{"$schema":"https://www.lobbyregister.bundestag.de/json-schemas/R2.22/Lobbyregister-Registereintrag-schema-R2.22.json","source":"Deutscher Bundestag, Lobbyregister für die Interessenvertretung gegenüber dem Deutschen Bundestag und der Bundesregierung","sourceUrl":"https://www.lobbyregister.bundestag.de","sourceDate":"2026-04-05T00:00:21.858+02:00","jsonDocumentationUrl":"https://www.lobbyregister.bundestag.de/informationen-und-hilfe/open-data-1049716","registerNumber":"R001681","registerEntryDetails":{"registerEntryId":71899,"legislation":"GL2024","version":39,"detailsPageUrl":"https://www.lobbyregister.bundestag.de/suche/R001681/71899","pdfUrl":"https://www.lobbyregister.bundestag.de/media/16/06/692031/Lobbyregister-Registereintraege-Detailansicht-R001681-2026-02-09_15-13-41.pdf","validFromDate":"2026-02-09T15:13:41.000+01:00","validUntilDate":"2026-02-13T11:34:46.000+01:00","fiscalYearUpdate":{"updateMissing":false,"lastFiscalYearUpdate":"2025-06-27T10:50:53.000+02:00"}},"accountDetails":{"activeLobbyist":true,"activeDateRanges":[{"fromDate":"2024-10-02T10:45:27.000+02:00"}],"firstPublicationDate":"2022-02-25T15:15:48.000+01:00","lastUpdateDate":"2026-02-09T15:13:41.000+01:00","registerEntryVersions":[{"registerEntryId":71899,"jsonDetailUrl":"https://www.lobbyregister.bundestag.de/sucheJson/R001681/71899","version":39,"legislation":"GL2024","validFromDate":"2026-02-09T15:13:41.000+01:00","validUntilDate":"2026-02-13T11:34:46.000+01:00","versionActiveLobbyist":true},{"registerEntryId":68206,"jsonDetailUrl":"https://www.lobbyregister.bundestag.de/sucheJson/R001681/68206","version":38,"legislation":"GL2024","validFromDate":"2025-11-25T16:18:01.000+01:00","validUntilDate":"2026-02-09T15:13:41.000+01:00","versionActiveLobbyist":true},{"registerEntryId":67594,"jsonDetailUrl":"https://www.lobbyregister.bundestag.de/sucheJson/R001681/67594","version":37,"legislation":"GL2024","validFromDate":"2025-11-06T16:04:45.000+01:00","validUntilDate":"2025-11-25T16:18:01.000+01:00","versionActiveLobbyist":true},{"registerEntryId":67529,"jsonDetailUrl":"https://www.lobbyregister.bundestag.de/sucheJson/R001681/67529","version":36,"legislation":"GL2024","validFromDate":"2025-11-06T10:20:53.000+01:00","validUntilDate":"2025-11-06T16:04:45.000+01:00","versionActiveLobbyist":true},{"registerEntryId":66541,"jsonDetailUrl":"https://www.lobbyregister.bundestag.de/sucheJson/R001681/66541","version":35,"legislation":"GL2024","validFromDate":"2025-10-10T13:46:51.000+02:00","validUntilDate":"2025-11-06T10:20:53.000+01:00","versionActiveLobbyist":true},{"registerEntryId":65962,"jsonDetailUrl":"https://www.lobbyregister.bundestag.de/sucheJson/R001681/65962","version":34,"legislation":"GL2024","validFromDate":"2025-09-30T17:17:19.000+02:00","validUntilDate":"2025-10-10T13:46:51.000+02:00","versionActiveLobbyist":true},{"registerEntryId":65844,"jsonDetailUrl":"https://www.lobbyregister.bundestag.de/sucheJson/R001681/65844","version":33,"legislation":"GL2024","validFromDate":"2025-09-29T16:59:54.000+02:00","validUntilDate":"2025-09-30T17:17:19.000+02:00","versionActiveLobbyist":true},{"registerEntryId":60220,"jsonDetailUrl":"https://www.lobbyregister.bundestag.de/sucheJson/R001681/60220","version":32,"legislation":"GL2024","validFromDate":"2025-07-07T16:02:11.000+02:00","validUntilDate":"2025-09-29T16:59:54.000+02:00","versionActiveLobbyist":true},{"registerEntryId":52365,"jsonDetailUrl":"https://www.lobbyregister.bundestag.de/sucheJson/R001681/52365","version":31,"legislation":"GL2024","validFromDate":"2025-06-27T10:50:53.000+02:00","validUntilDate":"2025-07-07T16:02:11.000+02:00","versionActiveLobbyist":true},{"registerEntryId":52362,"jsonDetailUrl":"https://www.lobbyregister.bundestag.de/sucheJson/R001681/52362","version":30,"legislation":"GL2024","validFromDate":"2025-03-26T13:12:47.000+01:00","validUntilDate":"2025-06-27T10:50:53.000+02:00","versionActiveLobbyist":true},{"registerEntryId":49689,"jsonDetailUrl":"https://www.lobbyregister.bundestag.de/sucheJson/R001681/49689","version":29,"legislation":"GL2024","validFromDate":"2025-03-12T16:27:43.000+01:00","validUntilDate":"2025-03-26T13:12:47.000+01:00","versionActiveLobbyist":true},{"registerEntryId":47973,"jsonDetailUrl":"https://www.lobbyregister.bundestag.de/sucheJson/R001681/47973","version":28,"legislation":"GL2024","validFromDate":"2024-12-31T15:32:50.000+01:00","validUntilDate":"2025-03-12T16:27:43.000+01:00","versionActiveLobbyist":true},{"registerEntryId":45515,"jsonDetailUrl":"https://www.lobbyregister.bundestag.de/sucheJson/R001681/45515","version":27,"legislation":"GL2024","validFromDate":"2024-12-10T11:32:35.000+01:00","validUntilDate":"2024-12-31T15:32:50.000+01:00","versionActiveLobbyist":true},{"registerEntryId":45512,"jsonDetailUrl":"https://www.lobbyregister.bundestag.de/sucheJson/R001681/45512","version":26,"legislation":"GL2024","validFromDate":"2024-10-16T08:57:32.000+02:00","validUntilDate":"2024-12-10T11:32:35.000+01:00","versionActiveLobbyist":true},{"registerEntryId":44989,"jsonDetailUrl":"https://www.lobbyregister.bundestag.de/sucheJson/R001681/44989","version":25,"legislation":"GL2024","validFromDate":"2024-10-02T10:45:27.000+02:00","validUntilDate":"2024-10-16T08:57:32.000+02:00","versionActiveLobbyist":true}],"accountHasCodexViolations":false},"lobbyistIdentity":{"identity":"ORGANIZATION","name":"Volkswagen AG","legalFormType":{"code":"JURISTIC_PERSON","de":"Juristische Person","en":"Legal person"},"legalForm":{"code":"LF_AG","de":"Aktiengesellschaft (AG)","en":"Stock company (AG)"},"contactDetails":{"phoneNumber":"+49536190","emails":[{"email":"aussenbeziehungen@volkswagen.de"}],"websites":[{"website":"www.volkswagenag.com"}]},"address":{"type":"NATIONAL","street":"Berliner Ring","streetNumber":"2","zipCode":"38440","city":"Wolfsburg","country":{"code":"DE","de":"Deutschland","en":"Germany"}},"capitalCityRepresentationPresent":true,"capitalCityRepresentation":{"address":{"type":"NATIONAL","nationalAdditional1":"Konzernrepräsentanz Berlin","street":"Unter den Linden","streetNumber":"21","zipCode":"10117","city":"Berlin"},"contactDetails":{"phoneNumber":"+493020922955","email":"michael.jansen@volkswagen.de"}},"legalRepresentatives":[{"academicDegreeBefore":"Dr.","lastName":"Blume","firstName":"Oliver","function":"Vorstandsvorsitzender der Volkswagen AG und Dr. Ing. h. c. F. Porsche AG","recentGovernmentFunctionPresent":false,"entrustedPerson":true,"contactDetails":{}},{"academicDegreeBefore":"Dr. ","lastName":"Antlitz","firstName":"Arno","function":"Mitglied des Vorstands der Volkswagen AG, Finanzen und Operatives Geschäft","recentGovernmentFunctionPresent":false,"entrustedPerson":true,"contactDetails":{}},{"lastName":"Brandstätter","firstName":"Ralf","function":"Mitglied des Vorstands der Volkswagen AG für China","recentGovernmentFunctionPresent":false,"entrustedPerson":true,"contactDetails":{}},{"academicDegreeBefore":"Dr.","lastName":"Döss","firstName":"Manfred","function":"Mitglied des Vorstands der Volkswagen AG, Integrität und Recht","recentGovernmentFunctionPresent":false,"entrustedPerson":true,"contactDetails":{}},{"academicDegreeBefore":"Dr.","lastName":"Döllner","firstName":"Gernot","function":"Mitglied des Vorstands der Volkwagen AG, Markengruppe ,Progressive', CEO der AUDI AG","recentGovernmentFunctionPresent":false,"entrustedPerson":true,"contactDetails":{}},{"lastName":"Schäfer","firstName":"Thomas","function":"CEO der Marke Volkswagen Pkw, Mitglied des Vorstands der Volkswagen AG, Markengruppe Core","recentGovernmentFunctionPresent":false,"entrustedPerson":true,"contactDetails":{}},{"lastName":"Schmall-von Westerholt","firstName":"Thomas","function":"Mitglied des Vorstands der Volkswagen AG, Technik, Vorstandsvorsitzender Volkswagen Group Components","recentGovernmentFunctionPresent":false,"entrustedPerson":true,"contactDetails":{}},{"lastName":"Stars","firstName":"Hauke","function":"Mitglied des Vorstands der Volkswagen AG, IT ","recentGovernmentFunctionPresent":false,"entrustedPerson":true,"contactDetails":{}},{"academicDegreeBefore":"Dr.","lastName":"Steg","firstName":"Thomas","function":"Generalbevollmächtigter der Volkswagen AG und Leiter der Konzern Außenbeziehungen","recentGovernmentFunctionPresent":false,"entrustedPerson":true,"contactDetails":{}}],"entrustedPersonsPresent":true,"entrustedPersons":[{"academicDegreeBefore":"Dr.","lastName":"Blume","firstName":"Oliver","recentGovernmentFunctionPresent":false},{"academicDegreeBefore":"Dr. ","lastName":"Antlitz","firstName":"Arno","recentGovernmentFunctionPresent":false},{"lastName":"Brandstätter","firstName":"Ralf","recentGovernmentFunctionPresent":false},{"academicDegreeBefore":"Dr.","lastName":"Döss","firstName":"Manfred","recentGovernmentFunctionPresent":false},{"academicDegreeBefore":"Dr.","lastName":"Döllner","firstName":"Gernot","recentGovernmentFunctionPresent":false},{"lastName":"Jansen","firstName":"Michael","recentGovernmentFunctionPresent":false},{"lastName":"Hennek","firstName":"Adrian","recentGovernmentFunctionPresent":false},{"academicDegreeBefore":"Dr.","lastName":"Kohnen","firstName":"Christoph","recentGovernmentFunctionPresent":false},{"lastName":"Schäfer","firstName":"Thomas","recentGovernmentFunctionPresent":false},{"lastName":"Schmall-von Westerholt","firstName":"Thomas","recentGovernmentFunctionPresent":false},{"lastName":"Stars","firstName":"Hauke","recentGovernmentFunctionPresent":false},{"academicDegreeBefore":"Dr.","lastName":"Steg","firstName":"Thomas","recentGovernmentFunctionPresent":false},{"lastName":"Krähling","firstName":"Matthias","recentGovernmentFunctionPresent":false},{"academicDegreeBefore":"Dr.","lastName":"Schmerbeck","firstName":"Stefan","recentGovernmentFunctionPresent":false},{"lastName":"Weber","firstName":"Ralf","recentGovernmentFunctionPresent":false},{"lastName":"Wolfert","firstName":"Michael","recentGovernmentFunctionPresent":false},{"lastName":"Kassyda","firstName":"Christian","recentGovernmentFunctionPresent":false},{"lastName":"Krumpfe","firstName":"Sebastian","recentGovernmentFunctionPresent":false},{"lastName":"Cavallo","firstName":"Daniela","recentGovernmentFunctionPresent":false},{"academicDegreeBefore":"Dipl.-Ing.","lastName":"Mahnkopf","firstName":"Jürgen","recentGovernmentFunctionPresent":false},{"lastName":"Bieber","firstName":"Markus","recentGovernmentFunctionPresent":false},{"lastName":"Christidis","firstName":"Stavros","recentGovernmentFunctionPresent":false},{"lastName":"Büchling","firstName":"Carsten","recentGovernmentFunctionPresent":false},{"lastName":"Nowak","firstName":"Daniela","recentGovernmentFunctionPresent":false},{"lastName":"Wulff","firstName":"Manfred","recentGovernmentFunctionPresent":false},{"academicDegreeBefore":"Dr.","lastName":"Draf","firstName":"Oliver","recentGovernmentFunctionPresent":false},{"lastName":"Heinemann","firstName":"Michael","recentGovernmentFunctionPresent":false},{"academicDegreeBefore":"Dr.","lastName":"Kadow","firstName":"Clemens","recentGovernmentFunctionPresent":false},{"lastName":"Meiswinkel","firstName":"Arne","recentGovernmentFunctionPresent":false},{"academicDegreeBefore":"Dipl.-Ing.","lastName":"Reinhold","firstName":"Silke","recentGovernmentFunctionPresent":false},{"academicDegreeBefore":"Dr.","lastName":"Rudolph","firstName":"Sebastian","recentGovernmentFunctionPresent":false},{"academicDegreeBefore":"Dr.","lastName":"Spell","firstName":"Sabine","recentGovernmentFunctionPresent":false},{"lastName":"Teslau","firstName":"Johannes","recentGovernmentFunctionPresent":false},{"lastName":"von Maltzahn","firstName":"Benita","recentGovernmentFunctionPresent":false},{"lastName":"Wittmann","firstName":"Jörn","recentGovernmentFunctionPresent":false},{"lastName":"Schreiber","firstName":"Petra","recentGovernmentFunctionPresent":false},{"academicDegreeAfter":"Mag. Mag. LLM.","lastName":"Stanescu","firstName":"Alin","recentGovernmentFunctionPresent":false},{"lastName":"Christian","firstName":"Senger","recentGovernmentFunctionPresent":false},{"lastName":"Nußbaum","firstName":"Oliver","recentGovernmentFunctionPresent":false},{"academicDegreeBefore":"Dr.","lastName":"Dettmer","firstName":"Tina","recentGovernmentFunctionPresent":false},{"lastName":"Helms","firstName":"Christian","recentGovernmentFunctionPresent":false},{"lastName":"Briam","firstName":"Torsten","recentGovernmentFunctionPresent":false},{"lastName":"Probst","firstName":"Julia","recentGovernmentFunctionPresent":false},{"academicDegreeBefore":"Dr.","lastName":"Scholz","firstName":"Ingo","recentGovernmentFunctionPresent":false}],"membersPresent":false,"membershipsPresent":true,"memberships":[{"membership":"Verband der Automobilindustrie e.V. (VDA), Berlin "},{"membership":"Association des Constructeurs Européens d'Automobiles GIE (ACEA), Brüssel"},{"membership":"5G-ACIA (ZVEI e.V. Verband der Elektro- und Digitalindustrie), Frankfurt am Main"},{"membership":"Arbeitsgemeinschaft für betriebliche Altersversorgung (aba) e.V., Berlin"},{"membership":"Afrika-Verein der deutschen Wirtschaft e.V., Hamburg"},{"membership":"Allianz für Sicherheit in der Wirtschaft Norddeutschland e.V., Hamburg"},{"membership":"Arbeitsgemeinschaft Zeitwertkonten e.V., Frankfurt am Main"},{"membership":"Asien-Pazifik-Ausschuss der Deutschen Wirtschaft (APA), Berlin"},{"membership":"Bitkom e.V., Berlin"},{"membership":"Bundesnetzwerk Bürgerschaftliches Engagement (BBE), Berlin"},{"membership":"Bundesvereinigung Logistik (BVL) e.V., Bremen"},{"membership":"Charging Interface Initiative (CharIN) e.V., Berlin"},{"membership":"Deutsche Gesellschaft für Personalführung (DGFP) e.V., Berlin"},{"membership":"Deutsche Gesellschaft für Qualität (DGQ) e.V., Frankfurt am Main"},{"membership":"Deutsche Vereinigung für Wasserwirtschaft, Abwasser und Abfall (DWA) e.V., Hennef"},{"membership":"Deutscher Verkehrssicherheitsrat (DVR) e.V., Berlin"},{"membership":"Deutsches Aktieninstitut e.V., Frankfurt am Main"},{"membership":"Deutsches Rechnungslegungs Standards Committee (DRSC) e.V., Berlin"},{"membership":"Deutsches Zentrum für Luft- und Raumfahrt (DLR) e.V., Köln"},{"membership":"Deutsches Institut für Compliance (DICO) e.V., Berlin"},{"membership":"Deutsches Institut für Normung (DIN) e.V., Berlin"},{"membership":"Deutscher Investor Relations Verband (DIRK) e.V., Frankfurt am Main"},{"membership":"econsense - Forum Nachhaltige Entwicklung der Deutschen Wirtschaft e.V., Berlin"},{"membership":"Forschungsvereinigung Verbrennungskraftmaschinen (FVV) e.V., Frankfurt am Main"},{"membership":"Gesellschaft für Arbeitswissenschaft e.V., Sankt Augustin"},{"membership":"Gesellschaft für Datenschutz und Datensicherheit e.V., Bonn"},{"membership":"Lateinamerika Verein e. V., Hamburg"},{"membership":"Lateinamerika-Ausschuss der Deutschen Wirtschaft (LADW), Berlin"},{"membership":"Markenverband e.V., Berlin"},{"membership":"Max-Planck-Gesellschaft zur Förderung der Wissenschaften e.V., München"},{"membership":"Selbstregulierung Informationswirtschaft e.V., Berlin"},{"membership":"Value Balancing Alliance e.V., Frankfurt am Main"},{"membership":"VDI Verein Deutscher Ingenieure e.V., Düsseldorf"},{"membership":"Verband Deutscher Kälte-Klima-Fachbetriebe (VDKF) e.V., Bonn"},{"membership":"Verband für Sicherheit, Gesundheit und Umweltschutz bei der Arbeit (VDSI) e.V., Berlin"},{"membership":"Verband Deutscher Betriebs- und Werksärzte e.V., Karlsruhe"},{"membership":"Verband Deutscher Maschinen- und Anlagenbau  (VDMA) e.V., Frankfurt am Main"},{"membership":"Verband Deutscher Verkehrsunternehmen (VDV) e.V., Köln"},{"membership":"Verband Deutsches Reisemanagement (VDR) e.V., Frankfurt am Main"},{"membership":"VOICE - Bundesverband der IT-Anwender e.V., Berlin"},{"membership":"Zentrale zur Bekämpfung des unlauteren Wettbewerbs e.V., Frankfurt am Main"},{"membership":"Charta der Vielfalt e.V., Berlin"},{"membership":"Institut der Norddeutschen Wirtschaft (INW) e.V., Hannover"},{"membership":"Ostasiatischer Verein (OAV) e.V., Hamburg"},{"membership":"Deutsches Verkehrsforum e.V., Berlin"},{"membership":"Forschungsvereinigung Automobiltechnik (FAT) e.V., Berlin"},{"membership":"QUTAC - Quantum Technology & Application Consortium, Neubiberg"},{"membership":"Responsible Supply Chain Initiative"},{"membership":"SAFE für Transparenz SW zur AF (S.A.F.E. e. V.)"},{"membership":"UAV D.A.CH e.V."},{"membership":"Verband der industriellen Energie- & Kraftwirtschaft (VIK)"},{"membership":"Working Group on Monitoring Methodologies of CO₂-Neutral Fuels"},{"membership":"FSA Fair Standards Alliance"},{"membership":"European Center for Power Electronics (ECPE) e.V., Nürnberg"},{"membership":"Made for Germany"}]},"activitiesAndInterests":{"activity":{"code":"ACT_ORGANIZATION_V2","de":"Sonstiges Unternehmen","en":"Other company"},"typesOfExercisingLobbyWork":[{"code":"SELF_OPERATED_OWN_INTEREST","de":"Die Interessenvertretung wird in eigenem Interesse selbst wahrgenommen","en":"Interest representation is self-performed in its own interest"}],"fieldsOfInterest":[{"code":"FOI_TRANSPORTATION_FREIGHT_TRANSPORT","de":"Güterverkehr","en":"Freight transportation"},{"code":"FOI_FA_INTERNATIONAL","de":"Internationale Beziehungen","en":"International relations"},{"code":"FOI_WORK_OTHER","de":"Sonstiges im Bereich \"Arbeit und Beschäftigung\"","en":"Other in the field of \"Work and employment\""},{"code":"FOI_SCIENCE_RESEARCH_TECHNOLOGY","de":"Wissenschaft, Forschung und Technologie","en":"Science, research and technology"},{"code":"FOI_MEDIA_COPYRIGHT","de":"Urheberrecht","en":"Copyright"},{"code":"FOI_TRANSPORTATION_PUBLIC_TRANSPORT","de":"Personenverkehr","en":"Public transportation"},{"code":"FOI_MEDIA_PRIVACY","de":"Datenschutz und Informationssicherheit","en":"Data protection and information security"},{"code":"FOI_TRANSPORTATION_RAIL","de":"Schienenverkehr","en":"Rail transportation"},{"code":"FOI_EU_DOMESTIC_MARKET","de":"EU-Binnenmarkt","en":"EU internal market"},{"code":"FOI_ENERGY_RENEWABLE","de":"Erneuerbare Energien","en":"Renewable energy"},{"code":"FOI_HEALTH_SUPPLY","de":"Gesundheitsversorgung","en":"Health supply"},{"code":"FOI_PUBLIC_FINANCE","de":"Öffentliche Finanzen, Steuern und Abgaben","en":"Public finances, taxes and duties"},{"code":"FOI_MEDIA_DIGITALIZATION","de":"Digitalisierung","en":"Digitalization"},{"code":"FOI_TRANSPORTATION_AUTOMOBILE","de":"Straßenverkehr","en":"Road traffic"},{"code":"FOI_ENERGY_FOSSILE","de":"Fossile Energien","en":"Fossil fuels"},{"code":"FOI_MEDIA_INTERNET_POLICY","de":"Internetpolitik","en":"Internet policy"},{"code":"FOI_ECONOMY_INDUSTRIAL","de":"Industriepolitik","en":"Industrial policy"},{"code":"FOI_EP_WORK","de":"Berufliche Bildung","en":"Job education"},{"code":"FOI_LAW_CIVIL_RIGHT","de":"Zivilrecht","en":"Civil rights"},{"code":"FOI_LAW_OTHER","de":"Sonstiges im Bereich \"Recht\"","en":"Other in the field of \"Law\""},{"code":"FOI_ENERGY_NET","de":"Energienetze","en":"Energy networks"},{"code":"FOI_ENERGY_OTHER","de":"Sonstiges im Bereich \"Energie\"","en":"Other in the field of \"Energy\""},{"code":"FOI_ECONOMY_COMPETITION_LAW","de":"Wettbewerbsrecht","en":"Competition law"},{"code":"FOI_ECONOMY_AUTOMOBILE","de":"Automobilwirtschaft","en":"Automotive industry"},{"code":"FOI_SS_OLD_AGE","de":"Rente/Alterssicherung","en":"Old-age insurance"},{"code":"FOI_EU_LAWS","de":"EU-Gesetzgebung","en":"EU legislation"},{"code":"FOI_SS_ACCIDENT","de":"Unfallversicherung","en":"Accident insurance"},{"code":"FOI_MEDIA_ADVERTISEMENT","de":"Werbung","en":"Advertising"},{"code":"FOI_EU_OTHER","de":"Sonstiges im Bereich \"Europapolitik und Europäische Union\"","en":"Other in the field of \"European politics and the EU\""},{"code":"FOI_ENVIRONMENT_CLIMATE","de":"Klimaschutz","en":"Climate protection"},{"code":"FOI_HEALTH_OTHER","de":"Sonstiges im Bereich \"Gesundheit\"","en":"Other in the field of \"Health\""},{"code":"FOI_TRANSPORTATION_INDRASTRUCTURE","de":"Verkehrsinfrastruktur","en":"Infrastructure"},{"code":"FOI_ECONOMY_CONSUMER_PROTECTION","de":"Verbraucherschutz","en":"Consumer protection"},{"code":"FOI_ENVIRONMENT_SUSTAINABILITY","de":"Nachhaltigkeit und Ressourcenschutz","en":"Sustainability and resource protection"},{"code":"FOI_TRANSPORTATION_POLICY","de":"Verkehrspolitik","en":"Transport policy"},{"code":"FOI_FA_BRD","de":"Außenpolitik","en":"Foreign policy of the federal republic of Germany"},{"code":"FOI_WORK_RIGHT","de":"Arbeitsrecht/Arbeitsbedingungen","en":"Work right"},{"code":"FOI_FA_OTHER","de":"Sonstiges im Bereich \"Außenpolitik und internationale Beziehungen\"","en":"Other in the field of \"Foreign policy and international relations\""},{"code":"FOI_ECONOMY_FINANCE","de":"Bank- und Finanzwesen","en":"Banking and finance"},{"code":"FOI_ECONOMY_SERVICES","de":"Handel und Dienstleistungen","en":"Trade and services"},{"code":"FOI_ENERGY_OVERALL","de":"Allgemeine Energiepolitik","en":"Energy policy in general"},{"code":"FOI_IS_CYBER","de":"Cybersicherheit","en":"Cyber security"},{"code":"FOI_BUNDESTAG_PARLIAMENTARY","de":"Parlamentarisches Verfahren","en":"Parliamentary procedure"},{"code":"FOI_IS_DISASTER_CONTROL","de":"Bevölkerungsschutz und Katastrophenhilfe","en":"Civil protection"},{"code":"FOI_TRANSPORTATION_OTHER","de":"Sonstiges im Bereich \"Verkehr\"","en":"Other in the field of \"Transportation\""},{"code":"FOI_ENVIRONMENT_POLLUTION","de":"Immissionsschutz","en":"Immission control"},{"code":"FOI_FA_HUMAN_RIGHTS","de":"Menschenrechte","en":"Human rights"},{"code":"FOI_FOREIGN_TRADE","de":"Außenwirtschaft","en":"Foreign trade"}],"activityDescription":"Die Volkswagen AG bewegt sich in einem komplexen und stark regulierten Umfeld. Wir sehen es als unsere Verantwortung, im Dialog mit unseren Stakeholdern den Rahmen für unser wirtschaftliches Handeln und seine Auswirkungen auf Gesellschaft und Umwelt aktiv mitzugestalten. Diese Aufgabe übernehmen unsere Verantwortlichen für Außenbeziehungen bzw. Interessensvertretung. Die mit der Interessensvertretung beauftragten Mitarbeiterinnen und Mitarbeiter der Volkswagen AG bringen die Positionen des Unternehmens in politische Entscheidungsprozesse ein, indem sie Vertreter von Parlament und Regierung wahrheitsgemäß und umfassend informieren sowie kompetent und zuverlässig beraten. \r\n\r\nDer Bereich Außenbeziehungen der Volkswagen AG steht in unterschiedlichen Formaten im Dialog mit der Politik: vom Fachgespräch mit einzelnen Vertreterinnen und Vertretern des Bundestags und der Ministerien, über die Beteiligung an Anhörungen, bis hin zur Teilnahme an politischen Veranstaltungen mit der Möglichkeit zum Austausch mit Amts- und Mandatsträgerinnen bzw. - trägern. Die Volkswagen AG steht auch über Mitgliedschaften in nationalen und internationalen Organisationen in Kontakt mit der Politik, beispielsweise über Mitgliedschaften in Verbänden. Als Automobilhersteller stehen Themen und Regulierungsvorhaben aus den Bereichen Verkehrs-, Wirtschafts- und Handelspolitik im Fokus.\r\nVertreterinnen und Vertreter der Volkswagen AG handeln bei der Interessenvertretung entsprechend den Grundsätzen der Integrität, der Compliance, der Offenheit und der Nachvollziehbarkeit. Alle Kontakte mit der Politik orientieren sich streng an Recht und Gesetz, den internen Verhaltensgrundsätzen und Maßnahmen zur Korruptionsprävention sowie des Wettbewerbs- und Kartellrechts. Im Umgang mit Amts- und Mandatsträgerinnen bzw. -trägern wird insbesondere auf Transparenz, Aufrichtigkeit und Objektivität in der Kommunikation sowie kooperatives Verhalten geachtet."},"employeesInvolvedInLobbying":{"relatedFiscalYearFinished":true,"relatedFiscalYearStart":"2024-01-01","relatedFiscalYearEnd":"2024-12-31","employeeFTE":9.46},"financialExpenses":{"relatedFiscalYearFinished":true,"relatedFiscalYearStart":"2024-01-01","relatedFiscalYearEnd":"2024-12-31","financialExpensesEuro":{"from":2790001,"to":2800000}},"mainFundingSources":{"relatedFiscalYearFinished":true,"relatedFiscalYearStart":"2024-01-01","relatedFiscalYearEnd":"2024-12-31","mainFundingSources":[{"code":"MFS_ECONOMIC_ACTIVITY","de":"Wirtschaftliche Tätigkeit","en":"Economic activity"}]},"publicAllowances":{"publicAllowancesPresent":true,"relatedFiscalYearFinished":true,"relatedFiscalYearStart":"2024-01-01","relatedFiscalYearEnd":"2024-12-31","publicAllowances":[{"name":"Agentur für Arbeit","type":{"code":"GERMAN_PUBLIC_SECTOR_FEDERAL","de":"Deutsche Öffentliche Hand – Bund","en":"German Public Sector – Federal"},"location":"49068 Osnabrück","publicAllowanceEuro":{"from":10001,"to":20000},"description":"Förderung der beruflichen Weiterbildung"},{"name":"Bundesagentur für Arbeit","type":{"code":"GERMAN_PUBLIC_SECTOR_FEDERAL","de":"Deutsche Öffentliche Hand – Bund","en":"German Public Sector – Federal"},"location":"28363 Bremen","publicAllowanceEuro":{"from":3660001,"to":3670000},"description":"Förderung der beruflichen Weiterbildung"},{"name":"Bundesagentur für Arbeit","type":{"code":"GERMAN_PUBLIC_SECTOR_FEDERAL","de":"Deutsche Öffentliche Hand – Bund","en":"German Public Sector – Federal"},"location":"28363 Bremen","publicAllowanceEuro":{"from":3410001,"to":3420000},"description":"Förderung der beruflichen Weiterbildung im Sammelantragsverfahren"},{"name":"Bundesagentur für Arbeit","type":{"code":"GERMAN_PUBLIC_SECTOR_FEDERAL","de":"Deutsche Öffentliche Hand – Bund","en":"German Public Sector – Federal"},"location":"31121 Hildesheim","publicAllowanceEuro":{"from":20001,"to":30000},"description":"Ausgleichsabgabe"},{"name":"Bundesagentur für Arbeit","type":{"code":"GERMAN_PUBLIC_SECTOR_FEDERAL","de":"Deutsche Öffentliche Hand – Bund","en":"German Public Sector – Federal"},"location":"Lewinskistraße 6, 34127 Kassel","publicAllowanceEuro":{"from":40001,"to":50000},"description":"Lohnzuschussförderung"},{"name":"Bundesamt für Wirtschaft und Ausfuhrkontrolle (Bafa)","type":{"code":"GERMAN_PUBLIC_SECTOR_FEDERAL","de":"Deutsche Öffentliche Hand – Bund","en":"German Public Sector – Federal"},"location":"Frankfurter Straße 29-35, 65760 Eschborn","publicAllowanceEuro":{"from":880001,"to":890000},"description":"Bundesförderung für effiziente Gebäude (BEG)"},{"name":"Bundesamt für Wirtschaft und Ausfuhrkontrolle (Bafa)","type":{"code":"GERMAN_PUBLIC_SECTOR_FEDERAL","de":"Deutsche Öffentliche Hand – Bund","en":"German Public Sector – Federal"},"location":"Frankfurter Straße 29-35, 65760 Eschborn","publicAllowanceEuro":{"from":100001,"to":110000},"description":"Bundesförderung für Energie- und Ressourceneffizienz (EEW) in der Wirtschaft - Modul 1: Querschnittstechnologien"},{"name":"Bundesamt für Wirtschaft und Ausfuhrkontrolle (Bafa)","type":{"code":"GERMAN_PUBLIC_SECTOR_FEDERAL","de":"Deutsche Öffentliche Hand – Bund","en":"German Public Sector – Federal"},"location":"Frankfurter Straße 29-35, 65760 Eschborn","publicAllowanceEuro":{"from":100001,"to":110000},"description":"Bundesförderung für Energie- und Ressourceneffizienz, Modul 3"},{"name":"Bundesministerium für Digitales und Verkehr (BMDV)","type":{"code":"GERMAN_PUBLIC_SECTOR_FEDERAL","de":"Deutsche Öffentliche Hand – Bund","en":"German Public Sector – Federal"},"location":"Invalidenstraße 44, 10115 Berlin","publicAllowanceEuro":{"from":380001,"to":390000},"description":"IHATEC - Förderrichtlinie Innovativer Hafentechnologien"},{"name":"Bundesministerium für Digitales und Verkehr (BMDV)","type":{"code":"GERMAN_PUBLIC_SECTOR_FEDERAL","de":"Deutsche Öffentliche Hand – Bund","en":"German Public Sector – Federal"},"location":"Invalidenstraße 44, 10115 Berlin","publicAllowanceEuro":{"from":10001,"to":20000},"description":"Innovationen für nachhaltige Mobilität"},{"name":"Bundesministerium für Digitales und Verkehr (BMDV)","type":{"code":"GERMAN_PUBLIC_SECTOR_FEDERAL","de":"Deutsche Öffentliche Hand – Bund","en":"German Public Sector – Federal"},"location":"Invalidenstraße 44, 10115 Berlin","publicAllowanceEuro":{"from":10001,"to":20000},"description":"mFund - Finanzielle Unterstützung für digitale, datenbasierte Innovationen und Ideen für die Mobilität der Zukunft"},{"name":"Bundesministerium für Digitales und Verkehr (BMDV)","type":{"code":"GERMAN_PUBLIC_SECTOR_FEDERAL","de":"Deutsche Öffentliche Hand – Bund","en":"German Public Sector – Federal"},"location":"Invalidenstraße 44, 10115 Berlin","publicAllowanceEuro":{"from":60001,"to":70000},"description":"Nationales Innovationsprogramm Wasserstoff - und Brennstoffzellentechnologie"},{"name":"Bundesministerium für Bildung und Forschung (BMBF)","type":{"code":"GERMAN_PUBLIC_SECTOR_FEDERAL","de":"Deutsche Öffentliche Hand – Bund","en":"German Public Sector – Federal"},"location":"Dienstsitz Berlin, 11055 Berlin","publicAllowanceEuro":{"from":30001,"to":40000},"description":"Anwendungsnetzwerk für das Quantencomputing"},{"name":"Bundesministerium für Bildung und Forschung (BMBF)","type":{"code":"GERMAN_PUBLIC_SECTOR_FEDERAL","de":"Deutsche Öffentliche Hand – Bund","en":"German Public Sector – Federal"},"location":"Dienstsitz Berlin, 11055 Berlin","publicAllowanceEuro":{"from":50001,"to":60000},"description":"Hightech-Strategie der Bundesregierung"},{"name":"Bundesministerium für Bildung und Forschung (BMBF)","type":{"code":"GERMAN_PUBLIC_SECTOR_FEDERAL","de":"Deutsche Öffentliche Hand – Bund","en":"German Public Sector – Federal"},"location":"Dienstsitz Berlin, 11055 Berlin","publicAllowanceEuro":{"from":20001,"to":30000},"description":"Neue Fahrzeug- und Systemtechnologien - Leichtbaukonzepte für Straßen- und Schienenfahrzeuge"},{"name":"Bundesministerium für Bildung und Forschung (BMBF)","type":{"code":"GERMAN_PUBLIC_SECTOR_FEDERAL","de":"Deutsche Öffentliche Hand – Bund","en":"German Public Sector – Federal"},"location":"Dienstsitz Berlin, 11055 Berlin","publicAllowanceEuro":{"from":1,"to":10000},"description":"Quanteninformatik - Algorithmen, Software, Anwendung"},{"name":"Bundesministerium für Bildung und Forschung (BMBF)","type":{"code":"GERMAN_PUBLIC_SECTOR_FEDERAL","de":"Deutsche Öffentliche Hand – Bund","en":"German Public Sector – Federal"},"location":"Dienstsitz Berlin, 11055 Berlin","publicAllowanceEuro":{"from":50001,"to":60000},"description":"Transformation zur nachhaltigen Wertschöpfung"},{"name":"Bundesministerium für Bildung und Forschung (BMBF)","type":{"code":"GERMAN_PUBLIC_SECTOR_FEDERAL","de":"Deutsche Öffentliche Hand – Bund","en":"German Public Sector – Federal"},"location":"Heinemannstraße 2, 53175 Bonn","publicAllowanceEuro":{"from":30001,"to":40000},"description":"Vernetzung und Sicherheit digitaler Systeme"},{"name":"Bundesministerium für Ernährung und Landwirtschaft (BMEL)","type":{"code":"GERMAN_PUBLIC_SECTOR_FEDERAL","de":"Deutsche Öffentliche Hand – Bund","en":"German Public Sector – Federal"},"location":"11055 Berlin","publicAllowanceEuro":{"from":60001,"to":70000},"description":"Ausbau der Material- und Energieeffizienz in der Holzverwendung"},{"name":"Bundesministerium für Ernährung und Landwirtschaft (BMEL)","type":{"code":"GERMAN_PUBLIC_SECTOR_FEDERAL","de":"Deutsche Öffentliche Hand – Bund","en":"German Public Sector – Federal"},"location":"11055 Berlin","publicAllowanceEuro":{"from":50001,"to":60000},"description":"FNR - Förderprogramm nachwachsende Rohstoffe"},{"name":"Bundesministerium für Wirtschaft und Klimaschutz (BMWK)","type":{"code":"GERMAN_PUBLIC_SECTOR_FEDERAL","de":"Deutsche Öffentliche Hand – Bund","en":"German Public Sector – Federal"},"location":"11019 Berlin","publicAllowanceEuro":{"from":1,"to":10000},"description":"Anwendungsorientierte nichtnukleare FuE im 6. Energieforschungsprogramm"},{"name":"Bundesministerium für Wirtschaft und Klimaschutz (BMWK)","type":{"code":"GERMAN_PUBLIC_SECTOR_FEDERAL","de":"Deutsche Öffentliche Hand – Bund","en":"German Public Sector – Federal"},"location":"11019 Berlin","publicAllowanceEuro":{"from":20001,"to":30000},"description":"Anwendungsorientierte nichtnukleare FuE im 7. Energieforschungsprogramm"},{"name":"Bundesministerium für Wirtschaft und Klimaschutz (BMWK)","type":{"code":"GERMAN_PUBLIC_SECTOR_FEDERAL","de":"Deutsche Öffentliche Hand – Bund","en":"German Public Sector – Federal"},"location":"11019 Berlin","publicAllowanceEuro":{"from":30001,"to":40000},"description":"Gebäude und Quartiere"},{"name":"Bundesministerium für Wirtschaft und Klimaschutz (BMWK)","type":{"code":"GERMAN_PUBLIC_SECTOR_FEDERAL","de":"Deutsche Öffentliche Hand – Bund","en":"German Public Sector – Federal"},"location":"11019 Berlin","publicAllowanceEuro":{"from":180001,"to":190000},"description":"Maßnahmen zur Weiterentwicklung der Elektromobilität"},{"name":"Bundesministerium für Wirtschaft und Klimaschutz (BMWK)","type":{"code":"GERMAN_PUBLIC_SECTOR_FEDERAL","de":"Deutsche Öffentliche Hand – Bund","en":"German Public Sector – Federal"},"location":"11019 Berlin","publicAllowanceEuro":{"from":290001,"to":300000},"description":"Neue Fahrzeug- und Systemtechnologien"},{"name":"Bundesministerium für Wirtschaft und Klimaschutz (BMWK)","type":{"code":"GERMAN_PUBLIC_SECTOR_FEDERAL","de":"Deutsche Öffentliche Hand – Bund","en":"German Public Sector – Federal"},"location":"11019 Berlin","publicAllowanceEuro":{"from":20001,"to":30000},"description":"Technologietransfer-Programm Leichtbau"},{"name":"Bundesministerium für Wirtschaft und Klimaschutz (BMWK)","type":{"code":"GERMAN_PUBLIC_SECTOR_FEDERAL","de":"Deutsche Öffentliche Hand – Bund","en":"German Public Sector – Federal"},"location":"11019 Berlin","publicAllowanceEuro":{"from":990001,"to":1000000},"description":"Zukunftsinvestitionen für Fahrzeughersteller und Zulieferindustrie"},{"name":"Bundesministerium für Wirtschaft und Klimaschutz (BMWK) - DLR","type":{"code":"GERMAN_PUBLIC_SECTOR_FEDERAL","de":"Deutsche Öffentliche Hand – Bund","en":"German Public Sector – Federal"},"location":"DLR Projektträger, Heinrich-Konen-Straße 1, 53227 Bonn","publicAllowanceEuro":{"from":10001,"to":20000},"description":"KI-Innovationswettbewerb - Künstliche Intelligenz als Treiber für volkswirtschaftlich relevante Ökosysteme"},{"name":"Bundesministerium für Wirtschaft und Klimaschutz (BMWK)","type":{"code":"GERMAN_PUBLIC_SECTOR_FEDERAL","de":"Deutsche Öffentliche Hand – Bund","en":"German Public Sector – Federal"},"location":"11020 Berlin","publicAllowanceEuro":{"from":80001,"to":90000},"description":"7. Energieforschungsprogramm"},{"name":"Bundesministerium für Wirtschaft und Klimaschutz (BMWK)","type":{"code":"GERMAN_PUBLIC_SECTOR_FEDERAL","de":"Deutsche Öffentliche Hand – Bund","en":"German Public Sector – Federal"},"location":"11019 Berlin","publicAllowanceEuro":{"from":180001,"to":190000},"description":"7. Energieforschungsprogramm, Sondervermögen Energie- und Klimafonds"},{"name":"Bundesministerium für Wirtschaft und Klimaschutz (BMWK)","type":{"code":"GERMAN_PUBLIC_SECTOR_FEDERAL","de":"Deutsche Öffentliche Hand – Bund","en":"German Public Sector – Federal"},"location":"11020 Berlin","publicAllowanceEuro":{"from":40001,"to":50000},"description":"Energie- und Klimafonds"},{"name":"Bundesministerium für Wirtschaft und Klimaschutz (BMWK)","type":{"code":"GERMAN_PUBLIC_SECTOR_FEDERAL","de":"Deutsche Öffentliche Hand – Bund","en":"German Public Sector – Federal"},"location":"11019 Berlin","publicAllowanceEuro":{"from":30001,"to":40000},"description":"Energie- und Mobilitätswende"},{"name":"Bundesministerium für Wirtschaft und Klimaschutz (BMWK)","type":{"code":"GERMAN_PUBLIC_SECTOR_FEDERAL","de":"Deutsche Öffentliche Hand – Bund","en":"German Public Sector – Federal"},"location":"11020 Berlin","publicAllowanceEuro":{"from":60001,"to":70000},"description":"Konjunkturpaket: Corona-Folgen bekämpfen, Wohlstand sichern und Zukunftsfähigkeit stärken"},{"name":"Bundesministerium für Wirtschaft und Klimaschutz (BMWK)","type":{"code":"GERMAN_PUBLIC_SECTOR_FEDERAL","de":"Deutsche Öffentliche Hand – Bund","en":"German Public Sector – Federal"},"location":"11019 Berlin","publicAllowanceEuro":{"from":1120001,"to":1130000},"description":"KoPa35c - Digitalisierung der Fahrzeughersteller und Zulieferindustrie"},{"name":"Bundesministerium für Wirtschaft und Klimaschutz (BMWK)","type":{"code":"GERMAN_PUBLIC_SECTOR_FEDERAL","de":"Deutsche Öffentliche Hand – Bund","en":"German Public Sector – Federal"},"location":"11020 Berlin","publicAllowanceEuro":{"from":220001,"to":230000},"description":"Neue Fahrzeug- und Systemtechnologien - Automatisiertes Fahren"},{"name":"Bundesministerium für Wirtschaft und Klimaschutz (BMWK)","type":{"code":"GERMAN_PUBLIC_SECTOR_FEDERAL","de":"Deutsche Öffentliche Hand – Bund","en":"German Public Sector – Federal"},"location":"11019 Berlin","publicAllowanceEuro":{"from":40001,"to":50000},"description":"Technologietransfer Leichtbau, Sondervermögen Energie- und Klimafonds"},{"name":"Bundesministerium für Wirtschaft und Klimaschutz (BMWK)","type":{"code":"GERMAN_PUBLIC_SECTOR_FEDERAL","de":"Deutsche Öffentliche Hand – Bund","en":"German Public Sector – Federal"},"location":"11020 Berlin","publicAllowanceEuro":{"from":40001,"to":50000},"description":"Technologietransferprogramm Leichtbau"},{"name":"Bundesministerium für Wirtschaft und Klimaschutz (BMWK)","type":{"code":"GERMAN_PUBLIC_SECTOR_FEDERAL","de":"Deutsche Öffentliche Hand – Bund","en":"German Public Sector – Federal"},"location":"11019 Berlin","publicAllowanceEuro":{"from":190001,"to":200000},"description":"Digitalisierung der Fahrzeughersteller und Zulieferindustrie"},{"name":"Bundesministerium für Wirtschaft und Klimaschutz (BMWK)","type":{"code":"GERMAN_PUBLIC_SECTOR_FEDERAL","de":"Deutsche Öffentliche Hand – Bund","en":"German Public Sector – Federal"},"location":"11019 Berlin","publicAllowanceEuro":{"from":20001,"to":30000},"description":"Forschung und Entwicklung im Bereich der Elektromobilität"},{"name":"European Climate, Infrastructure and Environment Executive Agency (CINEA)","type":{"code":"EUROPEAN_UNION","de":"Europäische Union","en":"European Union"},"location":"Chaussée de Wavre 910, B-1040 Brussels, Belgium","publicAllowanceEuro":{"from":40001,"to":50000},"description":"Connecting Europe Facility"},{"name":"Eisenbahn-Bundesamt (EBA)","type":{"code":"GERMAN_PUBLIC_SECTOR_FEDERAL","de":"Deutsche Öffentliche Hand – Bund","en":"German Public Sector – Federal"},"location":"Außenstelle Hannover, Sachbereich 5, Herschelstraße 3/Eilgutstraße 2, 30159 Hannover","publicAllowanceEuro":{"from":100001,"to":110000},"description":"Richtlinie zur Förderung des Neu- und Ausbaus, der Reaktivierung und des Ersatzes von Gleisanschlüssen sowie weiteren Anlagen des Schienengüterverkehrs (Anschlussförderrichtlinie)"},{"name":"EU-Kommission","type":{"code":"EUROPEAN_UNION","de":"Europäische Union","en":"European Union"},"location":"Rue de la Loi 200 / Wetstraat 200, 1040 Brüssel, Belgien","publicAllowanceEuro":{"from":1,"to":10000},"description":"ECSEL Funding"},{"name":"Niedersächsisches Landesamt für Soziales, Jugend und Familie","type":{"code":"GERMAN_PUBLIC_SECTOR_LAND","de":"Deutsche Öffentliche Hand – Land","en":"German Public Sector – Land"},"location":"Domhof 1, 31134 Hildesheim","publicAllowanceEuro":{"from":1760001,"to":1770000},"description":"Leistung aus Ausgleichabgabe"},{"name":"Landeswohlfahrtverband Hessen Integrationsamt","type":{"code":"GERMAN_PUBLIC_SECTOR_LAND","de":"Deutsche Öffentliche Hand – Land","en":"German Public Sector – Land"},"location":"Kölnische Straße 30, 34117 Kassel","publicAllowanceEuro":{"from":200001,"to":210000},"description":"Landesförderung Lohnkosten"},{"name":"Bundesanstalt für Verwaltungsdienstleistungen (BAV)","type":{"code":"GERMAN_PUBLIC_SECTOR_FEDERAL","de":"Deutsche Öffentliche Hand – Bund","en":"German Public Sector – Federal"},"location":"Schlossplatz 9, 26603 Aurich","publicAllowanceEuro":{"from":30001,"to":40000},"description":"Öffentliche Ladeinfrastruktur"},{"name":"Bundesanstalt für Verwaltungsdienstleistungen (BAV)","type":{"code":"GERMAN_PUBLIC_SECTOR_FEDERAL","de":"Deutsche Öffentliche Hand – Bund","en":"German Public Sector – Federal"},"location":"Schlossplatz 9, 26603 Aurich","publicAllowanceEuro":{"from":70001,"to":80000},"description":"Ladeinfrastruktur für Elektrofahrzeuge 3. FA"},{"name":"EU-Kommission","type":{"code":"EUROPEAN_UNION","de":"Europäische Union","en":"European Union"},"location":"Rue de la Loi 200 / Wetstraat 200, 1040 Brüssel, Belgien","publicAllowanceEuro":{"from":490001,"to":500000},"description":"Horizon Europe Förderungen"},{"name":"EU-Kommission","type":{"code":"EUROPEAN_UNION","de":"Europäische Union","en":"European Union"},"location":"Rue de la Loi 200 / Wetstraat 200, 1040 Brüssel, Belgien","publicAllowanceEuro":{"from":830001,"to":840000},"description":"Horizon 2020 Förderungen"},{"name":"Bundesministerium für Bildung und Forschung","type":{"code":"GERMAN_PUBLIC_SECTOR_FEDERAL","de":"Deutsche Öffentliche Hand – Bund","en":"German Public Sector – Federal"},"location":"Dienstsitz Berlin, 11055 Berlin","publicAllowanceEuro":{"from":1,"to":10000},"description":"Künstliche Intelligenz"},{"name":"Bundesministerium für Bildung und Forschung","type":{"code":"GERMAN_PUBLIC_SECTOR_FEDERAL","de":"Deutsche Öffentliche Hand – Bund","en":"German Public Sector – Federal"},"location":"Dienstsitz Berlin, 11055 Berlin","publicAllowanceEuro":{"from":1,"to":10000},"description":"Internationalisierung von Spitzenclustern, Zukunftsprojekten und vergleichbaren Netzwerk"}]},"donators":{"relatedFiscalYearFinished":true,"relatedFiscalYearStart":"2024-01-01","relatedFiscalYearEnd":"2024-12-31","totalDonationsEuro":{"from":0,"to":0}},"membershipFees":{"relatedFiscalYearFinished":true,"relatedFiscalYearStart":"2024-01-01","relatedFiscalYearEnd":"2024-12-31","totalMembershipFees":{"from":0,"to":0},"individualContributorsPresent":false,"individualContributors":[]},"annualReports":{"annualReportLastFiscalYearExists":true,"lastFiscalYearStart":"2024-01-01","lastFiscalYearEnd":"2024-12-31","annualReportPdfUrl":"https://www.lobbyregister.bundestag.de/media/44/c0/692030/Geschaeftsbericht_2024_d.pdf"},"regulatoryProjects":{"regulatoryProjectsPresent":true,"regulatoryProjectsCount":51,"regulatoryProjects":[{"regulatoryProjectNumber":"RV0003344","title":"24.001_Veränderungen für eine angemessene nationale Umsetzung der NIS-2-Richtlinie","printedMattersPresent":true,"printedMatters":[{"title":"Entwurf eines Gesetzes zur Umsetzung der NIS-2-Richtlinie und zur Regelung wesentlicher Grundzüge des Informationssicherheitsmanagements in der Bundesverwaltung (NIS-2-Umsetzungs- und Cybersicherheitsstärkungsgesetz)","printingNumber":"20/13184","issuer":"BT","documentUrl":"https://dserver.bundestag.de/btd/20/131/2013184.pdf","projectUrl":"https://dip.bundestag.de/vorgang/gesetz-zur-umsetzung-der-nis-2-richtlinie-und-zur-regelung/314976","leadingMinistries":[{"title":"Bundesministerium des Innern und für Heimat","shortTitle":"BMI","electionPeriod":20,"url":"https://www.bmi.bund.de/DE/startseite/startseite-node.html"}]},{"title":"Entwurf eines Gesetzes zur Umsetzung der NIS-2-Richtlinie und zur Regelung wesentlicher Grundzüge des Informationssicherheitsmanagements in der Bundesverwaltung","printingNumber":"21/1501","issuer":"BT","documentUrl":"https://dserver.bundestag.de/btd/21/015/2101501.pdf","projectUrl":"https://dip.bundestag.de/vorgang/gesetz-zur-umsetzung-der-nis-2-richtlinie-und-zur-regelung/324803","leadingMinistries":[{"title":"Bundesministerium des Innern","shortTitle":"BMI","electionPeriod":21,"url":"https://www.bmi.bund.de/DE/startseite/startseite-node.html"}]}],"draftBillPresent":false,"description":"Einführung eines volldigitalisierten Melde-und Registrierungswesens, Einführung eines tagesaktuellen Lagebilds zu aktuellen digitalen und analogen Bedrohungen sowie Konsolidierung der Unternehmenskategorien: Abschaffung UBI. Sicherheitsüberprüfungen von ausgewählten Mitarbeiterinnen und Mitarbeitern.","affectedLawsPresent":true,"affectedLaws":[{"title":"Gesetz über das Bundesamt für Sicherheit in der Informationstechnik","shortTitle":"BSIG 2009","url":"https://www.gesetze-im-internet.de/bsig_2009"},{"title":"Gesetz über den Datenschutz und den Schutz der Privatsphäre in der Telekommunikation und bei digitalen Diensten","shortTitle":"TTDSG","url":"https://www.gesetze-im-internet.de/ttdsg"},{"title":"Telekommunikationsgesetz","shortTitle":"TKG 2021","url":"https://www.gesetze-im-internet.de/tkg_2021"},{"title":"Gesetz über die Elektrizitäts- und Gasversorgung","shortTitle":"EnWG 2005","url":"https://www.gesetze-im-internet.de/enwg_2005"}],"fieldsOfInterest":[{"code":"FOI_IS_CYBER","de":"Cybersicherheit","en":"Cyber security"}]},{"regulatoryProjectNumber":"RV0003345","title":"24.002_Einführung der EU-Verordnung zu standardessentiellen Patenten ","printedMattersPresent":true,"printedMatters":[{"title":"Vorschlag für eine Verordnung des Europäischen Parlaments und des Rates über standardessenzielle Patente und zur Änderung der Verordnung (EU) 2017/1001","printingNumber":"281/23","issuer":"BR","documentUrl":"https://dserver.bundestag.de/brd/2023/0281-23.pdf","projectUrl":"https://dip.bundestag.de/vorgang/vorschlag-f%C3%BCr-eine-verordnung-des-europ%C3%A4ischen-parlaments-und-des-rates/300810","leadingMinistries":[]}],"draftBillPresent":false,"description":"Beibehaltung der Fassung, wie abgestimmt im EU-Parlament am 28.02.2024","affectedLawsPresent":false,"affectedLaws":[],"fieldsOfInterest":[{"code":"FOI_LAW_OTHER","de":"Sonstiges im Bereich \"Recht\"","en":"Other in the field of \"Law\""},{"code":"FOI_EU_LAWS","de":"EU-Gesetzgebung","en":"EU legislation"}]},{"regulatoryProjectNumber":"RV0003346","title":"24.003_Veränderungen für eine angemessene Einführung des KRITIS-Dachgesetz","printedMattersPresent":true,"printedMatters":[{"title":"Eckpunkte für das KRITIS-Dachgesetz","printingNumber":"20/5491","issuer":"BT","documentUrl":"https://dserver.bundestag.de/btd/20/054/2005491.pdf","projectUrl":"https://dip.bundestag.de/vorgang/eckpunkte-f%C3%BCr-das-kritis-dachgesetz/296241","leadingMinistries":[{"title":"Bundesministerium des Innern und für Heimat","shortTitle":"BMI","electionPeriod":20,"url":"https://www.bmi.bund.de/DE/startseite/startseite-node.html"}]},{"title":"Entwurf eines Gesetzes zur Umsetzung der Richtlinie (EU) 2022/2557 und zur Stärkung der Resilienz kritischer Anlagen","printingNumber":"20/13961","issuer":"BT","documentUrl":"https://dserver.bundestag.de/btd/20/139/2013961.pdf","projectUrl":"https://dip.bundestag.de/vorgang/gesetz-zur-umsetzung-der-richtlinie-eu-2022-2557-und-zur/317496","leadingMinistries":[{"title":"Bundesministerium des Innern und für Heimat","shortTitle":"BMI","electionPeriod":20,"url":"https://www.bmi.bund.de/DE/startseite/startseite-node.html"}]}],"draftBillPresent":false,"description":"\"Ganzheitlicher Ansatz: KRITIS-DachG & das NIS2UmsuCG sind untrennbar miteinander verwoben.\r\nKlärung der Verantwortung zwischen Staat&Wirtschaft sowie der Zuständigkeiten/ Zusammenarbeit von Behörden.\r\nKlärung Rolle Staat / Unternehmen in der Gefahrenabwehr.\r\nEinführung eines volldigitalisierten Melde-& Registrierungswesens Cyber/Physisch, SPOC, ein Vorfall/ein Formular unter Einbindung der Länder.\r\nEinführung eines tagesaktuellen Lagebilds zu aktuellen digitalen und analogen Bedrohungen,\r\nEinbindung von Unternehmen und Verbänden in die Erarbeitung der Risikoanalyse & Rechtsverordnung.\r\nSicherheitsüberprüfungen von ausgewählten Mitarbeitenden, Mindeststandards für ZVÜ / VWÜ.","affectedLawsPresent":true,"affectedLaws":[{"title":"Gesetz über das Bundesamt für Sicherheit in der Informationstechnik","shortTitle":"BSIG 2009","url":"https://www.gesetze-im-internet.de/bsig_2009"}],"fieldsOfInterest":[{"code":"FOI_IS_DISASTER_CONTROL","de":"Bevölkerungsschutz und Katastrophenhilfe","en":"Civil protection"},{"code":"FOI_IS_CYBER","de":"Cybersicherheit","en":"Cyber security"}]},{"regulatoryProjectNumber":"RV0003347","title":"24.004_Veränderungen für die angemessene Umsetzung der EU Regulierung NG eCall ","printedMattersPresent":false,"printedMatters":[],"draftBillPresent":false,"description":"- appropriate type Approval and testing rocedure\r\n- exemption from licensing fees, including those making use of packet-switched technology by application of the eCall mandate\r\n- scope and entry into force: scheduling the application of the new requirements from January 2029\r\n","affectedLawsPresent":false,"affectedLaws":[],"fieldsOfInterest":[{"code":"FOI_TRANSPORTATION_AUTOMOBILE","de":"Straßenverkehr","en":"Road traffic"},{"code":"FOI_EU_LAWS","de":"EU-Gesetzgebung","en":"EU legislation"}]},{"regulatoryProjectNumber":"RV0003348","title":"24.005_Einführung EU Regulierung eCall Bestandsflotte, Fokus In-Betrieb-Halten 2G/3G Mobilfunknetz","printedMattersPresent":false,"printedMatters":[],"draftBillPresent":false,"description":"While the fate of vehicles on EU-roads already fitted with eCall falls outside the scope of the delegated regulation NG eCall, industry wishes to highlight that a full shutdown of 2G&3G networks would render millions of eCall systems useless. In the final report of TRAN Committee (26 Oct. 2022) on the revision of the ITS Directive,the EP supplemented the text proposed by the EC (Amend. 50): “The functioning of CS eCall systems shall be ensured at least for the duration of the expected life-cycle of the last vehicles placed on the market with such a system.“ The industry would like to understand if this would lead to an agreement with MNOs to keep at least one 2G or 3G network operational in each Member State until a certain date (under voluntary basis, coupled with financial compensation)","affectedLawsPresent":false,"affectedLaws":[],"fieldsOfInterest":[{"code":"FOI_TRANSPORTATION_AUTOMOBILE","de":"Straßenverkehr","en":"Road traffic"},{"code":"FOI_EU_LAWS","de":"EU-Gesetzgebung","en":"EU legislation"}]},{"regulatoryProjectNumber":"RV0003349","title":"24.006_Freistellung für Patent-Lizenznehmer-Plattformen bzw. Automotive Licensing Negotiation Group","printedMattersPresent":false,"printedMatters":[],"draftBillPresent":false,"description":"Für Patent-Lizenzgeber-Plattformen sehen die EU-Horizontal-Leitlinien (Leitlinien zur Anwendung von Artikel 101 des Vertrags über die Arbeitsweise der Europäischen Union) eine \"safe harbour\"-Regelung vor; Analoges wird für Lizenznehmer-Plattformen angestrebt. Dies könnte auch in der TT-GVO erfolgen oder durch Schaffung einer neuen eigenen EU-IP-Plattform-GVO.","affectedLawsPresent":false,"affectedLaws":[],"fieldsOfInterest":[{"code":"FOI_LAW_OTHER","de":"Sonstiges im Bereich \"Recht\"","en":"Other in the field of \"Law\""},{"code":"FOI_EU_LAWS","de":"EU-Gesetzgebung","en":"EU legislation"}]},{"regulatoryProjectNumber":"RV0003350","title":"24.007_Umsetzung der \"EU AI-ACT\" Verordnung zur Künstlichen Intelligenz","printedMattersPresent":false,"printedMatters":[],"draftBillPresent":false,"description":"Fahrzeuge sollen weiterhin in Sektor-spezifischer Regulierung behandelt werden. Der AI-Act soll einen innovationsfördernden Rahmen setzen. Die administrative Bürde darf nicht unverhältnismäßig groß werden.","affectedLawsPresent":false,"affectedLaws":[],"fieldsOfInterest":[{"code":"FOI_EU_LAWS","de":"EU-Gesetzgebung","en":"EU legislation"}]},{"regulatoryProjectNumber":"RV0003351","title":"24.008_Anpassung des PFAS Beschränkungsvorschlages der ECHA in für Industrie umsetzbare Gesetzgebung","printedMattersPresent":false,"printedMatters":[],"draftBillPresent":false,"description":"Voraussetzung für ein Verbot muss die Verfügbarkeit eines wirtschaftlich darstellbaren Substitutes unter der Berücksichtigung von Vorlaufzeiten für die Umstellung sein. Die nicht substituierbaren Anwendungen sind von einem Verbot auszunehmen bzw. mit hinreichenden Fristen inkl. Review zu versehen. PFAS-haltige Ersatzteile (repair as produced-Prinzip) sind von einer zukünftigen PFAS-Regulierung auszunehmen.","affectedLawsPresent":false,"affectedLaws":[],"fieldsOfInterest":[{"code":"FOI_ECONOMY_INDUSTRIAL","de":"Industriepolitik","en":"Industrial policy"},{"code":"FOI_EU_LAWS","de":"EU-Gesetzgebung","en":"EU legislation"}]},{"regulatoryProjectNumber":"RV0003352","title":"24.009_Ausgestaltung der EU End of Life Vehicles Regulation","printedMattersPresent":false,"printedMatters":[],"draftBillPresent":false,"description":"Anpassung der Plastik-Rezyklateinsatzquoten; Anpassung der Ausbaufähigkeit für div. Bauteile; Änderung bei den Extended Producer Responsibilities; Einbeziehung der Aufbautenhersteller bei Multistage Fahrzeugen; Beibehaltung der UN R133","affectedLawsPresent":true,"affectedLaws":[{"title":"Verordnung über die Überlassung, Rücknahme und umweltverträgliche Entsorgung von Altfahrzeugen","shortTitle":"AltautoV","url":"https://www.gesetze-im-internet.de/altautov"}],"fieldsOfInterest":[{"code":"FOI_ECONOMY_AUTOMOBILE","de":"Automobilwirtschaft","en":"Automotive industry"},{"code":"FOI_EU_LAWS","de":"EU-Gesetzgebung","en":"EU legislation"}]},{"regulatoryProjectNumber":"RV0003353","title":"24.010_Umsetzung der EU AFIR (Alternative Fuel Infrastructure Regulation)","printedMattersPresent":false,"printedMatters":[],"draftBillPresent":false,"description":"Verbindliche Vorgaben werden begrüßt, jedoch müssen die Ziele zum Ausbau der Ladeinfrastruktur erhöht werden (mehr kW und schnellerer Ausbau).","affectedLawsPresent":true,"affectedLaws":[{"title":"Verordnung über technische Mindestanforderungen an den sicheren und interoperablen Aufbau und Betrieb von öffentlich zugänglichen Ladepunkten für elektrisch betriebene Fahrzeuge","shortTitle":"LSV","url":"https://www.gesetze-im-internet.de/lsv"}],"fieldsOfInterest":[{"code":"FOI_TRANSPORTATION_INDRASTRUCTURE","de":"Verkehrsinfrastruktur","en":"Infrastructure"},{"code":"FOI_EU_LAWS","de":"EU-Gesetzgebung","en":"EU legislation"}]},{"regulatoryProjectNumber":"RV0003354","title":"24.011_Umsetzung der EU EPBD (Energy Performance of Buildings)","printedMattersPresent":false,"printedMatters":[],"draftBillPresent":false,"description":"Vorgaben für den Ausbau von Ladeinfrastruktur auf Parkplätzen sind wichtig für den Hochlauf der E-Mobilität (§14). Vorgaben für Nicht-Wohngebäude müssen verhältnismäßig sein (§ 9) .","affectedLawsPresent":true,"affectedLaws":[{"title":"Gesetz zur Einsparung von Energie und zur Nutzung erneuerbarer Energien zur Wärme- und Kälteerzeugung in Gebäuden","shortTitle":"GEG","url":"https://www.gesetze-im-internet.de/geg"}],"fieldsOfInterest":[{"code":"FOI_EU_LAWS","de":"EU-Gesetzgebung","en":"EU legislation"},{"code":"FOI_ENERGY_NET","de":"Energienetze","en":"Energy networks"}]},{"regulatoryProjectNumber":"RV0003356","title":"24.013_Unterstützung der Möglichkeit, autonome Fahrzeuge zuzulassen (\"Gesetz zum autonomen Fahren\")","printedMattersPresent":true,"printedMatters":[{"title":"Entwurf eines Zehnten Gesetzes zur Änderung des Straßenverkehrsgesetzes","printingNumber":"20/8293","issuer":"BT","documentUrl":"https://dserver.bundestag.de/btd/20/082/2008293.pdf","projectUrl":"https://dip.bundestag.de/vorgang/zehntes-gesetz-zur-%C3%A4nderung-des-stra%C3%9Fenverkehrsgesetzes/302866","leadingMinistries":[{"title":"Bundesministerium für Digitales und Verkehr","shortTitle":"BMDV","electionPeriod":20,"url":"https://bmdv.bund.de/DE/Home/home.html"}]}],"draftBillPresent":false,"description":"Bundesländerübergreifende Regelung als Ziel: Anpassungen im Verhaltensrecht und verhältnismäßige, wirtschaftlich umsetzbare Gestaltung der Betriebsbereichsgenehmigung.","affectedLawsPresent":true,"affectedLaws":[{"title":"Straßenverkehrs-Ordnung","shortTitle":"StVO 2013","url":"https://www.gesetze-im-internet.de/stvo_2013"},{"title":"Straßenverkehrsgesetz","shortTitle":"StVG","url":"https://www.gesetze-im-internet.de/stvg"},{"title":"Verordnung über die Erteilung einer Verwarnung, Regelsätze für Geldbußen und die Anordnung eines Fahrverbotes wegen Ordnungswidrigkeiten im Straßenverkehr","shortTitle":"BKatV 2013","url":"https://www.gesetze-im-internet.de/bkatv_2013"}],"fieldsOfInterest":[{"code":"FOI_TRANSPORTATION_AUTOMOBILE","de":"Straßenverkehr","en":"Road traffic"}]},{"regulatoryProjectNumber":"RV0003357","title":"24.014_Unterstützung der Verordnung zum Gesetz zum autonomen Fahren (\"AFGBV\").","printedMattersPresent":true,"printedMatters":[{"title":"Verordnung zur Regelung des Betriebs von Kraftfahrzeugen mit automatisierter und autonomer Fahrfunktion und zur Änderung straßenverkehrsrechtlicher Vorschriften","printingNumber":"86/22","issuer":"BR","documentUrl":"https://dserver.bundestag.de/brd/2022/0086-22.pdf","projectUrl":"https://dip.bundestag.de/vorgang/verordnung-zur-regelung-des-betriebs-von-kraftfahrzeugen-mit-automatisierter-und/284831","leadingMinistries":[]}],"draftBillPresent":false,"description":"Zuständigkeiten & Verfahren bei Genehmigung des Betriebsbereichs vereinheitlichen; Anerkennung bzw. Berücksichtigung bereits erfolgter ODD Genehmigung bei Typprüfung; Qualifikationsanforderungen für Wartungspersonal reduzieren; Redundante Überlappungen zwischen den Sicherheitsprüfungen (z. B. Gesamtprüfung, Erweiterte Abfahrkontrolle, Hauptuntersuchung)","affectedLawsPresent":false,"affectedLaws":[],"fieldsOfInterest":[{"code":"FOI_TRANSPORTATION_AUTOMOBILE","de":"Straßenverkehr","en":"Road traffic"}]},{"regulatoryProjectNumber":"RV0003358","title":"24.015_Unterstützung der Möglichkeit, autonome Fahrzeuge in Europa zuzulassen","printedMattersPresent":false,"printedMatters":[],"draftBillPresent":false,"description":"Auflösung der bestehenden Restriktion, nur Kleinserien in Europa zulassen zu können für autonome Fahrzeuge. Flexibilität bei den potentiellen Use-Cases für autonome Fahrzeuge.","affectedLawsPresent":false,"affectedLaws":[],"fieldsOfInterest":[{"code":"FOI_TRANSPORTATION_AUTOMOBILE","de":"Straßenverkehr","en":"Road traffic"},{"code":"FOI_EU_LAWS","de":"EU-Gesetzgebung","en":"EU legislation"}]},{"regulatoryProjectNumber":"RV0003359","title":"24.016_Nationales Gesetz zum Zugang zu Fahrzeugdaten, -funktionen und -ressourcen verhindern","printedMattersPresent":false,"printedMatters":[],"draftBillPresent":false,"description":"Vermeiden einer Sektor-spezifischen Regulierung: Data Act und existierende gesetzliche Regelungen sind ein bereits bestehender Rahmen, in dem im Fahrzeug generierte Daten zur Verfügung gestellt werden.\r\n","affectedLawsPresent":false,"affectedLaws":[],"fieldsOfInterest":[{"code":"FOI_MEDIA_DIGITALIZATION","de":"Digitalisierung","en":"Digitalization"},{"code":"FOI_TRANSPORTATION_AUTOMOBILE","de":"Straßenverkehr","en":"Road traffic"}]},{"regulatoryProjectNumber":"RV0003360","title":"24.017_Nachgelagerte Euro 7 Gesetzgebung schnell und eindeutig umsetzen","printedMattersPresent":false,"printedMatters":[],"draftBillPresent":false,"description":"Schnelle Wiederaufnahme der Drafting Meeting, damit Industrie umgehend Klarheit über Inhalte und Anforderungen der implementing acts erhält, z.B. bezüglich OBM, Anti-tempering, EVP, OTA Übertragung, Bremsen und Reifen.\r\n","affectedLawsPresent":false,"affectedLaws":[],"fieldsOfInterest":[{"code":"FOI_ECONOMY_AUTOMOBILE","de":"Automobilwirtschaft","en":"Automotive industry"},{"code":"FOI_EU_LAWS","de":"EU-Gesetzgebung","en":"EU legislation"}]},{"regulatoryProjectNumber":"RV0003361","title":"24.018_Nationale Implementierung der RED mit deutlich höheren Quoten für erneuerbare Kraftstoffe. ","printedMattersPresent":false,"printedMatters":[],"draftBillPresent":false,"description":"Bei der Umsetzung der sog. RED III in nationale Gesetzgebung sollten deutlich höhere Mindestquoten für die erneuerbaren Kraftstoffe festgeschrieben werden. Dazu sollten weitere Zwischenziele verbindlich bis 2045 (Klimaneutralität in Deutschland) festgeschrieben werden.","affectedLawsPresent":true,"affectedLaws":[{"title":"Gesetz zum Schutz vor schädlichen Umwelteinwirkungen durch Luftverunreinigungen, Geräusche, Erschütterungen und ähnliche Vorgänge","shortTitle":"BImSchG","url":"https://www.gesetze-im-internet.de/bimschg"}],"fieldsOfInterest":[{"code":"FOI_ENVIRONMENT_CLIMATE","de":"Klimaschutz","en":"Climate protection"},{"code":"FOI_EU_LAWS","de":"EU-Gesetzgebung","en":"EU legislation"}]},{"regulatoryProjectNumber":"RV0003362","title":"24.019_Angemessene Umsetzung der \"Greening Corporate Fleets Initiative\"","printedMattersPresent":false,"printedMatters":[],"draftBillPresent":false,"description":"Es ist sicherzustellen, dass Maßnahmen, die Unternehmensflotten betreffen, anhand fundierter Marktkenntnisse ergriffen werden und es nicht zu negativen Folgen für diesen wichtigen Geschäftskanal kommt. Gleichzeitig ist die Etablierung geeigneter Förderinstrumente und die Entwicklung einer angepassten Ladeinfrastruktur zugeschnitten auf Unternehmensflotten erforderlich.  ","affectedLawsPresent":false,"affectedLaws":[],"fieldsOfInterest":[{"code":"FOI_EU_LAWS","de":"EU-Gesetzgebung","en":"EU legislation"},{"code":"FOI_ENVIRONMENT_CLIMATE","de":"Klimaschutz","en":"Climate protection"}]},{"regulatoryProjectNumber":"RV0003363","title":"24.020_Techn. Kraftstoffnormen u. Verordnungen für erneuerbare Kraftstoffsorten (nach FQD) öffnen ","printedMattersPresent":false,"printedMatters":[],"draftBillPresent":false,"description":"Neue Kraftstoffsorten nach technischen Kriterien definiert für den Bestand nutzbar machen, zum Beispiel E20 Otto.","affectedLawsPresent":true,"affectedLaws":[{"title":"Gesetz zum Schutz vor schädlichen Umwelteinwirkungen durch Luftverunreinigungen, Geräusche, Erschütterungen und ähnliche Vorgänge","shortTitle":"BImSchG","url":"https://www.gesetze-im-internet.de/bimschg"}],"fieldsOfInterest":[{"code":"FOI_ENVIRONMENT_CLIMATE","de":"Klimaschutz","en":"Climate protection"},{"code":"FOI_EU_LAWS","de":"EU-Gesetzgebung","en":"EU legislation"}]},{"regulatoryProjectNumber":"RV0003364","title":"24.021_Kraftwerksstrategie der Bundesregierung unterstützen","printedMattersPresent":false,"printedMatters":[],"draftBillPresent":false,"description":"Kraftwerksstrategie muss gleichermaßen auf die Ziele künftiger Klimaneutralität, Versorgungssicherheit und Wirtschaftlichkeit einzahlen. Die Ziele müssen erreichbar sowie technisch und wirtschaftlich umsetzbar sein. Die Kraft-Wärme-Kopplung auf Basis gasförmiger Brennstoffe unterstützt gleichermaßen alle Zielsetzungen durch einen hohen Brennstoffnutzungsgrad und dient zusätzlich auch bei der Transformation des Wärmemarktes als notwendiges Back-up-System. Daher sind bestehende KWK-Systeme in die Kraftwerksstrategie zur Gewährleistung von Versorgungssicherheit und Wirtschaftlichkeit während der Transformation zu integrieren.\r\n","affectedLawsPresent":true,"affectedLaws":[{"title":"Gesetz über die Elektrizitäts- und Gasversorgung","shortTitle":"EnWG 2005","url":"https://www.gesetze-im-internet.de/enwg_2005"}],"fieldsOfInterest":[{"code":"FOI_ENERGY_OVERALL","de":"Allgemeine Energiepolitik","en":"Energy policy in general"}]},{"regulatoryProjectNumber":"RV0003365","title":"24.022_Umsetzung EU ETS2 in nationales Recht mit Ziel der späteren Zusammenlegung von ETS1 und ETS2","printedMattersPresent":false,"printedMatters":[],"draftBillPresent":false,"description":"CO2 muss in allen Sektoren einen Preis erhalten. Nur durch das \"cap and trade\" System des ETS ist gewährleistet, dass die politisch vorgegebenen Klimaziele erreicht werden. Die perspektivische Zusammenlegung von ETS 1 und ETS 2 führt zu den volkswirtschaftlich geringsten CO2-Vermeidungskosten. ","affectedLawsPresent":true,"affectedLaws":[{"title":"Gesetz über einen nationalen Zertifikatehandel für Brennstoffemissionen","shortTitle":"BEHG","url":"https://www.gesetze-im-internet.de/behg"}],"fieldsOfInterest":[{"code":"FOI_EU_LAWS","de":"EU-Gesetzgebung","en":"EU legislation"},{"code":"FOI_ENVIRONMENT_CLIMATE","de":"Klimaschutz","en":"Climate protection"}]},{"regulatoryProjectNumber":"RV0003366","title":"24.023_Unterstützung eines ambitionierten EU-Klimaziels 2040","printedMattersPresent":false,"printedMatters":[],"draftBillPresent":false,"description":"Das Klimaziel muss ambitioniert und erreichbar ausgestaltet sein. Alle Sektoren müssen zur Erreichung beitragen. Die Vorgaben für klimaneutrale Energieträger müssen drastisch erhöht werden. Fossile Energieträger sind auszuphasen.