# C_2005074EN.01001501.xml

| 23.3.2005 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 74/15 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

23.3.2005

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 74/15

---

Opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee 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) 162 final – 2004/0053 (COD)

(2005/C 74/03)

On 30 March 2004 the Council decided to consult the European Economic and Social Committee, under Article 95 of the Treaty establishing the European Community, on the abovementioned proposal.

The Section for the Single Market, Production and Consumption, which was responsible for preparing the Committee's work on the subject, adopted its opinion on 14 July 2004. The rapporteur was Mr Ranocchiari.

Mr Ranocchiari

At its 411th plenary session (meeting of 15 September 2004) the European Economic and Social Committee adopted the following opinion by 125 votes to four, with seven abstentions.

th

1.   Introduction

| 1.1 | Each year, around 16 million cars and light-duty trucks are put on the European market and over nine million reach the end-of-life stage, generating more than eight million tonnes of waste. |
| --- | --- |

1.1

Each year, around 16 million cars and light-duty trucks are put on the European market and over nine million reach the end-of-life stage, generating more than eight million tonnes of waste.

| 1.2 | In the past, EU countries had their own ways of tackling this significant quantity of waste and did not always pay sufficient attention to the recovery and recycling of materials. |
| --- | --- |

1.2

In the past, EU countries had their own ways of tackling this significant quantity of waste and did not always pay sufficient attention to the recovery and recycling of materials.

| 1.3 | However, since the early 1990s, all the Member States, thanks to the major efforts of environmental bodies, have established rules for the treatment of end-of-life vehicles, in the form of voluntary agreements or national legislation. This has undoubtedly benefited the environment. |
| --- | --- |

1.3

However, since the early 1990s, all the Member States, thanks to the major efforts of environmental bodies, have established rules for the treatment of end-of-life vehicles, in the form of voluntary agreements or national legislation. This has undoubtedly benefited the environment.

| 1.4 | More recently, on 18 September 2000, the European Parliament and the Council adopted Directive 2000/53/EC (1). This directive seeks to harmonise the various national provisions, thereby avoiding distortions of competition and, more importantly, reducing the environmental impact of these vehicles. As well as laying down rules for the collection and treatment of end-of-life vehicles, the directive sets targets for the Member States regarding the re-use and recovery of waste. In particular:






  a) | by 1 January 2006, for all end-of-life vehicles, the re-use and recovery rate must be at least 85 % of average weight per vehicle and year; by the same date, the re-use and recycling rate must be at least 80 % of average weight per vehicle and year; |
| --- | --- | --- |

1.4

More recently, on 18 September 2000, the European Parliament and the Council adopted Directive 2000/53/EC (1). This directive seeks to harmonise the various national provisions, thereby avoiding distortions of competition and, more importantly, reducing the environmental impact of these vehicles. As well as laying down rules for the collection and treatment of end-of-life vehicles, the directive sets targets for the Member States regarding the re-use and recovery of waste. In particular:

1

a)

by 1 January 2006, for all end-of-life vehicles, the re-use and recovery rate must be at least 85 % of average weight per vehicle and year; by the same date, the re-use and recycling rate must be at least 80 % of average weight per vehicle and year;

| b) | by 1 January 2015, the rate for re-use and recovery must rise to at least 95 %, and for re-use and recycling to at least 85 %. |
| --- | --- |

b)

by 1 January 2015, the rate for re-use and recovery must rise to at least 95 %, and for re-use and recycling to at least 85 %.

| 1.5 | It should be noted that Directive 2000/53/EC (known as the End-of-Life Vehicles or ELV directive) was adopted after a lengthy debate and has been the subject of not entirely unjustified criticism, some of which is to be found in the opinion issued by the EESC at the time (2). It should, however, be acknowledged that the directive has given an important boost (although not without some difficulty) to an invaluable process which, as stated above, had already been launched in the Member States, often in agreement with vehicle manufacturers and the scrap vehicle sector. |
| --- | --- |

1.5

It should be noted that Directive 2000/53/EC (known as the End-of-Life Vehicles or ELV directive) was adopted after a lengthy debate and has been the subject of not entirely unjustified criticism, some of which is to be found in the opinion issued by the EESC at the time (2). It should, however, be acknowledged that the directive has given an important boost (although not without some difficulty) to an invaluable process which, as stated above, had already been launched in the Member States, often in agreement with vehicle manufacturers and the scrap vehicle sector.

