No C 286/2 Official Journal of the European Communities 24. 10. 83 
Whereas in its opinion on Directive 82/176/EEC on 
limit values and quality objectives for discharges of 
mercury into the aquatic environment by the chlor-
alkali electrolysis industry, the Committee urged 
that the rules be extended to cover mercury dis­
charges from any sector, since most discharges in 
fact came from outside the chlor-alkali electrolysis 
industry ('); 
Whereas in its opinion on the draft Directive on 
dumping of waste at sea, the Committee called for 
stricter measures even for low-concentration pollu­
tants (2), 
HAS ADOPTED THE FOLLOWING OPINION 
unanimously: 
1. The Committee approves the draft Directive, 
which is designed to round off Community legisla­
tion on mercury discharges. This comprehensive 
approach will make it possible to monitor environ­
mental conditions closely, and to extend controls to 
specific mercury discharges which involve a risk of 
pollution. 
(') OJ No C 83, 2. 4. 1980, p. 16. 
(2) OJNoC 197,23.8. 1976. 2. The Committee welcomes the fact that the draft 
Directive requires the Member States to draw up 
specific programmes for the gradual elimination of 
mercury pollution caused by effluents from dental 
health establishments and analytical laboratories 
not subject to emission standards. The Committee 
feels that the large number of these, and their conse­
quent effect on pollution, make their inclusion in 
the regulations vital. 
3. The Committee feels, however, that the arrange­
ments proposed by the Commission do not go far 
enough, in that the Member States would not have 
to implement the measures on eliminating mercury 
discharges in this sector until 1988 at the earliest. 
There can therefore be no question of exceeding this 
deadline. 
4. The Committee feels that point 3 of Annex 1 
should be amended, as there is no reason why the 
wording should differ from that used in point 2. In 
.both cases, the wording 'may not be greater' can be 
used. 
The Committee therefore proposes that point 3 be 
worded as follows: 
'The daily average limit values may not be 
greater than twice the corresponding monthly 
average limit values given in the table.' 
Done at Brussels, 6 July 1983. 
The Chairman 
of the Economic and Social Committee 
Francis CEYRAC 
Opinion on the proposal for a Council Directive on the approximation of the laws of the 
Member States relating to the roll-over protection structures (rear-mounted rollbar, 
frame or cab type) of narrow-track wheeled agricultural or forestry tractors 
The text referred to the Committee has been published in Official Journal of the Euro­
pean Communities No C 123 of 9 May 1983, page 1. 
A. LEGAL BASIS FOR THE OPINION 
On 23 April 1983 the Council referred the abovementioned proposal to the Economic 
and Social Committee in accordance with Article 100 of the Treaty establishing the 
European Economic Community. 
24. 10. 83 Official Journal of the European Communities No C 286/3 
B. OPINION OF THE ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL COMMITTEE 
The Economic and Social Committee prepared its opinion on the above matter at its 
209th plenary session held in Brussels on 6 and 7 July 1983. 
The full text of the opinion is as follows: 
THE ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL COMMITTEE, 
Having regard to the Treaty establishing the Euro­
pean Economic Community, and in particular 
Article 100 thereof, 
Having regard to the request made by the Council 
of the European Communities on 23 April 1983 for 
an opinion on the proposal for a Council Directive 
on the approximation of the laws of the Member 
States relating to the roll-over protection structures 
(rear-mounted rollbar, frame or cab type) of nar­
row-track wheeled agricultural or forestry trac­
tors ('), 
Having regard to the decision taken by its Bureau 
on 26 April 1983 instructing the Section for Indus­
try, Commerce, Crafts and Services to draw up an 
opinion and report on the matter, 
Having regard to the opinion adopted by the Sec­
tion for Industry, Commerce, Crafts and Services on 
8 June 1983, has a worse record of occupational disease, as well 
as fatal and other accidents, than any other sector. 
2. The Committee notes that the proposal is appli­
cable only to roll-over protection structures of the 
'frame or cab' type (without specifying the type of 
construction: two or more pillars) and so proposes 
that the title of the proposal be worded in all lan­
guages with the same detail as is found, for exam­
ple, in the English version. 
3. The Committee has also been informed that the 
Commission is shortly planning to introduce a fur­
ther Directive on protective structures of the 'two 
pillars mounted at the front' type. In this connection 
the Committee considers that it would have been 
better to have one single Directive covering both the 
'frame or cab' structures and the 'two pillars 
mounted in the front' structure. The Committee is, 
however, aware that this would present technical 
problems and so accepts the plan to draw up two 
separate Directives although it insists on the need to 
bring both Directives into force simultaneously. 
Having regard to the report submitted by the rappor­
teur, Mr Masprone, 
Having regard to the discussions on 6 July 1983, 
during its 209th plenary session held on 6 and 7 July 
1983, II. Specific comments 
Article 1 
HAS ADOPTED THE FOLLOWING OPINION 
unanimously: 
The Committee approves the proposal for a Direc­
tive but has the following comments to make: Ground clearance should be the distance between 
the ground and the front and rear axles, including 
the differential or differentials. The first indent 
should therefore be amended to read as follows: 
'ground clearance of not more than 600 mm, 
measured beneath the front and rear axles 
including the differential'. 
I. General comments 
1. The Committee would first of all like to under­
line the importance of the proposal — which seeks 
to improve the safety of tractors — given among 
other things the latest statistics on the serious acci­
dents to drivers caused by the overturning of trac­
tors. It should be remembered that agriculture still 
(•) OJNoC123,9. 5. 1983. Article 4 (2) 
The Committee considers that a Member State must 
have the right to prohibit the placing on the market 
of roll-over protection structures which fail to con­
form to the approved EEC type. The Committee 
therefore proposes that the first paragraph of 
Article 4 (2) be amended to read as follows: 
'... placing on the market of roll-over protection 
structures which fail to conform to the approved 
type even though they bear the EEC component 
type-approval mark'. 
No C 286/4 Official Journal of the European Communities 24. 10. 83 
Article 10(2) 
To clarify the scope of the Directive in terms of 
what is said in the general comments, the Com­
mittee proposes that the beginning of this point be 
worded as follows: 
'This structure, provided it is not of the "two pil­
lars mounted at the front" type, must comply 
with The Committee draws the attention of the Commis­
sion to various imperfections in the various lan­
guage versions and calls for the necessary altera­
tions to be made. 
Annexes 
The Committee has also collected a number of tech­
nical comments which will be included in the report. 
Done at Brussels, 6 July 1983. 
The Chairman 
of the Economic and Social Committee 
Francis CEYRAC 
Opinion on the economic situation in the Community (mid-1983) 
A. LEGAL BASIS FOR THE OPINION 
Council Decision of 18 February 1974 on the attainment of a high degree of con­
vergence of the economic policies of the Member States of the European Economic 
Community ('). 
At its 203rd plenary session held on 15 and 16 December 1982, the Committee, acting 
on a proposal from its Bureau in accordance with the fourth paragraph of Article 20 of 
its Rules of Procedure, decided to deliver an opinion on its own initiative on the 
above matter. 
Procedure 
The Section for Economic and Financial Questions was asked to prepare the opinion 
and appointed Mr Alois Pfeiffer as rapporteur. 
The Section adopted its opinion on 21 June 1983 by 45 votes in favour with one 
abstention. 
B. OPINION OF THE ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL COMMITTEE 
The Economic and Social Committee's opinion was adopted at its 209th plenary 
session, held on 6 and 7 July 1983, unanimously, less six abstentions. 
The full text of the opinion is as follows: 
(') OJ No L 63, 5. 3. 1974, p. 16.