\r\n","affectedLawsPresent":true,"affectedLaws":[{"title":"Bundes-Klimaschutzgesetz","shortTitle":"KSG","url":"https://www.gesetze-im-internet.de/ksg"}],"fieldsOfInterest":[{"code":"FOI_EU_LAWS","de":"EU-Gesetzgebung","en":"EU legislation"},{"code":"FOI_ENVIRONMENT_CLIMATE","de":"Klimaschutz","en":"Climate protection"}]},{"regulatoryProjectNumber":"RV0003367","title":"24.024_Angemessene Umsetzung des EU Data Act","printedMattersPresent":false,"printedMatters":[],"draftBillPresent":false,"description":"Unbürokratische Zuständigkeiten und Verfahren der Aufsicht, Klärung offener Interpretationsfragen und ein angemessenes Sanktionsregime.","affectedLawsPresent":false,"affectedLaws":[],"fieldsOfInterest":[{"code":"FOI_EU_LAWS","de":"EU-Gesetzgebung","en":"EU legislation"}]},{"regulatoryProjectNumber":"RV0003368","title":"24.025_Ausstattung von Tankstellen mit Schnellladeinfrastruktur","printedMattersPresent":false,"printedMatters":[],"draftBillPresent":false,"description":"\r\nUnterstützung einer gesetzlichen Regelung für die Ausstattung von Tankstellen mit Schnellladeinfrastruktur\r\n","affectedLawsPresent":true,"affectedLaws":[{"title":"Gesetz zum Aufbau einer gebäudeintegrierten Lade- und Leitungsinfrastruktur für die Elektromobilität","shortTitle":"GEIG","url":"https://www.gesetze-im-internet.de/geig"}],"fieldsOfInterest":[{"code":"FOI_TRANSPORTATION_INDRASTRUCTURE","de":"Verkehrsinfrastruktur","en":"Infrastructure"}]},{"regulatoryProjectNumber":"RV0003369","title":"24.026_Behebung der Rechtsunsicherheiten bzgl. der Vergütung von Betriebsratsmitgliedern","printedMattersPresent":true,"printedMatters":[{"title":"Entwurf eines Zweiten Gesetzes zur Änderung des Betriebsverfassungsgesetzes","printingNumber":"20/9469","issuer":"BT","documentUrl":"https://dserver.bundestag.de/btd/20/094/2009469.pdf","projectUrl":"https://dip.bundestag.de/vorgang/zweites-gesetz-zur-%C3%A4nderung-des-betriebsverfassungsgesetzes/305382","leadingMinistries":[{"title":"Bundesministerium für Arbeit und Soziales","shortTitle":"BMAS","electionPeriod":20,"url":"https://www.bmas.de/DE/Startseite/start.html"}]}],"draftBillPresent":false,"description":"Der Anpassung der Vorschriften über die Betriebsratsvergütung sollte zeitnah zugestimmt werden, um die aktuell bestehende Rechtsunsicherheit zu beenden.  \r\n","affectedLawsPresent":true,"affectedLaws":[{"title":"Betriebsverfassungsgesetz","shortTitle":"BetrVG","url":"https://www.gesetze-im-internet.de/betrvg"}],"fieldsOfInterest":[{"code":"FOI_WORK_RIGHT","de":"Arbeitsrecht/Arbeitsbedingungen","en":"Work right"}]},{"regulatoryProjectNumber":"RV0003370","title":"24.027_Nationale Umsetzung CSRD analog EU","printedMattersPresent":true,"printedMatters":[{"title":"Entwurf eines Gesetzes zur Umsetzung der Richtlinie (EU) 2022/2464 des Europäischen Parlaments und des Rates vom 14. Dezember 2022 zur Änderung der Verordnung (EU) Nr. 537/2014 und der Richtlinien 2004/109/EG, 2006/43/EG und 2013/34/EU hinsichtlich der Nachhaltigkeitsberichterstattung von Unternehmen","printingNumber":"385/24","issuer":"BR","documentUrl":"https://dserver.bundestag.de/brd/2024/0385-24.pdf","projectUrl":"https://dip.bundestag.de/vorgang/gesetz-zur-umsetzung-der-richtlinie-eu-2022-2464-des-europ%C3%A4ischen/314977","leadingMinistries":[{"title":"Bundesministerium der Justiz","shortTitle":"BMJ","electionPeriod":20,"url":"https://www.bmj.de/DE/Startseite/Startseite_node.html"}],"migratedDraftBill":{"title":"Entwurf eines Gesetzes zur Umsetzung der Richtlinie (EU) 2022/2464 des Europäischen Parlaments und des Rates vom 14. Dezember 2022 zur Änderung der Verordnung (EU) Nr. 537/2014 und der Richtlinien 2004/109/EG, 2006/43/EG und 2013/34/EU hinsichtlich der Nachhaltigkeitsberichterstattung von Unternehmen","publicationDate":"2024-03-22","leadingMinistries":[{"title":"Bundesministerium der Justiz","shortTitle":"BMJ","electionPeriod":20,"url":"https://www.bmj.de/DE/Startseite/Startseite_node.html","draftBillDocumentUrl":"https://www.bmj.de/SharedDocs/Downloads/DE/Gesetzgebung/RefE/RefE_CSRD_UmsG.pdf?__blob=publicationFile&v=2","draftBillProjectUrl":"https://www.bmj.de/SharedDocs/Gesetzgebungsverfahren/DE/2024_CSRD_UmsG.html?nn=110518"}]}},{"title":"Entwurf eines Gesetzes zur Umsetzung der Richtlinie (EU) 2022/2464 des Europäischen Parlaments und des Rates vom 14. Dezember 2022 zur Änderung der Verordnung (EU) Nr. 537/2014 und der Richtlinien 2004/109/EG, 2006/43/EG und 2013/34/EU hinsichtlich der Nachhaltigkeitsberichterstattung von Unternehmen","printingNumber":"20/12787","issuer":"BT","documentUrl":"https://dserver.bundestag.de/btd/20/127/2012787.pdf","projectUrl":"https://dip.bundestag.de/vorgang/gesetz-zur-umsetzung-der-richtlinie-eu-2022-2464-des-europ%C3%A4ischen/314977","leadingMinistries":[{"title":"Bundesministerium der Justiz","shortTitle":"BMJ","electionPeriod":20,"url":"https://www.bmj.de/DE/Startseite/Startseite_node.html"}],"migratedDraftBill":{"title":"Entwurf eines Gesetzes zur Umsetzung der Richtlinie (EU) 2022/2464 des Europäischen Parlaments und des Rates vom 14. Dezember 2022 zur Änderung der Verordnung (EU) Nr. 537/2014 und der Richtlinien 2004/109/EG, 2006/43/EG und 2013/34/EU hinsichtlich der Nachhaltigkeitsberichterstattung von Unternehmen","publicationDate":"2024-03-22","leadingMinistries":[{"title":"Bundesministerium der Justiz","shortTitle":"BMJ","electionPeriod":20,"url":"https://www.bmj.de/DE/Startseite/Startseite_node.html","draftBillDocumentUrl":"https://www.bmj.de/SharedDocs/Downloads/DE/Gesetzgebung/RefE/RefE_CSRD_UmsG.pdf?__blob=publicationFile&v=2","draftBillProjectUrl":"https://www.bmj.de/SharedDocs/Gesetzgebungsverfahren/DE/2024_CSRD_UmsG.html?nn=110518"}]}}],"draftBillPresent":false,"description":"Die nationale Umsetzung der CSRD sollte sich im Ergebnis auf eine 1:1-Umsetzung der europäischen Vorgaben beschränken und keinen bürokratischen Zusatzaufwand für die deutschen Unternehmen verursachen, sondern \r\nhöchstmögliche Vereinfachungen zugunsten der Unternehmen schaffen. Außerdem sollten doppelte oder gleichgelagerte Berichtspflichten für die Unternehmen vermieden werden.","affectedLawsPresent":false,"affectedLaws":[],"fieldsOfInterest":[{"code":"FOI_ECONOMY_FINANCE","de":"Bank- und Finanzwesen","en":"Banking and finance"},{"code":"FOI_ENVIRONMENT_SUSTAINABILITY","de":"Nachhaltigkeit und Ressourcenschutz","en":"Sustainability and resource protection"}]},{"regulatoryProjectNumber":"RV0003371","title":"24.028_Ausgestaltung der Anpassung des Batt-EU-AnpG","printedMattersPresent":false,"printedMatters":[],"draftBillPresent":false,"description":"Beeinflussung der Umsetzung der EU-Vorgaben in deutsches Recht. Aufgaben, Zuständigkeit und Kompetenzen der nationalen zuständigen Überwachungsbehörde.","affectedLawsPresent":true,"affectedLaws":[{"title":"Gesetz über das Inverkehrbringen, die Rücknahme und die umweltverträgliche Entsorgung von Batterien und Akkumulatoren","shortTitle":"BattG","url":"https://www.gesetze-im-internet.de/battg"}],"fieldsOfInterest":[{"code":"FOI_ENVIRONMENT_SUSTAINABILITY","de":"Nachhaltigkeit und Ressourcenschutz","en":"Sustainability and resource protection"},{"code":"FOI_EU_LAWS","de":"EU-Gesetzgebung","en":"EU legislation"},{"code":"FOI_ECONOMY_AUTOMOBILE","de":"Automobilwirtschaft","en":"Automotive industry"}]},{"regulatoryProjectNumber":"RV0003372","title":"24.029_Ausgestaltung der Anpassung der EU Ökodesignverordnung","printedMattersPresent":false,"printedMatters":[],"draftBillPresent":false,"description":"Angemessene Gestaltung der Anforderungen an Komponenten von Automobilen und zum Digital Product Passport inklusive DAs und IAs.","affectedLawsPresent":false,"affectedLaws":[],"fieldsOfInterest":[{"code":"FOI_EU_LAWS","de":"EU-Gesetzgebung","en":"EU legislation"},{"code":"FOI_ECONOMY_AUTOMOBILE","de":"Automobilwirtschaft","en":"Automotive industry"},{"code":"FOI_ENVIRONMENT_SUSTAINABILITY","de":"Nachhaltigkeit und Ressourcenschutz","en":"Sustainability and resource protection"}]},{"regulatoryProjectNumber":"RV0003373","title":"24.030_Ausgestaltung der \"EU Regulation on common rules promoting the repair of goods\"","printedMattersPresent":false,"printedMatters":[],"draftBillPresent":false,"description":"Angemessene Reparaturvorgaben und Pflichten in Bezug auf Automobile.","affectedLawsPresent":false,"affectedLaws":[],"fieldsOfInterest":[{"code":"FOI_EU_LAWS","de":"EU-Gesetzgebung","en":"EU legislation"},{"code":"FOI_ECONOMY_AUTOMOBILE","de":"Automobilwirtschaft","en":"Automotive industry"}]},{"regulatoryProjectNumber":"RV0003374","title":"24.031_Ausgestaltung / Interpretation der EU Batterie Regulierung","printedMattersPresent":false,"printedMatters":[],"draftBillPresent":false,"description":"Interpretation und Auslegung von: Reparatur, Labeling und Begleitdokumenten, Umgang und Kennzeichnung bei Gefahrstoffen / kritischen Rohstoffen, Benennung der zuständigen Behörden und  erweiterte Herstellerverantwortung. Zudem Beeinflussung noch offener Delegated und Implementing Acts.","affectedLawsPresent":true,"affectedLaws":[{"title":"Gesetz über das Inverkehrbringen, die Rücknahme und die umweltverträgliche Entsorgung von Batterien und Akkumulatoren","shortTitle":"BattG","url":"https://www.gesetze-im-internet.de/battg"}],"fieldsOfInterest":[{"code":"FOI_ENVIRONMENT_SUSTAINABILITY","de":"Nachhaltigkeit und Ressourcenschutz","en":"Sustainability and resource protection"},{"code":"FOI_ECONOMY_AUTOMOBILE","de":"Automobilwirtschaft","en":"Automotive industry"},{"code":"FOI_EU_LAWS","de":"EU-Gesetzgebung","en":"EU legislation"}]},{"regulatoryProjectNumber":"RV0003375","title":"24.040_Ausgestaltung bzw. Interpretation der Anpassung des EU Critical Raw Material Act","printedMattersPresent":false,"printedMatters":[],"draftBillPresent":false,"description":"Es sollten umsetzbare Rezyklatquoten und Anforderungen an Produkte gewährleistet sein.","affectedLawsPresent":false,"affectedLaws":[],"fieldsOfInterest":[{"code":"FOI_ENVIRONMENT_SUSTAINABILITY","de":"Nachhaltigkeit und Ressourcenschutz","en":"Sustainability and resource protection"},{"code":"FOI_ECONOMY_AUTOMOBILE","de":"Automobilwirtschaft","en":"Automotive industry"},{"code":"FOI_EU_LAWS","de":"EU-Gesetzgebung","en":"EU legislation"}]},{"regulatoryProjectNumber":"RV0003376","title":"24.032_Ausgestaltung des EU Delegated Act aus Art. 7 EU Battery Regulation","printedMattersPresent":false,"printedMatters":[],"draftBillPresent":false,"description":"Erarbeiten einer angemessenen Systematik zur Berechnung des CO2 Fußabdrucks der Batterie\r\n","affectedLawsPresent":false,"affectedLaws":[],"fieldsOfInterest":[{"code":"FOI_EU_LAWS","de":"EU-Gesetzgebung","en":"EU legislation"},{"code":"FOI_ENVIRONMENT_SUSTAINABILITY","de":"Nachhaltigkeit und Ressourcenschutz","en":"Sustainability and resource protection"},{"code":"FOI_ECONOMY_AUTOMOBILE","de":"Automobilwirtschaft","en":"Automotive industry"},{"code":"FOI_ENERGY_OVERALL","de":"Allgemeine Energiepolitik","en":"Energy policy in general"},{"code":"FOI_TRANSPORTATION_POLICY","de":"Verkehrspolitik","en":"Transport policy"}]},{"regulatoryProjectNumber":"RV0003377","title":"24.033_Angemessene nationale Umsetzung der EU-Luftqualitätsdirektive 2022/0347 (COD)","printedMattersPresent":false,"printedMatters":[],"draftBillPresent":false,"description":"Vermeiden einer disproportionalen Belastung des Verkehrssektors, statt dessen verursachergemäße Maßnahmen für eine Zielerreichung der Luftqualitätsgrenzwerte.\r\n","affectedLawsPresent":true,"affectedLaws":[{"title":"Gesetz zum Schutz vor schädlichen Umwelteinwirkungen durch Luftverunreinigungen, Geräusche, Erschütterungen und ähnliche Vorgänge","shortTitle":"BImSchG","url":"https://www.gesetze-im-internet.de/bimschg"}],"fieldsOfInterest":[{"code":"FOI_TRANSPORTATION_POLICY","de":"Verkehrspolitik","en":"Transport policy"},{"code":"FOI_EU_LAWS","de":"EU-Gesetzgebung","en":"EU legislation"}]},{"regulatoryProjectNumber":"RV0003378","title":"24.034_Ausgestaltung der zukünftigen EU CO2 Flottengesetzgebung inkl. CO2 Ziel 2035","printedMattersPresent":false,"printedMatters":[],"draftBillPresent":false,"description":"Angemessene Ausgestaltung der  Anforderungen der EU CO2 Flottengesetzgebung im Rahmen des gesetzlich festgelegten Review im Jahr 2026.","affectedLawsPresent":false,"affectedLaws":[],"fieldsOfInterest":[{"code":"FOI_ENVIRONMENT_CLIMATE","de":"Klimaschutz","en":"Climate protection"},{"code":"FOI_EU_LAWS","de":"EU-Gesetzgebung","en":"EU legislation"}]},{"regulatoryProjectNumber":"RV0003379","title":"24.035_Ausgestaltung verkehrspolitischer Rahmenbedingungen für individuelle Mobilität","printedMattersPresent":false,"printedMatters":[],"draftBillPresent":false,"description":"Schaffung und Erhalt geeigneter Rahmenbedingungen für motorisierten Individual- und Güterverkehr unter Berücksichtigung der Transformation zur E-Mobilität.\r\n","affectedLawsPresent":false,"affectedLaws":[],"fieldsOfInterest":[{"code":"FOI_EU_LAWS","de":"EU-Gesetzgebung","en":"EU legislation"},{"code":"FOI_TRANSPORTATION_POLICY","de":"Verkehrspolitik","en":"Transport policy"}]},{"regulatoryProjectNumber":"RV0003381","title":"24.037_Höhere erneuerbare Anteile Kraftstoffe innerhalb bestehender Kraftstoffnormen.","printedMattersPresent":false,"printedMatters":[],"draftBillPresent":false,"description":"Beimischungsquoten regenerativer Kraftstoffe innerhalb bestehender Normen DIN EN 228 und 590 erhöhen, wie z.B. Ethanol für Otto.\r\n","affectedLawsPresent":true,"affectedLaws":[{"title":"Gesetz zum Schutz vor schädlichen Umwelteinwirkungen durch Luftverunreinigungen, Geräusche, Erschütterungen und ähnliche Vorgänge","shortTitle":"BImSchG","url":"https://www.gesetze-im-internet.de/bimschg"}],"fieldsOfInterest":[{"code":"FOI_ECONOMY_AUTOMOBILE","de":"Automobilwirtschaft","en":"Automotive industry"},{"code":"FOI_EU_LAWS","de":"EU-Gesetzgebung","en":"EU legislation"},{"code":"FOI_ENVIRONMENT_SUSTAINABILITY","de":"Nachhaltigkeit und Ressourcenschutz","en":"Sustainability and resource protection"}]},{"regulatoryProjectNumber":"RV0003382","title":"24.038_WindSeeG - Vergabe künftiger Offshore-Flächen nach Kriterien","printedMattersPresent":false,"printedMatters":[],"draftBillPresent":false,"description":"Bei der Vergabe von Offshoreflächen müssen die Interessen der Industrie einer Stromversorgung zu international wettbewerbsfähigen Preisen mit berücksichtigt werden. Die Vergabe sollte zukünftig anhand von Kriterien erfolgen, welche auch die Förderung der industriellen Transformation umfassen, um die politisch gewünschte Lenkungswirkung zu erzielen.","affectedLawsPresent":true,"affectedLaws":[{"title":"Gesetz zur Entwicklung und Förderung der Windenergie auf See","shortTitle":"WindSeeG","url":"https://www.gesetze-im-internet.de/windseeg"}],"fieldsOfInterest":[{"code":"FOI_ENERGY_RENEWABLE","de":"Erneuerbare Energien","en":"Renewable energy"}]},{"regulatoryProjectNumber":"RV0003383","title":"24.039_EU-Verordnung über entwaldungsfreie Lieferketten","printedMattersPresent":false,"printedMatters":[],"draftBillPresent":false,"description":"Präzisierung des Geltungsbereichs der VO, Klärung des konkreten Umsetzungsverfahrens, ggf. Verschiebung der Umsetzung.","affectedLawsPresent":false,"affectedLaws":[],"fieldsOfInterest":[{"code":"FOI_ENVIRONMENT_SUSTAINABILITY","de":"Nachhaltigkeit und Ressourcenschutz","en":"Sustainability and resource protection"}]},{"regulatoryProjectNumber":"RV0010662","title":"24.041_Nicht-Einführung von Ausgleichszöllen auf batteriebetriebene Fahrzeuge (BEV) aus China","printedMattersPresent":false,"printedMatters":[],"draftBillPresent":false,"description":"Volkswagen als globaler Konzern ist Verfechter einer regelbasierten Handelsordnung. Ausgleichszölle sind generell nicht geeignet, die Wettbewerbsfähigkeit der europäischen Automobilindustrie langfristig zu stärken. Die Volkswagen AG lehnt diese ab. Für die aktuelle Nachfrageschwäche für BEV-Fahrzeuge in Deutschland und Europa ist der Zeitpunkt der Entscheidung der EU-Kommission nachteilig. Die negativen Auswirkungen dieser Entscheidung überwiegen den etwaigen Nutzen für die europäische Automobilindustrie. Europa braucht ein regulatorisches Umfeld, in dem die Automobilindustrie in der Transformation zur E-Mobilität und zur Klimaneutralität gestärkt wird. ","affectedLawsPresent":false,"affectedLaws":[],"fieldsOfInterest":[{"code":"FOI_FOREIGN_TRADE","de":"Außenwirtschaft","en":"Foreign trade"},{"code":"FOI_ECONOMY_AUTOMOBILE","de":"Automobilwirtschaft","en":"Automotive industry"},{"code":"FOI_EU_LAWS","de":"EU-Gesetzgebung","en":"EU legislation"}]},{"regulatoryProjectNumber":"RV0010663","title":"24.042_Umsetzung des Handels- und Kooperationsabkommen zwischen der EU und UK (TCA) ","printedMattersPresent":false,"printedMatters":[],"draftBillPresent":false,"description":"Die Umsetzung des Handels- und Kooperationsabkommens sollte die Wettbewerbsfähigkeit der Automobilindustrie in Europa unterstützen. Rechtsunsicherheit für Unternehmen sollte vermieden werden. Planungskontinuität ist für den Volkswagen Konzern essentiell, um die Transformation in Richtung Elektrifizierung in Europa voranzubringen.","affectedLawsPresent":false,"affectedLaws":[],"fieldsOfInterest":[{"code":"FOI_FA_INTERNATIONAL","de":"Internationale Beziehungen","en":"International relations"},{"code":"FOI_ECONOMY_SERVICES","de":"Handel und Dienstleistungen","en":"Trade and services"},{"code":"FOI_EU_LAWS","de":"EU-Gesetzgebung","en":"EU legislation"},{"code":"FOI_FOREIGN_TRADE","de":"Außenwirtschaft","en":"Foreign trade"}]},{"regulatoryProjectNumber":"RV0011577","title":"24.043_EU-UK TCA - fehlende Ausnahmevereinbarung: Nachteile bei der Unfallversicherung der Inanspruchnahme von Alterszeit.","printedMattersPresent":false,"printedMatters":[],"draftBillPresent":false,"description":"Expats, die zeitlich befristet den Sozialversicherungsvorschriften im UK unterliegen, sollen künftig wieder eine gesetzliche deutsche Unfallversicherung sowie eine Möglichkeit zur Nutzung der Altersteilzeit erhalten.","affectedLawsPresent":true,"affectedLaws":[{"title":"Sozialgesetzbuch (SGB) Drittes Buch (III) - Arbeitsförderung - (Artikel 1 des Gesetzes vom 24. März 1997, BGBl. I S. 594)","shortTitle":"SGB 3","url":"https://www.gesetze-im-internet.de/sgb_3"},{"title":"Altersteilzeitgesetz","shortTitle":"AltTZG 1996","url":"https://www.gesetze-im-internet.de/alttzg_1996"}],"fieldsOfInterest":[{"code":"FOI_SS_ACCIDENT","de":"Unfallversicherung","en":"Accident insurance"},{"code":"FOI_WORK_RIGHT","de":"Arbeitsrecht/Arbeitsbedingungen","en":"Work right"}]},{"regulatoryProjectNumber":"RV0012081","title":"20.044_Maßnahmen zur Stärkung der Wettbewerbsfähigkeit der dt. Automobilindustrie","printedMattersPresent":false,"printedMatters":[],"draftBillPresent":false,"description":"Erhöhung der Nachfrage nach BEV- Fahrzeugen, durch staatliche Prämien (u.a.Umweltbonus), steuerliche Anreize und günstigeren Standortbedingungen.","affectedLawsPresent":false,"affectedLaws":[],"fieldsOfInterest":[{"code":"FOI_ECONOMY_AUTOMOBILE","de":"Automobilwirtschaft","en":"Automotive industry"}]},{"regulatoryProjectNumber":"RV0012835","title":"24.045 Veränderung für eine mögliche Einbeziehung der Arbeitsmedizin bei ärztlicher Versorgung der Mitarbeitenden","printedMattersPresent":true,"printedMatters":[{"title":"Entwurf eines Gesetzes zur Stärkung der Gesundheitsversorgung in der Kommune (Gesundheitsversorgungsstärkungsgesetz - GVSG)","printingNumber":"20/11853","issuer":"BT","documentUrl":"https://dserver.bundestag.de/btd/20/118/2011853.pdf","projectUrl":"https://dip.bundestag.de/vorgang/gesetz-zur-st%C3%A4rkung-der-gesundheitsversorgung-in-der-kommune-gesundheitsversorgungsst%C3%A4rkungsgesetz-gvsg/312308","leadingMinistries":[{"title":"Bundesministerium für Gesundheit","shortTitle":"BMG","electionPeriod":20,"url":"https://www.bundesgesundheitsministerium.de/"}]}],"draftBillPresent":false,"description":"Ziel ist eine bessere Verzahnung von arbeitsmedizinischer und hausärztlicher Betreuung über sektorale Grenzen hinaus. \r\nViele Großunternehmen in Deutschland verfügen über ein internes Gesundheitswesen mit angestellten Ärztinnen und Ärzten unterschiedlicher Fachrichtungen. Aktuell existiert eine Mauer zwischen den Aufgaben der ArbeitsmedizinerInnen und dem ambulanten ärztlichen Bereich in der Niederlassung. Die in Unternehmen angestellten MedizinerInnen dürfen aktuell weder verordnen noch weiterführende Behandlungen ausstellen. Im Sinne der Verbesserung der medizinischen Versorgung gilt es zu prüfen, welchen Beitrag die Arbeitsmedizin leisten kann – besonders um schwere oder später potentiell chronische Leiden zu behandeln und heilen.","affectedLawsPresent":false,"affectedLaws":[],"fieldsOfInterest":[{"code":"FOI_HEALTH_OTHER","de":"Sonstiges im Bereich \"Gesundheit\"","en":"Other in the field of \"Health\""}]},{"regulatoryProjectNumber":"RV0013607","title":"24.046_Wesen der EU-Abgasverordnung vor RDE-Einführung beibehalten: Test ausschließlich im NEFZ","printedMattersPresent":false,"printedMatters":[],"draftBillPresent":false,"description":"Klarstellung durch EU-Kommission, dass RDE nicht rückwirkend auf die Zeit vor 2017 (NEFZ) anzuwenden ist.","affectedLawsPresent":false,"affectedLaws":[],"fieldsOfInterest":[{"code":"FOI_EU_LAWS","de":"EU-Gesetzgebung","en":"EU legislation"},{"code":"FOI_ECONOMY_AUTOMOBILE","de":"Automobilwirtschaft","en":"Automotive industry"}]},{"regulatoryProjectNumber":"RV0017374","title":"25.001_Entwicklung einer Berechnungsmethode für LCA von CO2-Emissionen für PKW/LDV","printedMattersPresent":false,"printedMatters":[],"draftBillPresent":false,"description":"Für die Berechnung von LCA in der Automobilindustrie sollte es einen weltweit harmonisierten Standard geben. CO2-Reduktionsvorschriften sollten sektor-spezifisch geregelt werden und eine LCA-Methode freiwillig angewendet werden können, ohne dass es eine Targetierung gibt.","affectedLawsPresent":false,"affectedLaws":[],"fieldsOfInterest":[{"code":"FOI_ECONOMY_AUTOMOBILE","de":"Automobilwirtschaft","en":"Automotive industry"},{"code":"FOI_ENVIRONMENT_CLIMATE","de":"Klimaschutz","en":"Climate protection"},{"code":"FOI_EU_LAWS","de":"EU-Gesetzgebung","en":"EU legislation"}]},{"regulatoryProjectNumber":"RV0019938","title":"25.002_Revision der REACH Regulierung für eine vereinfachte, schnellere,  und prozesssichere Umsetzung","printedMattersPresent":false,"printedMatters":[],"draftBillPresent":false,"description":"Die Überarbeitung der REACH Chemikalien-Regulierung für eine vereinfachte, schnellere,  und prozesssichere Umsetzung der bestehenden Regeln. Die Regulierung ist gut, bedarf aber einer Vereinfachung und Präzisierung, um sie bei der steigenden Zahl regulierter Stoffe weiterhin prozesssicher umsetzbar zu halten.","affectedLawsPresent":false,"affectedLaws":[],"fieldsOfInterest":[{"code":"FOI_EU_LAWS","de":"EU-Gesetzgebung","en":"EU legislation"},{"code":"FOI_ECONOMY_INDUSTRIAL","de":"Industriepolitik","en":"Industrial policy"},{"code":"FOI_ECONOMY_CONSUMER_PROTECTION","de":"Verbraucherschutz","en":"Consumer protection"}]},{"regulatoryProjectNumber":"RV0019939","title":"25.003_Forschungs- und Innovationspolitik","printedMattersPresent":false,"printedMatters":[],"draftBillPresent":false,"description":"Schaffung forschungs- und innovationspolitischer Rahmenbedingungen, Förderprozesse und Forschungs- und Innovationsförderung. Auf Bundes- und EU-Ebene ist agile, digitale und pragmatische Gestaltung der Forschungs- und Innovationsförderung von entscheidender Bedeutung. ","affectedLawsPresent":false,"affectedLaws":[],"fieldsOfInterest":[{"code":"FOI_ECONOMY_AUTOMOBILE","de":"Automobilwirtschaft","en":"Automotive industry"}]},{"regulatoryProjectNumber":"RV0020560","title":"25.004_BDSG Reform - Restrukturierung der Datenschutzaufsicht in Deutschland","printedMattersPresent":false,"printedMatters":[],"draftBillPresent":false,"description":"VW Group setzt sich dafür ein, dass die Datenschutzaufsicht in Deutschland dahingehend umstrukturiert wird, dass eine verlässlichere, ausgewogenere und einheitlichere Auslegung der vagen Gesetzgebung mindestens für das gesamte Bundesgebiet erfolgt. Hierbei setzen wir uns dafür ein, dass gewisse Kompetenzen der Rechtsauslegung von den Landesbehörden auf die Bundesdatenschutzbeauftragte übergehen.","affectedLawsPresent":true,"affectedLaws":[{"title":"Bundesdatenschutzgesetz","shortTitle":"BDSG 2018","url":"https://www.gesetze-im-internet.de/bdsg_2018"}],"fieldsOfInterest":[{"code":"FOI_MEDIA_PRIVACY","de":"Datenschutz und Informationssicherheit","en":"Data protection and information security"}]},{"regulatoryProjectNumber":"RV0020561","title":"25.005_DSGVO und ePrivacy Reform auf EU Ebene","printedMattersPresent":false,"printedMatters":[],"draftBillPresent":false,"description":"Wir setzen uns dafür ein, dass auf EU Ebene eine Reform der Datenschutzgesetze erfolgt. Unsere Ziele dabei sind dabei allgemeine Änderungen, die eine ausgewogenere und innovationsfreundlichere Auslegung der Gesetzte vorsieht sowie gezielte Anpassungen der DSGVO und der ePrivacy Regelungen, die sich als praxisfern und unnötig innovationshindernd herausgestellt haben. Auch setzen wir uns dafür ein, dass Branchenstandards wie Codes of Conduct eine wichtigere Bedeutung bei der Rechtsumsetzung zukommt.","affectedLawsPresent":false,"affectedLaws":[],"fieldsOfInterest":[{"code":"FOI_MEDIA_PRIVACY","de":"Datenschutz und Informationssicherheit","en":"Data protection and information security"}]},{"regulatoryProjectNumber":"RV0020821","title":"25.006_Zur Einführung von Lokalisierungsvorgaben durch die EU (\"local content requirements\")","printedMattersPresent":false,"printedMatters":[],"draftBillPresent":false,"description":"Unterstützung bei der Festlegung der  strategischen Zielsetzung einer Gesetzgebung. Wenn eingeführt sollten LCR realistisch, wettbewerbsfähig und industriepolitisch kohärent gestaltet werden. Mit einer Einführung sind Herausforderungen verbunden, deren Bewältigung eine Umsetzung spezifischer Maßnahmen erfordert. ","affectedLawsPresent":false,"affectedLaws":[],"fieldsOfInterest":[{"code":"FOI_EU_LAWS","de":"EU-Gesetzgebung","en":"EU legislation"},{"code":"FOI_ECONOMY_AUTOMOBILE","de":"Automobilwirtschaft","en":"Automotive industry"}]},{"regulatoryProjectNumber":"RV0020822","title":"25.007_Realistische Ausgestaltung des angekündigten EU Circular Economy Act","printedMattersPresent":false,"printedMatters":[],"draftBillPresent":false,"description":"Realistische Ausgestaltung der Anforderungen des EU Circular Economy Act. Z.B. umsetzbare Rezyklingquoten und Rezyklateinsatzquoten anhand von Verfügbarkeitsanalysen mit ausreichendem Vorlauf. Einführung des Prinzipes Repair-as-Produced. Harmonisierung der erweiterten Hersteller-Verantwortung innerhalb der EU.","affectedLawsPresent":false,"affectedLaws":[],"fieldsOfInterest":[{"code":"FOI_ECONOMY_AUTOMOBILE","de":"Automobilwirtschaft","en":"Automotive industry"},{"code":"FOI_EU_LAWS","de":"EU-Gesetzgebung","en":"EU legislation"},{"code":"FOI_ENVIRONMENT_CLIMATE","de":"Klimaschutz","en":"Climate protection"}]}]},"statements":{"statementsPresent":true,"statementsCount":23,"statements":[{"regulatoryProjectNumber":"RV0003344","regulatoryProjectTitle":"24.001_Veränderungen für eine angemessene nationale Umsetzung der NIS-2-Richtlinie","pdfUrl":"https://www.lobbyregister.bundestag.de/media/e8/da/300222/Stellungnahme-Gutachten-SG2406100007.pdf","pdfPageCount":8,"text":{"copyrightAcknowledgement":"Die grundlegenden Stellungnahmen und Gutachten können urheberrechtlich geschützte Werke enthalten. Eine Nutzung ist nur im urheberrechtlich zulässigen Rahmen erlaubt.","text":"INTERNAL\r\nExpert Group on Radio Regulation\r\nACEA/CLEPA POSITION\r\n7 February 2024\r\nEU NG ECALL \r\nREGULATION – ARTICLE 2\r\nINTERNAL\r\n1. Art. 2(2) - Timeline for implementation of EU NG \r\n2. Simplified type approval procedure for existing types\r\nAGENDA\r\n2\r\nINTERNAL\r\nITEM 1\r\nART. 2(2) - TIMELINE FOR IMPLEMENTATION\r\nwww.acea.auto 3\r\nINTERNAL\r\nARTICLE 2 – TIMELINE FOR IMPLEMENTATION OF EU NG \r\nECALL REGULATION\r\n4\r\n2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029\r\nLegal requirements: \r\n• CEN Standards available\r\n• PSAP and MNO update plan\r\nEU NG eCall implementation/development\r\n(final): \r\n• Implementation in EU Member States \r\nPSAP\r\n• Implementation in EU member States MNO \r\n• Qualification test systems for type approval\r\n• Implementation in-vehicle system (IVS)\r\n• HW-Development \r\n• SW-Development\r\n• Test & Validation \r\n• …\r\neCall certification at STU level\r\n• Definition of certification tests\r\n• STU certification (technical service & \r\nauthority)\r\nVehicle homologation (New Types)\r\n• Vehicle homologation (technical service & \r\nauthority)\r\nVehicle homologation (All Types) –\r\n• Definition of simplified vehicle tests\r\n• Vehicle homologation (technical service & \r\nauthority)\r\nQ2, .2024\r\nEntry into force\r\n01.01.2026 01.01.2027\r\nDevelopment of legal \r\nrequirement and publication\r\nof regulation\r\nImplementation / \r\nDevelopment \r\n(PSAP,MNO,OEM, \r\nSupplier)\r\nTechnical \r\nService & \r\nAuthority\r\nNT + extensions of existing\r\nTA‘s\r\nAT\r\nACEA/CLEPA \r\nsuggestion for \r\nnew types\r\nActual transitional provision of regulation draft\r\nACEA/CLEPA \r\nsuggestion for \r\nall types\r\n4\r\nINTERNAL\r\nITEM 2\r\nSIMPLIFIED PROCEDURE FOR EXISTING TYPES\r\nwww.acea.auto 5\r\nINTERNAL\r\n• Only the voice communication and MSD transfer is different to the \r\ncurrent EU CS eCall. Therefore eCall triggering and component \r\ntesting is not necessary for type approving NG eCall.\r\n• Suggestion: For all type vehicles, the whole set of eCall tests should \r\nnot be required.\r\n• Only network specific tests should be required.\r\n• Revised eCall Declaration of Conformity should be sufficient.\r\n• No new homologation tests should be needed as there should be no \r\nchange to component packaging/crash performance etc.\r\n6\r\nACEA/CLEPA PROPOSAL\r\nSIMPLIFIED TYPE APPROVAL PROCEDURE: EXISTING TYPES\r\nINTERNAL\r\n2. With effect from 1 January 2026, national authorities shall refuse to grant new type\r\napprovals or extensions for existing approvals for vehicles, systems, components or\r\nseparate technical units, where those do not comply with Regulation (EU) 2015/758, as\r\namended by this Regulation.\r\n2. With effect from 1 January 2026, national authorities shall refuse to grant new type\r\napprovals (according to 2024/xxx) or extensions for existing approvals (according to\r\n2015/758) for vehicles, systems, components or separate technical units, where those do\r\nnot comply with Regulation (EU) 2015/758, as amended by this Regulation.\r\n7\r\nEXTENSION FOR EXISTING APPROVALS\r\nwww.acea.auto\r\nCLARIFICATION OF ARTICLE 2(2)\r\nThis sentence kills any possibility of extension for the addition of a new component (e.g. : shortage of \r\ncurrent supplier) from January to December 2026. \r\nIn addition, there is uncertainty regarding the reference to the Type approval Regulation\r\nWe propose :\r\nThis clarification eliminates the uncertainty born from the reference to the type approval Regulation (it is \r\nalways 2015/758) and opens the door to extensions for existing vehicles and systems until the end of 2026.\r\n7\r\nINTERNAL\r\nREPRESENTS EUROPE’S 14 MAJOR CAR, VAN, TRUCK AND BUS MANUFACTURERS\r\nACEA\r\nEuropean Automobile \r\nManufacturers’ Association\r\n+32 2 732 55 50\r\ninfo@acea.auto\r\nwww.acea.auto youtube.com/c/ACEAauto\r\nlinkedin.com/company/acea\r\ntwitter.com/ACEA_auto"},"recipientGroups":[{"recipients":{"parliament":[],"federalGovernment":[{"department":{"title":"Bundesministerium für Umwelt, Naturschutz, nukleare Sicherheit und Verbraucherschutz (BMUV) (20. WP)","shortTitle":"BMUV (20. WP)","url":"https://www.bmuv.de/","electionPeriod":20}}]},"sendingDate":"2024-03-04"}]},{"regulatoryProjectNumber":"RV0003352","regulatoryProjectTitle":"24.009_Ausgestaltung der EU End of Life Vehicles Regulation","pdfUrl":"https://www.lobbyregister.bundestag.de/media/69/62/392103/Stellungnahme-Gutachten-SG2412120042.pdf","pdfPageCount":78,"text":{"copyrightAcknowledgement":"Die grundlegenden Stellungnahmen und Gutachten können urheberrechtlich geschützte Werke enthalten. Eine Nutzung ist nur im urheberrechtlich zulässigen Rahmen erlaubt.","text":"Input to the Working Party on the Environment (WPE), 2nd Dec. 2024 to the proposal for a \r\nRegulation on circularity requirements for vehicle design and on management of end-of-life \r\nvehicles \r\nFor the next meeting of the working group Party on the Environment (WPE) on the 2nd of December \r\n2024 we reply to the compromise text proposal posed by the Hungarian Presidency of the EU \r\nCouncil in their Meeting Document WK 14983/2024 INIT. \r\nIn this document we provide: \r\nSection 1: A list of priority topics and amendments \r\nSection 2: General remarks \r\nSection 3: Detailed analysis of the compromise text proposal \r\nThe following topics (I ..IV) are of highest relevance for our industry to achieve realistic and \r\nreasonable targets I the new ELVR: \r\nI. \r\nThe recycled content target for plastic (Art. 6) does not reflect the expected availability of \r\nsupply within the EU or the limitations from technical feasibility. It is expected, that only imports \r\nof recyclate and especially closed loop recyclate from outside EU (e.g. China) will be available \r\nto fulfil such high values, before a marked has been established. \r\nIn addition, the definition of plastic in Art. 3 includes types of plastic, which cannot be recycled \r\nand the target has been defined, before a methodology has been introduced. \r\nTherefore, the target for plastics should be reduced to a technically achievable value, with all \r\nsustainable materials should be considered towards the target and the removal of the separate \r\nclosed-loop requirement, and the definition refined. \r\nAmendment-Proposal: \r\nCompromise text WPE 2.12. \r\nCounter Proposals \r\nArt. 6, 1 \r\nThe plastic contained in each vehicle type \r\nthat is type-approved as of [OP: Please \r\ninsert the date = the first day of the \r\nmonth following 72 months after the \r\ndate of entry into force of the \r\nRegulation] under Regulation (EU) \r\n2018/858 shall contain a minimum of [ \r\n%] of plastic recycled by weight from \r\npost-consumer plastic waste. \r\nAt least [ %] of the target set out in the \r\nfirst subparagraph shall be achieved by \r\nincluding plastics recycled from end-of\r\nlife vehicles in the vehicle type \r\nconcerned. \r\nThe plastic contained in each vehicle type \r\nthat is type-approved as of [OP: Please \r\ninsert the date = the first day of the \r\nmonth following 72 months after the \r\ndate of entry into force of the \r\nRegulation] under Regulation (EU) \r\n2018/858 entry into force of the \r\nimplementing act referred to Art. 6 (2) \r\nshall contain a minimum of 25% 15% of \r\nplastic recyclates by weight from waste, \r\nincluding plastics recycled from end-of\r\nlife vehicles and workshop waste, and \r\nplastics from sustainable sources \r\nincluding via a mass balance approach. \r\n[The weight of the plastic contained in \r\neach vehicle and the weight of recycled \r\nplastic referred to in the first \r\nAt least 25 % of the target set out in the \r\nfirst subparagraph shall be achieved by \r\nincluding plastics recycled from closed \r\nsubparagraph shall exclude elastomers, \r\nthermosets other than polyurethane \r\nfoams used for cushioning and plastics \r\nthat contain or are contaminated by any \r\nsubstance regulated by Article 7 of \r\nRegulation (EU) 2019/1021 when the \r\nthresholds of Annex IV of that Regulation \r\nare exceeded.] \r\nSource: Hungarian Presidency Steering \r\nNote 02.12.24 \r\nII. \r\nloop sources, such as end-of-life in the \r\nvehicle type concerned.  \r\n[The weight of the plastic contained in \r\neach vehicle and the weight of recycled \r\nplastic referred to in the first \r\nsubparagraph shall exclude elastomers, \r\nthermosets other than polyurethane \r\nfoams used for cushioning and plastics \r\nthat contain or are contaminated by any \r\nsubstance regulated by Article 7 of \r\nRegulation (EU) 2019/1021 when the \r\nthresholds of Annex IV of that \r\nRegulation are exceeded.] \r\nThe design for dismantling and removability obligations (Art. 7 & Annex VII C), need to be \r\nrevised and adapted to the purpose and technically feasibility. For some components in the list \r\nthere is no possibility for easy dismantling at the design stage and often no market for them as \r\nspare parts. For many components, the use of modern, economically efficient and industrially \r\napplicable sorting technologies after shredding leads to comparable separation results and \r\nunmixed material streams for further recycling. \r\nThe purpose of dismantling (e.g. whether for recycling or refurbish/reuse) defines the needed \r\n“quality” of dismantling. Components, where a market for spare parts is established (e.g. engine, \r\nbattery) need to be dismantled in a high quality manner. Various parts of Annex VII C (e.g. glass, \r\nplastic fuel tanks, heat exchangers) should fall under the exempted under Article 30 point 2, \r\nbecause their dismantling is conducted, to allow better recycling processes. Those two different \r\n“qualities” of dismantling lead to very different efforts (time and CO2) and consequent costs. \r\nTherefore removal obligations for components must always be technically feasible and should be \r\nreasonable and proportionate. A specific use must also exist. Mandatory manual dismantling \r\nshould only be specified if the desired goals cannot be achieved otherwise. In principle, the best \r\navailable technology should be used for each recycling process. \r\nAmendment-Proposal, see under Art. 7 and Annex VII C \r\nPlease see Section 3 of this Document. \r\nIII. \r\nThe extended producer responsibilities of the vehicle producer have significantly expanded \r\n(Art. 16), including the obligation to monitor ELV treatment facilities and waste management \r\noperators and to compensate financial gaps.\r\n Therefore, the producer should have the right of precedence to organise his waste and the \r\nobligations should be limited to those waste management operators or treatment facilities, \r\nwhich are included in the producer’s organisation or where a contractual basis between producer \r\nand waste management operator or treatment facility exists. \r\nAmendment-Proposals: \r\nCompromise text WPE 2.12. \r\nCounter Proposals \r\nArt. 15, \r\n3a \r\n \r\nSource: Hungarian Presidency Steering Note 02.12.24 \r\n \r\nOnly authorised treatment facilities and \r\ncollection points that are in contract \r\nwith the producer or, where appointed \r\nin accordance with Article 18, the \r\nproducer responsibility organisation and \r\nthat are not suspended after inspection \r\nin accordance with Art. 46, are allowed \r\nto collect end of life vehicles. \r\nArt. 16 \r\nFrom [OP: Please insert the date = the \r\nfirst day of the month following 36 \r\nmonths after the date of entry into force \r\nof this Regulation] producers shall have \r\nextended producer responsibility for \r\nvehicles that they make available on the \r\nmarket for the first time within the \r\nterritory of a Member State. The \r\nextended producer responsibility scheme \r\nestablished by producers to exercise \r\nthat responsibility shall be consistent \r\nwith Articles 8 and 8a of Directive \r\n2008/98/EC and comply with the \r\nrequirements of this Chapter. \r\nA producer selling vehicles by means of \r\ndistance contracts directly to end-users \r\nin a Member State, and established in \r\nanother Member State or in a third \r\ncountry, shall appoint an authorised \r\nrepresentative for extended producer \r\nresponsibility in each Member State on \r\nthe territory of which it makes its \r\nvehicles available on the market for the \r\nfirst time. Such appointment shall be \r\nmade by written mandate. \r\nThe extended producer responsibility \r\nshall include the obligation for producers \r\nto ensure that:  \r\n(a) vehicles which they have made \r\navailable on the market for the first time \r\nwithin the territory of a Member State \r\nand which become end-of-life vehicles  \r\n(i) collected in accordance with Article \r\n23;  \r\nFrom [OP: Please insert the date = the \r\nfirst day of the month following 36 \r\nmonths after the date of entry into force \r\nof this Regulation] producers shall have \r\nextended producer responsibility for \r\nvehicles that they make available on the \r\nmarket for the first time within the \r\nterritory of a Member State. The \r\nextended producer responsibility scheme \r\nestablished by producers to exercise \r\nthat responsibility shall be consistent \r\nwith Articles 8 and 8a of Directive \r\n2008/98/EC and comply with the \r\nrequirements of this Chapter. \r\nA producer selling vehicles by means of \r\ndistance contracts directly to end-users \r\nin a Member State, and established in \r\nanother Member State or in a third \r\ncountry, shall appoint an authorised \r\nrepresentative for extended producer \r\nresponsibility in each Member State on \r\nthe territory of which it makes its \r\nvehicles available on the market for the \r\nfirst time. Such appointment shall be \r\nmade by written mandate. \r\nThe extended producer responsibility \r\nshall include the obligation for producers \r\nto ensure that:  \r\n(a) vehicles which they have made \r\navailable on the market for the first time \r\nwithin the territory of a Member State \r\nand which become end-of-life vehicles \r\nare \r\n(i) collected in accordance with Article \r\n23;  \r\n(ii) treated in accordance with Article 27;  \r\n(b) the waste management operators \r\ntreating end-of-life vehicles referred to in \r\npoint (a) meet the targets laid down in \r\nArticle 34. \r\n \r\nSource: Hungarian Presidency Steering Note 02.12.24  \r\n(ii) treated in accordance with Article 27; \r\nby treatment facilities that possess a \r\nvalid permit in accordance with Art. 15 \r\nand are not suspended after inspection \r\nin accordance with Art. 46.  \r\n(b) the waste management operators \r\ntreating end-of-life vehicles referred to \r\nin point (a) meet the targets laid down \r\nin Article 34. \r\nArt. 18, 1 \r\nSource: Hungarian Presidency Steering 02.12.24 \r\n \r\n \r\nIV. The extended producer responsibility for HDV lacks a comprehensive approach, as the whole of \r\nthe multi-stage vehicle should be covered by this requirement, not just the base vehicle. \r\nOtherwise, the resulting legal uncertainty and lack of strict environmental obligations may \r\nseriously reduce the efficiency of the ELV Regulation for HDV. \r\nTherefore, the scope of the ELV Regulation should be expanded by the bodywork of the multi\r\nstage vehicle with regard to the extended producer responsibility. \r\nAmendment-Proposal: \r\n Compromise text WPE 2.12. Counter Proposals \r\nArt. 2, 3 \r\nNotwithstanding paragraph 1, point (b), \r\nthe following provisions shall not apply to \r\nvehicles and end-of-life vehicles of \r\ncategories M2, M3, N2, N3 and O: \r\n(b) Article 5 on requirements for \r\nsubstances in vehicles;  \r\n … \r\n(e) Article 8 on general obligations;  \r\n \r\nNotwithstanding paragraph 1, point (b), \r\nthe following provisions shall not apply to \r\nvehicles and end-of-life vehicles of \r\ncategories M2, M3, N2, N3 and O, \r\nincluding special purpose vehicles of \r\nthese categories:  \r\n(b) Article 5 on requirements for \r\nsubstances in vehicles;  \r\n … \r\n(e) Article 8 on general obligations, \r\npoints 1-4;  \r\nArt. 2, 5 \r\nNotwithstanding paragraph 2, point (a), \r\nthe following provisions shall apply to \r\nspecial purpose vehicles: \r\n(a) Article 5 on requirements for \r\nsubstances in vehicles;  \r\nNotwithstanding paragraph 2, point (a), \r\nand without prejudice to paragraph 3, \r\nthe following provisions shall apply to \r\nspecial purpose vehicles:  \r\n(a) Article 5 on requirements for \r\nsubstances in vehicles;  \r\nArt. 2, 6 \r\nNotwithstanding paragraph 1, points (b) \r\nand (c), Articles 16, 19, 20, 27 and 46 to \r\n49 shall apply to vehicles and end-of-life \r\nvehicles of categories L3, L4, L5, L6 L7, \r\nM2, M3, N2, N3 and O with the following \r\nmodifications: \r\n(…) \r\nNotwithstanding Without prejudice to \r\nparagraph 1, points (b) and (c), and \r\nparagraph 2 point (b) Articles 16, 19, 20, \r\n27 and 46 to 49 shall apply to vehicles \r\nand end-of-life vehicles of categories L3, \r\nL4, L5, L6 L7, M2, M3, N2, N3 and O and \r\nto other parts of a vehicle that have \r\nbeen type-approved in multi-stage type \r\napproval of category N1, N2, N3, M2 or \r\nM3 than the base vehicle with the \r\nfollowing modifications: \r\nAs a vehicle manufacturer (OEM), we fully support the advancing of the European Union into a \r\nmodern, resource-efficient and competitive economy. Therefore, we welcome the revision of the \r\nend-of-life (ELV) vehicle regulation - the EU Commission’s current proposal will lead to a \r\ntransformation towards improved sustainability, circularity and innovation. The automotive industry \r\nis ready to design their products to achieve further advanced circularity. \r\nThe ELV Regulation is currently and should remain the central piece of legislation dealing with \r\ncircularity requirements for design, production and end-of-life treatment of vehicles and their \r\ncomponents. Consequently, there is no need to regulate the automotive sector in other legislative \r\nacts, e.g., the eco-design for sustainable products Regulation or the Directive on common rules \r\npromoting the repair of goods (a.k.a. right to repair). \r\nIn addition, the choice of the legal instrument (Regulation replacing Directive) will secure the \r\nimplementation of a harmonised framework for vehicles in each Member State, reducing operating \r\ncosts for all economic operators while delivering tangible environmental benefits. The co-legislators \r\nshould therefore refrain from providing unnecessary, costly and burdensome flexibility to Member \r\nStates, especially for the extended producer responsibility (EPR) obligations. The new Regulation is a \r\nchance to finally implement requirements from the existing ELV-Directive (e.g. certificate of \r\ndestruction) which would be a prerequisite for the success of the Regulation. \r\nWe would also like to highlight the important links between competition and environmental policies. \r\nIn order to ensure that environmental policy does not harm competition, we recommend \r\nundertaking a competition impact assessment of legislative proposals on extended producer \r\nresponsibility by the EU COM and to provide clarification regarding the collective setting-up of \r\nProducer Responsibility Organisations (PRO) or monitoring of costs by authorities by DG COMP. \r\nWe would like to draw attention to the fact, that increasing obligations for manufacturers, producers \r\nand other economic operators need to be accompanied by proper enforcement by the respective \r\nnational authorities. To achieve the goals set by the Regulation and to secure a level playing field for \r\nall manufacturers, producers and other economic operators, harmonised enforcement rules across \r\nall EU Member States are vital. To avoid competitive disadvantages for the European automotive \r\nindustry, the legislator should only implement obligations that can also be enforced, particularly \r\nwith respect to operators from third countries. \r\nFinally, we urge careful consideration of setting the requirements for passenger cars and heavy-duty \r\nvehicles (HDV) on separate tracks, taking into account the specificities of these different products. It \r\nis important not to make HDV requirements dependent on those planned for cars and keep the EU \r\nCommission proposal of a 60 month transition period for all requirements for HDVs. In this way, a \r\nmanageable approach with the best practical results can be achieved for vehicle categories new to \r\nthe ELV Regulation. \r\nIn general, based on an initial assessment of the draft regulation and the subsequent amendment \r\nproposal from the Council Working Party Environment, we have identified a number of ambiguities, \r\nuncertainties and challenges. These include obligations and responsibilities, lack of methodologies, \r\ndefinitions and information requirements. They can be found in the following Articles: \r\nArt. 3 sets out a number of definitions. \r\nAmendment Proposal: \r\n Legislative Proposals Proposals \r\nArt. 3, 1 \r\n(4), (6), \r\n(7) \r\n‘reusability’ means the possibility for reuse \r\nof parts or components diverted from an \r\nend-of-life vehicle; \r\n(6) ‘recyclability’ means the possibility for \r\nrecycling of parts, components or materials \r\ndiverted from an end-of-life vehicle; \r\n(7) ‘recoverability’ means the possibility for \r\nrecovery of parts, components or materials \r\ndiverted from an end-of-life vehicle \r\nSource: Hungarian Presidency 02.12.24 \r\n(4)reusability’ means the possibility \r\npotential for reuse of parts or \r\ncomponents diverted from an end-of\r\nlife vehicle; \r\n(6) ‘recyclability’ means the possibility \r\npotential for recycling of parts, \r\ncomponents or materials diverted from \r\nan end-of-life vehicle; \r\n(7) ‘recoverability’ means the \r\npossibility potential for recovery of \r\nparts, components or materials \r\ndiverted from an end-of-life vehicle \r\nAnalysis: \r\nThe definitions are similar to the definitions in the 2005/64/EC and UN R 133 (these legislations \r\nuse the word “potential” instead of “possibility”). They should remain aligned with those \r\nlegislation. \r\nArt. 3, 1 \r\n(9) \r\n‘plastic’ means a polymer within the \r\nmeaning of Article 3, point (5), of \r\nRegulation (EC) No 1907/2006, to which \r\nadditives or other substances may have \r\nbeen added and which can function as a \r\nmain structural component of final \r\nproducts, with the exception of natural \r\npolymers that have not been chemically \r\nmodified; \r\n \r\nSource: Hungarian Presidency Steering Note 02.12.24 \r\n‘plastic’ means a polymer within the \r\nmeaning of Article 3, point (5), of \r\nRegulation (EC) No 1907/2006, to \r\nwhich additives or other substances \r\nmay have been added; and which can \r\nfunction as a main structural \r\ncomponent of final products, with the \r\nexception of natural polymers that \r\nhave not been chemically modified \r\npolymeric materials that can be \r\nrepeatedly and reversibly melted, such \r\nas thermoplastics and thermoplastic \r\nelastomers. \r\nAnalysis: \r\nThe definition of “plastic” in REACh (EC 1907/2006) includes elastomers & process materials \r\n(paints, adhesives, sealant agents) in addition to thermoplastics and PU-foam whereas the JRC\r\nstudy excluded elastomers which are not mechanically recyclable. Furthermore, the definition is \r\nnot in line with what is mentioned under the Recital (19). \r\nThe definition of plastic should only apply to polymers which were in the focus of the JRC study \r\nduring impact assessment. The proposal in the Hungarian Presidency Steering Note does not seem \r\nto be aligned with the intention of either JRC nor the EU Commission.  \r\nArt. 3,1 \r\n(24) \r\n‘appointed authorised representative for \r\nthe extended producer responsibility’ \r\nmeans a natural or legal person \r\nestablished in a Member State in which \r\nthe producer makes vehicle available on \r\nthe market for the first time, which is \r\ndifferent from the Member State where \r\nthe producer is established, and is \r\nappointed by the producer in accordance \r\nwith Article 8a(5), third subparagraph, of \r\nDirective 2008/98/EC to fulfil the \r\nobligations of that producer under Chapter \r\nIV of this Regulation; \r\nSource: Hungarian Presidency Steering Note 02.12.24 - \r\nAnalysis: \r\nWe appreciate the clarification of the Hungarian Presidency regarding the Member State in which \r\nthe representative is established. \r\nArt. 3,1 \r\n(28) \r\n‘remanufacturing’ means an operation in \r\nprofessional actions through which a new \r\npart or component is manufactured from \r\nparts and components that are either \r\nremoved from vehicles or end-of-life \r\nvehicles and in through which at least one \r\nchange is made to the part or component \r\nthat substantially affects its the safety, \r\nperformance, purpose or type of the part \r\nor component; \r\n \r\n \r\n \r\n \r\n \r\nSource: Hungarian Presidency Steering Note 02.12.24 \r\n‘remanufacturing’ means an operation \r\nin actions through which a new part or \r\ncomponent is manufactured from \r\nparts and components that are either \r\nremoved from vehicles or end-of-life \r\nvehicles and in through which at least \r\none change is made to the part or \r\ncomponent that substantially affects \r\nits the safety, performance, purpose \r\nor type of the part or component; \r\na standardised industrial process that \r\ncan fulfil the product requirements as \r\nproduced, by which used products or \r\nparts are returned to same-as-new, or \r\nbetter condition and performance. The \r\nprocess is in line with specific technical \r\nspecifications, including engineering, \r\nquality and testing standards. The \r\nprocess yields fully warranted \r\nproducts;  \r\nAnalysis: \r\nRemanufacturing can only be offered by the vehicle/parts manufacturer (quality and unique \r\nselling point). Pre-requisite are the development competence and quality management systems of \r\nthe manufacturer, as well as the components’ compliance with technical specifications, however \r\nthe technical specification does not have to correspond to the new part product. Warranty is \r\nanalogous to new parts (usually 2 years), regardless of specifications. Reprocessed products must \r\nbe marked as such by the actor performing the reprocessing and clearly identify this actor.  \r\nWe recommend aligning the definition in this Regulation with ISO standard 59004:2024. This \r\nstandard is applicable for all sectors and has been adjusted in our proposal to be applied for \r\nvehicles. \r\nArt. 3,1 \r\n(29) \r\n‘refurbishment’ means actions carried out \r\nto prepare, clean, test, service and, where \r\nnecessary, repair a part or component \r\nthat is removed from vehicles or end-of\r\nlife vehicles in order to restore the its \r\nperformance or functionality of that part \r\nor component within the intended use \r\nand range of performance originally \r\nconceived at the design stage applicable \r\nat the time of its the placing of the part or \r\ncomponent on the market; \r\nSource: Hungarian Presidency Steering Note 02.12.24 \r\n‘refurbishment’ means actions carried \r\nout to prepare, clean, test, service and, \r\nwhere necessary, repair a part or \r\ncomponent that is removed from \r\nvehicles or end-of-life vehicles in order \r\nto restore its the performance or \r\nfunctionality of that part or \r\ncomponent within the intended use \r\nand range of performance originally \r\nconceived at the design stage \r\napplicable at the time of its the placing \r\nof the part or component on the \r\nmarket \r\nAnalysis: \r\nBased on our amendment proposal (Art. 3.1(28)) concerning “remanufacturing” the definition of \r\nrefurbishments needs to be adapted accordingly. Only parts from used vehicles can be subject to \r\nrefurbishment and it must be clearly distinguished from “remanufacturing”.  \r\nArt. 3, 1 \r\n(39) \r\n‘collection point’ means an economic \r\noperator other than an authorised \r\ntreatment facility, which temporary stores \r\nend-of-life vehicles and prepares for \r\ntransfer of the collected end-of-life \r\nvehicles to authorised treatment facilities \r\nfor treatment. \r\nSource: Hungarian Presidency Steering Note 02.12.24 - \r\nAnalysis: \r\nWe agree with the Presidency, that in order to provide sufficient clarification and to support the \r\nunderstanding of the requirements for all actors, since the Regulation differentiates between ATFs \r\nand collection points, a definition of “collection point” is required. We also agree with the \r\nproposed wording. \r\nArt. 3,1 \r\n(39) new - New definition: \r\n‘data carrier’ means a linear bar code \r\nsymbol, a two-dimensional symbol or \r\nother automatic identification data \r\ncapture medium that can be read by a \r\ndevice; \r\nAnalysis: \r\nA definition of data carrier is needed, independent of the ESPR. \r\nArt. 3,1 \r\n(40) \r\n‘biobased plastics’ means plastics made \r\nfrom biological resources, such as biomass \r\nfeedstock, organic waste or by-products. \r\nBiobased plastic can be both, and \r\nirrespective of whether the plastics are \r\nbiodegradable or non-biodegradable; \r\nSource: Hungarian Presidency Steering Note 02.12.24 \r\n‘biobased plastics’ means plastics made \r\nfrom biological resources, such as \r\nbiomass feedstock, organic waste or \r\nby-products. Biobased plastic can be \r\nboth, and irrespective of whether the \r\nplastics are biodegradable or non\r\nbiodegradable; \r\n \r\nAnalysis: \r\nIn vehicles, the use of bio-degradable plastic could lead to problems in mechanical recycling. In \r\nour careful consideration, only those biobased thermoplastics should be used, which can be \r\nrecycled together with other thermoplastics in normal processes. \r\nArt. 3, 2 In addition to the definitions referred to in \r\nparagraph 1, the following definitions shall \r\napply: \r\n[...] (b) [...] ‘manufacturer’ [...] laid down in \r\nArticle 3, points [...] (40) [...], of Regulation \r\n(EU) 2018/858 \r\nSource: EU COM Draft \r\n \r\n \r\nIn addition to the definitions referred \r\nto in paragraph 1, the following \r\ndefinitions shall apply: \r\n[...] (b) [...] ‘manufacturer’ [...] laid \r\ndown in Article 3, points [...] (40) [...], \r\nof Regulation (EU) 2018/858. \r\n \r\nNew definition Art. 3, 1 (xx): \r\n‘manufacturer’ means a natural or \r\nlegal person who is responsible for all \r\naspects of the type-approval of a \r\nvehicle, system, component or \r\nseparate technical unit, or the \r\nindividual vehicle approval, or the \r\nauthorisation process for parts and \r\nequipment, for ensuring conformity of \r\nproduction and for market \r\nsurveillance matters regarding that \r\nvehicle, system, component, separate \r\ntechnical unit, part and equipment \r\nproduced, irrespective of whether or \r\nnot that person is directly involved in \r\nall stages of the design and \r\nconstruction of that vehicle, system, \r\ncomponent or separate technical unit \r\nconcerned \r\nAnalysis: \r\nIn a number of translations of the draft Regulation (e.g., German, Czech and Swedish) the text is \r\nnot aligned with the originally published English. Example Germany: “Producer” (Art 3.1(22)) and \r\n“Manufacturer” (Art.3.2(b) referring to Regulation (EU 2018/858) - both terms are translated with \r\nthe same word “Hersteller”. This impacts the applicability of the Regulation to affected parties. \r\nDefinitions of both “Producer” (“Hersteller”) and “Manufacturer” ( “Erzeuger”) must be provided \r\nand used accordingly. \r\nThe translations of the Regulation must be accurate. \r\nArt. 3, 2 (…) \r\n(e) ‘substance of concern’ and ‘data carrier’ \r\nlaid down in Article 2, points (28) and (30), \r\nof Regulation [Eco-design for sustainable \r\nproducts]. \r\nSource: EU COM Draft \r\n(…) \r\n(e) ‘substance of concern’ and ‘data \r\ncarrier’ laid down in xxx Article 2, \r\npoints (28) and (30), of Regulation \r\n[Eco-design for sustainable products]. \r\nAnalysis: \r\nThe definition of “Substance of Concern” (SoC) is linked to a piece of legislation (the Draft ESPR) \r\nfor which vehicles are not included in the scope and includes differing criteria, e.g., the REACh \r\nSVHC list. It also links to the CLP, which is a dynamic piece of legislation. There is therefore a \r\nmismatch in terms of applicability.  \r\nIn case the regulator insists on keeping the requirements regarding SoCs, an ELV-specific \r\nsubstance list with CAS# should be defined and published by EU COM to ensure the harmonised \r\nimplementation of this requirement through entire supply chain in the Member States, rather \r\nthan making reference to the definition in another non-automotive piece of legislation. \r\nArt. 4 sets out the key goals for manufacturers of “(a) reusability or recyclability to a minimum of \r\n85% by mass and (b) reusability or recoverability to a minimum of 95% by mass”. At the same time, \r\nArt. 34 requires waste management operators to meet similar 85% and 95% targets but without \r\nincluding EV-batteries in the calculation methodology. The achievement of the latter targets is to be \r\nensured both by producers (Art. 16) and by Member States (Art. 34). Furthermore, waste \r\nmanagement operators shall recycle 30% of the plastic. \r\nAmendment Proposals: \r\n Legislative Proposals Proposals \r\nArt. 4, 1 (a) reusable or recyclable to a minimum \r\nof 85 % by mass; \r\n(b) reusable or recoverable to a minimum \r\nof 95 % by mass. \r\nSource: EU COM Draft \r\na) reusable and/or recyclable to a \r\nminimum of 85 % by mass; \r\n(b) reusable and/or recoverable to a \r\nminimum of 95 % by mass. \r\nAnalysis: \r\nThere is a lack of clarity in the wording of Art.4.1. a and 4.1.b, “reusable or recyclable to a \r\nminimum of”. The wording of Art.4.1. a and 4.1.b should therefore be amended so that the \r\nsentence reads: “reusability and/or recyclability” respective “reusability and/or recoverability”. \r\nThere is a duplication of the responsibility for achieving the targets between producers and waste \r\nmanagement operators.  \r\nCalculations under Art. 34 should be aligned with those for Art. 4, i.e., for both type-approval and \r\nreporting, the battery of a vehicle should be included in the calculation to fulfil these goals. \r\nArt. 4,2 (c) verify the correctness and \r\ncompleteness of the information \r\nreceived from suppliers; \r\nSource: EU COM Draft \r\n(c) verify the correctness and \r\ncompleteness of the information \r\nreceived from suppliers; \r\nReasonably and adequately check the \r\ninformation received from suppliers; \r\nAnalysis: \r\nArt. 4.2 should be amended, since it is not realistically possible to verify via testing the correctness \r\nand completeness of the material information received from suppliers for every single part used \r\nin all vehicle models. Instead, we propose to use the wording of the current ELV Directive \r\n(2000/53/EC) since the currently implemented processes are proven to function well and be \r\nsufficient to meet the recyclability and material conformity requirements of the ELVR. \r\nArt. 4,3  The Commission shall, by [OP: please \r\nenter the date = the last day of the \r\nmonth following 35 24 months after the \r\ndate of entry into force of this \r\nRegulation], adopt an implementing act \r\nestablishing a new methodology for \r\ncalculation and verification of the rates \r\nof reusability, recyclability and \r\nrecoverability of a vehicle in accordance \r\ntaking into account the elements set out \r\nin Annex II. The Commission shall take \r\ninto account criteria that ensure a high \r\nlevel of quality and quantity of reuse \r\nand recycling at the level of the vehicle \r\ntype. The new methodology shall set an \r\nimplementation timeline for all newly \r\ntype-approved vehicles. \r\nSource: Hungarian Presidency Steering Note \r\n3. The Commission shall, by [OP: please \r\nenter the date = the last day of the \r\nmonth following 35 months after the \r\ndate of entry into force of this \r\nRegulation], adopt an implementing act \r\nestablishing a new methodology for \r\ncalculation and verification of the rates \r\nof reusability, recyclability and \r\nrecoverability of a vehicle, taking into \r\naccount the elements set out in Annex \r\nII. \r\nThat implementing act shall be adopted \r\nin accordance with the examination \r\nprocedure referred to in Article 51(2). \r\nAnalysis: \r\nCurrently the recyclability and recoverability targets in Art. 4,1 calculated according to the current \r\nmethodology as per Art. 4,2. e (ISO standard 22628:2002) are achieved by automotive \r\nmanufacturers and will continue to be so. \r\nThe newly proposed type-approval demands are not in line with the globally harmonised UN R133 \r\nregulation. This will lead to divergence from non-EU markets, leading to a loss of synergies and \r\nworldwide-harmonised standards. Art. 4.3 should therefore be deleted as the introduction of a \r\nnew methodology, not in line with the globally harmonised UN R133 regulation, should be \r\navoided.  \r\nA new methodology could require proof of industrial scale recycling technologies (Technical \r\nReadiness Level ~8/9), from when the product is first placed on the market. With such \r\nrequirements, the usage and development of new product technologies would be hindered. \r\nRecycling technology and recycled material cannot be available immediately from when new \r\nmaterial is put on the market for the first time. In the case of vehicles, it usually takes 20+ years \r\nafter first market introduction until the recycling technologies are fully developed to industrial \r\nscale, because only then will this capacity be required (See, for example, Li-Ion-Traction batteries).  \r\nHowever, if a new methodology is established via implementing act, we expect that the transition \r\nperiod for implementation to start after publication of the methodology and therefore a \r\ntransition period of 48 months is required to allow implementation of the finalised methodology. \r\nThis is required in order to adapt the entire supply chain to the new requirements. The transition \r\nperiod after entry into force must refer to the entry into force of the implementing act on the \r\nnew methodology, rather than the ELV Regulation itself.  \r\nIf a new methodology were to be implemented, we prefer the adoption of an implementing act as \r\nchoice of legislative instrument since this allows the involvement of the member states and \r\nguarantees a uniform application in the EU. Delegated acts are foreseen for non-essential parts of \r\nlegislative acts, but a calculation methodology for recyclability is an essential requirement in this \r\nRegulation. It should be the approach of the EU to define a detailed calculation methodology and \r\ncertification process suitably early to give manufacturers certainty in the implementation. We \r\nbelieve that 24 months is not sufficient for the EU Commission to prepare the secondary \r\nlegislation required, given that this must involve detailed analysis and contributions from \r\nstakeholders. \r\nCalculations under Art. 34 should be aligned with those for Art. 4, i.e., for both type-approval and \r\nreporting, the battery of a vehicle should be included in the calculation to fulfil these goals. \r\nAlignment with the globally harmonised standards such as UN R133 should be maintained.  \r\nArt. 5 requires that the presence of substances of concern in vehicles and in their parts and \r\ncomponents shall be minimised as far as possible. For type-approval, manufacturers need to prove \r\nthat they comply with the restriction for lead, mercury, cadmium or hexavalent chromium, as well as \r\nother material restrictions, such as SoCs, EU REACh, EU POP and EU Battery Regulation. \r\nAmendment Proposals: \r\n Legislative Proposals Proposals \r\nArt. 5, 1 The presence of substances of concern in \r\nvehicles and in their parts and \r\ncomponents shall be minimised as far as \r\npossible. \r\n \r\n \r\nThe presence of substances of concern in \r\nvehicles and in their parts and components \r\nshall be minimised as far as possible.  \r\nIn addition to the restrictions set out in \r\nAnnex XVII to Regulation (EC) No \r\n1907/2006 and the restrictions set out in \r\nAnnexes I and II to Regulation (EU) \r\n2019/1021 and in Regulation (EU) \r\n \r\nSource: Hungarian Presidency Steering Note02.12.24 \r\n2023/1542, this regulation specifies the \r\nregime for substances in vehicles.  \r\nAnalysis: \r\nThe definition of SoCs is linked to a piece of legislation (the Draft ESPR) for which vehicles are not \r\nincluded in the scope and includes differing criteria, e.g., the REACh SVHC list. It also links to the \r\nCLP, which is a dynamic piece of legislation and relates Art. 5.1 to thousands of substances, adding \r\nadditional burden. An ELV-specific substance list with CAS # should be defined and published by EU \r\nCOM to ensure the harmonised implementation of this requirement through entire supply chain in \r\nthe Member States, rather than making reference to the definition in another non-automotive \r\npiece of legislation. \r\nThe sentence “minimised as far as possible” is ambiguous. It is not clear as to what is reasonably \r\nachievable and proportionate. The evidence to be submitted to prove compliance with the \r\nrequirements on SoCs and the restrictions for EU REACh, EU POP and EU Battery Regulation, must \r\nbe clarified. \r\nArt. 5, 2 In addition to the restrictions set out in \r\nAnnex XVII to Regulation (EC) No \r\n1907/2006 and, as applicable, to the \r\nrestrictions set out in Annexes I and II to \r\nRegulation (EU) 2019/1021 and in \r\nRegulation (EU) 2023/1542, this \r\nregulation specifies the regime for \r\nsubstances in vehicles./[OP: Batteries], \r\nAny vehicle type that is type-approved as \r\nof [OP: Please insert the date = the first \r\nday of the month following 72 months \r\nafter the date of entry into force of this \r\nRegulation], under Regulation (EU) \r\n2018/858, or any new parts or \r\ncomponents put on the market for such \r\na vehicle, shall not contain lead, mercury, \r\ncadmium or hexavalent chromium. \r\nSource: Hungarian Presidency Steering Note 02.12.24 \r\nIn addition to the restrictions set out in \r\nAnnex XVII to Regulation (EC) No \r\n1907/2006 and, as applicable, to the \r\nrestrictions set out in Annexes I and II to \r\nRegulation (EU) 2019/1021 and in \r\nRegulation (EU) 2023/1542, this \r\nregulation specifies the regime for \r\nsubstances in vehicles./[OP: Batteries], \r\nAny materials and components put on the \r\nmarket for Aany vehicle type that is type\r\napproved as of [OP: Please insert the date \r\n= the first day of the month following 72 \r\nmonths after the date of entry into force \r\nof this Regulation], under Regulation (EU) \r\n2018/858, or any new parts or \r\ncomponents put on the market for such a \r\nvehicle, shall not contain lead, mercury, \r\ncadmium or hexavalent chromium. \r\nAnalysis: \r\nThe evidence to be submitted for type-approval to prove compliance with the restriction for lead, \r\nmercury, cadmium or hexavalent chromium must be clarified.  \r\nThe current wording in the ELV Directive for the heavy metal ban is based on the principle of a \r\nshared responsibility between supply chain actors and vehicle manufacturers and has resulted in \r\nan efficient and well-established cooperation towards heavy metal ban compliance. We dispute the \r\nHungarian Presidency’s proposal that the current text is sufficiently clear and covers parts and \r\ncomponents too and consider that the newly proposed wording regarding the heavy metal ban no \r\nlonger references shared compliance for materials and components throughout the supply chain \r\nanymore, resulting in obligations only for the vehicle manufacturers and thus risks increased non\r\ncompliance by the loss of focus on the supply chain, including material suppliers. We therefore \r\npropose to make clear in the legislative text that the whole supply chain is affected, starting with \r\nmaterials and components and ending with the vehicle manufacturer.  \r\nArt. 5, 2. \r\na \r\n2(a) By [Insert a date not later than 24 \r\nmonths after adoption of this \r\nRegulation], the Commission, assisted by \r\nthe European Chemicals Agency, shall \r\nprepare a report on the presence of \r\nsubstances of concern in vehicles, to \r\ndetermine the extent to which they \r\nnegatively affect the re-use and recycling \r\nof materials or impact chemical safety. \r\nThe Commission shall submit the report \r\nto the European Parliament and to the \r\nCouncil, detailing its findings and \r\nconsider the appropriate follow-up \r\nmeasures, including  \r\ni) the establishment of restrictions on \r\nsubstances of concern that negatively \r\naffect the re-use and recycling of \r\nmaterials in the vehicles in which they \r\nare present, as a part of delegated acts \r\nset up in accordance with Article 5(2), \r\npoint (b)  \r\nii) the introduction of information \r\nrequirements as a part of the circularity \r\nvehicle passport in accordance with \r\nArticle 13(2), point e and Article 13(6), \r\npoint (e)  \r\niii) the use of the procedures referred to \r\nin Article 68(1) and (2) of Regulation (EC) \r\nNo 1907/2006 to adopt new restrictions.  \r\nIf a Member State considers that a \r\nsubstance negatively affects the re-use \r\nand recycling of materials in a vehicle in \r\nwhich it is present it shall, [by insert \r\ndate], supply such information to the \r\nCommission and the European \r\nChemicals Agency and, where available, \r\nrefer to the relevant risk assessments or \r\nother relevant data.” \r\nSource: Hungarian Presidency Steering Note  \r\n2(a) By [Insert a date not later than 24 48 \r\nmonths after adoption of this Regulation], \r\nthe Commission, assisted by the European \r\nChemicals Agency, shall prepare a report \r\non the presence of substances of concern \r\nin vehicles, to determine the extent to \r\nwhich they negatively affect human health \r\nor the environment or the re-use and \r\nrecycling of materials or impact chemical \r\nsafety. \r\nThe Commission shall submit the report to \r\nthe European Parliament and to the \r\nCouncil, detailing its findings and consider \r\nthe appropriate follow-up measures, \r\nincluding:  \r\ni) the establishment of restrictions on \r\nsubstances of concern that negatively \r\naffect human health or the environment \r\nor the re-use and recycling of materials in \r\nthe vehicles in which they are present, as a \r\npart of delegated acts set up in accordance \r\nwith Article 5(2), point (b)  \r\nii) the introduction of information \r\nrequirements as a part of the circularity \r\nvehicle passport in accordance with Article \r\n13(2), point e and Article 13(6), point (e)  \r\niii) the use of the procedures referred to in \r\nArticle 68(1) and (2) of Regulation (EC) No \r\n1907/2006 to adopt new restrictions.  \r\nIf a Member State considers that a \r\nsubstance negatively affect human health \r\nor the environment or the re-use and \r\nrecycling of materials in a vehicle in which \r\nit is present it shall, [by insert date], supply \r\nsuch information to the Commission and \r\nthe European Chemicals Agency and, \r\nwhere available, refer to the relevant risk \r\nassessments or other relevant data.” \r\nAnalysis: \r\nThe intention of a restriction of substances of concern shall be conducted in line with its reference, \r\nnamely the common understanding found under the EU ESPR. \r\nThe timeline for reporting on substance of concern (SoC) shall be extended to 48 months, or at \r\nleast in line with the timeline determined in Art. 6.5 of the EU Battery Regulation. It should be \r\nconsidered, the reporting on SoC for whole vehicle is more time-consuming than that only for \r\nbatteries. \r\nIn alignment with Art. 6(5) of the EU Battery Regulation (EU)2023-1542, the EU COM should \r\nmandate ECHA to prepare a report on substances of concern in vehicles, with the possibility to \r\nfurther introduce appropriate legislation thereafter, e.g., delegated acts, since any new \r\nrequirements regarding substance of concern must be based on rigorous science and therefore \r\ninvolve ECHA in the process. \r\nArt. 5, 2. \r\nb \r\nBy [Insert a date not later than 36 \r\nmonths after adoption of this \r\nRegulation], the Commission is \r\nempowered to adopt delegated acts in \r\naccordance with Article 50 to \r\nsupplement this Regulation by \r\nestablishing restrictions of the presence \r\nof substances of concern that negatively \r\naffect the re-use and recycling of \r\nmaterials, in vehicles and in their parts \r\nand components, for reasons not \r\nrelating primarily to chemical safety. \r\nSource: Hungarian Presidency Steering Note \r\nBy [Insert a date not later than 36 months \r\nafter adoption of this Regulation], the \r\nCommission is empowered to adopt \r\ndelegated implementing acts in \r\naccordance with Article 50 to supplement \r\nthis Regulation by establishing restrictions \r\nof the presence of substances of concern \r\nthat negatively affect human health or the \r\nenvironment or the re-use and recycling \r\nof materials, in vehicles and in their parts \r\nand components, for reasons not relating \r\nprimarily to chemical safety. \r\n \r\nAnalysis: \r\nWe prefer the adoption of an implementing act since this allows the involvement of the member \r\nstates and guarantees a uniform application in the EU. Delegated acts are foreseen for non\r\nessential parts of legislative acts, but the new establishment of restrictions on the presence of \r\nsubstances of concern is an essential requirement in this draft Regulation. \r\nThe transition period after entry into force must refer to the entry into force of the implementing \r\nact methodology, rather than the ELV Regulation itself. \r\nArt. 5,3 By way of derogation from paragraph 2, \r\nvehicle types or parts and components \r\nput on the market for such vehicles may \r\ncontain lead, mercury, cadmium or \r\nhexavalent chromium under the \r\nconditions and up to the maximum \r\nconcentration values laid down in Annex \r\nIII. \r\nParagraphs 2 and 3 shall not apply to \r\nbatteries incorporated in vehicles to \r\nwhich Regulation (EU) 2023/1542 \r\napplies. \r\nSource: Hungarian Presidency Steering Note \r\nBy way of derogation from paragraph 2, \r\nvehicle types or parts materials and \r\ncomponents put on the market for such \r\nvehicles may contain lead, mercury, \r\ncadmium or hexavalent chromium under \r\nthe conditions and up to the maximum \r\nconcentration values laid down in Annex \r\nIII. \r\nParagraphs 2 and 3 shall not apply to \r\nbatteries incorporated in vehicles to \r\nwhich Regulation (EU) 2023/1542 applies. \r\n \r\nAnalysis: \r\nThe system of exemptions on hazardous substances between the ELVR and the Battery Regulation \r\n((EU) 2023/1542) need to be aligned, as the Battery Regulation is lex specialis to the ELVR. It is not \r\nnecessary to exempt the batteries incorporated in vehicles in the ELVR prior to the alignment. \r\nArt. 5,4 (…) \r\nThe Commission, when adopting a \r\ndelegated act pursuant to this paragraph \r\nshall take into account the socio\r\neconomic impact of introducing, \r\nmodifying or deleting an exemption to \r\nthe restriction in the use of lead, \r\nmercury, cadmium or hexavalent \r\nchromium in vehicle types, including the \r\navailability of alternatives and the \r\nimpacts on human health and the \r\nenvironment across the full lifecycle of \r\nvehicles. \r\nSource: Hungarian Presidency Steering Note \r\n(… \r\nBefore adopting a delegated act, the \r\nCommission shall consult experts \r\ndesignated by each Member State in \r\naccordance with the principles laid down \r\nin the Interinstitutional Agreement of 13 \r\nApril 2016 on Better Law-Making. \r\nThe Commission, when adopting a \r\ndelegated act pursuant to this paragraph \r\nshall take into account the socio-economic \r\nimpact of introducing, modifying or \r\ndeleting an exemption to the restriction in \r\nthe use of lead, mercury, cadmium or \r\nhexavalent chromium in vehicle types, \r\nincluding the availability of alternatives \r\nand the impacts on human health and the \r\nenvironment across the full lifecycle of \r\nvehicles. \r\nAnalysis: \r\nIn line with the agreed Better Law-Making procedures, before adopting any delegated act the EU \r\nCommission must conduct the required expert consultation. In doing so a holistic approach must be \r\ntaken which considers the wider socio-economic impacts, alongside the human and environmental \r\nhealth effects. \r\nArt. 5, 5 Upon request from the Commission, and \r\nwithin 12 months from the request, the \r\nEuropean Chemicals Agency (the \r\n‘Agency’) shall prepare a report on the \r\ntechnical and economic feasibility of \r\nalternatives pertaining to existing \r\nexemptions listed in Annex III and, based \r\non such assessment, a motivated \r\nproposal for the specific amendment of \r\nthe exemption. \r\nSource: EU COM Draft \r\nUpon request from the Commission, and \r\nwithin 12 months from the request, the \r\nEuropean Chemicals Agency (the ‘Agency’) \r\nshall prepare a report, based on \r\nconsultation with stakeholders and \r\nindustry experts, on the technical and \r\neconomic feasibility of alternatives \r\npertaining to existing exemptions listed in \r\nAnnex III and, based on such assessment, a \r\nmotivated proposal for the specific \r\namendment of the exemption. \r\nAnalysis: \r\nRegarding the proposal to introduce a procedure which would provide options for restricting \r\nsubstances of concern if they have an adverse effect on human health or the environment or hinder \r\nreuse and recycling, or circularity in general, we agree that the same approach as in the ESPR \r\nshould be followed for the ELVR. \r\nFor the change to the process for renewal of Annex III exemptions, relying only on a report from \r\nECHA removes the stakeholder engagement process that currently takes place. For the change to \r\nthe process for renewal of Annex III exemptions, the stakeholder engagement process that \r\ncurrently takes place should be continued. \r\nArt. 5, 6 \r\n \r\nAs soon as it receives the request from \r\nthe Commission, the Agency shall publish \r\non its website a notice that a report on a \r\npossible amendment of an exemption in \r\nAnnex III will be prepared and invite \r\nMember States and all interested parties \r\nto submit comments within eight weeks \r\nfrom the date of publication of the \r\nnotice. The Agency shall publish on its \r\nwebsite all comments received from \r\nMember States and from the interested \r\nparties.  \r\nSource: Hungarian Presidency Steering Note \r\nAs soon as it receives the request from the \r\nCommission, the Agency shall publish on \r\nits website a notice that a report on a \r\npossible amendment of an exemption in \r\nAnnex III will be prepared and invite \r\nMember States and all interested parties \r\nto submit comments within eight twelve \r\nweeks from the date of publication of the \r\nnotice. The Agency shall publish on its \r\nwebsite all comments received from \r\nMember States and from the interested \r\nparties. \r\nAnalysis: \r\nA stakeholder engagement process is an essential part of developing an accurate report and \r\nsufficient time is required that all Stakeholders can fully respond. Therefore, we propose 12 weeks. \r\nArt. 5, 7 At the latest nine months following the \r\nsubmission of the report referred to in \r\nparagraph 4 5 to the Commission, the \r\nCommittee for Socio-economic Analysis \r\nof the Agency, set up pursuant to Article \r\n76(1), point (d), of Regulation (EC) No \r\n1907/2006, shall adopt an opinion on the \r\nreport and on the specific amendments \r\nproposed. The Agency shall submit that \r\nopinion to the Commission without delay. \r\nSource: Hungarian Presidency Steering Note - \r\nAnalysis: \r\nThe proposal of the Hungarian Presidency in their Steering Note 02.12.24 is acceptable. \r\nArt. 5, 8 The Commission shall adopt the \r\ndelegated acts referred to in paragraph 4 \r\nand shall take into account the socio\r\neconomic impact of introducing, \r\nmodifying or deleting an exemption to \r\nthe restriction in the use of lead, \r\nmercury, cadmium or hexavalent - \r\nchromium in vehicle types, including the \r\navailability of alternatives and the \r\nimpacts on human health and the \r\nenvironment across the full lifecycle of \r\nvehicles. \r\nSource: Hungarian Presidency Steering Note \r\nAnalysis: \r\nThe proposal of the Hungarian Presidency in their Steering Note 02.12.24 is acceptable. \r\nAnnex III \r\nEntry \r\n2(c)(ii) \r\nAluminium alloys not included \r\nin entry 2(c)(i) with a lead \r\ncontent up to 0,4 % by weight \r\n(2) \r\nVehicles \r\ntype \r\napproved \r\nbefore 1 \r\nJanuary \r\n2027 and \r\nspare parts \r\nfor such \r\nvehicles \r\nAluminium \r\nalloys not \r\nincluded in entry \r\n2(c)(i) with a \r\nlead content up \r\nto 0,4 % by \r\nweight (2) \r\n \r\nVehicles type approved \r\nbefore 1 January 2030 and \r\nspare parts for such \r\nvehicles \r\n Source: Hungarian Presidency Steering Note   \r\nAnalysis: \r\nThe expiry date of an exemption shall be in line with the up-to-date legislative progress, i.e. vehicles \r\ntype approved before 01.01.2030. \r\nAnnex III \r\nEntry \r\n2(c)(iii) \r\nLead in aluminium casting \r\nalloys containing up to 0.3 % \r\nlead by weight provided that \r\nthe lead stems from lead\r\nbearing aluminium scrap \r\nrecycling \r\nVehicles \r\ntype\r\napproved \r\nafter 31 \r\nDecember \r\n2026 and \r\nspare parts \r\nfor these \r\nvehicles \r\n  \r\nSource: Hungarian Presidency Steering Note \r\nAnalysis: \r\nThe introduction of an exemption shall in line with the up-to-date legislative progress. \r\nWe agree with the proposal of the Hungarian Presidency. \r\nAnnex III \r\nEntry 5a \r\nLead in batteries used in high\r\nvoltage systems (4) that are \r\nused only for propulsion in \r\nM1 and N1 vehicles  \r\nVehicles \r\ntype \r\napproved \r\nbefore 1 \r\nJanuary \r\n2019 and \r\nspare parts \r\nLead in batteries \r\nused in high\r\nvoltage systems \r\n(4) that are used \r\nonly for \r\npropulsion in \r\nVehicles type approved \r\nbefore 1 January 2019 and \r\nspare parts for such \r\nvehicles \r\nfor such \r\nvehicles \r\nM1 and N1 \r\nvehicles  \r\nSource: Hungarian Presidency Steering Note \r\nAnnex III \r\nEntry 5bi \r\nLead in batteries: \r\n(1) used in 12 V applications \r\n(2) used in 24 V applications \r\nin special purpose vehicles as \r\ndefined in Article 3 of \r\nRegulation (EU) 2018/858 - Lead in \r\nbatteries: \r\n(1) used in 12 V \r\napplications \r\n(2) used in 24 V \r\napplications in \r\nspecial purpose \r\nvehicles as \r\ndefined in \r\nArticle 3 of \r\nRegulation (EU) \r\n2018/858 \r\n - \r\nSource: Hungarian Presidency Steering Note  \r\nAnnex III \r\nEntry 5bii \r\n  \r\nLead in batteries used in \r\napplications not included in \r\nentry 5(a) or entry 5(b)(i) \r\nVehicles \r\ntype \r\napproved \r\nbefore 1 \r\nJanuary \r\n2024 and \r\nspare parts \r\nfor such \r\nvehicles \r\nLead in batteries \r\nused in \r\napplications not \r\nincluded in entry \r\n5(a) or entry \r\n5(b)(i) \r\nVehicles type approved \r\nbefore 1 January 2024 and \r\nspare parts for such \r\nvehicles \r\nSource: Hungarian Presidency Steering Note \r\nAnalysis: \r\nWe expect that the exemptions for lead in batteries (Annex III, Exemption 5a, 5bi, 5bii) remain and \r\ncontinue to be linked to the vehicle type approval date. \r\nThe system of exemptions on hazardous substances between the ELVR and the Battery Regulation \r\nneed to be aligned, as the Battery Regulation is lex specialis to the ELVR. It is not necessary to \r\ndelete this exemption in the ELVR prior to the alignment. \r\nRecital (91) states “This Regulation does not change the rules on restrictions on the use of lead, \r\nmercury cadmium and hexavalent chromium in vehicles established under Directive 2000/53/EC or \r\nexemptions from those restrictions” while Recital (16) states “Prior to introducing such restrictions \r\nunder Regulation (EU) No 2023/[Batteries], a comprehensive assessment should be carried out \r\nunder that Regulation to evaluate, if an exemption is still required and in what scope.” The \r\nRegulators should respect these statements and not make such amendments, as a very minimum \r\nuntil such time that the assessment has been conducted. For the change to the process for renewal \r\nof Annex III exemptions, the stakeholder engagement process that currently takes place should be \r\ncontinued. \r\nAnnex III \r\nEntry 8e \r\nLead in high melting \r\ntemperature type solders (i.e. \r\nlead-based alloys containing \r\n85 % by weight or more lead)  \r\nNote (1): \r\nThis \r\nexemption \r\nshall be \r\nreviewed in \r\n2030 in \r\naccordance \r\nwith Article \r\n54(2).  \r\n \r\nLead in high \r\nmelting \r\ntemperature type \r\nsolders (i.e. lead\r\nbased alloys \r\ncontaining 85 % by \r\nweight or more \r\nlead) \r\nNote (1): This exemption \r\nshall be reviewed in \r\n2030 in accordance with \r\nArticle 54(2).  \r\n \r\n Source: Hungarian Presidency Steering Note 02.12.24    \r\nAnalysis: \r\nThe expiry date of an exemption shall be in line with the up-to-date legislative progress.  \r\nFor technical reasons the use of such high melting solders inside electronics is required and the \r\nexemption is still necessary as generic lead-free solutions are lacking.  \r\nAnnex III \r\nEntry \r\n8(g)(ii) \r\n \r\nLead in solders to complete a \r\nviable electrical connection \r\nbetween the semiconductor \r\ndie and the carrier within \r\nintegrated circuit flip chip \r\npackages where that electrical \r\nconnection consists of any of \r\nthe following:  \r\n(1) a semiconductor \r\ntechnology node of 90 nm or \r\nlarger;  \r\n(2) a single die of 300 mm₂ or \r\nlarger in any semiconductor \r\ntechnology node;  \r\n(3) stacked die packages with \r\ndies of 300 mm₂ or larger, or \r\nsilicon interposers of 300mm₂ \r\nor larger. \r\nVehicles \r\ntype\r\napproved \r\nfrom before \r\n1 October \r\n2022 \r\nJanuary \r\n2030 and \r\nspare parts \r\nfor such \r\nvehicles  - - \r\nSource: Hungarian Presidency Steering Note 02.12.24   \r\nAnalysis: \r\nThe introduction of an exemption shall in line with the up-to-date legislative progress. \r\nWe agree with the proposal of the Hungarian Presidency. \r\nAnnex III \r\nEntry 16 \r\nBatteries for electric vehicles  \r\n \r\nAs spare \r\nparts for \r\nvehicles \r\nplaced on \r\nthe market \r\nBatteries for \r\nelectric vehicles  \r\n \r\nAs spare parts for \r\nvehicles placed on the \r\nmarket before 31 \r\nDecember 2008  \r\nbefore 31 \r\nDecember \r\n2008  \r\n \r\nSource: Hungarian Presidency Steering Note   \r\nAnalysis:  \r\nThe system of exemptions on hazardous substances between the ELVR and the Battery Regulation \r\nneed to be aligned, as the Battery Regulation is lex specialis to the ELVR. It is not necessary to \r\ndelete this exemption in the ELVR prior to the alignment. \r\nNote to \r\nAnnex III \r\nTable \r\nNote (1) \r\nThis exemption shall be reviewed in 2030 \r\nin accordance with Article 54(2).  \r\n \r\nSource: Hungarian Presidency Steering Note 02.12.24 \r\nThis exemption shall be reviewed in 2030 in \r\naccordance with Article 54 55 (2).   \r\nAnalysis: \r\nThe provisions for Review to amend Art. 5 is determined in Art. 55(2). \r\nNote \r\nto \r\nAnnex \r\nIII \r\nTable \r\nNote \r\n(3) \r\nThis exemption shall be \r\nreviewed in 2025. \r\nSource: Hungarian Presidency Steering \r\nNote 02.12.24 - \r\nAnalysis: \r\nThe proposal of the Hungarian Presidency in their Steering Note 02.12.24 is acceptable. However, \r\nthe expiry date of an exemption shall be in line with the up-to-date legislative progress. \r\nNote \r\nto \r\nAnnex \r\nIII \r\nTable \r\nNote \r\n(4) \r\nSystems that have a voltage of \r\n> 75 V DC as provided for in \r\nArticle 1 of Directive \r\n2014/35/EU of the European \r\nParliament and of the Council \r\nof 26 February 2014 on the \r\nharmonisation of the laws of \r\nthe Member States relating to \r\nthe making available on the \r\nmarket of electrical \r\nequipment designed for use \r\nwithin certain voltage limits \r\n(OJ L 96, 29.3.2014, p. 357). \r\nSystems that have a voltage of > 75 V DC as provided \r\nfor in Article 1 of Directive 2014/35/EU of the European \r\nParliament and of the Council of 26 February 2014 on \r\nthe harmonisation of the laws of the Member States \r\nrelating to the making available on the market of \r\nelectrical equipment designed for use within certain \r\nvoltage limits (OJ L 96, 29.3.2014, p. 357). \r\n \r\nSource: Hungarian Presidency Steering \r\nNote 02.12.24 \r\nAnalysis: \r\nThis Note to the Annex clarifies the definition of high-voltage systems which exempted according to \r\nEntry 5a of Annex III. Therefore, it shall remain here in Annex III.  \r\nArt. 6 lays down a minimum recycled content target for plastics of 25% (post-consumer), where at \r\nleast 25% of the 25% (6.25%) target shall be achieved by including plastics recycled from end-of-life \r\nvehicles. \r\nAmendment Proposals: \r\nArt. 6, 1 The plastic contained in each vehicle type that \r\nis type-approved as of [OP: Please insert the \r\ndate = the first day of the month following 72 \r\nmonths after the date of entry into force of \r\nthe Regulation] under Regulation (EU) \r\n2018/858 shall contain a minimum of [ %] of \r\nplastic recycled by weight from post\r\nconsumer plastic waste. \r\nAt least [ %] of the target set out in the first \r\nsubparagraph shall be achieved by including \r\nplastics recycled from end-of-life vehicles in \r\nthe vehicle type concerned. \r\n[The weight of the plastic contained in each \r\nvehicle and the weight of recycled plastic \r\nreferred to in the first subparagraph shall \r\nexclude elastomers, thermosets other than \r\npolyurethane foams used for cushioning and \r\nplastics that contain or are contaminated by \r\nany substance regulated by Article 7 of \r\nRegulation (EU) 2019/1021 when the \r\nthresholds of Annex IV of that Regulation are \r\nexceeded.] \r\nSource: Hungarian Presidency Steering Note 02.12.24 \r\nThe plastic contained in each vehicle \r\ntype that is type-approved as of [OP: \r\nPlease insert the date = the first day \r\nof the month following 72 months \r\nafter the date of entry into force of \r\nthe Regulation] under Regulation \r\n(EU) 2018/858 entry into force of the \r\nimplementing act referred to Art. 6 \r\n(2) shall contain a minimum of 25% \r\n15% of plastic recyclates by weight \r\nfrom waste, including plastics \r\nrecycled from end-of-life vehicles \r\nand workshop waste, and plastics \r\nfrom sustainable sources including \r\nvia a mass balance approach. \r\nAt least 25 % of the target set out in \r\nthe first subparagraph shall be \r\nachieved by including plastics \r\nrecycled from closed loop sources, \r\nsuch as end-of-life in the vehicle type \r\nconcerned.  \r\n[The weight of the plastic contained \r\nin each vehicle and the weight of \r\nrecycled plastic referred to in the \r\nfirst subparagraph shall exclude \r\nelastomers, thermosets other than \r\npolyurethane foams used for \r\ncushioning and plastics that contain \r\nor are contaminated by any \r\nsubstance regulated by Article 7 of \r\nRegulation (EU) 2019/1021 when the \r\nthresholds of Annex IV of that \r\nRegulation are exceeded.] \r\nAnalysis: \r\nThe overarching target should be reduced, in line with supply and technical feasibility.  \r\nNo supply and demand study for recyclates has been conducted and it is therefore unclear \r\nwhether there will be enough material of automotive quality available on the market, particularly \r\ndue to legally enforced competition from other sectors (see other newly adopted legislation or \r\ndraft legislation). In addition to the supply, the technical feasibility is also rated as critical, because \r\nof recyclates from mechanical recycling do not have the same quality as primary material, which is \r\nneeded, for example, for safety-relevant components.  \r\nThe recycling content target has been defined, before a methodology has been introduced. This \r\nleads to uncertainty regarding how to account for the material stream and allowed technologies. A \r\ndetailed calculation methodology and certification process must be defined suitably early to give \r\nmanufacturers certainty in the implementation. The proposed transition period of 72 months for \r\nimplementation of the targets should start after publication of the methodology. \r\nPre-consumer (post-industrial) recycled content, workshop waste and material obtained from \r\nchemical recycling are not explicitly counted towards the calculation. If pre-consumer recyclate is \r\nnot accounted for in the target, it risks not being used and becoming waste and moreover is \r\nneeded to fulfil any target. With the aim of reducing primary raw materials and CO2, all \r\nsustainable materials should be considered, such as pre-consumer (post-industrial) recyclates, \r\nmaterial from chemical recycling and bio-based materials. This target could then be reviewed and \r\ntightened over time, depending on the availability of the recycled plastics on the market. \r\nThe Packaging Regulation allows biobased materials as a possibility for meeting recycled content \r\ntargets and does not set a separate target for them, in the first instance. Such an approach could \r\nbe adopted in the ELV Regulation, however a separate target for biobased content in addition to \r\nthe already non-reachable recycled content target at this point of time seems unnecessary and \r\nunrealistic. The use of biobased plastic materials could help to achieve the proposed challenging \r\ntarget and would have the additional benefit of reducing the CO2 footprint of a vehicle. Currently \r\nthe use of biobased plastic in the automotive industry is still in the pre-development and testing \r\nphase. The availability of such materials that comply with safety and quality standards required for \r\nvehicles is currently extremely low. \r\nThe separate closed-Loop-Target does not reflect the 15+ year lifespan of vehicles, which leads to \r\nseveral challenges:  \r\n• Handling of legacy Substances of Concern - challenge “non-toxic environment” versus \r\n“circular economy”.  \r\n• Degradation of polymers (quality).  \r\n• Verification management of recyclate sources, due to diverse shredder input. \r\nWe, therefore, strongly recommend removing the separate closed-loop requirement. This leads \r\nto more flexibility to fulfil quotas, without reducing the ecological impact. A separate closed-loop \r\ntarget is not needed since such circular material - from ELVs, workshop waste, and also waste from \r\ncar production - will be utilised if it is technically and economically feasible simply to fulfil the \r\nrecycled plastic requirement.  \r\nRegarding the challenge of legacy substances, due to vehicle longevity (15-18 years) and dynamic \r\nmaterial legislations, e.g., EU REACh, EU POP etc., it must be pointed out that this has not been \r\nsolved yet and it would contradict the EU’s Chemical Strategy for Sustainability if only mechanical \r\nrecycling can be used. Currently, the availability of closed loop secondary raw materials that \r\ncomply with safety and quality standards required for vehicles is extremely low. This is mainly due \r\nto the state of the art of recycling technologies, the very long lifespan of vehicles and the presence \r\nof legacy substances which are no longer permitted nor desired in new vehicle types.  Therefore, \r\nthe establishment of any future closed loop target should rely on an evaluation that includes active \r\nparticipation from the industry.  \r\nTo achieve the recycled material quota, workable solutions could be specific thresholds for \r\nallowable levels of hazardous substances in recycled materials or a general exemption for \r\nhazardous substances in materials already placed on the market or mechanically recycled \r\nmaterials (principle: recycling material as produced material). \r\nAlthough the Hungarian Presidency’s proposal to exclude materials with POP Substances over the \r\nlow POP content limit value into the plastic definition seems to take into account the problem of \r\nlegacy substances in long living products, it results in an overly complicated solution with high \r\nbureaucratic burden and only refers to the POP regulation (EU) 2019/1021, forgetting substances \r\nrestricted under REACh (EC 1907/2006).  \r\nFrom our perspective the definition of plastics must be located in Art. 3. \r\nSimilar to the Battery Regulation (EU 2023/1542 Art. 8) and the draft Packaging Regulation \r\n(Proposal of Packaging and Packaging Waste Regulation, COM (2022)0677, Art. 7.9 and 7.10) an \r\nexception and a review clause should be introduced which enables the Commission to revise and \r\namend the target in case of non-availability of recycled material. \r\nSee again our comment above related to the definition of “plastic” (Art. 3). \r\nArt. 6,2a The Commission is \r\nempowered to adopt \r\ndelegated acts, in \r\naccordance with Article 50, \r\nto supplement paragraph 1 \r\nby laying down derogations \r\nto the recycled plastic \r\ncontent targets in areas \r\nwhere there is not enough \r\nrecycled plastic available \r\non the market to comply \r\nwith the target set therein. \r\n \r\n \r\n \r\n \r\n \r\n \r\n \r\n \r\n \r\n \r\n \r\n \r\n \r\n \r\nSource: Hungarian Presidency Steering \r\nNote \r\nThe Commission is empowered to \r\nadopt delegated acts, in accordance \r\nwith Article 50, to supplement \r\nparagraph 1 by laying down \r\nderogations to the recycled plastic \r\ncontent targets in areas where there \r\nis not enough recycled plastic \r\navailable on the market to comply \r\nwith the target set therein. \r\n60 months after entry into force, the \r\nCommission shall assess the need for \r\nderogations from the minimum \r\npercentages laid down in paragraph \r\n1. \r\nBased on this assessment, the \r\nCommission is empowered to adopt \r\ndelegated acts in accordance with \r\nArticle 50 to amend this Regulation \r\nin order to provide for derogations \r\nfrom the scope, timing or level of \r\nminimum percentages laid down in \r\nparagraph 1,  \r\nwhere  - suitable recycling technologies to \r\nrecycle plastic are not available \r\nbecause they are not authorised \r\nunder the relevant Union rules or are \r\nnot sufficiently installed in practice - justified by the lack of availability \r\nor excessive prices of recycled plastic \r\nthat may have adverse effects on the \r\nenvironment or safety of parts and \r\ncomponents making compliance with \r\nthe minimum target excessively \r\ndifficult. \r\nAnalysis: \r\nSimilar to the Battery Regulation (EU 2023/1542 Art. 8) and the draft Packaging Regulation \r\n(Proposal of Packaging and Packaging Waste Regulation, COM (2022)0677, Art. 7.9 and 7.10) an \r\nexception and a review clause should be introduced which enables the Commission to revise and \r\namend the target in case of non-availability of recycled material. \r\nThe proposal of the Hungarian Presidency is therefore welcome. We believe that our proposal, \r\nwhich is similar to already existing wordings in two regulations, might be more in line with current \r\nlegislation however. \r\nArt. 6, 4 By [OP: Please insert the date = the last \r\nday of the month following 35 months \r\nafter the date of entry into force of this \r\nRegulation], the Commission shall assess \r\nthe feasibility of establishing a \r\nrequirement on the minimum share of:  \r\n… \r\n(b) neodymium, dysprosium, \r\npraseodymium, terbium, samarium, \r\nnickel, cobalt or boron recycled from \r\npost-consumer waste and incorporated \r\ninto permanent. \r\nSource: Hungarian Presidency Steering Note 02.12.24 \r\nBy [OP: Please insert the date = the last \r\nday of the month following 35 months \r\nafter the date of entry into force of this \r\nRegulation], the Commission shall assess \r\nthe feasibility of establishing a \r\nrequirement on the minimum share of:  \r\n… \r\n(b) neodymium, dysprosium, \r\npraseodymium, terbium, samarium, \r\nnickel, cobalt or boron recycled from \r\npost-consumer waste and incorporated \r\ninto permanent. \r\nAnalysis: \r\nAutomotive applications with considerable amounts of nickel and cobalt are already regulated \r\nunder the Battery Regulation. In other applications in vehicles nickel and cobalt are only alloying \r\nelements. Alloying elements will be recycled together with the alloys and be further utilised if \r\nneeded. Further obligations with regard to recycled content targets without assessment and \r\ndeclaration of their use, especially for metals present in very low amounts in vehicles, would result \r\nin high efforts from the whole industry with very low ecological benefits. We strongly recommend \r\nrefraining from such new measures. \r\nRegarding the proposal to set a target value for recycled steel content (20 % 7 years after entry into \r\nForce) from the Hungarian Presidency (Steering Note 17.Sep.2024), we would like to outline that no \r\nrecycled content target for newly type approved vehicles should be set without first conducting a \r\ncareful feasibility study. The question whether or not 20 % would be feasible, can only be answered \r\nafter such an impact analysis. At the same time, a methodology to calculate recycled contend needs \r\nto be established before the setting of targets.  \r\nRecycling of steel is an established global process. Vehicle manufacturers already try to use as much \r\nas possible recycled steel to reduce their carbon footprint in the production of cars. There is no \r\nevidence of a lack of demand for recycled steel, it is used in various sector and any targets for a \r\nspecific sector would only mean rediverting it from other sectors (cannibalisation effect). \r\nArt. 7, in connection with Annex VII Part C, lays down certain design requirements for removal and \r\nreplacement. \r\nAnalysis: \r\n• The timeline of requirements for components listed in Part C of Annex VII is inconsistent: \r\no After 12 months: ATFs to remove parts in a non-destructive way for components with a \r\nreuse, reman or refurbishment potential (Art. 27) and assess if all removed parts are fit for \r\nreuse, remanufacturing, recycling (Art. 31). \r\no After 36 months: OEMs to provide detailed dismantling info (Art. 11). \r\no After 36 months: ATFs to ensure that components are removed, with certain exemptions if \r\nthey demonstrate that PST can separate materials efficiently (Art. 30). \r\no After 72 months: OEMs to design components in a way that does not hinder removal (Art. \r\n7). \r\nThe timeline of requirements for components listed in Part C of Annex VII must therefore be \r\naligned. \r\nAmendment Proposals (to COM Proposal 13.7.23) \r\nArt. 7, 1 Each vehicle belonging to a vehicle type \r\nthat is type-approved as of [OP: Please \r\ninsert the date = the first day of the \r\nmonth following 72 months after the \r\ndate of entry into force of this \r\nRegulation] shall be designed in a way \r\nwhich does not hinder the removal by \r\nauthorised treatment facilities of the \r\nparts and components listed in Part C of \r\nAnnex VII from the concerned vehicle \r\nduring the waste phase of the vehicle. \r\nSource: EU COM Draft \r\nEach vehicle belonging to a vehicle type \r\nthat is type-approved as of [OP: Please \r\ninsert the date = the first day of the \r\nmonth following 72 months after the \r\ndate of entry into force of this \r\nRegulation] shall be designed in a way \r\nwhich does not hinder the allows for the \r\neasy  removal by authorised treatment \r\nfacilities of the parts and components \r\nlisted in Part C of Annex VII from the \r\nconcerned vehicle during the waste \r\nphase of the vehicle. \r\nAnalysis: \r\nThe meaning of “does not hinder” in Art.7 1. is not sufficiently clearly defined. The subclause in \r\nArt. 7 1. “does not hinder” should be rephrased so as to be clearer and reasonably practicable. \r\nFor some components in the list, like the (whole) wire harness, dashboards, etc., there is no \r\npossibility for easy dismantling at the design stage and often no market for them as spare parts. \r\nArt. 7; 2. Each vehicle belonging to a vehicle type \r\nthat is type-approved as of [OP: Please \r\ninsert the date = the first day of the \r\nmonth following 72 months after the \r\ndate of entry into force of this \r\nRegulation] under Regulation (EU) \r\n2018/858 shall be designed, as regards \r\njoining, fastening and sealing elements, \r\nso as to enable, in a readily and non\r\ndestructive manner, the removal and \r\nreplacement of electric vehicle batteries \r\nand e-drive motors from the vehicle by \r\nauthorised treatment facilities or repair \r\nand maintenance operators during the \r\nuse phase and waste phase of the \r\nvehicle. \r\nSource: EU COM Draft \r\nEach vehicle belonging to a vehicle type \r\nthat is type-approved as of [OP: Please \r\ninsert the date = the first day of the \r\nmonth following 72 months after the \r\ndate of entry into force of this \r\nRegulation] under Regulation (EU) \r\n2018/858 shall be designed, as regards \r\njoining, fastening and sealing elements, \r\nso as to enable, in a readily and non\r\ndestructive manner, the removal and \r\nreplacement of electric vehicle batteries \r\nand e-drive motors from the vehicle by \r\nauthorised treatment facilities or repair \r\nand maintenance operators during the \r\nuse phase and waste phase of the \r\nvehicle, where technically feasible, \r\nreasonable and proportionate. \r\nAnalysis: \r\nFor many components, the use of modern, economically efficient and industrially applicable \r\nsorting technologies after shredding leads to comparable separation results and unmixed \r\nmaterial streams for further recycling. \r\nA dismantling of parts intended for reuse without demand for such parts would not only be \r\nunreasonable but even contradictory to the overarching goal to improve the environmental and \r\necological footprint. \r\nRemoval obligations for components must always be technically feasible and should be \r\nreasonable and proportionate. A specific use must also exist. \r\nRemoval in a non-destructive manner should not apply for removal for recycling and only apply \r\nfor removal for re-use, refurbishment or re-manufacture.  \r\nA requirement for mandatory manual dismantling (Art. 30) is often counterproductive and should \r\nonly be specified if the desired goals cannot be achieved otherwise. In principle, the best \r\navailable technology should be used for each recycling process. \r\nTo achieve a holistic improvement of sustainability, all aspects of sustainability must be \r\nconsidered, this includes besides the ecological benefit also economic and social aspects (e.g. \r\nensuring safe and healthy working conditions).  \r\nAmendment Proposals to Annex VII Part C: \r\nSource: Hungarian Presidency \r\nSteering Note \r\nExempted \r\nunder \r\npoint 2, of \r\nArticle 30, \r\nif the \r\ncondition\r\n s of Part \r\nG of \r\nAnnex VII \r\napply \r\nAmendment proposal  Exempte\r\n d under \r\npoint 2, \r\nof Article \r\n30, if the \r\ncondition\r\n s of Part \r\nG of \r\nAnnex VII \r\napply \r\n1. Electric vehicle batteries, as \r\ndefined in Article 3 point (141) \r\nof Regulation (EU) 2023/1542), \r\nincluding their battery \r\nmanagement systems, onboard \r\nchargers for electric vehicles, \r\ncasing or housing if present; \r\n Electric vehicle batteries, including \r\ntheir battery management \r\nsystems, onboard chargers for \r\nelectric vehicles, casing or housing \r\nif present; as defined in Article 3 \r\npoint (14), of Regulation (EU) \r\n2023/1542 \r\n \r\nAnalysis: \r\nThe definitions for electric vehicle batteries as well as for portable batteries (“other batteries”) \r\naccording to the Battery Regulation 2023/1542 Article 3 should be used to avoid misunderstanding \r\nand double regulation. While using the definition of the Regulation (EU) 2023/1542 an additional \r\nlist of parts for dismantling is not necessary and may lead to misunderstandings and confusion at \r\nthe dismantler. \r\n2. E-drive motors, including their \r\ncasings, generators, alternators \r\nand cooling fan motors if \r\npresent, and any associated \r\n E-drive motors, including their \r\ncasings, generators, alternators \r\nand cooling fan motors if present, \r\nand any associated control units, \r\n \r\ncontrol units, wiring, and other \r\nparts, components and materials \r\ndirectly fastened or attached to \r\nE-drive motors; \r\nwiring, and other parts, \r\ncomponents and materials directly \r\nfastened or attached to E-drive \r\nmotors; \r\nAnalysis: \r\nDifferent components can be attached or directly fastened to the e-drive motor, depending on the \r\nrequirements and construction concept and to allow future improvements. A written list might be \r\nincomplete and will create misunderstandings and increased efforts at the dismantlers. Therefore, \r\na more general wording is recommended. \r\n3. SLI batteries as defined in Article \r\n3, point (12), of Regulation (EU) \r\n2023/1542 and other batteries \r\nas defined in Article 3, point (9), \r\nof Regulation (EU) 2023/1542 \r\n****[on batteries and waste \r\nbatteries]; \r\n SLI batteries as defined in Article 3, \r\npoint (12), of Regulation (EU) \r\n2023/1542 and other portable \r\nbatteries as defined in Article 3, \r\npoint (9), of Regulation (EU) \r\n2023/1542 ****[on batteries and \r\nwaste batteries]; \r\n \r\nAnalysis: \r\nThe definitions for electric vehicle batteries as well as for portable batteries (“other batteries”) \r\naccording to the Battery Regulation 2023/1542 Article 3 should be used to avoid misunderstanding \r\nand double regulation. \r\n4. Combustion engines blocks with \r\ngenerators, starter, alternators, \r\nturbo-chargers, radiator and \r\ncooling fan motors and \r\nassociated devices; \r\nX Combustion engines blocks with \r\ngenerators, starters, alternators, \r\nand turbochargers, radiator and \r\ncooling fan motors and associated \r\ndevices; \r\nX \r\nAnalysis: \r\nDismantling of combustions engines is less economical for dismantlers because shredders pay by \r\nweight. Therefore, we welcome the possibility of an exemption, as the material can be separated \r\nafter shredding with appropriate technology. Generators, starters, alternators, as well as \r\nturbochargers are dismantled together with the combustion engine if an engine is dismantled, \r\nwhereas the dismantling of radiators, cooling fan motors and associated devices would be an \r\nadditional burdensome effort without benefit because these materials will be separated in the \r\nshredder. We welcome the proposal of the Hungarian Presidency to delete the additional ancillary \r\ncomponents in Point No. 4 from this Table. \r\n \r\n5. Catalytic converters;  Catalytic converters;  \r\n6. Gear boxes, including control \r\nunits; \r\nX \r\nIn case of \r\nexemptio\r\n n, No. 20 \r\nshall \r\napply to \r\nthe \r\ncontrol \r\nunit \r\nGear boxes, including control \r\nunits; \r\nX \r\nAnalysis: \r\nDismantling of gearboxes is less economical for dismantlers because shredders pay by weight. \r\nTherefore, we welcome the possibility of an exemption, as the material can be separated after \r\nshredding with appropriate technology. Generators, starters, alternators, as well as turbochargers \r\nare dismantled together with the combustion engine if an engine is dismantled, whereas the \r\ndismantling of radiators, cooling fan motors and associated devices would be an additional \r\nburdensome effort without benefit because these materials will be separated in the shredder. \r\n7. At least 70% of the total glass \r\nfrom windshields, rear and side \r\nwindows made of glass, including \r\nrooftop glass installations; \r\n At least 70% of the total glass \r\nfrom windshields, rear and side \r\nwindows made of glass, including \r\nrooftop glass installations; \r\nX \r\nAnalysis: \r\nFor the dismantling of glass at the end of life of vehicles the ecological benefits are unproven. The \r\neffort for dismantling glass is high, the risk of injury is great and very clean working methods are \r\nrequired, as glass recyclers accept only 3 ppm (g/t) of contamination. The associated effort and \r\nenvironmental costs of transport would also be high as there are only a few glass recyclers in \r\nEurope, resulting in long distance transportation. To document that 70% has been dismantled \r\nseems difficult to prove and would result in additional bureaucratic effort for SMEs.  \r\nIf this entry is not deleted it should at least have an exemption. \r\n8. Wheels Rims;  Wheels Rims;  \r\n9. Rubber tyres;  Rubber tyres;  \r\n10. Dashboards;  Dashboards;  \r\nAnalysis: \r\nWe agree with the proposal of the Hungarian Presidency, to remove this entry from Annex VII Part \r\nC. The mandatory disassembly of dashboards for reuse is impractical due to the lack of demand for \r\nthese parts. Additionally, “dashboard” is not clearly defined and includes various components and \r\nmaterials, leading to a mixed waste stream with no improvement recycling quality. \r\n11. Directly accessible parts of the \r\ninfotainment system, including \r\nsound, navigation, including \r\nradar or lidar control units and \r\nsensors if present, and \r\nmultimedia controllers, including \r\ndisplays of a surface greater than \r\n100 square centimetres; \r\n Directly accessible parts of the \r\ninfotainment system, including \r\nsound, navigation, including radar \r\nor lidar control units and sensors \r\nif present, and multimedia \r\ncontrollers, including displays of a \r\nsurface greater than 100 square \r\ncentimetres; \r\n \r\nAnalysis: \r\nWhile it could be reasonable to require the dismantling of “directly accessible parts of the \r\ninfotainment system”, it is counterproductive to add a possibly incomplete list of parts which might \r\nor may not belong to the infotainment system. Radar and lidar control units and sensors are part of \r\nthe driver assistance systems and not of the infotainment system.  Therefore, the deletion is \r\nproposed so that the decision lies with the dismantler. \r\n12. Head- and taillights, including \r\ntheir actuators; \r\n Head- and taillights, including their \r\nactuators; \r\n \r\n13. Main wire harnesses, including \r\ninternal and external charging \r\ncables if present; \r\nX Main wire harnesses, including \r\ninternal and external charging \r\ncables if present; \r\nX \r\nAnalysis: \r\nWith the inclusion of the exemption, it could be a compromise to list the main wiring harness, \r\nalthough the wiring harness is the first part which is installed in the car body after varnishing, the \r\nremoval of which would result in a complete disassembly of the car. The potential for reuse is \r\nextremely low.  \r\nRegarding the internal charging cable, the dismantling requires the dismantling of the axle, \r\ntherefore the ratio of effort to benefit is extremely high and a deletion is recommended. \r\n14. Crash management system, \r\nincluding bumpers covers, \r\nbeams and crash boxes; \r\nX Crash management system, \r\nincluding bumpers covers, beams \r\nand crash boxes; \r\nX \r\nAnalysis: \r\nThe intention of the commission with the inclusion of “bumpers” was to ensure that the plastic \r\nparts are removed for recycling if a reuse is not possible. The “crash management system” of a car \r\nincludes several components in the structure of a vehicle to ensure safety of the passengers. Beams \r\nand crash boxes are made of metal, which can be separated after shredder. Beams run along the \r\nlength of the vehicle and are, for example, integrated into the doors (side impact protection) or the \r\nchassis and therefore cannot be removed. \r\n15. Fluid containers; Plastic fuel \r\ntanks \r\n Fluid containers; Plastic fuel tanks  \r\nAnalysis: \r\nPlastic fuel tanks are highly contaminated with fuel, resulting in high efforts for physical material \r\nrecycling. The ecological benefit of fuel tank recycling has still to be proven and there is no \r\nestablished, economic recycling industry for the recycling of fuel tanks. A mandatory dismantling is \r\ntherefore not reasonable if a demand as spare part is not given. Authorised treatment facilities \r\nshould and will decide if a dismantling is worthwhile. \r\n \r\n16. Heat exchangers;  Heat exchangers; X \r\nAnalysis: \r\nThe heat exchanger sits under the dashboard between the engine compartment and the passenger \r\ncompartment, directly against the bulkhead. For dismantling the dashboard would have to be \r\nremoved whereas as the metal of the heat exchanger is separated after shredding. The reuse \r\npotential is low due to fatigue and corrosion of the material. A deletion of that entry is \r\nrecommended or, at the very minimum, an exemption. \r\n17. Any other mono-material metal \r\ncomponents, heavier than 10 kg; \r\n Any other mono-material metal \r\ncomponents, heavier than 10 kg; \r\n \r\n18. Any other mono-material plastic \r\ncomponents, heavier than 10 kg; \r\n Any other mono-material plastic \r\ncomponents, heavier than 10 kg; \r\n \r\n17./18. Analysis: \r\nWe agree with the proposal of the Hungarian Presidency to remove these entries from Annex VII \r\nPart C. Components that are heavier than 10 kg are already listed elsewhere in the table (Motor, \r\nGear box, bumpers). Material from components that are lighter than 10 kg are already suitably \r\nrecovered with current shredder technologies. Therefore, the inclusion of these entries in the list \r\nbrings no clear ecological benefit. \r\n \r\n19. Components of carbon fibre \r\nreinforced plastics \r\n   \r\n19. Electrical and electronic \r\ncomponents: \r\n(a) inverters and DC-DC \r\nconverters with electric voltage \r\nabove 24V or a weight above 1 \r\nkilogram of the    \r\nelectric vehicles; \r\n(b) printed circuit containing \r\nboards with a surface area, larger \r\nthan 10 cm2 square centimetres; \r\nX  Electrical and electronic \r\ncomponents: \r\n(a) inverters and DC-DC converters \r\nwith electric \r\nvoltage above 24V or a weight \r\nabove 1 kilogram of the    \r\nelectric vehicles; \r\n(b) printed circuit containing \r\nboards with a surface area, larger \r\nthan 10 cm2 square centimetres; \r\nX \r\nparticularly high precious metal \r\ncontent \r\n(c) photo-voltaic (PV) panels \r\nwith a surface area, larger than \r\n0.2 m2 square metres; \r\n(d) control modules and valve \r\nboxes for the automatic \r\ntransmission.; \r\n(e)   oxygen, radar and lidar \r\nsensors if present. \r\nparticularly high precious metal \r\ncontent \r\n(c) photo-voltaic (PV) panels with a \r\nsurface area, larger than 0.2 m2 \r\nsquare metres; \r\n(d) control modules and valve \r\nboxes for the automatic \r\ntransmission.; \r\n(e)   oxygen, radar and lidar \r\nsensors if present. \r\nAnalysis: \r\nDismantling of all printed circuit boards (PCB) > 10 cm² is not feasible, therefore we welcome the \r\nproposal to delete this part of the requirement. The content of strategic, critical and precious \r\nmetals in vehicle electronics depends on the function of the control unit. A general \r\nrecommendation for the disassembly of \"x kg PCB\" or \"PCB > 10 cm²\" cannot be given. It is not \r\npossible to predict the metal content of a PCB without laboratory analysis. In most cases, the \r\nremoval costs exceed the potential revenues. As our own research has shown, PCBs are not a \r\nrelevant source of strategic, critical or precious metals, whereas the dismantling efforts for all 30 \r\n50 PCBs in a vehicle’s electronics are very high. The reason is the miniaturization of electronic \r\ncomponents over the last years. For the future we see a trend to combine several control units into \r\none case. \r\nControl modules and valve boxes for the automatic transmission have a very low material value, \r\nthe dismantling effort is high and there is no potential for reuse. Therefore, the deletion is \r\nproposed. \r\nOxygen, radar and lidar sensors are hugely different, very small sensors with an extremely low \r\nmaterial weight and a high dismantling effort. The dismantling is therefore not feasible or \r\nproportional and a deletion proposed. \r\n21. E-call system    \r\nAnalysis: \r\ne-Call systems, which have their own independent batteries, have to be dismantled (because of \r\nthe battery), without additionally listing this obligation in Annex VII. Additionally there might be \r\na demand for them as spare parts. \r\nWe welcome the prohibition of reuse of airbags. However, current tools for neutralising airbags \r\ninside the vehicles are commonly used and should remain an option. Annex VII Part B No. 2 (a) \r\nshould be complemented by adding neutralisation of airbags inside the vehicle as possible treatment \r\nstep.   \r\nArt. 8 necessitates that the requirements of Art. 4 - 7 & 9 - 11 are fulfilled, including documentation, \r\nin order to gain type approval.  \r\nArt. 8 will be applicable 12 months after entry into Force. \r\nAmendment-Proposal: \r\nArt. 8,1 Manufacturers shall demonstrate that \r\nnew vehicles that they have \r\nmanufactured and that are placed on the \r\nmarket, are type-approved in accordance \r\nwith the requirements of Regulation (EU) - \r\n2018/858, Regulation (EU) 168/2013 and \r\nof this Regulation. \r\nSource: Hungarian Presidency Steering Note 02.12.24 \r\nAnalysis: \r\nWe welcome the Presidency’s proposal to amend Art. 8(1) and Art. 8(5) to reference the \r\nRegulation (EU) 168/2013 on the approval and market surveillance of two- or three-wheel \r\nvehicles and quadricycles, since Art. 11 additionally applies to motorcycles.  \r\nIt must be ensured that suitable time is given for the industry to implement the measures and it \r\nmust be clarified that this requirement is applicable only for new vehicle types clarify that this \r\nrequirement is applicable only for new vehicle types. \r\nArt. 8,2 For the purposes of type-approval of \r\nvehicles types to which the requirements \r\nin Articles 4, 5, 6 or 7 apply, the \r\nmanufacturer shall provide the \r\ndocumentation showing compliance with \r\nthose requirements and shall: \r\nSource: Hungarian Presidency Steering Note \r\nFor the purposes of type-approval of \r\nvehicles types to which the requirements \r\nin Articles 4, 5, 6 or 7 apply, the \r\nmanufacturer shall provide the \r\ndocumentation showing compliance with \r\nthose requirements and shall: \r\nAnalysis: \r\nManufacturers and type approval authorities need clear and harmonised information of how to \r\nassess these new requirements when issuing new type approvals. The evidence to be submitted \r\nfor type-approval to prove compliance must be clarified and clear clarification, tools and \r\nprocesses of how to assess these new requirements when new type approvals must be issued.  \r\nAdditionally, the new type-approval demands are not in line with the globally harmonised UN \r\nR133 regulation. This will lead to divergence from non-EU markets, leading to a loss of synergies \r\nand worldwide-harmonised standards, instead the EU should seek to update the UN R133. \r\nAlignment with the globally harmonised standards should be maintained. \r\nArt. 9, in connection with Annex IV, requires that a circularity strategy must be drawn up for newly \r\ntype-approved vehicles. \r\nAmendment Proposals: \r\nArt. 9, 1 For each vehicle category in which a \r\nmaufacturer produced vehicles type\r\napproved under Regulation (EU) \r\n2018/858 as of [OP: Please insert the \r\ndate = the first day of the month \r\nfollowing 36 months after the date of \r\nentry into force of this Regulation], the \r\nmanufacturer shall draw up and \r\nimplement a circularity strategy, in order \r\nto make available its comprehensive \r\nplan for circularity for the upcoming five \r\nyears. With respect to paragraphs 3 and \r\n4 of Part A of Annex IV, the strategy \r\nFor each vehicle category in which a \r\nmaufacturer produced vehicles type\r\napproved under Regulation (EU) \r\n2018/858 as of [OP: Please insert the \r\ndate = the first day of the month \r\nfollowing 36 months after the date of \r\nentry into force of this Regulation], the \r\nmanufacturer shall Vehicle \r\nmanufacturers shall as of [OP: Please \r\ninsert the date = the first day of the \r\nmonth following 60 36 months after the \r\ndate of entry into force of this \r\nRegulation], draw up and implement a \r\nshall include type-specific information \r\nfor the vehicle type concerned. \r\nSource: Hungarian Presidency Steering Note 02.12.24 \r\ncircularity strategy, in order to make \r\navailable its comprehensive plan for \r\ncircularity for the upcoming five years. \r\nWith respect to paragraphs 3 and 4 of \r\nPart A of Annex IV, the strategy shall \r\ninclude type-specific information for the \r\nvehicle type concerned. \r\nAnalysis: \r\nThe benefit for submitting a circularity strategy for each vehicle category (e.g. M1 and N1 from \r\nthe same manufacturer) or even each newly type-approved model (as proposed by the \r\nCommission) is unclear. The obligation to submit the circularity strategy should apply for \r\nmanufacturers at company level similarly to the current company recycling strategy under the \r\nELV-Directive 2000/53/EC. A strategy within the same, e.g. vehicle, manufacturer will not differ \r\nbetween M1 and N1 vehicles. Nevertheless the proposal of the Hungarian Presidency goes into \r\nthe right direction. \r\nA format for how to set up this strategy and assessment process by the enforcement and type \r\napproval authorities is missing. The expectations of the EU Commission, enforcement, and type \r\napproval authorities is unclear. Different authorities may have different expectations, which could \r\nlead to unharmonised type approval process in each EU Member State. Clarification on the format \r\nor method for the strategy and process and expectations of enforcement and type approval \r\nauthorities should be provided. Lack of harmonisation across EU Member States should be \r\navoided. \r\nIn our opinion, clarification regarding the procedural provisions is best provided through \r\namendments to the text of the Regulation to provide further clarifications. This is the best \r\nsolution to provide legally binding and harmonised requirements for all actors in all Member \r\nStates. We remain at the disposal of the EU Commission to actively provide input from industry \r\ntowards the establishment of the format and methodology and the provision of the required \r\nclarification. \r\nArt. 9, 5 The manufacturer shall monitor and \r\nfollow up on the actions contained in the \r\ncircularity strategy and update the \r\nstrategy every five years in accordance \r\nwith Part B of Annex IV. The updated \r\ncircularity strategy shall be provided to \r\nthe type-approval authority that issued \r\nthe type-approval for a vehicle in the \r\ncategory concerned type and to the \r\nCommission. \r\nSource: Hungarian Presidency Steering Note 02.12.24 \r\nThe manufacturer shall monitor and \r\nfollow up on the actions contained in the \r\ncircularity strategy and update the \r\nstrategy every five years in accordance \r\nwith Part B of Annex IV in case of \r\nrelevant changes. The updated circularity \r\nstrategy shall be provided to the type\r\napproval authority that issued the type\r\napproval for the a vehicle in the category \r\nconcerned type and to the Commission. \r\nAnalysis: \r\nA regular update of the circularity strategy after a fixed period of time would lead to unnecessary \r\nburden for both the manufacturers and the type -approval authorities. Therefore, it is \r\nrecommended to only update the circularity strategy when relevant processes or circumstances \r\nhave changed. \r\nAnnex VI \r\nPart A, 3 \r\nInformation on the assumptions on end\r\nof-life vehicle treatment technologies \r\nin place, on dismantling and on reuse \r\nof parts and components, relevant \r\ntechnological progress in end-of-life \r\nvehicle treatment technologies and \r\ncapacity investment in such \r\ntechnologies, as of submitting the \r\napplication for type-approval, that \r\nthe manufacturer used in order to \r\ncalculate the reusability, recyclability \r\nand recoverability in accordance with \r\nArticle 4 of the vehicle type. \r\nSource: Hungarian Presidency Steering Note 02.12.24 \r\nInformation on the assumptions on end\r\nof-life vehicle treatment technologies \r\nin place, on dismantling and on reuse \r\nof parts and components, relevant \r\ntechnological progress in end-of-life \r\nvehicle treatment technologies and \r\ncapacity investment in such \r\ntechnologies, as of submitting the \r\napplication for type-approval, that \r\nthe manufacturer used in order to \r\ncalculate the reusability, recyclability \r\nand recoverability in accordance with \r\nArticle 4 of the vehicle type. \r\n \r\nAnalysis:  \r\nWhile the original Commission proposal seems to refer to the “Proven Technology List”, which is \r\naccepted by the Commission, the addition from the Hungarian Presidency includes a requirement \r\nwhich cannot be fulfilled by vehicle manufacturers. The kind and amount of dismantling and reuse \r\nof parts and components is in the responsibility of the recycling industry and has to be reported \r\nby them. \r\nAnnex IV \r\nPart A, 5 \r\nA list of actions that the manufacturer \r\ncommits to carry out in order to ensure \r\nthat the treatment of end-of-life vehicles \r\nof the type category concerned is carried \r\nout in accordance with this Regulation, \r\nwith a particular focus on:  \r\n… \r\n(b) measures contributing to the \r\ndevelopment of recycling technologies \r\nfor materials used in vehicles, for which \r\nsuch technologies are not widely \r\navailable at commercial scale at the \r\nmoment of submission of application for \r\ntype-approval;  \r\n \r\n(c) the monitoring on how parts, \r\ncomponents and materials contained in \r\nvehicles belonging to the vehicle type \r\ncategory are reused, recycled and \r\nrecovered in practice; \r\n(d) measures to address the challenges \r\nposed by the use of materials and \r\ntechniques which hamper easy \r\nA list of actions that the manufacturer \r\ncommits to carry out in order to ensure \r\nthat the treatment of end-of-life vehicles \r\nof the type category concerned is carried \r\nout in accordance with this Regulation, \r\nwith a particular focus on:  \r\n… \r\n(b) measures contributing to the \r\ndevelopment of recycling technologies in \r\ncooperation with waste management \r\noperators and/or research institutes for \r\nmaterials and components used in \r\nvehicles, for which such technologies are \r\nnot widely available at laboratory scale \r\ncommercial scale at the moment of \r\nsubmission of application for type\r\napproval;  \r\n(c) the monitoring on how parts, \r\ncomponents and materials contained in \r\nvehicles belonging to the vehicle type \r\nare reused, recycled and recovered in \r\npractice; \r\n(d) measures to address the challenges \r\nposed by the use of materials and \r\ndismantling or make recycling very \r\nchallenging, for example adhesives or \r\nfibre-reinforced materials; \r\n(e) measures to promote the reuse of \r\nparts and components. \r\nSource: Hungarian Presidency Steering Note 02.12.24 \r\ntechniques which hamper easy \r\ndismantling or make recycling very \r\nchallenging, for example adhesives or \r\nfibre-reinforced materials; \r\n(e) measures to promote the reuse of \r\nparts and components. \r\nAnalysis: \r\nThe requirements in the Annexes partly apply to the vehicle itself and partly to the strategy of the \r\nOEM. Annex IV Part A and B contain several requirements which cannot be controlled by OEMs, \r\nor which cannot be “measured” or “assessed” by OEMs: \r\n• 5. b) At the time of type approval, it is too early to define measures to contribute to the \r\ndevelopment of recycling technologies which are not widely available at commercial scale, as \r\nthe type-approved vehicles will be recycled at an industrial scale only 15+ years later. A good \r\nexample is the recycling of traction batteries where the development of recycling \r\ntechnologies by manufacturers together with recycling industry and research institutions \r\nstarted after the first electric vehicle was put on the market, but the industrial scale will only \r\nbe reached when enough electric vehicles will reach their end-of-life. According to UN R133 \r\n“processes shall be based on a technology which has been successfully tested, at least on a \r\nlaboratory scale (proven technology).” \r\n• 5. c) ELVs are treated by waste management operators 15+ years after type approval is \r\ngranted. Therefore, it cannot be monitored at the time of type approval. Additionally, there is \r\nno known process for how to track all parts and materials globally by waste management \r\noperators. Waste streams will be mixed in/after the shredder and cannot be tracked. \r\n• 5. e) Measures to promote the reuse of parts and components by OEMs are already in place, \r\nwith the possibility for second hand spare parts for the repair of older vehicles with lower \r\nprices. Insurance companies can promote this by decrease insurance fees if customers accept \r\nrepair with used parts. \r\nIn general, also waste management operators (recyclers) should be targeted to improve and \r\nimplement the recycling technologies (Annex IV, point 5 and 6), since the expertise and \r\nresponsibilities lie with them and not the vehicle manufacturer. \r\nPart A 5 c, d, e, should be deleted, 5 b should be amended. \r\nAnnex IV \r\nPart A, 6 \r\nA description of the nature and form of \r\nthe actions referred to in point 5, for \r\nexample investments in research and \r\ndevelopment, investments in the \r\ndevelopment of recycling technologies or \r\ninfrastructure, and how it has been \r\ncooperating with waste management \r\noperators involved in reuse, recycling \r\nand recovery of vehicles and removal of \r\ntheir parts. \r\nSource: EU COM Draft \r\nA description of the nature and form of \r\nthe actions referred to in point 5., for \r\nexample investments in research and \r\ndevelopment, investments in the \r\ndevelopment of recycling technologies \r\nor infrastructure, and how it has been \r\ncooperating with waste management \r\noperators involved in reuse, recycling \r\nand recovery of vehicles and removal of \r\ntheir parts.  \r\n \r\nAnalysis: \r\nThe goal of these detailed requirements, who will receive the information and what will be done \r\nwith this information is unclear. The bureaucratic effort is assessed as extremely high and will \r\nincrease the burden for industry and authorities without recognisable benefit for the \r\nenvironment. \r\nAnnex IV \r\nPart A, 7 \r\nA description of the manner in which the \r\neffectiveness of the actions referred to in \r\npoint 6 will be assessed. \r\nSource: EU COM Draft \r\nA description of the manner in which \r\nthe effectiveness of the actions referred \r\nto in point 6 will be assessed.  \r\nAnalysis: \r\nFor an automotive manufacturer it is not possible to assess the effectiveness of their own action \r\nto improve the infrastructure of recycling technologies in all Member States of the EU. There are \r\ntoo many factors which influence that business which is not the business of vehicle \r\nmanufacturers. Therefore, a description of the manner is not possible. This should be a task for \r\nthe EU Commission and recycling industry. \r\nAnnex IV \r\nPart B, 2 \r\nThe updated circularity strategy shall \r\ninclude the following: \r\n(a) a description of how the actions \r\nreferred to in point 6 of Part A have been \r\nundertaken and, in the case that one or \r\nmore actions indicated in the strategy \r\nhas not been conducted, an explanation \r\nof the reasons for this; \r\n(b) an assessment of the effectiveness of \r\nthe actions referred to in point 6 of Part \r\nA; \r\n(c) a description of how the actions \r\nreferred to in point 6 of Part A have been \r\nor will be taken into account in the \r\ndesign of new vehicle types. \r\nSource: EU COM Draft \r\nThe updated circularity strategy shall \r\ninclude the following: \r\n(a) a description of how the actions \r\nreferred to in point 6 of Part A have \r\nbeen undertaken and, in the case that \r\none or more actions indicated in the \r\nstrategy has not been conducted, an \r\nexplanation of the reasons for this; \r\n(b) an assessment of the effectiveness of \r\nthe actions referred to in point 6 of Part \r\nA; \r\n(c) a description of how the actions \r\nreferred to in point 6 of Part A have \r\nbeen or will be taken into account in the \r\ndesign of new vehicle types. \r\nAnnex IV \r\nPart B, 3 \r\nIn case of significant changes in the \r\ndesign and production of the vehicle \r\ntype, the updated circularity strategy \r\nshall have a particular focus on the \r\nfollowing: \r\n(a) changes in the use of parts and \r\ncomponents in new vehicles which are \r\neasy to dismantle for reuse or for high \r\nquality recycling; \r\nIn case of significant changes in the \r\ndesign and production of the vehicle \r\ntype, the updated circularity strategy \r\nshall have a particular focus on the \r\nfollowing: \r\n(a) changes in the use of parts and \r\ncomponents in new vehicles which are \r\neasy to dismantle for reuse or for high \r\nquality recycling; \r\n(b) changes in the use of materials in new \r\nvehicles which are easy to recycle; \r\n(c) the adoption of design features to \r\naddress the challenges posed by the use \r\nof materials and techniques which \r\nhamper easy removal or make recycling \r\nvery challenging, for example adhesives, \r\ncomposite plastics or fibre-reinforced \r\nmaterials; \r\n(d) changes in the use of recycled \r\nmaterials in new vehicles, \r\nremanufactured or refurbished parts and \r\ncomponents in vehicles and of \r\ncompatibility of parts and components \r\nfrom other types of vehicles; and \r\n(e) changes in the use of substances \r\nreferred to in Article 5 in new vehicles. \r\nSource: EU COM Draft \r\n(b) changes in the use of materials in \r\nnew vehicles which are easy to recycle; \r\n(c) the adoption of design features to \r\naddress the challenges posed by the use \r\nof materials and techniques which \r\nhamper easy removal or make recycling \r\nvery challenging, for example adhesives, \r\ncomposite plastics or fibre-reinforced \r\nmaterials; \r\n(d) changes in the use of recycled \r\nmaterials in new vehicles, \r\nremanufactured or refurbished parts \r\nand components in vehicles and of \r\ncompatibility of parts and components \r\nfrom other types of vehicles; and \r\n(e) changes in the use of substances \r\nreferred to in Article 5 in new vehicles. \r\nAnalysis:  \r\nThe goal of these detailed requirements, who will receive the information and what will be done \r\nwith this information is unclear. The bureaucratic effort is assessed as extremely high and will \r\nincrease the burden for industry and authorities without recognisable benefit for the \r\nenvironment. \r\nPart B, 3a: The term “high quality recycling” is not defined in this regulation draft. \r\nPart B, 2. and 3. should be deleted. \r\nArticle 10 requires manufacturers to declare the recycled content present in vehicles as part of the \r\ntype-approval process. \r\nAmendment Proposals: \r\nArt. 10, 1 Manufacturers shall declare, for each \r\nvehicle type that is type-approved as of \r\n[OP: Please insert the date = the first day \r\nof the month following 36 12 months \r\nafter the entry into force of the \r\nRegulation adoption of the \r\nimplementing act establishing the \r\nmethodology for the calculation and \r\nverification of the share of the materials \r\nrecycled from post-consumer waste in \r\nvehicle types, as referred to in Article 6 \r\n(4 5)] under Regulation (EU) 2018/858, \r\nManufacturers shall declare, for each \r\nvehicle type that is type-approved as of \r\n[OP: Please insert the date = the first day \r\nof the month following 36 12 months \r\nafter the entry into force of the \r\nRegulation adoption of the \r\nimplementing act establishing the \r\nmethodology for the calculation and \r\nverification of the share of the materials \r\nrecycled from post-consumer waste in \r\nvehicle types, as referred to in Article 6 \r\n(4 5)] under Regulation (EU) 2018/858, \r\nthe respective share of recycled content \r\nof:  \r\n(a) neodymium, dysprosium, \r\npraseodymium, terbium, samarium, \r\nnickel, cobalt, boron in permanent \r\nmagnets in e-drive motors; \r\n \r\nSource: Hungarian Presidency Steering Note 02.12.24 \r\nthe respective share of recycled content \r\nof:  \r\n(a) neodymium, dysprosium, \r\npraseodymium, terbium, samarium, \r\nnickel, cobalt, boron in permanent \r\nmagnets in e-drive motors; \r\nAnalysis: \r\nWe welcome the proposal of the Hungarian presidency to first develop the calculation and \r\nverification methodology before the application of the declaration requirement. Nevertheless \r\nsufficient time is needed to gather the data through the long supply chain of automotive \r\nmanufacturers.  \r\nAutomotive applications with considerable amounts of nickel and cobalt are already regulated \r\nunder the Battery Regulation. In other applications in vehicles nickel and cobalt are only alloying \r\nelements. Alloying elements will be recycled together with the alloys and be further utilised if \r\nneeded. Further obligations with regard to recycled content targets without assessment and \r\ndeclaration of their use, especially for metals present in very low amounts in vehicles, would \r\nresult in high efforts from the whole industry with very low ecological benefits. We strongly \r\nrecommend refraining from such new measures.  \r\nRegarding the inclusion of Nickel and Cobalt please see above, for Art. 6.5 \r\nA methodology is required to allow compliance to the requirements. To declare the percentage of \r\nrecycled content, OEMs require an existing harmonised methodology, prior to the publication of a \r\nfeasibility study.  \r\nRecital 13 emphasises that: “Accordingly, new vehicle types should continue to be constructed so \r\nas to be reusable or recyclable to a minimum of 85 % by mass and reusable or recoverable to a \r\nminimum of 95 % by mass, as already foreseen in Directive 2005/64/EC.”. This is relevant because \r\nit excludes older vehicle types to meet the same standards set in the ELV Regulation as new \r\nvehicle type types within the timeframe “72 months after the date of entry into force”. \r\nArt. 11 obliges manufacturers to provide waste management operators and repair and maintenance \r\noperators with information on removal and replacement of certain parts and components free of \r\ncharge. \r\nAmendment Proposals: \r\nArt. 11, 1 From [OP: Please insert the date = the \r\nfirst day of the month following 36 \r\nmonths after the date of entry into force \r\nof this Regulation], manufacturers shall \r\nprovide waste management operators \r\nand repair and maintenance operators \r\nFor new vehicle types approved from \r\n[OP: Please insert the date = the first day \r\nof the month following 36 months after \r\nthe date of entry into force of this \r\nRegulation], manufacturers shall provide \r\nauthorised treatment facilities repair \r\nunrestricted, standardised and non\r\ndiscriminatory access to the information \r\nlisted in Annex V, enabling access to, and \r\nsafe removal and replacement of, the \r\nfollowing: \r\n(…) \r\nparts and components, containing the \r\ncritical raw materials as referred to in \r\nArticle 27(1), point (b) Article 28(1) point \r\n(b) of Regulation (EU) 2024/1252 at the \r\ntime of the type-approval of the vehicle; \r\n Source: Hungarian Presidency Steering Note 02.12.24 \r\nand maintenance operators \r\nunrestricted, standardised and non\r\ndiscriminatory access, e.g. via  existing \r\ntools used by the Automotive Industry, \r\nto the information listed in Annex V, \r\nenabling access to, and safe removal and \r\nreplacement of, the following: \r\n(…) \r\nAnalysis: \r\nToday, authorised treatment facilities are informed free of charge on removal of parts and \r\ncomponents and how to gain access to training and repair and maintenance information etc. via \r\nthe International Dismantling Information System (IDIS).  \r\nSee: https://www.idis2.com/part_reuse.php. \r\nIt should be made clear, that only authorised treatment facilities shall have access to \r\ndismantling information. \r\n• Repair and maintenance operators do not need dismantling information. They have \r\naccess to information via a separate repair and maintenance information system.  \r\n• Authorised treatment facilities or other waste management operators carrying out only \r\ncollection of end-of-life vehicles do not require the information on replacement. \r\nProviding this information would increase the risk on non-qualified persons dealing with \r\ndangerous components like high-voltage batteries, gas tanks or pyrotechnical devices. \r\n \r\nArt. 11, 2 [...] \r\nThe manufacturers shall provide the \r\ninformation referred to in the first \r\nsubparagraph free of charge. The \r\nmanufacturers may collect charges from \r\nwaste management operators and repair \r\nand maintenance operators to the \r\namount necessary to cover the \r\nadministrative costs for making the \r\nrequired information accessible through \r\ncommunication platforms. \r\nSource: EU COM Draft \r\n \r\n[...] \r\nThe manufacturers shall provide the \r\ninformation referred to in the first \r\nsubparagraph free of charge to \r\nauthorised treatment facilities. The \r\nmanufacturers may collect charges from \r\nauthorised treatment facilities waste \r\nmanagement operators and repair and \r\nmaintenance operators to the amount \r\nnecessary to cover the administrative \r\ncosts for making the required \r\ninformation accessible through \r\ncommunication platforms. \r\nAnalysis: \r\nThe obligation to provide repair and maintenance operators free charge with information on \r\nremoval and replacement is contradictory to Art. 63 (1) of Regulation (EU) 2018/858 which \r\nallows the manufacturer to charge reasonable and proportionate fees for access to vehicle repair \r\nand maintenance information. It would be against competition law to provide information free of \r\ncharge to other independent operators. \r\nArt. 12 covers the labelling of parts, components and materials present in vehicles in line with \r\nmaterial coding standards. Detailed rules on labelling e-drive motors containing permanent magnets \r\nare laid down in Annex VI. \r\nAmendment Proposal: \r\nArt. 12, 2 Manufacturers shall ensure that e-drive \r\nmotors containing permanent magnets \r\nbear a conspicuous, clearly legible and \r\nindelible label indicating the information \r\nlisted in point 4 of Annex VI. \r\n \r\nSource: EU COM Draft \r\nFrom [OP: Please insert the date = the \r\nfirst day of the month following 36 \r\nmonths after the date of entry into force \r\nof this Regulation], mManufacturers \r\nshall ensure that e-drive motors \r\ncontaining permanent magnets bear a \r\nconspicuous, clearly legible and indelible \r\nlabel indicating the information listed in \r\npoint 4 of Annex VI. \r\nAnalysis: \r\nDouble regulation, e.g., with the EU Regulation 2024/1252 establishing a Framework for Ensuring \r\na Secure and Sustainable Supply of Critical Raw Materials, should be avoided. \r\nThe EU ELV Regulation is the lead regulation stipulating circularity requirements for vehicles and \r\nthe requirements for labelling of parts, components and materials in vehicles should be specified \r\nin, and only in, the EU ELV Regulation. \r\nManufacturers and their supply chain will need sufficient time to adapt to new labelling \r\nrequirements for e-drive motors containing permanent magnets. \r\nAnnex VI Point 4 must be amended to align with the CRMA timeline (the EU Commission is \r\nobliged to adopt the format of labelling by 24. Nov. 2025 in an implementing act with the labelling \r\nitself having to be applied to vehicles containing permanent magnets from 24. May. 2029).  \r\nWe therefore recommend postponing the labelling obligation so labelling requirements for e\r\ndrive motors containing permanent magnets take effect 36 months after the date of entry into \r\nforce.  \r\nAdditionally, the basis for the labelling of permanent magnets differs between the CRMA (all, \r\nwhen >200g per product) and the ELV Regulation (those in e-drive motors). Contradictory \r\nrequirements and timelines for implementation of labelling requirements must be avoided.  \r\nArt. 13 describes the obligation for manufacturers to provide a circularity vehicle passport for each \r\nvehicle placed to the market. The manufacturer shall ensure that the information in the circular \r\nvehicle passport is accurate, complete and up to date. \r\nAmendment Proposals: \r\nArt. 13, 1 From [OP: please insert a date = the first \r\nday of the month following 84 72 months \r\nafter entry into force of the Regulation] \r\neach vehicle placed on the market shall \r\nhave a digital circularity vehicle passport, \r\nwhich shall be aligned with and, where \r\npossible, integrated in other vehicle \r\nrelated environmental passports \r\nestablished under Union law. \r\nSource: Hungarian Presidency Steering Note \r\nFor each new vehicle type approved \r\nfrom [OP: please insert a date = the first \r\nday of the month following 84 72 months \r\nafter entry into force of the Regulation] \r\neach new vehicle type placed on the \r\nmarket shall have a digital circularity \r\nvehicle passport, which shall be aligned \r\nwith and, where possible, integrated \r\ninteroperable with in other vehicle \r\nrelated environmental passports \r\nestablished under Union law. \r\nAnalysis: \r\nToday, the openly available IT system International Dismantling Information System (IDIS) already \r\nprovides detailed information, e.g., on parts for recycling and dismantling of components, to all \r\ninterested waste management operators, per vehicle type.  \r\nAdditionally, the tracking of materials and substances in automotive products is ensured by the \r\nglobal International Materials Data System (IMDS), which connects the entire supply chain. This \r\nis constantly improved, e.g., IMDS was updated to enable tracking of recycled and bio-based \r\ncontent in materials and components. \r\nThe Commission has already acknowledged that information per vehicle type is acceptable in the \r\nSCIP database, required under the EU Waste Framework Directive. To avoid duplication and \r\nprovision of overwhelming data volumes, the circularity vehicle passport (Art. 13) should require \r\ninformation (e.g., for reuse, dismantling and recycling) only per vehicle type, but not for each \r\nindividual vehicle.  \r\nThe circular vehicle passport should only be valid for newly type approved vehicles, after entry \r\ninto force of the ELV Regulation. Vehicles type approved before the entry into force date of the \r\nELV Regulation should be excluded from this obligation. \r\nThe timeline for application of Art. 13 depends on the general development of circularity \r\npassports. Duplication and unnecessary burden from differing product passports required under \r\ndiffering legislative regimes must be avoided. At this point of time, it is not possible to predict \r\nwhether all challenges on the way to implementing product passports can be solved in a timely \r\nmanner. Moreover, an earlier implementation of the circular vehicle passport is not required since \r\nthe foreseen information that would be provided in the passport is already provided by existing \r\nsystems.  \r\nTherefore, before developing new systems, established systems, e.g. IDIS / IMDS / SCIP, should be \r\nused and developed, based on an assessment of their effectiveness and the actually required \r\ndemands. This would reduce the bureaucratic and environmental burden. \r\nArt. 13, 2 The digital circularity vehicle passport \r\nshall contain the information referred to \r\nin Article 11 of this Regulation in digital \r\nformat and shall be accessible free of \r\ncharge. - \r\nSource: Hungarian Presidency Steering Note 02.12.24 \r\nAnalysis \r\nThe reference to “hazardous substances” in the question posed by the Hungarian Presidency in \r\ntheir Steering Note regarding this Article is unclear. Art. 13(2) requires the information on removal \r\nand replacement of parts, components and materials present in vehicles (Art. 11) to be included \r\nin circularity vehicle passport, which itself references Annex V and Part C of Annex VII. There is no \r\nreference in Art. 13, Art. 11, Annex V or Annex VII to “hazardous substances”, but Annex V \r\nrequires information on the presence of the substances listed in Article 5(2). This information is \r\nalready available and provided in IDIS. \r\nArt. 13, 3 The manufacturer placing the vehicle on \r\nthe market shall ensure that the \r\ninformation in the digital circularity \r\nvehicle passport is accurate, complete \r\nand up to date. \r\nSource: Hungarian Presidency Steering Note 02.12.24 \r\nThe manufacturer placing the vehicle on \r\nthe market shall ensure that the \r\ninformation in the digital circularity \r\nvehicle passport is accurate, and \r\ncomplete and up to date at the time of \r\nplacing the vehicle on the market. \r\nAnalysis \r\nIt has to be noted that a guarantee of completeness and up to date-ness for the vehicle passport \r\ncan only be ensured by the manufacturer at the time the vehicle is produced and not later in its \r\nlife because of maintenance, customisation and repair (especially in case of non-original parts) \r\nduring its lifetime. \r\nA guarantee of completeness by the manufacturer should therefore be limited to the time of \r\nplacing the vehicle on the market. \r\nArt. 13, 5 The digital circularity vehicle passport of \r\na vehicle that has become an end-of-life \r\nvehicle shall cease to exist at the earliest \r\n6 months after the certificate of \r\ndestruction for that end-of-life vehicle \r\nwas issued. \r\nSource: Hungarian Presidency Steering Note 02.12.24 \r\nThe digital circularity vehicle passport of \r\na vehicle that has become an end-of-life \r\nvehicles or legally exported from the EU \r\nshall cease to exist at the earliest 6 \r\nmonths after the certificate of export or \r\ndestruction for that end-of-life vehicle \r\nwas issued. \r\nAnalysis \r\nArt. 13.5, and the cessation of a circularity vehicle passport, should also apply when a vehicle is \r\nlegally exported from the EU, in addition to when a vehicle becomes an end-of-life vehicle.  \r\nThose issuing the certificate of destruction should do so in a timely manner, promptly after an ELV \r\nis treated, and the circular vehicle passport must expire promptly thereafter. \r\nArt. 13, 6 When laying down the rules referred to \r\nin the first subparagraph, the \r\nCommission shall take into account the \r\nneed to ensure a high level of security \r\nand privacy. \r\nWhen laying down the rules referred to \r\nin the first subparagraph, the \r\nCommission shall take into account the \r\nneed to ensure a high level of security \r\nSource: EU COM Draft \r\nand privacy, including restricting direct \r\naccess to a vehicle’s operating data. \r\nFundamentally duplication and unnecessary burden from differing reporting obligations, including \r\nproduct passports, required under differing legislative regimes must be avoided. \r\nThe circularity vehicle passport, as with all product passports, should not allow direct access to a \r\nvehicle‘s operating data or allow influencing of the ECUs or vehicle software, on data- and cyber- \r\nsecurity grounds. \r\nArt. 14 contains provisions requiring Member States to designate the authorities responsible for \r\nimplementing and enforcing the management of end-of-life vehicles and the rules on used vehicles \r\nand their export. \r\nAnalysis: \r\nProducers need clear and harmonised information from their competent authorities, especially \r\nregarding how they expect compliance to be proven regarding obligations under Art. 15 – 36. Clear \r\nclarification, tools and processes must be issued by the competent authorities. Therefore, Member \r\nStates must designate competent authorities promptly and there should be no delay in providing this \r\ninformation and certainty to industry.  \r\nGenerally, suitable time should be given for both industry and Member States to implement \r\nmeasures. However, increasing the deadline for the designation of the competent authorities may \r\nhave an impact on producers/PROs, who need to submit their application for authorisation to the \r\ncompetent authority.  \r\nIn addition, producers/PROs need to know the national specifications for authorisation (e.g. \r\ngeographical coverage) and go through a process of tenders, negotiations, contract signatures, audits, \r\netc. Prior experience with the setting-up of PROs in different Member States show that the entire \r\nprocess takes approximately 15 months after national legislation enters in force.  \r\nWe recommend reviewing the timeline of the whole procedural processes for both Member States \r\nand industry. Numerous EPR related obligations are planned to enter into force prior to the obligations \r\nfrom Art. 16, which enters into force 36 months after the date of entry into force of the Regulation. It \r\nis especially unclear why Art. 15, Art. 18 - 27, Art. 29 and Art. 31 should enter into force 12 months \r\nafter the date of entry into force of the Regulation.  \r\nConcerning the steps for the operation of the EPR schemes (individual or collective systems), the \r\nfollowing sequence should be favoured: \r\n1. Designation of competent authority \r\n2. Creation of the national register of producers \r\n3. New EPR schemes obligations (including obligations for Art. 15 - 16 and Art. 18 - 35) \r\n4. Submission of individual/collective system dossiers to the competent authority \r\n5. Authorization of individual/collective systems by the competent authority \r\n6. \r\nAmendment Proposal: \r\nArt. 15, 3a \r\n(new) \r\n \r\nSource: Hungarian Presidency Steering Note 02.12.24 \r\n \r\nOnly authorised treatment facilities and \r\ncollection points that are in contract \r\nwith the producer or, where appointed \r\nin accordance with Article 18, the \r\nproducer responsibility organisation \r\nand that are not suspended after \r\ninspection in accordance with Art. 46, \r\nare allowed to collect end of life \r\nvehicles. \r\nThe wording proposed by the Presidency is suggesting, that in case that producers/PROs do not \r\nconclude contracts, all existing ATFs are regarded as belonging to their EPR system. We believe \r\nthe intention is to give Member States the option to make a contract between ATF/collection \r\npoint and producer/PRO mandatory.  \r\nBy specifying that only authorised treatment facilities and collection points that are in contract \r\nwith the producer or producer responsibility organisation are allowed to collect end of life \r\nvehicles, it ensures that these facilities have the necessary infrastructure, expertise and resources \r\nto handle the vehicles in an environmentally responsible manner. However, this should not be a \r\ndecision of the Member States but an EU-wide common requirement. \r\nThe references in Art. 16 and 20 to Art. 23 of the EU COM Proposal suggest that all obligations of a \r\nproducer/producer responsibility organisation (PRO) refer only to their own collection system. \r\nThe EU COM does not clarify how to deal with today’s reality: that the treatment of end-of life \r\nvehicles is such an attractive business that there are tens-of-thousands of active treatment \r\noperators in Europe without a contract with the respective producer or a PRO. \r\nShould the legislator accept treatment activities outside the scope of EPR systems it needs to be \r\nclarified, that it would be contradictory to a free market to oblige producers to sign a contract \r\nwith every existing facility and via Art. 20/22 make them responsible to bear deficits of an \r\nunlimited number of inefficient operators. We therefore support the proposal of the Hungarian \r\nPresidency in recital (33) that producers/PROs have no obligation related to operators outside \r\ntheir own EPR system.  \r\nHowever, a producer can only fulfil extended producer responsibility properly if he has the right \r\nof precedence to organise his waste in order to steer it in the best performing channels. \r\nArt. 15, 5 \r\n(new) \r\n \r\nSource: Hungarian Presidency Steering Note 02.12.24 \r\n \r\n \r\nAnalysis: \r\nWe see no reason to implement safeguards by establishing criteria for private contracts via an \r\nimplementing act. Producers cannot impose disproportionate contractual obligations as they \r\nwould then be faulty of an abuse of a dominant position and could be sued for market foreclosure \r\nif they impose disproportionate obligations in their contracts with ATFs. \r\nSimilar to other EPR schemes, producers/PROs will require a certain geographical coverage with \r\nATFs in their future take-back network. This network will need to provide the capacity to handle \r\nthe yearly number of ELVs that are now handled by the existing ATFs. \r\nArt. 16 implements extended producer responsibilities (EPR) according to Art. 8 and 8a of Directive \r\n2008/98/EC.  \r\nAmendment Proposal: \r\nArt. 16 From [OP: Please insert the date = the \r\nfirst day of the month following 36 \r\nmonths after the date of entry into force \r\nof this Regulation] producers shall have \r\nextended producer responsibility for \r\nvehicles that they make available on the \r\nmarket for the first time within the \r\nterritory of a Member State. The \r\nextended producer responsibility scheme \r\nestablished by producers to exercise \r\nthat responsibility shall be consistent \r\nwith Articles 8 and 8a of Directive \r\n2008/98/EC and comply with the \r\nrequirements of this Chapter. \r\nA producer selling vehicles by means of \r\ndistance contracts directly to end-users \r\nFrom [OP: Please insert the date = the \r\nfirst day of the month following 36 \r\nmonths after the date of entry into force \r\nof this Regulation] producers shall have \r\nextended producer responsibility for \r\nvehicles that they make available on the \r\nmarket for the first time within the \r\nterritory of a Member State. The \r\nextended producer responsibility scheme \r\nestablished by producers to exercise \r\nthat responsibility shall be consistent \r\nwith Articles 8 and 8a of Directive \r\n2008/98/EC and comply with the \r\nrequirements of this Chapter. \r\nA producer selling vehicles by means of \r\ndistance contracts directly to end-users \r\nin a Member State, and established in \r\nanother Member State or in a third \r\ncountry, shall appoint an authorised \r\nrepresentative for extended producer \r\nresponsibility in each Member State on \r\nthe territory of which it makes its \r\nvehicles available on the market for the \r\nfirst time. Such appointment shall be \r\nmade by written mandate. \r\nThe extended producer responsibility \r\nshall include the obligation for producers \r\nto ensure that:  \r\n(a) vehicles which they have made \r\navailable on the market for the first time \r\nwithin the territory of a Member State \r\nand which become end-of-life vehicles  \r\n(i) collected in accordance with Article \r\n23;  \r\n(ii) treated in accordance with Article 27;  \r\n(b) the waste management operators \r\ntreating end-of-life vehicles referred to in \r\npoint (a) meet the targets laid down in \r\nArticle 34. \r\nSource: Hungarian Presidency Steering Note 02.12.24  \r\nin a Member State, and established in \r\nanother Member State or in a third \r\ncountry, shall appoint an authorised \r\nrepresentative for extended producer \r\nresponsibility in each Member State on \r\nthe territory of which it makes its \r\nvehicles available on the market for the \r\nfirst time. Such appointment shall be \r\nmade by written mandate. \r\nThe extended producer responsibility \r\nshall include the obligation for producers \r\nto ensure that:  \r\n(a) vehicles which they have made \r\navailable on the market for the first time \r\nwithin the territory of a Member State \r\nand which become end-of-life vehicles \r\nare \r\n(i) collected in accordance with Article \r\n23;  \r\n(ii) treated in accordance with Article 27; \r\nby treatment facilities that possess a \r\nvalid permit in accordance with Art. 15 \r\nand are not suspended after inspection \r\nin accordance with Art. 46.  \r\n(b) the waste management operators \r\ntreating end-of-life vehicles referred to \r\nin point (a) meet the targets laid down \r\nin Article 34. \r\nAnalysis: \r\nWe do not agree with the Presidency proposal to delete the words “established by the producers” \r\nbut support the proposal of the EU Commission, that a PRO as a non-profit organisation needs to \r\nbe set up by several producers and PROs without a contract with a producer should not be \r\nallowed to collect end-of-life vehicles.   \r\nIt is the general approach of Directive 2008/98/EC that Extended PRODUCER Responsibility has to \r\nbe primarily fulfilled by producers. See recital (14) of Directive (EU) 2018/851 amending Directive \r\n2008/98/EC: “[…] Producers of products can fulfil the obligations of the extended producer \r\nresponsibility scheme individually or collectively.” This explicitly limits the possibility to setting up \r\na PRO by producers and excludes any other operators. \r\nEPR schemes should not be established by profit-oriented waste management operators or any \r\nother economic operators which is not the producer or does not have EPR obligations. This would \r\nnot be in line with Art. 8a (4)(c) stating that the costs shall not exceed the costs that are necessary \r\nto provide waste management services in a cost-efficient way. \r\nWe agree with the Presidency’s proposal to add a paragraph concerning distance contracts. This \r\nwould implement the intention of recital (36) and the applicability of the definition of “producer” \r\nin Art. 3 (22). \r\nArt. 16 (a) and (b) of the Commission Proposal require producers to ensure that authorised \r\ntreatment facilities belonging to their collection network treat all end-of-life vehicles in an \r\nenvironmentally sound manner and reach the treatment targets. However, manufacturers and \r\nproducers do not have effective tools, nor the legal basis, to enforce compliance by waste \r\nmanagement operators with the EPR targets, especially as such operators do not recycle on an \r\nOEM-specific basis. \r\nAlthough achieving quotas requires action from all actors, waste management operators should \r\nbe the only actor that report to the Member States on the achievement of the targets (Art. 16 \r\nand Art. 34). \r\nCompliance with these aspects of the regulation should be the sole responsibility of the waste \r\nmanagement operator or the authorised treatment facility and be monitored by local competent \r\nauthorities. The role of manufacturers should be limited to the requirement set out in Art. 4 to \r\ndesign and construct reusable, recyclable and recoverable vehicles.  \r\nWe suggest to describe or define “outermost” regions.  \r\nAmendment Proposals: \r\nArt. 17,1 By [OP: Please insert the date = the last day \r\nof the month following 35 39 months after \r\nthe date of entry into force of this \r\nRegulation] Member States shall establish a \r\nregister of producers which shall serve to \r\nmonitor compliance of producers with the \r\nrequirements of this Chapter. \r\n \r\nBy [P.O. insert date thirty months after the \r\nentry into force of this amending Directive] \r\nthe Commission shall establish a website \r\nwhich contains the links to all national \r\nregisters to facilitate the registration of \r\nproducers in all Member States. \r\nSource: Hungarian Presidency Steering Note 02.12.24 \r\nBy [OP: Please insert the date = the \r\nlast day of the month following 35 39 \r\nmonths after the date of entry into \r\nforce of this Regulation] Member \r\nStates shall establish a register of \r\nproducers which shall serve to \r\nmonitor compliance of producers \r\nwith the requirements of this \r\nChapter. \r\nAnalysis: \r\nWe are not in favour of the proposal of the Hungarian Presidency to lengthen the time for \r\nestablishment of the register of producers. The registry of producers should be created prior to Art. \r\n16 entering into force. Producers need to know where to submit their application for registration \r\nbefore they receive their authorisation. Therefore, the timeline proposed by the Commission with \r\na date of entry into force of EIF + 35 months is correct. \r\nWe support the creation of a common website containing links to national registers. This would \r\nsimplify the process for producers. Ideally, a single portal should be established where producers \r\ncan submit their registrations. This portal would then seamlessly connect with the various \r\nMember State national registers. Such a system would not only streamline the registration \r\nprocess for producers but would also enable Member State to coordinate more effectively, \r\nleading to a more harmonized registration framework across the board. \r\nArt. 17,6 The obligations under this Article may be \r\nfulfilled on a producer’s behalf by an \r\nappointed authorised representative for \r\nthe extended producer responsibility.  \r\nIf more than one producer is represented \r\nin the country by one authorised \r\nrepresentative, that authorised \r\nrepresentative shall provide the name and \r\nthe contact details for each of the \r\nrepresented producers separately. \r\nSource: Hungarian Presidency Steering Note 02.12.24 - \r\nAnalysis: \r\nRegarding the editorial amendment to Art. 17.6, we agree that the correct terminology of \r\nauthorised representative should be use. \r\nRegarding the substantive amendment to Art. 17.6 we agree that the authorised representative \r\nshall provide name and contact of all represented producers. \r\nArt. 18 (4) obliges Producer Responsibility Organisations (PRO) to ensure fair representation of \r\nproducers and waste management operators in their governing bodies. \r\nAmendment Proposal: \r\nArt. 18, 1 \r\nSource: Hungarian Presidency Steering 02.12.24 \r\n \r\nAnalysis: \r\nThe proposal allows Member States to exclude individual systems even though Directive \r\n2008/98/EC on Waste, Art. 8 (1)  establishes the principle of individual return systems. I\r\n \r\nTo successfully implement the idea of a Circular Economy, particularly in light of binding \r\nregulations on the use of recycled materials in new products, it is essential from the perspective \r\nof the Volkswagen Group to grant manufacturers/producers of durable products, such as \r\nvehicles, the right to independently manage the environmentally sound disposal of the products \r\nthey place on the market through an individual return system. This would enable targeted and \r\neffective waste management. \r\nWe would like to point out, that long lasting products like vehicles are not comparable to e.g. \r\nportable batteries or packaging: Vehicles are type approved and registered in the national \r\nregistration systems, and are collected at qualified ATFs or collection points. \r\nA mandatory introduction of PROs leads to disadvantages: PROs result in financing recycling \r\napproximately 15 years before the actual recycling or export outside the EU. In individual systems, \r\ncosts only arise when old vehicles are actually disposed of, which strengthens competition and the \r\ndevelopment of recycling technologies. \r\nArt. 18, 4 Producer responsibility organisations \r\nshall ensure a fair representation of \r\nproducers and waste management \r\noperators in their governing bodies \r\nregular dialogue between stakeholders \r\naccording to Article 8.a. paragraph 6 of \r\nDirective 2008/98/EC. \r\nSource: Hungarian Presidency Steering Note 02.12.24 \r\nProducer responsibility organisations \r\nshall ensure a fair representation of \r\nproducers and waste management \r\noperators in their governing bodies \r\nregular dialogue between stakeholders \r\naccording to Article 8.a. paragraph 6 of \r\nDirective 2008/98/EC. \r\nProducer responsibility organisations \r\nshall not collect, dismantle and treat \r\nend-of-life vehicles of producers which \r\nfulfil their extended producer \r\nresponsibility obligations individually, \r\nwithout their prior agreement. \r\nAnalysis: \r\nSince there is a possible conflict of interest if contract partners of a PRO can be represented in the \r\ngoverning body, we fully support the proposal of the Presidency, to refer to the provisions of Art. \r\n8a (6) WFD.  \r\nIn addition, a definition of “fair” is missing in the EU Commission’s proposal and it must be \r\nensured that such actions required by this regulation comply with competition law. \r\nProducers can only fulfil their extended producer responsibility properly, if they have the right of \r\nprecedence to organise their waste and be able to steer it in the best performing channels. \r\nTherefore, no other economic operator should be allowed to collect, dismantle or treat waste \r\nwithout prior consent by the respective producer. \r\nAmendment Proposal: \r\nArt. 19,2 -… \r\n \r\n \r\nSource: Hungarian Presidency Steering Note  02.12.24 - \r\nAnalysis: \r\nThe Presidency considers that it is not clearly stated that neither the producer nor the PRO can \r\ncontinue their activities without authorisation. Therefore, the Presidency proposes an additional \r\nprovision stating that producers or PROs cannot be registered without authorisation. \r\n \r\nThe proposed amendment goes beyond the intended goal. Producers and PROs should only be \r\nallowed to register if they have received authorisation for their EPR scheme (individual or collective \r\nsystem).  \r\nThe legislator needs to provide a clear procedure to the competent authorities for revoking of an \r\nauthorisation. \r\nArt. 20 defines the financial responsibility of the producer. \r\nAmendment Proposals: \r\nArt. 20, 1 The financial contributions paid by the \r\nproducer shall cover the following costs \r\nrelated to the vehicles that the producer \r\nmakes available on the market:  \r\n \r\n \r\nThe financial contributions paid by the \r\nproducer to contracted waste \r\nmanagement operators within their \r\nindividual or collective extended \r\nproducer responsibility scheme \r\naccording to article 16 shall cover the \r\nfollowing costs related to the vehicles \r\n \r\n(a) the costs of the collection of end-of\r\nlife vehicles, including those for which \r\nthe producer cannot be identified or \r\nceased to exist, that is necessary to meet \r\nthe requirements in Articles 23 to 26 and \r\nof their subsequent transport, and the \r\ncosts of the treatment of end-of-life \r\nvehicles that is necessary to meet the \r\nrequirements in Articles 27 to 30 31, 34 \r\nand, 35 36, provided that, are not \r\ncovered by the pursuant to Article 8.a, \r\nparagraph 4, points (a) to (c) of Directive \r\n2008/98/EC, they take into account the \r\nrevenues of waste management \r\noperators linked to the sales of used \r\nspare parts and used spare components, \r\nof depolluted end-of-life vehicles, or of \r\nsecondary raw materials recycled from \r\nend-of-life vehicles;  \r\n(b) the costs of conducting awareness \r\nraising campaigns aimed to improve \r\ncollection of end-of-life vehicles;  \r\n(c) the costs of establishing notification \r\nsystem referred to in Article 25.  \r\n(d) the costs of data gathering and \r\nreporting to the competent authorities.  \r\nSource: Hungarian Presidency Steering Note 02.12.24 \r\nthat the producer makes available on the \r\nmarket: \r\n(a) the costs of the collection of end-of\r\nlife vehicles, including those for which \r\nthe producer cannot be identified or \r\nceased to exist without a legal successor, \r\nthat is necessary to meet the \r\nrequirements in Articles 23 to 26 and of \r\ntheir subsequent transport to the closest \r\nshredder, and the costs of the treatment \r\nof end-of-life vehicles that is necessary to \r\nmeet the requirements in Articles 27 to \r\n30 31, 34 and, 35 36, provided that, are \r\nnot covered by the pursuant to Article \r\n8.a, paragraph 4, points (a) to (c) of \r\nDirective 2008/98/EC, they take into \r\naccount the revenues of waste \r\nmanagement operators linked to the \r\nsales of used spare parts and used spare \r\ncomponents, of depolluted end-of-life \r\nvehicles, or of secondary raw materials \r\nrecycled from end-of-life vehicles;  \r\n(b) the costs of conducting awareness \r\nraising campaigns aimed to improve \r\ncollection of end-of-life vehicles;  \r\n(c) the costs of establishing notification \r\nsystem referred to in Article 25; \r\n(d) the costs of data gathering and \r\nreporting to the competent authorities.  \r\n \r\nAnalysis: \r\nThe references of Art. 16 and 20 to Art. 23 suggest that all obligations of a producer/producer \r\nresponsibility organisation (PRO) refer only to their own collection system.  \r\nArt. 20 (1) obliges the producer to finance the costs of their collection and treatment system \r\nwhich are not covered by revenues from sales of used spare parts, depolluted ELVs or secondary \r\nraw materials. An end-of-life vehicle is, in contrast to other end-of-life consumer products (e.g., \r\ntoasters, furniture), a valuable good. If a waste management operator claims insufficient profits, \r\nthis claim cannot be fully verified by a producer. No contractual partner can be forced to disclose \r\nfully their financial information. \r\nIt should be clarified that the compensation under Art. 20 (1) is part of contractual negotiation. In \r\naddition, it should be clarified that it is not the responsibility of the producers to subsidise an \r\nunlimited number of inefficient operators and that only contracted waste management \r\noperators can claim a deficit compensation. We therefore support the proposal of the \r\nPresidency to clarify this point in recital (33a). \r\nConcerning the transport from the ATF to a recycling facility, the producers/PROs should only be \r\nresponsible to finance the transport to the closest facility. \r\nThe establishment of a notification system for the certificate of destruction according to Art. 25  is \r\nthe task of the authorities and not an obligation of producers. \r\nWe support the deletion of (b) and (d). \r\nArt. 20, 2 The competent authority shall, in close \r\ncooperation with producers, producer \r\nresponsibility organisations and waste \r\nmanagement operators, monitor: \r\n(a)the average costs of collection, \r\nrecycling and treatment operations and \r\nthe revenues of waste management \r\noperators; \r\n(b)the level of financial contributions to \r\nbe paid by the producers to the producer \r\nresponsibility organisations appointed in \r\nthe case of collective fulfilment of \r\nextended producer responsibility \r\nobligations so that the costs are fairly \r\nallocated between all interested \r\noperators. \r\nSource: EU COM Draft  \r\nThe competent authority shall, in close \r\ncooperation with producers, producer \r\nresponsibility organisations and waste \r\nmanagement operators, monitor: \r\n(a)the average costs of collection, \r\nrecycling and treatment operations and \r\nthe revenues of waste management \r\noperators; \r\n(b)the level of financial contributions to \r\nbe paid by the producers to the \r\nproducer responsibility organisations \r\nappointed in the case of collective \r\nfulfilment of extended producer \r\nresponsibility obligations so that the \r\ncosts are fairly allocated between all \r\ninterested operators. \r\n \r\nAnalysis: \r\nArt. 20 (2) of the EU Commission’s proposal obliges the competent authorities to monitor costs \r\nand revenues of the waste management operators. According to recital (38), the aim of this \r\nmonitoring is to “ensure a fair allocation of costs between all interested operators”.  \r\nWe request further clarification of Art. 20 (2) (a), regarding what is intended and how this should \r\nbe implemented uniformly in all Member States. We reject any approach contradicting free\r\nmarket principles and suggest to check these proposals with DG Competition. \r\nArt. 20,4  In the case of individual fulfilment of \r\nextended producer responsibility \r\nobligations, the producers shall provide a \r\nguarantee for vehicles that they make \r\navailable on the market for the first time \r\nin the territory of a Member State. That \r\nguarantee shall ensure that the \r\noperations referred to in paragraph 1 \r\nrelating to those vehicles will be \r\nfinanced.  \r\nThe amount of the guarantee shall be \r\ndetermined by the Member States in \r\nwhich the vehicle has been made \r\navailable on the market for the first time \r\nIn the case of individual fulfilment of \r\nextended producer responsibility \r\nobligations, the producers shall provide a \r\nguarantee for vehicles that they make \r\navailable on the market for the first time \r\nin the territory of a Member State. That \r\nguarantee shall ensure that the \r\noperations referred to in paragraph 1 \r\nrelating to those vehicles will be \r\nfinanced.   \r\nThe amount of the guarantee shall be \r\ndetermined by the Member States in \r\nwhich the vehicle has been made \r\navailable on the market for the first time \r\ntaking into account criteria laid down in \r\ntaking into account criteria laid down in \r\nArticle 21.   \r\nThe guarantee may take the form of \r\nparticipation by the producer in \r\nappropriate schemes for the financing of \r\nthe management of end-of-life vehicles, a \r\nfinancial guarantee or equivalent \r\ninsurance. \r\nSource: Hungarian Presidency Steering Note 02.12.24 \r\nArticle 21 cover the projected costs of \r\nmanaging ELV placed on the market of \r\nthe Member State for 1 year from the \r\ndate of its authorization.  \r\nThe guarantee may take the form of \r\nparticipation by the producer in \r\nappropriate schemes for the financing of \r\nthe management of end-of-life vehicles, \r\na financial insurance or equivalent \r\ninsurance, e.g. a blocked bank account.  \r\nAnalysis: \r\nRegarding the financial guarantee for the case of individual system, we support the French legal \r\nprovision specifying that the guarantee is determined in order to cover the projected costs of \r\nmanaging ELVs placed on the market for 1 year from the date of its authorisation. \r\nArt. 20,5 \r\n(new) \r\nSource: Hungarian Presidency Steering Note 02.12.24 \r\n \r\nAnalysis: \r\nWe would like to remark that a state-run PRO is not in line with the introduction of extended \r\nproducer responsibility by this Regulation and would like to emphasize the necessity to align this \r\nlegislation across all Member States.  \r\nIf, however, an existing state-run PRO will be allowed to continue, it needs to be regulated that \r\nthe Member State may not use the fees collected from producers for other purposes than \r\nrunning an efficient system for collection and treatment of ELVs.  \r\nArt. 21 lays down rules for the fee modulation of producer responsibility organisations (PRO) that \r\nwill be completed with a delegated act. For example, the weight and time needed for dismantling \r\nshall influence the fee. \r\nAmendment Proposals: \r\nArt. 21; 1. In the case of a collective fulfilment of \r\nextended producer responsibility \r\nobligations, producer responsibility \r\norganisations shall ensure that the \r\nfinancial contributions paid to them by \r\nproducers are modulated by taking into \r\naccount at least the following: \r\n(a) the weight of the vehicle; \r\n(b) the type of drivetrain; \r\n(c) the rate of recyclability and reusability \r\nof the vehicle type to which the vehicle \r\nbelongs, based on the information \r\nsubmitted to the type-approval authority \r\nin accordance with Article 4; \r\n(d) the time needed to dismantle the \r\nvehicle at an authorised treatment \r\nfacility, especially for parts and \r\ncomponents which need to be removed \r\nprior to shredding under Article 30; \r\n(e) the share of materials and substances \r\npreventing a high-quality recycling \r\nprocess, such as adhesives, composite \r\nplastics, or carbon-reinforced materials; \r\n(f) the percentage of recycled content of \r\nmaterials listed in Articles 6 and 10 used \r\nin the vehicle; \r\n(g) the presence and amount of \r\nsubstances referred to in Article 5(2). \r\nHungarian Presidency Steering Note 02.12.24 \r\nIn the case of a collective fulfilment of \r\nextended producer responsibility \r\nobligations, producer responsibility \r\norganisations shall ensure that the \r\nfinancial contributions paid to them by \r\nproducers are modulated by taking into \r\naccount at least the following: \r\n(a) the weight of the vehicle excluding \r\nbatteries; \r\n(b) the type of drivetrain; \r\n(b)(c) the rate of recyclability and \r\nreusability of the vehicle type to which \r\nthe vehicle belongs, based on the \r\ninformation submitted to the type\r\napproval authority in accordance with \r\nArticle 4; \r\n(d) the time needed to dismantle the \r\nvehicle at an authorised treatment \r\nfacility, especially for parts and \r\ncomponents which need to be removed \r\nprior to shredding under Article 30; \r\n(e) the share of materials and \r\nsubstances preventing a high-quality \r\nrecycling process, such as adhesives, \r\ncomposite plastics, or carbon-reinforced \r\nmaterials; \r\n(c)(f) the percentage of recycled content \r\nof materials listed in Articles 6 and 10 \r\nused in the vehicle; \r\n(g) the presence and amount of \r\nsubstances referred to in Article 5(2). \r\nAnalysis: \r\nWe prefer harmonised criteria for the fee modulation within the EU. Therefore, the requirements \r\nlisted under Art. 21(1) should be a comprehensive list and not be opened up with the inclusion of \r\nthe words “at least” since this introduces a reduction in certainty and clarity for PROs and \r\nProducers.  \r\nThe Regulation (EU) 2023/1542 on batteries and waste batteries already covers the electrical \r\nvehicle battery. Double financing of EPRs for electric vehicle batteries (e.g., obligations Art. 61 (3) \r\nRegulation 2023/1542/EU) must be avoided. Consequently, the electrical vehicle battery should \r\nnot be considered in the weight of the vehicle regarding the fee modulation.  \r\nIn addition, the Commission should consider that a higher weight of a vehicle might also reflect \r\nhigher material value and should not necessarily lead to a higher fee. \r\nThe Commission would like to use time needed for dismantling as a factor for the fee because it \r\nmight have an impact of the costs of a PRO. However, we would like to emphasize that it should \r\nnot be the goal to subsidize inefficient treatment operations. \r\nThe focus should be on specific criteria such as recycled content and RRR rates (Recovery, \r\nRecycle, and Reuse). By limiting criteria to these factors, manufacturers and consumers can be \r\nincentivized to use batteries with high recycled content and efficient recycling processes. This \r\napproach promotes sustainability and encourages the development of environmentally friendly \r\npractices. \r\nArt. 21, (1a)  - New paragraph:  \r\nIn case of export of a vehicle outside a \r\nMember State, the respective producer \r\nresponsibility organisation for vehicles in that \r\nMember State must compensate the producer \r\naccordingly.  \r\nAnalysis: \r\nAccording to Art. 20.1, producers (including professional used car importers, Art. 3(22)) need to pay \r\nthe financial contribution for recycling at the time of making a vehicle available on the market. Over \r\nthe lifetime of the vehicle, producers might pay a financial contribution in several Member States \r\nfor the same vehicle, and in the end the vehicle might be exported outside the Union market. \r\nProducers need to be compensated for fees paid to PROs for vehicles exported outside the \r\nrespective Member State. This will avoid an accumulation of payments in several Member States for \r\nthe same vehicle. It will also prevent the financing of recycling of vehicles that will not end up in the \r\nEuropean treatment chain. \r\nArt. 21, (2) \r\n \r\n \r\nAnalysis: \r\nWe agree that the Act referred to in Art. 21(2) should be an implementing act rather than a \r\ndelegated act since this allows the involvement of the Member States and guarantees a uniform \r\napplication in the EU. Delegated acts are foreseen for non-essential parts of legislative acts, but \r\nthe modulation of the fee is an essential part of the EPR requirements in this draft regulation. \r\n \r\nArticle 22 introduces a cost allocation mechanism f\r\n \r\nr vehicles that become end-of-life vehicles in another Member State \r\nAmendment Proposals: \r\nArt. 22, 1 Where a vehicle becomes an end-of-life \r\nvehicle in another Member State than \r\nthe Member State within whose territory \r\nthe vehicle was made available on the \r\nmarket for the first time, the producer of \r\nthat vehicle or, where appointed in \r\naccordance with Article 18, the producer \r\nresponsibility organisation shall ensure \r\nthat the net costs of waste management \r\noperations referred to in Article 20 \r\nincurred by waste management \r\noperators in other Member States are \r\ncovered.  \r\nSource: EU COM Draft \r\nWhere a vehicle becomes an end-of-life \r\nvehicle in another Member State than \r\nthe Member State within whose \r\nterritory the vehicle was made available \r\non the market for the first time, the \r\nproducer of that vehicle or, where \r\nappointed in accordance with Article 18, \r\nthe producer responsibility organisation \r\nshall ensure that the net costs of waste \r\nmanagement operations referred to in \r\nArticle 20 incurred by waste \r\nmanagement operators in other \r\nMember States are covered. \r\nArt. 22, 2 A producer or, where appointed in \r\naccordance with Article 18, a producer \r\nresponsibility organisation shall: \r\n(a) designate by a written mandate \r\nan appointed representative for the \r\nextended producer responsibility in each \r\nMember State;  \r\n(b) establish cross-border \r\ncooperation mechanisms with the waste \r\nmanagement operators carrying out \r\nwaste management operations referred \r\nto in Article 20. \r\nSource: EU COM Draft \r\nA producer or, where appointed in \r\naccordance with Article 18, a producer \r\nresponsibility organisation shall: \r\n(a) designate by a written mandate \r\nan appointed representative for the \r\nextended producer responsibility in \r\neach Member State;  \r\n(b) establish cross-border \r\ncooperation mechanisms with the waste \r\nmanagement operators carrying out \r\nwaste management operations referred \r\nto in Article 20. \r\nArt. 22, 3 The Member State where the vehicle \r\nbecame an end-of-life vehicle shall \r\nmonitor producers’ or, where appointed \r\nin accordance with Article 18, producer \r\nresponsibility organisations’ compliance \r\nwith paragraphs 1 and 2. The monitoring \r\nshall be based on the information \r\nreported and verified by producers’ or, \r\nwhere appointed in accordance with \r\nArticle 18, producer responsibility \r\norganisations’, to the competent \r\nauthorities on the implementation of \r\nparagraphs 1 and 2, in particular on the \r\ncalculation and allocation of costs for the \r\nmanagement of end-of-life vehicles \r\nreferred to in paragraph 1, with due \r\nregard for business confidentiality and \r\nother concerns regarding \r\ncompetitiveness. \r\nSource: EU COM Draft \r\nThe Member State where the vehicle \r\nbecame an end-of-life vehicle shall \r\nmonitor producers’ or, where appointed \r\nin accordance with Article 18, producer \r\nresponsibility organisations’ compliance \r\nwith paragraphs 1 and 2. The monitoring \r\nshall be based on the information \r\nreported and verified by producers’ or, \r\nwhere appointed in accordance with \r\nArticle 18, producer responsibility \r\norganisations’, to the competent \r\nauthorities on the implementation of \r\nparagraphs 1 and 2, in particular on the \r\ncalculation and allocation of costs for \r\nthe management of end-of-life vehicles \r\nreferred to in paragraph 1, with due \r\nregard for business confidentiality and \r\nother concerns regarding \r\ncompetitiveness. \r\nArt. 22, 4 Where necessary to ensure compliance \r\nwith this Article and avoid distortion of \r\nthe single market, the Commission is \r\nempowered to adopt delegated acts in \r\naccordance with Article 50 this \r\nRegulation by laying down detailed rules \r\non the obligations of the producers, \r\nMember States and waste management \r\noperators and the features of the \r\nmechanisms referred to in paragraph 1 \r\nSource: EU COM Draft \r\nWhere necessary to ensure compliance \r\nwith this Article and avoid distortion of \r\nthe single market, the Commission is \r\nempowered to adopt delegated acts in \r\naccordance with Article 50 this \r\nRegulation by laying down detailed rules \r\non the obligations of the producers, \r\nMember States and waste management \r\noperators and the features of the \r\nmechanisms referred to in paragraph 1 \r\nAnalysis: \r\nThe approach described in the Draft Regulation would lead to an unjustifiable increase of \r\nbureaucracy without any benefit for the environment and the entire article should be deleted. \r\nAccording to Art. 3 No. 22, “a producer means any manufacturer, importer or distributor, who \r\n[…] supplies a vehicle for the first time for distribution or use, within a territory of a Member State \r\non a professional basis”. This definition therefore also includes professional used car importers.  \r\nVolkswagen Example:  \r\nIn every Member State, there is a Volkswagen distributor registered as producer. This draft would \r\nrequire all Volkswagen producers who decided to set up an individual system in their Member \r\nState to establish a cross-border cooperation mechanism with waste management operators in \r\nthe other 26 Member States.  \r\nIn addition, all used car importers would have to register as producers in their Member State and \r\nwould have to establish a cross-border cooperation mechanism with waste management \r\noperators in 26 Member States. \r\nEven in an EU with only PROs, this approach would lead to excessive bureaucracy, e.g. in order to \r\navoid fraud. \r\nInstead, we propose that all Member States need to enforce the obligation of used car importers \r\nas producers in their Member States. The Commission could clarify the term “professional” by \r\nintroducing a maximum number of imports of vehicles per private person. \r\nArt. 23 describes the collection requirements for end-of-life vehicles. \r\nAmendment Proposals: \r\nArt. 23, 1 The producers or, where appointed in \r\naccordance with Article 18, producer \r\nresponsibility organisations shall set up, \r\nor participate in the setting up of, \r\ncollection systems, including collection \r\npoints, for all end-of-life vehicles \r\nbelonging to vehicle categories that they \r\nhave made available for the first time on \r\nthe market in the territory of a Member \r\nState. \r\nMember States shall adopt the necessary \r\nmeasures to ensure that producers or, \r\nwhere appointed in accordance with \r\nArticle 18, producer responsibility \r\norganisations set up collection systems \r\nfor all end-of-life vehicles. \r\n \r\n \r\nThe producers or, where appointed in \r\naccordance with Article 18, producer \r\nresponsibility organisations shall set up, \r\nor participate in the setting up of, \r\ncollection systems, including collection \r\npoints, for all end-of-life vehicles \r\nbelonging to vehicle categories that they \r\nhave made available as new vehicles for \r\nthe first time on the market in the \r\nterritory of a Member State. \r\nMember States shall adopt the necessary \r\nmeasures to ensure that producers or, \r\nwhere appointed in accordance with \r\nArticle 18, producer responsibility \r\norganisations set up collection systems \r\nfor all end-of-life vehicles. \r\nNew: \r\nOnly authorized treatment facilities and \r\ncollection points that are in contract \r\nwith the producer or, where appointed \r\nin accordance with Article 18, the \r\nproducer responsibility organisation and \r\nthat are not suspended after inspection \r\nin accordance with Art. 46, are allowed \r\nto collect end of life vehicles. \r\nAnalysis: \r\nArt. 23 (1) obliges producers to accept vehicles from competitors. Unlike packaging or other \r\nwaste streams, vehicles are a complex product and the value of end-of-life vehicles sometimes \r\ndiffers extremely. A producer of vehicles with high end-of-life value cannot be responsible for \r\nvehicles with low/no value. As a consequence, the responsibility should be only for vehicles \r\nmade available on the market. We therefore support the proposal of the Presidency (Steering \r\nNote 22.11.2025) to delete the words “belonging to the vehicle category”. \r\nThe references of Art. 16 and 20 to Art. 23 suggest that all obligations of a producer/producer \r\nresponsibility organisation (PRO) refer only to their own collection system. The legislator does not \r\nclarify how to deal with today’s reality: that the treatment of end-of life vehicles is such an \r\nattractive business that there are tens-of-thousands of active treatment operators in Europe \r\nwithout a contract with the respective producer. The current draft does not oblige operators to be \r\npart of the producer’s/PRO collection system, therefore the legislator appears to accept \r\ntreatment activities outside the scope of extended producer responsibility take-back systems.  \r\nHowever, a producer can only fulfil extended producer responsibility properly if he as the right of \r\nprecedence to organise his waste in order to steer it in the best performing channels.  \r\nTherefore, we support the approach of the Hungarian Presidency to make a contract between \r\nATF/collection point and producer/PRO mandatory. However, this should not be a decision of \r\nthe Member States but an EU-wide common requirement. Art. 16 / Art. 23 / Art. 27 need to \r\nclarify that only waste management operators contracted by the producer will be authorised to \r\ntake back/treat the end-of-life vehicles of that producer. \r\nArt. 23, 2 The producers or, where appointed in \r\naccordance with Article 18, producer \r\nresponsibility organisations shall ensure \r\nthat collection systems referred to in \r\nparagraph 1: \r\n… \r\n(b) ensure adequate availability of \r\nauthorised treatment facilities, taking \r\ninto account population size and density, \r\nexpected volume of end-of-life vehicles, \r\nnot being limited to areas where the \r\ncollection and subsequent management \r\nis most profitable; \r\n(c) ensure collection of waste parts from \r\nrepairs of vehicles; \r\n(d) ensure the collection of end-of-life \r\nvehicles of every brand irrespective of \r\ntheir origin \r\n \r\n(e) enable the delivery of all end-of-life \r\nvehicles free of charge to authorised \r\ntreatment facilities as provided in Article \r\n24(2). \r\n \r\nThe producers or, where appointed in \r\naccordance with Article 18, producer \r\nresponsibility organisations shall ensure \r\nthat collection systems referred to in \r\nparagraph 1: \r\n… \r\n(b) ensure adequate availability of \r\nauthorised treatment facilities or \r\ncollection points, taking into account \r\npopulation size and density, expected \r\nvolume of end-of-life vehicles, not being \r\nlimited to areas where the collection and \r\nsubsequent management is most \r\nprofitable; \r\n(c) ensure collection of waste parts from \r\nrepairs of vehicles; \r\n(c)(d) ensure the collection of end-of-life \r\nvehicles they have made available on \r\nthe market of every brand irrespective \r\nof their origin \r\n(e) enable the delivery acceptance of all \r\nend-of-life vehicles free of charge to by \r\nauthorised treatment facilities as \r\nprovided in Article 24(2). \r\nAnalysis: \r\nArt. 23 (1) also mentions collection points. Consequently, as proposed also by the Presidence in \r\nSteering Note 25.11.2025, collection points need to be added in Art. 23 (2) (b). \r\nArt. 23 (2c) in combination with Art. 20 (1a) obliges the producer to ensure and finance workshop \r\ndisposal. This general wording suggests that the responsibility extends to independent workshops. \r\nAlready today, workshops have the legal obligation to dispose their waste. Any responsibility for \r\nthe producer could only be within his own service-network and not for independent workshops. \r\nIn addition, it should not be expected that producers finance the disposal of parts that they have \r\nnot themselves put on the market. The sentence Art. 23 (2c) should be deleted. \r\nCorresponding to the amendment proposal concerning Art. 23 (1), we believe that the \r\nresponsibility should be only for vehicles made available on the market and that the wording in \r\npoint (d) needs to be adapted accordingly.  \r\nWe support the proposal in the Presidency Steering Note 25.11.2024 to clarify in point (e) that \r\nATFs shall accept end-of-life vehicles free of charg. \r\nArt. 23; 4. Member States may authorise waste \r\nmanagement operators collection points \r\nother than authorised treatment facilities \r\nto set up collection points for to collect \r\nend-of-life vehicles. \r\nThe waste management operator \r\noperating the collection point shall: \r\nThe collection points shall obtain a \r\npermit from the competent authority in \r\naccordance with Article 23 of Directive \r\n2008/98/EC and shall comply with the \r\nconditions laid down in that permit. \r\n \r\nIn order to issue a permit, the \r\ncompetent authority shall verify that \r\nsuch establishment or undertaking has \r\nthe capacity that is necessary to carry \r\nout the \r\nfollowing obligations: \r\n(a) ensure that the collection point meets \r\nthe conditions for storage of collect the \r\nend-of-life vehicles and temporarly store \r\nthem in accordance with, laid down \r\nin Part A of Annex VII; \r\n(b) be authorised by the competent \r\nauthorities referred to in Article 14 to \r\ncollect end-of-life vehicles and be \r\nregistered in the respective register \r\nprepare for the transfer of the collected \r\nend-of-life vehicles to authorised \r\ntreatment facilities by preventing the \r\naccidental leakage of fluids and \r\nunauthorised access to the collection \r\npoint; \r\nMember States may authorise waste \r\nmanagement operators cCollection \r\npoints other than authorised treatment \r\nfacilities to set up collection points for to \r\nmay collect end-of-life vehicles. \r\n… \r\n(ba) arrange for transport to an \r\nauthorised treatment facility when eight \r\nor more end-of-life vehicles are stored \r\nat the same time at the collection point; \r\nand \r\n(c) guarantee that all collected end-of-life \r\nvehicles are transferred to an authorised \r\ntreatment facility within one year month \r\nfrom receipt of the end-of-life vehicle. \r\n; and \r\n(d) meet all other applicable conditions \r\nfor storage of waste laid down in national \r\nlaw. \r\n \r\nAnalysis: \r\nWe support the amendment proposal of the Presidency, Steering Note 25.11.2024. In addition, it \r\nshould not be a Member State decision but rather an EU-wide given, that producers/PROs have \r\nthis possibility. \r\nArt. 23 (1) also mentions the possibility for producers to include collection points in the take back \r\nsystem, which is an important alternative for offering an extensive customer friendly collection \r\nsystem. As with any other European EPR legislation, the distributor should also play a role in the \r\ntake-back system of a producer and producers/PROs need to be able to set up collection points \r\nvia their dealers. \r\nArt. 23, 5 The collection points waste \r\nmanagement operators, including \r\nauthorised treatment facilities, shall \r\nissue a document in electronic format, \r\nconfirming receipt of an end-of- life \r\nvehicle, to the vehicle owner, and \r\nprovide it through an electronic \r\nnotification procedure established in \r\naccordance with Article 25(2) to the \r\nrelevant authorities of the Member \r\nState, including the competent \r\nauthorities designated under Article 14. \r\nSource: Hungarian Presidency Steering Note 02.12.24 \r\n \r\nAnalysis: \r\nWe support the proposal of the Presidency to align this paragraph with the changes proposed in \r\nparagraph 4. \r\nArt. 24 obliges authorised treatment facilities to accept ELVs free of charge, even in the case of \r\nvehicles missing the electric vehicle battery. \r\nAmendment Proposals: \r\nArt. 24, 2 Delivery of an end-of-life vehicle to an \r\nauthorised treatment facility shall be free \r\nof charge for the last owner of a vehicle \r\nunless the end-of-life vehicle lacks any of \r\nthe essential vehicle parts or \r\ncomponents except the electric vehicle \r\nbattery, or contains waste which has \r\nbeen added to the end-of-life vehicle. \r\nSource: EU COM Draft \r\nDelivery of an end-of-life vehicle to an \r\nauthorised treatment facility or a \r\ncollection point shall be free of charge \r\nfor the last owner of a vehicle unless the \r\nend-of-life vehicle lacks any of the \r\nessential vehicle parts or components \r\nexcept the electric vehicle battery, or \r\ncontains waste which has been added to \r\nthe end-of-life vehicle. In case of a \r\nmissing electric vehicle battery, the \r\ndelivery of the vehicle shall only be free \r\nof charge if the last owner provides \r\nproof that the battery has been handed \r\nover to an economic operator according \r\nto Art. 3; 1. (22) Regulation (EU) \r\n2023/1542. \r\nAnalysis: \r\nArticle 26 explicitly mentions the possibility for the last owner to hand in an ELV to a collection \r\npoint, therefore it needs to be clarified that the delivery to a collection point needs to be free of \r\ncharge as well. \r\nThe high-voltage traction battery is an integral part of an electric vehicle and handling requires \r\ntrained personnel. An unauthorised separation of vehicle and traction battery before handing the \r\nvehicle over to a collection point or ATF by unqualified persons not acting on a professional basis \r\nand therefore without any obligation according to the Battery Regulation (or acting illegally) \r\nrepresents a considerable risk for people and the environment.  \r\nIn order to prevent this risk, the delivery of a vehicle missing the electric vehicle battery should \r\nonly be free of charge if a proof is provided, that the battery had been handed over to an \r\neconomic operator according to Art. 3;1. (22) Regulation (EU) 2023/1542. \r\nArt. 24, a - New Paragraph: \r\nArt. 24a: Parts or components missing \r\nfrom end-of-life vehicles delivered to an \r\nauthorised treatment facility or \r\ncollection point must be regarded as re\r\nused or recycled in the calculations for \r\nthe recycling quota. \r\nAnalysis:  \r\nParts are only dismantled from an ELV, especially the traction battery, if there is a market for \r\nreuse, reman, refurb or recycling and it is economically feasible. \r\nBatteries missing from ELVs delivered to ATFs must be regarded as parts for re-use in the \r\ncalculations for the recycling quota.  \r\nParts other than batteries missing from ELVs delivered to ATFs must be regarded as re-used or \r\nrecycled since these should have been removed legally within the well-established existing \r\nprofessional infrastructure and therefore appropriately further managed. \r\nArt. 24, b - New Paragraph: \r\nArt. 24b: Only economic operators \r\naccording to Art. 3; 1. No (22) Regulation \r\n(EU) 2023/1542 are authorised to \r\nremove an electric vehicle battery from \r\nthe vehicle. \r\nAnalysis: \r\nThe high-voltage traction battery is an integral part of an electric vehicle and handling requires \r\ntrained personnel. An unauthorised separation of vehicle and traction battery before handing the \r\nvehicle over to a collection point or ATF by unqualified persons not acting on a professional basis \r\nand therefore without any obligation according to the Battery Regulation (or acting illegally) \r\nrepresents a considerable risk for people and the environment.  \r\nIt must be specified that battery removal from ELVs can only be conducted by professionals and \r\nnot end users. An authorised removal e.g., by producer-controlled operators will enable circular \r\neconomy obligations such as remanufacturing or securing of recyclates. \r\nArt. 25, together with Art. 26, implement the certificate of destruction (CoD) in an electronic format \r\nand makes it a prerequisite for cancelling the registration of a vehicle. \r\nAmendment Proposal: \r\nArt. 25, 6 \r\n(new) \r\nSource: -EU COM Draft New paragraph: \r\nA temporary de-registration/ \r\nsuspension of the registration \r\nobligations (tax, insurance, technical \r\ninspection) should only be possible for a \r\nfee and be limited to a period not longer \r\nthan one year.  \r\nAn extension of the suspension should \r\nonly be further possible for a fee.  \r\nAnalysis:  \r\nThe certificate of destruction (CoD) is intended to serve as the basis for the final de-registration of \r\nthe vehicle and obliging the last owner to provide a CoD (Art. 26) is an important improvement. In \r\norder to give this important article a real impact, it should be clarified that the enforcement is \r\nvital. \r\nWell-functioning de-registration systems, e.g., the Netherlands, show that a water-tight system \r\nthat thoroughly connects all relevant authorities incl. insurances and enforcement is the most \r\neffective tool against “missing vehicles” and should serve as blueprint for a European wide \r\napproach. \r\nA temporary de-registration should rather be a suspension from all or part of the obligations \r\nconnected to a permanent registration of a vehicle (taxes, insurance, technical inspection). Such a \r\nsuspension should only be possible for a certain period (e.g., 1 year). There needs to be a \r\nconsequence for ongoing registration, e.g., a fee for suspension or continuation of tax/insurance \r\npayments. \r\n \r\n \r\nAmendment Proposal: \r\nArt. 27, 1 Authorised treatment facilities shall \r\nensure that all end-of-life vehicles and \r\ntheir parts, components and materials, as \r\nwell as waste parts from repairs of \r\nvehicles, are accepted and treated in \r\ncompliance with the conditions set out in \r\ntheir permits, as well as in accordance \r\nwith this Regulation. \r\nSource: EU COM Draft \r\nAuthorised treatment facilities shall \r\nensure that all end-of-life vehicles and \r\ntheir parts, components and materials, as \r\nwell as waste parts from repairs of \r\nvehicles, are accepted and treated in \r\ncompliance with the conditions set out in \r\ntheir permits, as well as in accordance \r\nwith this Regulation. \r\nOnly authorized treatment facilities that \r\nare in contract with the producer or, \r\nwhere appointed in accordance with \r\nArticle 18, the producer responsibility \r\norganisation and that are not suspended \r\nafter inspection in accordance with Art. \r\n46, are allowed to treat end-of-life \r\nvehicles.  \r\nAnalysis: \r\nThe references of Art. 16 and 20 to Art. 23 suggest that all obligations of a producer/producer \r\nresponsibility organisation (PRO) refer only to their own collection system. The legislator does not \r\nclarify how to deal with today’s reality: that the treatment of end-of life vehicles is such an \r\nattractive business that there are tens-of-thousands of active treatment operators in Europe \r\nwithout a contract with the respective producer. The current draft does not oblige operators to be \r\npart of the producer’s/PRO collection system, therefore the legislator appears to accept \r\ntreatment activities outside the scope of extended producer responsibility take-back systems.  \r\nThe producer can only fulfil extended producer responsibility properly if he as the right of \r\nprecedence to organise his waste in order to steer it in the best performing channels.  \r\nWe therefore support the proposal of the Hungarian Presidency to  explain in recital (33 a) that \r\nATFs without a contract with producers or PROs should not be able to request financial \r\nreimbursement. However, we point out that Art. 16 / Art. 23 / Art. 27 should clarify that only \r\nwaste management operators contracted by the producer will be authorised to take back/treat \r\nthe end-of-life vehicles of that producer. \r\nAmendment Proposals: \r\nArt. 30, 1  From [OP: Please insert the date = the \r\nfirst day of the month following 36 \r\nmonths after the date of entry into force \r\nof this Regulation] authorised treatment \r\nfacilities shall ensure that the parts and \r\ncomponents listed in Part C of Annex VII, \r\nare removed from an end-of-life vehicle, \r\nprior to shredding or compacting, after \r\nthe depollution operations referred to in \r\nArticle 29, have been completed, in a \r\nnon-destructive way for parts and \r\ncomponents with a reuse, \r\nremanufacturing or refurbishment \r\npotential according to Article 31. \r\nAuthorised treatment facilities shall \r\nensure that the removed parts and \r\ncomponents of the first subparagraph \r\nwithout a reuse, remanufacturing or \r\nrefurbishment potential are sent for \r\nrecycling according to the treatment \r\nrequirements as indicated in Part F of \r\nAnnex VII. \r\n \r\nSource: Hungarian Presidency Steering Note 02.12.24 \r\nFrom [OP: Please insert the date = the \r\nfirst day of the month following 36 72 \r\nmonths after the date of entry into force \r\nof this Regulation] authorised treatment \r\nfacilities shall ensure that the parts and \r\ncomponents listed in Part C of Annex VII, \r\nare removed from an end-of-life vehicle, \r\nprior to shredding or compacting, after \r\nthe depollution operations referred to in \r\nArticle 29, have been completed, in a \r\nnon-destructive way for parts and \r\ncomponents with a reuse, \r\nremanufacturing or refurbishment \r\npotential according to Article 31. \r\nArt. 30, 2 \r\nParts or components without a reuse, \r\nremanufacturing or refurbishing  \r\npotential are not mandatory to remove \r\nprior to shredding if an authorised \r\ntreatment facility demonstrates, that \r\npost-shredder technologies seperates \r\nmaterials from parts and components as \r\ndesignated in the second column of Part \r\nC of Annex VII, as efficiently as manual \r\ndismantling processes  \r\nor semi-automated disassembly \r\nprocesses and that the criteria and limit \r\nvalues of Part G, points (1) and (2), of \r\nAnnex VII are met.  \r\nFor the purposes of the first \r\nsubparagraph, the authorised treatment \r\nfacility shall provide the information \r\nlisted in Part G, point 3 of Annex VII. \r\nSource: Hungarian Presidency Steering \r\nNote 02.12.24 \r\nAnalysis: \r\nSee comments to Art. 7. \r\nAmendment Proposal: \r\nArt. 33, 1 The incentives referred to in the first \r\nsubparagraph 1 may include: \r\n(b) the use of economic incentives, \r\nincluding the establishment of a reduced \r\nrate of value added tax for used, \r\nremanufactured or refurbished spare \r\nparts and components.  \r\nSource: Hungarian Presidency Steering Note 02.12.2024 \r\n \r\n \r\nAnalysis: \r\nWe support the proposal of the Presidency to delete the example of reduced value added tax. \r\nAmendment Proposal: \r\nArt. 34, 1 From [OP: Please insert the date = the \r\nfirst day of the calendar year following 36 \r\nmonths after the date of entry into force \r\nof the Regulation], Member States shall \r\nensure that the following targets are met \r\nby the waste management operators:  \r\n(a) the reuse and recovery, as calculated \r\ntogether, shall be a minimum of 95 %, by \r\naverage weight per vehicle, excluding \r\nbatteries, and year;  \r\n(b) the reuse and recycling, as calculated \r\ntogether, shall be a minimum of 85 %, by \r\naverage weight per vehicle, excluding \r\nbatteries, and year. \r\nFrom [OP: Please insert the date = the \r\nfirst day of the calendar year following 36 \r\nmonths after the date of entry into force \r\nof the Regulation],  Member States shall \r\nadopt the necessary measures for the \r\nachievement by producers or, where \r\nappointed in accordance with Article 18, \r\nproducer responsibility organisations, of \r\nensure that to ensure that the following \r\ntargets are are to be met by the waste \r\nmanagement operators  \r\n(a) the reuse and recovery, as calculated \r\ntogether, shall be a minimum of 95 %, by \r\naverage weight per vehicle, excluding \r\nbatteries, and year;  \r\n(b) the reuse and recycling, as calculated \r\ntogether, shall be a minimum of 85 %, by \r\naverage weight per vehicle, excluding \r\nbatteries, and year. \r\nAnalysis: \r\nReferences to producers or PROs in this paragraph is confusing because it might be interpreted \r\nthat producers/PROs have to fulfil the targets. However, this responsibility is correctly allocated in \r\nArt. 27 to ATFs.  \r\nAlthough achieving quotas requires action from all actors, waste management operators should \r\nbe the only actor that report to the Member States on the achievement of the targets (Art. 16 \r\nand Art. 34). \r\nCalculations under Art. 34 should be aligned with those for Art. 4, i.e., for both type-approval and \r\nreporting, the battery of a vehicle should be included in the calculation to fulfil these goals. Please \r\nalso see comment under modification proposal for Article 4 (1) in connection with Recital 13. \r\nThe reuse, recycling and recovery targets for end-of-life vehicles are based on the input-oriented \r\nconsiderations for the whole vehicle for the whole treatment chain including the batteries. The \r\nrecycling efficiency targets of Regulation 2023/1542/EU are output-oriented and measure the \r\nefficiency of the recycling process.  \r\nBatteries present in end-of-life vehicles delivered to authorised treatment facilities should be \r\nregarded as reused or recycled for the calculations under Art. 34. If the battery is missing from the \r\nend-of-life vehicle it should also be counted as reused or recycled for these calculations. \r\nAmendment-Proposal: \r\nArt. 38,3 Used vehicles may be exported only if \r\nthey are:  \r\n(a) not end-of-life vehicles based on \r\nthe criteria listed in Annex I;  \r\n(b) considered roadworthy in the \r\nMember State where the vehicles \r\nwere last registered, in accordance \r\nwith Article 5(1), points (a) and (b), \r\nand Article 8 of Directive 2014/45/EU. \r\nSource: EU COM Draft  \r\nUsed vehicles may be exported only if they \r\nare:  \r\n(a) not end-of-life vehicles based on the \r\ncriteria listed in Annex I;  \r\n(b) considered roadworthy in the Member \r\nState where the vehicles were last \r\nregistered, in accordance with Article 5(1), \r\npoints (a) and (b), and Article 8 of Directive \r\n2014/45/EU.  \r\nRoadworthiness is considered proven for \r\npurposes of this article, if the document \r\nreferred to in Article 5(1) of Directive \r\n2014/45/EU was valid on the day of the \r\nused vehicle deregistration in the EU, \r\nprovided it was not registered again before \r\nexport from the EU. \r\nAnalysis:  \r\nThe article requires a mandatory proof of roadworthiness according to EU standards for export of \r\nused vehicles is presented (certificate of technical inspection). Many vehicles, especially \r\ncommercial ones can stay on stock over a considerable period of time, so that their certificate \r\nruns out. Yet there is no reason to believe a robust commercial vehicle will become not \r\nroadworthy, while staying on stock. At the same time going through additional technical \r\ninspection just for export, while the vehicle will face another test at the destination country, \r\nmeans extra administrative and financial burden, especially for commercial vehicles, with no \r\nbenefits for either vehicle circularity or the environment. \r\nFor the purpose of used vehicle export, the technical inspection certificate should be considered \r\nvalid, if it was valid on the day of the vehicle deregistration in the EU. This way, even if formally \r\nthe certificate has run out, there will be no need for a new inspection under condition the vehicle \r\ngoes for export and is not registered in the EU again. \r\nAmendment-Proposal: \r\n \r\nFor the purpose of compliance with \r\nArticle 30, paragraph 1, points (d) \r\nand (e) of \r\nRegulation (EU) 2022/2065, \r\nproviders of online platforms, falling \r\nwithin the scope \r\nof Section 4 of Chapter III of \r\nRegulation (EU) 2022/2065, allowing \r\nconsumers to \r\n \r\nconclude distance contracts with \r\nproducers, shall obtain the following \r\ninformation from producers offering \r\nvehicles to consumers located in the \r\nUnion, \r\nprior to allowing them to use their \r\nservices: \r\n(a) information on the registration \r\npursuant to Article 19 of the \r\nproducers in \r\nthe Member State where the \r\nconsumer is located and the \r\nregistration \r\nnumber(s) of the producer in that \r\nregister; \r\n(b) a self-certification by the \r\nproducer committing to only offer \r\nproducts or \r\nservices that comply with the \r\napplicable rules of Union law, \r\nincluding a self certification \r\nby the producer confirming that it \r\nonly offers vehicles with \r\nregard to which the extended \r\nproducer responsibility requirements \r\nreferred to in Article 16 of this \r\nRegulation are complied with in the \r\nMember \r\nState where the consumer is located. \r\nSource: Hungarian Presidency Steering Note 02.12.24 \r\nAnalysis:  \r\nRegarding the proposal to include further requirements for distance sellers and providers of \r\nonline platforms, we agree with strengthening the ELVR to ensure their compliance with the \r\nRegulation for a Single Market For Digital Services and that consumers and end users of vehicles \r\nare provided with assurances regarding the fulfilment of EPR requirements for vehicles sold in \r\nsuch a manner. \r\nHowever, the functioning of the proposed self-certification under Art. 17 (13)(b) is not clearly \r\ncomprehensible and should be further clarified.   \r\nAmendment-Proposal: \r\n 1. Member States shall, for the purpose \r\nof enforcing this Regulation, inspect:  \r\n(a) authorised treatment facilities; \r\n1. Member States shall, for the purpose of \r\nenforcing this Regulation, inspect:  \r\n(a) authorised treatment facilities; \r\n(b) repair and maintenance operators \r\ncollection points; \r\n(c) other facilities and economic \r\noperators, which may treat end-of-life \r\nvehicles, or sell used spare parts and \r\ncomponents.   \r\nSource: Hungarian Presidency Steering Note 02.12.24 \r\n(b) repair and maintenance operators \r\ncollection points; \r\n(c) other facilities and economic operators, \r\nwhich may treat end-of-life vehicles, or \r\nand sell used spare parts and \r\ncomponents.   \r\n \r\nAnalysis:  \r\nWe agree with the Hungarian Presidency that repair and maintenance operators are not classified \r\nas ELV treatment facilities and therefore do not handle waste from ELVs and do not need to be \r\ninspected according to this Regulation. However, they must dispose of their wastes from repairs \r\nand maintenance in an environmentally friendly manner, according to respective national waste \r\nlegislation, and need to be inspected accordingly by their national authorities.  \r\nHowever, if EPR in the new Regulation is extended to parts from repairs/maintenance, as \r\nproposed by the Commission, workshop waste management must be inspected as well. In \r\naddition, should the ELV Regulation - analogue all other EPR legislations - provide the option that \r\ndealers of vehicles can act as a collection point for ELVs (proposal automotive industry), those \r\noperators will also have to be inspected accordingly.  \r\nIn addition, we would like to emphasise the importance to not only limit inspection to registered \r\noperators. In the future, different authorities will need to cooperate in order to address the issue \r\nof illegal ELV treatment activities. \r\nWe also agree that collection points are one important part of the take-back chain of ELVs in the \r\ndraft Regulation. To prevent “missing vehicles” and environmental violations, Member States \r\nmust take over their responsibility as well and introduce harmonised inspection rules for \r\ncollection points as well.  \r\nWe recommend specifying which actors are meant by “other economic operators other than ATFs \r\ninvolved in selling used spare parts and components from ELVs” in order to be able to assess the \r\nnecessity for inspections. We are not aware of other actors than ATFs that are legally allowed to \r\nconduct such activities with ELVs. If this is aimed at dealers of used spare parts who e.g. bought \r\nparts from ATFs, they are not handling waste from ELVs and can be exempted from inspections. \r\nAmendment Proposal: \r\nArt. 47, 1 Member States shall establish, as regards \r\nall relevant competent authorities \r\ninvolved in the enforcement of this \r\nRegulation, effective mechanisms to \r\nenable those authorities to cooperate \r\nand coordinate domestically concerning \r\nthe development and implementation of \r\nenforcement policies and activities \r\nrelated to monitoring vehicles \r\nregistration, de-registration, suspension \r\nMember States shall establish, as regards \r\nall relevant competent authorities \r\ninvolved in the enforcement of this \r\nRegulation, effective mechanisms to \r\nenable those authorities to cooperate \r\nand coordinate domestically concerning \r\nthe development and implementation of \r\nenforcement policies and activities \r\nrelated to monitoring vehicles \r\nregistration, de-registration, suspension \r\nand cancellation of the registration as \r\nwell as prevention of illegal treatment of \r\nend-of-life vehicles. \r\nSource: EU COM \r\nand cancellation of the registration and \r\ncertification of destruction as well as \r\nprevention of illegal treatment of end-of\r\nlife vehicles. \r\nAnalysis: \r\nComplementing our comments to Art. 25, the importance of a well-functioning certificate of \r\ndestruction should be reflected in this article as well.  \r\nThe Certificate of Destruction is intended to serve as the basis for the final deregistration of the \r\nvehicle. Certificates of destruction for vehicles should be added to the list of measures that MS \r\nshould introduce enforcement policies for several reasons:  \r\n• Environmental protection: Vehicles that are no longer roadworthy or safe to operate can pose \r\na threat to the environment if they are not properly disposed of. Without a certificate of \r\ndestruction, there is no guarantee that the vehicle will be recycled or disposed of in an \r\nenvironmentally responsible manner.  \r\n• Prevent illegal activities: Without a certificate of destruction, there is a risk that the vehicle could \r\nbe sold or resold illegally without proper documentation. This could lead to several illegal \r\nactivities, such as fraud, theft, or even the use of the vehicle for criminal activities.  \r\n• Liability and safety concerns: If a vehicle is not properly disposed of and is instead sold without \r\na certificate of destruction, the original owner may still be liable for any accidents or incidents \r\nAmendment Proposals: \r\nArt. \r\n49,1(g) \r\nthe total amount and weight and, \r\nwhere relevant, the amount of parts, \r\ncomponents and materials removed \r\nfrom end-of-life vehicles for purpose of; \r\n• reuse; \r\n• remanufacturing or refurbishment;  \r\n• recycling;  \r\n• recovery, including energy \r\nrecovery;   \r\n• disposal; \r\nSource: Hungarian Presidency Steering Note 02.12.24 - \r\nAnalysis: \r\nThe wording in the text of the Hungarian Presidency’s proposal is not clear regarding what is \r\n“relevant” and this should firstly be clarified. Furthermore, additional bureaucratic burden should \r\nbe minimised and such requirements only implemented where there is clear environmental benefit. \r\nArt. 49,5 The Commission shall adopt \r\nimplementing acts laying down:   - \r\n(a) (……)  \r\n(b) (……)  \r\nThose implementing acts shall be \r\nadopted by [OP: Please insert the date = \r\nthe last day of the month following 30 \r\nmonths after the date of entry into \r\nforce of this Regulation], in accordance \r\nwith the examination procedure \r\nreferred to in Article 51(2). \r\nSource: Hungarian Presidency Steering Note \r\nAnalysis: \r\nThe Council sticks to a position that M2, M3, N2, N3 and O categories have other implementing \r\ndates than 60 months from EiF (in this case 36 months). This is incorrect in our view, as article 2 \r\n(1) b on scope, which stipulates 60 months implementation timing from EiF for the named \r\ncategories, has precedence over all other implementing dates for HDV. \r\nThe Council suggested additional 24 months of transition period for M2, M3, N2, N3 and O \r\ncategories (36 + 24 = 60), which we find reasonable. However, the base period, which should be \r\nextended is not 36, but 60 months. Therefore, we support a transition period for reporting under \r\narticle 49 for M2, M3, N2, N3 and O categories of 84 months. \r\nAmendment Proposals: \r\n1. (b) For remanufacturing or \r\nrefurbishment:  \r\n(i) the part or component is complete;  \r\n(ii) an assessment of damage, reduced \r\nfunctionality or performance and repairs \r\nneeded for restoring the part or \r\ncomponent to a state where it is fit to be \r\nused;  \r\n(iii) there is no heavy corrosion.  \r\nSource: EU COM \r\n(b) For remanufacturing or \r\nrefurbishment:  \r\n(i) the part or component shall contain \r\nall relevant parts is complete;  \r\n(ii) an assessment of damage, reduced \r\nfunctionality or performance and repairs \r\nneeded for restoring the part or \r\ncomponent to a state where it is fit to be \r\nused;  \r\n(iii) there is no heavy corrosion.  \r\nAnalysis: \r\n2. Minimum information to be provided in \r\nthe labelling of the parts and \r\ncomponents:  \r\n(a) name of the component or part;  \r\nMinimum information to be provided in \r\nthe labelling of the parts and \r\ncomponents placed on the market for \r\ndirect reuse:  \r\n(b) reference to the vehicle identification \r\nnumber (VIN) of the vehicle from which \r\nthe component or part has been \r\nremoved; and  \r\n(c) name, the postal address, indicating a \r\nsingle contact point and e-mail address, a \r\nweb-address, if applicable, identifying \r\nthe operator that removed the \r\ncomponent or part.  \r\n \r\nSource: EU COM \r\n(a) name of the component or part;  \r\n(b) reference to the vehicle \r\nidentification number (VIN) of the \r\nvehicle from which the component or \r\npart has been removed; and  \r\n(c) name, the postal address of dealer (or \r\nworkshop), indicating a single contact \r\npoint and e-mail address, a web-address \r\non the part label or on the packaging for \r\nparts sold in bulks, if applicable, \r\nidentifying the operator that removed \r\nthe component or part.  \r\nAnalysis: \r\nAmendment Proposals: \r\nArt. 2, 3 Notwithstanding paragraph 1, point (b), \r\nthe following provisions shall not apply to \r\nvehicles and end-of-life vehicles of \r\ncategories M2, M3, N2, N3 and O: \r\n(b) Article 5 on requirements for \r\nsubstances in vehicles;  \r\n … \r\n(e) Article 8 on general obligations;  \r\n \r\nNotwithstanding paragraph 1, point (b), \r\nthe following provisions shall not apply to \r\nvehicles and end-of-life vehicles of \r\ncategories M2, M3, N2, N3 and O, \r\nincluding special purpose vehicles of \r\nthese categories:  \r\n(b) Article 5 on requirements for \r\nsubstances in vehicles;  \r\n … \r\n(e) Article 8 on general obligations, \r\npoints 1-4;  \r\nArt. 2, 5 Notwithstanding paragraph 2, point (a), \r\nthe following provisions shall apply to \r\nspecial purpose vehicles: \r\n(a) Article 5 on requirements for \r\nsubstances in vehicles;  \r\n \r\nNotwithstanding paragraph 2, point (a), \r\nand without prejudice to paragraph 3, \r\nthe following provisions shall apply to \r\nspecial purpose vehicles:  \r\n(a) Article 5 on requirements for \r\nsubstances in vehicles;  \r\nArt. 2, 6 Notwithstanding paragraph 1, points (b) \r\nand (c), Articles 16, 19, 20, 27 and 46 to \r\n49 shall apply to vehicles and end-of-life \r\nvehicles of categories L3, L4, L5, L6 L7, \r\nM2, M3, N2, N3 and O with the following \r\nmodifications: \r\nNotwithstanding Without prejudice to \r\nparagraph 1, points (b) and (c), and \r\nparagraph 2 point (b) Articles 16, 19, 20, \r\n27 and 46 to 49 shall apply to vehicles \r\nand end-of-life vehicles of categories L3, \r\nL4, L5, L6 L7, M2, M3, N2, N3 and O and \r\nto other parts of a vehicle that have \r\nbeen type-approved in multi-stage type \r\n(…) \r\nAnalysis:  \r\napproval of category N1, N2, N3, M2 or \r\nM3 than the base vehicle with the \r\nfollowing modifications: \r\nWe welcome the European Commission’s gradual approach to extending the legislation’s scope to \r\nheavy-duty vehicles and trailers. The decision to grant a partial exemption from the Regulation’s \r\nrequirements to M2, M3, N2, N3 and O vehicle categories coupled with the obligation to provide \r\ninformation on the removal and replacement of parts, components and materials contained in \r\nvehicles will allow filling of knowledge gaps regarding the end-of-life of heavy-duty vehicles and \r\ninform the development of future rules. However, we note that the scope extension generates a \r\nseries of specific ambiguities and uncertainties related to the newly included vehicle categories:  \r\n• Art. 2, 1. (b) expands the application scope to vehicles and end-of-life vehicles of categories M2, \r\nM3, N2, N3 and O. It can be interpreted as applying the requirement on provision of dismantling \r\ninformation to any vehicle of the named categories already on the EU market. It is extremely \r\nchallenging to ensure compliance with this requirement for old vehicle types that become an ELV \r\nafter EiF + 60 months. The scope in this case should be limited to vehicles that have been type \r\napproved after EiF + 60 months. The most certain way to do so is to make providing dismantling \r\ninformation part of the type-approval; this requires the inclusion of Art. 8, 5. into the scope for \r\nthe named categories by amending Art. 2, 3., (e). \r\n• Art. 2, 2. (b) explicitly puts bodywork of multi-stage vehicles out of the Regulation scope (keeping \r\nonly the base vehicle in). Yet no rule is foreseen for dismantling/depolluting/treating end-of-life \r\nbodywork of multistage vehicles, which would normally arrive at ATFs together with the base \r\nvehicle. This might lead to uncertainty in the application of producers’ responsibility and on how \r\nto deal with the bodywork treatment process and associated costs, since the liability for vehicle \r\ncollection and depollution lies with the base vehicle producer. To exclude such undesired effects, \r\nresponsibilities for decoupling bodywork and further managing it (depollution, storage, etc.) \r\nshould be clearly assigned in the Regulation. Namely, bodywork of multi-stage vehicles (referred \r\nto in Art. 2 2. (b) should be in scope for Section 2 on extended producer responsibility and in \r\nparticular for Article 20 on the financial responsibility of the producers.  \r\n• Article 2.3 needs to be adjusted to ensure consistency in application of the requirements to N2, \r\nN3, M2, M3 and O vehicle categories. Special purpose vehicles of these categories should be \r\nregulated the same way as the rest of HDV and buses. \r\nFurther, dismantling information should become part of the type approval requirements for N2, \r\nN3, M2, M3 vehicle categories. This would ensure correct and transparent application of this \r\nimportant requirement across the EU. \r\nOther than those mentioned above, no further amendments to Article 2.3 are needed, in our \r\nview. The proposed scope for categories N2, N3, M2, M3 and O is fairly balanced and needs to \r\nstay this way.  \r\n• The discussed proposals for scope expansion to Articles 7, 9 and 12 are, in our opinion, \r\npremature. Such selective expansion would increase the administrative burden on OEMs without \r\nbringing much added value to a circular economy. Instead, for consistency, our proposals on the \r\ninclusion of vehicle bodywork in scope and making provision of dismantling information type \r\napproval relevant should be adopted first.  \r\n• An even earlier (than the overall 96 months review for HDV-specific scope) review could be a \r\nfurther option, if the regulator sees particular requirements as especially important. An earlier \r\nreview (e.g. 36 months for HDV) could be a compromise that would give industry the necessary \r\ntime to gather information and conduct studies to ensure realistic application of selected extra \r\nrequirements.  \r\n• Article 2, 5. (a) and 6. regulate the application of requirements on special purpose vehicles (SPV) \r\nand specify the requirements on extended producer responsibility for categories M2, M3, N2, N3, \r\nO. Though it follows from the rest of the text that the intention of the regulator is not to impose \r\nArt. 5 requirements (substances of concern) on heavy duty SPVs and not to shorten the transition \r\nperiod for the named vehicle categories from 60 to 36 months after the Regulations’ entry into \r\nforce, the legal technicalities of the text may suggest an opposite interpretation which would \r\nwarrant a clarification. \r\nJustification for amendment Proposal: \r\n• Special purpose heavy-duty vehicles should be ruled the same way for substances of concern as \r\nheavy-duty vehicles overall. \r\n• Requirement to provide dismantling information should only apply to vehicles that have been \r\ntype approved after EiF + 60 months. \r\n• Extended producer responsibility requirements for HDV should apply to the whole of the multi\r\nstage vehicle, including the bodywork.  \r\n• Uncertainty around requirements imposed on heavy-duty special purpose vehicles should be \r\naddressed. \r\nGenerally, the draft Regulation is to enter into force on the twentieth day following that of its \r\npublication in the Official Journal of the EU and is to be applicable 12 months after the date of its \r\nentry into force. No further transition period is given, including for Member States to implement \r\nmeasures. \r\nJustification for amendment Proposal: \r\n• Suitable time should be given for the industry to implement the measures. \r\n• Additionally, the use of secondary legislation should be minimised. Where necessary, it should \r\nbe utilised only with clearly outline timeframes. \r\nANNEX: "},"recipientGroups":[{"recipients":{"parliament":[],"federalGovernment":[{"department":{"title":"Bundesministerium für Digitales und Verkehr (BMDV) (20. WP)","shortTitle":"BMDV (20. WP)","url":"https://bmdv.bund.de/DE/Home/home.html","electionPeriod":20}},{"department":{"title":"Bundesministerium für Umwelt, Naturschutz, nukleare Sicherheit und Verbraucherschutz (BMUV) (20. WP)","shortTitle":"BMUV (20. WP)","url":"https://www.bmuv.de/","electionPeriod":20}}]},"sendingDate":"2024-11-28"}]},{"regulatoryProjectNumber":"RV0003352","regulatoryProjectTitle":"24.009_Ausgestaltung der EU End of Life Vehicles Regulation","pdfUrl":"https://www.lobbyregister.bundestag.de/media/18/3e/392105/Stellungnahme-Gutachten-SG2412200070.pdf","pdfPageCount":17,"text":{"copyrightAcknowledgement":"Die grundlegenden Stellungnahmen und Gutachten können urheberrechtlich geschützte Werke enthalten. Eine Nutzung ist nur im urheberrechtlich zulässigen Rahmen erlaubt.","text":"Austausch zur neuen Europäischen Altfahrzeugverordnung\r\n19. Dezember 2024BMDV\r\nCLASSIFICATION: INTERNAL\r\n19.12.2024 2\r\nMögliche Themenfelder für den Austausch\r\nEU-Altfahrzeugverordnung\r\n1\r\n2\r\n3\r\n4\r\nMinimum recycled content target for plastic (Art. 6)\r\nDesign for dismantling and removability (Art. 7)\r\nManagement of end-of-life vehicles (Chapter IV)\r\n5 Heavy Duty\r\nRequirements for Type-approval Recyclability / UN R 133\r\n19/12/2024 3\r\n1\r\nRequirements for Type-approval\r\nRecyclability / UN R 133\r\n19/12/2024 4\r\nCommission Draft\r\nArticle 4 empowers the Commission to adopt\r\nimplementing acts setting out the\r\nmethodology for calculating and verifying\r\nthese rates.\r\nArticle 8 sets out the manner in which the\r\nmanufacturers must prove compliance of their\r\nvehicle types with the requirements laid down\r\nin this regulation during the type-approval\r\nprocess. …For the purposes of type-approval\r\nof vehicles to which the requirements in\r\nArticles 4, 5, 6 or 7 apply, the manufacturer\r\nshall provide the documentation showing\r\ncompliance with those requirements….\r\nFurther new additional requirements for the\r\ntype approval recyclability from Articles 9,\r\n10, 11 and 13.\r\nAnalysis\r\nThe requirements for type-approval\r\nrecyclability (Art. 4 - 11, 13) are not in line\r\nwith the globally harmonised UN R133\r\nregulation. This will lead to divergence from\r\nnon-EU markets, leading to a loss of synergies\r\nand worldwide harmonised standards.\r\nThis calculation method is also used for other\r\nmarkets, such as South Korea and China.\r\nVW Proposal\r\nIn order to maintain globally harmonised typeapproval\r\nwith regard to recyclability\r\nrequirements, the ELV Regulation should\r\ncontinue to refer to UN R 133.\r\nRequirements for Type-approval Recyclability / UN R 133\r\n– As a globally operating company, it is important to have globally harmonised regulations to reduce bureaucratic\r\nburden.\r\n– It is important that the European Commission does not act on its own here.\r\n19/12/2024 5\r\n2\r\nMinimum recycled content target for\r\nplastic (Art. 6)\r\n19/12/2024 6\r\nCommission Draft\r\n• Art. 6 lays down a minimum recycled content\r\ntarget for plastics of 25% (post-consumer),\r\nwhere at least 25% of the 25% (6.25%) target\r\nshall be achieved by including plastics\r\nrecycled from end-of-life vehicles.\r\nAnalysis\r\n• 25% target has been defined without\r\nintroduction of a methodology\r\n(e.g. waste streams, processes).\r\n• No supply and demand study was carried out,\r\nassessing:\r\na) Demands resulting from other sectoral\r\nregulations (e.g. packaging).\r\nb) Automotive specific material demands.\r\n(quality, quantity) over the production time of\r\na vehicle model.\r\nc) Impacts from upcoming regulations\r\n(e.g. PFAS restriction).\r\n• Closed-Loop-Target does not reflect\r\n15+ year lifespan of vehicles:\r\na) Handling of legacy Substances of Concern\r\n- challenge “non-toxic environment” versus\r\n“circular economy”.\r\nb) Degradation of polymers (quality).\r\nc) Verification management of recyclate\r\nsources, due to diverse shredder input.\r\nVW Proposal\r\n• A detailed calculation methodology and\r\ncertification process must be defined, at least\r\n72 months before the requirements enter into\r\nforce.\r\n• The overarching target should be reduced, in\r\nline with supply and technical feasibility.\r\n• All sustainable materials should be\r\nconsidered, such as pre-consumer (postindustrial)\r\nrecyclates, material from chemical\r\nrecycling and bio-based materials.\r\n→ Based on our calculation 15% could be\r\nappropriate.\r\n• Similar to, e.g. the Battery Regulation, an\r\nexception and a review clause should be\r\nintroduced.\r\n• The separate target for closed-loop\r\nrequirement should be deleted.\r\nSince closed loop material from ELVs,\r\nworkshop waste or vehicle production waste\r\nwill be used if technically and economically\r\nfeasible to fulfill the requirements.\r\nMinimum recycled content target for plastic (Art. 6)\r\nVirgin Material\r\nSale 1st Owner 2nd Owner Last Owner\r\nProduction\r\nClosed Loop\r\nProduction Scrap\r\nPost Consumer\r\nRecycling\r\nMaterial\r\nTreatment Operator\r\n19/12/2024 7\r\n• Automotive specific material demands. (quality, quantity)\r\nover the production time of a vehicle model.\r\n• Impacts from upcoming regulations\r\n(e.g. PFAS restriction).\r\nMinimum recycled content target for plastic (Art. 6)\r\nodor, emissions &\r\nfogging\r\nCrashrequirements\r\ntemperature\r\nresistance\r\nlimitation:\r\n- legal requirements\r\n-largewarranty risk\r\n-chem. purity, …\r\nTechnical application\r\nthermal\r\nelongation\r\nVarnishability\r\nnaturalweathering\r\ncolors / colormatching\r\nappearance / surface\r\nscratch resistance\r\nCompliance\r\n(REACH - Regulation)\r\nproperty fluctuations material\r\nsupply chain mechanical\r\nproperties processability\r\naging\r\nUVstability\r\nnon-fading\r\n• Methodology (e.g. waste streams, processes) as\r\nprerequisite to set targets\r\n• Usage of all relevant resource streams\r\nSustainable\r\nMaterials\r\nSale 1st Owner 2nd Owner Last Owner\r\nProduction\r\nClosed Loop\r\nProduction Scrap\r\nPost Consumer\r\nRecycling\r\nMaterial\r\nTreatment Operator\r\nWorkshop Waste\r\n+\r\n+\r\n+\r\n19/12/2024 8\r\n3\r\nDesign for dismantling and\r\nremovability (Art. 7)\r\n19/12/2024 9\r\nCommission Draft\r\n• Art. 7, in connection with Annex VII Part C,\r\nlays down certain design requirements for\r\nremoval and replacement of vehicle parts.\r\nAnalysis\r\n• The meaning of “does not hinder”\r\nremovability in Art. 7 1. is not sufficiently\r\ndefined.\r\n• For some components in the (original) list,\r\nlike the (whole) wire harness, heat\r\nexchangers dashboards, etc., there is no\r\npossibility for easy dismantling.\r\n• Differentiation of dismantling obligation for:\r\na) Recycling: For many components, the use\r\nof modern, economically efficient and\r\nindustrially applicable sorting technologies\r\nafter shredding leads to comparable\r\nefficient separation results.\r\nb) Reuse: Dismantling for reuse without\r\ndemand for such parts would not only be\r\nunreasonable but even contradictory to the\r\noverarching goal to improve the\r\nenvironmental and ecological footprint.\r\nVW Proposal\r\n• The subclause in Art. 7, 1. “does not hinder”\r\nshould be rephrased so as to be clearer and\r\nreasonably practicable.\r\n• Removal obligations for components must\r\nalways be technically feasible and should be\r\nreasonable and proportionate (specific\r\ndemand).\r\n• Removal in a non-destructive manner should\r\nnot apply to removal for recycling and only\r\napply to removal for re-use, refurbishment or\r\nre-manufacture.\r\n• A requirement for mandatory manual\r\ndismantling (Art. 30) is often\r\ncounterproductive and should only be\r\nspecified if the desired goals cannot be\r\nachieved otherwise (e.g. by post shredder\r\ntechnologies). In principle, the best available\r\ntechnology should be used for each recycling\r\nprocess.\r\nDesign for dismantling and removability (Art. 7 & Annex VII Part C)\r\nObligations in Art.\r\n7, 11, 27, 30, 31\r\n19/12/2024 10\r\nHungarian Presidency – final note VW Position Annex VII Part C\r\n• Deletion of the Dashboard and any\r\ncomponents > 10 kg are welcome.\r\n• 70% of glass: ecological benefit unclear;\r\ndismantling not economical, risk of injuries high;\r\ndocumentation of “70%” difficult.\r\n• Main wire harness: with exemption a possible\r\ncompromise, but potential for reuse low; still high\r\neffort for dismantling.\r\n• Plastic fuel tanks: highly contaminated, no\r\nestablished economic recycling industry.\r\n• Heat exchanger: no reuse potential (corrosion and\r\nfatigue), high dismantling effort.\r\n• Oxygen, radar and lidar sensors: very small\r\nsensors, high effort, little material weight/value\r\n• Additional parts lists to entries might be\r\nincomplete; components attached to e.g. motors\r\ndepend on requirements and construction\r\nconcept; future innovation necessary.\r\nDesign for dismantling and removability (Art. 7 & Annex VII Part C)\r\nSeveral deletions and additions were\r\nproposed during council discussions\r\n19/12/2024 11\r\n4\r\nManagement of End-of-Life Vehicles\r\n(Chapter IV)\r\n19/12/2024 12\r\nCommission Draft\r\n• Art. 25 and Art. 26: electronic certificate of\r\ndestruction (CoD) as a prerequisite for\r\ncancelling the registration of a vehicle.\r\n• Art. 45: MOVE-HUB electronic system: realtime\r\ndata exchange of national vehicle\r\nregisters + national electronic systems on\r\nroadworthiness\r\n(see also Recital 70)\r\nAnalysis\r\n• COM proposal are important\r\nimprovements.\r\n• Still a risk of \"missing ELVs\": many Member\r\nStates allow preliminary de-registration for\r\nan unlimited period without any costs, which\r\nundermines the effectiveness of a CoD -\r\nespecially, in cases where Member\r\nStates perform \"statistical\" scrapping.\r\nBest practice Netherlands: Keys for success of the Dutch system\r\nCertificate of Destruction (CoD) / Registration and De-registration / MOVE-HUB\r\nManagement of ELVs (Chapter IV) 1/2\r\nAll relevant authorities connected\r\nvia online platform,\r\nincl. insurance and enforcement\r\nSee also in annex\r\nVW Proposal\r\n• A proper national de-registration system with enforcement is possible and muchmore efficient for\r\nhighly valuable goods like cars than financial incentives, e. g. deposit systems.\r\na. Permanent registration of the vehicle.\r\nb. Used car trade: \"Digital storage“ with low costs and no\r\nloopholes.\r\nc. Permanent tax + insurance + technical inspection\r\nobligation until evidence for export or CoD is provided\r\n consequently, checked in register and enforced by fines.\r\nd. Suspension from c. possible:\r\n– Online and for a fee (73 € in 2019).\r\n– Max. 1 year extension possible, again, for a fee.\r\n– At end of suspension: automatic tax and insurance.\r\ne. De-registration by ATF (not last owner).\r\nf. Strict enforcement and inspection.\r\n19/12/2024 13\r\nAdditional issues\r\nManagement of ELVs (Chapter IV) 2/2\r\nOrganisation of take back system / relationship between OEM and waste management\r\noperators\r\n• Art. 16, 20 and 23: For an effective EPR legislation, the implementation of the right of precedence for the producer to organise his waste is key in order to\r\nsteer it in the best performing channels.\r\n• Art. 20 and 18: Any approach contradicting free-market principles by involving authorities in contract negotiations or contradicting competition law needs\r\nto be avoided.\r\nCompleteness of end-of-life vehicles at authorised treatment facilities (ATFs) and\r\nworkshop disposal\r\n• Art. 24: High-voltage traction batteries should only be handled by trained personnel.\r\n– The new ELVR draft lays down several major adjustments in the chapter “Management of end-of-life vehicles”.\r\n– We are open for a more detailed exchange with our experts, if requested.\r\n19/12/2024 14\r\n5\r\nHeavy Duty\r\n12/19/2024 15\r\nExpansion of the scope to Heavy Duty Vehicles (HDV)\r\nBase vehicle (incomplete) Bodywork Multi-stage vehicle (completed)\r\nCommission Draft\r\n• Art. 2 includes heavy duty\r\nvehicles but (2, b) explicitly\r\nputs bodywork of multi-stage\r\nvehicles out of the regulation\r\nscope\r\nAnalysis\r\n• Multi-stage HDV make up 40 - 50% of the total annual\r\nregistrations and would normally arrive at ATFs together\r\nwith the base vehicle (and always, if it is a bus).\r\n• Bodywork is an essential part of a multi-stage HDV (must be\r\ncollected together with the base vehicle). If its treatment\r\ncosts are not clearly assigned:\r\n− ATFs may start refusing to accept such vehicles,\r\nseriously undermining the environmental effect of the\r\nELVR\r\n− ELV without a certificate of destruction issued by an ATF\r\ncannot be de-registered (Art. 25 ELVR)\r\nVW Proposal\r\n• Vehicle producers are ready to provide for the\r\ncollection of multi-stage vehicles (lower the\r\nburden of smaller companies producing\r\nbodywork), given that bodywork producers\r\nbecome responsible for treating their products (&\r\nassociated costs).\r\n• VW Proposal: Art. 2 (6) should be amended to\r\ninclude the bodywork of multi-stage vehicles\r\ninto the scope of EPR with the same obligations as\r\nthe base vehicle producers have.\r\nSource of parts for reuse &\r\nsecondary raw materials\r\nEPR: vehicle producer\r\nMay be difficult to treat\r\n(e.g. cooling boxes)\r\nEPR: no one\r\n1 product, but only ½\r\nresponsibility\r\nEPR: ?\r\nSummary\r\n2\r\n3\r\n4\r\n5\r\nThe recycled content target for plastic (Art. 6)\r\n Methodology first // Targets on basis of supply and demand analysis // No separate closed\r\nloop target\r\nDesign for dismantling and removability obligations (Art. 7)\r\n Obligation need to be economically efficient and technically feasible // Alternative measures\r\nneed to be included\r\nExtended producer responsibilities of the vehicle producer (Chapter IV)\r\n Certificate of Destruction is the most important prerequisite for the success of ELVR as a whole\r\n OEMs need to have right of precedence to organise their waste\r\nType-approval Recyclability demands\r\n Continuation of UN R133 1\r\nExpansion of the scope to HD-vehicles\r\n Multistage to be considered\r\n19/12/2024 16\r\n19/12/2024 17\r\nBest Practice Netherlands\r\nCertificate of Destruction (CoD)\r\n"},"recipientGroups":[{"recipients":{"parliament":[],"federalGovernment":[{"department":{"title":"Bundesministerium für Digitales und Verkehr (BMDV) (20. WP)","shortTitle":"BMDV (20. WP)","url":"https://bmdv.bund.de/DE/Home/home.html","electionPeriod":20}}]},"sendingDate":"2024-12-19"}]},{"regulatoryProjectNumber":"RV0003352","regulatoryProjectTitle":"24.009_Ausgestaltung der EU End of Life Vehicles Regulation","pdfUrl":"https://www.lobbyregister.bundestag.de/media/a0/63/556115/Stellungnahme-Gutachten-SG2506120043.pdf","pdfPageCount":3,"text":{"copyrightAcknowledgement":"Die grundlegenden Stellungnahmen und Gutachten können urheberrechtlich geschützte Werke enthalten. Eine Nutzung ist nur im urheberrechtlich zulässigen Rahmen erlaubt.","text":"ELV general approach amendments\r\nAhead of the COREPER meeting on the 4th of June 2025 we would like to share our comments on the draft general approach tabled by the Polish Presidency (document 9440/25). We focus on the high level topics:\r\n1.\r\nMinimum recycled content in vehicles (Art. 6)\r\nWe consider the proposed stepwise approach to be a suitable path forward. We particularly support the basis for the weight of plastics, whereby elastomers and thermosets are excluded, as well as the possibility to use waste from workshop repairs to meet the targets. However, we have significant concerns regarding the following elements a) the proposed target levels, b) the exclusion of pre-consumer plastics and c) the separate closed-loop target.\r\nJustification: These requirements will significantly impact the production of new vehicles. They remain particularly challenging due to the limited current and foreseen availability of recycled plastics suitable for use in automotive manufacturing.\r\nProposal: We see two options for adjusting this article:\r\n•\r\nOption I – Maintain the targets as proposed by the Polish Presidency, but include pre-consumer plastic waste in the scope\r\n•\r\nOption II – Revise the targets to the following levels: 10% (after 72 months), 15% (after 96 months) and 20% (after 120 months).\r\nIn both options, we would recommend that the closed loop target be omitted from step one. Starting from month 96, the closed loop target should be set at 10% of the overall target.\r\nAdditionally, while we fundamentally support the objective of reducing the environmental impact of plastic recycling both within the EU and in third countries, we question whether the proposed measures will have a meaningful real-world effect when weighed against the bureaucratic burden of ensuring compliance with EU law and conducting audits every five years. Furthermore, the proposal to establish a list of eligible countries appears to contradict the Commission’s broader efforts to reduce administrative complexity.