PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files

Erhvervsudvalget 2007-08 (2. samling)
KOM (2008) 0009 Bilag 4
Offentligt

ANEC-CHILD-2008-G-037

12 June 2008

ANEC/BEUC Fact sheet

Comitology should help quickly adapt the Toys Directive



Background

There are currently two ways to adapt the toy safety legislation to market changes

(new products) or newly identified risks:

through standardisation as used in the case of magnetic toys. This route is a slow

process with unbalanced participation of stakeholders and do not provide an

adequate level of protection. It is also not adequate for solving highly political

issues, such as the setting of emission limits for dangerous chemicals;

through a revision of the Toy Safety Directive via co-decision procedure as it has

been done for phthalates in toys. It is a long process which cannot provide the

necessary level of safety in urgent cases.

The introduction of the comitology procedure is therefore needed to allow reacting

quickly to market changes (e.g. new products) or new identified risks by adapting

certain requirements of the Toy Directive in a timely and convenient manner, without

having to revise the whole legislative text. This only would ensure that the highest

level of safety for our children.

The essential safety requirements of the Toy Directive are general principles which

are by nature relatively vague and cannot be directly enforced. These requirements

can only be set or revised by European legislators in the context of a cosmetics-

decision procedure. Where needed, specifications are established in the technical

annexes to the Directive. Some of these specifications are essential requirements but

not all. Those specifications which are considered as non-essential are

inter alia

the

requirements for chemicals in toys.



The need for a Comitology procedure

The

Comitology procedure with scrutiny

may serve to add the necessary level of

details to certain non-essential specifications, by establishing new or quickly updating

them when necessary. It has been introduced in the Commission proposal to this

aim, but is limited to the approval of carcinogenic, mutagenic and reprotoxic (CMR)

substances, and to changes to the list of allergenic fragrances and to migration limits

for metals.

In our view, the Comitology procedure should also be used for the

establishment of

limit values that have a direct impact on children’s health and safety.

Indeed,

setting limit values is a highly political issue which should be solved at political level

and not shifted to standardisation bodies. This is particularly true for the

PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files

establishment of

limit values for chemicals,

and other limits that are directly linked

to the health and safety of children, such as

noise or speed limits.

In addition to establishing limit values that have a direct impact on the health and

safety of children, we believe that the comitology procedure with scrutiny should also

be used to determine the products which fall inside or outside the scope of the Toy

Directive and to determine those toys for which an EC-type approval (third-party

testing) is needed.



Our proposal for amendments

CHAPTER VIII COMMITTEE PROCEDURES

Article 45

Amendments and implementing measures

The Commission may, for the purposes of adapting them to technical and

scientific developments, amend the following:

(a) Annex I;

(b) Points 7 and 8 of Part III of Annex II;

Those measures, designed to amend non-essential elements of this

Regulation, shall be adopted in accordance with the regulatory procedure

with scrutiny referred to in Article 46 (2).

Justification:

It should be made possible to use the comitology procedure with scrutiny to adapt the

list of products that should not be considered as toys. This would ensure that the

scope of the Directive can be quickly adapted to new market developments i.e. new

toys.

The Commission shall, where necessary to ensure the health and safety of

children, specify, in details, the essential safety requirements defined in

annex II (e.g. establish limit values or other restrictions for certain chemicals

other than listed in points 7 and 8 of part III of Annex II, limit values for

noise, limit values for speed etc.) and shall establish a list of toys requiring

EC-type-examination according to part II of annex I.

Those specifications should be adopted in accordance with the regulatory

procedure with scrutiny referred to in Article 46 (2).

Justification:

Decisions relative to highly political issues necessary to ensure the health and safety

of children should not be left to standardisation bodies. For such issues, it is also

necessary to benefit from a procedure that is quicker than co-decision. Limit values

for e.g. chemicals in toys, noise or speed should therefore be set via the comitology

PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files

procedure with scrutiny. In addition, the comitology procedure could be used to set up

and adapt a list of toys that should undergo a mandatory EC-type examination.

The Commission may decide upon the use in toys of substances or

preparations classified as carcinogenic, mutagenic or toxic for reproduction,

of category 1, 2 and 3, under Annex I to Directive 67/548/EEC.

Those measures, designed to amend non-essential elements of this Directive

by supplementing it, shall be adopted in accordance with the regulatory

procedure with scrutiny referred to in Article 46 (2).

ANNEX II

PARTICULAR SAFETY REQUIREMENTS

I. PHYSICAL AND MECHANICAL PROPERTIES

Toys conferring mobility on their users must, as far as possible, incorporate a

braking system which is suited to the type of toy and is commensurate with the

kinetic energy developed by it. Such a system must be easy for the user to

operate without risk of ejection or physical injury for the user of for third

parties.

The maximum design speed of electrically driven ride-on toys must be limited

so as to minimise the risk of injury.

The Commission may set the maximum design speed of electrically driven

ride-on toys in accordance with the regulatory procedure with scrutiny referred

to in Article 46 (2).

Justification:

Defining a maximum design speed limit for electrically driven ride-on toys is a

political issue that should be decided upon at political level via the comitology

procedure with scrutiny. It should not be left to standardisation bodies.

10.

Toys which are designed to emit a sound should be so designed and

constructed so that the sound from them is not able to impair children’s

hearing.

The Commission may set the limit value for these toys in accordance with the

regulatory procedure with scrutiny referred to in Article 46 (2).

Justification:

Defining a maximum noise limit for toys that emit a sound is a political issue that

should be decided upon at political level through the comitology procedure with

scrutiny. It should not be left to standardisation bodies.

END.