Opinion of the Economic and Social Committee on the 'Proposal for a European Parliament and Council Directive relating to motor vehicles and their trailers transporting certain animals and amending Directive 70/156/EEC in respect of the type-approval of motor vehicles and their trailers` (98/C 73/03)

On 3 July 1997 the European Council decided to consult the Economic and Social Committee, under Article 100 A of the Treaty establishing the European Community, on the above-mentioned proposal.

The Section for Industry, Commerce, Crafts and Services, which was responsible for preparing the Committee's work on the subject, adopted its opinion on 3 December 1997. The rapporteur was Mr Gardner.

At its 350th plenary session (meeting of 10 December 1997), the Economic and Social Committee adopted the following opinion by 84 votes to two, with three abstentions.

1. Introduction

1.1. This is a 'separate directive` under the framework type approval Directive 70/l56/EEC. It deals separately with type approval for complete vehicles, the chassis (often standard units produced in large runs) and the specialized bodywork (often small production runs). Because the proposal covers a wide range of vehicles, from large multi-deck trucks to small trailers hitched on to four wheel drive cars, common solutions present a particular difficulty.

1.2. Like most other type approvals it applies optional harmonization - Member States must accept vehicles and trailers made according to this directive but may approve units made to national specifications as well.

1.3. This proposal is under Article 100A and deals only with type approval of vehicles and trailers. It does not deal with the use of these and with actual transport conditions. These come under Article 43. The Commission was supposed to propose legislation on these several years ago but now states that it will do so as soon as the present 100a Directive has been adopted.

1.4. Community 'use` requirements (Directive 91/628/EEC) do not cover farm vehicles and ones used for journeys under 50 km, consequently vehicles intended for this purpose should be exempted from this directive.

2. General comments

2.1. This proposal would remove a set of barriers to the single market. The ESC therefore approves the principle but sees a number of problems with the execution. These problems are caused by the Commission trying to separate use and construction requirements. As an example:

2.1.1. Simultaneously with this proposal, another part of the Commission has issued a proposal under Article 43 () giving additional standards for vehicles transporting animals for over eight hours. This contains a number of mandatory constructional requirements such as 200 litre water storage tanks which are not present in the type specification proposal.

2.1.2. The effect is that the type specification only applies to vehicles used for journeys below eight hours. For all others national specifications will continue to apply.

2.1.3. That is an illustration of the problems arising from trying to separate use and construction specifications.

2.1.4. Use and construction specifications therefore must be concordant and established in parallel. This also applies to other proposals which we understand are currently being elaborated.

3. Recommendation by the ESC

3.1. To be of any real benefit a type specification must cover at least the majority of vehicles involved. Given the large range of uses and of climatic conditions the ESC recommends that this proposal is kept on hold until the use requirements have been, as soon as possible, established. It should then be complemented by separate annexes giving essential type-approval requirements for vehicles used on long journeys, in extreme climatic conditions, etc.

4. Detailed comments (the numbers in brackets are those in the Proposal)

4.1. Annex I - Definitions of type

4.1.1. There are four processes that need to be approved:

1) A complete vehicle with bodywork built by one manufacturer (typically small trailers).

2) A vehicle built in multi-stages by more than one manufacturer e.g. a specialist body builder making an animal transport vehicle on a vehicle chassis made by another manufacturer.

3) A body superstructure (a Separate Technical Unit) made by a specialist.

4) Installation of an STU on a vehicle chassis.

4.1.2. Annex I (4.1.1 and 4.2.1) does not adequately address these. For example in 4.1.1 'number of axles` is not relevant to the requirements to transport animals and should be deleted.

4.1.3. In 4.2.1 why is it necessary to restrict 'type of superstructure` with construction and design details such as mass and dimensions when these are not needed for a 'type of vehicle` in 4.1.1?

4.1.4. The ESC recommends that the Commission working Group OTA (Operation of Type Approval) look at Definitions of Type and Annexes V, VI and VII with a view of harmonizing with existing separate Directive procedures under 70/156/EEC.

