52001SC1331

COMMUNICATION FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT pursuant to the second subparagraph of Article 251 (2) of the CE Treaty concerning the common position of the Council on the adoption of a Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council amending Directive 97/24/EC on certain components and characteristics of two- or three-wheel motor vehicles

2000/0136 (COD)

COMMUNICATION FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT pursuant to the second subparagraph of Article 251 (2) of the CE Treaty concerning the common position of the Council on the adoption of a Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council amending Directive 97/24/EC on certain components and characteristics of two- or three-wheel motor vehicles

1. Background

- Date of transmission of the proposal to the EP and the Council: (COM(2000) 314 final - 2000/0136 (COD)): 22.6.2000

- Date of the opinion of the European Parliament of first reading: 14.2.2001

- Date of the adoption of the amended proposal: 23.5.2001

- Date of adoption of the common position: 13.7.2001

2. Aim of the commission proposal

Emission requirements of motorcycles are governed by the so-called 'Multi-Directive' 97/24/EC of 17 June 1997. A first stage of limit values (Euro 1) was introduced by this directive and a further tightening of those standards was foreseen.

The current proposal contains the following elements :

* Reduced emission limit values for two- and three-wheelers to be applicable from 2003 for new types of vehicles, and 2004 for all types of vehicles (Euro 2), focusing on the reduction of hydrocarbons

* Permissive values for the purpose of fiscal incentives

* Envisaging a further stage (Euro 3) of emission limits, based on further analysis and the development of a new test cycle, reducing NOx, hydrocarbons and possibly particulates.

3. Comments on the common position

Emission limits -stage 2003

The common position largely endorses the limit values proposed by the Commission for 2003, except for a slightly more stringent limit value for hydrocarbons for the motorcycles above 150cc (1g/km instead of 1.2 g/km). This is in line with the priorities of the Commission proposal and the AUTO-OIL II program that had indicated that the emissions of hydrocarbons, as a precursor for ozone, are the main priority for this stage of limit values for motorcycles.

The common position shifts the date for mandatory application from 1 January 2004 to 1 July 2004 (Article 2.3). It gives manufacturers some more flexibility to adapt all their vehicle types to the new requirements, in line with the view of the European Parliament.

In line with the European Parliament's amendments, the common position includes a separate time table for application for 'trial' motorcycles. The common position also includes 'enduro' motorcycles in this time table. (Article 2.4). These dates are 1 January 2004 for new types and 1 July 2005 for all types.

Tax incentives

The Council agrees with the Commission proposal to introduce 'permissive values' in order to provide an option for Member States which would like to stimulate more advanced environmental technologies through the granting of fiscal incentives. The permissive values and the associated test procedure have been aligned by the Council to the Euro 3 limits for passenger cars that are presently in force.

Future work (Article 4)

In its proposal, the Commission had announced it would investigate the technical and economic feasibility of further emission reductions, envisaged to be applicable from 2006. This stage would be based on the new, possibly world-wide harmonised, test cycle, which is currently being developed through a co-ordinated action at the level of UN-ECE. The Council has supported this approach, but has given a clearer mandate by requesting the Commission to come forward with a proposal before the end of 2002. This time frame is in line with the intention of the Commission's time frame as described in the explanatory memorandum.

The Council has added a number of issues to Article 4, which are to be regarded as priority actions for further work. By the end of 2002, the Commission is requested to come forward with proposals on further emission reductions for mopeds, measurement of particulates and associated emission limits, measurement of CO2 emissions and durability requirements. Other elements referred to Article 4 relate to in-service compliance, inspection and maintenance, OBD and evaporative emission control. With this position, the Council is meeting to a large extent the views of the European Parliament as most of these items have indeed been raised in the amendments of the European Parliament as well. However, on certain elements, the time frame and detailed provisions of the parliamentary amendments differ from the Council's common position.

The common position on Article 4 is indeed a very ambitious program with a very narrow time table. The different elements are however well in line with the priorities already set by the Commission.

Defeat devices and irrational control strategies

In line with the amendments of the European Parliament, the Council has introduced a prohibition on the use of defeat devices and irrational control strategies, as well as provisions on the information to be supplied by the manufacturer that would enable the technical services to check the emission control devices.

4. European parliament amendments on first reading and the commission's opinion

On the 14 February, the European Parliament adopted 25 amendments. The European Parliament amendments can be placed in 3 groups:

4.1. Introduction of a mandatory Euro 3 stage (applicable in 2006):

Amendments 3, 5, 10, 11, 23, 24 and 25.

The proposed Euro 3 limit values merely align the test cycle and the limit values for large motorcycles with those presently in force for passenger cars. In its proposal the Commission announced that it would investigate a further stage that should take effect in 2006 that would be based on technical and economic feasibility and which should be measured against an dedicated motorcycle test cycle, that genuinely represents the dynamics of motorcycle driving patterns.

The Commission therefore rejected all the European Parliament amendments introducing a mandatory Euro 3 stage.

4.2. Amendments relating to durability, defeat devices, in-use conformity testing, CO2 and on board diagnostics (Amendments 6, 7, 8, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 20 and 21 (part 4)).

The report raises a number of issues to better ensure the effective functioning of emission control equipment during the useful life of the vehicle. The implementation of such requirements might have considerable implications that need to be assessed carefully with regards to cost-effectiveness, technical feasibility and practical consequences when applied to the motorcycle sector.

The Commission therefore agreed, in principle, to investigate some of these measures but rejects amendments that pre-empt any final decision on implementation.

4.3. Miscellaneous amendments (Amendments 1, 2, 4, 12, 18, 19, 21, 22 and 26)

The report also proposed additional amendments on various issues. The Commission agreed fully with some of these amendments, i.e:

- the possibility to introduce financial incentives to re-equip older vehicles (amendments 4 and 12);

- limitation of the economic impact on small manufacturers when investigating future measures (amendment 18).

Other amendments, relating to future work, are acceptable in principle or in part but need to be investigated before implementing definitive proposals:

There is one miscellaneous amendment that is not acceptable:

- to postpone the "all types" date for Euro 2 from 1 January 2004 to 1 January 2005 (amendment 26 part 1).

In consequence, the Commission has accepted:

- three amendments totally (numbers 4, 12, and 18);

- six amendments partly (numbers 1, 14, 19, 20, 22 and 26 part 2);

- five amendments in principle (numbers 2, 7, 8, 16 and 21),

and the Commission rejected eleven amendments (numbers 3, 5, 6, 10, 11, 13, 15, 17, 23, 24 and 25).

5. Conclusions

There is general agreement among the institutions that a next stage of emission reductions, to be applied from 2006, is required. There is also an agreement on the need for an improved test cycle. However, contrary to the European Parliament, the Council has supported the Commission's approach that the test procedure be established preferably on the basis of the test cycle that is currently being developed at UN-ECE level, before deciding on the 2006 limit values.

With the revision of Article 4, the Council has set a challenging program for the Commission with a tight time frame. In this respect, the Council has, to a large extent, met the aspirations of the European Parliament. The Commission agrees that measures to ensure more effective in-use emissions performance, including the necessary control systems, are to be considered as priority actions.

Therefore, in general, the Commission supports the Council's common position and invites the two institutions to reach an agreement as soon as possible. The Commission is ready to assist in this process.