RECOMMENDATION FOR SECOND READING on the Council common position for adopting a directive of the European Parliament and of the Council on ambient air quality and cleaner air for Europe

17.10.2007 - (16477/1/2006 – C6‑0260/2007 – 2005/0183(COD)) - ***II

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

DRAFT EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT LEGISLATIVE RESOLUTION

on the Council common position for adopting a directive of the European Parliament and of the Council on ambient air quality and cleaner air for Europe

(16477/1/2006 – C6‑0260/2007 – 2005/0183(COD))

(Codecision procedure: second reading)

The European Parliament,

–   having regard to the Council common position (16477/1/2006 – C6‑0260/2007),

–   having regard to its position at first reading[1] on the Commission proposal to Parliament and the Council (COM(2005)0447)[2],

–   having regard to Article 251(2) of the EC Treaty,

–   having regard to Rule 62 of its Rules of Procedure,

–   having regard to the recommendation for second reading of the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Food Safety (A6‑0398/2007),

1.  Approves the common position as amended;

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

Council common position	Amendments by Parliament
Amendment 1 Recital 5 a (new)
	(5a) Where possible, pollution diffusion modelling should be applied to enable point data to be interpreted in terms of geographical distribution of concentration. This could serve as a basis for calculating the collective exposure of the population living in the area.
Justification
Reinstatement of Amendment 2 from first reading.
Amendment 2 Recital 15
(15) Existing air quality limit values should remain unchanged. However, for nitrogen dioxide, benzene and particulate matter PM10, it should be possible to postpone the deadline for compliance or to obtain temporary exemption from the obligation to apply certain limit values in cases where, notwithstanding the implementation of appropriate pollution abatement measures, acute compliance problems exist in specific zones and agglomerations. Any postponement or temporary exemption for a given zone or agglomeration should be accompanied by a comprehensive plan to be assessed by the Commission to ensure compliance by the revised deadline.	(15) For zones and agglomerations where conditions are particularly difficult, it should be possible to postpone the deadline for compliance with the air quality limit values in cases where, notwithstanding the implementation of appropriate pollution abatement measures, acute compliance problems exist in specific zones and agglomerations. Any postponement for a given zone or agglomeration should be accompanied by a comprehensive plan to ensure compliance by the revised deadline and by a report to demonstrate that so far all efforts have been made to comply with this Directive. Flexibility for Member States is even more important if the necessary Community measures reflecting the chosen ambition level in the Thematic Strategy on air pollution to reduce emissions at source, including at least those measures mentioned in Annex XVIa, have not entered into force by 1 January 2010, since some Member States will not be able to meet the limit values without these measures, despite huge efforts at national level.
Amendment 3 Article 7, paragraph 3 a (new)
	3a. The Commission and the Member States shall ensure the uniform application of the criteria for selecting sampling points.
Justification
Reintroducing amendment 22 from first reading. Clean air is also a factor for attaining the Lisbon objectives (in particular as regards the siting of business, tourism and unlimited feeder traffic). A uniform system of locations for sampling points must be ensured. Current measurements practice in individual Member States differs too widely and makes it impossible to compare measurement results.
Amendment 4 Article 13, paragraph 1, subparagraph 1
1. Member States shall ensure that, throughout their zones and agglomerations, levels of sulphur dioxide, PM10, lead, and carbon monoxide in ambient air do not exceed the limit values laid down in Annex XI.	1. Member States shall, having regard to Section A of Annex III, ensure that, throughout their zones and agglomerations, levels of sulphur dioxide, PM10, lead, and carbon monoxide in ambient air do not exceed the limit values laid down in Annex XI.
Justification
Reintroducing amendment 24 from first reading. On the one hand it is required in the current text (Article 13) that limit values (for the protection of human health) must be met by the Members States throughout their territory (this means everywhere); on the other hand Annex III requires that sampling points directed at the protection of human health should be placed where the population is likely to be exposed for a period which is significant in relation to the averaging period of the limit values or is generally exposed. Consequently, the areas where limit values apply (Article 13) and where compliance is checked and demonstrated by measurements (Annex III) are not identical; the assessment regime (at least based on monitoring) does not correspond to the areas where limit values apply. This contradiction places Member States, the public and the Commission in a very difficult position and is likely to give rise to endless lawsuits.
Amendment 5 Article 15, paragraph 1
1. Member States shall take all necessary measures not entailing disproportionate costs to reduce exposure to PM2,5 with a view to attaining the national exposure reduction target laid down in Section B of Annex XIV by the year specified therein.	1. Member States shall take all necessary measures which constitute an unequivocal improvement from the point of view of human health and do not entail disproportionate costs to reduce exposure to PM2,5 with a view to attaining the national exposure reduction target laid down in Section B of Annex XIV by the year specified therein.
