NoC52/8 OfficialJournaloftheEuropeanCommunities 19.2.94
OpinionontheproposalforaCouncilRegulation (EEC)onsubstancesthatdepletethe
ozonelayer(!)
(94/C52/03)
On1September1993theCouncildecidedtoconsulttheEconomicandSocialCommittee,
underArticle130softheTreatyestablishingtheEuropeanEconomicCommunity,onthe
abovementioned proposal.
TheSectionforProtectionoftheEnvironment ,PublicHealthandConsumerAffairs,which
wasresponsibleforpreparingtheCommittee'sworkonthesubject,adopteditsOpinionon
7December1993.TheRapporteurwasMrColombo.
Atits311thPlenarySession(meetingof21December1993),theEconomicandSocial
CommitteeadoptedthefollowingOpinionunanimously .
environment policyandwiththeCommunity's
responsibilities arisingfromitshighdegreeofindus­
trialization,hightechnological level,financial
resources,andstrongpublicawarenessoftheneedfor
environmental protection.
1.6.Europeanindustryhasalreadyshowninsome
sectorsthatitcanmeettheobligationsoftheMontreal
Protocolingoodtime;theproductionsectorsaffected
bytheplannednewcontrolmeasureshavealternative
solutionsavailablewhichwillmakeitpossibletoreduce
thenegativeimpactontheenvironment .Sizeableinvest­
mentshavealreadybeenmadebyproducersandusers
forthenecessaryreconversion ,andthistrendmust
continuetobeencouraged ;tointroducefurtherdero­
gationsorpostponements ,whichwouldonlyreward
delay,wouldmeansendingthewrongmessageto
industry.
1.7.Moredifficultproblemsundoubtedlyarisefor
usersinsomesectors,especiallythatofrefrigeration
forindustrialuse.TheCommissionhintsatsuchprob­
lemsintheExplanatoryMemorandum ,butitwould
havebeenusefulforittopublishanassessmentofthe
impactonthevarioussectorsfollowingtheconsul­
tationswithindustry.
1.8.Itshouldbenotedthatsomeofourinternational
partners,suchastheUSA,arereadytogobeyondthe
Copenhagencommitments ;andwithintheCommunity
someMemberStates,suchasGermanyandDenmark,
havealreadyadoptedmoreadvancednationalstan­
dards.TheCommitteeendorsestheProposalforaRegulation,
whichfollowsfromthecommitments onenvironmental
protectionundertakenatinternational levelbythe
Community .
1.Generalcomments
1.1.Inassessingthisfurtherstepforwardproposed
atCommunitylevelforprotectionoftheozonelayer,
followingfromtheratificationofthesecondamend­
menttotheMontrealProtocol,theCommitteeintends
togiveprioritytoreducingenvironmental damageto
theminimumcompatiblewithtechnologicalandscien­
tificdevelopment .
1.2.AsalreadystressedintheOpinion(2)callingfor
therapidratificationoftheamendmentadoptedat
Copenhagen,theCommitteetakestheviewthatthe
Communityinitiativeinthisfieldshouldactasamotor,
encouragingthenecessaryreconversionsoastoensure
thelong-termcompetitiveness ofEuropeanindustry.
1.3.TheCommitteethereforewelcomestheCom­
missionproposaltostrengthentheRegulation
implementing theCopenhagendecisionsof1992by
intensifyingexistingcontrolmeasuresonCFCs,halons,
carbontetrachloride and1,1,1-trichloroethane ,and
extendingthecontrolstomethylbromide,hydrobromo­
fluorocarbonsandhydrochlorofluorocarbons .
1.4.Thisproposalalsocorrespondstoacommit­
mentintheFifthCommunityActionProgrammeto
acceleratetheprocessofreducingthesubstanceswhich
depletetheozonelayer,toagreaterextentthanhas
beendecidedatinternational level.
1.5.Inthiscontext,theCommitteewoulddraw
attentiontosection9ofitsOpinionontheFifthPro­
gramme(3),dealingspecificallywithinternational1.9.Theproposalseekstomeettheconcernsofusers
ofthesesubstancesbydefiningarangeofessentialuses
forwhichexceptionswillbemade;theseessentialuses
wouldbelaiddowninconsultation withtheMember
Statesthroughthemanagementcommitteesetupby
Article16,andshouldallowamarginofflexibilityand
adaptationforcaseswheresubstitutesdonotexistor
reconversion encounterstemporaryobjectivediffi­
culties.(!)OJNoC232,28.8.1993,p.6.
