6.8.84 Official Journal of the European Communities No C 206/41 
Voting: 
Votes in favour: 50, votes against: 54, abstentions: 6. 
Page 2: point 3.3.1 — third indent: 
The last sentence (The minimum objective should be to achieve a proportion ...') should be 
deleted. 
Reasons 
Given sectoral diversification and stratification it is not possible to say that the average propor­
tion of women in the overall working population should be such and such a figure (or in reality a 
'quota'). In some sectors, such as micro-electronics, the proportion of women in employment 
may be much higher whilst in other sectors, e.g. the construction of flexible workshops, or in civil 
and space aviation, it is bound to be lower. 
Voting: 
Votes in favour: 47, votes against: 64, abstentions: 6. 
Delete from 'Page 2: Point 3.3.1, fifth indent' to '... equal opportunity in employment.' 
Reasons: 
The reduction of working time is determined by the apportionment of productivity gains. The 
reorganization of working time depends on the characteristics of the sectors of production and 
their sensitivity vis-a-vis international competition. Both are, however, independent of the com­
position of each sector's workforce (e.g.: food industry — large proportion of women; iron and 
steel industry and chemical industry — smaller proportion of women). 
The promotion of equal opportunity in employment cannot and must not therefore be linked 
with the reduction and reorganization of working time, because this is a separate matter. 
Voting: 
Votes in favour: 43, votes against: 61, abstentions: 6. 
Opinion on the proposal for a Council Directive on the approximation of the laws of the 
Member States relating to the noise emission of rail-mounted vehicles 
(84/C 206/13) 
The text referred to the Committee has been published in Official Journal of the 
European Communities No C 354 of 29 December 1983, page 4. 
A. LEGAL BASIS FOR THE OPINION 
On 20 December 1983 the Council decided to consult the Economic and Social Com­
mittee, under Article 100 of the Treaty establishing the European Economic Com­
munity, on the abovementioned matter. 
No C 206/42 Official Journal of the European Communities 6. 8. 84 
Procedure: 
The Section for Industry, Commerce, Crafts and Services, which was responsible for 
preparing the Committee's work on the subject, adopted its opinion on 2 May 1984. 
Mr Masprone was rapporteur. 
B. OPINION OF THE ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL COMMITTEE 
At its 217th plenary session, meeting of 23 May 1984, the Economic and Social Com­
mittee adopted the following opinion by 72 votes to seven with four abstentions. 
1. The Committee aproves the Commission propo­
sal. It would, however, make the following com­
ments. 
2. General comments 
2.1. The Committee would refer to the 1979 Fed­
eral Republic of Germany's notification of rules for 
this area, and shares the Commission's view that 
certain trade barriers could be forestalled by 
immediately taking fixed, harmonized measures on 
noise emission by rail-mounted vehicles. 
2.2. The Committee notes that the proposed Direc­
tive is to apply only to new rolling stock and to 
stock ordered after the date on which it comes into 
force. It also notes that a favourable impact on the 
environment would only be felt progressively, i.e. at 
first there would be very little impact and the full 
impact would only be felt when all old rolling stock 
had been replaced. 
2.3. The Committee feels that for clarity's sake, it 
would be better to define the scope of the proposed 
Directive by listing those rail-mounted vehicles not 
covered, mainly city underground trains and trams. 
The Committee would invite the Commission to 
undertake further studies on these areas. 
2.4. The Committee notes that the proposal deals 
mainly with environmental noise of rail-mounted 
vehicles and noise affecting those living near rail­
way lines. This is important because population 
centres are increasingly encroaching on the country­
side; railway lines and marshalling yards which had 
been isolated are no longer so. The Committee 
invites the Commission to take into consideration 
noise affecting passengers when drafting future 
legislation in this area. 
2.5. The three main sources of noise emission are 
wheel/rail interaction, tractive units and aerodynam­ics. The first of these remains the major source, 
despite improvements in infrastructure carried out 
by the railways, such as new long welded tracks. The 
Committee would emphasize the virtual impossibil­
ity at present of breaking down the overall noise 
into different categories. It approves the Commis­
sion's attempt to improve future competitiveness in 
this mode of transport by striking a balance between 
the different requirements and taking account of the 
campaign against environmental noise nuisances. 
At all events, noise limitation must not impede tech­
nical progress, particularly increases in the speed of 
trains. 
2.6. The proposal is confined to new rolling stock, 
and the proposed dB level should not present too 
many technical and economic difficulties. The 
Committee therefore feels that the Directive would 
have a positive economic and industrial impact. 