Justification
The amendment clarifies the purpose of the measures to be taken. The Council has introduced a new wording of this paragraph which justifies the clarification given in the amendment.
Amendment 6 Article 16, paragraph 1
1. Member States shall take all necessary measures not entailing disproportionate costs to ensure that concentrations of PM2,5 in ambient air do not exceed the target value laid down in Section C of Annex XIV as from the date specified therein.	1. Member States shall take all necessary measures which constitute an unequivocal improvement from the point of view of human health and do not entail disproportionate costs to ensure that concentrations of PM2,5 in ambient air do not exceed the target value laid down in Section C of Annex XIV as from the date specified therein.
Justification
The amendment clarifies the purpose of the measures to be taken. The Council has introduced a new wording of this paragraph which justifies the clarification given in the amendment.
Amendment 7 Article 20, paragraph 3
3. The Commission shall by …* publish guidelines for demonstration and subtraction of exceedances attributable to natural sources.	deleted
* OJ: Two years after the date of entry into force of this Directive.
Justification
Commission guidelines lead to excessive bureaucracy and will be an obstacle to the flexibility which Member States will need when transposing the Directive.
This is a new paragraph introduced by the Council which did not exist in the Commission proposal.
Amendment 8 Article 21, paragraph 1
1. Member States may designate zones or agglomerations within which limit values for PM10 are exceeded in ambient air due to the re-suspension of particulates following winter‑sanding or -salting of roads.	1. Member States may designate zones or agglomerations within which limit values for PM10 are exceeded in ambient air due to the re-suspension of particulates following winter‑sanding or -salting of roads or road cleaning, provided that PM2,5 levels are not affected.
Justification
Reintroducing amendment 25 from first reading. The actual risks are connected with the particles of the PM 2.5. In the interval between PM2.5 and PM10, particles mostly deposit on the upper airways that are characterized by fast removal mechanisms and therefore do not exert long term effects.
Amendment 9 Article 22, paragraphs 2 and 2a (new)
2. Where, in a given zone or agglomeration, conformity with the limit values for PM10 as specified in Annex XI cannot be achieved because of site-specific dispersion characteristics, adverse climatic conditions or transboundary contributions, Member States shall be exempt from the obligation to apply those limit values until …* provided that the conditions laid down in paragraph 1 are fulfilled.	2. Where, in a given zone or agglomeration, conformity with the limit values for PM10 as specified in Annex XI cannot be achieved because of site-specific dispersion characteristics, adverse climatic conditions or transboundary contributions, Member States shall be exempt from the obligation to apply those limit values until …* provided that the conditions laid down in paragraph 1 are fulfilled and that the Member State shows that all appropriate measures have been taken at national, regional and local level to meet the deadlines.
	2a. Member States may postpone the deadlines for the limit values for PM10 and PM2,5 by an additional period of two years for a particular zone or agglomeration when the air quality plan under paragraph 1 demonstrates that the limit values cannot be met, if the Member State shows that all appropriate measures have been taken at national, regional and local level to meet the deadlines referred to above, including implementation of the Directives and Regulations referred to in section B of Annex XV by the deadlines specified in those legal acts.
Amendment10 Article 22, paragraph 4, subparagraph 1
4. Member States shall notify the Commission where, in their view, paragraphs 1 or 2 are applicable, and shall communicate the air quality plan referred to in paragraph 1 including all relevant information necessary for the Commission to assess whether or not the relevant conditions are satisfied. In its assessment, the Commission shall take into account estimated effects of measures that have been taken by the Member States as well as estimated effects of Community measures.	4. Member States shall notify the Commission where, in their view, paragraphs 1, 2 or 2a are applicable, and shall communicate the air quality plan referred to in paragraph 1 including all relevant information necessary for the Commission to assess whether or not the relevant conditions are satisfied. In its assessment, the Commission shall take into account estimated effects of measures that have been taken by the Member States as well as estimated effects of Community measures to be proposed by the Commission pursuant to Annex XVIa. In its assessment, the Commission shall take into account the impact of the Community measures pursuant to Annex XVIa on air quality in the Member State in question at present and in the future.
Amendment 11 Article 22, paragraph 4, subparagraph 2
Where the Commission has raised no objections within nine months of receipt of that notification, the relevant conditions for the application of paragraphs 1 or 2 shall be deemed to be satisfied.	Where the Commission has raised no objections within six months of receipt of that notification, the relevant conditions for the application of paragraphs 1, 2 or 2a shall be deemed to be satisfied.