2

2.   The Commission's proposal

| 2.1 | The current proposal (already dubbed the ‘Triple R directive’) has been made necessary by Article 7(4) of the ELV directive, which calls for the establishment of type-approval provisions regarding the re-use, recycling and recovery of end-of-life vehicles. |
| --- | --- |

2.1

The current proposal (already dubbed the ‘Triple R directive’) has been made necessary by Article 7(4) of the ELV directive, which calls for the establishment of type-approval provisions regarding the re-use, recycling and recovery of end-of-life vehicles.

| 2.2 | The proposal stipulates that in order to receive type-approval, M1 and N1 vehicles will have to be designed in such a way as to comply with the re-usability, recyclability and recoverability rates laid down in the ELV directive. |
| --- | --- |

2.2

The proposal stipulates that in order to receive type-approval, M1 and N1 vehicles will have to be designed in such a way as to comply with the re-usability, recyclability and recoverability rates laid down in the ELV directive.

| 2.3 | Once the proposed directive is approved, its provisions will be included in the Community type-approval system, thereby amending Directive 70/156/EEC (3) which forms the basis of that system. |
| --- | --- |

2.3

Once the proposed directive is approved, its provisions will be included in the Community type-approval system, thereby amending Directive 70/156/EEC (3) which forms the basis of that system.

3

| 2.4 | Community type-approval is granted when the approval authority has ascertained that the type of vehicle concerned meets the requirements of all the directives listed in the appendix to Directive 70/156/EEC. After the proposed new directive is approved, it will be included in this list, and no vehicle will receive type-approval if it does not comply with its provisions. |
| --- | --- |

2.4

Community type-approval is granted when the approval authority has ascertained that the type of vehicle concerned meets the requirements of all the directives listed in the appendix to Directive 70/156/EEC. After the proposed new directive is approved, it will be included in this list, and no vehicle will receive type-approval if it does not comply with its provisions.

| 2.5 | The proposal lays down the procedure which the manufacturer must follow to obtain type-approval from the competent authority. The procedure is designed to show that the vehicle has been designed and manufactured in conformity with the specified recyclability and recoverability rates. |
| --- | --- |

2.5

The proposal lays down the procedure which the manufacturer must follow to obtain type-approval from the competent authority. The procedure is designed to show that the vehicle has been designed and manufactured in conformity with the specified recyclability and recoverability rates.

| 2.6 | To achieve this, the manufacturer must first carry out a preliminary assessment, calculating the recyclability rates on special sheets which are then validated by the type-approval authority. At the same time, the manufacturer must inform the competent authority of his proposed strategy for re-use and recycling of the vehicle type for which he is requesting type-approval, by drawing up an assembly manual as already required under the ELV directive. |
| --- | --- |

2.6

To achieve this, the manufacturer must first carry out a preliminary assessment, calculating the recyclability rates on special sheets which are then validated by the type-approval authority. At the same time, the manufacturer must inform the competent authority of his proposed strategy for re-use and recycling of the vehicle type for which he is requesting type-approval, by drawing up an assembly manual as already required under the ELV directive.

| 2.7 | Cars are extremely complex products, and may have more than 10,000 component parts. It is therefore not feasible to check all the calculations in detail for every vehicle. Accordingly, and solely for the purposes of type-approval, it is proposed that detailed checks only be carried out on one or a few ‘reference vehicles’, chosen from among the versions within a type that are most problematic in terms of re-use, recyclability and recoverability. |
| --- | --- |

2.7

Cars are extremely complex products, and may have more than 10,000 component parts. It is therefore not feasible to check all the calculations in detail for every vehicle. Accordingly, and solely for the purposes of type-approval, it is proposed that detailed checks only be carried out on one or a few ‘reference vehicles’, chosen from among the versions within a type that are most problematic in terms of re-use, recyclability and recoverability.

| 2.8 | The directive bans the re-use of component parts that could pose risks to safety and/or the environment. These component parts, which are contained in a separate list, cannot be re-used in the construction of new vehicles. |
| --- | --- |

2.8

The directive bans the re-use of component parts that could pose risks to safety and/or the environment. These component parts, which are contained in a separate list, cannot be re-used in the construction of new vehicles.

| 2.9 | Lastly, certain categories of vehicle are specifically exempted from the proposal: special purpose vehicles (ambulances, motor caravans, etc.); vehicles produced in small series (where not more than 500 are put into service each year in each Member State); and light-duty trucks that are manufactured in several stages (i.e. at the design stage the manufacturer does not know what type of bodywork will be added to the frame). |
| --- | --- |

2.9

Lastly, certain categories of vehicle are specifically exempted from the proposal: special purpose vehicles (ambulances, motor caravans, etc.); vehicles produced in small series (where not more than 500 are put into service each year in each Member State); and light-duty trucks that are manufactured in several stages (i.e. at the design stage the manufacturer does not know what type of bodywork will be added to the frame).

