Opinion of the Economic and Social Committee on the "Proposal for a Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council amending Directive 97/24/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council on certain components and characteristics of two or three-wheel motor vehicles"
Date: 2000-01-25
Institutions: European Economic and Social Committee
Subjects: anti-pollution device, approval, safety device, signalling device, technical standard, two-wheeled vehicle

C 123/22

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

25.4.2001

Opinion of the Economic and Social Committee on the ‘Proposal for a Directive of the European
Parliament and of the Council amending Directive 97/24/EC of the European Parliament and of
the Council on certain components and characteristics of two or three-wheel motor vehicles’

(2001/C 123/03)

On 20 July 2000 the Council decided to consult the Economic and Social Committee, under Article 95
of the Treaty establishing the European Community, on the above-mentioned proposal.

The Section for the Single Market, Production and Consumption, which was responsible for preparing
the Committee’s work on the subject, adopted its opinion on 8 December 2000. The rapporteur was
Mr Barros Vale.

At its 378nd plenary session of 24 and 25 January 2001 (meeting of 25 January), the Economic and
Social Committee adopted the following opinion by 48 votes to 15 with four abstentions.

1.

Introduction

1.1.
The present opinion concerns a proposal to amend the
Directive on certain components and characteristics of two or
three-wheel motor vehicles.

mandatory introduction of new ‘green’ technologies must be
conditional on their effective dissemination on the market
and on producers having generalised access to them. The
Committee hopes that such access can be achieved as swiftly
as possible.

1.2.
The Commission’s proposal is prompted by Article 5
of Directive 97/24/EC, which obliges the Commission to put
forward proposals for a new motorcycle emission limit within
two years of the adoption of the Directive, on the basis of
research into the emission reduction potential of technology
and an assessment of the costs and benefits of applying stricter
limit values.

2.2.
Two and three-wheeled vehicles are manufactured in
small series and this, together with the vehicles’ prices, is the
reason why manufacturers’ ability to write off R&D investment
differs appreciably. Also, costs are higher for changes that have
to be made in a short space of time due to a particular
legislative measure entering into force, than for a change that
can be incorporated into a model change that is already
planned.

The proposal’s primary aim is to improve air quality
1.3.
by defining maximum limit values for gaseous emissions from
this type of vehicle.

1.4.
This aim will be achieved by incorporating technology
such as the oxidation catalyst (with or without secondary air
injection), the closed loop three-way catalyst and direct petrol
injection systems.

After listing the technological solutions that could be
2.3.
applied and the different results in two- and four-stroke engine
emissions respectively, the Commission concludes that the
proposed technological solutions for the first stage create the
opportunity to establish one set of limit values applicable for
all motorcycles, irrespective of the type of engine.

2.

General comments

3.

Specific comments

The Commission admits that electronic fuel injection
2.1.
and engine management systems have only just begun to find
their way into the market. While these technologies are already
feasible in four-stroke engines, the situation of two-stroke
engines is quite different; various two-stroke engine manufac-
turers are currently developing this technology or already have
a model on the market. The Committee considers that the

3.1.
Because of the time-lag between (state of the art)
technologies becoming known and the industrial feasibility
and dissemination of the technological solutions mentioned
for two- and four-stroke engines, precautions should be
introduced concerning the dates when the proposed emission
values become mandatory, in particular for the application of
those technological solutions that still do not have industrially
viable versions.

25.4.2001

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 123/23

3.2.
This concern stems primarily from the fact that while
some attempts have previously been made to apply these
technologies (e.g. direct injection) in small high-revolution
engines,
the products needed were not available on the
specialised components market. This was due to technical
difficulties and to the fact that, in quantitative terms, such
products were of little interest to component specialists, given
the high development costs but relatively small potential
market.

3.3.
Consideration must be given to the differing impact on
the final cost of categories of vehicle equipped with two- or
four-stroke engines, as this affects the competitiveness of
prices on the market.

It would seem necessary to introduce mechanisms for
3.4.
correcting or amending the target values or dates in order to
cater for cases where industrially viable versions cannot be
found.

The issue of introducing fiscal incentives also needs to
3.5.
be clarified in order to protect the principle of competition,
both between States and between different types of vehicle and
companies in the sector. In particular, the Committee stresses
that small and medium-sized manufacturers would have
difficulty in meeting the optional limit values mentioned in
Article 3(1)(b), as they do not have sufficient resources for
R&D. These manufacturers may also face added difficulties on
the market, as they do not have access to tax incentives, unlike
their larger competitors with greater technical and/or financial
capacity.