Justification
Reintroducing amendment 81 from first reading.
Amendment 12 Article 23, paragraph 1, subparagraph 2
In the event of exceedances of those limit values for which the attainment deadline is already expired, the air quality plan shall set out appropriate measures, so that the exceedance period can be kept as short as possible.	In the event of exceedances of those limit values for which the attainment deadline has already expired, the air quality plan shall set out appropriate measures, and may additionally include measures to specifically protect children’s health, so that the exceedance period can be kept as short as possible.
Justification
Much new scientific evidence has come to light since first reading, highlighting the effects of air pollution on children’s health. New studies conducted in the Netherlands, France and California (Brauer et al 2007, Annesi-Maesano et al 2007, Islam et al 2007). Most important being new evidence of reduced lung function of children and increased cases of asthma, wheezing, and ear, nose and throat infections due to air pollution.
Amendment 13 Article 23, paragraph 1, subparagraph 3
Those plans shall incorporate at least the information listed in Section A of Annex XV and be communicated to the Commission without delay, but no later than two years after the end of the year the first exceedance was observed.	Those plans shall incorporate at least the information listed in Annex XV. They may include measures pursuant to Article 24.
Justification
Reintroducing amendment 32 from first reading. In the interests of simplification, the plans and programmes to bring about general reductions in levels of pollutants may, on a preventive basis, include measures pursuant to Article 22 to reduce peak concentrations in the short term.
Information about clean air plans and programmes is already communicated in electronic form. The expression 'without delay' is deleted because not every plan is communicated to the Commission immediately after it has been drafted. It makes more sense to gather the plans at national level initially and forward the information for each year to the Commission in a coordinated fashion. This also accords with the practice adopted hitherto. The Commission may lay down further details of the communication procedure pursuant to Article 26(2).
Amendment 14 Article 23, paragraph 1, subparagraph 4 a (new)
	The plans shall be drawn up with the proviso that, in the case of industrial installations for which permits have been issued pursuant to Council Directive 96/61/EC of 24 September 1996 concerning integrated pollution prevention and control, no additional measures need be taken under this Directive.
Justification
Reintroducing the ideas of amendment 33 from first reading.
The provision takes account of the fact that - as already made clear in Article 3(3) of Directive 2004/107/EC - installations for which permits have been issued pursuant to the IPPC Directive (96/61/EC) constitute a special category of emitter, as the IPPC Directive imposes extremely stringent substantive requirements on the installations concerned, requiring the use of the best available emission reduction technology (= BAT). The industry concerned devotes substantial resources to complying with this requirement. In addition, the IPPC Directive provides that the permit conditions must be adjusted under certain circumstances if thi
s is necessary for the further development of the BAT. The exchange of information between Member States and the Commission for which the IPPC Directive provides and the regular publication of the results of information exchanges (= BREF documents) serve to bring about dynamic reassessment of the BAT. This constantly ensures optimum emission reductions, in contrast with the situation with other emission sources.
Amendment 15 Article 24, paragraph 1
1. Where, in a given zone or agglomeration, there is a risk that the levels of pollutants will exceed one or more of the alert thresholds specified in Annex XII, Member States shall draw up action plans indicating the measures to be taken in the short term in order to reduce the risk or duration of such an exceedance. Where this risk applies to one or more limit values or target values specified in Annexes VII, XI and XIV, Member States may, where appropriate, draw up such short-term action plans.	1. Where, in a given zone or agglomeration, there is a risk that the levels of pollutants in ambient air will exceed one or more of the limit values, target values or alert thresholds specified in Annexes VII, XI, XII and XIV, Member States shall, where this seems appropriate, draw up action plans indicating the measures to be taken in the short term in order to reduce that risk and to limit the duration of such an occurrence.
However, where there is a risk that the alert threshold for ozone specified in Section B of Annex XII will be exceeded, Member States shall only draw up such short-term action plans when in their opinion there is a significant potential, taking into account national geographical, meteorological and economic conditions, to reduce the risk, duration or severity of such an exceedance. When drawing up such a short-term action plan Member States shall take account of Decision 2004/279/EC.	However, Member States shall only draw up such short-term action plans when in their opinion there is a significant potential, taking into account national geographical, meteorological and economic conditions, to reduce the risk, duration or severity of such an exceedance. When drawing up such a short-term action plan Member States shall take account of Decision 2004/279/EC.
