Explanatory Memorandum to COM(2009)348 - Labelling of tyres with respect to fuel efficiency and other essential parameters - Main contents
Please note
This page contains a limited version of this dossier in the EU Monitor.
| dossier | COM(2009)348 - Labelling of tyres with respect to fuel efficiency and other essential parameters. |
|---|---|
| source | COM(2009)348  |
| date | 30-06-2009 |
Contents
- 1. Background
- 2. Objective of the Commission's proposal
- 3. Commission's opinion on the amendments adopted by the European Parliament
- 3.1. Format of the proposal
- 3.2. Scope of application and other general provisions (Articles 1-3)
- 3.3. Responsibilities of suppliers and distributors (Articles 4 to 6)
- 3.4. Compliance with information requirements (Articles 7, 8 and 12)
- 3.5. Comitology and Review (Articles 11 and 14)
- 3.6. Date of application (Article 17)
- 4. Conclusion
On 13 November 2008, the Commission adopted a proposal for a Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council on labelling of tyres with respect to fuel efficiency and other essential parameters. This proposal was forwarded to the European Parliament and the Council on 13 November 2008.
The European Economic and Social Committee gave its opinion on 12 March 2009 and proposed amendments to the Commission proposal.
The European Parliament adopted a legislative resolution at its first reading on 22 April 2009.
With as much as 23% of total CO2 emissions coming from road transport i, reducing vehicles’ energy intensity and emissions is a major challenge for the EU.
The labelling proposal follows an integrated approach on tyres which will ensure that standardised information is supplied not only on fuel efficiency but also on wet grip and external rolling noise, so that end-users can make an informed choice. The aim is to promote, through the operation of market forces, dynamic improvement of all parameters beyond the minimum requirements set for type approval (the procedure which grants access to the EU market) and by so doing improve energy efficiency of road transport.
On 22 April 2009, the European Parliament adopted 42 amendments on the proposal. The Commission considers that a majority of the European Parliament's amendments are acceptable as they maintain the aims and political viability of the proposal and in many cases enhance the original drafting. The Commission therefore accepts in full, in part or with redrafting, the following amendments of the European Parliament.
A main feature of the European Parliament's amendments is to change the format of the proposal from a Directive into a Regulation (Amendment 1). Taking into account that a Regulation will reduce transposal costs and ensure that the application date of the labelling scheme applies to all stakeholders at the same time, the Commission acknowledges this change.
Aim and subject matter: Amendment 11 clarifies that the aim of the proposal is to promote wet grip and external rolling noise in addition to fuel efficiency which is in line with the approach of the entire labelling scheme. The Commission therefore accepts this amendment in full, together with Amendment 30 which follows the same logic. The wording of Recital 20 proposed in Amendment 7 is also modified for consistency.
Amendment 13 removes tyre stored from the definition of point of sale. It is acceptable to clarify the wording to indicate that those stocks, where tyres are not offered for sale to end-users (such as storage places of suppliers) are not included in the definition of point of sale. The Commission however deems that it is crucial that those tyres stored at the point of sale to end-users (i.e. tyres stored by the distributors) bear a label. This will ensure maximum visibility of the labelling scheme and avoid situations where only the best tyres are displayed with a label in the show room (if there is one). The latter situation would undermine the whole effectiveness of the scheme which is based on the obligation for suppliers to display the classes of all tyres including those poorly rated. Thus, the Commission accepts this amendment in part and with redrafting in order keep tyre stored into the definition of point of sale but clarify that tyre stored by suppliers are not included.
Amendment 14 reduces the scope of the definition of technical promotional literature (the list of examples of technical promotional literature becomes a closed list) and excludes media advertising from such definition. The Commission believes that such exclusion of media advertising should be removed for clarity sake since no definition of media advertising is provided and leaflets and suppliers' website can be considered as media advertising. In addition, the initial wording of the proposal already makes it clear that only the marketing tools describing the specific parameters of a tyre are considered to be technical promotional literature. It is therefore the content of information displayed by the marketing tool and not the tool itself that is relevant to determine what is considered as technical promotional literature.
Explanation of the label to end-users: Amendment 6 requires the provision of supplementary standardised information to end-users explaining the components of the label. The Commission agrees with the principle. As laid down in point 3 (i) of Annex III, suppliers are requested to provide an explanation of the pictograms printed on the label. Additional information requirements such as a fuel savings calculator and EU website appear however disproportionate. An EU wide website and fuel savings calculator would be extremely costly to monitor and burdensome for a limited effectiveness. It would also raise issues about updating and liability of data provided. Consumer information should be better addressed at national level. Thus, the amendment is accepted in part and with redrafting of new recital 18.