2.7. The Committee wishes to draw the Commis­
sion's attention to various slips in the translations in 
the different languages, and asks it to rectify the 
situation. 
3. Specific comments 
3.1. Article I 
The Committee would ask the Commission to state 
clearly that the proposed Directive will apply only 
to new vehicles ordered after it has come into force. 
3.2. Annex I, 6.1.1 
The Committee requests that the 'Nota Bene' to the 
above paragraph should be dropped since it applies 
only to trams and city underground trains, which 
will be excluded from the Directive. 
6. 8. 84 Official Journal of the European Communities No C 206/43 
3.3. Annex II speeds in excess of 170 km/h. It requests the Com­
mission to adopt the principle of a tolerance for lim-
The Committee wonders why the law on the varia- its, at least for monitoring standard vehicles, 
tion of sound levels imposes an upper limit for all 
Done at Brussels, 23 May 1984. 
The Chairman 
of the Economic and Social Committee 
Francois CEYRAC 
APPENDIX 
to the opinion of the Economic and Social Committee 
Rejected amendments 
The following amendments to the Section opinion, tabled in accordance with the Rules of Proce­
dure, were rejected during the Committee's debate: 
Point 2.2 
Replace point 2.2 by the following: 
The Commission proposal should be approved, in that it prevents the creation of technical bar­
riers to trade, but we should point out that other action is necessary to combat noise.' 
Voting 
Votes in favour: 41, votes against: 43, abstentions: 5. 
Point 2.7 
Add a new point after point 2.7 as follows: 
'The Section asks the Commission to draw up an "overall" Directive, better adapted to protec­
tion of the environment to prevent initiatives by different countries from distorting competition.' 
Reasons: 
The proposed text already appeared in the draft opinion and was supported by most Study 
Group members, but was rejected by the Section. The Section decision was undoubtedly moti­
vated to some extent by the Commission representative's statement that experience had shown 
that all optional Directives had in fact been subsequently turned into overall Directives, in so far 
as the individual Member States had subsequently aligned on the scheduled provisions. 
No C 206/44 Official Journal of the European Communities 6. 8. 84 
While it is important to refer to practice, it is equally important to guarantee an obligation which 
cannot be disregarded. An 'overall' Directive provides this guarantee, while an optional one is 
subject to the discretion of the individual States. 
Voting: 
Votes in favour: 20, votes against: 56, abstentions: 6. 
Opinion on the proposal for a Council Directive amending Directive 80/217/EEC 
introducing Community measures for the control of classical swine fever 
(84/C 206/14) 
The text referred to the Committee has been published in Official Journal of the 
European Communities No C 19 of 26 January 1984, page 6. 
A. LEGAL BASIS FOR THE OPINION 
On 27 January 1984 the Council decided to consult the Economic and Social Com­
mittee under Articles 100 and 198 of the Treaty establishing the European Economic 
Community on the abovementioned matter. 
Procedure: 
The Economic and Social Committee instructed Mr Storie-Pugh, as Rapporteur-Gen­
eral, to prepare work on the matter. 
B. OPINION OF THE ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL COMMITTEE 
At its 217th plenary session, meeting of 24 May 1984 the Economic and Social Com­
mittee adopted the following opinion unanimously. 
The Committee recognizes that the proposal for 
amending legislation is very necessary because the 
overall position regarding the incidence of out­
breaks of classical swine fever is deteriorating ser­
iously. The Committee is, however, of the opinion 
that the measures proposed do not go far enough. 
Indeed, current legislation together with the new 
amending proposals are not technically adequate to 
reverse the present trend unless an even more strin­
gent approach is accepted and enforced. 
The basic legislation has not been successful in the 
objectives, due to a variety of reasons, mostly well 
recognized. The original concepts were sound 
enough, but much of the subsequent failure can be 
attributed to inadequate implementation. 
However, the amendment as proposed by the Com­
mission is still too weak in many areas: one may 
instance such aspects as lack of proper definition 
regarding compulsory vaccination, movement con­trol of live animals and especially concerning trade 
out of the vaccination areas, e.g. vaccinated pigs 
leaving such areas, meat, including offal, the meat 
of vaccinated animals, the dangers of staggered 
slaughter, the control of salvage pigs off infected 
premises, etc. Any review must take into account 
not only intra-Community trade but also that from 
third countries. 
It would seem that the Commission (possibly for 
reasons of politics and economics outside its con­
trol) has tried to compromise in its approach 
between the two basic possibilities (the choice of 
programme depending on the disease situation at 
the start) of: 
(a) vaccinate everything for at least two years — 
stopping at some predetermined date; 
(b) slaughter/compensation/stamping out plus 
usual controls.