Explanatory Memorandum to COM(2016)491 - Union certification system for aviation security screening equipment - Main contents
Please note
This page contains a limited version of this dossier in the EU Monitor.
| dossier | COM(2016)491 - Union certification system for aviation security screening equipment. |
|---|---|
| source | COM(2016)491  |
| date | 07-09-2016 |
1. CONTEXT OF THE PROPOSAL
Objective of the proposal
The objective of the proposal is to contribute to the proper functioning of the EU internal market and to increase the global competitiveness of the EU industry by establishing an EU certification system for aviation security screening equipment.
A more competitive EU security industry will be able to offer technological solutions which will actively increase the security of European citizens and will contribute to the capacity of the European society to prevent and respond to security threats.
The certification system established by this proposal builds on the Common Evaluation Process (CEP), elaborated within the European Civil Aviation Conference (ECAC) to assess the conformity of aviation security screening equipment with the existing performance requirements established at the EU level, and combines it with an accreditation procedure for conformity assessment bodies. The aim is to establish a unique EU certification system based on EU type-approval and issuance of certificate of conformity by manufacturers, which would be valid in all the EU Member States, according to a principle of mutual recognition.
• General context
Aviation security screening equipment relates to the security equipment used for screening persons, cabin baggage, hold baggage, supplies, air cargo and mail. Screening equipment in the aviation security sector represents a considerable market, with an annual global turnover of 14 billion euro, 4.2 billion of which in the EU alone. Airports and air transport hubs are also among the sectors with the highest global growth potential, with a strong focus on Asian markets.
The EU Regulation (EC) No 300/2008 establishes the technical specifications and performance requirements for aviation security screening equipment used at EU airports. This legislation is based on standards developed by the Commission, which are continuously adapted to the evolving threat scenarios and risk assessments. In consideration of the possible consequences for the EU MS national security of making them widely known, these standards are classified and only made available to those (persons, companies, organisations etc.) who have an adequate security clearance as well as a valid justification ("need to know basis").
The above-mentioned legislation, however, is not accompanied by a legally binding EU-wide conformity assessment scheme to ensure that the required standards are met at all EU airports. Therefore, equipment certified in one EU Member State can be put on the market in that Member State only. Any other EU Member State is free to either recognise this certification or to require that the equipment is tested again to verify whether it meets the requirements prescribed by the EU legislation, or even to impede its use in its territory. In any case, there is no such a procedure as an automatic recognition of the certification issued by the first Member State.
Member States, in cooperation with the Commission, have partially addressed this fragmentation through the development of common testing methodologies for several categories of aviation security screening equipment to be applied in the framework of ECAC. In 2008, ECAC put in place a Common Evaluation Process (CEP) for the testing of screening equipment used in the aviation sector. Since then, the CEP has been reviewed and improved in terms of effectiveness but still lacks a legally binding character for fully exploiting its potential.
• Consistency with existing policy provisions in the policy area
The European Agenda on Security (COM(2015) 185 final) adopted by the European Commission in April 2015, emphasises the need for a competitive EU security industry that can also contribute to the EU’s autonomy in meeting security needs. In addition, the Union encourages the development of innovative security solutions, for example through standards and common certificates. The European Agenda on Security also states that Commission is considering further action, such as on alarm systems and airport screening equipment, to remove barriers to the Single Market and to enhance the competitiveness of the EU security industry in export markets.
This proposal will contribute to improve the competitiveness of the European Security Industry. As a consequence, a more competitive EU-based security industry will be able to offer more innovative and effective solutions to enhance the security of European citizens and make a substantial contribution to the resilience of the European society to security threats.
With specific regard to the aim of this proposal, the Commission Communication “Security Industrial Policy Action Plan for an innovative and competitive Security Industry (COM (2012) 417)” must be mentioned. In particular, Action 2 of the mentioned plan states that: “Subject to a thorough impact assessment analysis and consultation of stakeholders, the Commission would propose two legislative proposals: one to establish an EU wide harmonised certification system for airport screening (detection) equipment ; and one to establish an EU harmonised certification system for alarm systems. The objective is to achieve mutual recognition of certification systems.”
Aviation security screening equipment is included in the provisions of the Regulation (EC) No 300/2008, which establishes common rules in the field of civil aviation security, and its implementing acts, in particular the Commission Regulation (EU) No 185/2010, laying down detailed measures for the implementation of the common basic standards on aviation security.
Since there are already detailed performance requirements and testing methods for aviation security screening equipment, the proposal does not aim at adding more technical legislation. On the contrary, it clearly contributes to the implementation of the above-mentioned policy provisions by establishing an EU certification system for screening equipment. The latter would stipulate that compliance with the performance requirements has to be demonstrated by accredited testing laboratories applying a common testing methodology, such as the one elaborated within ECAC. The creation of an effective certification system would require the adoption of a legal act establishing the framework for it.
• Consistency with other Union policies
The proposal is consistent with the main EU policies in the single market area and the free movement of goods. In particular, Regulation (EC) No 765/2008 of 9 July 2008 setting out the requirements for accreditation and market surveillance relating to the marketing of products and Decision No 768/2008/EC of 9 July 2008 on a common framework for the marketing of products have been taken into account while drafting this proposal.
In addition to the above, the proposal is consistent with the European Commission priority of increasing the competitiveness of EU companies by overcoming the fragmentation of the EU security markets as outlined by President Juncker in his Political Guidelines ("A Deeper and Fairer Internal Market with a Strengthened Industrial Base").
2. LEGAL BASIS, SUBSIDIARITY AND PROPORTIONALITY
• Legal basis
The basis for EU action is Article 114 TFEU, which deals with the approximation of laws of the Member States in order to achieve the objectives of Article 26 TFEU, i.e. the proper functioning of the internal market.
• Subsidiarity
The objective of this Regulation, namely to establish rules on the administrative and procedural requirements for the EU type-approval of aviation security screening equipment, cannot be sufficiently achieved by the EU Member States. Indeed, if Member States intended to launch such an initiative on their own, they would have already done it while setting up the ECAC CEP system. By reason of its scale and effects, the action of establishing a EU type-approval system entailing mutual recognition of the certification of conformity among Member States can only be done at the EU level.
The proposal therefore complies with the subsidiarity principle.
• Proportionality
The proposal complies with the proportionality principle since it does not go beyond what is necessary to achieve the objectives of ensuring the proper functioning of the Internal Market while, at the same time, improving the competitiveness of the EU industry active in the aviation security screening equipment sector.
Moreover, given the need to provide a level playing field to EU aviation security screening equipment manufacturers compared to their competitors on both EU and extra-EU markets, the establishment of a common certification system required to sell or put into use any such equipment in the EU seems to be proportional with the aim of the proposal.
• Choice of the instrument
The relevant legal basis, Art. 114 TFEU, does not prescribe the form of a particular legal instrument.
Nevertheless, in consideration of the aims of the proposal, the specific context and content, a regulation seems better suited than a directive to establish a clear framework for an EU certification system, based on the already existing regulations EC 300/2008 and EU 185/2010.
3. RESULTS OF EX-POST EVALUATIONS, STAKEHOLDER CONSULTATIONS AND IMPACT ASSESSMENTS
• Stakeholder consultations
The proposal relies on a wide consultation of relevant stakeholders which was carried out through:
– An open Public Consultation on the Certification of Aviation Security Screening Equipment which ran from 5 March 2013 to 10 June 2013. The consultation was published on Your Voice in Europe and received 37 contributions. Despite this relatively low response rate, the results of the public consultation can be considered as representative since all the main stakeholder groups (national administrations, all types of enterprises (including SMEs), test laboratories, airport operators etc.) responded. Additionally, the main associations of the sector, such as the main airlines association, representing some 240 airlines or 84% of total air traffic, the main business association, representing most EU manufacturers, and several testing labs contributed to the consultation, effectively representing several hundred of stakeholders.
The main conclusions of the public consultation, summarized in the Impact Assessment accompanying the proposal are fully supporting the legislative approach embedded in it.
– A workshop which was organised on 25 September 2013 as a follow up to the public consultation. The workshop was attended by representatives from all the concerned stakeholder groups, including Member States, industry, ECAC and end-users representatives (Airports Council International Europe).
The main conclusion of the workshop was the convergence of the results of the studies presented during the first session (see next paragraph), in terms of both problematic issues and potential solutions.
– Even though a certain time elapsed between the public consultation, the workshop and the submission of the Impact Assessment, the findings from these consultations about the lack of common legally binding procedures for the certification of aviation security screening equipment in the EU Member States remain valid. This has been confirmed in contacts with all relevant stakeholders over the course of 2015.
• Collection and use of expertise
While drafting the impact assessment for the proposal, the Commission has also relied on a study carried out by an external contractor and entitled: “Study on security R&D in major 3rd countries”. The study analysed in detail the certification and conformity assessment schemes in the EU and the world. It included also an assessment of the impacts of the policy options identified by the Commission. All the applicable conclusions of the study have been included in the impact assessment and duly considered for drafting the proposal.
A further survey on “Detection Requirements and Testing Methodologies for Aviation Security Screening Devices in the EU and EFTA” carried out by DG JRC (Institute for Reference Materials and Measurements in Geel), and published in spring 2013 was taken in due consideration for the preparation of the impact assessment.
• Impact assessment
The impact assessment is accompanying this proposal (reference to be added).
It was positively evaluated by the Regulatory Scrutiny Board of the Commission on 3rd July 2015.
Five policy options, including the baseline, were developed in the context of this impact assessment:
1. 'Baseline scenario', the Commission would not launch any dedicated policy initiative.
2. A recommendation to Member States to mutually accept their national certification systems and/or to rely on the common evaluation process of the European Civil Aviation Conference.
3. 'Legislation' - The Commission would prepare a legislative proposal which would allow producers to market and sell their products throughout the Union, once certified in one Member State.
– 3.1. The 'old approach', or 'full harmonisation', characterised by a certification system to be implemented by national approval authorities and based on detailed specifications laid down in legislation: 1) performance requirements applicable to aviation security screening equipment; 2) common testing methodologies 3) accreditation of testing laboratories.
– 3.2. The 'new approach', not based on detailed specifications but on publicly available standards. The established certification system would be limited to essential requirements for aviation security screening equipment, written in general terms. This option was discarded since the existing EU performance requirements on which this approach should be based are classified and cannot be made public.
– 3.3. The third option, 'the centralised approach', according to which the established certification system would be pretty similar to option 3.1 but it would be applied centrally by an EU agency.
The preferred option is 3.1 “old approach”, which would have significant positive impacts, while ensuring the broadest support among all stakeholders, including Member States.
According this option, the certification of aviation security screening equipment would need to be done in only one Member State, as the issued certificate would be immediately valid in all 28 EU Members. This should raise the overall EU market efficiency in the aviation security screening sector and have a positive impact on the free movement of goods. The choice of customers (e.g. airport operators) should also be improved, given they could choose to procure any “EU certified” aviation security screening equipment, and not just those who were certified in their country. Single certification procedures should reduce the administrative burden of the manufacturers and improve their time to market. This should also have a positive impact on the global competitiveness of European manufacturers, in particular regarding their US competitors (estimated sales benefit of € 22 million on average per year). The expected increase in competitiveness should lead to an overall increase of sales of EU manufacturers in third countries, which should in turn have a positive social impact on the overall employment figures in the sector.
The reduction of the need to test multiple times a single type or configuration of equipment should lead to a reduction of the number of tests a single laboratory would perform per year. This reduction of tests would lead to a reduction of income for the laboratories. This reduction of income should be lower than the costs savings of the producers outlined above, as not all the costs are directly related to the price of the certification as such (e.g. the shipping of the equipment) 1 . None of the options would lead to measurable environmental impacts. The current environmental impacts of the development, production, testing or transportation would not be affected by a possible harmonisation on certification procedures.•Regulatory fitness and simplification
As already stated above, one of the two general objectives of the proposal is to increase the global competitiveness of the EU companies operating in the field of aviation security screening equipment.
In particular, the proposal aims at reducing the regulatory costs and the time to market by eliminating the need for multiple testing and for MS-specific modifications as well as by creating a more investment friendly environment for security technologies.
Furthermore, the proposal intends to enhance the image of the EU products on the global market by introducing a label showing compliance with EU regulatory requirements and creating a level playing field with US companies.
4. BUDGETARY IMPLICATIONS
Contents
5. OTHER ELEMENTS
• Implementation plans and monitoring, evaluation and reporting arrangements
A sound system of monitoring and evaluation has been conceived and included in the proposal.
In detail, it envisages that every five years, the Commission will publish a general report on the implementation of this regulation.
This report will be based on a targeted survey aimed at all relevant stakeholders to assess the efficiency and effectiveness of the implementation of the regulation with respect to the operational objectives.
This survey will address the following indicators with a view to assess whether the implementation of the regulation led to: reduction of research and development costs; reduction of commercialisation costs; reduction of time to market of equipment; improving the competition with non-EU suppliers.