Responsibilities of tyre suppliers: Amendment 19 requires that suppliers also provide the measured rolling resistance coefficient on technical promotional literature for C2 and C3 tyres. Since it will not imply extra burden or costs for the industry, the Commission can accept this amendment in full. Amendment 20 requires suppliers to declare in a publicly available database the rolling resistance coefficient, wet grip index and external rolling noise emissions of the tyres as measured at type approval. The measured values declared on the label will not necessarily be the same as the type approved values. In addition, the Commission does not support the setting of a publicly available database (see comments to Amendment 6 above). The Commission therefore accepts that the declared rolling resistance coefficient, wet grip index and external rolling noise emissions are made public on the supplier's website but without specifications whether these values are from the type approval procedure or not.
Responsibilities of tyre distributors: Amendment 24 requires distributors to give an explanatory version of the label to end-users on or with the bill in addition to the information required by the current Article 5 i. The Commission considers that this explanatory information on the label (i.e. information given after the purchasing decision of the end-user) would be of limited use and should not be required in view to reduce to a minimum the burden on distributors. The Commission however accepts the proposed wording on or with the bill which gives more flexibility to distributors on the way they will comply with Article 5 i.
Responsibilities of vehicle suppliers and distributors: Amendments 25 and 44 improve the initial wording. The Commission accepts them in full.
Testing methods: Amendment 26 stresses that the testing methods shall provide end-users with reliable and reproducible information. While the Commission fully shares this view, the wording needs redrafting to be in line with existing labelling initiatives. An amendment is introduced for that purpose in Recital 19.
Market surveillance and penalties: Amendments 8, 27, 28, 29 and 33 aim at reinforcing the provisions on market surveillance and penalties which the Commission in principle fully supports. The Commission takes note that this is a major concern of the stakeholders. The Commission however cannot accept the wording which makes a distinction between sanctions and penalties. The term penalty in EU law already includes administrative and criminal penalties. Furthermore, Regulation (EC) No 765/2008 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 9 July 2008 setting out the requirements for accreditation and market surveillance relating to the marketing of products and repealing Regulation (EEC) No 339/93 already sets the rules applicable for market surveillance as from 1 January 2010. Since Regulation (EC) No 765/2008 sets very precise rules on market surveillance and penalties which would address the intention of the amendments referred above, it is suggested to introduce a reference to this Regulation in Recital 21 and in a new Article 12 on enforcement. The current Article 12 on penalties is deleted as it becomes redundant with Article 41 of that Regulation.
Snow and Nordic winter tyres tyres: Amendments 4, 12 and 31 introduce the possibility in comitology to adapt the labelling scheme to the technical specificities of snow and Nordic winter tyres. While the Commission supports these amendments in principle, a problem arises as to the lack of a precise definition of snow tyres (which is under progress at UNECE level) and the absence of definition of Nordic winter tyres. Taking these uncertainties into account, it is suggested to refer to 'tyres primarily designed to achieve in ice conditions, in snow conditions, or both, a performance better than that of a normal tyre with regard to its ability to initiate or maintain vehicle motion' instead of snow tyres or Nordic winter tyres, which will leave the regulatory committee the necessary room to adapt the label adequately once the definitions will be well known. In addition, the wording of Amendment 31 is modified in order to clarify the mandate of the European Commission within the comitology procedure. The proposed new wording for Article 11 indicates that the grip grading of those tyres may be adapted to their technical specificities in comitology. This means in practice that, until an implementing measure is introduced for that purpose, these tyres are included in the scope of the labelling scheme and have to display information on fuel efficiency, wet grip and external rolling noise like all other tyres. A revised wording is also introduced in Recitals 10 and 24 to reflect this intention.
Introduction of new parameters on the label: The deletion of Article 11 i by Amendment 32 removes the possibility to add new parameters on the label through the comitology procedure which the Commission accepts. Recital 24 is modified accordingly.
Timing and scope of the review: Amendments 10 and 34 lists some of the elements to be considered in the review of the proposal and requires that this review takes place after three years of the proposal's entry into force instead of the five years initially proposed. The list is acceptable in principle for the Commission but three years is too early for a review. A labelling scheme takes in average eight years to fully impact market transformation; in three years, not all end-users will have changed their tyres even once. In addition, the comitology procedure in Article 11 already gives the room for adaptation of the labelling scheme to technological changes if necessary.
Early implementation: Amendment 5 specifies that stakeholders should be encouraged to label tyres before the mandatory application date of the proposal. Nothing in the current text forbids placing tyres on the market with the label before its date of application. The Commission therefore accepts this amendment
Exemption of tyres produced before 1 July 2012 from the labelling requirements: Amendment 45 excludes all tyres produced before 1 July 2012 from the requirement to be labelled from 1 November 2012. The Commission does not see the need for exempting tyres produced before 1 July 2012. The industry will have had between 2 and 3 years to prepare for the labelling scheme, which should be sufficient. In addition, this amendment appears disproportionate compared to the related costs and complexity of market surveillance for Member States.
Having regard to article 250 i of the EC treaty, the Commission modifies its proposal as follows: