Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2001-02-13-Speech-2-305"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20010213.13.2-305"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:translated text |
".
Mr President, firstly I would like to thank the European Parliament, and Mr Lange, for their lively debate on this issue. The rapporteur recommends the adoption of the Commission’s proposal on limit values to be implemented as from 2003. The rapporteur, however, is suggesting a second stage for mandatory limit values to apply from 2006. This stage would be based on a test cycle for passenger cars. The Commission acknowledges the need for this second stage. We shall be putting forward a separate proposal for this by the end of 2002. The forthcoming proposal will be based on additional research into the technical performance and economic viability of equipment that is more advanced with regard to reducing emissions. In this next stage, emissions will have to be measured in relation to an improved test cycle. The situation will thus be made to match the real driving dynamics of motorcycles. The Commission has not included mandatory limits to apply from 2006 in its proposal, as it does not yet have access to the information that would give the right sort of scientifically persuasive support to the introduction of test cycles.
The Commission actively supports the development of a worldwide, harmonised test cycle for motorcycles. The work was started in 1999, and in May of 2000 the United Nations Economic Commission for Europe extended an official mandate for this, having the support of the Member States of the EU, Japan and the United States. The work programme is progressing according to schedule. For that reason, we believe that the new cycle will be introduced in sufficient time for it to start being applied in 2006. This is in line with Mr Lange’s views. Consequently, the Commission cannot support the amendments proposing that a decision be now made to start the mandatory second stage in 2006. The relevant amendments are Amendments Nos 3, 5, 10, 11, 23, 24 and 25. However, the Commission is obviously prepared to take part in formulating a general Interinstitutional Agreement as soon as possible.
The rapporteur mentions several measures to ensure more reliably that emission control equipment functions efficiently throughout a vehicle’s lifetime. The Commission recognises the importance of these if we want to make sure that there is a genuine reduction in emissions whilst driving. A motorcycle, however, is a very different product from a car in technical terms. In applying requirements for motorcycles attention has to be paid to the consequences, meaning there has to be a careful appraisal made of technical feasibility and cost-effectiveness.
I might reply to the question put by Mr de Roo regarding rail transport that the matter is also being looked into but no proposal has yet been made.
The Commission in principle accepts the amendments in which the Commission is urged to examine the points of view mentioned earlier. However, we reject the amendments which propose dates for the mandatory application of requirements, or provisions that take no account of the final results of research. This is a reference to Amendments Nos 6, 13, 14, 15, 20 and 22. The Commission adopts the same position with regard to Amendments Nos 8 and 17, dealing with carbon dioxide emissions from motorcycles.
The report contains several amendments the Commission would be able to support, such as Amendments Nos 4 and 12, if Member States were given the opportunity to encourage the retrofitting of emission control equipment and parts in older motor vehicles. The same holds true for Amendment No 1 and the latter part of Amendment No 9, in which it is proposed that a year-long exemption be granted for the special class of trial motorcycles, and the first part of Amendment No 9, which recommends application to present models to start, not from January, but from July, 2004.
The Commission nevertheless rejects Amendment No 26, which would delay application to present models by a whole year. In principle, the Commission also supports Amendments Nos 7 and 16 on requirements for defeat devices and by-pass arrangements, and believes it is able to include such requirements in its current proposal. The Commission can thus accept Amendments Nos 4, 9, 12 and 18, and, in principle, Amendments Nos 2, 7, 8, 16 and 21, and, in part, Amendments Nos 1, 4, 19, 20 and 22. The Commission cannot, however, accept Amendments Nos 3, 5, 6, 10, 11, 13, 15, 17, 23, 24, 25 or 26."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples