Draft regulation Impact Statement for Underrun Protection a draft statement inviting discussion and comments from parties affected by the proposed heavy commercial vehicle safety initiative January 2007 Report Documentation Page
Options 2&3: National Heavy Vehicle Accreditation Scheme / Industry Code of Practice
Download 5.27 Mb.
|
- Navigate this page:
- Option 4: Australian Standard
- Option 6: Business-as-usual
- Option 7: Australian Design Rule adopting front Underrun Protection requirements from other countries
- Likely Benefits Governments
- Likely Costs Government
- Business Large enterprises
- Small and medium enterprises
Options 2&3: National Heavy Vehicle Accreditation Scheme / Industry Code of PracticeOptions 2 and 3 were similar to self-regulation as they are voluntary and have low application rates across the national heavy vehicle fleet. The benefits would also be similar while costs can be substantially higher, as they would require operators to maintain an in-house assurance system, undergo independent audits from time to time and subscribe periodically to the membership of a scheme or program. Although Option 2 would be a cost effective substitute for enforcement, the patronage would be too low for it to be an effective altenative to regulation. Neither Option 2 or Option 3 were considered any further. Option 4: Australian StandardThe impacts of Option 4 on affected parties such as governments, industry and consumers were similar to that discussed for Option 1. Option 5: State and local government fleet purchasing arrangementsThe impacts of Option 5 on affected parties such as governments, industry and consumers were similar to that discussed for Option 1. However, all the benefits would be slightly increased and the costs slightly increased (because the benefit-cost ratio would remain the same, a higher net benefit would result). This is because in addition to the self-regulation forces that lead to the assumed 15% application rate of (the percentage of newly registered heavy commercial vehicles that fit) Underrun Protection (UP), there would be an added requirement to fit such systems to any heavy commercial vehicle purchased by the government. The absolute change in benefits and costs has not been estimated. Discussion and Conclusion for Option 5: Option 5 has a good potential for partly achieving the objectives set out in the National Road Safety Strategy as state and local governments acquire over 20 per cent of heavy commercial vehicles registered annually. As state and local governments retire their vehicles once in three years, the net benefit could rise as relatively recent vehicles retired from government fleets replace older heavy commercial vehicles in the national fleet. Unfortunately, there are very few prime movers purchased by governments so this benefit would only apply to rigid trucks. The risk of losing, or not getting, government contracts could motivate assemblers and importers to provide UP on their rigid trucks. However, there would be little effect in the prime mover market. Option 6: Business-as-usualWith this option, there would be no change in the regulatory and non-regulatory environment and so costs and benefits would remain the same. In relative terms these would be zero as it is the baseline against which the other options have been measured. Option 7: Australian Design Rule adopting front Underrun Protection requirements from other countriesThis option was discounted earlier in the RIS in the Options section. Option 8: Australian Design Rule adopting international standard UNECE R 93 for front Underrun Protection for rigid and articulated heavy commercial vehicles with a GVM greater than 7.5 tonnesLikely BenefitsGovernmentsAustralianNone.
State/Territory and Local governmentBy mandating the fitment of front Underrun Protection (UP) to new heavy commercial vehicles with a GVM greater than 7.5 tonnes, the costs of medical treatment and hospitalizations would be likely to reduce following a decrease in underrun trauma. The estimated savings were approximately $41.7m per year.
