par priekšlikumu Eiropas Parlamenta un Padomes direktīvai par mehānisko transportlīdzekļu tipa apstiprinājumu attiecībā uz to otrreizēju izmantošanu, pārstrādāšanu un utilizāciju, un ar ko groza Padomes Direktīvu 70/156/EEK

(KOM(2004)0162 – C5‑0126/2004 – 2004/0053(COD))

(Koplēmuma procedūra — pirmais lasījums)

Eiropas Parlaments,

–   ņemot vērā Komisijas priekšlikumu Eiropas Parlamentam un Padomei (KOM(2004)0162)(1),

–   ņemot vērā EK līguma 251. panta 2. punktu un 95. pantu, atbilstīgi kuram Komisija iesniedza priekšlikumu Parlamentam (C5–0126/2004),

–   ņemot vērā Reglamenta 51. pantu,

–   ņemot vērā Vides, sabiedrības veselības un pārtikas nekaitīguma komitejas ziņojumu (A6-0004/2005),

1.  apstiprina Komisijas priekšlikumu ar norādītajiem grozījumiem;

2.  aicina Komisiju, ja tā vēlas priekšlikumu būtiski grozīt vai aizstāt ar citu redakciju, nodot šo jautājumu Parlamentam atkārtoti;

3.  uzdod tā priekšsēdētājam nosūtīt Parlamenta nostāju Padomei un Komisijai.

Komisijas ierosinātais teksts   Parlamenta izdarītie grozījumi Grozījums Nr. 1 3. A APSVĒRUMS (jauns)   3.a) otrreizēja izmantojamība, pārstrādājamība un reģenerējamība ir svarīgi ES vides politikas mērķi, visas iesaistītās puses atzinīgi vērtē Direktīvas 2000/53/EK un šīs direktīvas ieguldījumu; Justification It seems worthwhile to emphasise the proposal's environmental objectives in the recitals. Grozījums Nr. 2 4. PANTA 5. PUNKTS 5) “references transportlīdzeklis” ir transportlīdzekļa tipa tā versija, kuru apstiprinātājiestāde ir atzinusi par visproblemātiskāko attiecībā uz otrreizēju izmantojamību, pārstrādājamību, reģenerējamību; 5) “references transportlīdzeklis” ir transportlīdzekļa tipa tā versija, kuru apstiprinātājiestāde ir atzinusi par visproblemātiskāko attiecībā uz otrreizēju izmantojamību, pārstrādājamību, reģenerējamību;   Apstiprinātājiestāde, vienojoties ar ražotāju, izvēlas šos transportlīdzekļus no dažādām tipa versijām..   Ņem vērā šādus kritērijus:   virsbūves veidu,   pieejamos pielāgošanas līmeņus,   pieejamās papildu iekārtas, kuras var ierīkot, ražotājam par to uzņemoties atbildību; Pamatojums In line with the Commission proposal (under 6.2.3.), it should be made clear that vehicles must be chosen by the approval authority in agreement with the manufacturer and on the basis of the proposed criteria. Grozījums Nr. 3 5. PANTA 2. A PUNKTS (jauns)   2.a) Ražotājs pierāda atbilstība Direktīvas 2000/53/EK 4. panta 2. punkta a) apakšpunkta noteikumiem. Justification The Directive 2000/53/EC bans lead, mercury, cadmium or hexavalent chromium in vehicles or their components after 1 July 2003. Type approval should not be granted if the vehicle contains these substances other than under the conditions specified in the ELV Directive. Grozījums Nr. 4 5. PANTA 3. PUNKTS 3. Apstiprinātājiestāde pārbauda, vai no polimēriem vai elastomēriem izgatavotās detaļas, kas ir iekļautas šīs direktīvas I pielikuma 2. punktā minētajā demontāžas sarakstā, ir marķētas saskaņā ar Komisijas 2003. gada 27. februāra Lēmumu 2003/138/EK , ar ko nosaka transportlīdzekļu detaļu un materiālu kodēšanas standartus, ievērojot Direktīvu 2000/53/EK. 3. Apstiprinātājiestāde pārbauda, vai ražotājs ir veicis vajadzīgos pasākumus, lai nodrošinātu, ka no polimēriem vai elastomēriem izgatavotās detaļas, kas ir iekļautas šīs direktīvas I pielikuma 2. punktā minētajā demontāžas sarakstā, ir marķētas saskaņā ar Komisijas 2003. gada 27. februāra Lēmumu 2003/138/EK 1, ar ko nosaka transportlīdzekļu detaļu un materiālu kodēšanas standartus, ievērojot Direktīvu 2000/53/EK. Justification In practice, components made of polymers or elastomers are not marked until the final pre‑production phase, when the type-approval process has already been completed. Applying this provision would require manufacturers to build additional prototypes so that components made of polymers or elastomers are marked when type-approval checks are carried out. A more efficient arrangement for both sides would require the type-approval authority to check that the manufacturer has taken the requisite steps (and thus also accepts responsibility) for ensuring that the relevant components are marked. Naturally enough, the type-approval authority may subsequently carry out further checks. Grozījums Nr. 5 6. PANTA 3. PUNKTS 3. Dalībvalstis saskaņā ar šīs direktīvas IV pielikuma 2. punktu ieceļ kompetentu iestādi, kas veic sākotnējo novērtējumu un izdod atbilstības sertifikātu. 3. Dalībvalstis saskaņā ar šīs direktīvas IV pielikuma 2. punktu ieceļ kompetentu iestādi, kas veic sākotnējo novērtējumu un izdod atbilstības sertifikātu; ir jāieceļ šāda veida iestādes, kas jau pastāv; Justification Type-approval authorities already exist in the Member States. It is of great importance that the national authorities responsible for monitoring compliance with the provisions of this directive are accepted and respected bodies, able to assess vehicles and their construction. The existing type-approval authorities are in a position to do this and provide legal certainty and prevent any distortion of competition in Europe. Grozījums Nr. 6 10.  PANTA 3. PUNKTA IEVADDAĻA 3. Ja šīs direktīvas prasības nav ievērotas, dalībvalstis no [...36 mēneši pēc šīs direktīvas stāšanās spēkā]: 3. Ja šīs direktīvas prasības nav ievērotas, dalībvalstis no [...54 mēneši pēc šīs direktīvas stāšanās spēkā]: Justification The need to approve all types produced by all manufacturers at the same time would give rise to administrative bottlenecks, creating insurmountable problems both for the type-approval authorities and for manufacturers. In Europe alone some 600 types currently exist, making approval within 36 months an impossibility. Moreover, giving priority to the approval of new types would be consistent with established practice in the EU. In addition, a distinction should be drawn between new and existing types: if priority is given to the approval of new types, this will ensure that all types which come on to the market have been checked. Existing types can then go through the approval process at a later date. Grozījums Nr. 7 I PIELIKUMA 4. PUNKTA IEVADS 4. Atkarībā no transportlīdzekļa tipa izvēlas vienu references transportlīdzekli: 4. Ja apstiprinātājiestādei un ražotajam kopējiem spēkiem neizdodas noteikt, kura transportlīdzekļa tipa versija ir visproblemātiskākā attiecībā uz otrreizēju izmantojamību, pārstrādājamību, reģenerējamību, atkarībā no transportlīdzekļa tipa izvēlas vienu references transportlīdzekli:

(1) OV vēl nav publicēts.

The aim of the proposal for a directive is to lay down the provisions required to ensure that passenger cars and light-duty trucks are designed in such a way as to comply with the requisite minimum rates of ‘re-usability’, ‘recyclability’ and ‘recoverability’.

Your rapporteur comes to the conclusion that the Commission proposal will help to achieve the ambitious environmental policy objective that

      -     at least 85% by mass of any vehicle should be re-usable and/or recyclable, and

      -     at least 95% by mass of any vehicle should be re-usable and/or recoverable.

The amendments tabled by your rapporteur are not designed to alter the basic thrust of the proposal for a directive, but rather to make its implementation more workable for all parties concerned - in this case the type-approval authorities and the automobile industry.

The requisite administrative formalities and the resulting costs in term of red tape may severely undermine the competitiveness of the European automobile industry and should therefore be kept to an absolute minimum.

Accordingly, and not least against the background of the European Union’s Lisbon Strategy and the completion of the internal market, in connection with this directive as well your rapporteur has sought to simplify the new legislative provisions as far as possible, above all from the point of view of practical implementation.

In its explanatory memorandum on the proposal for a directive the Commission comes to the conclusion that ‘recycling-oriented construction’ in connection with the development of new vehicles has been a standard among manufacturers since the early 1990s. In international terms, new vehicles produced since the start of this decade already meet high, if not optimum, standards with regard to their recyclability, re-usability and recoverability.

Environmental protection and the degree to which vehicles are environmentally friendly are factors which influence consumers when they buy cars; as a result, they now have a bearing on competition.

The directive contains a number of provisions which are not essential to achieving the highest possible degree of environmental protection, but which would generate unnecessary administrative costs.

The Commission proposal stipulates that all new vehicles must undergo the checks which make up the relevant type-approval procedure within 36 months following the entry into force of the directive. All existing series-built vehicles, including , for example, models which are about to be replaced, would thus be required to undergo fresh checks. Redesigns would be needed during the production process, seriously undermining the ability of manufacturers to deliver cars and, by extension, jeopardising their competitive position.

In view of the existing recycling standards, referred to above, a longer transitional period which takes account of the automobile industry's normal production cycles would be appropriate. A 54-month period would make sense and would have the desired effect, in that all new types which are already on the drawing board would comply with this directive.

From the point of view of the type-approval authorities, a 36-month period is unrealistic. In Europe, there are some 600 types on the market, all of which would have to undergo fresh checks during that period. It is clear that this is simply not feasible and would result in derogations being granted in individual Member States, thereby distorting the market.

The directive stipulates that, for each type of vehicle, manufacturers should provide disposal firms with a detailed description of a recycling strategy based on the technologies which are available or under development at the time the application for type-approval is submitted. Today, the average lifetime of a new vehicle is roughly 12 to 14 years, and in most cases it is longer. Over the last 10 years, decisive progress has been made with disposal and recycling technologies. No-one can predict today what new technologies will be developed in the future, so that a description of a recycling strategy on the basis of existing disposal technologies makes no sense. Here is an example to illustrate that point: anyone who, in the 1980s, stipulated that data must be stored on a diskette will have problems in accessing that data using the IT technology now available.

The range of types produced by automobile manufacturers is virtually immeasurable. For that reason it is essential, and also standard practice, that the type-approval authority should choose reference vehicles in agreement with the manufacturer, and not alone. In order to avoid misunderstandings, this arrangement should also be laid down in the directive.

The directive stipulates that components made of polymers or elastomers must be properly marked when type-approval checks are carried out. This provision disregards the fact that when a new vehicle is being developed for the road small changes are often made shortly before production starts. For that reason, a more workable arrangement would be for the type-approval authority to ensure, when it carries out its checks, that the manufacturer has taken the requisite steps to mark the relevant components. Final responsibility for marking would thus lie with the manufacturer, although the type-approval authority would be able to check at any time, including during production, that the marking requirement is being met.