Amendment16 Article 24, paragraph 2
2. The short-term action plans referred to in paragraph 1 may, depending on the individual case, provide for measures to control and, where necessary, suspend activities, including motor-vehicle traffic, which contribute to the risk of the respective limit values or target values or alert threshold being exceeded. Those action plans may also include effective measures in relation to the use of industrial plants or products.	2. The short-term action plans referred to in paragraph 1 may, depending on the individual case, provide for measures of proven short-term efficacy to control and, where necessary, suspend activities which are clearly responsible for the increased risk of the respective limit values or target value or alert threshold being exceeded. Those action plans should, where appropriate, also include specific actions to protect sensitive populations, including children. The second subparagraph of Article 23(1) shall apply mutatis mutandis.
Amendment 17 Article 24, paragraph 3
3. When Member States have drawn up a short-term action plan, they shall make available to the public and to appropriate organisations such as environmental organisations, consumer organisations, organisations representing the interests of sensitive population groups and other relevant health-care bodies both the results of their investigations on the feasibility and the content of specific short-term action plans as well as information on the implementation of these plans.	3. When Member States have drawn up a short-term action plan, they shall make available to the public and to appropriate organisations such as environmental organisations, consumer organisations, organisations representing the interests of sensitive population groups, other relevant health-care bodies and the relevant industrial federations both the results of their investigations on the feasibility and the content of specific short-term action plans as well as information on the implementation of these plans.
Justification
Reintroducing amendment 37 from first reading. The measures provided for in the plans mainly relate to transport and, directly or indirectly, economic operations. It is therefore important to ensure that the relevant industrial federations are also consulted and informed.
Amendment 18 Article 24, paragraph 4
4. For the first time before …* and at regular intervals thereafter, the Commission shall publish examples of best practices for the drawing-up of short-term action plans.	4. For the first time before …* and at regular intervals thereafter, the Commission shall publish examples of best practices for the drawing-up of short-term action plans. The Commission shall specifically publish examples of best practices for the protection of sensitive populations, including children, within those action plans.
Justification
Much new scientific evidence has come to light since first reading, highlighting the effects of air pollution on children’s health. New studies conducted in the Netherlands, France and California (Brauer et al 2007, Annesi-Maesano et al 2007, Islam et al 2007). The best practice examples for the protection of children would be specific to reducing exposure to places where children spend much of their time for example schools, day care centres, nurseries, children’s hospitals.
Amendment 19 Article 26, paragraph 1, introductory part
1. Member States shall ensure that the public as well as appropriate organisations such as environmental organisations, consumer organisations, organisations representing the interests of sensitive populations and other relevant health-care bodies are informed, adequately and in good time, of the following:	1. Member States shall ensure that the public as well as appropriate organisations such as environmental organisations, consumer organisations, organisations representing the interests of sensitive populations, other relevant health-care bodies and the relevant industrial federations are informed, adequately and in good time, of the following:
Justification
Reintroducing amendment 39 from first reading. The measures provided for in the plans mainly relate to transport and, directly or indirectly, economic operations. It is therefore important to ensure that the relevant industrial federations are also consulted and informed.
Amendment 20 Article 26, paragraph 2, subparagraph 2
Those reports shall summarise the levels exceeding limit values, target values, long-term objectives, information thresholds and alert thresholds, for the relevant averaging periods. That information shall be combined with a summary assessment of the effects of those exceedances. The reports may include, where appropriate, further information and assessments on forest protection as well as information on other pollutants for which monitoring provisions are specified in this Directive, such as, inter alia, selected non-regulated ozone precursor substances as listed in Section B of Annex X.	Those reports shall summarise the levels exceeding limit values, target values, long-term objectives, information thresholds and alert thresholds, for the relevant averaging periods. That information shall be combined with a summary assessment of the effects of those exceedances. The reports may include, where appropriate, further information and assessments on forest protection and on measures taken to reduce children's exposure to air pollutants, as well as information on other pollutants for which monitoring provisions are specified in this Directive, such as, inter alia, selected non-regulated ozone precursor substances as listed in Section B of Annex X.
Justification