\r\n2.\r\nInformation on replacement (Art. 11 and Annex V)\r\nWe do not support the inclusion of provisions on information on replacement within the scope of the ELVR.\r\nJustification: This would result in unnecessary duplication of existing regulations. Repair and maintenance operators already have access to the necessary information through established systems, as vehicle manufacturers are currently obliged to provide this data under existing legislation:\r\n•\r\nAnnex X of the EU Type Approval Framework Regulation (EU) 2018/858 and its appendix 2,\r\n•\r\nEuro VI rules for HDVs Regulation (EC) No 595/2009,\r\n•\r\nEuro 7 Regulation (EU) 2024/1257 and\r\n•\r\nEU Batteries Regulation (EU) 2023/1542.\r\nProposal: As a consequence, all obligations related to the provision of information to operators other than authorised treatment facilities (ATFs) should be removed from the ELVR.\r\n3.\r\nAuthorised treatment facilities - contracts (Art. 15; 3a)\r\nAllowing producers/PROs the option to sign contracts with authorised treatment facilities (ATFs) does not guarantee the optimal management of ELVs. The legislation should go further and explicitly require that ATFs must enter into a contractual agreement with the relevant producer/PRO in order to be authorised to treat their ELVs. This mandatory approach is already implemented in French national legislation.\r\nJustification: Unlike for other types of waste, “take-back back points” (for ELVs ATFs/ dismantling companies) do not exist because of Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR),\r\nbut rather because the business is economically attractive. Dismantling companies are independent businesses that own the waste and decide over the flow of the materials.\r\nIn other EU EPR regulations—such as Regulation (EU) 2023/1542, Articles 62, 64, and 65—the control over waste streams lies with the producers or their Producer Responsibility Organisations (PROs). In these cases, collection points act merely as service providers who are compensated for their work but do not own the waste.\r\nProposal: Article 15, 3a should clarify the producers’ right to organise their waste management systems in line with other EU EPR legislation. It should also clarify that ATFs are required to have a contract with the respective producer/PRO. Producers should not bear responsibility for activities conducted outside their established network.\r\n4.\r\nDesign to enable removal and replacement of certain parts and components in vehicles (Art. 7 and Annex VII C)\r\nWe welcome the shortening of the list in Annex VII Part C with the mandatory removal of parts and the inclusion of exemptions. However, we still have concerns regarding certain entries on the current list and the detailed descriptions of some components.\r\nJustification: The descriptions under individual entries in the table of Annex VII Part C are currently incomplete or unclear, which will likely cause misunderstandings. Hence, the descriptions should be simplified.\r\nFor the dismantling of glass at the end of life of vehicles, the ecological benefits are unproven. The associated effort and environmental costs of transport would also be high as there are only a few glass recyclers in Europe, resulting in long-distance transportation of heavy material. The ecological benefit of fuel tank recycling, which is highly contaminated with fuel or other fluids, has still to be proven and there is no established, economic recycling industry for the recycling of fuel tanks.\r\nThe metal of the heat exchanger is separated after shredding and the reuse potential of the heat exchanger is low due to fatigue and corrosion of the material.\r\nProposal: A more general wording of the listed components is recommended, e.g. “Electric vehicle batteries as defined in Article 3 point (14) of Regulation (EU) 2023/1542”, “E‐drive motors, including their casings”, “Directly accessible parts of the infotainment system, including displays of a surface greater than 100 square centimetres”. Additionally, where existing definitions or wordings exist, e.g. under Regulation (EU) 2023/1542, these should be used.\r\n•\r\n•\r\n•\r\n5.\r\nCross-border allocation mechanism (Art. 22; 2)\r\nWe do not consider it necessary to retain paragraph 2. The amendments proposed by the Council, combined with the enforcement of Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR) by each Member State for all producers as defined in Art. 3, would be sufficient.\r\nJustification: Unnecessary administrative burden for all producers.\r\nProposal: Deletion of Art. 22 paragraph 2.\r\nAnnex – Amendment Proposals\r\nRecital 29:\r\nWhile digital coding is increasingly used to control different parts and components in vehicle, the evaluation of Directive 2000/53/EC identified that such coding could impede the reuse, remanufacturing and refurbishment potential of certain parts and components. It is therefore essential that However, vehicle manufacturers are already requested to provide such information allowing professional waste management operators to overcome the problems posed by these digitally coded parts and components in a vehicle, where such coding prevents repair, maintenance or replacement operations in another vehicle under Annex X of the EU Type Approval Framework” Regulation (EU) 2018/858 and its appendix 2, as well as the Euro VI rules for HDVs Regulation (EC) No 595/2009, and “Euro 7” Regulation (EU) 2024/1257. In terms of electric vehicle (EV) batteries, waste operators, repair and maintenance operators have the right to the most critical information about the EV battery in view of repair, maintenance and end of life/waste treatment via the EU Batteries Regulation” Regulation (EU) 2023/1542.\r\nArticle 11, 1:\r\nFor new vehicle types approved from [OP: Please insert the date = the first day of the month following 36 months after the date of entry into force of this Regulation], manufacturers shall provide authorised treatment facilities repair and maintenance operators unrestricted, standardised and non-discriminatory access, e.g. via existing tools used by the Automotive Industry, to the information listed in Annex V, enabling access to, and safe removal and replacement of;\r\nArticle 11, 2:\r\nManufacturers shall ensure cooperation with the authorised treatment operators facilities and repair and maintenance operators by establishing necessary communication platforms to provide and keep up-to-date the information referred to in paragraph 1 and the information specified in Annex V.\r\nThe manufacturers shall provide the information referred to in the first subparagraph free of charge. The manufacturers may collect charges from authorised treatment facilities and repair and maintenance operators to the amount necessary to cover the administrative costs for making the required information accessible through communication platforms.\r\nArt. 11, 1 (f) and Annex V point 5:\r\nDeletion\r\nAnnex V points 1, 2, 4:\r\nDeletion of the words ‘and replacement’.\r\nArticle 15, 3a:\r\nAuthorised treatment facilities Producers or, where appointed in accordance with Article 17(1), producer responsibility organisations may shall conclude contracts with producers or, where appointed in accordance with Article 17(1), producer responsibility organisation authorised treatment facilities for the purposes of implementing their producer responsibility obligations in order to be allowed to treat the end-of life vehicles of the respective producer. Such contracts shall be fair, transparent and non-discriminatory and may be based on a model established by the Member State."},"recipientGroups":[{"recipients":{"parliament":[],"federalGovernment":[{"department":{"title":"Bundesministerium für Umwelt, Naturschutz, nukleare Sicherheit und Verbraucherschutz (BMUV) (20. WP)","shortTitle":"BMUV (20. WP)","url":"https://www.bmuv.de/","electionPeriod":20}}]},"sendingDate":"2025-06-03"}]},{"regulatoryProjectNumber":"RV0003356","regulatoryProjectTitle":"24.013_Unterstützung der Möglichkeit, autonome Fahrzeuge zuzulassen (\"Gesetz zum autonomen Fahren\")","pdfUrl":"https://www.lobbyregister.bundestag.de/media/4f/69/392107/Stellungnahme-Gutachten-SG2412120039.pdf","pdfPageCount":3,"text":{"copyrightAcknowledgement":"Die grundlegenden Stellungnahmen und Gutachten können urheberrechtlich geschützte Werke enthalten. Eine Nutzung ist nur im urheberrechtlich zulässigen Rahmen erlaubt.","text":"INTERNAL\r\nChancenpapier\r\nzur Stärkung autonomer\r\nMobilität in Europa\r\n2\r\nChancenpapier zur Stärkung autonomer Mobilität in Europa\r\nDie Einführung von Level-4-Technologie im Shuttle-Use-Case bietet eine enorme industriepolitische Chance für Deutschland und Europa. Indem autonome Shuttles zuerst im öffentlichen Verkehr eingesetzt werden, können europäische Hersteller ihre technologische Führungsposition in einem aufstrebenden Zukunftsmarkt zurückerobern. Der öffentliche Personennahverkehr dient als erster Bereich, in dem die Technologie zur Reife gebracht wird, bevor sie auf den Massenmarkt für Individualverkehr ausgeweitet werden kann. Die Einführung der Level-4-Technologie steigert den volkswirtschaftlichen Nutzen durch kosteneffizientere Mobilitätssysteme, die auf neuen, tragfähigen Geschäftsmodellen basieren, verbessert die Sicherheit im Straßenverkehr durch die Minimierung menschlicher Fehler und fördert die Nachhaltigkeit durch eine Entlastung der Verkehrsinfrastruktur sowie den Einsatz elektrischer Antriebe.\r\nDies bietet der europäischen Industrie die Chance, langfristig selbstfahrende Technologie sowie Flottenbetriebssysteme für autonome Technologien zu entwickeln und zu standardisieren, was die Grundlage für eine europäische Wertschöpfungskette der Kerntechnologien bildet. Autonome Mobilität spielt daher eine zentrale Rolle für die Wettbewerbsfähigkeit und Standortsicherung der deutschen und europäischen Automobilindustrie. Die Möglichkeit und Unterstützung eines frühzeitigen Einsatzes und die Optimierung der Level-4-Technologie ermöglichen es, ein robustes Ökosystem aus Zulieferern, Herstellern und Technologieentwicklern in der EU aufzubauen, das international wettbewerbsfähig ist.\r\nDurch die technologische Entwicklung, die von hohen zu niedrigen Kosten bei zunehmender Skalierung führt, kann Europa seine technologische Souveränität stärken und von einem global wachsenden Markt für autonome Fahrzeuge profitieren. Dies stärkt nicht nur die heimische Industrie, sondern verringert die Abhängigkeit von außereuropäischen Zulieferern. Zusätzlich schafft der Aufbau eines Level-4-basierten Mobilitätssystems hochwertige Arbeitsplätze und sichert langfristig die wirtschaftliche Wettbewerbsfähigkeit der europäischen Automobilindustrie im globalen Maßstab. Der Aufbau autonomer Mobilitätskompetenzen und -Lösungen sollte somit eine Schlüsselrolle in der zukünftigen Wirtschaftsstrategie Deutschlands und Europas spielen.\r\nDieses Papier bietet Entscheidungsträgern einen Werkzeugkasten mit Maßnahmen, aus dem passende Instrumente gewählt werden können, um die Einführung, Skalierung und Wertschöpfungssteigerung autonomer Mobilität in Deutschland und Europa bestmöglich zu unterstützen. Dafür bedarf es sowohl der Unterstützung der Bundesregierung als auch der Europäischen Union.\r\nMögliche Maßnahmen zur Stärkung autonomer Mobilität in Europa\r\nStufe 1: Skalierung des Marktes für autonome Mobilitätslösungen\r\nZur Etablierung und erfolgreicher Skalierung des Marktes für autonome Mobilitätslösungen ist eine Kombination aus finanzieller Unterstützung, rechtlichen Anpassungen und regulatorischen Harmonisierungen erforderlich, um die\r\n3\r\nIntegration autonomer Fahrzeuge in bestehende städtische und suburbane Verkehrssysteme zu erleichtern. Hier eine Auswahl an möglichen kurzfristigen Maßnahmen zur Erreichung dieses Ziels:\r\n•\r\nInvestitionsförderung: Staatliche Zuschüsse für ÖPNV-Betreiber für den Erwerb und die Integration autonomer Fahrzeuge in bestehende Flotten.\r\n•\r\nBetriebskostenzuschüsse: Einführung von Betriebskostenzuschüssen pro gefahrenen Kilometer, die über die Zeit degressiv gestaltet sind, um den Hochlauf autonomer Flotten zu unterstützen.\r\n•\r\nAnpassung von Ausschreibungsverfahren: Harmonisierung von Ausschreibungen im öffentlichen Sektor, um größere Flotten und effizientere Prozesse zu ermöglichen; Fokus auf Innovationen und europäische Wertschöpfung statt reine Kostenbetrachtung.\r\n•\r\nSchaffung und Harmonisierung nationaler Rechtsrahmen für das Autonome Fahren: Etablierung von Rechtsrahmen für autonome Fahrzeuge in allen EU-Mitgliedsstaaten für Zulassung und Betrieb.\r\n•\r\nHarmonisierung der Betriebsbereichsgenehmigung EU-weit: Vereinheitlichung der Betriebsgenehmigungen für autonome Fahrzeuge innerhalb der EU, um den Marktzugang zu erleichtern.\r\n•\r\nAnpassung der Zulassungsbeschränkungen: Abschaffung der Mengenbegrenzung von 1.500 Fahrzeugen pro Jahr bei der Typzulassung autonomer Fahrzeuge, um mittelfristig Massenproduktion zu ermöglichen.\r\nStufe 2: Stärkung europäischer Hersteller autonomer Mobilitätslösungen\r\nDie Stärkung der europäischen Hersteller erfordert gezielte Maßnahmen zur Sicherstellung eines fairen Wettbewerbs sowie die Förderung von Technologien und Infrastrukturen, die die europäische Wertschöpfung im Bereich autonomer Mobilität unterstützen. Hier eine Auswahl an möglichen mittelfristigen Maßnahmen zur Erreichung dieses Ziels:\r\n•\r\nSchaffung eines fairen Wettbewerbs innerhalb der EU: Maßnahmen zum Schutz vor Marktverzerrung durch ausländische, z. T. staatlich subventionierte Unternehmen.\r\no\r\nEinführung von Anti-Dumping-Regeln und Quoten\r\n•\r\nBevorzugter Einsatz europäischer Technologie durch Verpflichtung zur Verwendung eines festen Anteils an europäischen Technologien und Komponenten in autonomen Fahrzeugen und Mobilitätsdiensten, um die lokale Wertschöpfung zu schützen.\r\nStufe 3: Europa zum globalen Champion für autonome Mobilitätslösungen entwickeln\r\nUm Europa als globalen Champion für autonome Mobilitätslösungen zu etablieren, bedarf es ebenfalls langfristiger Maßnahmen. Hier eine Auswahl möglicher Ansatzpunkte:\r\n•\r\nFörderprogramme und Aufbau einer europäischen Wertschöpfungskette für selbstfahrende Systeme:\r\no\r\nFörderprogramme und Investitionen: Bereitstellung von staatlichen Fördermitteln und Zuschüssen zur Entwicklung eines möglichst vollständig und wettbewerbsfähigen in Europa produzierten Self-Driving-Ökosystems, einschließlich Selbstfahrender Systeme, Chipsätze, Flottenmanagementsysteme, Cloud-Infrastruktur, Radaren, Lidaren und Sensoren.\r\no\r\nAufbau der Produktions- und Lieferkette: Entwicklung von Strategien zur Ansiedlung aller Produktionsschritte innerhalb der EU, um die lokale Wertschöpfung zu maximieren und die internationale Wettbewerbsfähigkeit zu erhalten.\r\n•\r\nEntwicklung einer europäischen Mobilitätsplattform und Förderung strategischer Partnerschaften:\r\no\r\nEuropäische Mobilitätsplattform: Aufbau einer EU-weiten Plattform zur Koordination und Steuerung autonomer Fahrzeugflotten, vergleichbar mit Leitsystemen im Luft- und Bahnverkehr, um Effizienz und Sicherheit zu erhöhen.\r\n•\r\nEinführung europäische Zertifizierung für Code autonomer Fahrsysteme: Vorgaben, dass der Code für autonome Fahrsysteme (anteilig) innerhalb Europas entwickelt und geschrieben werden muss\r\n•\r\nEinführung von Maßnahmen zur Datenhoheit in Europa: Schaffung von Vorschriften, die verlangen, dass Daten, die von autonomen Fahrzeugen gesammelt werden, ausschließlich innerhalb der EU gespeichert und verarbeitet werden, um Datenschutz und Sicherheit zu gewährleisten.\r\n•\r\nFörderung des Exportes europäischer autonomer Fahrzeugtechnologie: Umsetzung handelspolitischer Maßnahmen, um europäische autonome Fahrtechnologien global wettbewerbsfähig und exportfähig zu machen, wie z. B.:\r\n▪\r\nExportkredite und Finanzierungshilfen\r\n▪\r\nFörderung von Joint Ventures und Kooperationen"},"recipientGroups":[{"recipients":{"parliament":[],"federalGovernment":[{"department":{"title":"Bundesministerium für Wirtschaft und Klimaschutz (BMWK) (20. WP)","shortTitle":"BMWK (20. WP)","url":"https://www.bmwk.de/Navigation/DE/Home/home.html","electionPeriod":20}}]},"sendingDate":"2024-10-28"}]},{"regulatoryProjectNumber":"RV0003360","regulatoryProjectTitle":"24.017_Nachgelagerte Euro 7 Gesetzgebung schnell und eindeutig umsetzen","pdfUrl":"https://www.lobbyregister.bundestag.de/media/47/12/305601/Stellungnahme-Gutachten-SG2406240007.pdf","pdfPageCount":9,"text":{"copyrightAcknowledgement":"Die grundlegenden Stellungnahmen und Gutachten können urheberrechtlich geschützte Werke enthalten. Eine Nutzung ist nur im urheberrechtlich zulässigen Rahmen erlaubt.","text":"EU7 Structure\r\nAll comments based on Light Duty Vehicles\r\nEU7 Structure – Open Issues\r\n• Link between the “main implementing act” and “dedicated \r\nimplementing acts”\r\n• Legislative structure\r\n• How many approvals?\r\n• Approval process \r\n• Does the approval number deliver all the required information?\r\nAnd finally\r\n• Does the approach deliver the best balance between simplicity and \r\nlegal certainty in the entire approval process?\r\nLink between the “main implementing act” and \r\n“dedicated implementing acts”\r\n• Why is this link so necessary?\r\n• Is it to ensure that “partial EU7 vehicles” are not sold as “full EU7 vehicles” or is \r\nthere another reason?\r\n• The current plan is to adopt the first implementing acts by the end of May 2025. \r\nThese would then enter into force around September. That is 14 months before \r\nthe new types date and 26 months before the all registrations date.\r\n• Any actions with the intention of protecting customers from misleading \r\nadvertising should not bring long term burden for the life of EU7.\r\n• There is a risk of forcing an additional stage of Type Approval:\r\n• EU6 Emissions approval => Whole vehicle approval\r\n• Dedicated EU7 approval => Main EU7 approval => Whole vehicle approval\r\nLegislative structure, How many approvals?\r\n• Taking the first stage plan proposed by the Commission:\r\n• The Main IA we shall call 2025/xx\r\n• The dedicated OBM act we shall call 202_/yy\r\n• Amendments to the content of 2025/xx we shall call 202_/xa, xb etc.\r\n• Amendments to the content of 202_/yy we shall call 202_/ya, yb etc.\r\nLegislative structure, How many approvals?\r\nExample first stage\r\n• Scenario 1: \r\n• 1 EU7 approval, all future implementing acts amend the relevant reference\r\n(approval requirement?) in 2025/xx\r\n• Scenario 2:\r\n• 2 approvals (main act and OBM), main act requires an increasing number of \r\ndedicated approvals (e.g. plus brake emissions . . . )\r\n• Scenario 3:\r\n• 2 approvals (main act and OBM), main act references an increasing number of \r\ndedicated approvals (e.g. plus brake emissions . . . )\r\n• Scenario 4:\r\n• 2 approvals (main act and OBM), both required by 858/2018, no reference \r\nrequired from main act to dedicated acts\r\nApproval number series\r\ne4*2025/xx*1234*00 => e4*2025/xx*202_/ya*1234*01 => e4*2025/xx*202_/xb*1234*02 \r\ne4*2025/xx*1234*00 => e4*2025/xx*202_/ya*1234*00 + e4*2025/xx*202_/xb*1234*01 \r\nAlternative understanding based on structure\r\ne4*2025/xx*1234*00 => e4*202_/yy*1234*00 + e4*2025/xx*202_/xb*1234*00 \r\ne4*2025/xx*1234*00 => e4*2025/xx*202_/ya*1234*00 + e4*2025/xx*202_/xb*1234*01 \r\ne4*202_/yy*1234*00 + e4*2025/xx*202_/xb*1234*00 \r\ne4*2025/xx*1234*00 => e4*2025/xx*202_/xa*1234*01 + e4*2025/yy*1234*00 => e4*2025/xx*202_/xa*1234*01 + e4*2025/yy*202_/xb*1234*01 \r\nLegislative structure, How many approvals?\r\nExample first stage\r\n• Scenario 1: \r\n• Approve to main act, then extend main act approval to also include OBM, etc.\r\n• Scenario 2:\r\n• Approve to main act, then approve to OBM act and extend main act approval\r\nto cover OBM approval, etc.\r\n• Scenario 3:\r\n• Approve to main act, then approve to OBM act etc. Finally extend main act\r\napproval to cover all approvals required for „full EU7“ \r\n• Scenario 4:\r\n• Approve to main act, then approve to OBM act etc. Include in 858 approvals\r\nas fitting\r\nLegislative structure, How many approvals?\r\nExample first stage\r\nPros Cons\r\nScenario 1 Lowest number of approvals but with \r\nfrequent extensions. \r\n1 (2) stage approval process\r\nCannot easily tell what is included in approval\r\nScenario 2 2 (3) stage approval process\r\nScenario 3 1 (2) stage approval process Burocratic\r\nScenario 4 Clarity of what is covered by which approval\r\nUsers of (Emissions) Type Approval and their needs\r\n• Whole Vehicle Type Approval\r\n• Information Document\r\n• needs unequivocal information regarding which vehicle is covered by which approval, preferably readable by all \r\nwho use it\r\n• CoC/eCoC\r\n• Clear and simple information to customers and registration office (see below)\r\n• In Service Conformity/Market Surveillance\r\n• Authorities & Testers\r\n• Applicable approval (until EU7 complete), members of families/approvals for vehicle selection, limits, test \r\ninformation (transparency lists) etc.\r\n• Periodical Technical Inspection • Standards for testing, approval category, OBD system\r\n• Vehicle Registration Offices • Approval standard, validity for registration\r\n• Taxation authorities (circulation / purchase) • Approval standard, validity for taxation / incentives\r\n• Access restriction authorities (national / regional / city) • Approval standard, validity for access\r\nLinks between the “main implementing act” \r\nand “dedicated implementing acts”\r\n• Alternatives:\r\n1. Clarity is achieved in 858/2018 which (relevant) approvals are \r\nrequired for Euro 7\r\n2. Approvals to (relevant) dedicated acts are needed before an \r\napproval to the main act can be issued. This implies a two stage\r\napproval (3 stage including whole vehicle)"},"recipientGroups":[{"recipients":{"parliament":[],"federalGovernment":[{"department":{"title":"Bundesministerium für Digitales und Verkehr (BMDV) (20. WP)","shortTitle":"BMDV (20. WP)","url":"https://bmdv.bund.de/DE/Home/home.html","electionPeriod":20}},{"department":{"title":"Bundesministerium für Umwelt, Naturschutz, nukleare Sicherheit und Verbraucherschutz (BMUV) (20. WP)","shortTitle":"BMUV (20. WP)","url":"https://www.bmuv.de/","electionPeriod":20}}]},"sendingDate":"2024-06-07"}]},{"regulatoryProjectNumber":"RV0003370","regulatoryProjectTitle":"24.027_Nationale Umsetzung CSRD analog EU","pdfUrl":"https://www.lobbyregister.bundestag.de/media/6b/8e/300224/Stellungnahme-Gutachten-SG2405050001.pdf","pdfPageCount":4,"text":{"copyrightAcknowledgement":"Die grundlegenden Stellungnahmen und Gutachten können urheberrechtlich geschützte Werke enthalten. Eine Nutzung ist nur im urheberrechtlich zulässigen Rahmen erlaubt.","text":"Porsche Automobil Holding SE\r\nSitz der Gesellschaft: Stuttgart, Registergericht: Amtsgericht Stuttgart HRB-Nr. 724512\r\nAufsichtsrat: Dr. Wolfgang Porsche (Vorsitzender), Dr. Hans Michel Piëch (stellv. Vorsitzender)\r\nVorstand: Hans Dieter Pötsch (Vorsitzender), Dr. Manfred Döss, Dr. Johannes Lattwein, Lutz Meschke F.SE.2009-22.02\r\nPorsche Automobil Holding SE, Porscheplatz 1, 70435 Stuttgart, Deutschland\r\nAn\r\nHerrn Bundeskanzler\r\nOlaf Scholz\r\nBundeskanzleramt\r\nWilly-Brandt-Straße 1\r\n10557 Berlin\r\nPorsche Automobil Holding SE\r\nPorscheplatz 1\r\n70435 Stuttgart, Deutschland\r\nTelefon: +49 (0) 7 11 / 9 11 - 11050\r\nTelefax: +49 (0) 7 11 / 9 11 - 11824\r\nKopie: Bundesminister Dr. Habeck, Lindner\r\nStaatssekretär Dr. Kukies\r\n03. Mai 2024\r\nReduzierung der Reportingpflichten im Bereich der Nachhaltigkeitsberichterstattung\r\nauf ein realwirtschaftlich sinnvolles und leistbares Maß\r\nSehr geehrter Herr Bundeskanzler,\r\nder Klimawandel ist die zentrale Herausforderung unserer Zeit. Ganz ausdrücklich\r\nunterstützen wir daher die Anstrengungen der Bundesregierung und der Europäischen Union\r\nzur Umsetzung der Ziele des Pariser Klimaabkommens. Die deutsche Wirtschaft ist sich ihrer\r\nVerantwortung bewusst und sieht sich in der Pflicht, sektorübergreifend einen Beitrag zur\r\nErreichung der Klimaneutralität zu leisten. Diese Bereitschaft, Verantwortung zu übernehmen,\r\ndarf allerdings nicht zu einer Überforderung vieler Unternehmen führen und zur Gefahr für\r\nden Wirtschaftsstandort Deutschland werden.\r\nVor diesem Hintergrund begegnen wir mit großer Sorge der ausufernden Regulierung\r\nhinsichtlich der Nachhaltigkeitsberichterstattung durch die Europäische Union. Die im\r\nRahmen des European Green Deal entwickelten Transparenzanforderungen, u.a. die\r\nCorporate Sustainability Reporting Directive (CSRD), füllen bereits heute mehrere Tausend\r\nSeiten. Allein die Nachhaltigkeitsberichterstattung nach den European Sustainability\r\nReporting Standards (ESRS) verpflichtet Unternehmen, potenziell über 1.000 Datenpunkte zu\r\nerheben und zu veröffentlichen.\r\nEine derart überbordende Bürokratie führt zur Lähmung der deutschen und europäischen\r\nWirtschaft, da sie auf Unternehmensebene unverhältnismäßig viele Ressourcen bindet und\r\nprohibitiv hohe Kosten erzeugt. Für viele mittelständische Unternehmen dürften diese\r\nTransparenzanforderungen schlicht unerfüllbar sein. Die Überregulierung bremst die in vielen\r\nBereichen notwendige Transformation und erstickt zunehmend die Wettbewerbsfähigkeit in\r\nDeutschland und Europa. Zumal ein „Mehr an Information“ nicht automatisch ein „Mehr an\r\nNachhaltigkeit“ bedeutet. Vielmehr sollte die konkrete Umsetzung von Maßnahmen im\r\nVordergrund stehen und weiter vorangetrieben werden oder verkürzt: Taten statt Tabellen.\r\n"},"recipientGroups":[{"recipients":{"parliament":[],"federalGovernment":[{"department":{"title":"Bundeskanzleramt (BKAmt)","shortTitle":"BKAmt","url":"https://www.bundeskanzler.de/bk-de","electionPeriod":20}},{"department":{"title":"Bundesministerium der Finanzen (BMF)","shortTitle":"BMF","url":"https://www.bundesfinanzministerium.de/Web/DE/Home/home.html","electionPeriod":20}},{"department":{"title":"Bundesministerium für Wirtschaft und Klimaschutz (BMWK) (20. WP)","shortTitle":"BMWK (20. WP)","url":"https://www.bmwk.de/Navigation/DE/Home/home.html","electionPeriod":20}}]},"sendingDate":"2024-05-03"},{"recipients":{"parliament":[{"code":"RG_BT_FRACTIONS_GROUPS","de":"Fraktionen/Gruppen","en":"Parliamentary parties/groups"},{"code":"RG_BT_MEMBERS_OF_PARLIAMENT","de":"Mitglieder des Bundestages","en":"Members of parliament"}],"federalGovernment":[]},"sendingDate":"2024-06-19"}]},{"regulatoryProjectNumber":"RV0003371","regulatoryProjectTitle":"24.028_Ausgestaltung der Anpassung des Batt-EU-AnpG","pdfUrl":"https://www.lobbyregister.bundestag.de/media/ea/b8/300226/Stellungnahme-Gutachten-SG2405300016.pdf","pdfPageCount":6,"text":{"copyrightAcknowledgement":"Die grundlegenden Stellungnahmen und Gutachten können urheberrechtlich geschützte Werke enthalten. Eine Nutzung ist nur im urheberrechtlich zulässigen Rahmen erlaubt.","text":"1 / 6 \r\nReferenten-Entwurf eines Gesetzes zur Anpassung des Batterierechts an \r\ndie Verordnung (EU) 2023/1542 (Batt-EU-AnpG)\r\nVolkswagen Konzern Position\r\nDer Volkswagen Konzern unterstützt die Weiterentwicklung der Europäischen Union zu einer \r\nmodernen, ressourceneffizienten und wettbewerbsfähigen Wirtschaft. Die europäische Batterie\u0002verordnung (EU 2023/1542) ist dabei der zentrale Rechtsakt bezüglich der erweiterten\r\nHerstellerverantwortung für Batterien.\r\nIm nationalen Batt-EU-AnpG werden jedoch teilweise Regeln gegenüber der europäischen \r\nBatterieverordnung zum Nachteil der Marktwirtschaft verschärft. Zudem liegt dem \r\nGesetzesentwurf die Annahme zugrunde, dass die Behandlung/Verwertung von Batterien \r\nKosten verursacht - Traktions- und Starterbatterien sind jedoch werthaltig. \r\nDie vorrangigen Herausforderungen, die sich aus dem Vorschlagsentwurf ergeben, sind:\r\nI. Einführung der verpflichtenden Teilnahme an einer kollektiven “Organisation für \r\nHerstellerverantwortung” (PRO) für Elektrofahrzeug- und Starterbatterien. PROs führen \r\nzu einer Finanzierung des Recyclings ca. 15 Jahre vor der tatsächlichen Dienstleistungs\u0002erbringung. Individuelle Systeme dagegen ermöglichen eine Kostenverantwortung zum \r\ntatsächlichen Anfall und fördern den Wettbewerb und die Weiterentwicklung von \r\nRecyclingtechnologien. \r\n Daher sollte der Gesetzgeber weiterhin Herstellern die Rücknahme von Altbatterien \r\nauch über individuelle Systeme ermöglichen.\r\nII. Der Europäische Gesetzgeber hat in EU 2023/1542 keinen Ausgleichsmechanismus\r\nzwischen PROs verschiedener Mitgliedstaaten vorgesehen. \r\n Daher sollte der Gesetzgeber PROs verpflichten, die vom Hersteller gezahlte Gebühr \r\nbei Export der Elektrofahrzeug- und Starterbatterien zurückzuerstatten. \r\nIII. Nach der europäischen Batterieverordnung Art. 8 haben die Batterieerzeuger \r\nverpflichtend den Einsatz von Rezyklat in Batterien zu erfüllen. Im EU-Batt-AnpG fehlt \r\njedoch ein Zugriff auf die Rezyklate über die Organisation für Herstellerverantwortung. \r\n Bei der Etablierung von PROs ist eine herstellerspezifische Zuordnung von Rezyklaten \r\nauf Basis zurückgenommener Mengen sicherzustellen.\r\nIV. Konflikt zwischen dem Ansatz auf EU-Ebene (EU 2023/1542), der auf non-profit \r\nOrganisationen für Herstellerverantwortung ausgerichtet ist, und dem bisherigen Ansatz \r\nin Deutschland von profitorientierten Herstellerorganisationen. \r\n Bei der Etablierung von PROs sind die Vorgaben für Organisationen zur \r\nHerstellerverantwortung ohne Gewinnerzielungsabsicht auszugestalten.\r\nV. Sowohl Elektrofahrzeug- als auch Starterbatterien enthalten werthaltige Sekundär\u0002materialien mit steigender Rohstoffpreisentwicklung. Daher werden in Zukunft für die \r\nRücknahme und das Recycling der Batterien Erlöse entstehen.\r\n Bei der Etablierung von PROs ist eine finanzielle Regelung für PROs (Kompensations\u0002mechanismus) zu definieren.\r\nVI. Bislang ist unklar, inwiefern zum Beispiel die von der EU-Kommission im Februar 2025 zu \r\nveröffentlichenden Leitlinien für die Sorgfaltspflichten (vgl. Art. 48 (5)) in die deutsche \r\nBatteriegesetzgebung Eingang finden. \r\n Daher sollte der Gesetzgeber hierzu eine Klarstellung vornehmen.\r\n2 / 6 \r\nDetail Analyse des Batt-EU-AnpG\r\nNachfolgend werden die Herausforderungen im Referenten-Entwurf des Gesetzes zur \r\nAnpassung des Batterierechts an die Verordnung (EU) 2023/1542 (Batt-EU-AnpG), geordnet \r\nnach Paragrafen, im Detail beschrieben:\r\n§ 7: Pflicht zur Beteiligung an einer Organisation für Herstellerverantwortung\r\nIm Paragraf 7 wird vorgegeben, dass Hersteller sich an einer Organisation für \r\nHerstellerverantwortung (PRO) beteiligen müssen.\r\nUm die Idee der Circular Economy insbesondere vor dem Hintergrund von verbindlichen \r\nVorgaben zum Rezyklateinsatz in Neuprodukten erfolgreich zu machen, ist es aus Sicht des \r\nVolkswagen Konzerns erforderlich, dem Hersteller von langlebigen Produkten wie Fahrzeugen \r\nund Elektrofahrzeugbatterien das Recht einzuräumen, die in Verkehr gebrachten Produkte \r\neigenständig auch in einem individuellen Rücknahmesystem einer umweltgerechten \r\nEntsorgung zuführen. Dadurch wäre eine zielgerichtete und effektive Steuerung der \r\nAbfälle möglich. \r\nFür Geräte-Altbatterien erfolgt in Deutschland seit 2021 die Rücknahme durch Zusammen\u0002wirken von kollektiven Rücknahmesystemen im Wettbewerb. Damit hat der deutsche \r\nGesetzgeber einen ersten Schritt zu einer marktwirtschaftlich orientierten Kreislaufwirtschaft \r\ngemacht und Monopolbildung vermieden, blieb aber – eventuell angesichts der Art der \r\nProdukte – bei der Verpflichtung zur kollektiven Wahrnehmung der Herstellerverantwortung, \r\nwas zu einer Abhängigkeit der Hersteller von wenigen Akteuren führt. \r\nDieser Ansatz soll nun auf alle anderen Batterie-Kategorien ausgeweitet werden. EU 2023/1542\r\nsieht in Artikel 57 als Grundsatz individuelle Rücknahmesysteme vor. Den Mitgliedstaaten\r\nwird ermöglicht, die Beauftragung einer Organisation für Herstellerverantwortung verbindlich\r\nvorzuschreiben, wenn sie mit besonderen Eigenschaften der in Verkehr gebrachten \r\nBatteriekategorie und deren Abfallbewirtschaftungseigenschaften zu begründen ist.\r\nDies ist aus Sicht des Volkswagen Konzerns bei Elektrofahrzeug- und Starteraltbatterien\r\nnicht der Fall, weshalb der Gesetzgeber es dem Hersteller offenlassen sollte, ob er ein \r\nindividuelles Rücknahmenetz aufbauen möchte oder sich einer Herstellerorganisation \r\n(PRO) anschließen möchte.\r\nZum einen wird in der Begründung des Entwurfes nicht berücksichtigt, dass Elektrofahrzeug\u0002und Starterbatterien nicht vergleichbar mit Gerätealtbatterien sind: \r\n- Elektrofahrzeug- und Starterbatterien bilden eine Einheit mit einem Fahrzeug, werden \r\nentsprechend typgenehmigt. \r\n- Ab 2027 muss eine Elektrofahrzeugbatterie über einen Batteriepass verfügen, \r\nwodurch auch der Status der Batterie über den gesamten Lebenszyklus erfasst wird.\r\n- Bei Elektrofahrzeugbatterien handelt es sich um langlebige Wirtschaftsgüter, die über \r\nden Lebenszyklus des Fahrzeugs ausgelegt sind.\r\n- Elektrofahrzeugaltbatterien fallen im Gegensatz zu Gerätealtbatterien bei qualifizierten\r\nFachbetrieben an. \r\n- Altbatterien aus Elektrofahrzeugen gelten im Transport als Gefahrgut und haben \r\nAnforderungen an den Transport und die Verpackung zu erfüllen. Altbatterien aus \r\n3 / 6 \r\nElektrofahrzeugen, die als n.i.O / nicht transportsicher eingestuft werden, müssen in \r\nindividuell geprüften Transportbehältern transportiert werden. \r\nZum anderen begründet das BMUV den kollektiven Ansatz bei Elektrofahrzeugaltbatterien u.a. \r\nmit der Notwendigkeit des sachgemäßen Umgangs in der Abfallphase, sowie der \r\nVereinfachung des Datenmonitorings durch die Behörden.\r\n- Aus Sicht des Volkswagen Konzerns ist sowohl in eigenen Servicebetrieben als auch \r\nbei unabhängigen Wirtschaftsakteuren sichergestellt, dass die Reparatur und der \r\nUmgang mit Altbatterien sachgemäß erfolgen. So wird schon heute in einem \r\nindividuellen Rücknahmesystem die sachgemäße Übergabe von \r\nElektrofahrzeugaltbatterien sichergestellt, die Batterie ordnungsgemäß analysiert, \r\nklassifiziert, verpackt, erfasst und entsorgt. \r\n- Nach § 6, § 14 und § 18 des vorliegenden Entwurfes gelten alle Händler für den \r\nEndnutzer als Rückgabestellen für Elektrofahrzeug- und Starteraltbatterien. In dem \r\nEntwurf wird keine nachvollziehbare Begründung gegeben, weshalb die Organisation \r\nder Logistik zu einem zertifizierten Batterie-Recycler oder -Aufbereiter nur durch eine \r\nPRO sachgemäß vorgenommen werden könnte und nicht auch individuell durch einen \r\nHersteller selbst. Die PROs würden die gleichen Akteure beauftragen, wie ein \r\nHersteller. \r\n- Das Datenmonitoring wird in Artikel 57 EU 2023/1542 nicht als mögliche Begründung \r\nfür eine verbindliche Teilnahme an einer Herstellerorganisation in Betracht gezogen.\r\nNicht einzuschätzen ist aus Sicht des Volkswagen Konzerns bisher der Erfüllungsaufwand der \r\nWirtschaft. \r\n- Es wesentlicher Bestandteil der Kosten einer PRO wird z. B. von der Sicherheitsleistung \r\nabhängen, für deren Berechnung ein Ausgleichssatz noch durch die zuständige Behörde \r\nfestzulegen ist. Wir gehen aufgrund der prognostizierten Preisentwicklung davon aus, \r\ndass über die gesamte Prozesskette Erlöse entstehen werden. Hierzu besteht die \r\nNotwendigkeit eines Mechanismus zur Berechnung der Vergütung. \r\n§ 10: Ökologische Gestaltung der Beiträge\r\nParagraf 10 gibt vor, nach welchen Kriterien die Beiträge der beteiligten Hersteller innerhalb \r\neiner Organisation für Herstellerverantwortung (PRO) erhoben werden.\r\nBei der Regelung der Beiträge einer PRO analog Art. 57 Abs. 2 (b) EU 2023/1542 wird deutlich, \r\ndass die Vorgaben der EU-Verordnung auf eine non-profit Organisation zugeschnitten sind, was \r\ndem bisher in Deutschland angestrebten Ansatz einer profitorientierten Abfallbewirtschaftung \r\nwiderspricht. \r\nDer Gesetzgeber sollte diesen Absatz grundsätzlich überarbeiten. \r\n- Eine Doppelung von Vorschriften ist zu vermeiden: Art. 57 Abs. 2(a) EU 2023/1542 gilt \r\nunmittelbar und bedarf keiner Umsetzung durch den nationalen Gesetzgeber. Somit \r\nsollten auch in Deutschland die PROs und nicht der Gesetzgeber die ökologische \r\nGestaltung ihrer Beiträge vornehmen. \r\n4 / 6 \r\n- Die Reparierbarkeit einer Batterie spielt am Lebensende für den Recyclingprozess keine \r\nRolle. Die Recyclingtechnologien folgen grundsätzlich der technischen Entwicklung der \r\nProdukte.\r\n- Analog Art. 57 Abs 2(b) EU 2023/1542 hat eine Herstellerorganisation bei der \r\nGestaltung der Beiträge auch die Einnahmen und Erlöse zu berücksichtigen. Dies kann \r\nnur in einer non-profit Organisation sichergestellt werden, da analog Art. 8a Absatz 4 (c)\r\nRichtlinie 2008/98/EG lediglich die Kosten einer effizienten Abfallbewirtschaftung durch \r\nden Hersteller zu tragen sind, und keine weiteren Margen einer profitorientierten \r\nHerstellerorganisation.\r\n- Es ist zu vermeiden, dass in Zukunft Rezyklate durch die Teilnahme an einer PRO \r\nteurer gemacht werden als die Primärrohstoffe. \r\n- Weder die EU-Verordnung, noch der vorliegende Gesetzesentwurf regeln den potenziell\r\nmöglichen Fall einer erforderlichen Rückerstattung von Erlösen der \r\nHerstellerorganisation an die Hersteller, falls die Erlöse die Kosten für die effiziente \r\nBereitstellung der Dienstleistung der Abfallbewirtschaftung übersteigen sollten. \r\n- Im derzeitigen Entwurf hängt analog Art. 8a Absatz 3 (e) (ii) die Beitragszahlung des \r\nHerstellers vom Zeitpunkt der Inverkehrbringung der Batterie ab. Die Kosten fallen \r\nsomit für den Hersteller im Zweifel mehr als 15 Jahre vor dem Zeitpunkt der \r\ntatsächlichen Abfallentsorgung an. Dies entspricht nicht den üblichen Regeln einer \r\nMarktwirtschaft und führt zu einem sehr hohen Kostenaufwand für die Hersteller zu \r\neinem Zeitpunkt, in dem die Elektromobilität sich im Hochlauf befindet.\r\n- Wir weisen darauf hin, dass im Fall von Elektrofahrzeugbatterien in \r\nGebrauchtfahrzeugen im Zweifel in mehreren Mitgliedstaaten eine solche Gebühr an die \r\njeweilige PRO abgeführt werden müsste. \r\n- Es ist bisher kein Ausgleichsmechanismus zwischen PROs verschiedener \r\nMitgliedstaaten vorgesehen (im Gegensatz zu Art. 22 des Vorschlags der EU \r\nKommission für eine Verordnung über Anforderungen an die kreislauforientierte \r\nKonstruktion von Fahrzeugen und über die Entsorgung von Altfahrzeugen). \r\n• Angesichts des Exports von Gebrauchtfahrzeugen von Deutschland ins europäische \r\nAusland aber auch in Staaten außerhalb der EU würde dieser Ansatz zu einer \r\nungerechtfertigten Belastung deutscher Hersteller von Elektrofahrzeugen/-batterien \r\nim Gegensatz zu Staaten mit individuellen Rücknahmesystemen führen. Im Zweifel \r\nzahlen Hersteller zunächst Beiträge an PROs in mehreren Mitgliedstaaten, und das \r\ntatsächliche Recycling der Batterie findet außerhalb der EU statt. \r\n• Daher muss der Gesetzgeber PROs verpflichten, bei Export der Elektrofahrzeug\u0002und Starterbatterien aus dem Mitgliedstaat/aus der EU die gezahlte Gebühr \r\nzurückzuerstatten. Alternativ wäre ein Allokationsmechanismus auf \r\neuropäischer Ebene erforderlich und vorzuziehen. \r\n§ 11: Pflichten der Organisationen für Herstellerverantwortung\r\nParagraf 11 definiert die Aufgaben und Pflichten einer Organisationen für \r\nHerstellerverantwortung (PRO). \r\nUm die zukünftigen Anforderungen an den Rezyklateinsatz insbesondere bei neuen\r\nElektrofahrzeugbatterien sicherstellen zu können, muss es für den Hersteller auch bei \r\nTeilnahme an einer PRO möglich sein, die gesamte Wertschöpfungskette vom \r\nBatterierecycling bis zum Einsatz des neuen Rezyklats in der Zellproduktion selbst zu \r\n5 / 6 \r\nsteuern. Nur so würde sichergestellt, dass der Hersteller Zugriff auf das Material bekommt, das \r\ner in den Prozess eingesteuert hat und für die Erfüllung der Rezyklatgehalte nach EU \r\n2023/1542 zwingen einsetzen muss. \r\nDurch den Gesetzgeber ist daher zu klären:\r\n- Pflicht der PRO, für angeschlossene Hersteller vertraglich mit Batterie-Recyclern die \r\nBereitstellung der Rezyklate zuzusichern und diese an die Hersteller weiterzuleiten.\r\n- Ein solcher Transfer wäre nur durch eine herstellerspezifische Zuordnung auf Basis der \r\nzurückgenommenen Mengen möglich. \r\n- Zu klären wäre im Europäischen Zusammenhang, inwieweit eine solche \r\nherstellerspezifische Zuordnung in Zukunft bei der Ausgestaltung des noch \r\nausstehenden delegierten Rechtsaktes der Europäischen Kommission berücksichtigt \r\nwerden kann. \r\n§ 39: Notifizierende Behörde\r\nParagraf 39 definiert die Einrichtung von notifizierenden Behörden.\r\n„Die Länder haben eine den Anforderungen des Artikel 23 der Verordnung (EU) 2023/1542 \r\nentsprechende Stelle einzurichten, die die Aufgaben der notifizierenden Behörde wahrnimmt.“ \r\nDabei ist unklar, was dies für die Praxis bedeutet, wenn notifizierende Behörden auf \r\nLänderebene definiert werden. Ist zu erwarten, dass es länderspezifische notifizierende Stellen \r\ngibt? Werden die Bewertungen gegenseitig anerkannt?\r\nLösungsvorschlag: Alle Bundesländer sollten einheitliche notifizierende Stellen definieren. Es \r\nsollten die Ergebnisse der Prüfungen durch notifizierende Stellen zwischen den Bundesländern \r\nanerkannt werden.\r\n§ 48 / § 50: Aufgaben der zuständigen Behörde und Eingriffsbefugnisse / \r\nAuskunftspflichten\r\nParagraf 48 und 50 überträgt „Personen“ eine Aufgabe: \r\n§ 48 (3) Nr. 2 „Die Bundesanstalt kann insbesondere (…) 2. Personen laden und von ihnen \r\nnach Maßgabe des § 50 Auskünfte verlangen“ \r\n§ 50 (1) „Wirtschaftsakteure und nach § 3 Absatz 3 Nummer 2 geladene Personen sind \r\nverpflichtet, der Bundesanstalt auf Verlangen die Auskünfte zu erteilen und die Unterlagen \r\nherauszugeben, die die Bundesanstalt zur Durchführung der ihr durch Teil 5 dieses Gesetzes \r\noder aufgrund dieses Gesetzes übertragenen Aufgaben benötigt.“ \r\nEs ist unklar, wer diese Personen sind / sein können. Es erscheint nicht zulässig, alle - aus \r\nwelchen Gründen auch immer – geladenen Personen unmittelbar als auskunfts- und \r\nherausgabepflichtig zu definieren. Es ist nicht sichergestellt, dass die geladene „Person“ \r\nüberhaupt auskunftsberechtigt ist für den Wirtschaftsakteur oder berechtigt, Unterlagen \r\nherauszugeben. Bsp.: Ladung eines Mitarbeiters eines Geschäftspartners des \r\nWirtschaftsakteuers. \r\n6 / 6 \r\nLösungsansatz: Es sollte ausreichen, die Wirtschaftsakteure zur Auskunft zu verpflichten. \r\nNotfalls sollte der Personenkreis auf die „nach Gesetz oder Satzung zur Vertretung berufenen \r\nPersonen“ beschränkt werden, siehe auch § 48 (3) Ziff. 1. Das entspräche auch der \r\nBegründung („…die mit der Überwachung der internen Prozesse nach Artikel 49 Absatz 1 \r\nBuchstabe c) der Verordnung (EU) 2023/1542 beauftragte Person…“)\r\n§ 48: Aufgaben der zuständigen Behörde und Eingriffsbefugnisse \r\nParagraf 48 definiert die Aufgaben der zuständigen Behörde und deren Befugnisse. Im \r\nZusammenhang mit § 48 ergeben sich zwei Punkte:\r\n1):\r\n§ 48 (3): „Die Bundesanstalt kann insbesondere (…) 7. dem betroffenen Wirtschaftsakteur nach \r\nFeststellung eines Verstoßes und Anordnung einer Maßnahme zusätzlich aufgeben,\r\na) auf seine Kosten innerhalb eines bestimmten Zeitraums erneut eine Prüfung durch eine \r\nnotifizierte Stelle nach Artikel 51 der Verordnung (EU) 2023/1542 vornehmen zu lassen, bei der \r\ninsbesondere die Umsetzung der Maßnahme zu berücksichtigen ist, und\r\nb) der Bundesanstalt den Prüfbericht der notifizierten Stelle zur erneuten Kontrolle zukommen \r\nzu lassen.“\r\nLösungsansatz: Die Kosten für die Prüfung durch die notifizierte Stelle nach Art. 51 der \r\nVerordnung sollten in keinem Fall beim Wirtschaftsakteur selbst liegen.\r\n2): \r\n§ 48 (3): „Die Bundesanstalt kann insbesondere (...) 8. die Bereitstellung der vom \r\nWirtschaftsakteur auf dem Markt bereitgestellten Batterien beschränken oder untersagen, und\r\n(…) 9. die Rücknahme oder den Rückruf der vom Wirtschaftsakteur auf dem Markt \r\nbereitgestellten Batterien anordnen.“ \r\nKlärungsbedarf: Unklar, wie die Abfolge der Eskalationsstufen ist, bevor der Marktzugang \r\nbeschränkt oder die Rücknahme angeordnet wird. Es sollte ergänzt werden, welche Abfolge \r\nvon Schritten hier vor den Maßnahmen laut § 48 (3) Nr. 8 und 9 zur Anwendung kommt. Z.B. \r\ndurch Vorbemerkung, dass die Nr. 8 und 9 nur nach Ablauf einer Frist zur Anwendung kommen, \r\nwenn alle vorherigen Maßnahmen wirkungslos waren."},"recipientGroups":[{"recipients":{"parliament":[],"federalGovernment":[{"department":{"title":"Bundesministerium für Umwelt, Naturschutz, nukleare Sicherheit und Verbraucherschutz (BMUV) (20. WP)","shortTitle":"BMUV (20. WP)","url":"https://www.bmuv.de/","electionPeriod":20}}]},"sendingDate":"2024-05-28"},{"recipients":{"parliament":[{"code":"RG_BT_MEMBERS_OF_PARLIAMENT","de":"Mitglieder des Bundestages","en":"Members of parliament"}],"federalGovernment":[]},"sendingDate":"2024-07-01"}]},{"regulatoryProjectNumber":"RV0003371","regulatoryProjectTitle":"24.028_Ausgestaltung der Anpassung des Batt-EU-AnpG","pdfUrl":"https://www.lobbyregister.bundestag.de/media/53/21/392109/Stellungnahme-Gutachten-SG2412120041.pdf","pdfPageCount":1,"text":{"copyrightAcknowledgement":"Die grundlegenden Stellungnahmen und Gutachten können urheberrechtlich geschützte Werke enthalten. Eine Nutzung ist nur im urheberrechtlich zulässigen Rahmen erlaubt.","text":"Gesetzesentwurf der Bundesregierung zur Anpassung des \r\nBatterierechts an die Verordnung (EU) 2023/1542 (Batt-EU-AnpG) \r\nDer Volkswagen Konzern unterstützt grundsätzlich eine Weiterentwicklung der \r\nEuropäischen Union zu einer modernen, ressourceneffizienten und wettbewerbsfähigen \r\nWirtschaft. Die europäische Batterieverordnung (EU 2023/1542) ist dabei der zentrale \r\nRechtsakt bezüglich der erweiterten Herstellerverantwortung für Batterien. \r\nDas Batt-EU-AnpG überträgt die Anforderung der EU2023/1542 auf Deutschland. Der \r\nvorliegende Entwurf (Version der Kabinettsitzung vom 6. November 2024) sieht jedoch \r\nRegelungen vor, die aus unserer Sicht Nachbesserungen bedürfen.  \r\nVorrangig sollten folgende Anpassungen im Gesetzentwurf vorgenommen werden: \r\nI. \r\nIndividuelle Rücknahmesysteme ermöglichen:\r\n Der aktuelle Entwurf der Bundesregierung erlaubt Herstellern für Elektrofahrzeug- und \r\nStarterbatterien ausschließlich die Beteiligung in einer „Organisationen für \r\nHerstellerverantwortung“ (PRO, Paragraph 7). Damit werden individuelle Systeme, \r\ndie gem. der Definition der EU-Batterieverordnung (Art. 3., 49) möglich sind, in \r\nDeutschland ausgeschlossen.  \r\nAus dieser verpflichtenden Einführung von PROs ergeben sich folgende Nachteile: – PROs führen zu einer pauschalen Voraus-Finanzierung des Recyclings, ca. 15 \r\nJahre vor der tatsächlichen Dienstleistungserbringung. \r\nIn individuellen Systemen fallen die Kosten erst beim tatsächlichen Anfall der \r\nAltfahrzeuge an. Der Wettbewerb bei den tatsächlichen Kosten führt zur \r\nWeiterentwicklung und Optimierung von Recyclingtechnologien. – Als Teilnehmer an einer PRO ist für Fahrzeughersteller der Zugriff auf Rezyklat \r\nnicht gewährleistet. Die Erfüllung der Rezyklatquoten durch die Automobilindustrie \r\nkann nicht sichergestellt werden bzw. wird zumindest erschwert. – Der derzeitig in Deutschland vorgesehene profit-orientierte Ansatz von PROs \r\nführt zu erhöhten Kosten. Daher sollten PROs in Deutschland, wie in anderen \r\nMitgliedsstaaten, non-profit Organisationen sein. Bei PROs, insbesondere bei  profit\r\norientierten, sollten verbindliche Vorgaben für die Berücksichtigung von Gewinnen \r\ngemacht werden, da Traktions- und Starterbatterien werthaltig sind. \r\nHarmonisierung auf Bundesebene:\r\n Entsprechend Artikel 22 der EU-Verordnung 2023/1542 sollte eine Bundesbehörde \r\nbenannt werden und nicht den Bundesländern die Aufgabe übertragen werden, jeweils \r\neine landesspezifische, notifizierende Behörde zu benennen. Nur eine bundesweit \r\nzuständige Behörde kann eine einheitliche Auslegung und Anwendung der \r\nGesetzgebung sicherstellen.\r\n III. \r\nKlarstellung zu Sorgfaltspflichten:\r\n Es ist nicht klar, wie die von der EU-Kommission im Februar 2025 zu \r\nveröffentlichenden “Leitlinien für die Sorgfaltspflichten” (vgl. Art. 48 (5)) in der \r\ndeutschen Batteriegesetzgebung berücksichtigt werden. Hier ist eine Klarstellung des \r\nGesetzgebers erforderlich. "},"recipientGroups":[{"recipients":{"parliament":[],"federalGovernment":[{"department":{"title":"Bundesministerium für Umwelt, Naturschutz, nukleare Sicherheit und Verbraucherschutz (BMUV) (20. WP)","shortTitle":"BMUV (20. WP)","url":"https://www.bmuv.de/","electionPeriod":20}}]},"sendingDate":"2024-11-28"}]},{"regulatoryProjectNumber":"RV0003376","regulatoryProjectTitle":"24.032_Ausgestaltung des EU Delegated Act aus Art. 7 EU Battery Regulation","pdfUrl":"https://www.lobbyregister.bundestag.de/media/9d/14/300228/Stellungnahme-Gutachten-SG2405300013.pdf","pdfPageCount":2,"text":{"copyrightAcknowledgement":"Die grundlegenden Stellungnahmen und Gutachten können urheberrechtlich geschützte Werke enthalten. Eine Nutzung ist nur im urheberrechtlich zulässigen Rahmen erlaubt.","text":"1 / 2\r\nEU Commission proposal for the Delegated Regulation supplementing \r\nRegulation 2023/1542 for Art. 7 of the Battery Regulation regarding \r\n“establishing the methodology for the calculation and verification of the \r\ncarbon footprint of electric vehicle batteries”\r\nFokus: Electric Modelling (CO2)\r\nVolkswagen Group Position\r\nAs a vehicle manufacturer (OEM), we fully support the advancing of the European Union into \r\na modern, resource-efficient and competitive economy. Therefore, we welcome the EU \r\nBattery Regulation as a cornerstone of the European Green Deal that aims at improving the \r\ncircular economy, resource use and efficiency and environmental protection. Article 7 is \r\ncurrently and should remain a central piece of legislation dealing with the methodology for \r\ncalculation, verification and reporting of the Battery Carbon Footprint (BCF) of electric vehicle \r\nbatteries. \r\nBeside various ambiguities the most critical point in the Commission draft is the proposal for \r\nthe Electric Modelling in Chapter 2.4.:\r\nThe Rejection of Renewable Energy Certificates and the focus on a location-based \r\napproach conflicts with the goal of expanding the share of renewable energies in Europe. \r\nIt hinders opportunities for companies to invest in the expansion of renewable energy \r\ninstallations due to economic reasons, energy efficiency, and lack of technical feasibility. \r\nAdditionally, the current proposal contrasts with the EU strategy to expand the share of \r\nrenewable energies such as the Renewable Energy Directive II (RED) or the Corporate \r\nSocial Responsibility Directive (CSRD), which incentivize companies to financially support \r\nthe expansion of renewable energy generation e.g., through Green Power Purchase \r\nAgreements (PPA). The default modelling of national average grid mixes furthermore \r\ndisadvantages countries with a traditionally coal-heavy electricity mix. The automotive \r\nindustry has minor influence on the overall national/regional energy-mix.\r\n Therefore we highly recommend the acceptance of regulated certificate based \r\ninstruments such as Guarantees of Origin in Europe that meet the minimum criteria as \r\noutlined in the PEF method (2021/2279) and are based on the GHG Protocol scope 2 \r\ncriteria.\r\nFurthermore, instead of using national average grid mixes, we propose the use of regional \r\nelectricity mixes(e.g. EU) as default approach. In the long run, a standardization of energy \r\ntracking systems e.g., in China should be promoted.\r\n2 / 2\r\nDetailed Analyses:\r\nExtract Delegated Act [ANNEX Methodology; 30.04.2024, p. 16]: \r\n2.4. Electricity Modelling: “The carbon footprint of the consumption of electricity shall be that \r\nof the national average electricity consumption mix […]. By way of derogation from the first \r\nparagraph, the carbon footprint of directly connected electricity shall apply in accordance \r\nwith section 2.4.1.”\r\n2.4.1. Directly Connected Electricity: “The carbon footprint of directly connected electricity \r\nshall apply if the electricity is supplied to the process in question from a production asset \r\nwithin the same installation or via a direct line as defined as defined in Article 2, point (41), of \r\nDirective (EU) 2019/944 of the European Parliament and of the Council.“ [Annex, p.16] \r\nAnalysis: \r\n• European countries with a traditional coal-heavy electricity mix face disadvantages but \r\nOEMs have little to no influence on a country’s energy mix. Relocating production sites \r\nwithin a region with common development and reduction targets causes additional\r\nemissions.\r\n• From an economic and ecological-efficiency perspective, energy systems are located \r\nwhere profitable and energy-efficient e.g., offshore vs. onshore wind. These locations may \r\nnot necessarily coincide with the sites of battery factories. The current proposal causes \r\ndisadvantages for existing production facilities if they are located in unsuitable areas for \r\nrenewable energy generation plants e.g., solar power system in northern Germany \r\ncompared to Spain.\r\n• The current approach diminishes companies’ motivation to take initiative in \r\npromoting/financially supporting the expansion of renewable energies, which is often \r\ndone through PPAs which is based on the energy delivery through the grid without a direct \r\nconnection between the renewable energy generating plants and the production plants.\r\n• The draft conflicts with Renewable Energy Directive II (RED II) and Corporate Social \r\nResponsibility Directive (CSRD), which incentivize companies to support the expansion of \r\nrenewable energies e.g., through Green Power Purchase Agreements (PPA).\r\n• The current draft also contradicts the Greenhouse Gas Protocol (Scope 2), which allows \r\ncertificates under the condition of dual reporting (market & location-based approach).\r\n• Overall, the rejection of all renewable energy certificates does not fit into the general EU \r\nstrategy for promoting the expansion of renewable energies and incentivizing economic \r\nplayers to promote/financially support this expansion.\r\nVW Proposal:\r\n• Accept regulated certificate based instruments such as Guarantees of Origin in Europe \r\nthat meet the minimum criteria as outlined in the PEF method and are based on the GHG \r\nProtocol scope 2 criteria. \r\n• Regional electricity mixes should be used as default approach (e.g. EU average electricity \r\nmix)\r\n• In the long run, the standardization of energy tracking systems e.g., in China should be \r\npromoted. "},"recipientGroups":[{"recipients":{"parliament":[],"federalGovernment":[{"department":{"title":"Bundeskanzleramt (BKAmt)","shortTitle":"BKAmt","url":"https://www.bundeskanzler.de/bk-de","electionPeriod":20}}]},"sendingDate":"2024-05-28"}]},{"regulatoryProjectNumber":"RV0003376","regulatoryProjectTitle":"24.032_Ausgestaltung des EU Delegated Act aus Art. 7 EU Battery Regulation","pdfUrl":"https://www.lobbyregister.bundestag.de/media/92/d5/300230/Stellungnahme-Gutachten-SG2405300014.pdf","pdfPageCount":13,"text":{"copyrightAcknowledgement":"Die grundlegenden Stellungnahmen und Gutachten können urheberrechtlich geschützte Werke enthalten. Eine Nutzung ist nur im urheberrechtlich zulässigen Rahmen erlaubt.","text":"1 / 13\r\nEU Commission proposal for the Delegated Regulation supplementing \r\nRegulation 2023/1542 for Art. 7 of the Battery Regulation regarding \r\n“establishing the methodology for the calculation and verification of the \r\ncarbon footprint of electric vehicle batteries” \r\nVolkswagen Group Position\r\nAs a vehicle manufacturer (OEM), we fully support the advancing of the European Union into \r\na modern, resource-efficient and competitive economy. Therefore, we welcome the EU \r\nBattery Regulation as a cornerstone of the European Green Deal that aims at improving the \r\ncircular economy, resource use and efficiency and environmental protection. Article 7 is \r\ncurrently and should remain a central piece of legislation dealing with the methodology for \r\ncalculation, verification and reporting of the Battery Carbon Footprint (BCF) of electric vehicle \r\nbatteries. \r\nHowever, the Commission’s current draft delegated act contains various ambiguities that may \r\nlead to unclear responsibilities, misunderstandings and potentially different approaches to \r\ncalculations. This thereby causes significant implementation difficulties related to the \r\ndefinition of system boundaries, underlying assumptions, and uncertainties concerning data \r\nresponsibilities and availability, as well as quality. \r\nOverall, it does not reflect the nature of the automotive industry as it neither considers its \r\ntechnical background nor feasibility requirements. Therefore, we would welcome a dialogue \r\nand consultation service to address all remaining issues.\r\nThe priority challenges arising from the draft proposal are:\r\nI. The Rejection of Renewable Energy Certificates and the focus on a location-based \r\napproach conflicts with the goal of expanding the share of renewable energies in Europe. \r\nIt hinders opportunities for companies to invest in the expansion of renewable energy \r\ninstallations due to economic reasons, energy efficiency, and lack of technical feasibility. \r\nAdditionally, the current proposal contrasts with the EU strategy to expand the share of \r\nrenewable energies such as the Renewable Energy Directive II (RED) or the Corporate \r\nSocial Responsibility Directive (CSRD), which incentivize companies to financially support \r\nthe expansion of renewable energy generation e.g., through Green Power Purchase \r\nAgreements (PPA). The default modelling of national average grid mixes furthermore \r\ndisadvantages countries with a traditionally coal-heavy electricity mix. The automotive \r\nindustry has minor influence on the overall national/regional energy-mix. \r\n Therefore we highly recommend the acceptance of regulated certificate based \r\ninstruments such as Guarantees of Origin in Europe that meet the minimum criteria as \r\noutlined in the PEF method (2021/2279) and are based on the GHG Protocol scope 2 \r\ncriteria. Furthermore, instead of using national average grid mixes, we propose the use of \r\nregional electricity mixes (e.g. EU) as default approach. In the long run, a standardization \r\nof energy tracking systems e.g., in China should be promoted.\r\n2 / 13\r\nII. The current specifications for defining System Boundaries as well as handling, and \r\ncollecting Data contain various ambiguities (e.g. unclarity which process are considered \r\npart of the main product production stage, the exact point of 'placing on the market' and \r\nits impact on modelling the distribution stage, the criteria for excluding initial months' \r\ndata from new facilities, etc.). This leads to implementation barriers, unclear \r\nresponsibilities, and disadvantages for companies or individual production sites. Further \r\npoints of criticism relate to the requirements for using the Carbon Footprint Datastock, \r\nwhich is currently not available. \r\n Therefore, a revision of various specifications is requested to create a uniform and fair \r\nbasis for defining system boundaries. Furthermore, shared responsibilities between \r\nmanufacturer and suppliers should be considered that define clear obligations regarding \r\ndata provision and processing. In addition, the Carbon Footprint Datastock should be \r\nmade available soon and needs to fulfil minimum quality requirements.\r\nIII. The Circular Footprint Formula (CFF) as proposed in the draft version of the delegated act \r\nanticipates future recycling technologies and market development for credits without \r\nsubstantial foundation, leading to a procedure that is inaccurate and challenging to \r\nimplement. It is rarely applied in any scientific literature and in most cases not considered \r\nby LCA guidelines and standards (e.g. GBA, VDA vehicle LCA, Catena-X, PFA \r\nrecommendations, etc.).1\r\n Therefore, a general commitment to the state-of-the-art cut-off approach is proposed.\r\nOtherwise, issues concerning the assumed return rate and the battery quality in the CFF \r\nformula need to be addressed in more detail. \r\n1 https://lca4transport.eu/wp-content/uploads/2023/11/TranSensus-LCA_D-1-1_Final.pdf\r\n3 / 13\r\nDetailed Analyses of Priority Challenges\r\nBased on an initial assessment of the draft regulation, following is a more detailed analysis \r\nand suggested proposals of the main identified challenges: \r\n1. Rejection of Renewable Energy Certificates\r\nExtract Delegated Act [ANNEX Methodology; 30.04.2024, p. 16]: \r\n2.4. Electricity Modelling: “The carbon footprint of the consumption of electricity shall be that \r\nof the national average electricity consumption mix […]. By way of derogation from the first \r\nparagraph, the carbon footprint of directly connected electricity shall apply in accordance \r\nwith section 2.4.1.”\r\n2.4.1. Directly Connected Electricity: “The carbon footprint of directly connected electricity \r\nshall apply if the electricity is supplied to the process in question from a production asset \r\nwithin the same installation or via a direct line as defined as defined in Article 2, point (41), of \r\nDirective (EU) 2019/944 of the European Parliament and of the Council.“ [Annex, p.16] \r\nAnalysis: \r\n• European countries with a traditional coal-heavy electricity mix face disadvantages but \r\nOEMs have little to no influence on a country’s energy mix. Relocating production sites \r\nwithin a region with common development and reduction \r\ntargets causes additional emissions. \r\n• From an economic and ecological-efficiency perspective, energy systems are located \r\nwhere profitable and energy-efficient e.g., offshore vs. onshore wind. These locations may \r\nnot necessarily coincide with the sites of battery factories. The current proposal causes \r\ndisadvantages for existing production facilities if they are located in unsuitable areas for \r\nrenewable energy generation plants e.g., solar power system in northern Germany \r\ncompared to Spain.\r\n• The current approach diminishes companies’ motivation to take initiative in \r\npromoting/financially supporting the expansion of renewable energies, which is often \r\ndone through PPAs which is based on the energy delivery through the grid without a direct \r\nconnection between the renewable energy generating plants and the production plants.\r\n• The draft conflicts with Renewable Energy Directive II (RED II) and Corporate Social \r\nResponsibility Directive (CSRD), which incentivize companies to support the expansion of \r\nrenewable energies e.g., through Green Power Purchase Agreements (PPA).\r\n• The current draft also contradicts the Greenhouse Gas Protocol (Scope 2), which allows \r\ncertificates under the condition of dual reporting (market & location-based approach).\r\n• Overall, the rejection of all renewable energy certificates does not fit into the general EU \r\nstrategy for promoting the expansion of renewable energies and incentivizing economic \r\nplayers to promote/financially support this expansion.\r\nVW Proposal:\r\n4 / 13\r\n• Accept regulated certificate based instruments such as Guarantees of Origin in Europe \r\nthat meet the minimum criteria as outlined in the PEF method and are based on the GHG \r\nProtocol scope 2 criteria. \r\n• Regional electricity mixes should be used as default approach (e.g. EU average electricity \r\nmix)\r\n• In the long run, the standardization of energy tracking systems e.g., in China should be \r\npromoted. \r\n2. Availability Activity Data for New Cell Production\r\nExtract Delegated Act [ANNEX Methodology; 30.04.2024, p. 10-11]: \r\n2.3.5. Company-specific data: \"Company-specific data shall be the average of one year. \r\nHowever, the data may be the average of a different period if the process concerned has not \r\nyet been running for a full year or exceptionally in another case justified in the carbon \r\nfootprint study” \r\nAND: “Where the process concerns a new facility, extension of capacity or exchange of entire \r\nproduction line, up to six of the initial months may be excluded from the data collection.”