COMMUNICATION FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT pursuant to the second subparagraph of Article 251 (2) of the EC Treaty concerning the Common Position of the Council on the adoption of a Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council amending Council Directive 92/6/EEC on the installation and use of speed limitation devices for certain categories of motor vehicles in the Community

2001/0135 (COD)

COMMUNICATION FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT pursuant to the second subparagraph of Article 251 (2) of the EC Treaty concerning the Common Position of the Council on the adoption of a Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council amending Council Directive 92/6/EEC on the installation and use of speed limitation devices for certain categories of motor vehicles in the Community

1- BACKGROUND

Date of transmission of the proposal to the EP and the Council (document COM(2001) 318 - 2001/0135(COD)): // 14.6.2001

Date of the opinion of the Economic and Social Committee: // 28.11.2001

Date of the opinion of the European Parliament, first reading: // 7.2.2002

Date of adoption of the common orientation in the Council: // 7.12.2001

Date of adoption of the common position by qualified majority: // 25.6.2002

2- OBJECTIVE OF THE COMMISSION PROPOSAL

Following its Communication on Road Safety of March 2000 (COM(2000) 125 final) and the positive reception by the European Parliament and the Council in their respective resolutions which underlined speed limitation devices as one of the most cost-effective measures for road safety, the Commission proposes to extend the scope of application of Directive 92/6/EEC and require speed limitation devices not allowing speeds higher than 90 km/h for lighter categories of trucks between 3,5 and 12 tonnes (category N2) and devices not allowing speeds higher than 100 km/h for small buses with more than eight seats in addition to the driver's seat and having a weight not more than 10 tonnes (category M2 and part of category M3). Goods vehicles of over 12 tonnes (category N3) and passenger vehicles of over 10 tonnes (the rest of category M3) are already covered by 92/6/EEC.

The Commission also proposes a limited retrofitting of these devices so as to extend the effects of the proposal and to avoid market distortion.

3- COMMENTS ON THE COMMON POSITION

3.1 General remarks

The Commission notes that the Common Position adopted by the Council reflects to a large degree the original proposal made by the Commission and is nearly identical to its amended proposal. The Common Position reflects a fair and balanced compromise.

3.2 Amendments adopted by the European Parliament at its First Reading.

A total of 10 amendments were adopted by the European Parliament at its First Reading of the proposal.

These amendments concern:

- definition of categories of motor vehicles in recitals 3, 4 and 5 to become "lighter commercial vehicles" (amendments 1, 2 and 3); not taken in the amended proposal nor in the Common Position.

- the possibility for Member States to require a lower limit in the speed limitation device for vehicles in the transport of dangerous goods (amendment 4); incorporated in the amended proposal and in the Common Position with some formal or editorial modifications.

- a separation of vehicles already covered to become Article 4(1) of modified Directive 92/6/EEC and vehicles falling under the extension of the scope to become Article 4(2) (amendment 5); incorporated in principle in the amended proposal and in the Common Position.

- the possibility for Member States to a flexible implementation concerning the very lightest vehicles (M2; N2 of less than or equal to 7.5 tonnes) and limited in the EU to national territory (amendment 6); incorporated in the amended proposal and in the Common Position with some formal or editorial modifications.

- the possibility to continue to use national standards in the approval of speed limitation devices before the entry into force of the Directive (amendment 7); incorporated in principle in the amended proposal and in the Common Position.

- time-limited possibilities to overrule the speed limitation device (amendment 8); not taken in the amended proposal nor in the Common Position.

- a report from the Commission on Intelligent Speed Management (ISA) and speed limitation devices in 18 months time (amendment 9); incorporated in part in the amended proposal and in the Common Position.

- the date of implementation of the Directive by Member States (amendment 10); incorporated in principle in the amended proposal and in the Common Position.

To summarise, of these ten amendments the Commission had accepted 2 amendments (4 and 6) with some formal or editorial modifications; had accepted the principle of 3 amendments (5, 7 and 10), had accepted in part 1 amendment (9) and had rejected 4 amendments (1, 2, 3 and 8).

Amendments 4 and 6 of the European Parliament have been accepted into the Common Position with some formal or editorial modifications.

Amendments 5, 7 and 10 have been accepted in principle into the Common Position: in amendment 5 the dates are aligned with the dates of the accepted amendment 6 and it is made clearer that the retrofitting is limited to vehicles fulfilling the Euro 3 emission standards; in amendments 7 and 10 the dates are aligned with the dates of the accepted amendment 6 in order to have a 2-3-4-5 scheme of implementation, i.e. implementation by Member States and installation to new vehicles two years after entry into force of the Directive, retrofitting to vehicles in international transport operations after three years, retrofitting to other vehicles after four years and end of possible national derogations after five years.

Amendment 9 has been accepted in part into the Common Position as a study in the context of Road Safety towards 2010.

3.3 New aspects introduced by the Council

The Common Position introduces the following changes to the Commission amended proposal:

- recital 2 has been split in two sentences talking separately on road safety and environmental protection. In the opinion of the Commission this change makes the text clearer.

- recital 3 has been deleted as unnecessary. The Commission agrees with this.

- recitals 4 and 5 (new recitals 3 and 4) are modified and a new recital 5 is added in order to make reference to the history from Directive 92/6/EEC, the Commission Road Safety Communication of 20 March 2000 and the Council Resolution on Road Safety of 26 June 2000 as well as an explicit reference to the categories of vehicles concerned. This in fact takes care of the concern of definition of vehicle categories as expressed by the European Parliament in its amendments 2 and 3 (amendment 1 concerned a recital that has been deleted). In the opinion of the Commission the wording as presented in these recitals 3, 4 and 5 does not give room for ambiguity and is thus acceptable.

- in Article 2 of the amended 92/6/EEC the speed limitation device for categories M2 and M3 is set in such a way that their speed cannot exceed 100 kilometres per hour. In the proposal the 100 kilometres per hour was the set speed for these vehicles. In the opinion of the Commission this change makes the application of the Directive more uniform with the same philosophy for both goods and passenger vehicles.

4- CONCLUSION

The Commission supports the Common Position as an important step for road safety, environmental protection and equal competition in the EU and delivers a favourable opinion on it as a whole.