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 two- or three-wheel vehicles and quadricycles   Executive Summary of the Impact Assessment
Date: 2010-10-04
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: Community certification, approval, environmental protection, harmonisation of standards, marketing standard, motor vehicle, two-wheeled vehicle, vehicle parts

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 two- 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 

   EN 

 
 
  
 
 
 
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 
Background 

‘L-category vehicles’ is a term covering a wide range of different vehicle types 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-sectors.  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 vehicle (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 more 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  (200–300  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  set  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-category  vehicles.  The  opinions  of  stakeholders  were 
sought  especially  on  items  perceived  to  be  controversial,  including  the  mandatory  fitting  of  anti-lock  brake 
systems  on  PTWs,  revised  emission  limits  for  all  L-category  vehicles,  and  re-categorisation  of  vehicles  into 
more  appropriate  subcategories.  The  opinions  received  were  summarised  in  a  report1  and  published  on  the 
Commission’s website. 

Two studies were carried out during 2008 and 2009 to evaluate 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-category 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  assessment.  The  quantitative  cost/benefit  estimates  in  the 

1

2

3

http://ec.europa.eu/enterprise/automotive/consultation/2_3_wheelers/results_report.pdf. 
http://ec.europa.eu/enterprise/automotive/projects/report_new_measures_l_category.pdf. 
http://ec.europa.eu/enterprise/automotive/projects/report_measures_motorcycle_emissions.pdf. 

EN 

2 

   EN 

 
                                                 
 
 
 
impact  assessment  were  based  on  both  reports  and,  with  the  exception  of  the  costs  for  advanced  brake 
systems,  were  deemed  plausible  and  correct  by  stakeholders.  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 address various environmental and safety concerns identified in the two reports 

PROBLEM DEFINITION 

1. 
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 

Complexity of the current legal framework 

1.1. 
It has been pointed out to the Commission that the existing system for L-category vehicles is too complex and 
that there is therefore scope for simplification and international harmonisation. 

The national authorities in charge of applying the Framework Directive are facing unnecessary additional costs 
in their attempts to operate in this complex regulatory framework. 

L-category vehicles have to comply with a series of requirements found in a number of separate directives. The 
Framework Directive is linked to another 13 detailed technical directives, which themselves have been amended 
by 21 amending directives to reflect technical progress. 

In addition, many directives contain references to regulations and standards applied worldwide, such as those 
adopted by UNECE4, which are also subject to amendment. Ultimately, the disparate nature of the regulations 
governing  type-approval  for  L-category  vehicles  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 likely to increase, if no simplification exercise is 
carried out to delete obsolete measures and reduce complexity. 

High level of emissions 

1.2. 
The  engines of  L-category  vehicles emit  undesirable  by-products such  as  toxic  air  pollutants  and  greenhouse 
gases.  Evaporative  emissions  from  fuel  storage  and  delivery  are  considered  to  be  toxic  as  well.  Toxic  air 
pollutants, like certain hydrocarbons, are known or suspected to cause cancer 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 contribution of L-category vehicles will become increasingly important in the years to 
come.  For  example,  it  is  estimated  that  the  total  evaporative  and  exhaust  hydrocarbons  (THC)  emitted  by  L-
category  vehicles  will  increase  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 transport categories. Mopeds are already today one of the 
most  significant  contributors  to  hydrocarbon  emissions,  and  are  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 

3 

   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 already 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 alarm on hot summer days to prevent excessive particulate 
emissions.  As  L-category  vehicles  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  vehicles  was  adopted  in  2002.  Since  then, 
technology  has  evolved  rapidly.  Given  the  wide  diversity  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. CO2, 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 CO2 it emits, as there are currently no labelling requirements (unlike for passenger cars). To 
inform  the  consumer  in  a  clear,  concise  and  harmonised  way,  objective  measurement  data  are  needed,  e.g. 
measurements of CO2 emissions and fuel consumption in type-approval 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 currently not mandatory for L-category vehicles, which is a concern. 

Emissions by older vehicles may significantly 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  demonstrated  by  the  manufacturer  to  the  type-approval 
authorities.  These  requirements  are  already  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  component  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  standardised  diagnostic  information.  The  on-board  diagnostic  system  can 
make this information available so that the vehicle 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  shops,  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. 

High road fatalities and safety risks 

1.3. 
L-category drivers face a much higher risk of fatal or serious accidents than other drivers. 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 

4 

   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
Evolution of fatalities 
in EU road accidents
in EU road accidents

69,147

6,225

64,908

5,708

60,125

58,77758,308

5,197

5,069

54,72055,26854,111

52,650

4,799

4,637

4,957

4,834

5,593

5,778

5,406

5,520

5,304 5,309 5,315 5,394
49,010

47,801

44,536

41,861

39,458

37,545

36,924

7,000

6,000

5,000

4,000

33,111

3,000

2,000

1,000

0

s
e
i
t
i
l
s
a
e
t
a
i
t
f
i
l
a
e
t
l
a
c
y
f
c
e
r
c
o
y
t
c
o
r
M
o
t
o
M

l

s
e
i
t
i
l

a
t
a
f
s
t
e
n
i
e
t
i
d
l
a
i
c
t
a
c
f
a

d
a
o
r

t
n
e
d
i
c
s
c
e
a
i
r
o
d
g
a
e
o
r
t
a
s
c
e
r
i
r
e
o
h
g
t
O
e
t
a
c
r
e
h
t

