Opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee on the ‘Proposal for a Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council on the type-approval of motor vehicles with regard to their re-usability, recyclability and recoverability and amending Council Directive 70/156/EEC’COM(2004) 162 final – 2004/0053 (COD)
Date: 2004-09-15
Institutions: European Economic and Social Committee
Subjects: EU environmental policy, environmental standard, metal waste, motor vehicle industry, technical regulations, waste recycling

23.3.2005

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 74/15

Opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee on the ‘Proposal for a Directive of the
European Parliament and of the Council on the type-approval of motor vehicles with regard to
their re-usability, recyclability and recoverability and amending Council Directive 70/156/EEC’

COM(2004) 162 final – 2004/0053 (COD)

(2005/C 74/03)

On 30 March 2004 the Council decided to consult the European Economic and Social Committee, under
Article 95 of the Treaty establishing the European Community, on the abovementioned 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 14 July 2004. The rapporteur was Mr Ranoc-
chiari.

its 411th plenary session (meeting of 15 September 2004)

At
Committee adopted the following opinion by 125 votes to four, with seven abstentions.

the European Economic and Social

1. Introduction

1.1
Each year, around 16 million cars and light-duty trucks
are put on the European market and over nine million reach
the end-of-life stage, generating more than eight million tonnes
of waste.

1.2
In the past, EU countries had their own ways of tackling
this significant quantity of waste and did not always pay suffi-
cient attention to the recovery and recycling of materials.

1.3
However, since the early 1990s, all the Member States,
thanks to the major efforts of environmental bodies, have
established rules for the treatment of end-of-life vehicles, in the
form of voluntary agreements or national legislation. This has
undoubtedly benefited the environment.

1.4 More recently, on 18 September 2000, the European
Parliament and the Council adopted Directive 2000/53/EC (1).
This directive seeks to harmonise the various national provi-
sions, thereby avoiding distortions of competition and, more
importantly, reducing the environmental impact of these vehi-
cles. As well as laying down rules for the collection and treat-
ment of end-of-life vehicles, the directive sets targets for the
Member States regarding the re-use and recovery of waste. In
particular:

a) by 1 January 2006, for all end-of-life vehicles, the re-use
and recovery rate must be at least 85 % of average weight
per vehicle and year; by the same date, the re-use and recy-
cling rate must be at least 80 % of average weight per
vehicle and year;

b) by 1 January 2015, the rate for re-use and recovery must
rise to at least 95 %, and for re-use and recycling to at least
85 %.

1.5
It should be noted that Directive 2000/53/EC (known as
the End-of-Life Vehicles or ELV directive) was adopted after a
lengthy debate and has been the subject of not entirely unjusti-
fied criticism, some of which is to be found in the opinion
issued by the EESC at the time (2).
It should, however, be
acknowledged that the directive has given an important boost
(although not without some difficulty) to an invaluable process
which, as stated above, had already been launched in the
Member States, often in agreement with vehicle manufacturers
and the scrap vehicle sector.

2. The Commission's proposal

The current proposal

2.1
(already dubbed the ‘Triple R
directive’) has been made necessary by Article 7(4) of the ELV
directive, which calls for the establishment of type-approval
provisions regarding the re-use, recycling and recovery of end-
of-life vehicles.

The proposal stipulates that in order to receive type-
2.2
approval, M1 and N1 vehicles will have to be designed in such
a way as to comply with the re-usability, recyclability and reco-
verability rates laid down in the ELV directive.

2.3
Once the proposed directive is approved, its provisions
will be included in the Community type-approval system,
thereby amending Directive 70/156/EEC (3) which forms the
basis of that system.

2.4
Community type-approval is granted when the approval
authority has ascertained that the type of vehicle concerned
meets the requirements of all
the directives listed in the
appendix to Directive 70/156/EEC. After the proposed new
directive is approved, it will be included in this list, and no
vehicle will receive type-approval if it does not comply with its
provisions.

(1) OJ L 269 of 21.10.2000.

(2) OJ C 129 of 27.4.1998.
(3) OJ L 42 of 23.2.1970.

