UNITED NATIONS ECONOMIC COMMISSION FOR
EUROPE—REGULATION 51 (8301/06)
Letter from the Chairman to Stephen Ladyman
MP, Minister of State for Transport, Department for Transport
Sub-committee B considered this document, together
with your Explanatory Memorandum, at its meeting on 8 May 2006.
We share the concerns laid out in your Memorandum
relating to the desirability of keeping to a minimum the period
of double testing and over the choice of tyres for noise testing
of heavy-duty vehicles. In the event of the Government being unable
to secure changes on these two issues in Council, would the Government
oppose the draft Decision? We will hold the proposal under scrutiny
at this stage.
11 May 2006
Letter from Stephen Ladyman MP to the
Chairman
Thank you for your letter of 11 May in which
you outlined your shared concern on the two issues of minimising
the burden of double testing and tyre choice, as outlined in our
explanatory memorandum.
As you know the Commission chose (as is its
right) to submit this proposal to Council for decision, having
failed to obtain agreement in its regulatory committee. Based
on what we know of other Member States' positions, it looks as
though there will be no qualified majority either to adopt the
proposal without amendment, or to reject it (effectively the only
options open to the Council). Seven Member States abstained earlier,
in the regulatory committee, on technical and/or procedural grounds.
This puts the Commission in a very strong position—the comitology
rules mean that the unamended proposal is adopted by default if
Council cannot come to adecision within three months of the initial
submission (ie by 4 July).
It is however possible that in Council Working
Group the Commission will agree to resubmit their proposal with
amendments. We understand that they are willing to accept the
minimising of the burden of double testing by modifying the test
procedures. These changes-had achieved a broad level of support
at the regulatory committee stage. This seems to be the easier
ofour two concerns to resolve and is likely to satisfy all the
big Member States. The Commission may also give some ground on
the issue of tyre choice but I am not confident that such changes
would go far enough to satisfy us.
However, if the Commission do agree to the changes
necessary to satisfy our concerns on double testing and tyre choice,
then I propose to accept the amended proposal in due course. On
the other hand, if we do not secure the necessary commitment from
the Commission on both points, then I propose that we vote to
reject the proposal in its entirety, albeit that this would be
unlikely to prevent its adoption. I will, of course, report back
to you as soon as possible on the outcome of this proposal in
Council. This proposal is due to be discussed in a Council working
group today, 12 June, and—if unamended—is expected
to be taken at a Council shortly after that.
12 June 2006
Letter from the Chairman to Stephen Ladyman
MP
Thank you for your letter of 12 June, replying
to my letter of 11 May. Sub-Committee B considered your letter
at its meeting on 19 June.
We are grateful to you for your update, and
share your concerns that the two key issues of keeping to a minimum
the period of double testing and of the choice of tyres for noise
testing of heavy-duty vehicles remain unresolved.
We note that the Council Working Group was due
to discuss the proposal on 12 June. Can you inform us whether
any amendments were made? We would also be grateful to learn of
further any details of the timetable for the proposal which may
have emerged.
We will maintain the scrutiny reserve at this
stage.
20 June 2006
Letter from Stephen Ladyman MP to the
Chairman
In my letter of 12 June I explained that, if
the Commission. agreed to changes to the above proposal that would
satisfy our concerns on double testing and tyre choice, then I
intended to support the amended proposal. On the other hand, if
we did not secure the necessary commitment from the Commission
on these points, then I proposed that we vote to reject the proposal
in its entirety.
In the Working Group, the Commission agreed
to an amendment to the double testing regime that simplifies the
administrative mechanism of the regime—this is acceptable
to us. The Commission also agreed to anamendment on tyre choice
such that snow and special tyres will now be excluded from the
test. Although the UK stressed its concern regarding the future
potential and cost of lowering overall vehicle noise when such
vehicles were tested with tyres having a tread depth of at least
80 per cent of that of a new tyre, there was no support from other
Member States on this point. However,the exclusion of snow and
special tyres from the noise test goes part of the way to addressing
our concerns, as noted in the Explanatory Memorandum.
In consequence, the amended proposal now largely
addresses the concerns we raised in the Explanatory Memorandum.
I am aware that only 2 Member States are likely to reject the
compromise proposal when it comes before COREPER and, even if
the UK did also decide to reject it, this would notconstitute
a blocking minority.
In view of this, and in order to protect the
negotiated improvements to the measure, I propose to accept the
amended proposal.
20 June 2006
Letter from the Chairman to Stephen Ladyman
MP
Thank you for your letter of 20 June. Sub-Committee
B considered your letter at its meeting on 3 July.
We are grateful to you for your update following
the Working Group on 12 June. We note that a compromise has been
secured which "now largely addresses the concerns" which
you raised both over keeping to a minimum the period of double
testing and over the choice of tyres for noise testing of heavy-duty
vehicles.
As a satisfactory resolution appears to have
been reached, we are content to lift the scrutiny reserve on this
proposal.
5 July 2006
| 
