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'
9. 3. 98 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 73/13 4. 11. Preamble 2l The original text of preamble 21 should be replaced as follows: ‘Whereas manufacturers or their authorized rep- resentatives established within the Community who are responsible for placing products on the Com- munity market are liable for all aspects of those products under Community law, including the pro- visions on product liability in Directive 85/374/EEC, whereas Community law also recognizes manufac- turers’ liability for products used by businesses and other users of telecommunications that are not natural persons;’. (This point follows from General Comments 3. 9 and 3. 10. ) 4. 12. Proposed new Article 6. 4 ‘The provisions of this Article shall not prevent the application in any Member State of the measures referred to in Article 8 of Directive 89/336/EEC, nor shall they prevent any redress otherwise available under Community law against damage or harm to persons or property caused by equipment which meets the essential requirements applicable at the time of first placing on the market. ’ Brussels, 10 December 1997. The President of the Economic and Social Committee Tom JENKINS 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 and trailers made according to this directive but may approve units made to national specifications as well. 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. Like most other type approvals it applies optional 1. 2. harmonization — Member States must accept vehicles This proposal is under Article 100A and deals 1. 3. 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 Com- mission 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. C 73/14 EN Official Journal of the European Communities 9. 3. 98 ‘use’ Community 1. 4. (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. requirements 2. General comments This proposal would remove a set of barriers to 2. 1. the single market. The ESC therefore approves the principle but sees a number of problems with the execution. These problems are caused by the Com- mission trying to separate use and construction require- ments. As an example: 2. 1. 1. Simultaneously with this proposal, another part of the Commission has issued a proposal under Article 43 (1) 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 specifi- cations. Use and construction specifications therefore 2. 1. 4. 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. (1) COM(97) 272. 4. Detailed comments (the numbers in brackets are those in the Proposal) 4. 1. Annex I — Definitions of type 4. 1. 1. approved: There are four processes that need to be 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. In 4. 2. 1 why is it necessary to restrict ‘type of 4. 1. 3. 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? The ESC recommends that the Commission 4. 1. 4. 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. C a v i t y w a l l s (0. 1. 3) requirement This expensive. is unclear and potentially very 4. 2. 1. 1. (0. 1. 3) The ESC understands from the Com- mission 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 permit- 9. 3. 98 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 73/15 ted 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 prob- lems 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 venti- lation 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. 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. 4. 4. Intermediate floors (0. 1) 5. 2. Floors, side and front walls (1. 1. 1 to 5. 1. 1 and 1. 2. 1 to 5. 2. 1) H e i g h t a d j u s t a b l e i n t e r m e d i a t e f l o o r s (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; 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 construc- tion. 5. 3. 1. However 20o 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 30o. Provision should be made for these differences in the directive, especially for smaller vehicles and trailers. For the latter 25o may not always be possible. — provisions for dealing with dangerous animals (bulls and boars). 5. 3. 2. S t e p s (1. 5. 1 to 5. 5. 1) 4. 5. 2. proposal COM(97) 272 final. These again are partly covered by the rival 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. 4. 6. Lighting (0. 10) Here and throughout the general requirements, more detailed guidance should be provided to avoid large interpretation by national approval differences of authorities. 5. 3. 3. T r e a d s (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. C 73/16 EN Official Journal of the European Communities 9. 3. 98 6. Height limitation 7. Impact statement Appendix 2, Addendum, 1. 6 and Annex VII, 1. 1. 2 There is already Community legislation in place concern- ing 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. 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 Opinion of the Economic and Social Committee on the ‘Proposal for a European Parliament and Council Decision amending the Decision of 19 December 1996 adopting an action programme for customs in the Community — “Customs 2000”’ (98/C 73/04) On 26 September 1997, the Council decided to consult the Economic and Social Committee, under Article 100a 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 Giesecke. At its 350th plenary session held on 10 and 11 December 1997 (meeting of 10 December), the Economic and Social Committee adopted the following opinion by 101 votes to two, with six abstentions. 1. Introduction 2. Measures proposed by the Commission 1. 1. The proposal for a decision seeks to increase the funding available for the action programme for customs in the Community (‘Customs 2000’) for the period 1998-2000. The Committee endorsed the action pro- gramme in an opinion adopted in September 1995 (1). 1. 2. The primary source of funding for the action programme is the IDA programme. As the latter expires on 31 December 1997 and the ‘Customs 2000’ programme is set to run until the end of the year 2000, suitable additional funding is, however, required to cover the period 1998-2000. 2. 1. The Commission therefore proposes to amend the financial framework of Decision No 210/97/EC (2) so as to cover the period 1998-2000, too. It is proposed that funding for computerization 2. 2. under the ‘Customs 2000’ programme be set at ECU 58 million, rather than the figure of ECU 23 million stipulated hitherto. 3. Comments by the ESC 3. 1. The ESC supports the Commission proposal. (1) OJ C 301, 13. 11. 1995. (2) OJ L 33, 4. 2. 1997, p. 24