O

70,000

60,000

50,000

40,000

30,000

20,000

10,000

0

Source: CARE (EU road accidents database) 
S our c e : C A R E ( EU  r oa d a c c i de nt s da t a ba se )

Other categories road  
Other categories road accident fatalities
accident fatalities 

Motorcycles only 
M otorcycles only

Figure 3: Evolution in road fatalities among motorcycle riders in the EU over time 

Tampering  may  improve  driveability  and  engine  performance  at  the  cost  of  pollutant  emissions  and  fuel 
consumption. Further, higher engine performance increases 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 motorcycles. However, due to the shift from mechanical to 
electronic engine control and the increasing 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 active and passive safety as in passenger cars. However, 
their  design  concept,  lower  maximum  speeds  and  less  strict  type-approval  requirements  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 that quads designed to be used off-road (all-terrain vehicles) are frequently 
driven  on  public  roads.  As  their  name  suggests,  these  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 acceleration capability and their high centre of gravity, which 
can  result  in  the  vehicle  rolling  while  cornering.  In  order  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  consumers  as  dangerous  and  as  a 
potential  safety  risk,  although  they  may  provide  significant  environmental  benefits.  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 evolved very fast over the last decade. 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 are 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 

5 

   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  environmental  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 engines, which are not appropriate for a purely electric 
vehicle. 

SUBSIDIARITY 

2. 
Prior  to  EU  type-approval  for  L-category  vehicles,  regulations  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 market and have their vehicles tested in each 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 level, especially to tackle EU-wide concerns regarding 
safety and the adverse health and environmental effects of air pollution. High emissions in local urban settings 
may be controlled by measures taken by individual Member States, but global emissions do not stop at borders. 
This concern can only be addressed by harmonised, EU-wide measures. Such a rationale is still valid today, as 
EU  action  is  needed  to  avoid  fragmentation  of  the  internal  market  and  to  ensure  a  high  and  equal  level  of 
protection across Europe. 

A  further  added  value  of  EU  legislation  is  that  harmonised  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-approval for every single Member State. Consumers will benefit from lower 
product prices, which are constantly under pressure owing to EU-wide competition. 

OBJECTIVES OF THE EU INITIATIVE 

3. 
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  stakeholders  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 vehicle 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  categories.  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 fatalities and casualties and the medium- to long-term road 
safety targets. 

Finally, a number of technology developments should be reflected 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 

6 

   EN 

4. 

OVERVIEW 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 

Environmental measures: new or revised measures 
for the type-approval of new vehicles 

Environmental measures: new or revised measures 
for the type-approval of new vehicles, continued 

Environmental measures: new measures to control 
vehicle emissions from vehicles in use 

Safety measures: type-approval measures for new 
vehicles  

its 

fuel 

for  CO2 

requirement 

requirements 

type-approval 

introduction  of 

for  CO2  measurement  and 

the  current  Framework  Directive  2002/24/EC  and 

(1) No policy change;  
(2)  Repeal  current  directives  and  replace  with  a  minimum  number  of 
regulations;  
(3)  Recast 
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). 
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 
consumption determination and reporting: 
(1) No change;  
(2):  Actual 
measurement and fuel consumption 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. 
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. 
On-board  diagnostic 
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 (BAT): minor malfunction monitoring 
(e.g. circuit integrity check) (OBD stage 1) for all L-category vehicles, no 
catalyst  efficiency  monitoring.  Provision 
to  repair  and 
maintenance information, as for passenger cars. 
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 licence7. Obligatory 
fitting of anti-lock brake systems on all other L3e motorcycles;  
(5) Industry self-regulation. 

(OBD)  systems  and  access 

for  access 

repair 

to 

6 

7 

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. 
Thresholds  from  Directive  2006/126/EC  (recast  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 

7 

   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  adding  new  requirements  for  mini-cars 
based on car requirements; 
(5): Refine the vehicle categories by introducing 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 . 
Specific requirements for alternative fuels and propulsions 
(1) No change (legislation at national level); 
(2)  Legislation  at  EU  level  through  a  more  refined  vehicle  categorisation 
with specific measures for different vehicles and propulsion technologies. 

Improved categorisation of L-category vehicles 

Table 1: Overview of assessed policy options and preferred policy options 

ASSESSMENT OF IMPACTS AND CONCLUSIONS  

5. 
Options were analysed in terms of the degree to which they would contribute to the objectives. Where data were 
available, a qualitative and quantitative analysis was made of all policy options. In other cases, only a qualitative 
analysis was conducted to examine the economic, environmental, safety and social impacts per option. In the 
final step, the advantages and disadvantages of the different options were compared in terms of effectiveness, 
efficiency, and coherence. The main impacts of the preferred options are presented below. 

