EN    EN EN 
F1 558340 DT Regulation on two- or three-wheel vehicles and quadricycles 
Executive Summary 
EN    EN  EUROPEAN COMMISSION 
Brussels, 4.10.2010 
SEC(2010) 1151 
  
COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT 
Accompanying document to the  
 
Proposal for a 
REGULATION OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL 
on the approval and market surveillance of tw o- or three-wheel vehicles and quadricycles 
 
 
Executive Summary of the Impact Assessment 
This executive summary of the Impact Assessment  report commits only the Commission departments 
involved in its preparation and does not prejudge the final form of any decision to be taken by the 
Commission. 
Lead DG: DG Enterprise and Industry Commission Work Programme 2010 
Commission’s Agenda Planning: 2010/ENTR/02 
{COM(2010) 542 final} 
 {SEC(2010) 1152} 
EN 2   EN EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 
Background 
‘L-category vehicles’ is a term covering  a wide range of different vehicle ty pes with two, three or four wheels, 
e.g. powered cycles, two- and three-wheel mopeds, two-  and three-wheel motorcycles, and motorcycles with 
side-cars. Examples of four-wheel L-category vehicles , also known as quadricycles, are on-road quads used on 
public roads and mini-cars. 
 
Figure 1: Examples of vehicles covered by the current Framework Directive 2002/24/EC 
The L-category vehicle market has three main sub-se ctors. The largest comprises ‘powered two-wheelers’ 
(PTW): powered cycles, mopeds, scooters and motorcycles. In all, the number of vehicles currently in circulation 
is approximately 30 million, according to Eurostat. In 2007, the PTW market in Europe amounted to 2.7 million 
vehicles, taking imports into account. In 2006, the PTW sector had a turnover of €  34.1 billion and employed 
159  100 people. 
In 2008, the all terrain vehi cle (ATV) sector employed 12  000 people and had a turnover of €  2 billion according 
to its industry association, ATVEA. Around 595 000 ATVs  were registered in the EU in that year. 
The EU’s mini-car sector, comprising solely SME manufacturers, accounted for a total of 340  000 vehicles in 
2008, 1.1  % of the L-category vehicle fleet. The market is mo re mature in France, Spain, and Italy. Global sales 
for 2007 were 35  000 vehicles. The global market leader employed approximately 200 people in 2008, and 
produced 13  500 vehicles per year, including 1  500 electrical vehicles (200–30 0 utility vehicles). Mini-car 
manufacturers are often established in regions lacking a developed industrial network. Conversely, the mini-car 
industry supports a complex network of partners, on which 20  000 jobs depend in Europe. 
Type-approval requirements for new L- category vehicles are currently se t out in Directive 2002/24/EC (the 
‘Framework Directive’). In addition, a series of directives  referred to in the Framework Directive contain detailed 
technical requirements. 
As part of a review of the current legislation, a public  consultation was conducted from 22 December 2008 to 27 
February 2009 to seek the opinions of associations, companies and public authorities on key aspects of 
proposed measures relating to the type-approval of L-ca tegory vehicles. The opinions of stakeholders were 
sought especially on items perceived to be controve rsial, including the mandatory fitting of anti-lock brake 
systems on PTWs, revised emission limits for all L-cate gory vehicles, and re-categorisation of vehicles into 
more appropriate subcategories. The opini ons received were summarised in a report1 and published on the 
Commission’s website. 
Two studies were carried out during 2008 and 2009 to eval uate the economic, social and environmental impacts 
of proposals relating to L-category vehicle type-approval. One was by TRL Ltd (‘TRL report’) on potential safety 
measures2 and the impact of simplification on existing L-cat egory vehicle legislation. The second study by the 
University of Thessaloniki  (‘LAT report’) reported3 on environmental measures for L-category vehicles. Both 
policy reports were used as inputs for the impact asse ssment. The quantitative cost/benefit estimates in the 
                                                 
1 http://ec.europa.eu/enterprise/automotive/ consultation/2_3_wheelers/results_report.pdf . 
2 http://ec.europa.eu/enterprise/automotive/ projects/report_new_m easures_l_category.pdf . 
3 http://ec.europa.eu/enterprise/automotive/proj ects/report_measures_motorcycle_emissions.pdf . 
EN 3   EN impact assessment were based on both reports and, wi th the exception of the costs for advanced brake 
systems, were deemed plausible and correct by stak eholders. ACEM, the European motorcycle industry 
association, also proposed a number  of measures covering environmental and safety aspects of L-category 
vehicles in order to proactively addr ess various environmental and safety co ncerns identified in the two reports 
1. P ROBLEM DEFINITION  
The Commission has identified a number of key concerns associated with the current provisions for the type-
approval of L-category vehicles:  
– the complexity of the legal framework, 
– the level of emissions and its increasing share in  total road transport emissions, which are decreasing 
overall, 
– safety aspects, and 
– lack of a legal framework for new technologies 
1.1. Complexity of the current legal framework 
It has been pointed out to the Commission that the existi ng system for L-category vehicles is too complex and 
that there is therefore scope for simp lification and international harmonisation. 
The national authorities in charge of applying the Fram ework Directive are facing un necessary additional costs 
in their attempts to operate in this complex regulatory framework. 
L-category vehicles have to comply wi th a series of requirements found in a number of separate directives. The 
Framework Directive is linked to another 13 detailed tech nical directives, which themselves have been amended 
by 21 amending directives to reflect technical progress. 
In addition, many directives contain references to regul ations and standards applied worldwide, such as those 
adopted by UNECE4, which are also subject to amendment. Ultima tely, the disparate nature of the regulations 
governing type-approval for L-category v ehicles leads to a lack of legal and regulatory clarity. Constantly 
updating these can be a burdensome process and lead to additional costs for administrations and industry.  
The administrative costs for public authorities in this ‘no change’ scenario are significant. Based on the cost 
estimates of six Member States, the cumulative cost  to the EU27 Member States between 2009 and 2020 is 
estimated to be €  3.1 million. This high cost will remain, and is likel y to increase, if no simplification exercise is 
carried out to delete obsolete measures and reduce complexity. 
1.2. High level of emissions 
The engines of L-category vehicles emit undesirable by-products such as  toxic air pollutants and greenhouse 
gases. Evaporative emissions from fu el storage and delivery are considered to be toxic as well. Toxic air 
pollutants, like certain hydroc arbons, are known or suspected to cause ca ncer or other serious health effects, 
such as reproductive or birth defects. Air pollutants may also cause other adverse environmental effects, such 
as acid rain or smog. 
The introduction of the Euro 5 & 6 emission standards for passenger cars and Euro VI heavy-duty emission 
standards means that the cont ribution of L-category vehicles will become increasingly important  in the years to 
come. For example, it is estimated that the total ev aporative and exhaust hydroc arbons (THC) emitted by L-
category vehicles will incr ease from a share of 38  % to 62 % of the total hydrocarbon emissions of the entire 
road transport sector by 2021, if no additional measures are taken. This is mainly due to the significant 
reductions in hydrocarbon emissions from other road tr ansport categories. Mopeds are already today one of the 
most significant contributors to hydrocarbon emissions, and ar e expected to account for 38 % of total 
hydrocarbon emissions from road transport by 2020. 
                                                 
4 http://www.unece.org/trans/main/wp29/wp29wgs/wp29gen/wp29pub/wp29pub2002e.pdf . 
EN 4   EN 
Evaporation 
TriQuad Gasoline 
TriQuad Diesel 
Motorcycles Mopeds 
All other vehicles L-category vehicle 
Hydrocarbon (HC) emission share   
[% of all road transport 
Hydrocarbon 
emissions] 
 
Figure 2: For L-category vehicles, trend over time in absolute and relative shares of hydrocarbon emissions, assuming no change  
in policy5. 
The share of CO emitted by L-category vehicles is al ready very high, and is expected to rise from about 20 % to 
around 36 % of total road transport emissions in 2020. In a number of southern European cities, PTWs are 
banned from city traffic in the event of a fine-dust al arm on hot summer days to prevent excessive particulate 
emissions. As L-category vehi cles are responsible for only 3  % of total road transport mileage, their pollutant 
emissions are considered disproportionately high. 
The present legal framework governing  emissions by L-category vehicl es was adopted in 2002. Since then, 
technology has evolved rapidly. Given the wide dive rsity of vehicle construction, design and propulsion 
technologies now on the market, the current legal framework is no longer up to date. 
