Opinion of the Commission pursuant to Article 251(2), third subparagraph, point (c) of the EC Treaty, on the European Parliament's amendments to the Council's common position regarding the proposal for a Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council on the reduction of the level of pollutant emissions from two and three-wheeled motor vehicles and amending Directive 97/24/EC amending the proposal of the Commission pursuant to Article 250(2) of the EC Treaty
Date: 2002-02-04
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: anti-pollution device, approval, safety device, signalling device, technical standard, two-wheeled vehicle

COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES

Brussels, 04.02.2002
COM(2002) 58 final

2000/0136 (COD)

OPINION OF THE COMMISSION

pursuant to Article 251(2), third subparagraph, point (c) of the EC Treaty,
on the European Parliament's amendments
to the Council's common position regarding the
proposal for a

DIRECTIVE OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT
AND OF THE COUNCIL

ON THE REDUCTION OF THE LEVEL OF POLLUTANT EMISSIONS
FROM TWO AND THREE-WHEELED MOTOR VEHICLES
AND AMENDING DIRECTIVE 97/24/EC

AMENDING THE PROPOSAL OF THE COMMISSION
pursuant to Article 250(2) of the EC Treaty

2000/0136 (COD)

OPINION OF THE COMMISSION

pursuant to Article 251(2), third subparagraph, point (c) of the EC Treaty,
on the European Parliament's amendments
to the Council's common position regarding the
proposal for a

DIRECTIVE OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT
AND OF THE COUNCIL

ON THE REDUCTION OF THE LEVEL OF POLLUTANT EMISSIONS
FROM TWO AND THREE-WHEELED MOTOR VEHICLES
AND AMENDING DIRECTIVE 97/24/EC

1.

INTRODUCTION

Article 251(2), third subparagraph, point (c) of the EC Treaty provides that the Commission is
to  deliver  an  opinion  on  the  amendments  proposed  by  the  European  Parliament  at  second
reading.  The  Commission  sets  out  its  opinion  below  on  the  27 amendments  proposed  by
Parliament.

2.

BACKGROUND

The  proposal  COM(2000) 314  final  /  2000/0136  (COD)  has  been  submitted  to  the  Council
and  the  Parliament  on  the  22 June  2000,  in  accordance  with  Article 95  of  the  Treaty  (JO
C 337E, of 28 November 2000, p. 140).

The Economic and Social Committee has given its opinion on the 25 January 2001 (JO C 132
of 25 April 2001, p. 22).

In the framework of the co-decision procedure, the European Parliament has given its opinion
in  first  reading  on  the  14 February  2001  (JO  C 276  of  10 October  2001,  p. 135).  The
European Parliament accepted 25 amendments. The Commission adopted a modified proposal
on the 28 May 2001 in which it adopted 9 of the European Parliament’s amendments (either
totally or partly) to its initial proposal (JO C 240E of 28 August 2001, p. 146).

The Council reached a political agreement on the 8 March 2001, which was then adopted as a
Common Position on the 13 July 2001 (JO C 301 of 26 October 2001, p. 43). The Common
Position was received by the European Parliament on the 3 September 2001.

On  the  12 December  2001;  the  European  Parliament  has  adopted  in  its  second  reading
27 amendments to the Common Position of the Council.

2

3.

PURPOSE OF THE PROPOSAL

The  objective  of  the  proposal  is  to  strengthen  Community  requirements  aimed  at  limiting
polluting emissions from motorcycles, which will contribute to achieving ambient air quality
targets and national emission ceilings, as established in the relevant EU Directives, in 2010.

4.

OPINION  OF  THE  COMMISSION  ON  THE  AMENDMENTS  BY  THE  EUROPEAN
PARLIAMENT

The amendments can be treated in 6 groups.

4.1

Amendments introducing a mandatory ‘2006’ stage (2, 4, 10, 11, 16, 24 up to 27)

The aim of the European Parliament, both in first and second reading, is to set already now a
further  reduction  of  emission  limits  (stage 3),  to  be  applicable  from  2006.  According  to  the
amendments  motorcycles  should  then  achieve  the  same  level  of  emission  control  as  the
current “EURO III” limits for passenger cars. The Parliament amendments for 2006 therefore
include  the  introduction  of  the  –adapted-  passenger  car  cycle  for  the  motorcycles  above
150 cc,  and  the  associated  EURO III  limit  values.  The  cycle  for  the  smaller  motorcycles  is
based on the current ‘urban duty cycle’, but with a cold start of the engine.

Although  the  Commission  acknowledges  the  need  for  a  further  mandatory  stage  in 2006,  it
prefers this stage to be based on the newly developed motorcycle test cycle, which has been
completed recently and is in the process of validation. The Commission has indeed endorsed
the  Common  Position,  which  mandates  the  Commission  to  come  forward  with  such  a
proposal  before  the  end  of  2002.  This  on-going  validation  process  will  provide  a  solid
scientific  database  for  the  definition  of  2006  limits,  based  on  advanced  emission  control
technology.

The test cycles proposed in the amendments are seen as technically inferior solutions, which
will  need  further  improvement  -from  an  environmental  point  of  view  -  in  order  to  be  fully
effective in real traffic conditions. Since the industry would need a reasonable time frame for
a subsequent change to the test procedure, the Commission has the opinion it would delay the
introduction of appropriate and effective emission standards.

The Commission rejects all of the European Parliament amendments related to the mandatory
introduction  of  2006  limits.  The  Commission  is  however  prepared  to  assist  in  finding  an
agreement between the Institutions that takes into account the arguments raised above.