AustralianThe Australian Government operates and maintains the road vehicle certification system, which is used to ensure that vehicles first supplied to the market comply with the Australian Design Rules. There are costs incurred in operating this service. A cost recovery model is used and so these costs are recovered from business. There would be costs attributed to the addition of a new design rule for UP to the current certification system. These costs have not been estimated. State/Territory/Local Governments Costs may accrue to states and territories as part of the effort towards monitoring the continued compliance of front UP for heavy commercial vehicles to in-service requirements. These costs have not been estimated. BusinessLarge enterprisesThere would be adjustment costs to heavy commercial vehicle suppliers for installing front UP devices. While European heavy commercial vehicle makers may enjoy some commercial advantage, non-European heavy commercial vehicle makers, including three domestic firms, would need time to design, test and manufacture front UP. The cost of heavy commercial vehicles manufactured by non-European and domestic firms would need to include a premium to cover the cost of product development and testing to the mandatory standard. These costs have been estimated at $5.2m per year. These may be passed on to road transport operators. Small and medium enterprisesThe segment of the industry that manufactures bull bars for new (and possibly in-service) heavy commercial vehicles would need to modify their designs and carry out testing to the new vehicle requirements for front UP. UNECE R93, the proposed regulation, allows for the design and testing of devices as distinct components of heavy commercial vehicles. Potential changes to bull bar manufacturing would likely be an important issue to those involved. These costs have not been estimated. However, a copy of UNECE R93 has been attached at Appendix 9. This segment of the industry in particular is invited to provide any costs, through the comment forms at the beginning of this RIS. ConsumersIndustry may pass on the costs of front UP devices to road transport operators. However, this would not be a certainty given the low relative percentage of a typical vehicle cost (around 0.5 per cent) and the intensity of competition. Distributional effects The benefits from Option 8 would be gained by the community in the reduction of road trauma and road transport operators in the reduction of downtime and liabilities. The costs from Option 8 would be incurred by business in the increase costs of supplying front UP. These costs may be passed on the consumer. Government would also incur some costs on administering the regulations, although these would be recovered from business because of the cost recovery model being used. Discussion and Conclusion on Option 8: Option 8 estimates that if industry is required to fit front UP to new heavy commercial vehicles with a GVM greater than 7.5 tonnes, the benefit/cost ratio would be positive with a net return of about $36.5m per year. This is about $32m greater than Option 1. This option would enable the Australian government to implement a key element of the National Road Safety Action Plan 2003 to 2004 and the National Heavy Vehicle Safety Strategy 2003-2010. Adopting UNECE requirements for front UP would facilitate market access to efficient and competitive suppliers of front UP. The option would allow transport operators to have a choice of suppliers and access to superior state-of-the-art transport safety technology. The community would be able to reduce the cost of underrun trauma efficiently while the Australian government would be able to provide administrative arrangements for compliance assurance at a cost far lower than Option 5 and also participate in a global forum for any future development of UP standards. Table 13 provides a summary of the benefits and costs of Option 8 along with the net benefits. Table 13: Benefits and Costs: Option 8- Australian Design Rule adopting international standard UNECE R 93 for front Underrun Protection (UP) for rigid and articulated heavy commercial vehicles with a GVM greater than 7.5 tonnes
Summary of Impact Analysis The impacts of Options 1, 4, 5, 6 and 8 on affected parties have been discussed above. The impact analysis indicated that Option 8 would be the most efficient and effective option, that is to mandate the provision of front UP for rigid and articulated trucks with a GVM greater than 7.5 tonnes by applying an international standard. In general terms, the benefit-cost ratios would be a value greater than one for a package of front, side and rear UP being fitted to rigid and articulated heavy commercial vehicles with a GVM greater than 7.5 tonnes. However, as discussed earlier in this RIS, side and rear UP by themselves would have a benefit-cost ratio of less than one and so would rely on high ratios generated by front UP to raise the whole package to above one. Therefore, the ratios would always increase by adopting front UP only. For the same fitment option (front, side, rear or any combination of UP), the benefit-cost ratios would be similar whether these were voluntary or mandated. Although there would be different costs associated with the method of implementation, these tend to be dominated by the design, manufacturing and installation costs of the UP. However, the net benefits would increase with a higher field application rate. This is why mandatory fitment would yield the highest net benefits. The majority of costs are borne by the vehicle manufacturers, which may then be passed on to the operator and the consumer. The majority of benefits would be received by the community in terms of reduced road trauma. Option 1 benefits would not reach their full potential, due to the high element of uncertainty in generating sufficient field effectiveness. This arises out of the fragmented nature of the road freight industry. Options 4 and 5 would get closer, although Option 5 would have no additional effect for articulated vehicles. Option 6 was the baseline and so does not generate any benefits nor incur any costs in relation to the other options. Option 8 would allow the benefits to reach their maximum potential (for new vehicles) and so meet the Australian and state governments’ objectives to reduce underrun trauma Directory: barreirastecnicas -> pontofocal -> textos -> regulamentos pontofocal -> Ind- 2001 0382 nl- en regulamentos -> Kenya standard ks 06-77: 1978 ics 13. 340 Download 5.27 Mb. Share with your friends:
| ||||||||||||||||||||||