REPORT on the proposal for a directive of the European Parliament and of the Council on the type-approval of motor vehicles with regard to their re-usability, recyclability and recoverability and amending Council Directive 70/156/EEC

24.1.2005 - (COM(2004)0162 – C5‑0126/2004 – 2004/0053(COD)) - ***I

Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Food Safety
Rapporteur: Holger Krahmer

DRAFT EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT LEGISLATIVE RESOLUTION

on the proposal for a directive of the European Parliament and of the Council on the type-approval of motor vehicles with regard to their re-usability, recyclability and recoverability and amending Council Directive 70/156/EEC

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

(Codecision procedure: first reading)

The European Parliament,

–   having regard to the Commission proposal to the European Parliament and the Council (COM(2004)0162)[1],

–   having regard to Article 251(2) and Article 95 of the EC Treaty, pursuant to which the Commission submitted the proposal to Parliament (C5‑0126/2004),

–   having regard to Rule 51 of its Rules of Procedure,

–   having regard to the report of the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Food Safety (A6‑0004/2005),

1.  Approves the Commission proposal as amended;

2.  Calls on the Commission to refer the matter to Parliament again if it intends to amend the proposal substantially or replace it with another text;

3.  Instructs its President to forward its position to the Council and Commission.

Text proposed by the Commission	Amendments by Parliament
Amendment 1 RECITAL 3 A (new)
	(3a) Re-usability, recyclability and recoverability are important EU environment policy objectives, and consequently the contributions of Directive 2000/53/EC and this Directive are welcomed by all concerned.
Justification
It seems worthwhile to emphasise the proposal's environmental objectives in the recitals.
Amendment 2 ARTICLE 4, POINT 5
(5) ‘reference vehicle’ means the version within a type of vehicle, which is identified by the approval authority as being the most problematic in terms of re-usability, recyclability and recoverability;	(5) ‘reference vehicle’ means the version within a type of vehicle, which is identified by the approval authority as being the most problematic in terms of re-usability, recyclability and recoverability;
	These vehicles shall be chosen by the approval authority from amongst the different versions within a type in agreement with the manufacturer.
	The following criteria shall be taken into account:
	the type of bodywork;
	the available trim levels;
	the available optional equipment which can be fitted under the manufacturer’s responsibility;
Justification
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.
Amendment 3 ARTICLE 5, PARAGRAPH 2 A (new)
	2a. The manufacturer shall demonstrate compliance with the provisions of Article 4(2)(a) of Directive 2000/53/EC.
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.
Amendment 4 ARTICLE 5, PARAGRAPH 3
3. The approval authority shall check that the component parts made of polymers or elastomers included in the dismantling list referred to in Annex I paragraph 2 to this Directive are marked in accordance with Commission Decision 2003/138/EC of 27 February 2003 establishing component and material coding standards for vehicles pursuant to Directive 2000/53/EC.	3. The approval authority shall check whether the manufacturer has taken the requisite steps to ensure that the component parts made of polymers or elastomers included in the dismantling list referred to in Annex I paragraph 2 to this Directive are marked in accordance with Commission Decision 2003/138/EC of 27 February 2003 establishing component and material coding standards for vehicles pursuant to Directive 2000/53/EC.
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.
Amendment 5 ARTICLE 6, PARAGRAPH 3
3. Member States shall appoint a competent authority, in accordance with paragraph 2 of Annex IV to this Directive, to carry out the preliminary assessment and to issue the certificate of compliance.	3. Member States shall appoint a competent authority, in accordance with paragraph 2 of Annex IV to this Directive, to carry out the preliminary assessment and issue the certificate of compliance; already existing authorities of this kind should be appointed.
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.
Amendment 6 ARTICLE 10, PARAGRAPH 3, INTRODUCTORY PART
3. With effect from […36 months after the entry into force of this Directive] Member States shall, if the requirements of this Directive are not met:	3. With effect from […54 months after the entry into force of this Directive] Member States shall, if the requirements of this Directive are not met:
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.
Amendment 7 AnNEX I, POINT 4, INTRODUCTION
4. With respect to a vehicle type, one reference vehicle shall be selected within:	4. Should the approval authority and the manufacturer fail jointly to identify the most problematic version of a type of vehicle in terms of re-usability, recyclability and recoverability, with respect to a vehicle type, one reference vehicle shall be selected within:

• [1]  Not yet published in OJ.

EXPLANATORY STATEMENT

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.

PROCEDURE

Title	Proposal for a directive of the European Parliament and of the Council on the type-approval of motor vehicles with regard to their re-usability, recyclability and recoverability and amending Council Directive 70/156/EEC
References	COM(2004)0162 – C5-0126/2004 – 2004/0053(COD)
Legal basis	Articles 251(2) and 95 EC
Basis in Rules of Procedure	Rule 51
Date submitted to Parliament	11.3.2004
Committee responsible   Date announced in plenary	ENVI 29.3.2004
Committee(s) asked for opinion(s)   Date announced in plenary	TRAN 29.3.2004
Not delivering opinion(s)   Date of decision	TRAN 28.7.2004
Enhanced cooperation   Date announced in plenary
Rapporteur(s)   Date appointed	Holger Krahmer 1.9.2004
Previous rapporteur(s)
Simplified procedure   Date of decision
Legal basis disputed   Date of JURI opinion
Financial endowment amended   Date of BUDG opinion
Discussed in committee	23.11.2004
Date adopted	20.1.2005
Result of final vote	for: against: abstentions:			47 0 0
Members present for the final vote	Adamos Adamou, Georgs Andrejevs, Liam Aylward, Irena Belohorská, Johannes Blokland, John Bowis, Dorette Corbey, Chris Davies, Avril Doyle, Edite Estrela, Jillian Evans, Anne Ferreira, Karl-Heinz Florenz, Alessandro Foglietta, Norbert Glante, Satu Hassi, Gyula Hegyi, Mary Honeyball, Caroline Jackson, Dan Jørgensen, Holger Krahmer, Urszula Krupa, Marie-Noëlle Lienemann, Peter Liese, Jules Maaten, Roberto Musacchio, Riitta Myller, Dimitrios Papadimoulis, Vittorio Prodi, Frédérique Ries, Dagmar Roth-Behrendt, Guido Sacconi, Karin Scheele, Carl Schlyter, Richard Seeber, Kathy Sinnott, María Sornosa Martínez, Antonios Trakatellis, Thomas Ulmer, Marcello Vernola, Anja Weisgerber, Åsa Westlund
Substitutes present for the final vote	María del Pilar Ayuso González, Bairbre de Brún, Christofer Fjellner, Hélène Goudin, Genowefa Grabowska, Jutta D. Haug, Erna Hennicot-Schoepges, Karsten Friedrich Hoppenstedt, Alojz Peterle, Renate Sommer, Bart Staes, Claude Turmes
Substitutes under Rule 178(2) present for the final vote
Date tabled – A6	24.1.2005					A6-0004/2005
Comments