Opinion of the Economic and Social Committee on the "Proposal for a Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council amending Directive 97/68/EC on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to measures against the emission of gaseous and particulate pollutants from internal combustion engines to be installed in non-road mobile machinery"
Date: 2001-07-11
Institutions: European Economic and Social Committee
Subjects: agricultural vehicle, approximation of laws, atmospheric pollutant, motor vehicle, pollution control measures, technical regulations

17.9.2001

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 260/1

II

(Preparatory Acts)

ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL COMMITTEE

Opinion of the Economic and Social Committee on the ‘Proposal for a Directive of the European
Parliament and of the Council amending Directive 97/68/EC on the approximation of the laws of
the Member States relating to measures against the emission of gaseous and particulate pollutants
from internal combustion engines to be installed in non-road mobile machinery’

(2001/C 260/01)

On 15 January 2001 the Council decided to consult the Economic and Social Committee, under
Article 95 of the Treaty establishing the European Community, on the above-mentioned proposal.

The Section for the Single Market, Production and Consumption, which was responsible for preparing
the Committee’s work on the subject, adopted its opinion on 27 June 2001. The rapporteur was
Mr Barros Vale.

At its 383rd plenary session (meeting of 11 July), the Economic and Social Committee adopted the
following opinion by 94 votes to one with two abstentions.

1.

Introduction

1.1.
The Committee welcomes the proposal for amending
Directive 97/68/EC, which is designed to ‘extend the scope of
the current Directive on emissions from compression ignition
engines to be used in non-road mobile machinery ... to cover
small spark ignition engines also. This will contribute to
achieving ambient air quality targets especially concerning
formation of ozone’.

their power and higher fuel consumption make compression
engines a more important source of environmental pollution,
Directive 97/68/EC introduced provisions for these engines
but left small spark ignition engines to be regulated later. The
fifth recital of the Directive specifies that the scope of the
Directive could be extended to cover gasoline engines used in
machinery with a power output of not more than 19 kW.

The current Directive only covers compression engines
1.2.
with a power output above 18 kW but not more than 560 kW.
It includes emission limits for carbon monoxide, oxides of
nitrogen, hydrocarbons and particulates. The different limit
values are to be implemented in two stages — the first stage
coming into force in 1999 and the second stage between
2000 and 2003, depending on the engine power output. Since

1.3.
The aim of the Commission in presenting its proposal
is to promote better air quality by laying down standards and
testing methods for the maximum limits on gaseous emissions
from engines with a power output of not more than 19 kW.
The inclusion of such small gasoline engines is in response to
the fifth recital in Directive 97/68/EC. The reason for including
testing methods for determining the maximum limits on
emissions is that there are no ISO standards at the moment
and the rules appended to the proposal for such tests are
considered to offer a swifter solution.

C 260/2

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

17.9.2001

2. General comments

3. Specific comments

2.1.
In the absence of cost-effectiveness studies for spark
ignition engines for non-road machinery under the Auto-Oil II
programme, the Commission has used the data collected from
‘extensive studies on the environmental benefits, the effects of
the emissions and the costs for the standards decided upon’
carried out in the USA. It is assumed that the cost-effectiveness
used in the US regulatory process is also typical for European
conditions. US estimates were based on the assumption that
the legislation was introduced in the USA only. It is thought
that many European manufacturers are producing engines on
a global market and have to develop and produce engines
meeting US standards independently of EU legislation. For
those European manufacturers who are not operating on a
global market and will not be doing so in the future, ‘longer
implementation periods’ — for example — are recommended.

2.2. Concerns regarding the new optional administrative provisions

The Commission proposal introduces new provisions for the
certification of engines in Stage II. The standard EU approval
procedure is to apply to stage II as well as stage I, but a system
used successfully in the USA — the voluntary averaging and
banking system — is to be offered to engine manufacturers as
an alternative. Application of this system in the EU may be
made more complicated by the existence of 15 Member States,
but with careful planning should achieve its objectives. For
example, an engine manufacturer wishing to use the voluntary
averaging and banking system for his products on the Com-
munity market will have to deal with the authorities in only
one Member State.

3.1.
Given the different state of the art with regard to
technological solutions for two- and four-stroke engines, given
the fact that engine manufacturers tend to produce for the
manufacturers of the machinery in which their engines are
used, and given the fact that the manufacturers of these small
engines generally manufacture engines for road machinery
too, there are good grounds for interim assessments prior to
the target dates so as to confirm the existence on the market
of engines which can be used by the manufacturers of
handheld machinery and which comply with the proposed
rules.

This concern is heightened by the fact

3.2.
the
proposed rules will be underpinned by testing methods laid
down both in this proposal for amending the Directive and in
the Directive itself.

that

3.3.
It is necessary to give some thought to the applicability
of the ‘voluntary averaging and banking system’ given the
foreseeable bureaucracy and red tape.

4.

Final considerations

In return for the benefits which the manufacturers of more
polluting engines may gain from this system, manufacturers
using the standard procedures for the approval of their engines
qualify for the exemption created for small engine families
(niche products).

Support should be given to the environmental con-
4.1.
cerns underlying the proposal, but it is also necessary to take
account of the foreseeable technical difficulties for industry
and the difficulties involved in applying and monitoring
observance of the standards laid down.

It is hoped that the studies to be carried out by the Commission
in this field, as referred to in the footnote in Annex XII, will
clarify the applicability of the system in the EU.

2.3. Technological distinction between two- and four-stroke engines

4.2.
Since neither handheld nor non-handheld machinery
has to be registered, inspections depend on the type-approval
procedure. Any register or system of records is likely to be
complicated, especially where emission credits are used and
where the engines and the machinery are not manufactured by
the same firm.

The Commission works on the principle that the division of
class S engines (small engines with a power of no more than
19 kW) into ‘handheld engines’ and ‘non-handheld engines’
coincides with the natural split between two- and four-stroke
engines. Hence it makes no reference to the two-stroke/four-
stroke technological solution and merely subdivides the two
categories — engines for handheld machinery and engines for
non-handheld machinery — into different classes depending
on engine size.

4.3.
Another difficulty in applying the voluntary averaging
and banking system stems from the fact that an engine
complying with the approval requirements when verification
of conformity is requested by its manufacturer may no longer
comply with them if the manufacturer of the machinery to
which the engine is to be fitted adapts the air admission, fuel
supply or exhaust system, thereby changing the way the engine
operates and its original emission values.

17.9.2001

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 260/3

5. Conclusions

The Committee welcomes the Commission proposal
5.1.
for reducing the pollution from non-road mobile machinery
fitted with internal combustion engines.

The limits laid down for engine emissions and the
5.2.
dates from which they are to apply are sensible and merit the

support of the Committee. The Committee also supports the
new testing methods set out in the annexes because of their
high technical standard.

5.3.
In view of the questions raised by the voluntary
averaging and banking system, such a system should not be
used for a period of more than 10 years. After that, there will
have to be clear and quantified emission limits for all
machinery.

Brussels, 11 July 2001.

The President

of the Economic and Social Committee

Göke FRERICHS

Opinion of the Economic and Social Committee on:

— the ‘Proposal for a Decision of the European Parliament and of the Council concerning the
Multiannual Framework Programme 2002-2006 of the European Community for research,
technological development and demonstration activities aimed at contributing towards the
creation of the European Research Area’, and

— the ‘Proposal for a Council Decision concerning the Multiannual Framework Programme
2002-2006 of the European Atomic Energy Community (Euratom) for research and training
activities aimed at contributing towards the creation of the European Research Area’

(2001/C 260/02)

On 30 April 2001 the Council decided to consult the Economic and Social Committee, under
Articles 166(1) of the Treaty establishing the European Community, on the above-mentioned proposals.

The Section for the Single Market, Production and Consumption, which was responsible for preparing
the Committee’s work on the subject, adopted its opinion on 27 June 2001. The rapporteurs were
Mr Bernabei and Mr Wolf.

At its 383rd plenary session (meeting of 11 July 2001), the Economic and Social Committee adopted
unanimously the following opinion.

1. Summary

gramme) and appealing to Member States and industry
to act likewise on their part;

1.1.
Summarising here the detailed analysis and conclusions
which are described in the following text and which are derived
from the strategic objectives decided for instance at Lisbon
and Stockholm, the Committee recommends the following:

— reallocating some specific financial resources envisaged
for FP6, combined with a modest increase from EUR
17 500 million to EUR 18 930 million of the budget;

— setting an increase of about 50 % in the overall
Community RTD&D Budget as a medium-term political
goal for the period beyond FP6 (6th Framework Pro-

— ensuring the continuity of the existing RTD&D pro-
gramme and minimising the risks associated with the
introduction of new untested structures and instruments;