagna, Denis Nesci, Daniele Polato, Alexandr Vondra, Nicola Procaccini, Antonella Sberna, Pietro Fiocchi, Michele Picaro, Paolo Inselvini, Carlo Fidanza, Alberico Gambino, Carlo Ciccioli

Proposal for a regulation

Article 4 – paragraph 1 – point -1 (new)

Regulation (EU) 2024/1257

Article 4 – paragraph 5

Or. en

(32024R1257)

Justification

These amendments aim to introduce a five-year moratorium on the application of heavy-duty Euro 7. The objective is to allow manufacturers to focus investments on the decarbonisation of heavy-duty goods and passenger transport, in line with EU climate and CO2 targets, while ensuring that the Commission continues preparing the necessary implementing acts to provide industry with legal certainty and adequate lead time.

Amendment 165

Merja Kyllönen, Sebastian Tynkkynen, Pekka Toveri, Elsi Katainen

Proposal for a regulation

Article 4 – paragraph 1 – point -1 (new)

Regulation (EU) No 2024/1257

Article 4 – paragraph 4 – paragraph 1a (new)

Or. en

Amendment 166

Alexandr Vondra, Beatrice Timgren, Stefano Cavedagna, Ondřej Krutílek, Claudiu-Richard Târziu, Laurence Trochu, Adrian-George Axinia, Aurelijus Veryga

Proposal for a regulation

Article 4 – paragraph -1 (new)

Regulation (EU) 2024/1257

Article 4 – paragraph 2

Or. en

(32024R1257)

Justification

Under Euro 7, compliance with exhaust emission requirements is demonstrated through the emission limits set out in Annex I and the test procedures specified in Annex III, namely the Worldwide Harmonised Light Vehicles Test Procedure (WLTP) and the Real Driving Emissions (RDE) procedure. For RDE compliance, the vehicle-specific performance envelope is defined solely by the maximum RDE values declared in the Certificate of Conformity (CoC), which serve as the basis for conformity assessment and in-service compliance verification. Restricting lifetime compliance obligations to these declared values provides legal certainty, is consistent with the concept of Not-To-Exceed (NTE) limits and conformity factors, and avoids extending enforceable requirements to other CoC parameters that are intended solely for information purposes or are relevant only to type approval.

Amendment 167

Jan-Christoph Oetjen, Andreas Glück, Svenja Hahn, Marjan Šarec

Proposal for a regulation

Article 4 – paragraph 1 – point -1(new)

Regulation (EU) 2024/1257

Article 4a (new)

Or. en

(32024R1257)

Justification

Article 4a establishes the legal basis for a new vehicle category, “vehicles exclusively supplied with eligible fuels” (VEEF). Paragraph 3 of the proposed article defines a set of eligible monitoring methodologies. Paragraphs 4 and 5 introduce inducement concepts that ensure compliance in a proportionate and user‑friendly manner. Paragraph 6 allows Member States to approve additional monitoring methodologies that may be developed in the future. Paragraph 7 empowers the Commission to adopt the necessary implementing and delegated acts to operationalise the VEEF concept.

Amendment 168

Michael Bloss, Virginijus Sinkevičius, Alice Kuhnke

Proposal for a regulation

Article 4 – paragraph 1 – point -1 (new)

Regulation (EU) 2024/1257

Article 7 – paragraph 1a (new)

Or. en

(32024R1257)

Amendment 169

Jan-Christoph Oetjen, Andreas Glück, Svenja Hahn, Marjan Šarec

Proposal for a regulation

Article 4 – paragraph 1 – point -1 (new)

Regulation (EU) 2024/1257

Article 7 – Paragraph 1 a (new)

Or. en

(32024R1257)

Justification

Article 7 lays down the obligations of the manufacturers concerning emission type-approval. The Amendment is a necessary technical adjustment to include VEEFs as well as information concerning fuelling monitor and inducement system.

Amendment 170

Katri Kulmuni, Valérie Devaux, Nikola Minchev, Anna-Maja Henriksson, Merja Kyllönen, Elsi Katainen, Aura Salla, Mika Aaltola, Jan-Christoph Oetjen

Proposal for a regulation

Article 4 – paragraph -1 (new)

Regulation (EU) 2024/1257

Article 7 – paragraph 2a (new)

Or. en

(32024R1257)

Justification

A new paragraph 2a would require manufacturers to declare that the reagent injection system has been designed and constructed to withstand long-term use, including operation in cold conditions where the reagent is subject to repeated freezing and thawing cycles during normal driving and parking. There would be a reference to Table 1 of Annex IV defining the term of use to be considered when assessing compliance. Cold conditions would not be defined in absolute terms, but relative to the conditions below the freezing point of the reagent(s) declared by the manufacturer. This would represent a technologically neutral and proportionate way to regulate compliance as regards the durability and the absence of abnormal failure rates of reagent injection system in cold conditions. An abnormal failure rate exists where failures occurring below the freezing point of the reagent indicate a systematic deficiency in the design or durability of the system, rather than random or age‑related failures.