C 74/16

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

23.3.2005

2.5
The proposal lays down the procedure which the manu-
facturer must follow to obtain type-approval from the compe-
tent authority. The procedure is designed to show that the
vehicle has been designed and manufactured in conformity
with the specified recyclability and recoverability rates.

2.6
To achieve this, the manufacturer must first carry out a
preliminary assessment, calculating the recyclability rates on
special sheets which are then validated by the type-approval
authority. At the same time, the manufacturer must inform the
competent authority of his proposed strategy for re-use and
recycling of the vehicle type for which he is requesting type-
approval, by drawing up an assembly manual as already
required under the ELV directive.

Cars are extremely complex products, and may have
2.7
more than 10,000 component parts. It is therefore not feasible
to check all the calculations in detail for every vehicle. Accord-
ingly, and solely for the purposes of
is
proposed that detailed checks only be carried out on one or a
few ‘reference vehicles’, chosen from among the versions
within a type that are most problematic in terms of re-use,
recyclability and recoverability.

type-approval,

it

The directive bans the re-use of component parts that
2.8
could pose risks to safety and/or the environment. These
component parts, which are contained in a separate list, cannot
be re-used in the construction of new vehicles.

2.9
Lastly, certain categories of vehicle are specifically
exempted from the proposal: special purpose vehicles (ambu-
lances, motor caravans, etc.); vehicles produced in small series
(where not more than 500 are put into service each year in
each Member State); and light-duty trucks that are manufac-
tured in several stages (i.e. at the design stage the manufacturer
does not know what type of bodywork will be added to the
frame).

3. General comments

The Committee again acknowledges the Commission's
3.1
commitment
to steadily improve this category of waste
management. Its approach clearly deserves support, as it seeks
to reduce the final disposal of waste to a minimum, using re-
use, recycling and recovery in order to turn a problem into an
environmental (and potentially, economic) benefit.

The Committee also acknowledges

role
3.2
played by the motor industry in making it possible to achieve
the desired objectives; for years, the industry has been investing
in studies and research for the design of vehicles that are easier
to recycle without abandoning other priorities which could
have been adversely affected by this.

the crucial

3.3
Thanks to the synergy produced by the Commission's
action, manufacturers' commitments and government legisla-
tion, the requirements of the ELV directive are well on the way
to being met. This is borne out by the recent ACEA report
detailing the state of implementation of the directive in the 15
Member States and Norway.

4. Specific comments

4.1
The Commission's decision to implement the require-
ments of Article 7(4) of the ELV directive by means of an ad
hoc directive rather than by other possible courses of action is
correct from a technical viewpoint and not called into question
by the Committee.

However,

the proposed arrangements pose

4.2
some
problems, both for manufacturers in terms of higher costs, and
for technical bodies and type-approval authorities, which could
find themselves unable to cope with the enormous volume of
data to be checked, as listed in annex II to the proposal, some
of which are not even relevant (e.g. number and arrangement
of cylinders and engine capacity).

To limit

these problems,

4.3
the Committee thinks that
some amendments could be made in order to make the process
more efficient and effective, without however distorting or
weakening the spirit and aims of the proposal. More particu-
larly, the Committee proposes revising the following articles.

Article 4(5): The reference vehicle on which the type-approval
tests are to be conducted is defined as the version of vehicle
which is identified by the approval authority as being the most
problematic in terms of re-usability, recyclability and recover-
ability. If one considers all the fittings generally found in the
same type of vehicle,
identifying the reference vehicle is not
always easy. To avoid misunderstandings between the different
parties and save valuable time, it would be best to state expli-
citly that the reference vehicle will be decided by common accord
of the manufacturer and the approval authority as being the most
problematic in terms of re-usability, recyclability and recover-
ability.