\r\nAnalysis: \r\n• Each new facility, extension of capacity or exchange of entire production line entails \r\nfactors (e.g., higher scrap rates, capacity planning) that contribute to a larger CO2-\r\nfootprint.\r\n• For a new facility, extension of capacity or exchange of entire production line, the \r\nDelegated Act states that data from up to six of the initial months can be excluded.\r\n• However, for economic reasons, cell production often begins shortly before vehicle \r\nproduction. Excluding the first six months of data means there will be no or insufficient \r\ndata available for accurately modeling the battery carbon footprint. \r\nVW Proposal:\r\nA solution should be provided for new facilities, extension of capacities or exchange of entire \r\nproduction lines that does not lead to long-term disadvantages in the form of an increased \r\nfootprint. Potential solutions could be: \r\n• The provision of a list with default scrap rates and energy consumption values that can be \r\nused when adequate primary data is not yet available. \r\n• Standardized recalculation after a certain period of time (e.g., 6 or 12 months) after start \r\nof serial production could ensure more reliable footprint reporting. \r\n• Allow the use of justified planning data (e.g. production simulations or benchmark values) \r\nor data from other but similar production facilities, for new facilities or production lines < \r\n6 or 12 Months after start of serial production\r\n• A special solution is also needed regarding the maximum carbon thresholds to be met in \r\nthe future. Again, the carbon footprint value of the ramp-up should not be decisive. \r\n5 / 13\r\n3. Manufacturer Responsibilities\r\nExtract Delegated Act [ANNEX Methodology; 30.04.2024, p. 7-11]: \r\n2.3.5. Company-specific data: \"All data sources and mathematical treatments applied to the \r\ndata shall be provided in carbon footprint study.\" [Annex, p. 11]\r\n2.3.1. Mandatory company-specific processes: \"The manufacturer of the battery shall ensure \r\nthat the company-specific data is communicated in any of the following methods […]. Where \r\nthe manufacturer communicates the company-specific data in accordance with point (b), the \r\nmanufacturer shall ensure that the notified body receives from the manufacturer’s suppliers \r\nall the information specified in section 3.1.1 when the manufacturer lodges its application for \r\nassessment by the notified body. The manufacturer shall also ensure that a market \r\nsurveillance authority receives such information upon request.” [Annex, p. 7]\r\nAnalysis: \r\n• The collaboration model and data responsibility between manufacturer, suppliers and \r\nsub-suppliers needs to be improved and better defined. Currently, the manufacturer \r\nbears sole responsibility for furnishing data and conducting the carbon footprint study.\r\n• Due to confidentiality constraints and non-existing supplier contracts with Tier 2-n, there \r\nare certain details that cannot be shared with the manufacturer of battery systems. \r\nTherefore, the manufacturer cannot be made accountable for gathering, handling and \r\nverifying this information. \r\n• The current wording makes it unclear if the supplier's company-specific dataset includes \r\nonly company-specific activities (gate-to-gate) or also upstream activities (cradle-to-gate).\r\n• In addition, organizing the requested assessment visits to supplier premises (see Section \r\n3.2) is linked to significant difficulties for the battery manufacturer.\r\nVW Proposal:\r\n• The implementation can be streamlined if suppliers generating company-specific datasets \r\ncompile their own reports and undergo an independent verification and validation \r\nprocess with the notified body. During the verification and validation of the complete \r\nbattery system, the manufacturer could then refer to the corresponding supplier reports \r\navailable to the notified body. This approach gives shared responsibility to the \r\nmanufacturer and suppliers, with each party being accountable for their own data.\r\n• Company-specific datasets from suppliers shall be declared as the cradle-to-gate \r\nfootprint.\r\n• In addition, a reference to Article 39 of the Regulation would be useful at this point to \r\nclarify the obligations of suppliers.\r\n4. Unclear Definition of System Boundary I\r\nExtract Delegated Act [ANNEX Methodology; 30.04.2024, p. 4]: \r\n6 / 13\r\n2.2. System boundary and cut-off rules: \r\n\"(b) Main product production stage \r\nThis life cycle stage covers the manufacturing of the battery including that of all components \r\nthat are physically contained in or permanently attached to the battery housing. \r\nThis life cycle stage covers the following activities: cathode active material production; anode \r\nactive material production, including the production of graphite and hard carbon from its \r\nprecursors; anode and cathode production […]” \r\nAnalysis: \r\n• The scope of the manufacturing stage is unclear when it comes to defining what classifies \r\nas company-specific processes: \r\no Section 2.2.1 (a), raw material acquisition and pre-processing, refers to several \r\nspecific components (e.g. precursors, cooling pipes, fluids for thermal condition \r\nsystem). \r\no Other small components that qualify as “physically contained in or permanently \r\nattached to the battery housing” and not part of the activities as highlighted in \r\nSection 2.2.1 (b), Main product production, could therefore be regarded as part of \r\nthe main product production stage. \r\no Example for a steel screw is presented below. How to model such a component \r\nand its transportation?\r\n• The definition of “physically contained in or permanently attached to the battery housing” \r\nis not clear, e.g. the physical boundaries of a thermal conditioning system are not straight \r\nforward. \r\nVW Proposal:\r\n7 / 13\r\n• Provide a clear and precise definition of the activities covered in the “main product \r\nproduction stage”. This should only include the activities as currently listed in Section 2.2.1\r\n(b), Main product production. \r\n• All other components, e.g. steel screw or circuit boards, should fall under the “raw \r\nmaterial acquisition and pre-processing” stage. This should be made more explicit under \r\nSection 2.2.1 (a), raw material acquisition and pre-processing, whereby currently only a \r\nreference is made to the following components: cathode active material precursors, \r\nanode active material precursors, solvents for the electrolyte salt, the pipes and the fluid \r\nfor the thermal conditioning system. \r\n• Provide further clarification on what is meant with “physically contained in or \r\npermanently attached”. \r\n5. Unclear Definition of System Boundary II\r\nExtract Delegated Act [ANNEX Methodology; 30.04.2024, p. 5]: \r\n2.2.1. (d) Distribution: “This life cycle stage covers the transport of the battery from the \r\nbattery manufacturing site to the point of placing the battery on the market. Storage \r\noperations are not covered.” [Annex, p. 5]\r\nAnalysis: \r\nThe definition of \"placing the battery on the market\" can vary depending on how it's \r\ninterpreted. This also impacts how and if distribution is included. For instance:\r\n(1) Vehicle and battery producer are the same company: the point of placing the battery on \r\nthe market is after vehicle assembly. This includes the distribution. \r\n(2) Battery and vehicle producer are different companies: the point of placing the battery on \r\nthe market is after the battery assembly, which implies the gate of battery supplier. This \r\nexcludes distribution.\r\nVW Proposal:\r\n• Further clarifications and guidelines should be provided as to how “placing on the \r\nmarket” is defined and how the distribution phase should be modelled under different \r\nsupply chain scenarios to ensure consistency in LCA calculations. \r\n8 / 13\r\n6. Data Availability and Quality\r\nExtract Delegated Act [ANNEX Methodology; 30.04.2024, p. 8]: \r\n2.3.2. Non-mandatory most relevant process: “If at least one secondary dataset with a \r\nTechnological Representativeness (‘TeR’) quality rating equal to or lower than four \r\ndetermined in accordance with section 2.3.6 is available in the datastock dedicated to the \r\ncarbon footprint of batteries in the Life Cycle Data Network on the European Platform on LCA \r\n(‘carbon footprint datastock’)” [p. 8]\r\n2.3.3. Other processes: “If one or more secondary datasets with a TeR quality rating equal to \r\nor lower than four determined in accordance with section 2.3.6 are available in the carbon \r\nfootprint datastock, the most representative secondary dataset in the carbon footprint \r\ndatastock shall be used. “ [p. 8]\r\nAnalysis: \r\n• It is not yet clear when the Carbon Footprint Datastock will be available on the LCDN \r\n• Currently technological representativeness is used as the only criterion to select \r\nsecondary datasets. This does not ensure data quality sufficiently. \r\n• Generally, technological representativeness is difficult to assess for parties that are not \r\nthe process owner. The level of detail that describes the technology behind the datasets \r\nvaries but is usually high (e.g., specific process temperatures and chemical concentrations \r\nare mentioned). This can easily lead to misjudgments within technological \r\nrepresentativeness. \r\n• Current datasets available from LCDN are insufficiently representative in terms of \r\ntechnology, geography and time. e.g., electricity grid mix Germany (1-60kv):\r\n• Generally, the majority of EF datasets can be considered as outdated since 70% of them \r\nhave not been updated for > 8 years:\r\nDatabase Reference year grid \r\nmix\r\nGWP (kg CO2 eq./kWh)\r\nLCDN (EF 3.1) 2012 0,593\r\nSphera LCA for Experts (CUP 2023.2, EF \r\n3.1)\r\n2019 0,427\r\n9 / 13\r\nFigure 1. Overview EF Dataset age Figure 2. Overview Regionality of EF Datasets\r\nVW Proposal:\r\n• For a timely implementation of Art. 7, it is essential that the Carbon Footprint Datastock \r\nis available soon and free of charge. A specific publication date is needed to allow for \r\ntimely planning. \r\n• The Carbon Footprint Datastock and other LCDN should meet at least the following \r\nrequirements: \r\no They must contain all data sets necessary for battery LCAs.\r\no The data sets must be able to map different production routes and geographies.\r\no The database must be updated regularly since LCA calculations should not be \r\nbased on outdated information e.g., electricity mixes.\r\n• In addition to technological representativeness, temporal and geographical \r\nrepresentativeness should also be taken into consideration for selecting the data set. This \r\napproach prevents the use of a low-quality data set from the official data stock when a \r\nmore suitable data set is available from another source. \r\n7. Circular Footprint Formula\r\nExtract Delegated Act [ANNEX Methodology; 30.04.2024, p. 22]: \r\nReturn rate: “A different company-specific return rate may be used only for the share of \r\nbatteries covered by an ownership business model (..) (EU) 2023/1542. “ \r\nMaterial Quality: Chapter 2.6 table 3 on material quality e.g. Co Qsout/Qp = 0,8\r\nAnalysis: \r\nReturn rate: A different company-specific return rate may be used only where the property \r\nof the battery stays with the manufacturer. Business models where the property stays with \r\nthe manufacturer are not eligible for the application of higher return rates, even if evidence \r\nis provided. \r\n10 / 13\r\nMaterial Quality: How can the quality of individual materials be determined? The definition \r\nof material quality depends on the intended use. Without a uniform definition, the variables \r\ncannot be adapted in the future and are therefore questionable.\r\nVW Proposal:\r\nReturn rate: Higher return rates may be used where evidence is provided, independent of the \r\nownership of the battery. \r\nBattery Quality: Provide clear definition on material quality and battery-grade material.\r\n11 / 13\r\nFurther need for Definitions & Clarifications\r\nIn addition to the priority challenges, the initial assessment of the draft regulation uncovered \r\nseveral ambiguous and unclear text passages and lacking definitions. They can be found in \r\nthe following Sections: \r\nFunctional Unit (ANNEX 2.1.)\r\n• Extract Delegated Act [ANNEX Methodology; 30.04.2024, p.2]: “Energy capacity is the \r\nuseable energy capacity of the battery in kWh at the beginning of life, namely the \r\nenergy available to the user when discharging a new fully charged battery until the \r\ndischarge limit set by the battery management system”\r\nQuestion/Issue: A clear definition should be provided. \r\nVW Proposal: Suggested text “Energy capacity is the installed battery energy in kWh at \r\nthe beginning of life”\r\n• Extract Delegated Act [ANNEX Methodology; 30.04.2024, p.2]: “The total amount of \r\nenergy provided by the battery over the battery’s service life (‘Etotal’), expressed in \r\nkWh, shall be calculated as follows: \r\n𝐸𝐸𝑡𝑡𝑡𝑡𝑡𝑡𝑡𝑡𝑡𝑡 = 𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒 𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐 ∙ 𝐹𝐹𝐹𝐹𝐹𝐹𝐶𝐶 𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝 𝑦𝑦𝑦𝑦𝑦𝑦𝑦𝑦 ∙ 𝑦𝑦𝑦𝑦𝑦𝑦𝑦𝑦 𝑦𝑦 𝑜𝑜𝑜𝑜 𝑜𝑜𝑜𝑜𝑜𝑜𝑜𝑜𝑜𝑜𝑜𝑜𝑜𝑜 𝑜𝑜𝑜𝑜\r\n“\r\nQuestion/issue: Heavy duty industry uses a small number of battery models for a broad \r\nnumber of vehicle configurations and vehicle applications. \r\nVW Proposal: For heavy duty vehicles, we would highly recommend to refer to the \r\nestimated lifetime values declared in Article 10 respectively Annex IV Part A para 5 of \r\nthe batteries regulation. The equation proposed by the commission to calculate the total \r\nenergy provided by the battery (Etotal) could be simplified in that way, that Etotal is \r\ndefined as the product of the total number of cycles during lifetime of the battery and\r\nthe nominal Energy capacity of the battery (installed energy).\r\nMandatory Company-Specific Processes (ANNEX 2.3.1.)\r\n• Extract Delegated Act [ANNEX Methodology; 30.04.2024, p.7]: “(d) parameters related \r\nto the quality of the product that affect its carbon footprint, such as purity or specific \r\ncapacity.”\r\nQuestion/Issue: The meaning of quality of the product is here not clear\r\nVW Proposal: Provide further clarification.\r\n• Extract Delegated Act [ANNEX Methodology; 30.04.2024, p.9]: “The data format shall \r\nbe compliant with the ILCD data format available in LCDN.” \r\nQuestion/Issue: \r\nUnclear bibliography distributed throughout the text. \r\nVW Proposal: \r\nAdd a list of abbreviations in the annex \r\n12 / 13\r\nCompany-Specific Data (ANNEX 2.3.5.)\r\n• Extract Delegated Act [ANNEX Methodology; 30.04.2024, p.10]: “A production process \r\nmay be divided into sub-processes. The company-specific data may be collected for each \r\nprocess or subprocess stage separately, or for the final production as a whole. For the \r\noutputs, direct emissions and waste streams shall be recorded. For the inputs, the \r\nfollowing parameters shall be recorded: (d) LCI”\r\nQuestion/Issue: What is exactly understood as LCI in the list of input parameters? \r\nVW Proposal: Provide more information on what is meant with the LCI in point Section \r\n2.3.5.\r\n• Extract Delegated Act [ANNEX Methodology; 30.04.2024, p.9]: \"The company-specific \r\ndata to be collected for the creation of company-specific datasets shall include all known \r\ninputs and outputs for the processes concerned, including: the following inputs: […] (v) \r\nany elementary flow. the following outputs: […] (ii) any elementary flow,.\r\nQuestion/Issue: All elementary in and outflows need to be tracked but only GHG \r\nemissions are reported.\r\nVW Proposal: Provide an explicit list of elementary flows, in line with EF3.1 Climate \r\nChange LCIA method, which shall be collected.\r\nTransportation (ANNEX 2.7.)\r\n• Extract Delegated Act [ANNEX Methodology; 30.04.2024, p.28]: \"For other transport in \r\nthe raw material acquisition and pre-processing life cycle stage the manufacturer shall \r\nverify whether the datasets applied for that life-cycle stage include all relevant \r\ntransport.\"\r\nQuestion/Issue: The manufacturer does not have the possibility and knowledge to verify \r\nwhether suppliers and sub-suppliers include all relevant transport. \r\nVW Proposal: Datasets provided by the supplier to the manufacturer shall include all \r\nrelevant transport. \r\n• Extract Delegated Act [ANNEX Methodology; 30.04.2024, p.29]: “The manufacturer \r\nshall complement these so that transport is accounted for, based on information from \r\ntheir own supply chain or based on average market data and supply chain analyses.”\r\nQuestion/Issue: Need clear definition on \"based on average market data and supply \r\nchain analyses\". Delegated Act does not include default transport data or clear definition \r\nof \"average market data“\r\nVW Proposal: Include default transport data as in the JRC final draft rules for calculation \r\nof the carbon footprint of electric vehicle batteries. \r\n• Extract Delegated Act [ANNEX Methodology; 30.04.2024, p.8]: \"For transport in the \r\nmain product production life cycle stage, in the distribution life cycle stage, and in the \r\nraw material acquisition and pre-processing life cycle stage between processes for which \r\ncompany-specific data is used pursuant to sections 2.3.1, where relevant, and 2.3.2, \r\ncompany-specific data shall be used for the distance”\r\nQuestion/Issue: Which transport values shall be used between processes for which \r\ncompany-specific data is used and processes without company-specific data (i.e. “other \r\nprocesses” and “non-mandatory company specific processes” modelled without \r\n13 / 13\r\ncompany specific data)?\r\nVW Proposal: Provide clarification on how to model transport between non-mandatory \r\ncompany-specific processes and company specific processes.\r\nVerification & Validation Techniques\r\n• Extract Delegated Act [ANNEX Methodology; 30.04.2024, p.32]: \r\n“For batteries manufactured in series, it shall include an assessment visit to\r\na) the manufacturer's premises;\r\nb) the cell, anode, and cathode production premises;\r\nc) the cathode active material production premises;\r\nd) the anode active material production premises; and \r\ne) where considered important on the basis of the carbon footprint study, the premises of \r\none or more of any other production sites for which company-specific data were \r\ncollected.”\r\nQuestion/Issue: Is the notified body visiting the premises or should the manufacturer \r\norganize the assessment visits to Tier 2-n suppliers? Please note that direct contact with \r\nTier 2-n suppliers is not possible.\r\nVW Proposal: The visits to Tier 2-n suppliers should not fall under the responsibility of \r\nthe manufacturer e.g. due to anti-trust law. We therefore propose the following \r\nadjustment in the text with regards to a visit to the premises:\r\n“For batteries manufactured in series, it shall include an assessment visit to\r\na) the manufacturer's premises;\r\nb) the cell, anode, and cathode production premises;\r\nc) the cathode active material production premises;\r\nd) the anode active material production premises; and\r\ne) where considered important on the basis of the carbon footprint study, the premises of \r\none or more of any other production sites for which company-specific data were \r\ncollected. Visits should take place upon request by market surveillance due to \r\nreasonable concerns.” "},"recipientGroups":[{"recipients":{"parliament":[],"federalGovernment":[{"department":{"title":"Bundeskanzleramt (BKAmt)","shortTitle":"BKAmt","url":"https://www.bundeskanzler.de/bk-de","electionPeriod":20}},{"department":{"title":"Bundesministerium für Wirtschaft und Klimaschutz (BMWK) (20. WP)","shortTitle":"BMWK (20. WP)","url":"https://www.bmwk.de/Navigation/DE/Home/home.html","electionPeriod":20}}]},"sendingDate":"2024-05-28"},{"recipients":{"parliament":[],"federalGovernment":[{"department":{"title":"Bundesministerium für Umwelt, Naturschutz, nukleare Sicherheit und Verbraucherschutz (BMUV) (20. WP)","shortTitle":"BMUV (20. WP)","url":"https://www.bmuv.de/","electionPeriod":20}}]},"sendingDate":"2024-06-26"},{"recipients":{"parliament":[{"code":"RG_BT_MEMBERS_OF_PARLIAMENT","de":"Mitglieder des Bundestages","en":"Members of parliament"}],"federalGovernment":[]},"sendingDate":"2024-07-01"}]},{"regulatoryProjectNumber":"RV0003376","regulatoryProjectTitle":"24.032_Ausgestaltung des EU Delegated Act aus Art. 7 EU Battery Regulation","pdfUrl":"https://www.lobbyregister.bundestag.de/media/93/20/360559/Stellungnahme-Gutachten-SG2409300029.pdf","pdfPageCount":8,"text":{"copyrightAcknowledgement":"Die grundlegenden Stellungnahmen und Gutachten können urheberrechtlich geschützte Werke enthalten. Eine Nutzung ist nur im urheberrechtlich zulässigen Rahmen erlaubt.","text":"\r\n\r\n Delegierter Rechtsakt zum CO2-Fußabdruck von Batterien\r\n\t\r\nDer Vorschlag ist aus unserer Sicht kritisch für den Standort Deutschland vor dem Hintergrund der europäischen Vergleichswerte und internationaler Konkurrenz.\r\nBestehende Standorte in Deutschland besonders benachteiligt (z. B. Salzgitter).\r\nLaufende Diskussionen bieten noch Chance einer Anpassung des Regulierungsvorschlages.\r\nDeutscher Kompromissvorschlag löst bestehende Probleme nicht gänzlich.\r\n\r\n\r\nThemen\r\n \r\n1 Dekarbonisierungsstrategieder Volkswagen AG\r\n2 CO2-Intensität des deutschen Strommixes\r\n3 Standortrisiko aus Grenzwert\r\n4 Diskutierte Flexibilitäten: Co-Investund „Direkt-Anschluß“\r\n5Lösungsvorschlag\r\n\r\n• Prognosen zur Entwicklung der CO2-Intensität des deutschen Strommix differieren stark.\r\n• Annahmen des UBA, wie steigende Nutzung von PPAs2)im Deutscher Energie-und Klimaplan, sind unsicher.\r\n0\r\n0,1\r\n0,2\r\n0,3\r\nDE\r\nDE\r\nDE\r\nEU\r\nFR\r\nSphera 2021 -progressive(AgoraEnergiewende &WuppertalInstitut)\r\nEU ReferenceScenario 2020\r\nUBA 2024\r\nEU ReferenceScenario 2020\r\nSphera 2021\r\nEmissionsfaktoren [kg/kWh]\r\n2030\r\n2040\r\n2050\r\nCO2-Intensität der Stromproduktion\r\nAnalyse\r\nEs erscheint unsicher, ob positive Einschätzung für Deutschland realisierbar ist.\r\nRisiko für deutsche Produktionsstandorte hinsichtlich des CO2-Fußabdruckes von Batterien.\r\nFuture Emission FactorsEL Sphera(scenario calculated based on the “EU Reference Scenario 2020 - Energy, Transport and GHG Emissions - Trends to 2050” published by the European Commission in 2021)\r\nUmweltbundesamt Treibhausgas-Projektionsbericht 2024. Kumuliert und Interpoliert Mit-Maßnahmen-Szenario(MMS) (Projektionsberichte (integrierte Energie-und THG-Projektionen) | Umweltbundesamt(AfD Referenz))\r\nEU-Kommission. EU Reference Scenario 2020 (EU Reference Scenario 2020 -EuropeanCommission (europa.eu))\r\n\r\n1)Umweltbundesamt Treibhausgas-Projektionsbericht 2024. Mit-Maßnahmen-Szenario(MMS)\r\n2)BMWK (August 2024). Aktualisierung des nationalen Energie-und Klimaplans. Seiten 57, 150\r\nFaktor\r\n4-5\r\nPrognosen\r\n\r\nStrategieder Dekarbonisierungder Energieversorgung\r\nEnergieversorgung deutscherVWAG-Standorte[%/Jahr]2)8020GraustromGrünstrom nachgewiesenmittels marktbasierterInstrumente100PowerCo 100HEUTE2030 \r\n1)BMWK(August 2024).Aktualisierungdesnationalen Energie-undKlimaplans. Seiten57, 150\r\n2)Darstellung GesamtstrombedarfVolkswagen Konzern, da dieMethodezur BerechnungdesBattery CarbonFootprints–auch lautStellungnahmeder Bundesregierung–als Grundlage fürzukünftige CO2-Fußabdrucksberechnunganderer Materialien/Komponenten gesehen wird(GERcommentJuly2024, Seite 3)\r\n\r\nStatus\r\n•Basis derVW-DekarbonisierungsstrategiesindmarktbasierteInstrumente(MBI) wie PPAs mitLaufzeiten von10 –20 Jahren.\r\n•Dekarbonisierungsstatus wirdberichtetz.B. überCSRD(incl. PPAs).\r\n•MBI zugelasseninRenewable EnergyDirective, European Sustainability Reporting Standards, Green Claims Directive.\r\n•MBIetabliertesWerkzeug entlangkomplexer, internationalerLieferketten.\r\n•Gem.BMWKsind MBIfürAusbauundFinanzierungerneuerbarer Energieentscheidend und tragen zurAbsicherungvon Preisen für erneuerbaren Strom bei.1)\r\n\r\nMarktbasierte Instrumente sindallgemeinakzeptierte,\r\neffizienteDekarbonisierungsmassnahme.UneinheitlicherAnsatz in aktuellen Regulierungen gefährdetUnternehmens-Dekarbonisierungsweg.\r\nKonzernstrategiewillDekarbonisierung bereits 2030erreichen;ohneMBI völlige Neuaufstellung erforderlich.\r\n\r\nAnalyse\r\n•„Direkt-Anschluss“ ist einzige Flexibilität im Vorschlag der EU-Kommission,um Standortnachteil aus nationalem Strommix auszugleichen.\r\n•Ist bei bestehenden Produktionsstandorten aus räumlichen Gründen und aufgrund mangelnder Effizienz der Erzeugung oft nicht sinnvoll. \r\n•Erheblicher Investitionsbedarf für Batteriehersteller \r\n\r\n2 Mrd. €\r\nInvestition Salzgitter Fabrik\r\n \r\n600 Mio.€6)\r\nWind Park\r\n~1 TWh/a\r\nZusätzlicher Investitionsbedarf für Automobilhersteller.\r\nBetrifft nur Standorte mit CO2-Nachteil innerhalb Europas .\r\nBelastung für Autoindustrie und deren Transformation.\r\nVerzicht auf PPAs bringt keine Verbesserung der Klimawirkung, da PPAs den Ausbau neuer Energieprojekte direkt fördert.\r\nBei Übertragung in andere Regulierungen weitere Benachteiligung für in Deutschland produzierende Industrie.\r\n \r\nDiskutierte Flexibilitäten: Co-Investund „Direkt-Anschluss“\r\nVergleich für Standort Salzgitter der PowerCo10.09.20246) Onshore Wind Kapazitätsfaktor von 24% mit 1,5M€/MW Capex | Offshore Wind Kapazitätsfaktor 38% mit 2,5M€/MW Capex\r\nImportedMaterials\r\nGermany\r\nPoland\r\nFrance\r\nChina\r\nMaterials\r\nCell Production\r\nModule & Pack Assembly\r\nStandortrisiko aus Grenzwert\r\n5)GREET Battery Module 2023. Energy consumptionvalues: Sun et al., 2020\r\nBatterie CO\r\n2-Fußabdruck (NMC811) [%]\r\nidentische Technologie, unterschiedliche Standorte5)\r\n+18%\r\n+6%\r\n+33%\r\nBereich desGrenzwertes\r\n•Ein großer Teil der CO2-Emissionen der Batterieproduktion entstehen durch die Rohstoffgewinnung und -verarbeitung.\r\n•Lieferkette ist beim \"standortbezogene Ansatz“ von Unternehmen nahezu nicht beeinflussbar.\r\n•„Standortbezogener Ansatz“ reduziert Handlungsfähigkeit der Unternehmen drastisch; Standortwahl wird wesentlich.\r\nAnalyse\r\nGrenzwerte als Risiko\r\nCO2-Emissionen aus Rohstoffgewinnung und Rohstoffverarbeitung zunächst für alle vergleichbar\r\n+27%\r\nWirksamer CO2-Grenzwert muss zwischen europäischen und internationalen Herstellern / Standorten differenzieren.\r\nGrenzwert birgt Risiko, dass China Monopolstellung bzgl. „grüner“ Batterierohstoffe erreicht und so die europäische Industrie gefährdet.\r\n\r\nBevorzugte Lösung: Nutzung des Market BasedAnsatz zulassen\r\n•Ermöglicht Unternehmen, den CO2-Fußabdruck deutscher Standorte eigenständig wettbewerbsfähig zu reduzieren\r\n•Konsistenter Regulierungsansatz\r\n•PPAs tragen zur Finanzierung der Energiewende bei\r\n•Zur Vermeidung von Doppelanrechnung und Greenwashing sollte eine Anerkennung nur erfolgen, wenn… a)die nationale Berichterstattung die Doppelanrechnung ausschließt,\r\nb)die Erneuerbaren Energieanlagen zusätzlich aufgebaut werden,\r\nc)die PPA-Vertragslaufzeit > 5 Jahre ist.\r\n\r\n\r\nMögliche Alternative:Nutzung des „standortbasierten Ansatz“\r\nUm zumindest innerhalb Europas, besonders mit Blick auf eine Ausweitung der Methodik auf andere Produkte,ein „Level-Playing-Field“ zu erhalten, sollte unbefristetdie Region = Europa genutzt werden.\r\nNachteile dieses Kompromisses sind fehlende Instrumente entlang der gesamten Lieferkette und abnehmender Investitionen in den Ausbau erneuerbare Energien.\r\nLösungsvorschläge \r\n"},"recipientGroups":[{"recipients":{"parliament":[],"federalGovernment":[{"department":{"title":"Bundeskanzleramt (BKAmt)","shortTitle":"BKAmt","url":"https://www.bundeskanzler.de/bk-de","electionPeriod":20}}]},"sendingDate":"2024-09-10"}]},{"regulatoryProjectNumber":"RV0003378","regulatoryProjectTitle":"24.034_Ausgestaltung der zukünftigen EU CO2 Flottengesetzgebung inkl. CO2 Ziel 2035","pdfUrl":"https://www.lobbyregister.bundestag.de/media/50/26/627848/Stellungnahme-Gutachten-SG2510100022.pdf","pdfPageCount":2,"text":{"copyrightAcknowledgement":"Die grundlegenden Stellungnahmen und Gutachten können urheberrechtlich geschützte Werke enthalten. Eine Nutzung ist nur im urheberrechtlich zulässigen Rahmen erlaubt.","text":"Ansätze zur Flexibilisierung der EU C02-Regulierung\r\nDer Volkswagen Konzern unterstützt weiterhin die Klimaziele der Europäischen Union. Wir stehen zum gesetzlichen 100% C02-Ziel für Neufahrzeuge, benötigen dafür aber mehr Zeit und Flexibilität. Die gesetzlich definierten C02-Ziele müssen regelmäßig überprüft und realistisch an die jeweilige Marktentwicklung angepasst werden.\r\nIn der kommenden Überprüfung der C02 Regulierung sollten zusätzliche regulatorische Flexibilitäten eingeführt werden, um die Erreichbarkeit der COrZiele trotz aktueller Marktunsicherheiten und stagnierender Nachfrage nach Elektrofahrzeugen erreichbar zu machen. Neben der Fortführung des eingeführten „Averaging Mechanismus 2025-2027\" für zukünftige COrZiele, können die folgenden Flexibilitäten einen wesentlichen Beitrag leisten:\r\n•\tEinführung  von „Super-Credits\" für kleine Elektrofahrzeuge mit einer Batteriekapazität von bis zu 60kWh\r\nWir unterstützen das Ansinnen der EU Kommission, das preis- und kostensensible Segment der kleinen Elektrofahrzeuge stärker zu fördern. Trotz der kontinuierlichen Erweiterung des Kundenangebots besteht in diesem - für Volumenhersteller wichtigen - Segment weiter Unterstützungsbedarf.\r\nInnerhalb der C02 Regulierung sollte dies über die Einführung von „Super-Credits\" explizit für kleine Elektrofahrzeuge erfolgen. Jedes kleine Elektrofahrzeug mit einer Batteriekapazität von bis 60kWh sollte mit einem Faktor von 1,5 in die COrBilanzierung eingerechnet werden.\r\nSuper-Credits waren bereits in der Vergangenheit ein erfolgreicher Mechanismus der C02 Regulierung, um Hersteller zu incentivieren, die frühzeitig in die Transformation zur E-Mobilität eingestiegen sind. Im Jahr 2020 wurde jedes Elektrofahrzeug über Super-Credits 2-fach in der C02 Bilanzierung berücksichtigt. So konnte die Erreichbarkeit des COrZiels deutlich erleichtert und gleichzeitig eine frühe Transformation angestoßen werden. Der Effekt auf die COr Bilanzierung war damals auf 7,5g/km begrenzt. Eine solche Obergrenze erscheint aus unserer Sicht bei der klaren Fokussierung allein auf kleine Elektrofahrzeuge mit maximal 60kWh Batteriekapazität, zukünftig nicht erforderlich.\r\n•\tAnrechnung von COrKompensationsmaßnahmen entlang des Produktlebenszyklus analog\r\n..Öko-1nnovationen\"\r\nNeben der lncentivierung kleiner Elektrofahrzeuge sollten auch die Hersteller zusätzliche Flexibilität bei der COrZielerreichung erhalten, die freiwillig in Dekarbonisierungsmaßnahmen entlang des Produktlebenszyklus investieren, die über die gesetzlichen Pflichten eines OEM hinausgehen. Relevant sind Investitionen in die Verwendung kohlenstoffarmer Materialien (z.B. Stahl), COrneutrale Kraftstoffe oder erneuerbarer Energie. Im Gegenzug könnte dann auch nach Einsatz des -100% C02 Ziels eine äquivalente Zahl z.B. von Plug-in-Hybriden oder Range­ Extender Fahrzeugen strafzahlungsfrei in den Markt gebracht werden.\r\nEine Berücksichtigung in der C02 Regulierung kann in Analogie zur Anrechnung von Öko­ Innovationen erfolgen. Bei Öko-innovationen, die seit langem Teil der COrRegulierung sind, wird ebenfalls eine außerhalb des Testzyklus erbrauchte C02 Minimierung auf die Flottenemissionen angerechnet. Der maximal anrechenbare C02 Effekt ist dabei begrenzt (7g/km galten z.B. für das Jahr 2024), um den Fokus auf die Verbesserung der Fahrzeugeffizienz im Testzyklus zu richten. Entsprechend sollten auch COrKompensationsmaßnahmen entlang des Produktlebenszyklus begrenzt sein, um das Ziel der Transformation zur E-Mobilität abzusichern.\r\n \r\nAnnex:\r\nSmall electric cars should be rewarded with C02 super credits. The criteria for this should be a battery capacity up to 60 kW/h.\r\nThis would increase the attractiveness to produce small electric cars. Despite their very low margins.\r\n\r\nThere is an equally good approach for premium manufacturers.\r\nC02 compensation measures beyond tailpipe should also be rewarded with C02 super credits. For instance, investments in low-carbon materials, in e-fuels or renewable energy.\r\nProducers with high margins can afford these investments.\r\nThey can gain super credits to seil a certain number of Plug-ln Hybrids even beyond 2035. The C02 regulation already knows the concept of eco-innovations.\r\nUntil 2024, C02 relevant innovations could be credited with up to 7 grams per fleet.\r\nWe can build on that idea. We only must make it more permanent, more flexible and less bureaucratic.\r\nSuch a \"tailpipe flex approach\" helps us to meet the market demand.\r\nOur customers do not want to choose between climate-friendly and innovative products. They want both combined.\r\n"},"recipientGroups":[{"recipients":{"parliament":[{"code":"RG_BT_MEMBERS_OF_PARLIAMENT","de":"Mitglieder des Bundestages","en":"Members of parliament"}],"federalGovernment":[]},"sendingDate":"2025-09-25"}]},{"regulatoryProjectNumber":"RV0003379","regulatoryProjectTitle":"24.035_Ausgestaltung verkehrspolitischer Rahmenbedingungen für individuelle Mobilität","pdfUrl":"https://www.lobbyregister.bundestag.de/media/0f/d8/556117/Stellungnahme-Gutachten-SG2506200070.pdf","pdfPageCount":2,"text":{"copyrightAcknowledgement":"Die grundlegenden Stellungnahmen und Gutachten können urheberrechtlich geschützte Werke enthalten. Eine Nutzung ist nur im urheberrechtlich zulässigen Rahmen erlaubt.","text":"“BEV-Social-Leasing”\r\nDer BEV-Markthochlauf erreicht bisher nicht alle Teile der Bevölkerung. Der Hochlauf stockt speziell im wichtigen Volumensegment aus verschiedenen Gründen: Neben Vorbehalten gegenüber der Technologie sind es vor allem Restwertunsicherheit, Unsicherheit bzgl. der verfügbaren Lademöglichkeiten und die Anschaffungskosten der E-Fahrzeuge.\r\nVor allem Kunden, die klassisch Fahrzeuge des Volumensegmentes in Europa kaufen, sollte geholfen werden, den Schritt in die Elektromobilität risikolos gehen zu können. Ein Mittel, speziell im Volumensegment des Marktes den Hochlauf zu unterstützen, könnte ein spezielles „Fahrzeug-Leasing“ sein, häufig auch als “social leasing” bezeichnet.\r\nDie Finanzierung eines solche Programms könnte mit Hilfe des Social Climate Fund (SCF) erfolgen. Der SCF wird aus den Einkünften des ETS2 (Emission Trading System ab 2026 ausgeweitet auf Gebäude und Verkehr) finanziert, um Menschen mit geringerem Einkommen den Wechsel zu klimaneutralen Technologien zu ermöglichen. Zu diesen Technologien zählen auch Battery Electric Vehicles (BEV).\r\nDer SCF ist zentraler Bestandteil zur Erreichung der EU-Klimaziele und unterstützt den Green Deal. Die Verteilung des SCF basiert auf Vorschlägen der Mitgliedsstaaten in sogenannten Social Climate Plans, die jeder Mitgliedssaat für sich aufstellen muss. Bis zum Sommer 2025 sind Mitgliedsstaaten aufgerufen, solche Pläne zu definieren.\r\nDieser Ansatz bietet daher eine gute Möglichkeit und sollte genutzt werden, um „BEV-Social-Leasing“ als europaweit wirksames Instrument zur Förderung des Hochlaufes der Elektromobilität in den Social Climate Plans zu etablieren.\r\nUm den Transportsektor in der Breite zu dekarbonisieren, ist es Grundvoraussetzung, das Volumensegment zu adressieren und zu elektrifizieren. Ein Fahrzeug-Leasing Programm, das speziell hierzu ausgelegt ist, könnte ein entscheidender Hebel für den Markterfolg der der Elektromobilität werden.\r\nIn Frankreich wurde bereits für einen kurzen Zeitraum ein Social-BEV-Leasing-Programm umgesetzt. Der französische Ansatz hatte sehr eng begrenzte Teilnehmergruppe und daraus folgend eine begrenzte Reichweite. Eine weitere Limitierung der Wirksamkeit des französischen Ansatzes lag in der Begrenzung auf max. 50.000 förderfähige Fahrzeuge. Zwar führte der Ansatz zu einer sehr hohen Geschwindigkeit in der Abrufung der Förderung, aber auch zu einer sehr kurzen Laufzeit von wenigen Wochen bis zu Ausschöpfung der Mittel. Die sehr hohen Fördersummen je Fahrzeug (14.000 €) im franz. Modell haben zu einer hohen Haushaltsbelastung geführt und das verfügbare Budget mit wenigen geförderten Fahrzeugen erschöpft. Die gleichzeitige Begrenzung auf Fahrzeuge mit einem Anschaffungspreis von maximal 47.000€ inkl. MwSt. führte zu einer unnötigen Begrenzung des Marktes.\r\nDas hier vorgeschlagene Konzept unterscheidet sich somit grundlegend von dem französischen Ansatz.\r\nGrundlegende Positionen des Volkswagen Konzerns\r\n1. Viele Staaten und Institutionen diskutieren die Maßnahme des „Social Leasing“. Volkswagen begrüßt die Idee, den Hochlauf der E-Mobilität für weite Teile der Bevölkerung zugänglich zu machen und sieht einen eindeutigen Bedarf, die Elektromobilität gezielt im Volumensegment zu fördern.\r\n2. Eine solche Maßnahme sollte als Ergänzung zu bestehenden Förderkonzepten etabliert werden und spezifisch für die Steigerung der Akzeptanz in der möglichst weit gefassten Kundengruppen sorgen. Sie sollte nicht in Konkurrenz zu etablierten Maßnahmen treten, unbürokratisch und einfach für den Kunden erreichbar sein.\r\n3. Die Teilnahmekriterien sollten seitens der Mitgliedsstaaten so definiert werden, dass ein möglichst breiter Teilnehmerkreis partizipieren kann. Wir empfehlen den Medianlohn des jeweiligen Landes als Obergrenze für eine Teilnahmeberechtigung zu verwenden (vergleichbar mit dem Vorschlag der MdEPs Radtke & Liese 2024).\r\n4. Ein neu zu konzipierendes Leasing-Programm muss eine nachhaltige, langfristig tragende Förderkulisse bieten, die nicht innerhalb weniger Tage oder Wochen endet.\r\n5. Im Volumensegment stellen Gebrauchtwagen die Mehrheit aller Erwerbungen dar. Daher plädieren wir, besonders BEV-Gebrauchtfahrzeuge über eine Leasing-Förderung attraktiv zu machen. Der Gebrauchtwagenmarkt profitiert im Moment von keiner Förderung und würde die notwendige Stärkung erfahren. Ein starker Zweitmarkt stabilisiert den Absatz des Neuwagenmarktes sowie die Restwerte („Pull-Effekt“).\r\n6. Wir schlagen vor, auf eine Preisobergrenze für förderfähige Fahrzeuge zu verzichten und stattdessen auf die monatliche Leasingrate zu referenzieren. Die Stützung des Staates sollte 50% der monatlichen Rate betragen, um eine hohe Zahl an Kunden über einen längeren Zeitraum fördern zu können.\r\n7. Um gezielt die europäische Automobilwirtschaft zu stärken, befürworten wir Instrumente, die sicherstellen, nur Fahrzeuge aus europäischen Standorten zu fördern. Z.B. kann die zurückgelegte Entfernung zwischen dem Herstellungsort des fertigen Fahrzeuges und dem Ort des Inverkehrbringens als Kriterium gewählt werden.\r\n8. Wir plädieren wir für eine einfachen Genehmigungs- und Abwicklungsprozess sowohl für Kunden als auch Anbieter und den Staat. Aus den Erfahrungen des Umweltbonus muss gelernt werden (u.a. hinsichtlich Komplexität bei der Antragsstellung und Prüfaufwand bei der Behörde z.B. BAFA). Leasinggesellschaften sollten weder in den Antrags- noch in den Auszahlungsprozess involviert werden. Die Auszahlung an den Förderberechtigten könnte z.B. direkt oder im Rahmen einer Steuergutschrift bei der persönlichen Steuererklärung erfolgen.\r\n9. Die Gestaltung der Vertragsanforderungen sind für alle Parteien von hoher Bedeutung. Z.B. ist eine Laufzeit von 36 Monaten zu begrüßen und aus Leasingverträgen bekannt und bewährt. Auch das Thema der „Ausfallquote“ ist zu adressieren bei der Gestaltung, um Rechtssicherheit für den Staat, die Anbieter und die Kunden zu schaffen."},"recipientGroups":[{"recipients":{"parliament":[{"code":"RG_BT_MEMBERS_OF_PARLIAMENT","de":"Mitglieder des Bundestages","en":"Members of parliament"}],"federalGovernment":[]},"sendingDate":"2025-06-19"}]},{"regulatoryProjectNumber":"RV0010662","regulatoryProjectTitle":"24.041_Nicht-Einführung von Ausgleichszöllen auf batteriebetriebene Fahrzeuge (BEV) aus China","pdfUrl":"https://www.lobbyregister.bundestag.de/media/86/ee/360561/Stellungnahme-Gutachten-SG2409300027.pdf","pdfPageCount":2,"text":{"copyrightAcknowledgement":"Die grundlegenden Stellungnahmen und Gutachten können urheberrechtlich geschützte Werke enthalten. Eine Nutzung ist nur im urheberrechtlich zulässigen Rahmen erlaubt.","text":"Alternative Lösungen zu angekündigten EU-Zöllen für E-Autos aus China\r\nGrundsätzlich präferiert der Volkswagen Konzern die Vermeidung von Ausgleichszöllen. Dies vor dem Hintergrund, dass der Konzern Verfechter einer regelbasierten Handelsordnung ist. Ausgleichszölle sind generell nicht geeignet, die Wettbewerbsfähigkeit der europäischen Automobilindustrie langfristig zu stärken. Sollten Ausgleichszölle aufgrund der Untersuchungsergebnisse der EU-KOM nicht zu vermeiden sein, sollte aus Sicht des Volkswagen Konzerns eine langfristige Lösung angestrebt werden, die der Bedeutung der Handelsbeziehungen zu China Rechnung trägt und eine Dynamik aus Maßnahmen und Gegenmaßnahmen vermeidet.\r\nFolgende Alternativlösungen werden aus Konzernsicht politisch präferiert:\r\n1.) Ausgleichszölle gestaffelt nach europäischen und chinesischen Herstellern\r\n2.) Zollstaffelung / “Staging”\r\n3.) Zollstaffelung / „Staging“ in Kombination mit Lokalisierungszusagen\r\nZu 1.) Ausgleichszölle gestaffelt nach europäischen und chinesischen Herstellern\r\nAus Sicht des Volkswagen Konzerns sollte bei einer etwaigen Einführung von Ausgleichszöllen zwingend berücksichtigt werden, ob es sich bei den Einführern um europäische Hersteller handelt, deren Wertschöpfung primär in der EU erfolgt oder aber um von der chinesischen Regierung „subventionierte“ chinesische Hersteller, die keine oder nur eine verhältnismäßig geringe Wertschöpfung in der EU nachweisen können. Eine solche Option könnte wie folgt gestaltet werden:\r\nErhöhung der Einfuhrzölle ab Verkündung der finalen Maßnahmen (Nov. 2024) um final 5% für europäische Hersteller für die Dauer der Verhängung von Ausgleichszöllen. Damit würde der Angleichung des Zollsatz für Fahrzeugimporte nach China Rechnung getragen werden.\r\nErhöhung der Einfuhrzölle ab Verkündung der finalen Maßnahmen (Nov. 2024) um final 20%-30% für chinesische Hersteller mit keiner oder verhältnismäßig geringer EU-Wertschöpfung für die Dauer der Verhängung von Ausgleichszöllen.\r\nOptional könnte dieser Vorschlag auch mit einer Staffelung ausweislich Option 2.) nur für die chinesischen Hersteller kombiniert werden.\r\nZu 2.) Zollstaffelung / “Staging”\r\nSollte Option 1.) – möglicherweise aus WTO-rechtlichen Gründen nicht umsetzbar sein – könnte die Einführung von Ausgleichszöllen, die jährlich und der Höhe nach gestaffelt werden, in Betracht gezogen werden. Dies würde dem gegenwärtig geringem Importvolumen und auch der aktuellen Nachfrageschwäche für BEV-Fahrzeuge in Deutschland und Europa Rechnung entsprechen. Zudem gäbe es den chinesischen Herstellern die Möglichkeit der Lokalisierung von BEV-Produktion in der EU. Eine solche Regelung sähe wie folg aus:\r\nErhöhung der Einfuhrzölle ab Verkündung der finalen Maßnahmen (Nov. 2024) um 5%, was dem Zollsatz für Fahrzeugimporte nach China (15%) entsprechen würde.\r\nErhöhung der Einfuhrzölle jährlich um 10% ab 2025 für den Zeitraum 2025 bis 2027, so dass ab Jahr 2027 ein finaler Importzoll von 45% auf BEV-Einfuhren aus China erhoben wird.\r\nZu 3.) Zollstaffelung / „Staging“ in Kombination mit EU-Lokalisierung\r\nAls dritte Option wäre eine Kombination aus einer Zollstaffelung in Verbindung mit Lokalisierungsan-forderungen denkbar. Diese könnte wie folgt gestaltet werden:\r\n\r\nErhöhung der Einfuhrzölle ab Verkündung der finalen Maßnahmen (Nov. 2024) um 5% (-15%),was dem Zollsatz für Fahrzeugimporte nach China entsprechen würde.\r\nErhöhung der Einfuhrzölle ab 2025 für den Zeitraum 2025 bis 2027 um 10% p.a., so dass ab Jahr2027 ein Importzoll von 45% auf BEV-Einfuhren aus China erhoben wird, um insbesondere die negativen Auswirkungen der subventionierten chinesischen Einfuhren auf den Wirtschaftszweig der Union auszugleichen.\r\nChinesische Hersteller, die ihre BEV-Produktion in der EU hochfahren und spätestens bis 2028 eine Wertschöpfungstiefe von 60% inklusive der Batterie erreichen, könnten einen Anspruch auf einen reduzierten BEV-Einfuhrzollsatz von 15% für bis zu 10% ihres in der EU produzierten BEV-Volumens geltend machen.\r\nWich􀆟g bei allen Optionen ist, dass die EU-KOM BEV-Importe aus China und deren Marktentwicklung überwacht und die Zölle einer regelmäßigen Überprüfung im Hinblick auf mögliche Wettbewerbsverzerrungen unterzieht."},"recipientGroups":[{"recipients":{"parliament":[{"code":"RG_BT_MEMBERS_OF_PARLIAMENT","de":"Mitglieder des Bundestages","en":"Members of parliament"}],"federalGovernment":[{"department":{"title":"Bundeskanzleramt (BKAmt)","shortTitle":"BKAmt","url":"https://www.bundeskanzler.de/bk-de","electionPeriod":20}},{"department":{"title":"Bundesministerium für Wirtschaft und Klimaschutz (BMWK) (20. WP)","shortTitle":"BMWK (20. WP)","url":"https://www.bmwk.de/Navigation/DE/Home/home.html","electionPeriod":20}}]},"sendingDate":"2024-06-14"}]},{"regulatoryProjectNumber":"RV0012081","regulatoryProjectTitle":"20.044_Maßnahmen zur Stärkung der Wettbewerbsfähigkeit der dt. Automobilindustrie","pdfUrl":"https://www.lobbyregister.bundestag.de/media/4f/2a/360563/Stellungnahme-Gutachten-SG2409270017.pdf","pdfPageCount":1,"text":{"copyrightAcknowledgement":"Die grundlegenden Stellungnahmen und Gutachten können urheberrechtlich geschützte Werke enthalten. Eine Nutzung ist nur im urheberrechtlich zulässigen Rahmen erlaubt.","text":"\r\nMaßnahmen zur Stärkung der Wettbewerbsfähigkeit in der Automobilindustrie\r\nMögliche Maßnahmen:\r\n1.\r\nWiedereinführung Umweltbonus: Wiedereinführung eines auf 2 Jahre befristeten staatlichen Umweltbonus in Höhe von 4.000 € für E-Fahrzeuge bis 65.000 €, deren Produktion einen zu bestimmenden CO2-Footprint nicht überschreitet. Zuzüglich eines Herstelleranteils von 2.000 €.\r\n2.\r\nEinführung Gebrauchtwagenbonus für E-Fahrzeuge: Einführung eines Gebrauchtwagenbonus für E-Fahrzeuge in Höhe von 2.500 €. Damit würden gebrauchte E-Fahrzeuge für eine große Bevölkerungsschicht attraktiver. Gleichzeitig würde das Restwertrisiko gesenkt, was auch die Leasingraten von neuen E-Fahrzeugen positiv beeinflussen und damit nachfragesteigernd wirken würde. Als Vorbild dient Luxemburg, die eine Gebrauchtwagenförderung eingeführt haben.\r\n3.\r\nEinführung eines BEV-Faktors bei den Betriebskosten für gewerbliche Leasingfahrzeuge: Gewerbliche Kunden können die Kosten für ihre Leasingfahrzeuge aber als Betriebskosten absetzen. Würde man einen Faktor von z. B. 1,5 für E-Fahrzeuge bei den Betriebskosten einführen, könnten gewerbliche Leasingnehmer, die 400 € für ein E-Fahrzeug bezahlen, 600 € steuerlich geltend machen. Das würde, analog zur Sonderabschreibung, das BEV-Leasing erheblich attraktiver machen und alle gewerblichen Kunden, egal ob sie kaufen oder leasen, hätten einen Vorteil, wenn sie sich für ein E-Fahrzeug entscheiden.\r\n4.\r\nAbsenkung der MwSt. auf E-Fahrzeuge:\r\nAnwendung des reduzierten MwSt.- Satz von 7% (oder ähnlich) auf E-Fahrzeuge für 2 Jahre bis zu einem Kaufpreis von 65.000 €. Dies sollte sowohl für Neu- aber gerade auch für Gebrauchtfahrzeuge gelten.\r\n5.\r\nSenkung der Energiekosten in der Wertschöpfungskette Einführung eines vorübergehenden Industriestrompreises in Deutschland i.H.v. 6,00 ct/kWh. Mindestens aber die Aufnahme der Batteriewertschöpfungskette in die Liste der energieintensiven Industrien zur Qualifikation der Strompreiskompensation."},"recipientGroups":[{"recipients":{"parliament":[{"code":"RG_BT_MEMBERS_OF_PARLIAMENT","de":"Mitglieder des Bundestages","en":"Members of parliament"}],"federalGovernment":[{"department":{"title":"Bundeskanzleramt (BKAmt)","shortTitle":"BKAmt","url":"https://www.bundeskanzler.de/bk-de","electionPeriod":20}},{"department":{"title":"Bundesministerium für Wirtschaft und Klimaschutz (BMWK) (20. WP)","shortTitle":"BMWK (20. WP)","url":"https://www.bmwk.de/Navigation/DE/Home/home.html","electionPeriod":20}}]},"sendingDate":"2024-09-10"}]},{"regulatoryProjectNumber":"RV0012081","regulatoryProjectTitle":"20.044_Maßnahmen zur Stärkung der Wettbewerbsfähigkeit der dt. Automobilindustrie","pdfUrl":"https://www.lobbyregister.bundestag.de/media/32/d8/360565/Stellungnahme-Gutachten-SG2409300026.pdf","pdfPageCount":1,"text":{"copyrightAcknowledgement":"Die grundlegenden Stellungnahmen und Gutachten können urheberrechtlich geschützte Werke enthalten. Eine Nutzung ist nur im urheberrechtlich zulässigen Rahmen erlaubt.","text":"Einführung eines BEV-Faktors bei den Betriebskosten für gewerbliche Leasingfahrzeuge\r\n\r\nIn der Wachstumsinitiative der Bundesregierung ist vorgesehen, eine zeitlich begrenzte Sonderabschreibung für BEV-Fahrzeuge einzuführen: „Rückwirkend zum 1.7.2024 soll eine Sonderabschreibung für neu zugelassene vollelektrische und vergleichbare Nullemissionsfahrzeuge (z. B. solche, die vollständig mit E-Fuels angetrieben werden) eingeführt werden. Hierdurch soll die Anschaffung der betroffenen Fahrzeuge attraktiver gemacht werden. Die Sonderabschreibung gilt für Neuzulassungen bis Ende 2028.“\r\nDiese Sonderabschreibung ist eine gute Idee für gewerbliche Fahrzeugkäufer, ignoriert aber über 50 % des gewerblichen Kundenmarktes. Denn ein Großteil dieser Kunden (insbesondere Flottenbetreiber) kauft die Fahrzeuge nicht, sondern least sie von Leasingunternehmen. Wenn man seine Flottenfahrzeuge least, profitiert man aber nicht von der Sonderabschreibung, weil man nicht selbst Halter des Fahrzeugs ist, sondern die Leasinggesellschaft. Die Sonderabschreibung für E-Fahrzeuge ist damit für einen Großteil der gewerblichen Kunden gar nicht nutzbar.\r\nGewerbliche Kunden können die Kosten für ihre Leasingfahrzeuge aber als Betriebskosten absetzen. Das bedeutet, dass sie einen Verbrenner oder ein E-Fahrzeug, dessen Leasingrate z. B. 400 € beträgt, monatlich in gleicher Höhe als Betriebskosten absetzen können. E-Fahrzeug-Leasing hat hier keinen Vorteil gegenüber Verbrenner-Leasing. Würde man allerdings einen Faktor von z. B. 1,5 für E-Fahrzeuge bei den Betriebskosten einführen, könnten gewerbliche Leasingnehmer, die 400 € für ein E-Fahrzeug bezahlen, 600 € steuerlich geltend machen. Das würde, analog zur Sonderabschreibung, das BEV-Leasing erheblich attraktiver machen und alle gewerblichen Kunden, egal ob sie kaufen oder leasen, hätten einen Vorteil, wenn sie sich für ein E-Fahrzeug entscheiden."},"recipientGroups":[{"recipients":{"parliament":[],"federalGovernment":[{"department":{"title":"Bundesministerium für Wirtschaft und Klimaschutz (BMWK) (20. WP)","shortTitle":"BMWK (20. WP)","url":"https://www.bmwk.de/Navigation/DE/Home/home.html","electionPeriod":20}}]},"sendingDate":"2024-09-03"}]},{"regulatoryProjectNumber":"RV0012081","regulatoryProjectTitle":"20.044_Maßnahmen zur Stärkung der Wettbewerbsfähigkeit der dt. Automobilindustrie","pdfUrl":"https://www.lobbyregister.bundestag.de/media/30/69/489875/Stellungnahme-Gutachten-SG2503120022.pdf","pdfPageCount":11,"text":{"copyrightAcknowledgement":"Die grundlegenden Stellungnahmen und Gutachten können urheberrechtlich geschützte Werke enthalten. Eine Nutzung ist nur im urheberrechtlich zulässigen Rahmen erlaubt.","text":"Masterplan für einen wettbewerbsfähigen deutschen Automobilstandort\r\nImpulse für die 21. Legislaturperiode\r\n\r\nDie deutsche und europäische Automobilindustrie befinden sich in einer extrem kritischen Phase. Die doppelte Transformation in Richtung Elektromobilität und Digitalisierung verändert die traditionsrei- che und in der Vergangenheit so erfolgreiche Industrie mit dem einzigartigen Verbund aus Herstellern, großen Zulieferunternehmen, spezialisiertem Mittelstand und anwendungsorientierter Forschung von Grund auf. Neue Wettbewerber treten auf den Plan, geopolitische Veränderungen zwingen zu einer stärkeren Regionalisierung der Produktion, Marktabschottungen verhindern weiteres Exportwachs- tum. Die Preis- und Kostenkonkurrenz im internationalen Wettbewerb hat sich intensiviert – zu Lasten des Standortes Deutschland mit seinen hohen Energie-, Lohn- und Arbeitskosten. Die Zukunftsfähig- keit der deutschen Automobilindustrie wird davon abhängen, ob es gelingt, schneller, günstiger, fle- xibler und innovativer zu werden. Innovationsfähigkeit wird die Automobilindustrie nur erlangen, wenn sie sich im internationalen Wettbewerb und auf den relevanten Märkten behaupten kann.\r\n\r\nDie Zeit drängt. Seit 2017 sinkt die Industrieproduktion in Deutschland kontinuierlich. Eine neue Bun- desregierung muss rasch und entschlossen handeln, um den Automobilstandort Deutschland zu- kunftssicher aufzustellen. Wir brauchen eine Bundesregierung, die nach ihrem Amtsantritt schnell Entscheidungen trifft, die Weichen in Richtung Wachstum stellt und dabei ihre Rolle in Europa immer mitdenkt. Ohne wettbewerbsfähige Rahmenbedingungen in Deutschland und Europa sind die Klima- ziele nicht ohne Wohlstandsverluste zu erreichen. Dies gilt für die Pkw- als auch für die Nutzfahrzeu- gindustrie gleichermaßen. Nur wenn wir es schaffen, für die Transformation benötigte Wertschöp- fungsketten aufzubauen und Innovationen in Geschäftsmodelle umzusetzen, können Wohlstandsge- winne für alle erzielt werden. Das muss unser gemeinsames Ziel sein, um die soziale Marktwirtschaft zu stärken und den extremen politischen Rändern den Boden zu entziehen.\r\n\r\nDie Dekarbonisierung des Verkehrs ist Teil unserer Unternehmensstrategie. An der Dekarbonisierung von Wirtschaft und Gesellschaft führt kein Weg vorbei. Der Volkswagen Konzern steht zu den Zielen des Pariser Klimaabkommens. Diese Ziele bilden den Rahmen unseres unternehmerischen Handelns. Sie sind Richtschnur und Basis unserer Strategie. Klimaschutz ist und bleibt eine Generationenauf- gabe und der Verkehrssektor muss seinen Beitrag zur Zielerreichung leisten.\r\n\r\nDer Volkswagen Konzern ist dafür in Vorleistung gegangen: Wir investieren Milliarden in die Entwick- lung neuer elektrischer Modelle, beginnen 2025 als erster Automobilhersteller mit der eigenen Pro- duktion von Batteriezellen in Deutschland und treiben das Software-Defined-Vehicle mit aller Kraft voran. Unsere aktuellen Plug-In-Hybridmodelle haben elektrische Reichweiten von bis zu 140 km. Ein Großteil unserer Motoren ist bereits seit 2022 für Re-Fuels Kraftstoffe wie HVO 100 freigegeben. Wir richten alles darauf aus, die Klimaziele zu erreichen und Wertschöpfung und Beschäftigung in Deutschland zu sichern. Doch Transformation ist eine Gemeinschaftsaufgabe.\r\n\r\nEin Masterplan für einen wettbewerbsfähigen Automobilstandort Deutschland muss folgende Punkte beinhalten:\r\n \r\n1.\tElektromobilität als Antrieb der Transformation stärken\r\n\r\nDie Zukunft der individuellen Mobilität wird elektrisch sein. Das ist der schnellste und effizienteste Weg, den Verkehrssektor zu dekarbonisieren. Die Transformation zur Elektromobilität verlangt aller- dings radikale Veränderungen von den Automobilunternehmen. Die Politik muss dabei genauso mutig vorangehen. Die Elektromobilität wird sich in den kommenden Jahren eindeutig als Leittechnologie durchsetzen. Bis dahin brauchen wir auch weiterhin effizienteste Motoren, Plug-In-Hybride und syn- thetische Kraftstoffe für den Bestand. Deutschland muss ein starker Heimatmarkt für alle Technolo- gien bleiben und Leitmarkt für E-Mobilität werden.\r\n\r\nDeutschland braucht konkret:\r\n\r\n•\tDie kurzfristige Verlängerung der Kfz-Steuerbefreiung für neu zugelassene Elektrofahrzeuge über den Jahreswechsel 2025/2026 hinaus.\r\n•\tDie Einführung einer Steuerentlastung für Bürgerinnen und Bürger beim Kauf oder Leasing eines Elektrofahrzeuges analog § 35c EstG.\r\n•\tEine langfristig größere Spreizung in der Dienstwagensteuer zwischen Verbrennern\r\nund Elektrofahrzeugen sowie kurzfristig die Anhebung des bisherigen Bruttolistenpreisdeckels von 70.000 Euro für die 0,25%-Dienstwagenbesteuerung.\r\n•\tDie Entlastung von Selbständigen und gewerblichen Kunden durch Einführung eines BEV-Fak- tors von 1,5 bei der steuerlichen Geltendmachung von Betriebskosten für geleaste Elektrofahrzeuge.\r\n•\tDie erhebliche Reduzierung der hohen Kosten für das öffentliche Laden – durch die Absenkung der Stromsteuer, die Reduzierung der Netzentgelte, die Deckelung der Roaminggebühren sowie die Schaffung einer Preistransparenzstelle wie bei Kraftstoffen.\r\n•\tEinführung einer Versorgungsauflage mit HPC-Ladeinfrastruktur für Tankstellenbetreiber und den Ausbau der Ladeinfrastruktur in Städten und Gemeinden.\r\n•\tEinen ambitionierten regulatorischen Rahmen für das bidirektionale Laden. Durch den Abbau von Doppelbelastungen können Millionen von Stromspeichern zu vergleichsweise geringen Kos- ten erschlossen werden.\r\n•\tEine Form des „Social-Leasing“ für neue und gebrauchte Elektrofahrzeuge, das allen Bevölke- rungsschichten den Zugang zur E-Mobilität ermöglicht. Im besten Fall finanziert durch den Klima-Sozialfonds der EU ab 2026. Dabei sollte es keine Diskriminierung bei den Fahrzeugklas- sen geben.\r\n•\tEine ambitioniertere Umsetzung der RED III mit höheren Mindestquoten für erneuerbare Kraft- stoffe sowie einen klaren Zielpfad Richtung Klimaneutralität für die Zeit nach 2030. Auch sollten die entsprechenden delegierten Rechtsakte der EU-Kommission praxisgerechter ausgestaltet werden.\r\n \r\n2.\tDeutsche Automobilindustrie in der Transformation entlasten\r\n\r\nDer Volkswagen Konzern hat in den vergangenen Jahren enorme Investitionen getätigt, um die Wei- chen in Richtung Elektromobilität zu stellen. Die tatsächliche Marktentwicklung bleibt jedoch weit hinter den von der Politik bei Verabschiedung des Gesetzes im Jahr 2019 unterstellten Annahmen und Ambitionen zurück. Die Automobilunternehmen sollten in dieser Phase der Transformation nicht noch zusätzlich finanziell belastet werden.\r\n\r\nDeutschland braucht konkret:\r\n\r\n•\tDie Aussetzung von möglichen Strafzahlungen innerhalb der CO2-Flottenregulierung für Pkw, leichte Nutzfahrzeuge und Lkw für die Jahre 2025 & 2026.\r\n•\tDie kurzfristige Einführung von Flexibilitäten wie ein „Fleet-Phase-In“ mit 90% in 2025 und 95% in 2026 oder einem „Average-Compliance-Mechanism“ über fünf Jahre.\r\n•\tEin modifiziertes und länger laufendes ZLEV-Benchmark, die Korrektur der schleichenden Ziel- wertverschärfung über den sogenannten „Negative Slope“ sowie die Anrechnung schon heute im Markt vorhandener, erneuerbarer Kraftstoffe.\r\n•\tDie Beibehaltung des derzeitigen „PHEV-Utility-Factors“, damit Plug-In Hybride weiterhin einen Beitrag zum Erreichen der Flottenziele leisten können.\r\n•\tEine Anrechnung von „Carbon-Neutral-Fuels-Fahrzeugen“ innerhalb der Flottenregulierung als Null-Gramm-CO2-Fahrzeuge und deren Zulassung nach 2035 ohne Auflagen.\r\n\r\n\r\n3.\tBatteriezellproduktion in Deutschland wettbewerbsfähig machen\r\n\r\nUm im Wettbewerb mit den USA und China bestehen zu können, muss Deutschland die gesamte Wert- schöpfungskette der Elektromobilität beherrschen; nicht zuletzt mit Blick auf die von China dominierte LFP-Technologie. Bei Elektrofahrzeugen sind Batterien genauso wichtig wie Motoren bei Verbrennern: Hier liegen das geistige Eigentum, die Wertschöpfung und die Differenzierung zwischen Modellen und Anbietern. Daher ist eine eigenständige Batteriezellindustrie unverzichtbarer Teil eines resilienten, wettbewerbsfähigen Industrie- und Automobilstandorts Europa.\r\n\r\nDeutschland braucht konkret:\r\n\r\n•\tEine Beibehaltung des Bandlastprivilegs für industrielle Großverbraucher wie die Batteriezell- produktion.\r\n•\tEinen niedrigen industriellen Strompreis (ca. 6ct pro kWh), um die europäische Batteriezellpro- duktion global wettbewerbsfähig zu machen. Die Strompreiskompensation sollte zudem verste- tigt und auf die Batteriezellfertigung und dessen Vorprodukte wie die Herstellung von Kathoden- material ausgeweitet werden.\r\n•\tEine Ausgestaltung der europäischen Batterieverordnung, die fairen Wettbewerb zwischen den europäischen Batteriezellherstellern ermöglicht und aktuelle Marktentwicklungen u.a. beim Re- view der Recyclingquoten berücksichtigt.\r\n \r\n•\tZugang zu Rohstoffen für die Industrie durch eine strategische Rohstoffpolitik: Unterstützung für Risikokapitalgeber in frühen Phasen von Rohstoffprojekten; Aufstockung des deutschen Roh- stofffonds für die nachfolgenden Phasen des Abbaus, der Rohstoffverarbeitung und des Recyc- lings. Verstärkung der Zusammenarbeit von Rohstoffpolitik in internationalen Gremien wie der G7 oder der Minerals Security Partnership.\r\n•\tDie aktive Ansiedlung einer Zuliefererindustrie für die Batteriezellproduktion und deren Vorkette. Aufbau von Verarbeitungskapazitäten für relevante Rohstoffe in der EU und in Staaten, die Frei- handelsabkommen oder Rohstoffpartnerschaften mit der EU haben.\r\n•\tEine Kreislaufwirtschaftsregulierung mit klar formulierten Anforderungen und sinnvollen Quoten, basierend auf technischer Machbarkeit und Rezyklat-Verfügbarkeit. Neben Produktverantwor- tungsorganisationen (PROs, wie z.B. Der grüne Punkt) sollten auch individuelle Systeme für die Erfüllung der Herstellerpflichten möglich sein.\r\n\r\n\r\n4.\tDeutschland braucht einen Turbo für zukunftsfähige Nutzfahrzeuge\r\n\r\nEin Großteil des Straßengüterverkehrs wird zukünftig elektrisch abgewickelt. Elektro-Lkw sind in Se- rie am Markt bereits verfügbar. Damit die meist mittelständisch geprägten Transportunternehmen von der Transformation profitieren können, muss der Aufbau von Ladeinfrastruktur für Nutzfahrzeuge als Grundvoraussetzung für einen starken Wirtschaftsstandort verstanden werden. Ohne einen raschen, flächendeckenden und ambitionierten Ausbau der Ladeinfrastruktur droht der deutschen Nutzfahr- zeugindustrie der Verlust ihrer Zukunfts- und internationalen Wettbewerbsfähigkeit. Die finanziellen Risiken aufgrund politischen Zögerns und damit einhergehender Verunsicherung des Transportgewer- bes mit entsprechender Kaufzurückhaltung sind existenzbedrohend – wirtschaftlich, aber auch mit Blick auf hochqualifizierte Arbeitskräfte für die Zukunftsfähigkeit des Wirtschaftsstandorts Deutsch- land. Es gibt wichtige Grundentscheidungen und einfache Hebel für einen schnellen Hochlauf:\r\n\r\nDeutschland braucht konkret:\r\n\r\n•\tEine gesicherte Finanzierung und die priorisierte Umsetzung des Lkw-Schnellladenetzes: Die Ausschreibung für bewirtschaftete Rasthöfe muss noch im Jahr 2025 erfolgen. Für die Betriebe, die ihren Fuhrpark umstellen, hat die Ladeinfrastruktur den Charakter einer kritischen Infrastruk- tur.\r\n•\tDie Streckung möglicher Strafzahlungen bei Nichterreichen der Flottenziele für Lkw.\r\n•\tDie Stärkung des Depotladens. Es bedarf hier schnellerer Genehmigungen, regulativer Erleichte- rungen und finanzieller Anreize, um diese Möglichkeit vor allem für kleinere Betriebe attraktiv zu machen und die Zuverlässigkeit der Flotte leichten und schweren Nutzfahrzeugen zu erhöhen.\r\n•\tFörderprogramme zur Stärkung der Transportunternehmen; insbesondere Kaufförderprogramme auch für Leasing und Mietkauf, Depot- sowie Netzanschlusszuschüsse sowie kluge Abschreibe- Regelungen helfen dem Mittelstand.\r\n•\tEine Verlängerung der Mautbefreiung für e-Lkw über 2025 hinaus.\r\n•\tEine Erhöhung der Achslasten und der Gesamtmasse für Lkw mit alternativen Antriebstechnolo- gien in der Maße- und Gewichte-Richtlinie der EU.\r\n \r\n5.\tSoftware-Defined-Vehicle für deutsche Wettbewerbsfähigkeit erfolgsentscheidend\r\n\r\nDie Automobilindustrie verändert sich durch die softwarezentrierte Entwicklung fundamental. Deutschland muss diese Revolution durch verbesserte Rahmenbedingungen für Software- und Auto- mobilentwicklung sowie einer entsprechenden Modernisierung der Regulierung unterstützen. Gleich- zeitig gilt es im Bereich der Daten, eine Überregulierung zu verhindern. Die europäische Automobilin- dustrie ist bezogen auf fahrzeuggenerierte Daten mit mehr als 20 EU-Vorschriften bereits umfassend reguliert.\r\n\r\nDeutschland braucht konkret:\r\n\r\n•\tEine ausgewogene nationale Umsetzung der von der EU-Kommission bereits verabschiedeten Datenregulierungen (u.a. DMA, DGA, DA). Durch den bestehenden Data Act und die weiteren spezifischen Regelungen ist eine zusätzliche, spezielle Regulierung über den Zugang zu Fahr- zeugdaten („Access to in-vehicle data“) unnötig und wettbewerbshemmend.\r\n•\tEine Anpassung der EU-Typgenehmigungsverordnung für einfache und schnelle Prüfungs- und Genehmigungsprozesse um Software-Defined-Vehicles auf dem neuesten Stand der Technik zu halten.\r\n•\tInnovationsfreundliche Rahmenbedingungen, um Entwicklungen zeitnah auf die Straße zu brin- gen. Das erhöht die Attraktivität für die Top-Entwickler und Coder, die wir brauchen, um auch zu- künftig wettbewerbsfähig zu bleiben.