4.2

Amendments relating to the EURO II application dates for mopeds (8 and 9)

Two amendments relate the “EURO II” application dates for mopeds. Amendment 8 sets the
EURO  II  application  date  for  new  type  approvals  of  mopeds  on  1 January  2003.
Amendment 9  aligns  the  end  date  for  the  validity  of  existing  EURO  I  type  approvals  for
mopeds with the corresponding date for motorcycles.

It  must  be  emphasised  that,  contrary  to  the  situation  for  motorcycles,  the  current  Directive
97/24/EC already includes a EURO II stage for mopeds, to be applicable from 17 June 2002
for new type  approvals.  Amendment 8 therefore introduces  a 6 month  delay  with  respect  to
the decision taken more than four years ago.

3

On the other hand, the current Directive 97/24//EC has not set explicitly an end date for the
validity  of  existing  EURO  I  approvals.  Therefore,  there  is  a  clear  possibility  of  diverging
interpretations  in  the  Member  States,  which  would  effectively  disrupt  the  internal  market.
Amendment 9 is helpful in clarifying the issue.

The Commission rejects amendment 8, but accepts amendment 9.

4.3

Amendments relating to durability requirements (5 (part 2), 13, 20)

Although durability requirements are already included in the Common Position, as part of a
package  of  envisaged  measures  to  control  better  the  emissions  in  service,  the  report  is
proposing specific requirements on this issue, with a first application in 2004 (30 000 km or
five years) and extending the applicability in 2006 (50 000 km or five years).

The Commission rejects all amendments relating to durability. An introduction of durability
requirements in 2004 would effectively  result  in an  unrealistic time  schedule, with different
emission requirements in 2003, 2004 and 2006. Such a time schedule would indeed be very
difficult  for  the  industry  to  comply  with.  The  date  of  2006  is  preferred  instead  of  2004  in
order to avoid a constantly changing regulatory environment with recurrent re-type approving
of existing vehicle types. In this respect, the Commission prefers the wording in Article 4 of
the  Common  Position,  which  already  requests  the  Commission  to  come  forward  with  a
proposal on durability.

4.4

Amendments relating to in use conformity requirements (5 (part 1), 14, 21)

The amendments 5 and 14 proposed by the European Parliament specify the introduction of in
use  conformity  requirements  by  proposing  2006/2007  as  application  date  and  request  the
Commission  to  come  forward  with  a  proposal  before  the  end  of  2002.  Amendment 21  is
basically  repeating  this,  but  spells  out  that  the  requirements  would  need  to  align  with  the
requirements for passenger cars (Directive 70/220/EEC).

The  Commission  accepts  amendment 5,  part 1,  and  amendment 14,  part 1.  Amendment 14,
part 2,  would  only  be  acceptable  if  the  date  is  deleted  and  “if  appropriate”  is  added.  The
Commission also rejects amendment 21, which is regarded as superfluous and is pre-empting
specific requirements which can only be decided  after assessing  the specific implications of
such requirements when applied to motorcycles.

4.5

Amendments relating to CO2 emissions (7, 15, 19)

Although the Common position already includes an obligation to measure CO2 emissions, the
amendments propose to introduce the passenger car cycle as the measurement procedure for
CO2  emissions  testing  and  also  require  the  Commission  to  come  forward  with  specific
proposals  regarding  the  reduction  of  CO2  emissions  (voluntary  agreement,  labelling,  tax
incentives).

The  Commission  accepts  amendment 7,  which  is  a  recital  that  is  in  line  with  the  Common
position,  although  the  wording  could  be  clarified.  In  this  respect,  the  Commission  can  also
accept to include motorcycles when considering future measures to combat climate change.

However,  amendment 15  is  to  be  rejected,  in  line  with  the  position  taken  on  the  test
procedure.  Furthermore,  this  amendment  does  not  take  into  account  requirements  for  small
motorcycles (up to 150 cc) and mopeds, which is requested by the Council. It is proposed to
reject  also  amendment 19,  which  incorporates  motorcycles  in  the  strategy  to  reduce  CO2

4

emissions  from  passenger  cars  (as  outlined  in  COM(1995) 689  final),  as  again  it  pre-empts
proposals to be made by the Commission.

4.6

Miscellaneous amendments (1, 3, 6, 12, 17, 18, 22, 23)

The European Parliament also proposes additional amendments on various issues. All of these
amendments are acceptable, either fully, partly or in principle.

– 

– 

– 

– 

– 

To allow Member States to introduce financial incentives to re-equip older vehicles
(am. 3, 12; acceptable)

Recital concerning defeat devices and cycle bypass prevention (am. 6; acceptable)

Some  amendments  are  editorial  in  nature  and  ensure  a  better  consistency  in  the
wording of Article 4 (am. 17 and 22; acceptable)

Two  amendments  request  the  Commission  to  come  forward  with  requirements  for
particulate matter standards for tricycles and quadricycles (am. 1 and 18, acceptable
in principle)

Amendment 23  deletes  the  wording  ‘if  appropriate’  and  adds  the  issue  of
replacement  exhaust  systems.  Only  the  second  part  is  acceptable  (am. 23;  partly
acceptable)

In consequence, the Commission :

– 

– 

– 

– 

5.

accepts 7 amendments totally (Nos 3, 6, 7, 9, 12, 17, 22),

accepts 2 amendments in principle (Nos 1, 18),

accepts 3 amendments partly (Nos 5, part 1; 14 part 1; 23, part 2) and

rejects 15 amendments (Nos 2, 4, 8, 10, 11, 13, 15, 16, 19, 20, 21, 24, 25, 26 and 27).

CONCLUSION

Pursuant to Article 250(2) of the EC Treaty, the Commission amends its proposal as set out
above.

5