3.   General comments

| 3.1 | The Committee again acknowledges the Commission's commitment to steadily improve this category of waste management. Its approach clearly deserves support, as it seeks to reduce the final disposal of waste to a minimum, using re-use, recycling and recovery in order to turn a problem into an environmental (and potentially, economic) benefit. |
| --- | --- |

3.1

The Committee again acknowledges the Commission's commitment to steadily improve this category of waste management. Its approach clearly deserves support, as it seeks to reduce the final disposal of waste to a minimum, using re-use, recycling and recovery in order to turn a problem into an environmental (and potentially, economic) benefit.

| 3.2 | The Committee also acknowledges the crucial role played by the motor industry in making it possible to achieve the desired objectives; for years, the industry has been investing in studies and research for the design of vehicles that are easier to recycle without abandoning other priorities which could have been adversely affected by this. |
| --- | --- |

3.2

The Committee also acknowledges the crucial role played by the motor industry in making it possible to achieve the desired objectives; for years, the industry has been investing in studies and research for the design of vehicles that are easier to recycle without abandoning other priorities which could have been adversely affected by this.

| 3.3 | Thanks to the synergy produced by the Commission's action, manufacturers' commitments and government legislation, the requirements of the ELV directive are well on the way to being met. This is borne out by the recent ACEA report detailing the state of implementation of the directive in the 15 Member States and Norway. |
| --- | --- |

3.3

Thanks to the synergy produced by the Commission's action, manufacturers' commitments and government legislation, the requirements of the ELV directive are well on the way to being met. This is borne out by the recent ACEA report detailing the state of implementation of the directive in the 15 Member States and Norway.

4.   Specific comments

| 4.1 | The Commission's decision to implement the requirements of Article 7(4) of the ELV directive by means of an ad hoc directive rather than by other possible courses of action is correct from a technical viewpoint and not called into question by the Committee. |
| --- | --- |

4.1

The Commission's decision to implement the requirements of Article 7(4) of the ELV directive by means of an ad hoc directive rather than by other possible courses of action is correct from a technical viewpoint and not called into question by the Committee.

| 4.2 | However, the proposed arrangements pose some problems, both for manufacturers in terms of higher costs, and for technical bodies and type-approval authorities, which could find themselves unable to cope with the enormous volume of data to be checked, as listed in annex II to the proposal, some of which are not even relevant (e.g. number and arrangement of cylinders and engine capacity). |
| --- | --- |

4.2

However, the proposed arrangements pose some problems, both for manufacturers in terms of higher costs, and for technical bodies and type-approval authorities, which could find themselves unable to cope with the enormous volume of data to be checked, as listed in annex II to the proposal, some of which are not even relevant (e.g. number and arrangement of cylinders and engine capacity).

| 4.3 | To limit these problems, the Committee thinks that some amendments could be made in order to make the process more efficient and effective, without however distorting or weakening the spirit and aims of the proposal. More particularly, the Committee proposes revising the following articles.

  Article 4(5): The reference vehicle on which the type-approval tests are to be conducted is defined as the version of vehicle which is identified by the approval authority as being the most problematic in terms of re-usability, recyclability and recoverability. If one considers all the fittings generally found in the same type of vehicle, identifying the reference vehicle is not always easy. To avoid misunderstandings between the different parties and save valuable time, it would be best to state explicitly that the reference vehicle will be decided by common accord of the manufacturer and the approval authority as being the most problematic in terms of re-usability, recyclability and recoverability.

  Article 5(3): Point 6.2.2 of the explanatory memorandum states that there will be physical checks on vehicle prototypes to verify the information submitted by the manufacturer and its suppliers as regards markings, nature of materials, masses of component parts, etc. Article 5(3) specifically mentions checks on the marking of component parts made of polymers or elastomers. In practice, however, the type-approval check is conducted on prototypes whose materials are ‘pre-series’ and are therefore not marked. A literal application of this provision would oblige the manufacturer to make special prototypes solely for the purpose of the inspections, thus exacerbating the already high cost of meeting all the other requirements of the directive. A less costly solution would be to amend Article 5(3) so as to require the approval authority to check that the manufacturer has taken steps (and the responsibility) to ensure that serially produced component parts made of polymers or elastomers are marked in accordance with requirements. The physical checks could always be carried out before the vehicles are put on the market, using those built during the type-approval process and used for the various tests (brakes, noise, safety, etc.), or – better still – could be carried out on the vehicles used for the production conformity checks.