Much new scientific evidence has come to light since first reading, highlighting the effects of air pollution on children’s health. Most important being new evidence of reduced lung function of children and increased cases of asthma, wheezing, and ear, nose and throat infections due to air pollution.
Amendment 21 Article 32, paragraph 3
As part of the review, the Commission shall also prepare a report on the experience on monitoring of PM10 and PM2,5, taking into account technical progress in automatic measuring techniques. If appropriate, new reference methods for the measurement of PM10 and PM2,5 shall be proposed.	As part of the review, the Commission shall also prepare a report on the experience on monitoring of PM10 and PM2,5, taking into account technical progress in automatic measuring techniques. If appropriate, new reference methods for the measurement of PM10 and PM2,5 shall be proposed. In the review, the Commission shall ascertain whether it is sufficient to continue to set limit values for PM10 or whether these should be replaced with limit values for PM2,5.
Justification
Reintroducing amendment 64 from first reading. The Directive introduces PM2.5 in addition to PM10. If during the review of the Directive it becomes apparent that limit values for PM2.5 are desirable, the PM10 standard should be abolished.
Amendment 22 Article 33, paragraph 1, subparagraph 1
1. Member States shall bring into force the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with this Directive before …*.	1. Member States shall bring into force the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with this Directive before …*.
_______________ * Two years after the date of entry into force of this Directive.	_______________ * One year after the date of entry into force of this Directive.
Justification
Reintroducing amendment 44 from the first reading.
Amendment 23 Annex III, Section A, point 2
2. Compliance with the limit values directed at the protection of human health shall not be assessed at the following locations:	2. Compliance with the limit values directed at the protection of human health shall not be assessed at the following locations:
	(-a) in any place where, in accordance with the criteria in this Annex, no sampling points for pollutants to which the Annex applies are sited;
(a) any locations situated within areas where members of the public do not have access and there is no fixed habitation;	(a) any locations situated within areas where members of the public do not have access or which are uninhabited or not permanently inhabited;
	(aa) on factory premises or at industrial installations to which all relevant provisions concerning health and safety at work apply and to which the public do not have access;
(b) on the carriageway of roads; and on the central reservations of roads except where there is normally pedestrian access to the central reservation.	(b) on the carriageway of roads; and on the central reservations of roads except where there is normally pedestrian access to the central reservation;
	(ba) in areas where the general public is not directly or indirectly exposed for a significant period.
Justification
Reintroducing amendment 60 from first reading. The new points are intended to make it clear that in certain places within a Member State which are not relevant for the exposure of the population there is no need to assess the limit values. These include places where the general public is not directly or indirectly exposed for a significant period, since Annex III requires that sampling points directed at the protection of human health should be sited where the population is likely to be exposed for a period which is significant in relation to the averaging period of the limit values or is generally exposed.
Amendment 24 Annex V, Section A, point 1, footnote 1
(1) For nitrogen dioxide, particulate matter, benzene and carbon monoxide: to include at least one urban background monitoring station and one traffic-orientated station provided this does not increase the number of sampling points. For these pollutants, the total number of urban-background stations and the total number of traffic oriented stations in a Member State required under Section A (1) shall not differ by more than a factor of 2. Sampling points with exceedances of the limit value for PM10 within the last three years shall be maintained.	(1) For nitrogen dioxide, particulate matter, benzene and carbon monoxide: to include at least one urban background monitoring station and one traffic-orientated station provided this does not increase the number of sampling points. For these pollutants, the total number of urban-background stations and the total number of traffic oriented stations in a Member State shall not differ by more than a factor of 2.
Justification
Reintroduces the wording of the Commission proposal.
Member States must maintain a comprehensive network of monitoring points, which must, inter alia, include enough monitoring stations for traffic.
Amendment 25 Annex XI, Section B, table, part "PM10"
Council common position
Averaging period Limit value Margin of tolerance Date by which limit value is to be met PM10 1 day 50 µg/m3, not to be exceeded more than 35 times a calendar year 50 %   Calendar year 40 µg/m3 20 %
Amendments by Parliament
Averaging period Limit value Margin of tolerance Date by which limit value is to be met PM10 1 day 50 µg/m3, not to be exceeded more than 35 times a calendar year 50 %   Calendar year 40 µg/m3 20 %   Calendar year   33 µg/m3 20% 1 January 2010
Amendment 26 Annex XIV, Section B
Council common position
NATIONAL EXPOSURE REDUCTION TARGET
AEI in 2010 Exposure Reduction Target relative to 2010 Year by which the national exposure reduction target should be met Above 13 µg/m3 20 percent 2020 7 - 13 µg/m3 (AEI x 1,5) percent
Where the AEI in the reference year is 7 µg/m3 or less the exposure reduction target shall be zero. The reduction target shall be zero also in cases where the AEI reaches the level of 7 µg/m3 at any point of time during the period from 2010 to 2020 and is maintained at or below that level.
Amendments by Parliament
NATIONAL EXPOSURE REDUCTION TARGET
Exposure Reduction Target relative to the AEI in 2010 Year by which the exposure reduction target should be met Initial concentration in µg/m3 Reduction target in percent 2020 < 10 0 % = 10 – <15 10 % = 15 – <20 15 % = 20 – < 25 20 % >25 All appropriate measures to achieve the target of 20 μg/m3
Where the AEI in the reference year is 10 µg/m3 or less the exposure reduction target shall be zero. The reduction target shall be zero also in cases where the AEI reaches the level of 7 µg/m3 at any point of time during the period from 2010 to 2020 and is maintained at or below that level.
Justification
Reintroducing amendment 49 from first reading.
Amendment 27 Annex XIV, Section C and D
Council common position
C.          TARGET VALUE
Averaging Period Target value Date by which target value should be met Calendar year 25 µg/m3 1 January 2010
D.       LIMIT VALUE
Averaging period Limit Value Margin of tolerance Date by which limit value is to be met Calendar year 25 µg/m3 20 % on …* , decreasing on the next 1 January and every 12 months thereafter by equal annual percentages to reach 0 % by 1 January 2015 1 January 2015
*         the date of entry into force of this Directive
Amendments by Parliament
C.          TARGET VALUE
Averaging Period Target value Date by which target value should be met Calendar year 20 µg/m3 1 January 2010
D.       LIMIT VALUE
Averaging period Limit Value Margin of tolerance1 Date by which limit value is to be met Calendar year 20 µg/m3 20 % on …*, decreasing on the next 1 January and every 12 months thereafter by equal annual percentages to reach 0 % by 1 January 2015 1 January 2015
1     The maximum margin of tolerance applies also in accordance with Article 16(2).
*    the date of entry into force of this Directive.
Amendment 28 Annex XV, Section A, point 6(b) a (new)
	(ba) details of possible measures for the improvement of air quality for children.
Justification
While measures to protect public health from air pollution are currently covered under Annex XV, Part A, paragraph 6(b) the measures to improve children’s air quality will possibly be more specific or indeed different within this framework. Much new scientific evidence has come to light since first reading, highlighting the effects of air pollution on children’s health. New studies conducted in the Netherlands, France and California (Brauer et al 2007, Annesi-Maesano et al 2007, Islam et al 2007).
Amendment 29 Annex XV, Section A, point 8, introduction
8. Details of those measures or projects adopted with a view to reducing pollution following the entry into force of this Directive:	8. Details of those measures or projects adopted with a view to reducing pollution, including specific measures to reduce children’s exposure, following the entry into force of this Directive:
Justification
While measures to protect public health from air pollution are currently covered future measures to improve children’s air quality will possibly be more specific or indeed different within this framework. Much new scientific evidence has come to light since first reading, highlighting the effects of air pollution on children’s health. New studies conducted in the Netherlands, France and California (Brauer et al 2007, Annesi-Maesano et al 2007, Islam et al 2007).
Amendment 30 Annex XV, Section B, point 3 (g) a (new)
	(ga) measures to protect the health of children or other sensitive groups.
Justification
The abatement measures specific to protect children's health may be specific to location or exposure type. Much new scientific evidence has come to light since first reading, highlighting the effects of air pollution on children’s health. New studies conducted in the Netherlands, France and California (Brauer et al 2007, Annesi-Maesano et al 2007, Islam et al 2007).
Amendment 31 Annex XVI a (new)
	ANNEX XVIa COMMUNITY MEASURES RELATING TO EMISSION SOURCES WHICH MUST BE TAKEN TO ENABLE MEMBER STATES TO ATTAIN AIR QUALITY LIMIT VALUES WITHIN THE SET TIME LIMITS
	1. To enable Member States to attain the air quality limit values laid down in this Directive within the set time limits, the Commission shall, by ...*, submit proposals for binding EU legal provisions dealing with pollution sources and being concerned with stricter emission limit values. As a minimum, these proposals shall deal with the following sectors and emitters, in which emissions of pollutants must be reduced:
	§ standards for all relevant stationary installations which emit pollutants, for example inclusion of combustion plants from 20 to 50 Megawatts in Directive 96/61/EC;
	§ standards for motorised vehicles or craft of all sizes and classes travelling by land, air and sea; e.g. EURO VI for heavy vehicles, measures coordinated at Community level to encourage or oblige (inland)ship owners to reduce emissions, or agreements on emissions from ships' engines under the auspices of IMO;
	§ new standards for domestic heating installations;
	§ engines and construction machines;
	§ agriculture (inter alia fertilisation and livestock breeding).
	2. Every five years, the Commission shall submit to the European Parliament and the Council a progress report on the measures referred to in paragraph 1 and their implementation in the Member States. _______ * Two years after the entry into force of this Directive.