The non-toxic greenhouse gases (GHGs) emitted by PTWs, e.g. CO 2, represent overall a very small share of 
total road transport emissions. However, it is not obvious to the average consumer if a vehicle is fuel-efficient 
and what level of CO 2 it emits, as there are currently no labelling requirements (unlike for passenger cars). To 
inform the consumer in a clear, concise and harmonis ed way, objective measurement data are needed, e.g. 
measurements of CO 2 emissions and fuel consumption in type-approv al demonstration testing, which can then 
be used as a basis for a labelling scheme later on. The type-approval requirement to determine this objective 
data by the manufacturer is current ly not mandatory for L-category vehicles, which is a concern. 
Emissions by older vehicles may sign ificantly exceed the limits after only 20  000 km of driving, as there are no 
durability requirements in the Framework Directive. Durability is measured by emission testing of aged vehicles 
and their exhaust after-treatment components that have accumulated e.g. in the case of motorcycles 50  000 km 
before introducing a vehicle on the market, as demon strated by the manufacturer to the type-approval 
authorities. These requirements are alr eady in force in other parts of the world (USA, India, China, Thailand, 
Taiwan and Singapore) and also apply to other road vehicle categories in the EU (cars, trucks). 
Finally, a clean vehicle may turn into a high polluter if  an emission-relevant compo nent or system fails or 
degrades. This calls for: 
- Notification of the driver through e.g. a malfunction indicator light that an essential vehicle system or 
component is not operating according to its technical specification or fails; 
- Availability of and easy access to st andardised diagnostic information. The on-board diagnostic system can 
make this information available so that the v ehicle can be repaired effectively and efficiently; 
- Access to repair and maintenance information developed by the manufacturer of the vehicle. Unfortunately, 
this is currently only possible for contract repair sh ops, not for independent dealers nor for vehicle owners, 
which not only is a competition problem but also has high pollutant emissions and possibly safety concerns as 
negative side-effects. 
1.3. High road fatalities and safety risks 
L-category drivers face a much higher risk of fatal or serious accidents than other driv ers. The fatality rate per 
million kilometres travelled is, on average, 18 times greater than for passenger cars. In 2006, L-category 
                                                 
5 NB. ‘All other vehicles’ includes passenger cars, delivery vans, trucks and buses. Source: LAT report. Primary Y-
axis (left): HC = hydrocarbon emissions; 2.0E+05 = 200 000, 1.0E+06 = 1 000 000, 1 t = 1000 kg. Secondary Y-
axis (right): share of L-category vehicles as % of all road transport hydrocarbon emissions 
EN 5   EN vehicles accounted for 2 % of the distance travelled but 16 % of road deaths in the EU-25 (ETSC, 2007). 
Furthermore, while other vehicle types  have seen significant decreases in fatalities and serious injuries over 
time, the figures for L-category vehicles have remained static or even slightly increased. 
In 2008, 5 520 PTW riders died in road accidents. In addition the number of serious injuries  is estimated to be 
5.5 to 13  times higher  than the number of fatalities (30  000 – 72  000 riders). The number of slight injuries , 
which is even more difficult to estimate, might be between 12 to 28 times higher  (66  000 – 155  000 riders) in 
the EU-27. 
Evolution of fatalities
in EU road accidents
69,1 47
64,908
60,1 2558,777 58,308
54,720 55,26854,1 1 152,650
47,801
44,536
41 ,861
39,458
36,92437,54549,01 0
33,1 1 16,225
5,708
5,1 975,069
4,7994,6374,9574,8345,304 5,309 5,31 55,3945,5935,4065,778
5,520
010,00020,00030,00040,00050,00060,00070,000
Source: CARE (EU road accidents  databas e)Other categories road accident 
fatalities
01,0002,0003,0004,0005,0006,0007,000
Motorcycle fatalities
Ot her cat egories road accident  f at alit ies M otorcycles onlyEvolution of fatalities 
in EU road accidents
Motorcycle fatalities Other categories 
road accident fatalities 
Source: CARE (EU road accidents database) Motorcycles only Other categories road  
accident fatalities 
 
Figure 3: Evolution in road fatalities among motorcycle riders in the EU over time 
Tampering may improve driveability and engine performan ce at the cost of pollutant emissions and fuel 
consumption. Further, higher engine performance incr eases the maximum vehicle speed (illegally) beyond the 
ability of other vehicle components to cope, e.g. underperforming brakes. This  can result in an unsafe vehicle 
for both the rider and the environment. For this reason,  anti-tampering measures are included in the current 
Framework Directive for mopeds and less powerful motorcyc les. However, due to the shift from mechanical to 
electronic engine control and the increasi ng use of other types of propulsion (e .g. electrical or hybrid engines), 
the current measures may no longer be effective or may even be obsolete. 
