Opinion of the Commission pursuant to Article 251(2), third subparagraph, point (c) of the EC Treaty, on the European Parliament's amendments to the Council's common position regarding the proposal for a Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council amending for the twenty-fourth time Council Directive 76/769/EEC relating to restrictions on the marketing and use of certain dangerous substances and preparations (pentabromodiphenyl ether)
Date: 2002-07-10
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: chemical product, dangerous substance, environmental protection, environmental risk prevention, marketing restriction, plastics, public health

COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES

Brussels, 10.7.2002
COM(2002) 334 final

2001/0018 (COD)

OPINION OF THE COMMISSION

pursuant to Article 251(2), third subparagraph, point (c) of the EC Treaty,
on the European Parliament's amendments
to the Council's common position regarding the
proposal for a

DIRECTIVE OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL

amending for the twenty-fourth time Council Directive 76/769/EEC
relating to restrictions on the marketing and use
of certain dangerous substances and preparations (pentabromodiphenyl ether)

2001/0018 (COD)

OPINION OF THE COMMISSION

pursuant to Article 251(2), third subparagraph, point (c) of the EC Treaty,
on the European Parliament's amendments
to the Council's common position regarding the
proposal for a

DIRECTIVE OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL

amending for the twenty-fourth time Council Directive 76/769/EEC
relating to restrictions on the marketing and use
of certain dangerous substances and preparations (pentabromodiphenyl ether)

1.

STATE OF PROCEDURE

The proposal
15 January 2001 and then transmitted to the Council and European Parliament.

[COM(2001) 12 final] was

adopted by the Commission on

The European Parliament approved the proposal with amendments in its first reading
on 6 September 2001.

The Commission’s amended proposal [COM(2001) 555 final] was adopted on
28 September 2001 and then transmitted to the Council.

The Council adopted its Common Position on 6 December 2001. Sweden, Denmark
and the Commission made declarations.

The European Parliament adopted four amendments in its second reading on
10 April 2002.

The Economic and Social Committee gave its opinion on 25 April 2001.

2.

OBJECTIVE OF THE DIRECTIVE

The objective of the proposal is to introduce harmonised provisions with regard to
the marketing and use of pentabromodiphenyl ether in accordance with Article 95 of
the Treaty concerning the establishment and functioning of the Internal Market. The
objective is also to ensure a high level of protection for health and the environment.

2

3.

OPINION OF THE COMMISSION ON THE AMENDMENTS PROPOSED BY THE EUROPEAN
PARLIAMENT

3.1.

Summary of the Commission’s position

The Commission can not accept the four amendments proposed by the European
Parliament in its second reading.

3.2.

Amendments Nos 1 to 3

The European Parliament proposed to add a ban on octabromodiphenyl ether to the
Directive:

The Commission can not accept to widen the scope of the proposed Directive. The
risk assessment procedures for octaBDE and decaBDE are still on-going although in
advanced stages. The risk assessments must be finalised, as well as the evaluations
on the availability of safe substitutes, before adequate measures can be proposed.
The availability of safe substitutes is especially important in this case as lack of
effective substitutes could lead to an increase in the number of casualties in fires.

The necessary information on the risk assessment and on the availability of
substitutes for octaBDE and decaBDE are expected before the end of this year.

On the basis of these results the Commission will present new proposals. These
should not hold up the entering into force of
the present Directive on
pentabromodiphenylether on which all three institutions agree.

3.3.

Amendment No 4

The European Parliament proposed to add a ban on decaBDE taking effect from
1 January 2006, at the latest, if the risk assessment does not conclude that decaBDE
causes no reason for concern.

The Commission’s position on this is similar to that on Amendment No 1. Moreover,
this amendment would, if accepted, only allow a total ban or no ban at all. The
Commission favours a more nuanced approach which would mean that measures
could take effect much earlier than 2006. The completion of the risk assessments and
analyses of availability of safe substitutes would allow the uses of concern to be
identified and appropriate measures to be taken quickly.

4.

CONCLUSION

Taking account of the above, the Commission delivers a negative opinion on the
amendments and is not amending its proposal.

3