Simplification of existing EU legislation 

5.1. 
Preferred  option  2:  Repeal  current  directives  and  replace  with  a  minimum  number  of  regulations.  Expected 
impacts:  benefits  for  national  type-approval  authorities,  such  as:  (1)  after  initial  investment,  reduced  annual 
costs of regulatory system, (2) no transposition and reduced translation costs. 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 design, leading to economies of scale for 
industry  and  to  lower  consumer  prices.  The  monetary  benefits  for  industry  and  consumers  could  not  be 
quantified. 

Environmental measures: new or revised measures for the type-approval of new vehicles 
Policy options for new emission limits 

5.2. 
5.2.1. 
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.  

Emission laboratory test cycle  

5.2.2. 
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  selling  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 them to compare different vehicle types in terms 
of fuel consumption, CO2 emissions and pollutant (HC, CO and NOx) emissions. 

Type approval for CO2 and fuel consumption, vehicle labelling 

5.2.3. 
Preferred  option  2:  Type-approval  requirement  to  only  determine  and  report  CO2  emission  and  fuel 
consumption 
Expected impacts: (1) objective information for consumers on actual CO2 emissions and fuel consumption to 
support decisions to purchase more fuel-efficient vehicles; (2) transparency of vehicle performance in terms of 

EN 

8 

   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. 

Evaporative emissions test and limit  

5.2.4. 
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.  

Durability requirements  

5.2.5. 
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-relevant 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. 
5.3.1. 
Preferred option 1: no change. Expected impact (1) considered not feasible for practical reasons. 

Environmental measures: new measures to control vehicle emissions from vehicles in use 
In-use conformity (IUC) testing and limits  

5.3.2.  On board diagnostic (OBD) systems and access to repair information  
Preferred option 3: use of best available technology: minor malfunction 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  software)  for  manufacturers,  as  OBD  stage-I  features  are 
available industry-wide (but not yet standardised). 

Safety measures for the type-approval of new vehicles 

5.4. 
5.4.1.  Obligatory fitting of advanced brake systems  
Preferred  option  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 
Preferred  option  4:  obligatory  fitting  of  advanced  brake  systems  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 lower casualties (2011–2021): 2.0 – 2.6 

Anti-tampering measures  

5.4.2. 
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 CO2 emissions; (2) possible short-term 
adverse economic effects on certain after-market suppliers, which supply equipment and services for particular 
modifications of current vehicle technology resulting in adverse effects on safety and the environment. 

74kW power limitation for motorcycles  

5.4.3. 
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.  

Improved categorisation of L-category vehicles 
Re-categorise vehicle types such as certain electric cycles and quadricycles. 

5.5. 
5.5.1. 
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,  CO2  and  pollutant  emissions,  and  in  fuel 
consumption. 

Specific requirements for category L7e vehicles (quadricycles) 

5.5.2. 
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 manufacturers for e.g. on-road quads, with the need for vehicles 
to comply with revised criteria (2) improved consistency and coherence of the regulatory system; (3) improved 

EN 

9 

   EN 

safety, noise, CO2 and pollutant emissions, and fuel consumption for on-road quads and mini-cars; (4) all-terrain 
vehicles  (ATVs)  will  come  under  the  Machinery  Directive  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 subdivided into three subcategories (L7A: on-road quads; L7B: 
off-road quads, i.e. all-terrain vehicles (ATVs); and L7C: mini-cars), unfortunately had to be abandoned as the 
new Regulation only covers on-road vehicles or those registered for public road use and because ATVs and on-
road  quads  cannot  be  sufficiently  distinguished  on  the  basis  of  design  criteria  that  are  hard  or  expensive  to 
modify. 

5.5.3. 
Specific requirements for gaseous alternative fuels and alternative 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 emissions 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). 

MONITORING AND EVALUATION 
Simplification of existing EU legislation 

6. 
6.1. 
The following issues should be assessed by the Member States to ensure that the existing EU legislation has 
indeed been simplified: key cost parameters 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  regulatory  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. 

Environmental measures for vehicle type-approval  

6.2. 
Three years after first application, the new legal framework should be reviewed by the Commission to determine 
whether the assumptions and modelled emissions conform to reality. Included in this review should be whether 
the  additional  promotion  of  electric  vehicles  would  address  the  disproportionately  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  with  such  engines.  The  long-term  preferred  option  5 
should be confirmed by an environmental effect study. Further monitoring and evaluation by Member States will 
be required after or during the period when option 3 is in force. 

Safety measures for the type-approval of new vehicles  

6.3. 
In  order  to  monitor  the  effect  of  any  change  in  legislation,  the  number  of  motorcycle  casualties  should  be 
monitored by the Member States, preferably 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  studies  similar  to  those  on  anti-lock  brake  systems  would 
increase the confidence in the estimated social impact of casualty prevention. 

Improved categorisation of L-category vehicles 

6.4. 
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  impacts.  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  would  allow  the  safety  impact  of  future  measures  to  be 
monitored more effectively. 

EN 

10 

   EN