Mini-cars are defined as four-wheel vehicles with limited performance and mass. The problem with these 
vehicles is that drivers may assume the same level of ac tive and passive safety as in passenger cars. However, 
their design concept, lower maximum speeds and less strict type-approval requi rements mean that this 
assumption is not necessarily correct. The lower safety  of mini-cars in comparison with passenger cars is 
therefore identified as a concern. 
Another area of concern for safety is t hat quads designed to be used off-road (all-terrain vehicles) are frequently 
driven on public roads. As their name suggests, thes e vehicles are mainly intended to be used off-road. 
However, their use on public roads between trail routes is virtually unavoidable in Europe. Using ATVs on the 
road may raise safety issues because of their high accele ration capability and their high centre of gravity, which 
can result in the vehicle rolling while cornering. In or der to perform well in terrain, these vehicles are not 
equipped with a differential on the powered axle, which is  a basic safety feature for driving on hard-surfaced 
public roads. In a number of EU cities, their use is prohibited for safety reasons. 
Gaseous fuels, for example CNG, LPG and hydrogen, are perceived by consumer s as dangerous and as a 
potential safety risk, although they may provide sign ificant environmental benefit s. Hydrogen technology may 
not be sufficiently mature to be fitted on L-category vehicles.  
1.4. Lack of a legal framework for new technologies 
L-category vehicle technology has ev olved very fast over the last dec ade. The development of the associated 
legislation has been much slower, with the result that certain vehicles can no longer be allocated to the right L-
vehicle category and a number of current measures ar e no longer appropriate. On-road quads, off-road quads 
and mini-cars currently all come under the same category,  L7e, and are all subject to the same requirements. 
EN 6   EN However, quads and mini-cars are inherently so different  in design that they each require specific legal 
requirements to be safe and comply with appropriate env ironmental standards. Low-power electric bicycles 
(less than 250 W, up to 25 km/h) currently fall outside the legal framework. In addition, more powerful bicycles 
of up to 1  000 W are also becoming very popular throughout  the EU. At the moment, these more powerful 
bicycles (over 250 W, more than 25 km/h) are classified as mopeds. These bicycles must hence comply with the 
type-approval requirements for vehicles with combustion en gines, which are not appropriate for a purely electric 
vehicle. 
2. S UBSIDIARITY  
Prior to EU type-approval for L-category vehicles, regul ations were established at Member State level. The 
legislation adopted by Member States  often differed and manufacturers selling on several markets were obliged 
to vary their production for each mark et and have their vehicles tested in ea ch Member State in question, which 
was time-consuming and costly. Different national rules consequently hindered trade, and had a negative effect 
on the internal market. 
It was therefore necessary to establish standards at EU le vel, especially to tackle EU-wide concerns regarding 
safety and the adverse health and envir onmental effects of air pollution. Hi gh emissions in local urban settings 
may be controlled by measures taken by individual Member States, but global emission s do not stop at borders. 
This concern can only be addressed by harmonised, EU-w ide measures. Such a rationale is still valid today, as 
EU action is needed to avoid fragmentation of the inte rnal market and to ensure a high and equal level of 
protection across Europe. 
A further added value of EU legislation is that harmoni sed legal requirements allow industry to profit from 
economies of scale: for instance, products can be made for the whole European market, instead of being 
customised to obtain national type-appr oval for every single Member State.  Consumers will benefit from lower 
product prices, which are constantly under pressure owing to EU-wide competition. 
3. O BJECTIVES OF THE EU INITIATIVE  
The objectives of the initiative are to simplify  the current legal framework, to contribute to a lower , more 
proportionate  share of overall road transport emissions , and to increase vehicle safety  for new vehicles 
entering the market. 
The specific simplification objective  is to develop a less complex regulatory approach that ensures greater 
efficiency, less time loss and less burdensome adaptation to technical progress and which eliminates 
duplication of international standards, so that stakeholder s are not confronted with several sets of different 
requirements addressing the same concern. 
The specific objective for emissions  is to keep the share of L-category v ehicle emissions in total road transport 
emissions at least constant compared to current levels, or preferably to reduce them in proportion to actual 
use/total mileage compared to other road vehicle cat egories. Evaporative emissions may also need to be 
addressed. 