  Article 10(3): This specifies that the requirements of the directive will be applied both to newly type-approved vehicles (i.e. new types) and newly registered vehicles (i.e. entire production range) 36 months after the directive enters into force. This deadline seems much shorter than that usually required in such situations; the deadlines for newly registered vehicles are usually two or three years after those for newly type-approved vehicles, as this gives manufacturers time to adapt vehicles already in production to the new requirements. Having a single deadline would create considerable problems for manufacturers as regards adapting their product and in terms of time and availability for obtaining type-approval of all their vehicle models. It must also be remembered that the type-approval process does not only involve manufacturers, but also technical bodies and approval authorities, who may also find it difficult to type-approve so many different types of vehicle in a short space of time. Accordingly, whilst not joining the calls for vehicles already in production to be exempted from the directive, the Committee thinks that Article 10(3) should be amended so that the new rules apply to newly registered vehicles not so soon after the entry into force of the directive (48 or 60 months rather than 36 months).


  Annex I(9): This specifies that for the purposes of checks on the materials and masses of component parts, the manufacturer must make available representative vehicles for each type of bodywork and component parts intended for these vehicles. This requirement again places significant burdens on both manufacturers and type-approval authorities, and does not seem essential for a proper type-approval process. For instance, there does not seem to be any point in testing all types of bodywork (three doors, five doors, people carrier), when here too it would be simpler just to take the version of the vehicle which presents the greatest recyclability problems. |
| --- | --- |

4.3

To limit these problems, the Committee thinks that some amendments could be made in order to make the process more efficient and effective, without however distorting or weakening the spirit and aims of the proposal. More particularly, the Committee proposes revising the following articles.

Article 4(5): The reference vehicle on which the type-approval tests are to be conducted is defined as the version of vehicle which is identified by the approval authority as being the most problematic in terms of re-usability, recyclability and recoverability. If one considers all the fittings generally found in the same type of vehicle, identifying the reference vehicle is not always easy. To avoid misunderstandings between the different parties and save valuable time, it would be best to state explicitly that the reference vehicle will be decided by common accord of the manufacturer and the approval authority as being the most problematic in terms of re-usability, recyclability and recoverability.

Article 4(5)

will be decided by common accord of the manufacturer and the approval authority

Article 5(3): Point 6.2.2 of the explanatory memorandum states that there will be physical checks on vehicle prototypes to verify the information submitted by the manufacturer and its suppliers as regards markings, nature of materials, masses of component parts, etc. Article 5(3) specifically mentions checks on the marking of component parts made of polymers or elastomers. In practice, however, the type-approval check is conducted on prototypes whose materials are ‘pre-series’ and are therefore not marked. A literal application of this provision would oblige the manufacturer to make special prototypes solely for the purpose of the inspections, thus exacerbating the already high cost of meeting all the other requirements of the directive. A less costly solution would be to amend Article 5(3) so as to require the approval authority to check that the manufacturer has taken steps (and the responsibility) to ensure that serially produced component parts made of polymers or elastomers are marked in accordance with requirements. The physical checks could always be carried out before the vehicles are put on the market, using those built during the type-approval process and used for the various tests (brakes, noise, safety, etc.), or – better still – could be carried out on the vehicles used for the production conformity checks.

Article 5(3)

amend Article 5(3) so as to require the approval authority to check that the manufacturer has taken steps (and the responsibility) to ensure that serially produced component parts made of polymers or elastomers are marked in accordance with requirements. The physical checks could always be carried out before the vehicles are put on the market, using those built during the type-approval process and used for the various tests (brakes, noise, safety, etc.), or – better still – could be carried out on the vehicles used for the production conformity checks.

Article 10(3): This specifies that the requirements of the directive will be applied both to newly type-approved vehicles (i.e. new types) and newly registered vehicles (i.e. entire production range) 36 months after the directive enters into force. This deadline seems much shorter than that usually required in such situations; the deadlines for newly registered vehicles are usually two or three years after those for newly type-approved vehicles, as this gives manufacturers time to adapt vehicles already in production to the new requirements. Having a single deadline would create considerable problems for manufacturers as regards adapting their product and in terms of time and availability for obtaining type-approval of all their vehicle models. It must also be remembered that the type-approval process does not only involve manufacturers, but also technical bodies and approval authorities, who may also find it difficult to type-approve so many different types of vehicle in a short space of time. Accordingly, whilst not joining the calls for vehicles already in production to be exempted from the directive, the Committee thinks that Article 10(3) should be amended so that the new rules apply to newly registered vehicles not so soon after the entry into force of the directive (48 or 60 months rather than 36 months).

Article 10(3)

the Committee thinks that Article 10(3) should be amended so that the new rules apply to newly registered vehicles not so soon after the entry into force of the directive (48 or 60 months rather than 36 months).