(2)OJNoC201,26.7.1993.
(3)OJNoC287,4.11.1992.

19.2.94 OfficialJournaloftheEuropeanCommunities NoC52/9
2.3.InArticle5(2),whichregulatestheusesof
HCFCs,'use'shouldexplicitlyexcludefeedstockuses
inwhichHCFCsarechemicallytransformedintoother
substances .1.10.Onthemoreimportanttasksassignedtothis
committee,thereiscertainlyreasontoquestionwhether
thetypeIIprocedure (managementcommittee )isthe
mosteffective,andtoconsiderthedesirabilityoftrans­
formingthecommitteeintoaregulatoryone.
2.4.InArticle5,thepermittedusescouldalso
include'flameextinguishers'.CertainHCFCs
(GroupVIII)withlowozonedepletioncapacityhave
infactprovedsuitableforthispurpose,andareregard­
edasacceptablebytheUSAEnvironmental Protection
Agency.1.11.Finally,theCommitteedrawsattentiontothe
needtoimposestrictcontrolsonimportsfromthird
countries(particularlythosewhichhavenotsignedthe
MontrealProtocol),topreventuserscircumventing the
restrictionsimposedbytheRegulation .Ifillegal
importsweretoreplaceCommunityproducts,the
environmental impactofthemeasureswouldbecan­
celledout.
1.12.InthisconnectiontheCommitteeinvitesthe
Commissiontomakeafullerstudy,onthebasisofthe
experienceacquired,ofthepossibleconsequencesupon
certaincountries'tradingrelationswiththeEuropean
UnionshouldthosecountriesfailtoratifytheProtocol.2.5.InArticle5(2),itisproposedthat'sterilants'be
removedfromthelistofbannedusesofHCFCs.By
usinganHCFCfromGroupVIII(thisuseisalso
allowedbytheAmericanEPA)sterilizationcanbe
carriedoutwithexactlythesameequipmentasthat
currentlyusedwithCFCs.Henceinvestmentstoadapt
thesystemstoflameproofing standardsortomake
circuitsresistanttohigherpressureswouldnotbe
necessary .
2.Specificcomments
2.1.AmongthedefinitionsgiveninArticle2,it
wouldbedesirabletoincludethatof'use'.2.6.InArticles8,9and10,onimports,thereisno
mentionofHCFCs;theCommitteeispuzzledbythis
omission,althoughitnotesthatthecontrolofHCFCs
concernsputtingthemonthemarketandtherefore
coversbothproducersandimporters.
2.2.Article3containsseveralreferences
(paragraphs 1,2,3,4,5and7)tothemanagement
committeeprocedurelaiddowninArticle16fordecid­
ingonessentialusesandonthequantitiesproducedby
eachproducer.However,thecompetentauthoritiesof
theMemberStatesarebroughtintoauthorizepro­
ducerstoexceedthelimits,withpreviousnotification
totheCommission ;suchauthorizations canbegranted
onlyinordertomeetbasicrequirementsorforthe
purposeofindustrialrationalization .2.7.InArticle14,ontherecoveryofusedcontrolled
substances,itisproposedthataparagraphbeinserted
prescribingforMemberStatesthetaskofsettingupa
collectioncircuitforrecyclingordestructionofthe
controlledsubstances .
2.8.OnArticle15,onpreventingleakagesofcon­
trolledsubstances,theCommitteestressesthe
importantroletobeplayedbytheMemberStatesin
ensuringthatallthepreventivemeasuresareadopted,
andsuggeststhatanarticlebeaddedtospelloutthat
roleofguarantorsofproperapplication .2.2.1.TheCommittee isconcernedabouttheeffec­
tivenessofthesystemandabouttheneedtoensure
coordinationbetweennationalpowersandCommunity
decisions,whilerespectingtheprincipleofsubsidiarity .
Theessentialusesandtherequirementsshouldbedeter­
minedincloseconsultationwithusers,sinceproducers
arenotinapositiontoassessthem.