Appendix 1

4.2. General Requirements (0)

4.2.1. Cavity walls (0.1.3)

This requirement is unclear and potentially very expensive.

4.2.1.1. (0.1.3) The ESC understands from the Commission that reference to 'light metal` refers to aluminium alloys though others believe it to be a reference to thin metal (e.g. light gauge).

The ESC also understands from the Commission that the purpose of specifying cavity-wall construction is to achieve thermal insulation in both winter and summer conditions. Therefore manufacturers should be permitted to use other forms of construction which can achieve thermal effects equivalent to cavity-wall construction using aluminium whilst at the same time satisfying the relevant strength requirements.

Cavity-wall construction could present hygiene problems if one layer is punctured and debris, excreta, etc. get in between the layers.

4.3. Ventilation (0.4)

4.3.1. Neither this section nor the additional ventilation requirements address the use of the unit on Ro-Ro ferries, where there are no natural draughts. This point is however covered by the construction requirements of the rival Proposal COM(97) 272. Here we have a good illustration of points 2.1.1 and 3.1.

4.4. Intermediate floors (0.1)

Height adjustable intermediate floors (0.7.1)

Automatic locking devices can be dangerous in the event of malfunction. In practice, conventional manual systems, which can only be operated from outside, remain safer. Remote-control floor adjustment systems are also inadvisable since, although easy to use, they may be operated from inside, with all the attendant hazards.

4.5. Inspection (0.9)

4.5.1. This vague requirement is probably adequate for small trailers towed by FWD cars. For large vehicles covering long distances however other points need to be covered such as:

- layout suitable for ready inspection;

- access and removal of sick animals;

- provisions for dealing with dangerous animals (bulls and boars).

4.5.2. These again are partly covered by the rival proposal COM(97) 272 final.

4.6. Lighting (0.10)

Here and throughout the general requirements, more detailed guidance should be provided to avoid large differences of interpretation by national approval authorities.

4.7. Sick animals

On short journeys, effluent from sick animals can be absorbed satisfactorily by using litter. There may need to be constructional solutions for longer journeys.

5. Additional requirements

5.1. Ventilation apertures (1.3.3-1.5.3)

The ESC doubts whether all ventilation apertures need to be capable of being closed weather tight. Overheating is often a problem.

5.2. Floors, side and front walls (1.1.1 to 5.1.1 and 1.2.1 to 5.2.1)

The figures given in these sections do not appear to be internally consistent. The ESC understands they are based on a Swedish standard. The ESC is not competent to evaluate whether they are correct and proposes they are examined by a relevant technical committee.

5.3. Ramps (1.5.3-5.5.3)

The maximum incline has been set at 25° throughout. This is probably the best compromise between the requirements of animal welfare and of vehicle construction.

5.3.1. However 20° should be the maximum for pigs and these should be loaded on level platforms where possible. On the other hand goats and sheep can perfectly well cope with 30°. Provision should be made for these differences in the directive, especially for smaller vehicles and trailers. For the latter 25° may not always be possible.

5.3.2. Steps (1.5.1 to 5.5.1)

100 mm step heights are unnecessarily low, 200 mm is the norm. By allowing higher steps, ramp lengths will be reduced enabling easier handling and stowage.

5.3.3. Treads (1.5.3 to 5.5.3)

Bars not more than 100 mm apart could trap the hooves of animals, spacing of 200-250 mm is more realistic.

6. Height limitation

Appendix 2, Addendum, 1.6 and Annex VII, 1.1.2

There is already Community legislation in place concerning masses and dimensions of vehicles in Community traffic. It is not appropriate or necessary to repeat part of these in this separate directive which is under Article 100A and does not control the use of vehicles.

7. Impact statement

This is very unsatisfactory and inadequate. Small and medium-size companies are very much involved. The extra complications of this proposal are likely to affect productivity and the social partners should have been consulted.

Brussels, 10 December 1997.

The President of the Economic and Social Committee

Tom JENKINS

() COM(97) 272.