Annex I(9): This specifies that for the purposes of checks on the materials and masses of component parts, the manufacturer must make available representative vehicles for each type of bodywork and component parts intended for these vehicles. This requirement again places significant burdens on both manufacturers and type-approval authorities, and does not seem essential for a proper type-approval process. For instance, there does not seem to be any point in testing all types of bodywork (three doors, five doors, people carrier), when here too it would be simpler just to take the version of the vehicle which presents the greatest recyclability problems.

Annex I(9)

5.   Summary and conclusions

| 5.1 | The Committee reiterates its warm appreciation for the work done by the Commission in recent years to ensure that waste from dismantled vehicles is dealt with in an appropriate and intelligent manner. |
| --- | --- |

5.1

The Committee reiterates its warm appreciation for the work done by the Commission in recent years to ensure that waste from dismantled vehicles is dealt with in an appropriate and intelligent manner.

| 5.2 | In particular, Directive 2000/53 (the ELV directive) has finally harmonised at EU level the rules which Member States had begun to establish concerning the collection and treatment of end-of-life vehicles. The directive has also set minimum targets for re-use and recovery of waste, and deadlines for achieving them. |
| --- | --- |

5.2

In particular, Directive 2000/53 (the ELV directive) has finally harmonised at EU level the rules which Member States had begun to establish concerning the collection and treatment of end-of-life vehicles. The directive has also set minimum targets for re-use and recovery of waste, and deadlines for achieving them.

| 5.3 | The Committee takes this opportunity to ask the Member States to keep a watchful eye on the appropriate management of discarded parts of vehicles still in use (batteries, tyres, etc.) that are also potential sources of environmental pollution. |
| --- | --- |

5.3

The Committee takes this opportunity to ask the Member States to keep a watchful eye on the appropriate management of discarded parts of vehicles still in use (batteries, tyres, etc.) that are also potential sources of environmental pollution.

| 5.4 | The Committee fully supports the thinking behind the present proposal, whereby motor vehicles will only receive Community type-approval if they are designed in such a way as to meet the re-use and recovery percentage targets laid down in the ELV directive. |
| --- | --- |

5.4

The Committee fully supports the thinking behind the present proposal, whereby motor vehicles will only receive Community type-approval if they are designed in such a way as to meet the re-use and recovery percentage targets laid down in the ELV directive.

| 5.5 | The Committee's misgivings concern the choice of instrument, i.e. a new directive, as it thinks that the same aims could have been achieved more simply and quickly by other means. For example, it would suffice to insert an ‘assessment of manufacturers' capability’ in Annex X of Directive 70/156/EEC (which is already cited as the basis of the type-approval system), by analogy with the procedure for establishing the manufacturers' capability to produce vehicles identical to those type-approved. |
| --- | --- |

5.5

The Committee's misgivings concern the choice of instrument, i.e. a new directive, as it thinks that the same aims could have been achieved more simply and quickly by other means. For example, it would suffice to insert an ‘assessment of manufacturers' capability’ in Annex X of Directive 70/156/EEC (which is already cited as the basis of the type-approval system), by analogy with the procedure for establishing the manufacturers' capability to produce vehicles identical to those type-approved.

| 5.6 | However, as stated above, the Commission's decision to use a directive is correct from a technical viewpoint and cannot be called into question at this point, although it does not meet the increasingly widespread calls for simplification of EU law. |
| --- | --- |

5.6

However, as stated above, the Commission's decision to use a directive is correct from a technical viewpoint and cannot be called into question at this point, although it does not meet the increasingly widespread calls for simplification of EU law.

| 5.7 | For these reasons, the Committee hopes that the Commission will consider the amendments proposed in this opinion. These amendments do not alter the spirit and aim of the proposal, but would make the process less complex and burdensome for manufacturers, technical bodies, type-approval bodies and – last but not least – consumers, who will ultimately bear the burden of any increased delays and costs caused by unnecessarily complex legislation. |
| --- | --- |

5.7

For these reasons, the Committee hopes that the Commission will consider the amendments proposed in this opinion. These amendments do not alter the spirit and aim of the proposal, but would make the process less complex and burdensome for manufacturers, technical bodies, type-approval bodies and – last but not least – consumers, who will ultimately bear the burden of any increased delays and costs caused by unnecessarily complex legislation.

Brussels, 15 September 2004.

The President

of the European Economic and Social Committee

Roger BRIESCH

---

(1)  OJ L 269 of 21.10.2000.

1

(2)  OJ C 129 of 27.4.1998.

2

(3)  OJ L 42 of 23.2.1970.

3

---