\r\n\r\n\r\n6.\tDeutschland zur Technologieführerschaft im Autonomen Fahren führen\r\n\r\nAutonomes Fahren „Made in Germany“ hat in Verbindung mit innovativen Mobilitätsdienstleistungen das Potenzial, urbane Verkehrsprobleme zu lösen, ländliche Regionen besser anzubinden und die Ver- kehrssicherheit zu erhöhen. Eine gezielte industriepolitische Förderung durch die kommende Bundes- regierung kann dazu beitragen, dieses Zukunftsfeld zu erschließen. Auf dieser Grundlage kann Deutschland mittelfristig eine führende europäische Wertschöpfungskette für selbstfahrende KI-Sys- teme aufbauen. Langfristig stärkt dies nicht nur den Industriestandort mit seiner vielfältigen Zuliefer- erlandschaft, sondern schafft auch eine solide Basis, um bis 2035 eine technologische Spitzenposi- tion einzunehmen.\r\n\r\nDeutschland braucht konkret:\r\n\r\n•\tGezielte industriepolitische Förderung zur Skalierung des Marktes für autonome Mobilitätslö- sungen mit staatlichen Zuschüssen für ÖPNV-Betreiber (Anschaffung und Integration autonomer Fahrzeuge in bestehende Flotten) für drei Jahre mit 500 Mio. Euro pro Jahr.\r\n•\tDie Aufhebung der Beschränkungen für Kleinserien bei der Typzulassung autonomer Fahrzeuge und einen harmonisierten Rechtsrahmen in den Mitgliedstaaten.\r\n•\tAbbau bürokratischer Hürden und Harmonisierung des Rechtsrahmens in Deutschland (länder- übergreifend) zur Beschleunigung von Innovationen im Bereich selbstfahrender Mobilität.\r\n \r\n•\tEuropäische KI-Systeme für autonome Mobilität durch die Verpflichtung, in autonomen Fahrzeu- gen und Mobilitätsdiensten einen festen Anteil an europäischen Technologien und Komponenten einzusetzen.\r\nEinen klaren Rechtsrahmen für die Lizenzierung und Nutzung standardessentieller Patente, um das Risiko überhöhter Lizenzgebühren zu verringern. Die Bundesregierung sollte sich hierfür auf EU-Ebene stark machen.\r\n\r\n\r\n7.\tDeutschland muss Bildung als Wettbewerbsvorteil stärken\r\n\r\nDeutschland braucht ein zukunftsfähiges Bildungssystem, um Innovationen zu fördern und im inter- nationalen Wettbewerb führend zu bleiben. Besonders in Schlüsseltechnologien wie Künstliche Intel- ligenz (KI), autonomes Fahren und Batteriezellforschung ist eine starke MINT-Ausbildung unerlässlich. Nur mit einer exzellenten Bildungspolitik, einer modernen dualen Ausbildung und einer starken For- schungslandschaft kann Deutschland Innovationsführer bleiben und nachhaltiges wirtschaftliches Wachstum sichern.\r\n\r\nDeutschland braucht konkret:\r\n\r\n•\tDie frühzeitige und praxisnahe Stärkung der Fächer Mathematik, Informatik, Naturwissenschaften und Technik (MINT), um dem Fachkräftemangel entgegenzuwirken. Mädchen müssen dabei ge- zielt für MINT-Fächer durch mehr Sichtbarkeit weiblicher Vorbilder und Mentoring-Programme be- geistert werden.\r\n•\tDie Modernisierung der dualen Ausbildung: Digitale- und KI-Kompetenzen müssen stärker in Aus- bildungsberufe integriert werden, um Fachkräfte auf zukünftige technologische Anforderungen vorzubereiten. Es gilt, die Inhalte den Anforderungen im Arbeitsmarkt anzupassen.\r\n•\tWeiterbildungsförderung als entscheidenden Baustein der Transformation, um Belegschaften auf dem Weg der digitalen Veränderung verantwortungsvoll zu begleiten.\r\n•\tDie Stärkung von Spitzenforschung: Investitionen in Universitäten und Forschungsinstitute ins- besondere in den Bereichen KI, autonomes Fahren und Batteriezellforschung.\r\n•\tSchnellere Anerkennung ausländischer Fachkräfte: Bürokratische Hürden abbauen und Verfahren beschleunigen, um internationale Talente für den deutschen Arbeitsmarkt zu gewinnen.\r\n \r\n8.\tDeutschland braucht eine aktive Industriestrategie\r\n\r\nDeutschland darf sich nicht auf Erfolgen der Vergangenheit ausruhen, sondern muss sich strategisch für den zukünftigen Bestand seiner Industrie rüsten. Die Bundesregierung muss definieren, in welchen Bereichen Deutschland erfolgreich sein will, um die Transformation zu stärken und Abhängigkeiten zu verringern. Dabei genügt es nicht mehr, nur Ziele zu formulieren, sondern es braucht eine abge- stimmte, zielgerichtete Industriepolitik. Der „Draghi-Bericht“ macht deutlich, was passieren muss. Der\r\n„Inflation-Reduction-Act“ in den USA hat gezeigt, wie strategische Förderung funktionieren kann. Wir sind in einer Situation, in der man sich in der parteiübergreifenden Analyse weitestgehend einig ist, aber die konsequentes Handeln verschleppt wird. Wir haben in der Frage des Investitions- und Erneu- erungsbedarfs, kein Erkenntnis- sondern ein eklatantes Umsetzungsproblem. Die Zögerlichkeit der Politik hinsichtlich notwendiger Reformen ist nicht mehr hinnehmbar.\r\n\r\nDeutschland braucht konkret:\r\n\r\n•\tEine aktive Industriepolitik, die einer Priorisierung von Zukunftstechnologien wie der Batterie- zellproduktion oder dem Autonomen Fahren folgt, und eine daraus abgeleitete strategische Wirt- schaftspolitik inklusive der entsprechenden Forschungs- und Skalenförderung.\r\n•\tEine zusätzliche Förderung von Halbleitern mit einer Knotengröße ≥90 nm entlang der gesamten Wertschöpfungskette aufbauend auf dem Chips Act.\r\n•\tEine europäische Beihilfenpolitik, die die Transformation bestehender Standorte in allen Regio- nen der EU fördert und nicht nur wirtschaftliche Unterschiede innerhalb der EU ausgleichen will; Dazu gehört neben der klassischen CapEX-Förderung auch die OpEX-Förderung.\r\n•\tEine zielgerichtete Nutzung des auslaufenden „Temporary Crisis and Transition Framework“ (TCTF) bzw. dessen Nachfolgeregelung „Clean Industry State Aid Framework“ (CISAF) zum wei- teren Aufbau von „Clean Technologies“.\r\n•\tEine nachhaltige Lösung für die nötigen Investitionen im Verteidigungsbereich, die dadurch neue Spielräume im Haushalt für Zukunftsinvestitionen für die Infrastruktur erlaubt.\r\n•\tMassive Investitionen in die Verkehrs- und die digitale Infrastruktur als Grundlage der erfolgrei- chen Transformation.\r\n \r\n9.\tDeutschland braucht ein sofortiges Regulierungsmoratorium für die Industrie\r\n\r\nDurch das Lieferkettensorgfaltspflichtengesetz werden nur deutsche Unternehmen belastet. Bereits gegenüber europäischen Mitbewerbern verschlechtert sich dadurch die Wettbewerbssituation, weil der Aufwand einseitig und unverhältnismäßig groß ist. Sobald die europäische Lieferketterichtline (CSDDD) gilt, müssen alle nationalen Bestimmungen, die darüber hinausgehen, auf das einheitliche europäische Niveau reduziert werden. Zur Lieferkettenregulierung gesellen sich zusätzliche Aufwände und Reportingpflichten aus CSRD, FSR und Entwaldungsrichtlinie. Auch diese erfordern den Aufbau komplexer Systeme zur Datenerfassung, führen aber zu keinem sichtbaren Ergebnis. Innovationskraft und wertschöpfende Tätigkeiten der deutschen Industrie dürfen nicht durch behördliche Bürokratie ausgebremst werden.\r\n\r\nDeutschland braucht konkret:\r\n\r\n•\tEin sofortiges Regulierungsmoratorium für die Industrie, wenn es um Melde-, Berichts- und Do- kumentationspflichten geht. Die Bundesregierung muss bei ihrem Abstimmungsverhalten im Eu- ropäischen Rat und bei der nationalen Umsetzung von CSDDD und CSRD zeigen, dass sie alle Unternehmen wirklich entlasten will.\r\n•\tDie Unterstützung der Bundesregierung bei der von der EU-Kommission angekündigten Omni- bus-Regulierung zur Vereinfachung von Berichtspflichten bei CSRD, CSDDD und Taxonomie. Weitere Regulierungen, wie z.B. die FSR müssen ebenfalls im Zuge des Bürokratieabbaus neu bewertet werden.\r\n•\tEine wettbewerbsfreundliche PFAS-Regulierung, die einem risikobasierten Ansatz mit ausrei- chend Lead-Time folgt und eine Balance zwischen Gesundheitsschutz und Wettbewerbsfähig- keit herstellt.\r\n•\tDie Vereinheitlichung und Standardisierung der Bauvorschriften und Bedingungen für den Netz- anschluss.\r\n•\tDie Vereinfachung der Netzanschlussregeln, insbesondere die Umsetzung der Vorschläge der EnWG-Novelle II 2024 zu digitalen Prozessen, unverbindlichen Netzanschlussbegehren sowie Reservierungsmöglichkeiten für Netzanschlusskapazität.\r\n \r\n10.\tDeutschland als Vorreiter einer neuen Handels- und Zollpolitik\r\n\r\nDeutschland muss angesichts der besorgniserregenden weltweiten Tendenz zu protektionistischer und nationalistischer Politik zu einem Anwalt und Treiber einer aktiven europäischen Handelspolitik werden, die sich neuen Märkten und Partnern gegenüber öffnet. Gerade angesichts einer zunehmen- den Fragmentierung der Weltwirtschaft und Marktabschottungen in vielen Staaten ist es unverzicht- bar, dass die Bundesregierung für freien und fairen Handel, für offene Märkte und für eine Stärkung der Welthandelsorganisation eintritt. Die Bundesregierung sollte dabei sicherstellen, dass Handels- abkommen zügig umgesetzt und so gestaltet sind, dass die eigenen Unternehmen im globalen Wett- bewerb zu fairen Bedingungen konkurrieren und profitieren können.\r\n\r\nDeutschland braucht konkret:\r\n\r\n•\tDen zeitnahen Abschluss bereits laufender Verhandlungen mit Indonesien, Indien, Australien so- wie neuer Freihandelsabkommen, um die Versorgungssicherheit der eigenen Industrie sicherzu- stellen sowie die zügige Ratifizierung der Handelsabkommen mit den Mercosur-Ländern und Mexiko.\r\n•\tEine klare Haltung und starke Antwort auf die anhaltenden Drohungen der US-Administration, einen Handelskonflikt durch Zollerhöhungen und durch die Beschränkung des Zugangs zum US- Markt zu eskalieren. Gemeinsam mit der für Handelspolitik zuständigen EU-Kommission muss die Bundesregierung frühzeitig Verhandlungen mit der US-Administration aufnehmen, um Zölle und einen möglichen Handelskonflikt zu vermeiden und die deutschen Interessen bestmöglich zu schützen.\r\n•\tEinen verstärkten Abbau von tarifären und nichttarifären Handelsbarrieren, um die Marktzu- gänge zu verbessern.\r\n•\tDen vermehrten Abschluss von „EU-only“-Handelsabkommen im Rahmen der Diversifikations- strategie, um die Systemvorteile anderer Weltregionen auszugleichen.\r\n•\tUmsetzbare und weniger komplexe lokale Wertschöpfungsregeln in Handelsabkommen.\r\n•\tHandelsabkommen die nicht mit anderen Themen, so berechtigt sie im Einzelnen auch sein mö- gen, überfrachtet werden. Gesellschaftspolitische Themen sollten außerhalb von Handelsab- kommen verfolgt werden.\r\n•\tEine bessere Abwägung der wirtschaftlichen Risiken für die europäische Industrie vor dem Ein- satz von Handelsschutzinstrumenten. Die Einführung von Ausgleichs- oder Schutzzöllen zum Beispiel verbessert nicht die Wettbewerbsfähigkeit deutscher oder europäischer Unternehmen.\r\n \r\n11.\tEuropa als geopolitischer Akteur: Fokus auf strategische Interdependenz\r\n\r\nDie Ära der beschleunigten Globalisierung auf der Basis von Freihandelsverträgen und der Integration von Staaten in die globale Wirtschaft endet zunehmend. Statt der weiteren Öffnung von Märkten und dem Ausbau der internationalen Wirtschaftsordnung erleben wir angesichts von wachsendem Pro- tektionismus und Nationalismus einen Rückbau und eine Fragmentierung der globalen Wirtschaft. Mehr noch: Die Weltordnung insgesamt unterliegt einem Wandel und ist von geopolitischen Rivalitä- ten gekennzeichnet. Eine besondere Bedeutung kommt in diesem Zusammenhang dem anhaltenden Konflikt zwischen den USA und China zu. Für Deutschland mit seiner starken Industriebasis und tra- ditionellen Exportorientierung sowie seiner Abhängigkeit von Energie- und Rohstoffimporten ergeben sich daraus vielfältige Risiken. Jede künftige deutsche Politik muss der Tatsache Rechnung tragen, dass die Liefer- und Produktionsstrukturen in Netzwerken hochgradig verflochten sind. Ein Rückbau dieser wechselseitigen Integration wäre, wenn überhaupt, nur über einen längeren Zeitraum möglich und in jedem Fall mit Wachstums- und Wohlstandsverlusten verbunden. Eine Abkopplung von China ist nicht im Interesse der deutschen Automobilindustrie. Um die Realität einer weiterhin eng verfloch- tenen Welt anzuerkennen und zugleich Risiken zu minimieren und Resilienz zu steigern, sollten Deutschland und Europa geschlossen auftreten und sich für eine Wiederbelebung von Handelsab- kommen und einer Stärkung internationaler Organisationen einsetzen.\r\n\r\nDeutschland braucht konkret:\r\n\r\n•\tFokus auf Risikominimierung in Form von Diversifizierungsmaßnahmen bei der Beschaffung und dem intensivierten Auf- und Ausbau eigener Kapazitäten entlang der vertikalen Wertschöpfung (Produktion durch deutsche/europäische Unternehmen, mindestens Produktion ausländischer Unternehmen in Deutschland/EU).\r\n•\tEine von Interessen und Werten geleitete deutsche Außenpolitik, eingebettet in eine europäi- sche Außenpolitik. Wie im Draghi-Bericht überzeugend dargelegt, besteht die vorrangige Auf- gabe darin, die Wettbewerbsfähigkeit deutscher und europäischer Unternehmen zu stärken. Hierzu zählen eine ambitionierte EU-Industriestrategie, eine eng abgestimmte Wirtschaftssi- cherheitsstrategie und eine Strategie zur Sicherstellung der Beschaffung von kritischen Rohstof- fen und Komponenten (inkl. Aufbau europäischer Konsortien).\r\n•\tDie Stärkung bereits bestehender Partnerschaften bei gleichzeitiger Suche nach neuen globalen Partnern, um Deutschland und die EU in einer Welt des intensivierten Wettbewerbs gut zu posi- tionieren und die neu entstehende Weltordnung mitzugestalten.\r\n•\tInstitutionelle Reformen, um die Handlungsfähigkeit der EU zu erhöhen: Hierzu zählt etwa die Abschaffung der Einstimmigkeit in Schlüsselbereichen der EU; allen voran in Fragen der Außen- und Sicherheitspolitik.\r\n \r\n12.\tDeutschland muss alle Potentiale zur Dekarbonisierung nutzen\r\n\r\nTechnologien zur Dekarbonisierung der „Hard-to-Abate“-Bereiche Wärme, Industrie, Luft- und Schiff- fahrt, verfügen über ein enormes Wachstumspotential. Großwärmepumpen, CO2-Management (CCUS) und Wasserstoff-Elektrolyse sind die drei skalierbaren Klimatechnologien, in denen Deutsch- land noch zur Weltspitze gehört. Zudem verfügen sie über eine starke industrielle Basis in Deutsch- land. Die europäische Wirtschaft braucht diese Technologien, um ihrer Klimaverantwortung gerecht zu werden. Wir müssen sicherstellen, dass diese Technologien in Deutschland und Europa wachs- tumswirksam und rentabel werden.\r\n\r\nDeutschland braucht konkret:\r\n\r\n•\tSchnelle und unkomplizierte Genehmigungsverfahren für Energiewendetechnologien analog zum „überragenden öffentlichen Interesse“ des Ausbaus der Erneuerbaren Energien.\r\n•\tEinen CO2-Mindestpreis, der die Preisentwicklung nach unten absichert, für Planungssicherheit sorgt und so wirkt, dass Klimaschutz wirtschaftlich ist.\r\n•\tDie Stärkung des Europäischen Binnenmarktes und gezielte unbürokratische Förderung konkre- ter Klimaschutz-Projekte im industriellen Maßstab.\r\n•\tSicherung nachhaltiger Energieimporte und Nutzung des Marktpotentials internationaler Was- serstoffpartnerschaften mithilfe von Technologie „Made in Germany“.\r\n•\tDie Wasserstoff- und CO2-Wirtschaft als Partner der Erneuerbaren Energien: Die nationale Was- serstoffstrategie muss weiter umgesetzt werden, um rechtliche Rahmenbedingungen für den schnellen Ausbau der Erzeugungs- und Versorgungskapazitäten zu schaffen.\r\n•\tDie Verabschiedung des Kohlendioxid-Speicherungsgesetzes (KSPG) und Ratifizierung des Lon- don-Protokolls in den ersten 100 Tagen der neuen Bundesregierung. Der Einsatz von Carbon Ma- nagement-Technologien ist zentral für die Erreichung der Klimaziele und die Wettbewerbs- und Zukunftsfähigkeit emissionsintensiver Industrien am Standort Deutschland.\r\n"},"recipientGroups":[{"recipients":{"parliament":[{"code":"RG_BT_MEMBERS_OF_PARLIAMENT","de":"Mitglieder des Bundestages","en":"Members of parliament"}],"federalGovernment":[{"department":{"title":"Bundesministerium für Wirtschaft und Klimaschutz (BMWK) (20. WP)","shortTitle":"BMWK (20. WP)","url":"https://www.bmwk.de/Navigation/DE/Home/home.html","electionPeriod":20}}]},"sendingDate":"2025-02-27"}]},{"regulatoryProjectNumber":"RV0012835","regulatoryProjectTitle":"24.045 Veränderung für eine mögliche Einbeziehung der Arbeitsmedizin bei ärztlicher Versorgung der Mitarbeitenden","pdfUrl":"https://www.lobbyregister.bundestag.de/media/fb/52/392111/Stellungnahme-Gutachten-SG2412120040.pdf","pdfPageCount":2,"text":{"copyrightAcknowledgement":"Die grundlegenden Stellungnahmen und Gutachten können urheberrechtlich geschützte Werke enthalten. Eine Nutzung ist nur im urheberrechtlich zulässigen Rahmen erlaubt.","text":"Vernetzung zwischen betrieblichen Gesundheitswesen \r\nund dem niedergelassenen ärztlichen Sektor  \r\nViele Großunternehmen in Deutschland verfügen über ein internes \r\nGesundheitswesen mit angestellten Ärztinnen und Ärzten unterschiedlicher \r\nFachrichtungen. Historisch gewachsen, existiert heute eine Mauer zwischen den \r\nAufgaben der ArbeitsmedizinerInnen und dem ambulanten ärztlichen Bereich in \r\nder Niederlassung. Den in Unternehmen angestellten MedizinerInnen ist es \r\nweder gestattet Verordnungen für weiterführende Behandlungen (z.B. \r\nHeilmittel, DiGas, Arzneimittel) auszustellen, noch dürfen diese in irgendeiner \r\nForm eine tatsächliche Behandlung für die Beschäftigten des Unternehmens \r\nanbieten. \r\nIn Zeiten sich verschlechternder ambulanter Versorgung (z.B. durch eine \r\nsteigende Zahl nicht besetzter Arztsitze) bekommen auch die Unternehmen die \r\nFolgen der Versorgungsdefizite direkt zu spüren. Als Beispiel seien hier unnötig \r\nlange Ausfallzeiten, begleitet von Lohnfortzahlung genannt, die wesentlich \r\ndurch Wartezeiten auf Termine bis zu einer abgeschlossenen Diagnostik \r\nentstehen. Außerdem spielt die medizinische Versorgung am Beschäftigungsort \r\neine immer größere Rolle bei der Arbeitgeberattraktivität. \r\nDie Bereitschaft großer Unternehmen, die innerbetriebliche medizinische \r\nStruktur auch für die tatsächliche Behandlung der eigenen Beschäftigten \r\neinzusetzen und damit den Sektor der Arbeitsmedizin mit dem ambulanten \r\nniedergelassenen Bereich zu vernetzten, ist in den vergangenen Jahren deutlich \r\ngestiegen. Außerdem nehmen die primär- und sekundärpräventiver Angebote \r\nund Maßnahmen in den Betrieben zum Erhalt der individuellen \r\nBeschäftigungsfähigkeit ständig zu. Heute endet die medizinische Betreuung der \r\nBeschäftigten jedoch am Werkszaun. Die weitere Diagnostik und ggf. Therapie \r\nkönnte in vielen Fällen durch die betrieblichen Gesundheitswesen mindestens \r\nbegonnen/eingeleitet werden.  \r\nÜber diesen Weg könnten gerade in problematischen Versorgungsgebieten \r\nzusätzliche Kapazitäten für die ambulante Versorgung bereitgestellt werden. \r\nBeschäftigte von beteiligten Unternehmen hätten die Wahl, den werkärztlichen \r\nDienst auch für Diagnostik und Behandlung aufzusuchen und sich bei Bedarf \r\nHeilmittel, Arzneimittel oder auch digitale Gesundheitsanwendungen (DiGas) \r\nINTERNAL \r\netc. verordnen zu lassen. Auch für die Erbringung von weiterführenden \r\nMaßnahmen (z.B. Physiotherapie) steht bei vielen Unternehmen Infrastruktur \r\nzur Verfügung, die für eine schnelle Einleitung von Folgemaßnahmen genutzt \r\nwerden kann. Zudem könnte der werksärztliche Dienst bei erkannter \r\nGesundheitsgefährdung schnell reagieren und weitere Vorsorge- oder \r\nRehamaßnahmen initiieren. \r\nEine konsequente Vernetzung der betrieblichen Gesundheitsversorgung mit den \r\nambulanten Strukturen in den Regionen gelingt in einem wie folgt zu \r\ngestaltenden Rahmen:  \r\n• Definiertes Versorgungsangebot für die Beschäftigten eines \r\nUnternehmens \r\n• Freiwilligkeit der Beteiligung von Unternehmen  \r\n• Freiwilligkeit bezüglich der Nutzung durch die Beschäftigten des \r\nUnternehmens \r\n• Ermöglichung einer Finanzierungsform durch gesetzliche Krankenkassen \r\nfür die ambulante ärztliche Leistung einerseits und für die \r\nVerordnung/Erbringung begleitender Leistungen (z.B. Physiotherapie) \r\nandererseits \r\n• Aktive Einbindung der Betriebsärzte in die Ausgestaltung der \r\nTelematikinfrastruktur (TI), damit die Arbeit mit ePA, eRezept, eAU und \r\nauch der Austausch mit anderen Leistungserbringern für die \r\nBetriebsärzte praktikabel ist. \r\n• Sinnvolle Ausgestaltung des Daten- und Informationsaustausches \r\nzwischen Betriebsärzten und Krankenkassen für eine umfassende \r\nBeratung und Begleitung der Versicherten/Patienten. \r\nINTERNAL "},"recipientGroups":[{"recipients":{"parliament":[{"code":"RG_BT_MEMBERS_OF_PARLIAMENT","de":"Mitglieder des Bundestages","en":"Members of parliament"}],"federalGovernment":[]},"sendingDate":"2024-10-15"},{"recipients":{"parliament":[],"federalGovernment":[{"department":{"title":"Bundesministerium für Gesundheit (BMG)","shortTitle":"BMG","url":"https://www.bundesgesundheitsministerium.de/","electionPeriod":20}}]},"sendingDate":"2025-03-21"}]},{"regulatoryProjectNumber":"RV0013607","regulatoryProjectTitle":"24.046_Wesen der EU-Abgasverordnung vor RDE-Einführung beibehalten: Test ausschließlich im NEFZ","pdfUrl":"https://www.lobbyregister.bundestag.de/media/e8/ec/392113/Stellungnahme-Gutachten-SG2412200061.pdf","pdfPageCount":1,"text":{"copyrightAcknowledgement":"Die grundlegenden Stellungnahmen und Gutachten können urheberrechtlich geschützte Werke enthalten. Eine Nutzung ist nur im urheberrechtlich zulässigen Rahmen erlaubt.","text":"EU4, EU5 and EU6 NEDC limits also in real driving conditions?\r\nCase C-251/23, C-308/23: Oral hearing before the ECJ on 10 July 2024 and Opinion of Advocate General Rantos of 21 November 2024 (Status: 3 December 2024)\r\nExecutive Summary\r\n•\r\nReason: On 10 July 2024, the ECJ heard two referrals from Duisburg Regional Court in proceedings concerning the Mercedes-Benz Group. On 21 November 2024 Advocate General (AG) Rantos delivered his opinion. His statements on one regulatory question lead to a general, high risk for consumers and the economy in the EU far beyond the individual case.\r\n•\r\nKey question: Do EU5 and EU6 vehicles which at the time of their type approval did comply with the emission limit values on the legally specified chassis dynamometer test in the New European Driving Cycle (NEDC) according to the then valid Emissions Regulation (EC) No 715/2007 and its implementing Regulation (EC) 692/2008 and were not subject to the Real Driving Emissions (RDE) tests according to the later RDE Regulation (EC) No 2016/427 have nonetheless to comply with the limit values also in real driving conditions?\r\n•\r\nOpinion of Advocate General Rantos: AG Rantos expressed in his opinion of 21 November 2024 the view that NEDC vehicles “must simultaneously comply with all of the limit values both in the NEDC test and in normal use under real driving conditions, as they are usually present in the territory of the EU” (para. 47, 48, 49, 61 of the opinion).\r\n•\r\nHe stated that “Art. 4(2) and Art. 5 (1) of Regulation (EC) No 715/2007 … must be interpreted as meaning that a Euro 5 generation diesel engine does not comply with the emission limit values set out in Annex I to that regulation … in a situation where ... it emits more than 180 mg/km of nitrogen oxides when driving in real driving conditions, as they are usually present in the territory of the European Union” (para. 92).\r\n•\r\nPrompted by the question whether a vehicle has to meet the emission limit values in the NEDC test not only after a cold start (as Annex I requires) but also after a warm start (as Annex I does not require) the GA stated generally that Art. 4(2) and Art. 5(1) of Regulation (EC) No 715/2007 must be interpreted as such that “compliance with the NOx emission limit values must be verified not only in the context of the NEDC test but also under real driving conditions, in normal use” (para 47).\r\n•\r\nSince the AG interprets the scope Art. 4(2) and Art. 5(1) of Regulation (EC) No 715/2007 generally his view applies to all EU5 and EU6 NEDC light passenger and commercial vehicles, with a Diesel as well as a Petrol engine, and is relevant for all EU type approval and market surveillance authorities as well as courts who prove compliance of NEDC vehicles with the EU emissions regulation - far beyond the individual case.\r\n•\r\nRisks: Should this view prevail, around 200 Mio of EU citizens, tradespeople, service providers, etc. in the EU could be exposed to the risk that their NEDC vehicles, which did comply with the statutory test when approved, would today be considered unlawful (NEDC are no RDE vehicles and can typically not meet the NEDC limits in real drive). This could lead to a massive recall of vehicles (could also be triggered by NGO court claims) and to damage claims, imposing an unbelievably high financial burden on car manufacturers and threatening their very survival.\r\n•\r\nNo retroactive effects: GA Rantos` view means that holders of NEDC vehicles would have to meet retroactively additional requirements which did not exist at the time of the type approval and marketing of the vehicles. This clearly infringes the fundamental legal principle that measures should not have retroactive effects.\r\n•\r\nContradiction to legal status for 20 years: For more than 20 years, EU law has provided that the limit values for NEDC vehicles are tested in the NEDC test only, not in real driving conditions. This would not have been even possible – for two reasons: First, until 2017 there was no regulated procedure in EU law for testing emission limits of EU4 EU5 and EU6 NEDC passenger cars and light duty vehicles. Each limit, however, requires a description of the test procedure with which it is to be tested. Second, there was no technical device with which emissions of NEDC passenger cars and light duty vehicles in real driving conditions could have been tested. The PEMS device for these vehicles was not available until the introduction of RDE tests in 2017.\r\n•\r\nContradiction to factual status for last 20 years: For more than 20 years, all EU member states, vehicle approval authorities, scientists, courts, manufacturers, importers, consumers and the EU Commission have applied the limit values for NEDC vehicles exclusively to the NEDC on the test bench, but not to normal use in real driving conditions.\r\n•\r\nSolution: To avoid the high and imminent risks and to protect consumers, business and industry in the EU it is necessary that the EU Commission asap signals to clarify the EU law by introducing a new sentence 2 in Art. 5 para. 1 Regulation 715/2007 that for assessing whether vehicles comply with the value limits according to the regulation and its implementing measures only the test procedures laid down in the implementing measures apply. This clarification does not change but rather confirms the law as it has existed for the last 20 years."},"recipientGroups":[{"recipients":{"parliament":[],"federalGovernment":[{"department":{"title":"Bundeskanzleramt (BKAmt)","shortTitle":"BKAmt","url":"https://www.bundeskanzler.de/bk-de","electionPeriod":20}},{"department":{"title":"Bundesministerium für Digitales und Verkehr (BMDV) (20. WP)","shortTitle":"BMDV (20. WP)","url":"https://bmdv.bund.de/DE/Home/home.html","electionPeriod":20}},{"department":{"title":"Bundesministerium für Wirtschaft und Klimaschutz (BMWK) (20. WP)","shortTitle":"BMWK (20. WP)","url":"https://www.bmwk.de/Navigation/DE/Home/home.html","electionPeriod":20}}]},"sendingDate":"2024-12-03"}]},{"regulatoryProjectNumber":"RV0017374","regulatoryProjectTitle":"25.001_Entwicklung einer Berechnungsmethode für LCA von CO2-Emissionen für PKW/LDV","pdfUrl":"https://www.lobbyregister.bundestag.de/media/15/81/556119/Stellungnahme-Gutachten-SG2506200072.pdf","pdfPageCount":5,"text":{"copyrightAcknowledgement":"Die grundlegenden Stellungnahmen und Gutachten können urheberrechtlich geschützte Werke enthalten. Eine Nutzung ist nur im urheberrechtlich zulässigen Rahmen erlaubt.","text":"INTERNAL\r\nVolkswagen Group Position\r\nLife-cycle-assessments (LCA) in the automotive industry\r\nIntroduction\r\nThe standardization of LCA methods for the European automotive industry and their regulatory application is gaining increasing awareness. On an international level the Informal Working Group on Automotive Life Cycle Assessment (IWG on A-LCA) at the UNECE aims at harmonizing the calculation methods for LCA.1 At the same time, the discussions to develop an LCA method-ology for vehicles under the CO2 Fleet regulation will create a precedent on EU level.2\r\nThe Volkswagen Group (hereinafter referred to as “Group”) recognizes the general needs and efforts to standardize and regulate LCA. The Group considers it necessary to include the current transformation process of the automotive industry to shift production from internal combustion engine vehicles (ICE) to battery electric vehicles (BEV) into any consideration for rule-making. The legislator should especially avoid comprehensive regulatory requirements which could cause additional financial and administrative burden and have the potential to harm this trans-formation process which would be counterproductive to the currently discussed measures to support the European automotive industry. The Group´s concerns are as follows:\r\nI.\r\nEnsure global harmonization\r\nVarious international regulatory efforts have the potential to create a regulatory patchwork. To avoid this and to secure a worldwide international participation to create harmonized uniform standards we are of the view that the groundwork should be laid first and foremost on UN level. As soon as the UNECE will have finished its work, the adopted resolution should serve as a har-monized standard for regional (EU) and national (countries) legislators.\r\nRequest: LCAs for passenger cars and light duty vehicles should follow a worldwide harmonized standard.\r\nII.\r\nFocus on sector-specific regulation\r\nCurrently, the CO2 Fleet Regulation addresses the efficiency of vehicles, focusing on emissions produced during operation (“tank-to-wheel” tailpipe emissions). This approach ensures that the responsibility for the efficiency is being assigned to its originator. As a fundamental principle, this proper assignment of responsibility on a sector-specific basis is embedded in the entire EU legislation on the reduction of CO2 emissions:\r\n1 IWG on A-LCA, United Nations Economic Commission for Europe (UNECE): (A-LCA) Latest version of draft Terms of References (ToRs) | UNECE\r\n2 see EUR-Lex: CO2FleetRegulation\r\nINTERNAL\r\n➢\r\nEmissions Trading System (ETS): ETS 1 covers manufacturing phase as well as first part of use phase (“well-to-tank”). ETS 2 will be aimed at second part of use phase (“tank-to-wheel”). Responsible industries: suppliers of automotive materials/components, manufacturers (ETS 1), oil industry and energy suppliers (ETS 1 and 2).\r\n➢\r\nCO2 Fleet Regulation: Affects supply of CO2-efficient vehicles to the customers. Responsible industry: manufacturers.\r\n➢\r\nRenewable Energy Directive (RED): Covers first part of use phase (“well-to-tank”). Responsi-ble industry: oil industry and energy suppliers need to enhance share of RE in EU.\r\n➢\r\nCircular Economy Regulations: Battery Regulation and the End-of-Life Vehicles Directive (ELV) include detailed provisions for so called “end-of-life” phase (EOL-phase) the major reason of which is to enhance recycling measures and as such the circular economy.\r\nAn LCA standardization must and can only ensure that the described regulations transparently demonstrate their impact on CO2 and adhere to unified reporting standards, where reduction targets are defined based on the principle of responsibility. Only after rules for a unified record-ing of all life-cycle-phases (including the global supply chain) have been adopted and subse-quently ramped-up, LCA can be reviewed as a regulatory control instrument.\r\nEven if desired, a regulatory LCA-framework cannot replace this approach yet. The state of the art in LCA is continuously evolving, with methodologies and standards frequently being updated. Additionally, the necessary data availability and reliability are not yet developed. This will take time, making it impossible to implement LCA as a robust basis for any new regulation yet. Also, to create a comparable basis for evaluating individual vehicles, it would first be essential to es-tablish initial standards. These standards could ensure that assessments are conducted on a con-sistent basis across all vehicles. Furthermore, to implement effective measures, suppliers must establish robust data pathways. Compatible standards would have to be introduced and adopted by all companies to ensure seamless data integration and reliability.\r\nRequests:\r\n•\r\nRules should only be set in those regulations where specific emissions actually occur in the lifecycle.\r\n•\r\nThe legislator needs to ensure that these regulations measure CO2 emissions on a uniform and comprehensive basis.\r\nIII.\r\nRefrain from mandatory targets and reporting requirements\r\nThe Group is committed to contribute to the objectives of the Paris climate agreement and aims at becoming carbon neutral until 2050. In order to achieve our goals we demand strict targets for CO2 emissions from our suppliers. Should regulatory targets not be measured by tailpipe emissions anymore, but by LCAs this could have sensitive impacts on our supply chain. Depend-ing on the level of an LCA target the number of eligible suppliers could shrink. A smaller number of suppliers leads to higher prices, though. Rising costs would impact the urgently needed finan-cial resources for investments in future technologies and on customer prices and as such lead to a reduced demand, including for BEV´s and plug-in and hybrid vehicles.\r\nINTERNAL\r\nThe Group´s fleet consists of more than 300 models worldwide. In 2024 the Group sold more than 3m vehicles in Europe alone. Different products mean different LCAs, though. Due to the complexity of different vehicle models, it is impossible to represent them individually across the many millions of vehicles sold. The solution approach that most accurately reflects reality, while still being methodologically feasible, would be to only calculate a limited number of LCAs and extrapolate them with regional volumes for the entire company. At the same time the brands of the Group operate in different regions. For separate EU reporting or regulation, the EU share would have to be calculated and controlled separately. Finally, certain data cannot be collected within the Group or from the brands since they are simply not available.\r\nAs a result, the application purposes of any LCA cannot be extended for the time being, especially not for replacing the current method of the CO2 Fleet Regulation to measure emission targets by tailpipe emissions and instead use an LCA of a single vehicle or even an OEMs fleet.\r\nRequests:\r\n•\r\nAny LCA methodology should only be applied on a voluntary basis.\r\n•\r\nThe legislator should refrain from setting mandatory targets or reporting requirements to the automotive industry based on LCA.\r\nIV.\r\nDevelop an appropriate LCA methodology\r\nThe EU-Commission has started its work on the required methodology subject to article 7a of the CO2 Fleet Regulation and aims to provide a report as well as delegated acts in the given time. The Group considers it important to find a solution that delivers appropriate results while at the same time reflects the current realities. The key topics for the Group are:\r\n1.\r\nGoal and scope\r\nGoal and scope of the future methodology should appropriately consider the practical feasibility for the automotive industry and not cause unnecessary burdens. The ongoing discussions in the UNECE I-WG on A-LCA deliver first results of how to approach OEMs challenges by introducing a so called level concept.3 The Group supports the developed concept as it offers a high degree of flexibility and considers Level 3 as appropriate for external reporting. In addition, the following aspects need to be taken into account:\r\n➢\r\nSet the right purpose: It is essential to steer demand into the right direction to achieve the climate targets of the EU. This can be supported if LCAs deliver information to end customers who finally decide in their own responsibility which low-carbon product to buy.\r\n➢\r\nConsider data availability: Exchange of primary data with suppliers and data quality pose challenges. Secondary databases´ inconsistencies prevent a level-playing field.\r\n➢\r\nAvoid administrative burden: Requiring an LCA for each ICE or BEV variant would generate massive administrative and bureaucratic efforts. It would be impossible to generate LCAs on a single vehicle based approach in a reasonable amount of time. A so called \"representative\r\n3 The current status can be found on the website of the UNECE I-WG under the following link: SG7 - Draft-ing document - Transport - Vehicle Regulations - UNECE Wiki\r\nINTERNAL\r\nvehicle\"\r\nneeds to be determined from which scaling by weight will be applied to the entire model range.\r\nRequest: Depending on the goal and scope of the LCA, a methodological balance must be struck between accuracy and administrative effort.\r\n2.\r\nElectricity modelling\r\nThe question of how to model the electricity grid-mix has an important impact on the carbon footprint. For the following reasons we are of the view that the location-based approach should not be applied for calculating a carbon footprint for vehicles:\r\n➢\r\nDiscrimination of regions: The approach disadvantages production facilities in regions with carbon-intensive energy mix, though the industry itself has no influence on such mixes.\r\n➢\r\nRemoval of incentives: Incentives for economic entities to effectively decarbonise global sup-ply chains and contribute to the expansion of renewable energies will no longer be available.\r\n➢\r\nCurrent EU legislation and norms: The approach contradicts existing EU legislation and norms that follow the market-based approach (e.g., CSRD, RED II, CBAM, Electricity Market Design, ISO 14067).\r\nInstead we propose to apply the market-based approach under the following conditions:\r\n➢\r\nRenewable energy certificates (RECs): Acceptance of RECs from EU and non-EU countries if they meet minimum criteria and comply with LCA international agreements such as the Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Protocol Scope 2 criteria.\r\n➢\r\nReporting schemes: Existence of reporting schemes avoiding double-counting (renewable electricity + residual mix). Market participants should be legally required to report emissions from energy according to this system to ensure consistent and reliable accounting and report-ing of energy-related emissions.\r\nRequest: For electricity modelling the marked-based approach is the only way for economic op-erators to incentivize the decarbonization of the electricity generation\r\n3.\r\nData collection and carbon reduction measure accounting\r\nAny LCA calculation depends on availability and quality of primary and secondary data. Primary data is a quantified value of a process or an activity obtained from a direct measurement or a calculation based on direct measurements. Secondary data can include data from databases and published literature, default emission factors from national inventories, calculated data, esti-mates or other representative data, validated by competent authorities.\r\nFor primary data we propose the following premises for Level 3 LCAs:\r\n➢\r\nIn level 3, company specific (OEM / supplier specific) data shall be used for at least one ma-terial or component of choice. This means, for the selected component / material:\r\nfor at least one process at OEMs’ and/or preceding suppliers’ production sites (depending on availability and vertical integration) it is required to collect primary information on either activity data or material carbon footprint which is then utilized for the calculation of the cradle-to-gate carbon footprint.\r\nINTERNAL\r\n➢\r\nThe selected component as well as the chosen process or material shall be named including type of primary information collected .\r\nFor secondary data an international harmonized high-quality database needs to be available to the automotive industry. To reduce complexity and to avoid complex allocation algorithms we prefer that a manageable LCA dataset will be provided by the EU which provides for simplified material clusters to focus on standardization/comparability, energy and fuel datasets and spec-ifications for calculations in the use phase with alternative fuels or \"green electricity\".\r\nSince an LCA is also a “measurement tool” to reflect carbon footprint optimizations, a practical and transparent rule set to directly integrate GWP relevant measures implemented at the OEMs and/or at preceding suppliers into the carbon footprint calculation of a vehicle is necessary.\r\nRequest: In the calculation, both the use of primary data and secondary data is necessary. Pri-mary data should only be required in a restricted manner, while a consistent, standardized high-quality data basis must be available for secondary data on a global level.\r\n4.\r\nEnd-of-life (EOL) modelling\r\nWe are of the view that it will be difficult to apply the Circular Footprint Formular (CFF) on EOL-Modelling for the following reasons:\r\n➢\r\nTemporal mismatch between environmental impacts that occur during the production and use of a vehicle and the benefits achieved through recycling at the end of its life cycle.\r\n➢\r\nChanges in recycling technology and infrastructure over the lifespan of a long-living product. The CFF cannot accurately predict these future changes, leading to uncertainties in the LCA.\r\n➢\r\nMarket conditions and material availability can change over time. However, the CFF uses fixed parameters that may not reflect future market conditions.\r\n➢\r\nPotential “double accounting” if both, the input and the output of recycled materials are credited. The formula itself uses a factor to allocate impacts between the production and end-of-life phases. If not correctly applied, the use of this factor can lead to both the producer and the recycler claiming the same environmental benefits, thus double counting.\r\nEventually, it is simply not possible to calculate a CO2 footprint for the EOL-phase according to the CFF as long as the necessary parameters (A-factor, emission factors, quality factors) are not properly defined. These data would first have to be provided by the legislator in order for the CFF to be applied.\r\nRequest: For end-of-life the “cut-off” approach should be preferred over the Circular Footprint Formula (CFF).\r\n5.\r\nConclusion\r\nWe consider the development of a calculation method as an iterative process in which the legis-lator as well as the automotive industry will gradually learn how to tailor the right parameters. We suppose that an adopted method will have to be adjusted over time since there remain sev-eral unsolved challenges, especially for external communication and comparisons. These chal-lenges should be mutually identified, evaluated based on their impact on applicability of the once adopted method and eliminated over time."},"recipientGroups":[{"recipients":{"parliament":[],"federalGovernment":[{"department":{"title":"Bundesministerium für Wirtschaft und Energie (BMWE)","shortTitle":"BMWE","url":"https://www.bmwk.de/Navigation/DE/Home/home.html","electionPeriod":21}}]},"sendingDate":"2025-06-19"}]},{"regulatoryProjectNumber":"RV0019939","regulatoryProjectTitle":"25.003_Forschungs- und Innovationspolitik","pdfUrl":"https://www.lobbyregister.bundestag.de/media/f6/97/623682/Stellungnahme-Gutachten-SG2509290113.pdf","pdfPageCount":7,"text":{"copyrightAcknowledgement":"Die grundlegenden Stellungnahmen und Gutachten können urheberrechtlich geschützte Werke enthalten. Eine Nutzung ist nur im urheberrechtlich zulässigen Rahmen erlaubt.","text":"Position\r\n Statement on the proposed European \r\nConnected and Autonomous Vehicle \r\nAlliance and the Automotive Joint \r\nUndertaking\r\n #wirsindbereit\r\nAUTOMOTIVE JOINT UNDERTAKING\r\n 2\r\n The automotive industry welcomes the European Commission’s announcements in the \r\nIndustrial Action Plan for the European Automotive Sector to strengthen the competiti\r\nveness of the European automotive industry. We appreciate the initiative of the Com\r\nmission to establish a European Connected and Autonomous Vehicle Alliance and \r\na dedicated Automotive Joint Undertaking (JU) building on existing partnerships in \r\nthe road transport sector.\r\n This initiative represents a key element to further co-operation amongst the various \r\nstakeholders in the automotive sector and to support a lean and agile implementation \r\nof innovative vehicle technologies across Europe.\r\n The automotive industry is fully committed to support such an effort towards a consis\r\ntent approach in research and technology development for innovation and correspon\r\nding regulatory alignment. By contributing to this initiative, the automotive industry \r\nseeks to promote a balanced environment which shall support faster both innovation \r\nand competitiveness across the whole value chain in the global market.\r\n European Connected and Autonomous Vehicle Alliance\r\n The European Commission has announced speedy establishment of the Alliance in the  \r\nimmediate period 2025-2027, the remaining years of Horizon Europe with a budget of \r\n1 billion Euro.\r\n The Alliance shall steer policy and funding and financing measures in the realm of  \r\nconnected and autonomous vehicles with a focus on harmonization and development of  \r\nfurther recommendations for implementation. \r\nThe new Framework Program 10 (FP 10) as part of the next Multiannual Financial Frame\r\nwork (MFF) shall represent the kick-off for an advanced, lean and agile Automotive Joint \r\nUndertaking from 2028 onwards. The Automotive JU shall prepare recommendations on \r\nall kinds of funding, state aid, and financing measures addressing all innovation areas \r\nand strategic technologies supporting the competitiveness of the European automo- \r\ntive industry.\r\n Within the JU, industry and policy stakeholders from the EU and key automotive producing \r\nMember States shall pool resources to develop a joint innovation roadmap and clear propo\r\nsals for calls to fund and finance innovation in the automotive sector and across the auto\r\nmotive value chain. Funding and financing could include classical Horizon Europe funding \r\nactions, such as Research Innovation Actions (RIAs), Innovation Actions (IA) as well as re\r\ncommendations for IPCEI and risk capital. \r\nActivities of the JU could include recommendations addressing potential improvements to and \r\nsimplification of current framework conditions for automotive funding, financing, and state aid. \r\nThe Automotive JU shall form the European Union’s leading research and innovation program \r\nfor transforming the automotive sector towards a digitalized, connected, autonomous,  \r\nsustainable and climate-neutral future.\r\nAUTOMOTIVE JOINT UNDERTAKING\r\n 3\r\n Vision & Mission\r\n Fostering Research and Market Applications\r\n The Automotive JU aims to:\r\n • Bridge research projects and market applications\r\n • Enhance societal growth and competitiveness\r\n • Boost private investments in innovation \r\nTechnological Sovereignty across the automotive value chain \r\nThe automotive industry remains critical to Europe’s economy and global positioning. \r\nThe Automotive JU strives to:\r\n • Achieve cleaner vehicles\r\n • Deliver disruptive innovations both on the product and manufacturing side\r\n • Exploit Europe’s manufacturing footprint to enhance Europe’s technological sovereignty  \r\nby reducing dependencies\r\n Global Leadership in a safe, secure, digital and sustainable automotive sector\r\n The Automotive JU shall focus on:\r\n • Demonstrating feasibility and de-risking innovations\r\n • Evolving industry standards and certification methods\r\n • Achieve a sustainable automotive sector across Europe across the value chain\r\n • Boost European competitiveness in the global market also in Green Manufacturing \r\nTechnologies\r\n • Drive the transition to a greener, digital future\r\n By uniting resources, the Automotive JU shall ensure Europe’s leadership in shaping  \r\nthe future of the automotive industry. \r\nFocus Areas & Strategic Technologies \r\nThe automotive industry supports the Commission’s proposals outlined in the Industrial \r\nAction Plan to address all relevant topics and innovation issues which are relevant for the \r\ncompetitiveness of the European automotive industry across the value chain, and which have \r\npreviously been addressed by various European Public Private Partnerships, such as 2Zero, \r\nCCAM, Made in Europe, Batt4EU etc.\r\nAUTOMOTIVE JOINT UNDERTAKING\r\n 4\r\n Innovation areas covered by the JU could include the following:\r\n Connectivity, Digitalisation and Autonomous Driving\r\n • Software defined vehicles\r\n • Autonomous driving: Establishment of dedicated model regions across the EU  \r\nand large-scale deployment to serve as environments accelerating the adoption \r\nof autonomous mobility technologies\r\n • Integrated Value Chain Development: Establish and support a comprehensive value \r\nchain for autonomous mobility, linking innovation and commercial deployment to ensure \r\na smooth transition from technology development to market realisation\r\n • Digital services supported by cloud integration\r\n • Cybersecurity and data management\r\n • Artificial intelligence\r\n • Automotive semiconductors – in close co-operation with the Chips JU\r\n Zero Emission Technologies\r\n • BEVs & next-generation battery technology and potentially hydrogen and FCEVs –  \r\ndepending on discussions with the Hydrogen Joint undertaking\r\n • Integration to the grid, including charging stations (HDV & passenger cars),  \r\nsmart and bi-directional charging, grid access, grid management\r\n • Integration of electric vehicles into mobility services\r\n Sustainability, Circularity and Green Manufacturing Technologies\r\n • Development of Manufacturing technologies for e-motors, batteries and vehicle- Recovery of REM (Rare Earth Minerals) from e-motors- Manufacturing Technologies for different battery chemistries \r\n(synergy with Batt4EU and Made in Europe)- Re-inventing the production line for Electric Vehicles \r\n(vehicle manufacturing technologies)\r\n • Circularity in the automotive supply chain, including recycling and reuse\r\n • Circular advanced materials, including design, application, increased material efficiency \r\nas well as manufacturing technologies\r\n • Life Cycle Assesement with a focus on reducing environmental impact\r\n • Main environmental impact is manufacturing/ quantification of the manufacturing stage\r\n • Quantification enables targeted sustainability improvements across all methods\r\nAUTOMOTIVE JOINT UNDERTAKING\r\n 5\r\n Strategic Framework\r\n A clear strategic framework is essential to ensure the effectiveness of the proposed  \r\nAutomotive JU.\r\n Key elements include:\r\n • Joint development of a Strategic Research and Innovation Agenda and a dedicated inno\r\nvation roadmap: Industry and policy stakeholders shall co-develop a strategic research \r\nand innovation agenda and innovation roadmaps on all key areas of the JU to guide the \r\nstrategic direction of the partnership.\r\n • Co-designing Funding Priorities and developing financing opportunities: The agreed-upon \r\nagenda shall represent the basis for funding and financing priorities and enable the joint \r\ndevelopment of automotive calls with dedicated budgets.\r\n • Clear Organization and Scope of Contributions: Focus areas need to be clearly defined. \r\nGovernance & Structure\r\n An efficient structure and governance is essential for smooth functioning and efficient  \r\noperation of the JU to enable the support required to realize innovation.\r\n The structure shall be governed by industrial leadership to guide strategic decisions and  \r\npromote innovation.\r\n On the public side, the JU shall be steered by the European Commission; on the private  \r\nside, it should be driven by founding and associated members from across Europe’s  \r\nautomotive sector.\r\n • Governing Board: The Governing Board shall form the highest decision-making body.  \r\nIt shall be composed of representatives from the public and private members.\r\n • Executive Director: An Executive Director shall be responsible for the day-to-day ma\r\nnagement and should oversee four crucial pillars Administrations and Finance, Program \r\nDevelopment and Communications, Project Management and Governance.\r\n • Technical Committee: A Technical Committee shall develop and maintain the techno\r\nlogical roadmap and strategy of the program (SRIA). It should also propose, prepare, and \r\nprovide recommendations for the scope and programming of the funding and financing \r\nactions, while overseeing the technical strategy.\r\n • Advisory Bodies:- States Representatives Group representing the interests of Member States- Scientific Advisory Body to provide independent scientific advice and support to the     \r\nAutomotive Joint Undertaking, selection of candidates for membership of the SAB  \r\ncould be based on a Call for Expressions of Interest.\r\nAUTOMOTIVE JOINT UNDERTAKING\r\n 6\r\n The automotive industry calls upon the European Commission to swiftly  \r\nimplement the European Connected and Autonomous Vehicle Alliance and  \r\nthe Automotive Joint Undertaking in an advanced, lean and agile format.\r\n Contact persons\r\n Dr. Marcus Bollig \r\nManaging director\r\n marcus.bollig@vda.de\r\n Prof. Dr.- Ing., Claudia Langowsky\r\n Head of department Research & Innovation\r\n claudia.Langowsky@vda.de\r\nThe German Association of the Automotive Industry (VDA) consolidates \r\naround 620 manufacturers and suppliers under one roof. The members \r\ndevelop and produce cars and trucks, software, trailers, superstructures, \r\nbuses, parts and accessories as well as new mobility offers.\r\n We represent the interests of the automotive industry and stand for mo\r\ndern, future-oriented multimodal mobil-ity on the way to climate neutrality. \r\nThe VDA represents the interests of its members in politics, the media, \r\nand social groups. We work for electric mobility, climate-neutral drives, the \r\nimplementation of climate targets, securing raw materials, digitization and \r\nnetworking as well as German engineering.\r\n We are committed to a competitive business and innovation location.  \r\nOur industry ensures prosperity in Germany: More than 780,000 people \r\nare directly em-ployed in the German automotive industry.\r\n The VDA is the organizer of the largest international mobility platform IAA \r\nMOBILITY and of IAA TRANSPOR-TATION, the world‘s most important \r\nplatform for the future of the commercial vehicle industry. \r\nIf you notice any errors, omissions or ambiguities in these recommen\r\ndations, please contact VDA without delay so that these errors can be \r\nrectified.\r\n Publisher  \r\nCopyright   \r\nVersion   \r\nGerman Association of the Automotive Industry\r\n Behrenstraße 35,10117 Berlin\r\n www.vda.de/en\r\n German Bundestag Lobby Register No.: R001243 EU  \r\nTransparency Register No.: 9557 4664 768-90\r\n German Association of the Automotive Industry\r\n Reprint, also in extracts, is only permitted, \r\nif the source is stated.\r\n May 2025\r\n Verband der Automobilindustrie"},"recipientGroups":[{"recipients":{"parliament":[],"federalGovernment":[{"department":{"title":"Bundesministerium für Wirtschaft und Energie (BMWE)","shortTitle":"BMWE","url":"https://www.bmwk.de/Navigation/DE/Home/home.html","electionPeriod":21}}]},"sendingDate":"2025-07-21"}]},{"regulatoryProjectNumber":"RV0019939","regulatoryProjectTitle":"25.003_Forschungs- und Innovationspolitik","pdfUrl":"https://www.lobbyregister.bundestag.de/media/e3/cc/623684/Stellungnahme-Gutachten-SG2509290119.pdf","pdfPageCount":4,"text":{"copyrightAcknowledgement":"Die grundlegenden Stellungnahmen und Gutachten können urheberrechtlich geschützte Werke enthalten. Eine Nutzung ist nur im urheberrechtlich zulässigen Rahmen erlaubt.","text":"www.acea.auto / www.clepa.be / www.eucar.be 1\r\nTHE FUTURE AUTOMOTIVE PARTNERSHIP\r\n(JOINT UNDERTAKING)\r\nPosition Paper, June 2025\r\nExecutive Summary\r\nThe European Automotive Industry Associations welcome the European Commission’s announcements in the Industrial Action Plan for the European automotive sector1 to strengthen its competitiveness. This plan includes establishing a European Connected and Autonomous Vehicle Alliance and a dedicated Automotive Joint Undertaking (JU), building on existing Partnerships in the road transport sector. We support these initiatives as strategic instruments to enhance the competitiveness, technological sovereignty, and sustainability of the European automotive sector, fully in line with the Competitiveness Compass2 strategy.\r\nThe European Commission announced the establishment of the Alliance in the immediate period 2025-2027 to lead policy, funding and financing measures for connected and autonomous vehicles with a focus on harmonization and development of further recommendations for implementation.\r\nAs leading investors in research and innovation, automotive manufacturers and suppliers see 2025 as the year for bold actions to enhance global competitiveness and close the innovation gap. We must accelerate innovation from research to scale-up, prioritise impact, and facilitate large-scale innovation initiatives with substantial industrial participation and leadership.\r\nWe therefore plan to establish the largest Public-Private Research and Innovation (R&I) Partnership in the automotive industry, enhancing EU competitiveness. This proposed Joint Undertaking (JU)3 will pool and align resources from industry and public funding in Europe for research and innovation actions in the automotive sector and across the value chain. The dedicated Partnership (JU)’s objective is to:\r\n•\r\nAccelerate Automotive Innovation: reduce time to market by 40%.\r\n•Increase Research Capacity: enhance R&I capacity for competitive automotive valuechains throughout Europe.\r\n•Foster Digital Innovation: foster innovation in digital technologies to enhancecompetitiveness through AI, SDV, in-vehicle computing, connectivity, automation, anddata-driven solutions.\r\n•Integrate Sustainability: integrate sustainability, affordability and environmentalperformance throughout the value chain, addressing carbon neutrality, LCA, circulareconomy and resilience.\r\n1 COM/2025/95, Industrial Action Plan for the European Automotive Sector\r\n2 COM/2025/30, A Competitiveness Compass for the EU\r\n3 Without prejudice to the next MFF proposal’s package\r\nwww.acea.auto / www.clepa.be / www.eucar.be 2\r\nThe Rational\r\nThe automotive industry is vital to the European economy, providing jobs and driving growth. It contributes approximately €1 trillion to the EU’s gross domestic product. Nevertheless, the industry is undergoing a drastic transformation, and the US and China are challenging European competitiveness. A sense of urgency exists to safeguard the sector and European prosperity while advancing our climate goals and broader societal objectives.\r\nEuropean technology sovereignty requires investments from both public and private actors to maintain expertise in Europe, thereby strengthening manufacturing, job security, and growth. The Union must put industrial needs and strategies at the centre of translating research and innovation into commercialisation. Investments are crucial to addressing societal challenges while enhancing the EU’s competitiveness and ensuring the quality of life.\r\nAs leading investors in research and innovation, the automotive manufacturers and suppliers are ready to take joint actions to enhance EU competitiveness and to bridge the innovation gap. We accelerate innovation and reduce time to market by 40%, from applied research to marketable products across the complex value chains in the automotive sector. We refocus and prioritise impact.\r\n•\r\nWe must inject speed while addressing agility and flexibility in a fast-adapting, globally competitive environment. Simplifying and relentlessly reducing administrative burdens by aligning processes in the R&I programmes, specifically in this Partnership (JU), to match industrial reality.\r\n•\r\nThe Partnership will implement a long-term R&I agenda (SRIA) that crystallises a shared vision and collaboration between stakeholders in a growing ecosystem for innovation.\r\n•\r\nThe industrial reality in the automotive sector, including its processes, regulatory framework, and standards, must align with the research and innovation agenda and its development. The Partnership should support an innovation-friendly and pragmatic regulatory framework that fosters innovation.\r\n•\r\nWe are ready to facilitate large-scale innovation actions with significant industrial participation and leadership. Less fragmented budgets and focused topics enable innovation actions with industrial participation across the value chain. These flagship projects have high visibility and significant budgets to drive innovations and standards from Europe for global use.\r\n•\r\nThe future Partnership will differ from past ones, so they will be even more focused on impact, speed, and agility, ensuring leadership in future technologies and manufacturing capabilities.\r\nThe largest public-private research and innovation (R&I) initiative in the automotive industry will boost global competitiveness while addressing societal challenges that will benefit users and society. The Partnership (JU) pools and aligns resources from industry and public funding for research and innovation actions in the automotive sector, across the value chain.\r\nwww.acea.auto / www.clepa.be / www.eucar.be 3\r\nThe Governance\r\nThe future Partnership (JU) should build upon agile, lean, and low-bureaucracy governance to accelerate innovation, involving high-level steering from industry leaders and the European Commission.\r\nIts structure will involve various stakeholders across the value chain in innovation areas, advancing technologies from applied research to industrialisation. Potential innovation areas could include:\r\n•\r\nDigitalisation: AI, SDV, E/E Architecture, Connectivity, Data, Cloud-integration, in-vehicle computing …\r\n•\r\nAutomation and safety: ADAS/AD Value Chains, Large-scale Demonstration regions, Integrated Safety, …\r\n•\r\nClean, sustainable and circular value chains: LCA, Circular Economy, 9R, Advanced Materials, Green Manufacturing, …\r\n•\r\nZero-emission technologies: Battery Technologies, Hydrogen Technologies, Vehicle Integration, …\r\nThe automotive industry requires a comprehensive package with a lean and agile structure to address all topics in a rapidly evolving, globally competitive environment. The future Automotive Partnership (JU) will accelerate innovation and drive the transition to a greener and digital future.\r\nGoverning and Advisory Bodies\r\n•\r\nGoverning Board: Strategic decision-making and oversight; representatives of public and private members (C-Level).\r\n•\r\nIndustrial Steering Group: develop and maintain the strategy of the programme; prioritise recommendations for research and innovation actions (with the automotive industry in the lead)\r\n•\r\nExpert Committees: develop technological roadmaps in the innovation areas as main contributions to the SRIA; propose and prepare recommendations for research and innovation actions.\r\n•\r\nExecutive Director and Programme Office: Day-to-day operations and project implementation.\r\n•\r\nStates’ Representatives Advisory Group: National level coordination.\r\n•\r\nScientific Advisory Committee: Expert advice on technical and strategic issues.\r\n•\r\nIndustrial Associations Advisory Committee: Expert advice and support with links to EU and national policymakers and regulatory issues (incl. ACEA, CLEPA, and national associations such as VDA, PFA, ANFIA, …)\r\nwww.acea.auto / www.clepa.be / www.eucar.be 4\r\nBy uniting resources, the Automotive Partnership (JU) will ensure Europe’s leadership in\r\nshaping the future of the automotive industry. We therefore propose to the European\r\nCommission and the Member States to initiate, with us, the formation of this Joint Undertaking\r\nin 2025, with a launch planned for 2028."},"recipientGroups":[{"recipients":{"parliament":[],"federalGovernment":[{"department":{"title":"Bundesministerium für Wirtschaft und Energie (BMWE)","shortTitle":"BMWE","url":"https://www.bmwk.de/Navigation/DE/Home/home.html","electionPeriod":21}}]},"sendingDate":"2025-07-21"}]}]},"contracts":{"contractsPresent":false,"contractsCount":0,"contracts":[]},"codeOfConduct":{"ownCodeOfConduct":false}}