2.2.2.Finally,derogationsmustnotencouragea
maintenanceofthe'statusquo',sinceitisessentialto
giveindustryincentivesfortechnologicalinnovationto
findtheappropriatesubstitutes.'Essential'usesshould
bekepttoanabsoluteminimum,recallingthestrictly
limitingdefinitionofDecisionIV/25oftheParties
totheMontrealProtocolattheirfourthmeetingin
Copenhagen .2.9.Article18providesforadualinformationsys­
temcentralizedbytheCommission ,whichcan
approacheitherthecompetentauthoritiesorthefirms
directly.Bearinginmindsubsidiarity,theCommittee
wonderswhetherthissystemisthemostfunctional,
whetheritmightleadtoduplication,andwhetherit
mightnotbebettertoincreasetheroleofthecompetent
nationalauthoritiesincollectinginformation .

NoC52/10 OfficialJournaloftheEuropeanCommunities 19.2.94
oftheProtocolvaluesforseveralofthemoreimportant
commercialHCFCsisanoversightindrafting.
2.10.1.UseofadifferentsetofvaluesintheCom­
munitytothoseagreedinternationally wouldcause
greatconfusion,andmakeitdifficultifnotimpossible
fortheCommunitytodemonstratecompliancewith
theProtocol.2.9.1.InArticle18(5),thecompetentauthorities
shouldalsobeobligedtoprotectconfidentiality .
2.10.InAnnexItheODPs(OzoneDepletionPoten­
tials)forGroupVIIIsubstancesshouldbecorrectedand
broughtinlinewiththevaluesintheMontrealProtocol
asamendedinCopenhagenandasagreedtobytheCom­
missioninCopenhagen .Itisassumedthattheomission
DoneatBrussels,21December1993.
TheChairman
oftheEconomicandSocialCommittee
SusanneTIEMANN
OpinionontheCommissionproposalforaCouncilDirectiveontheapproximation ofthe
lawsoftheMemberStatesconcerningpressureequipment (!)
(94/C52/04)
On12August1993theCounciloftheEuropeanCommunities decidedtoconsultthe
EconomicandSocialCommittee,underArticle100aoftheTreatyestablishingtheEuropean
EconomicCommunity ,ontheabovementioned proposal.
TheSectionforIndustry,Commerce,CraftsandServices,whichwasresponsibleforpreparing
theCommittee'sworkonthesubject,adopteditsOpinionon3December1993.The
RapporteurwasMrBoGreen.
Atits311thPlenarySession(meetingof21December1993),theEconomicandSocial
CommitteeunanimouslyadoptedthefollowingOpinion.
1.Background
1.1.InthelightofexistinglegislationintheEC,the
Commissionobservesthatnationaltechnicalspecifi­
cationsarestillnotharmonizedandthereby,inthevast
majorityofcases,impedefreemovementofpressure
equipment .
TheexistingDirectives(2)donotencompasstheentire
sector,andinsomecasesneedtobeupdated.
TheCommissionproposalcoverspressureequipment
whichissubjecttoapressuregreaterthan0.5bar
orlessthan—0.5bar.Forthetimebeing,pressure
equipmentforthetransportofdangerousgoodsfallsoutsideitsscope.ForthatequipmenttheCommission
intendstoproposethattheexistinginternationalagree­
mentsonthetransportofdangerousgoodsbeincorpor­
atedintoCommunitylaw.
TheproposedDirectiveisbasedontheCouncilResol­
utionof7May1985(3)on'anewapproachtotechnical
harmonization andstandards'.Thenewapproach
limitstheinterventionoftheCommunitylegislatorto
whatisabsolutelyessentialfortheachievementof
harmonization ,leavingthedevelopmentoftechnical
specificationstoEuropeanstandardization organiza­
tions.
Theproposedprovisionsrelatingtoproceduresforthe
assessmentofconformityarebasedonthemodular
approachsetoutintheCouncilDecisionof13Decem­
ber1990(4).
(i)OJNoC246,9.9.1993,p.1.
(3)OJNoC136,4.6.1985,p.1.(2)87/404/EEC,OJNoL220,8.8.1987,p.48;76/767/EEC,OJ
NoL262,27.9.1976,p.15;84/525/EEC,OJNoL300,
19.11.1984,p.1;84/526/EEC,OJNoL300,19.11.1984,
p.20;84/527/EEC,OJNoL300,19.11.1984,p.48.(4)OJNoL380,31.12.1990,p.13;cf.ESCOpinion,OJ
NoC112,7.5.1990,p.4.