2000/0262 (COD) Amended proposal for a DIRECTIVE OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL modifying Directive 94/25/EC on the approximation of the laws, regulations and administrative provisions of the Member States relating to recreational craft (presented by the Commission pursuant to Article 250 (2) of the EC Treaty)

2000/0262 (COD)

Amended proposal for a DIRECTIVE OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL modifying Directive 94/25/EC on the approximation of the laws, regulations and administrative provisions of the Member States relating to recreational craft

1. Background

Transmission of the Proposal to the Council and the European Parliament - COM(2000)639 - 2000/0262 (COD) - in accordance with article 251(2) and 95 of the Treaty // 12 October 2000

Opinion of the Economic and Social Committee // 28-29 March 2001

Opinion of the European Parliament - first reading // 5 July 2001

2. Objective of the Commission proposal

The proposal introduces harmonised provisions on exhaust and noise emissions limit values from engines on recreational craft. It also includes a number of modifications on the construction aspects of recreational craft covered by this Directive (e.g. the inclusion of jet-skis in the scope of the original Directive).

3. Commission opinion on the amendments adopted by the Parliament

3.1. Amendments accepted by the Commission (n° 1, 6, 14, 18, 44, 22, 28, 29, 37, 39, 41)

Amendments 1, 6 and 39 are accepted as useful clarifications.

Amendment 22 excludes extreme weather conditions, such as hurricanes, from the weather conditions foreseen under Boat Design Category A. It is accepted as a logical clarification.

Amendment 18 provides for the simplification of noise testing procedures. This amendment introduces an alternative method to demonstrate compliance with the noise provisions, in order to alleviate the compliance cost for small boat builders producing low speed craft.

Amendment 28 provides for a logical adaptation of the original Directive to technical development. It is true that flash points of petrol and diesel fuels in recreational craft fuel tanks have come closer and that the 55° C flash point division is no longer valid.

Amendments 14 and 29 constitute editorial improvements.

Amendments 37 and 41 concern the distinction of stern drive engines in two categories. They are accepted as a logical consequence of amendment 8 which is accepted in principle.

Amendment 44 deletes the reference to the CE marking on personal watercraft engines. This amendment is accepted because personal watercraft engines form an integral part of this product and, consequently, the CE marking need only to be affixed on the personal watercraft.

3.2. Amendments accepted in part or principle by the Commission (n° 43 (first part), 3, 5, 7, 8, 10 (second part), 12, 13, 45 (first part), 21, 23, 35 and 36)

The Commission can accept the first part of Amendment 43 as improved rewording.

The Commission can accept the second part of Amendment 10 concerning the exemption of craft built for own use from the noise requirements of the proposed Directive. This exemption should be reflected with a new, second indent under Article 1(2)(c) as follows: "craft built for own use, provided that they are not subsequently placed on the Community market during a period of five years."

The Commission can accept the first part of amendment 45 naming the products bearing the CE marking, as it provides a useful clarification.

The Commission can accept in principle Amendment 3 subject to the following rewording of the last sentence of new recital 11a, as follows: "The introduction of EU wide measures may be considered during the review of this Directive, if appropriate."

The Commission can accept in principle Amendment 5 subject to the clarification that propulsion engines subject to major engine modifications should fall under the scope of the proposed Directive with regard to exhaust emissions when first placed on the market and/or put into service after the date of entry into force of the present Directive.

The Commission can also accept in principle Amendment 7 concerning noise emissions subject to the clarification that the proposed Directive applies to products first placed on the market and/or put into service after the date of entry into force of the present Directive.

As regards Amendments 5 and 7, the above mentioned clarification could be specified in a separate paragraph d) under Article 1(1), as follows:

"for products falling under Article 1(1)(a)(ii), 1(b) and 1(c) the provisions of the present Directive shall only apply from the first placing on the market and/or putting into service after the date of entry into force of the present Directive."

The Commission can accept in principle Amendment 8, which introduces a distinction of stern drive engines in two categories, i.e. those with integral exhaust and those without integral exhaust. This distinction does not alter the intended purpose of the proposed Directive. Therefore, this amendment is accepted subject to the following rewording of Article 1(1)(c)(iv): "outboard engines and stern drive engines with integral exhausts intended for installation on recreational craft". For the sake of consistency and clarity a modification should also be made, accordingly, to Article 1(1)(c)(i) to distinguish the two types of engines as follows: "recreational craft with stern drive engines without integral exhaust or inboard propulsion engine installations".

The Commission can accept in principle Amendment 12 subject to the rewording suggested on Amendment 10 above.

The Commission can accept in principle Amendment 13, which introduces a distinction between replacement of the engine, major modification of an engine and major conversion of a craft, and deletes the word "either" and the phrase "or the replacement of the propulsion engine by a different type or size of engine" from Article 1(3)(e).

The Commission can accept in principle Amendment 21 (linked to Amendment 46 below) as regards the possibility of a further step of emissions limit values. A satisfactory formula might be reached if the possibility to further reduce emissions limit values is explored in the report foreseen under Article 2 of the Commission's proposal.