• [1]  OJ C 306 E, 15.12.2006, p. 102.
• [2]  OJ C ... / Not yet published in OJ.

EXPLANATORY STATEMENT

I. Analysis of the Council Common Position

On 28 June 2007 under the German Presidency the Council adopted the Common Position (CP) on the Ambient Air Quality Directive. Although there are some differences between the European Parliament's first reading and the Council text, almost half of the European Parliament's amendments adopted on 26 September 2006 in Strasbourg were taken on board either verbatim, in part or in spirit.

The Council's CP endorses some key amendments originally proposed by the European Parliament:

· A target value for PM_2,5 in 2010 that will be replaced by a binding limit value in 2015;

· the possibility to postpone the attainment of limit values after the entry into force of the Directive;

· the principle that limit values should apply everywhere, but in certain locations compliance with limit values should not be assessed.

Apart from these congruencies, there are major differences: The Council does not accept any changes to the provisions regarding the existing daily and yearly limit values of PM₁₀ in Annex XI and rejects the European Parliament's proposal to link any derogation with the adoption of additional Community measures on the sources of pollution.

Furthermore, although there is a clear consensus on the timetable for the introduction of PM_2,5 (target value in 2010, limit value in 2015), the Council opts for a less stringent value of 25µg/m³ – instead of the 20 µg/m³ proposed by the EP – for both values. On the other hand, the Council allows less flexibility – a maximum of only three years after entry into force of the directive – to postpone the attainment of the limit values according to Art. 22 (ex Art. 20).

II. Priorities for the European Parliament's second reading

The Committee is strongly committed to negotiate a second reading agreement under the Portuguese Presidency that ensures the adoption of the Air Quality directive as soon as possible but secures the main objective of the Parliament's position: More ambitious target and limit values combined with more flexibility, stronger measures at the source and long-term goals.

PM_2,5: The smallest particles have been identified by scientists as those posing a major threat to human health. Unlike the coarse fraction (PM₁₀) the smallest particles are emitted almost exclusively from anthropogenic sources: The Committee therefore adopted the amendments related to PM_2,5 and the review clause (Amendment 64) and calls to maintain the more stringent target and limit value of 20 µg/m³ in 2010 and 2015 respectively (amendments 49 and 50). Although ambitious, this value should be legally binding and will likely be attained in most parts of Europe by 2015.