4.

Final considerations

4.1. While the principle of environmental concern that
underpins the proposal is welcomed, account must be taken
of the likely technical and industrial difficulties. This is vital if

Brussels, 25 January 2001.

the Directive is not to become unworkable for certain types of
vehicle or if certain sectors with a long tradition in this type of
vehicle (in particular, users of small two-stroke engines) are
not to be excluded from the market from the outset.

4.2.

The proposal must reflect the following:

In the case of technologies which are industrially
4.2.1.
feasible and available on the components market, and which
are accessible to all engine and vehicle manufacturers (e.g.
oxidation catalysts (OC) and closed loop three-way catalysts
(TWC) for two-stroke and four-stroke engines, and secondary
air injection (SAI) for four-stroke engines), the emission limits
and deadlines mentioned in the proposal can be made binding.

4.2.2.
The emission limits and deadlines which depend on
technologies that are still in the R&D stage, and decisions
which depend on tests whose details and reliability are not yet
established, must be subject to an interim deadline to check
their viability, as after 2003 they will be regulated in accord-
ance with the state of the art at that time.

4.2.3.
Here the Committee would draw the Commission’s
attention to the work being carried out by the UN-ECE Group
on Pollution and Energy in Geneva on a new specific test cycle
for motorcycles. It therefore does not seem advisable at present
to establish optional
limit values for the granting of tax
incentives.

The Committee considers that the deadline men-
4.2.4.
tioned in Article 2(3), regarding the validity of certificates
of conformity which accompany new vehicles pursuant to
Directive 92/61/EEC, should be changed to 1 January 2005.

The Committee also thinks that a one-year dero-
4.2.5.
gation should be provided regarding the application of the
Directive to ‘trial’ bikes, so that manufacturers can explore
solutions for this specific type of vehicle and adjust to the new
requirements.

The President

of the Economic and Social Committee

Göke FRERICHS

C 123/24

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

25.4.2001

APPENDIX

to the Opinion of the Economic and Social Committee

The following proposed amendment, which received more than one quarter of the votes cast, was rejected:

Point 2.1

Delete the last two sentences of this point and replace them by the following:

‘The introduction of demanding technical standards (e.g. in respect of emission values) is an integral part of tried and
tested environmental policy machinery. Account does, of course, always also have to be taken of the questions of
technical feasibility and future dissemination on the market. Measures should also be taken to seek to ensure that
these standards can be met by as many technology suppliers as possible.

The Committee understands all the possible reservations which may be expressed over the technical feasibility of
standards in individual cases but it does endorse the principle that environmental policy should lay down demanding
technical standards in order to enable environmental technology to press ahead.’

Result of the vote

For: 28, against: 32, abstentions: 6.

Opinion of the Economic and Social Committee on the ‘Proposal for a Directive of the European
Parliament and of the Council concerning life assurance (recast version)’

(2001/C 123/04)

On 26 July 2000 the Council decided to consult the Economic and Social Committee, under Article 262
of the Treaty establishing the European Community, on the above-mentioned proposal.

The Section for Single Market, Production and Consumption, which was responsible for preparing the
Committee’s work on the subject, adopted its opinion on 8 December 2000. The rapporteur was
Mr Pelletier.

At its 378th plenary session of 24 and 25 January 2001 (meeting of 24 January) the Economic and Social
Committee adopted the following opinion with 81 votes in favour and two abstentions.

1.

Introduction

The basic texts governing the single market in life
1.1.
assurance, which is founded on the principle of the single
authorisation and mutual recognition of checks, are the
first directive of 5 March 1979 (1), the second directive of
8 November 1990 (2) and the third directive of 10 November

1992 (3), the latter directive amending and supplementing the
preceding directives. It does not replace them completely and
many of the provisions from the first two directives remain in
force. These directives have themselves been amended by a
directive of 29 June 1995 (4) intended to strengthen prudential
supervision.

(1) Council Directive 79/267/EEC of 5 March 1979, OJ L 63,

(3) Council Directive 92/96/EEC of 10 November 1992, OJ L 360,

13.3.1979, p. 1.

9.12.1992, p. 1.

(2) Council Directive 90/619/EEC of 8 November 1990, OJ L 330,

(4) European Parliament and Council Directive 95/26/EC of 29 June

29.11.1990, p. 50.

1995, OJ L 168, 18.7.1995, p. 7.