The specific safety objectives  are to help achieve the same high reductions in road accident fatalities and 
casualties as for other means of road transport, with the falling trend in passenger car fatalities since 2000 as 
the benchmark, to maximise accident mitigation to prevent serious and minor injuries as much as possible, and 
to help close the gap between actual road accident fatalitie s and casualties and the medium- to long-term road 
safety targets. 
Finally, a number of technology developments should be reflec ted in legal requirements at EU level in order to 
allow the industry to type-approve a product only once and then to place not only certified products on the EU 
internal market but also in countries that opt to apply UNECE regulations. 
EN 7   EN 4. O VERVIEW OF ASSESSED POLICY OPTIONS AND PREFERRED OPTIONS  
A number of options have been analysed for each of the objectives (preferred options indicated in blue): 
Simplification of existing EU legislation (1) No policy change;   
(2) Repeal current directives and repl ace with a minimum number of 
regulations;   
(3) Recast the current Framework Directive 2002/24/EC and its 
implementing measures.   
Policy options for new emission limits : 
(1) No action;  
(2) New emission limits for L1e mopeds: a cold-start R47 test cycle and a 
30 % cold weighting factor;   
(3) the motorcycle industry proposal (short–medium term); 
(4) New measures based on the best available technology;   
(5) New limits for all L-category vehicles equivalent in absolute terms to 
Euro 5 for passenger cars (long-term).  Environmental measures: new or revised measures 
for the type-approval of new vehicles 
Use of a revised World Motorcycle Testing Cycle (WMTC) for all L-
category vehicles:  
(1) No change;   
(2) Use of the revised World harmonised Motorcycle Testing Cycle 
(WMTC) for all L-category vehicles  
Type-approval requirement for CO2 measurement and fuel 
consumption determination and reporting: 
(1) No change;   
(2): Actual introduction of ty pe-approval requirements for CO 2 
measurement and fuel consumpt ion determination and reporting. 
Evaporative emissions test and limit:  
(1) No change;  
(2) Replacement of all current carburetted models with fuel injection 
models; 
(3) Evaporative emissions test and limit  ensuring evaporative emission 
control for all L-category vehicles.  Environmental measures: new or revised measures 
for the type-approval of new vehicles, continued 
Durability requirements: 
(1) No change;  
(2) Deterioration reduced to 10 % over  useful life and linear extrapolation 
for higher mileages; 
(3) Useful life increased by 60  %, i.e. equivalent to the increase for 
passenger cars upon the move from Euro 3 (80  000 km) to Euro 5 
(160  000 km).  
In-use conformity (IUC) testing and limits:  
(1) No change;   
(2) IUC procedure mandatory for all Euro 3 motorcycles.  
Environmental measures: new measures to control 
vehicle emissions from vehicles in use On-board diagnostic (OBD) systems and access to repair 
information:  
(1) No change (no introduction of OBD systems and/or access to repair 
information);  
(2) Use of OBD systems similar to those in passenger cars (European 
OBD), including catalyst efficiency and misfire monitoring. Provision for 
access to repair and maintenance information, as for passenger cars ;  
(3) Use of best available technology (B AT): minor malfunction monitoring 
(e.g. circuit integrity check) (OBD st age 1) for all L-category vehicles, no 
catalyst efficiency monitoring. Pr ovision for access to repair and 
maintenance information, as for passenger cars.  
Safety measures: type-approval measures for new 
vehicles  
 Obligatory fitting of advanced brake systems:  
(1) No change;  
(2) Anti-lock brake systems on all PTWs; 
(3) Anti-lock  brake systems on PTWs with cylinder capacity6 > 125cm3 
and advanced brake systems (combined brake systems and/or anti-lock 
brake systems) on motorcycles with 50 cm3 < cylinder capacity ≤ 125 cm3; 
OR (4) Obligatory fitting of advanced brake systems on motorcycles that 
conform to the performance criteria for the A2 driving licence
7. Obligatory 
fitting of anti-lock  brake systems on all other L3e motorcycles;   
(5) Industry self-regulation . 
                                                 
6 The figure of 125 cm3 relates to the thresholds in Directive 2006/126/EC  (recast Driving Licence Directive) for class A1: 
motorcycles with a cylinder capacity not exceeding 125 cm3, of a power not exceeding 11kW and with a power/weight ratio not 
exceeding 0.1 kW / kg.  
7 Thresholds from Directive 2006/126/EC (recas t Driving Licence Directive) class A2: 1)  power not exceeding 35 kW, with 2) a 
power/weight ratio not exceeding 0.2 kW / kg, and 3) not  derived from a vehicle of more than double the power.  
EN 8   EN Anti-tampering measures:   
(1) No change;  
(2) Repeal Chapter 7 of Directive 97/24/EE, currently obsolete anti-
tampering measures;   
(3) New anti-tampering measures.  
74kW power limitation for motorcycles 
(1) No change;  
(2) Repeal option given to Member States to limit power to 74kW;   
(3) Set a harmonised limit of 74kW; (4) Use an alternative limit, e.g. power 
to mass ratio.  
Re-categorise vehicle types such as electric bicycles, tricycles (L5e) 
and quadricycles (categories L6e and L7e):  
(1): No policy change; 
(2): Exclude quadricycles and electric bicycles and tricycles from the 
Framework Regulation; 
(3): Return to the original spirit of the legislation for mini-cars; 
(4): Improve the legislation by addi ng new requirements for mini-cars 
based on car requirements; 
(5): Refine the vehicle categories by in troducing specific subcategories in 
L1e, L5e, L6e and L7e. Add new/revised requirements for these subcategories.  
Specific requirements for category L7e vehicles 
(1): No policy change; 
(2): Exclude off-road quads (ATVs) from the Framework Regulation and 
add new safety and emission requirements for on-road quadricycles (on-road quads and mini-cars);  
(3): Keep the existing L7e category and add new safety requirements for 
all quadricycles; 
(4): Create new categories in L7e with specific requirements for off- and 
on-road quadricycles .  Improved categorisation of L-category vehicles 
Specific requirements for alternative fuels and propulsions 
(1) No change (legislation at national level) ; 
(2) Legislation at EU level through a mo re refined vehicle categorisation 
with specific measures for differe nt vehicles and pr opulsion technologies.  
Table 1: Overview of assessed policy options and preferred policy options 
5. ASSESSMENT OF IMPACTS AND CONCLUSIONS  
Options were analysed in terms of the degree to which t hey would contribute to the objectives. Where data were 
available, a qualitative and quantitativ e analysis was made of all policy options.  In other cases, only a qualitative 
analysis was conducted to examine the economic, environm ental, safety and social impacts per option. In the 
final step, the advantages and disadvant ages of the different options were co mpared in terms of effectiveness, 
efficiency, and coherence. The main impacts of  the preferred options  are presented below. 
5.1. Simplification of existing EU legislation 
Preferred option 2:  Repeal current directives  and replace with a minimum number of regulations. Expected 
impacts:  benefits for national type-appr oval authorities, such as: (1) after initial investment, reduced annual 
costs of regulatory system, (2) no transposition and reduced translation co sts. Over 2009 to 2020, the benefit for 
national authorities compared to the baseline is estimated at €  1.12 million. Benefits for industry, including 
SMEs, and  consumers:  (3) standardisation of component and vehicle de sign, leading to economies of scale for 
industry and to lower consumer prices. The mone tary benefits for industry and consumers could not be 
quantified. 
5.2. Environmental measures: new or revised measures for the type-approval of new vehicles 
5.2.1. Policy options for new emission limits 
Preferred option 3:  the motorcycle industry proposal for the short to medium term (2014 – 2017) and option 5 
(the Euro 5 emission limits for passenger cars) for the long term. Expected impacts:  (1) reduced emissions 
from new vehicles from 2009 to 2020: CO (-16  %), HC (-15  %), PM (-37  %), and NOx (-27  %); (2) best estimate 
of total cost (NPV) to industry for 2009–2020: €  7.6 million.  
5.2.2. Emission laboratory test cycle  
Preferred option 2:  use of a revised World Motorcycle Testing Cycle (WMTC) for all L-category vehicles 
Expected impacts:  (1) economies of scale for manufacturers se lling L-category vehicles globally, possibly 
lower costs passed on to consumers, resulting in lower vehicle prices; (2) better simulation of real-world driving 
conditions; (3) increased transparency for consumers, allowing th em to compare different vehicle types in terms 
of fuel consumption, CO 2 emissions and pollutant (HC, CO and NOx) emissions. 
5.2.3. Type approval for CO 2 and fuel consumption, vehicle labelling 
Preferred option 2 : Type-approval requirement to only determine and report CO 2 emission and fuel 
consumption 
Expected impacts:  (1) objective information for consumers on actual CO 2 emissions and fuel consumption to 
support decisions to purchase more fuel-efficient vehicles; (2) transparency of vehicle performance in terms of 
EN 9   EN fuel efficiency within the L-category (L1e to L7e), also  providing a basis for comparison with other modes of 
transport; (3) marginal increase in costs anticipated , depending on competition in the market the industry may 
opt to transfer this cost to consumers or to absorb it.  