In practice, however,

Article 5(3): Point 6.2.2 of
the explanatory memorandum
states that there will be physical checks on vehicle prototypes
to verify the information submitted by the manufacturer and
its suppliers as regards markings, nature of materials, masses of
component parts, etc. Article 5(3) specifically mentions checks
on the marking of component parts made of polymers or elas-
tomers.
the type-approval check is
conducted on prototypes whose materials are ‘pre-series’ and
are therefore not marked. A literal application of this provision
would oblige the manufacturer to make special prototypes
solely for the purpose of the inspections, thus exacerbating the
already high cost of meeting all the other requirements of the
directive. A less costly solution would be to amend Article 5(3)
so as to require the approval authority to check that the manufacturer
has taken steps (and the responsibility) to ensure that serially produced
component parts made of polymers or elastomers are marked in
accordance with requirements. The physical checks could always be
carried out before the vehicles are put on the market, using those built
during the type-approval process and used for
tests
(brakes, noise, safety, etc.), or – better still – could be carried out on
the vehicles used for the production conformity checks.

the various

23.3.2005

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 74/17

Article 10(3): This specifies that the requirements of the direc-
tive will be applied both to newly type-approved vehicles (i.e.
new types) and newly registered vehicles (i.e. entire production
range) 36 months after the directive enters into force. This
deadline seems much shorter than that usually required in such
situations;
the deadlines for newly registered vehicles are
usually two or three years after those for newly type-approved
vehicles, as this gives manufacturers time to adapt vehicles
already in production to the new requirements. Having a single
deadline would create considerable problems for manufacturers
as regards adapting their product and in terms of time and
availability for obtaining type-approval of all
their vehicle
models. It must also be remembered that the type-approval
process does not only involve manufacturers, but also technical
bodies and approval authorities, who may also find it difficult
to type-approve so many different types of vehicle in a short
space of time. Accordingly, whilst not joining the calls for vehi-
cles already in production to be exempted from the directive,
the Committee thinks that Article 10(3) should be amended so that
the new rules apply to newly registered vehicles not so soon after the
entry into force of the directive (48 or 60 months rather than 36
months).

Annex I(9): This specifies that for the purposes of checks on
the materials and masses of component parts, the manufacturer
must make available representative vehicles for each type of
bodywork and component parts intended for these vehicles.
This requirement again places significant burdens on both
manufacturers and type-approval authorities, and does not
seem essential for a proper type-approval process. For instance,
there does not seem to be any point in testing all types of
bodywork (three doors, five doors, people carrier), when here
too it would be simpler just to take the version of the vehicle
which presents the greatest recyclability problems.

5. Summary and conclusions

The Committee reiterates its warm appreciation for the
5.1
work done by the Commission in recent years to ensure that
waste from dismantled vehicles is dealt with in an appropriate
and intelligent manner.

Brussels, 15 September 2004.

5.2
In particular, Directive 2000/53 (the ELV directive) has
finally harmonised at EU level the rules which Member States
had begun to establish concerning the collection and treatment
of end-of-life vehicles. The directive has also set minimum
targets for re-use and recovery of waste, and deadlines for
achieving them.

The Committee takes

5.3
this opportunity to ask the
Member States to keep a watchful eye on the appropriate
management of discarded parts of vehicles still in use (batteries,
tyres, etc.) that are also potential sources of environmental
pollution.

The Committee fully supports the thinking behind the
5.4
present proposal, whereby motor vehicles will only receive
Community type-approval if they are designed in such a way as
to meet the re-use and recovery percentage targets laid down in
the ELV directive.

5.5
The Committee's misgivings concern the choice of
instrument, i.e. a new directive, as it thinks that the same aims
could have been achieved more simply and quickly by other
means. For example, it would suffice to insert an ‘assessment of
manufacturers' capability’ in Annex X of Directive 70/156/EEC
(which is already cited as the basis of
the type-approval
system), by analogy with the procedure for establishing the
manufacturers' capability to produce vehicles identical to those
type-approved.

5.6
However, as stated above, the Commission's decision to
use a directive is correct from a technical viewpoint and cannot
be called into question at this point, although it does not meet
the increasingly widespread calls for simplification of EU law.

For

that

these reasons,

the Committee hopes

5.7
the
Commission will consider the amendments proposed in this
opinion. These amendments do not alter the spirit and aim of
the proposal, but would make the process less complex and
burdensome for manufacturers, technical bodies, type-approval
bodies and – last but not least – consumers, who will ultimately
bear the burden of any increased delays and costs caused by
unnecessarily complex legislation.

The President

of the European Economic and Social Committee

Roger BRIESCH