The Commission can accept in principle Amendment 23 subject to the following rewording of Annex I, section 2.1 as follows:

- The title should read as follows: "Craft identification"

- The chapeau should be changed as follows: "Each craft shall be marked with an identification number including the following information".

The Commission can accept in principle Amendment 35, which introduces an alternative method to demonstrate compliance with the noise provisions. The Commission, however, would like to analyse further the proposed limit values.

For the same reason, the Commission can accept in principle Amendment 36 defining the formulas foreseen in amendment 35.

3.3. Amendments not accepted by the Commission (n° 2, 4, 9, 10 (first part), 11, 15, 16, 17, 20, 24, 30, 31, 33, 34, 38, 40, 42, 43 (second part), 45 (second part), 46 and 48)

Amendment 2 implies an obligation for consistency with other emission measures, which is contrary to the Commission's right of initiative. It is, therefore, not acceptable.

Amendments 4 and 16 require the deletion of the provisions relating to comitology and are, therefore, contrary to the principles governing the Commission's executive powers. The Commission sticks to its position to establish a Regulatory Committee under Council Decision 1999/468/EC, which will be required to advise the Commission on measures relating to the modification of technical provisions. These amendments are, therefore, not acceptable, also taking into consideration the Commission's comments under Amendment 21 on the possibility to explore further steps of emissions limit values.

Amendment 9 introduces an exclusion of steam powered craft from Directive 94/25/EC. This is an entirely new issue not supported by sufficient evidence. This amendment cannot, therefore, be accepted.

Amendment 10 (first part) introduces the exemption of engines on craft built for own use from the relevant exhaust emission requirements. As the responsibility for compliance testing, in the case of the exhaust emissions, lies with engine manufacturers and not with the boat builder, this part of the amendment is not acceptable.

Amendment 11 introduces a more generic definition of classic engines and is contrary to the intention of the Commission's proposal to exempt only vintage engines of a unique design fitted to a historical craft. The Commission considers that the characteristics of the replica engines would be null and void, if these engines are fitted on new craft, and that a more general exemption risks creating market distortions. This amendment is, therefore, not acceptable.

Amendment 15 calls for the application of more stringent limits in specific inland waters at national level. The objective of Commission's proposal was not to regulate the use of boats and engines in specific waters at national level. This falls under the competence of Member States according to the principle of subsidiarity. This amendment cannot, therefore, be accepted.

Amendment 17 requires self-certification or limited third-party intervention for the assessment of compliance of personal watercraft with the construction requirements of the Commission's proposal. The Commission has initially rejected this amendment.

Amendment 20 requires that the Commission will submit a proposal for a new Directive two years after the entry into force of the proposed Directive, on how and when to implement a system of in-use compliance testing. This amendment is not acceptable as contrary to the right of initiative of the Commission.

Amendment 24 is rejected by the Commission, in order to avoid a too restrictive wording.

Amendment 30 requires more stringent exhaust emissions limits for ecologically sensitive waters. This amendment is contrary to the intention of the Commission's proposal to establish harmonised positions across the EU and avoid market fragmentation. It is, therefore, not acceptable.

Amendment 31 refers to another EC Directive than the one specified in the Commission's proposal for reference fuels used for diesel engines. As both petrol and diesel fuels are covered by the same Directive, i.e. 98/69/EC, as foreseen in the Commission's proposal, this amendment is not fully justifiable and, therefore, cannot be accepted.

Amendments 33 and 34, are relevant to the (acceptable by the Commission) distinction of stern drive engines in two categories. They are, however, rejected as this distinction is not necessary in this particular provision of the proposed Directive (Annex A, point 6, annex I.C) as all stern drive engines are subject to the noise emissions requirements.

Amendment 38 requires that ignition protected equipment refers only to petrol engines. This amendment is not acceptable because ignition risks can be recognised in all installations, both petrol and diesel.

Amendment 40 introduces a new interpretation of Directive 94/25/EC, which is not fully justifiable. It is, therefore, not acceptable.

Amendment 42 introduces an additional provision, which is incorrect. The manufacturer of stern drive engines with integral exhaust must, just like the outboard engine manufacturer, affix CE marking and not issue a declaration of conformity. This amendment is, consequently, not accepted.

Amendment 43 (second part) allows for more stringent limits for specific inland waters at national level. It is rejected as contrary to the intention of the Commission's proposal, i.e. to establish harmonised provisions across the EU.

Amendment 45 (second part) relating to the declaration of incorporation is superfluous and, therefore, not acceptable. Such a provision already exists under Article 1, point 2, concerning Article 4, paragraph 3a and Article 1, point 13, Annex XV.3.

Amendment 46 introduces changes to the definition of boat design category D. There is little evidence that these particular technical modifications would improve the implementation of Directive 94/25/EC. This amendment is, consequently, not accepted.

Amendment 48 removes the allowance of 3dB for twin engines and multiple engine units. It is rejected because the limits foreseen are thought to be technologically achievable for single engine boats and it is impossible for dual and multiple engines to be limited in the same level of noise.

4. Amended proposal

Having regard to Article 250, paragraph 2, of the EC Treaty, the Commission modifies its proposal as indicated above.