5.2.4. Evaporative emissions test and limit  
Preferred option 3:  evaporative  emissions test and limit for all L-category vehicles Expected impacts:  (1) 
significant further decrease in evaporative HC emissions  by PTWs only (see also 5.2.1) of approx. 2800 t by 
2020; (2) the best estimate of the cost to manufacturers is €  513 million for PTWs.  
5.2.5. Durability requirements  
Preferred option 2:  deterioration limited to 10  % over useful vehicle life (e.g.12  000 km for L1e mopeds, 50  000 
km for L3e motorcycles, etc.) with linear extrapolation for higher mileages. Expected impacts:  (1) estimated 
emission reductions in EU15 by 2020: HC: 12  500 t,; CO: 75  500 t; and NOx: 3  400 t; (2) better vehicle quality 
due to increased durability of emission-relev ant components, e.g. catalytic converters; (3) increased compliance 
costs for manufacturers may translate into higher consumer prices, but this could not be quantified.  
5.3. Environmental measures: new measures to co ntrol vehicle emissions from vehicles in use 
5.3.1. In-use conformity (IUC) testing and limits  Preferred option  1: no change. Expected impact (1) considered not feasible for practical reasons.  
5.3.2. On board diagnostic (OBD) syst ems and access to repair information  
Preferred option  3: use of best available technology: minor malfun ction monitoring (e.g. circuit integrity check) 
(OBD stage 1) for all L vehicle categories (L1e — L7e), no  catalyst efficiency and misfire monitoring; provision 
for access to repair and maintenance information, as for passenger cars. Expected impacts:  (1) significantly 
reduced environmental impact from malfunctions; (2) standardised malfunction information available to 
independent repairers, reducing cost and time needed to diagnose malfunctions; (3) use of OBD as an 
alternative to gaseous tests in periodical technical inspection (PTI) if applied, as for passenger cars; (4) low 
additional investment in technology (hardware and softw are) for manufacturers, as OBD stage-I features are 
available industry-wide (but not yet standardised). 
5.4. Safety measures for the type-approval of new vehicles 
5.4.1. Obligatory fitting of  advanced brake systems  
Preferred option 3:  anti-lock brake systems on PTWs with cylinder capacity
6 > 125cm3 and advanced brake 
systems (combined brake systems and/or anti-lo ck brake systems) on motorcycles with 50 cm3 < cylinder 
capacity ≤ 125 cm3; 
OR 
Preferred option 4:  obligatory fitting of advanced brake system s on motorcycles meeting the performance 
criteria for the A2 driving licence7; obligatory fitting of anti-lock brake systems on all other L3e motorcycles. 
Expected impacts:  (1) significant reduction in road fatalities and casualties; best estimate for long-term (2011–
2021) reduction in fatalities: 5332;  (2) best estimate of cost to industry (2011–2021): €  3.46 billion; (3) best 
estimate of benefit to society due to reduced fatalities: €  4.54 billion; fewer serious injuries: €  1.4–3.3 billion, 
fewer slight injuries: €  184–409 million; (5) best estimated benefit/cost for accident prevention (2011–2021): 2.4 
– 3.2, Best estimated benefit/cost for lo wer casualties (2011–2021): 2.0 – 2.6 
5.4.2. Anti-tampering measures  
Preferred option 3:  new anti-tampering measures. Expected impacts:  (1) prevention of adverse effects of 
tampering such as increased fuel consumption and noise, pollutant and CO 2 emissions; ( 2) possible short-term 
adverse economic effects on certain after-market supplie rs, which supply equipment and services for particular 
modifications of current vehicle technology resulti ng in adverse effects on safety and the environment. 
5.4.3. 74kW power limitation for motorcycles  
Preferred option 2:  repeal the option given to Member States to limit power to 74kW. Expected impacts:  (1) 
no significant drop in overall safety anticipated; (2) reduction of burden on vehicle manufacturers.  
5.5. Improved categorisation of L-category vehicles 
5.5.1. Re-categorise vehicle types such as certain electric cycles and quadricycles. 
Preferred option 5:  introduce specific subcategories. Add new/ revised requirements for these subcategories. 