PM₁₀: The Rapporteur has suggested not to re-table the amendments related to the provisions on PM₁₀ laid down in Annex XI, both the 33 µg/m³ yearly limit value as well as on the 55 days derogation for the daily limit value. Council and Commission do not accept any changes of the existing limit values. For both institutions any changes of the status quo are a clear "no go" and would most likely lead directly to Conciliation.

Flexibility: The Member States, especially in the densely populated and industrial regions in western and central Europe, have had severe difficulties until the present in implementing the directive and attaining the limit values, despite having taken efforts to improve air quality.

Therefore, more flexibility to attain the limit values is key for those Member States that have take all measures at all levels to reduce pollution: The Committee adopted in part the amendments related to the derogation periods and the postponement of deadlines for compliance with the limit values (amendments 7 and 81 of the first reading), but proposes to cut down the derogation period from "four plus two" to "three plus two" years in order to achieve a compromise with the Council.

The Committee also stresses the importance of long-term measures and exposure-based air quality policies. Short-term measures have often not been effective. These measures should be voluntary and shall only be taken where they may have a positive effect to reduce pollution (amendments 35 and 36). The EP text on Annex III on the assessment of compliance with the limit values (amendments 24 and 60) has also been retabled.

Measures at the source: Pollution must be reduced through compliance with the current legislation and new Community measures at the source. Community measures to tackle emissions have been delayed, as Euro VI for heavy vehicles or the revision of the NEC-Directive. The new Annex XVIa should therefore be re-introduced (amendment 84).

Nevertheless your Rapporteur does not re-table the parts of the text that link the derogation periods with the Community measures, rejected by the Council. It is very difficult to demonstrate the link between the non entering into force of the Community measures with the non attainment of the limit values.

Other: Various amendments on technical provisions, endorsed by the European Parliament in first reading, have been retabled such as on mandatory modelling techniques (amendments 16 and 17); on the uniform application of the criteria for selecting sampling points (amendment 22); the diffusion of information to all stakeholders (amendments 37 and 39) and the date for Member States to comply with the directive (amendment 44) among other provisions.

PROCEDURE

Title	Ambient air quality and cleaner air for Europe
References	16477/1/2006 - C6-0260/2007 - 2005/0183(COD)
Date of Parliament’s first reading – P number	26.9.2006                     T6-0362/2006
Commission proposal	COM(2005)0447 - C6-0356/2005
Date receipt of common position announced in plenary	6.9.2007
Committee responsible        Date announced in plenary	ENVI 6.9.2007
Rapporteur(s)        Date appointed	Holger Krahmer 14.12.2005
Date adopted	9.10.2007
Result of final vote	+: –: 0:	35 4 9
Members present for the final vote	Adamos Adamou, Margrete Auken, Pilar Ayuso, Irena Belohorská, Johannes Blokland, John Bowis, Frieda Brepoels, Hiltrud Breyer, Martin Callanan, Dorette Corbey, Jill Evans, Anne Ferreira, Karl-Heinz Florenz, Françoise Grossetête, Satu Hassi, Jens Holm, Marie Anne Isler Béguin, Caroline Jackson, Dan Jørgensen, Christa Klaß, Eija-Riitta Korhola, Holger Krahmer, Urszula Krupa, Aldis Kušķis, Marie-Noëlle Lienemann, Peter Liese, Jules Maaten, Linda McAvan, Miroslav Ouzký, Vladko Todorov Panayotov, Vittorio Prodi, Frédérique Ries, Guido Sacconi, Daciana Octavia Sârbu, Karin Scheele, Carl Schlyter, Richard Seeber, Kathy Sinnott, Antonios Trakatellis, Thomas Ulmer, Anja Weisgerber
Substitute(s) present for the final vote	Jerzy Buzek, Miroslav Mikolášik, Hartmut Nassauer, Lambert van Nistelrooij
Substitute(s) under Rule 178(2) present for the final vote	Manuel Medina Ortega, Alexander Lambsdorff, Vincenzo Aita