Expected impacts:  (1) Possible additional compliance one-off cost for manufacturers; (2) improved consistency 
of the regulatory system; (3) improvements in safety, noise, CO 2 and pollutant emissions, and in fuel 
consumption. 
5.5.2. Specific requirements for ca tegory L7e vehicles  (quadricycles) 
Preferred option 2:  create a new subcategory for on-road quads and one for mini-cars. Expected impacts:  (1) 
possible additional compliance cost incurred by manufactur ers for e.g. on-road quads, wi th the need for vehicles 
to comply with revised criteria (2) improved consistency and coherence of the regulatory system; (3) improved 
EN 10   EN safety, noise, CO 2 and pollutant emissions, and fuel cons umption for on-road quads and mini-cars; (4) all-terrain 
vehicles (ATVs) will come under the Machinery Directiv e with regard to safety measures and under the Non-
Road Mobile Machinery Directive as regards environmental measures. 
The initially preferred option 4, with category L7e subdiv ided into three subcategories (L7A: on-road quads; L7B: 
off-road quads, i.e. all-terrain vehicles (ATVs); an d L7C: mini-cars), unfortunately had to be abandoned as the 
new Regulation only covers on-road vehicles or those re gistered for public road use and because ATVs and on-
road quads cannot be sufficiently distin guished on the basis of design crit eria that are hard or expensive to 
modify. 
5.5.3. Specific requirements for ga seous alternative fuels and alternat ive propulsions (electric, hybrid) 
Preferred option 2:  legislation at EU level through a more refined vehicle categorisation with specific measures 
for different vehicles and propulsion technologies. Expected impacts:  (1) gaseous fuels in general: 
environmental benefits, e.g. lower em issions of particulate matter, non- methane hydrocarbons and CO, similar 
level of NOx emissions; (2) simplified legislation through clearer, more appropriate measures, with elimination of 
obsolete or redundant requirements; (3) possibility to include international standards (CEN / UNECE). Hydrogen 
technology for powered two wheelers was considered to be not mature at the time of analysis (2009). 
6. M ONITORING AND EVALUATION  
6.1. Simplification of existing EU legislation 
The following issues should be assessed by the Member States to ensure that the existing EU legislation has 
indeed been simplified: key cost parame ters used as the basis for analysis; number of amendments required to 
relevant directives per year; ongoing costs to Member States of implementing the current system; number of 
type approvals per year; time taken to implement regul atory changes, vehicle designs and standardisation; 
number of technical-standard group meetings; travel costs and number of attendees. Feedback from industry 
and other stakeholders must be included in this assessment. 
6.2. Environmental measures for vehicle type-approval  
Three years after first application, the new legal fram ework should be reviewed by the Commission to determine 
whether the assumptions and modelled em issions conform to reality. Included in this review should be whether 
the additional promotion of electric vehicles would address the disproportionatel y high emissions from L-
category vehicles equipped with combustion engines. In  addition, it should assess the need to include off-cycle 
emission provisions beyond 2020 for vehicles equipped wi th such engines. The long-term preferred option 5 
should be confirmed by an environmental effect study. Fu rther monitoring and evaluation by Member States will 
be required after or during the period when option 3 is in force. 
6.3. Safety measures for the type-approval of new vehicles  
In order to monitor the effect of any change in legislation, the number of motorcycle casualties should be 
monitored by the Member States, prefer ably in relation to the engine capacity of the motorcycle, the equipment 
fitted and the rider’s driving licence category. The quality of the present impact assessment was influenced by 
the lack of reliable non-fatal casualty  data, requiring some broad assumptions to be made. The availability of 
reliable data in this area would enable these assumptions  to be verified and permit a more accurate evaluation 
of the effect of proposed changes. There was minimal information available on the cost and effectiveness of 
combined brake systems. Data from research studie s similar to those on anti -lock brake systems would 
increase the confidence in the estimated social impact of casualty prevention. 
6.4. Improved categorisation of L-category vehicles 
Significant uncertainties remain regarding key costs in the approval process and in the safety and environmental impacts of the proposed options. These should be monitored and further data obtained by the Commission and 
the Member States to refine the assessment of impact s. More detailed accident data are required to provide 
information on the safety of quadricycles and to allow the impact of any measures to be assessed. A more 
specific categorisation of L1e, L6e and L7e vehicles woul d allow the safety impact of future measures to be 
monitored more effectively.