Comments Off on fka and TRL announce Webinar for new Personal Mobility Devices Study on behalf of European Commission
Regulation 168/2013 on the approval and market surveillance of 2- or 3-wheel vehicles and quadricycles is the core of technical legislation and categorization of light electric vehicles (LEVs). These are either included in the scope of the legislation. That is for instance the case for electric cargocycles with more than 250W or for speed pedelecs. Or, they come under one of the exclusions listed in Article 2.2 of the Regulation. That is for instance the case for EPACs, i.e. electric bikes with pedal assistance up to 250W and 25 km/h, but also for e-scooters, self-balancing vehicles, etc.
If they are excluded from Regulation 168/2013, the vehicles come under the Machinery Directive. This opens the possibility of developing harmonized standards, which offer presumption of conformity. If your vehicle complies with the standard, it is presumed to be in conformity with the Machinery Directive. However, so far, there is only one harmonized standard for LEVs, i.e. EN 15194:2017. The EN 17128:2020 for vehicles without a seat and self-balancing vehicles has not been harmonized, nor will the future standards for e-cargocycles be.
Two major legal problems
Current legislation for LEVs poses two major problems. First, the legislation has not been specifically written for LEVs and is therefore not adequate. This results in very serious legal bottlenecks, which obstruct market development. One of the worst affected vehicle categories is L1e-A “Powered Cycles”, i.e. electric cycles with a maximum speed of 25 km/h and maximum 1 kW. As a result, virtually no vehicles have been type-approved in L1e-A
Second major problem is that inclusion in Regulation 168/2013 results in national rules that are particularly restrictive and hindering, since they have been developed for vehicle concepts, which are quite different from LEVs. The worst example is the categorization of speed pedelecs as mopeds. Consequently, in most member states they are subject to moped terms of use that seriously hinder the use of speed pedelecs, thus the market development.
Commission acknowledges problems
Vehicles excluded from Regulation 168/2013 are for their use completely dependant on national rules. Some member states for instance do not allow the use of e-scooters on public roads. On the other hand, all member states have granted EPACs the same status as conventional bicycles, which allowed the market to prosper.
The European Commission is cognizant of the fact that current European technical legislation causes serious problems for LEVs but so far, failed to do anything to solve those problems. In 2021, the Commission asked TRL to conduct a study into so-called “Personal Mobility Devices” (PMDs). This term covers standing and seated e-scooters, EPACs, L1e-A Powered Cycles, cycles designed to pedal in L1e-B (speed pedelecs), electric cargocycles, self-balancing vehicles, e-hoverboards, e-monowheels and e-skateboards. The study concluded that LEVs would benefit most from their own, separate technical framework, a solution which LEVA-EU has been advocating since its establishment.
The file remained shelved for two years, but now the Commission has ordered yet another study. fka and TRL announced the launch of a study: “on behalf of the European Commission to investigate the methods by which the technical characteristics of micromobility devices could be regulated in the European Union.“
On the 8th of December at 2pm (Central European Time), fka and TRL will hold a webinar which is intended to provide a briefing to the micromobility industry, government representatives, safety charities and other NGOs, and other interested stakeholders on the project and the support that will be required by fka and TRL. LEVA-EU was informed that the term “micromobility” should be interpreted in a broad sense and covers all vehicles, which were subject of the previous study, i.e. e-scooters, self-balancing vehicles, electric cycles and speed pedelecs.
LEVA-EU sincerely hopes that this exercise will go beyond the study and that the research will finally inspire the Commission to work on adequate and urgently needed technical regulations for LEVs.
430 European cities to receive support to develop their Sustainable Urban Mobility Plans (SUMPs)
A recommendation was adopted on 8 March by the European Commission, designed to help member states to support their cities and towns in improving urban mobility and cutting transport emissions. The 430 major cities along the trans-European transport network will receive support to develop their SUMPs.
National programmes are recommended to support the planning and implementation of urban mobility, managed by a dedicated office. Cities should expect support in the form of guidance materials, traningin programmes and capacity building, alongside technical expertise and financial support.
Cities and towns will be encouraged to participate in peer learning and networking, and the sharing of good practices. Coordinated awareness-raising campaigns are also envisaged. Representatives from national programme management offices will be invited to work with the new Expert Group on Urban Mobility. Member States are expected to inform the Commission annually of actions taken in the light of the Recommendation.
Under the recommendation, the concept of SUMPs has been updated to integrate latest policy developments and strategies to make use of new mobility services, address climate change, and reduce road fatalities in cities. These policy developments prioritise such affordable and sustainable transport modes as shared mobility services, walking, cycling, public transport and zero-emission urban logistics. The update to the SUMPs concept is a result of the commitment to the European Commission’s 2021 Urban Mobility Framework.
Brussels – The European Transport Safety Council is calling for the European Union and European national governments to make Anti-lock Braking Systems (ABS) mandatory on all new motorcycles in a new report on the state of motorcycling safety in Europe. The report also calls for practical test, and a minimum age of 16 for mopeds.
The report found that 3,891 people died while riding a motorcycle or moped in the EU in 2021, around 90% of whom were men. That figure is 25% lower than a decade earlier but, over the same period, other road deaths fell by a third.
According to the authors, changes to EU licensing requirements in 2013 may have contributed to the lower number of deaths by creating a series of stages to acquire a full licence for the largest and most powerful motorcycles.
The minimum recommended age to ride a moped in the EU is now 16 but, in several countries, it is still possible to ride at the age of 14, without passing a practical test. ETSC says a practical test should be mandatory and all countries should apply the recommended minimum age of 16 or higher.
Among the report’s other recommendations:
Mandatory technical inspections should be required for all motorcycles and mopeds, as well as a focus on checking that vehicles haven’t been modified for higher speeds. The European Commission is currently reviewing rules on vehicle inspections, with a proposal expected this year.
National governments should develop better enforcement of speed limits applying to motorcyclists in order to allow for the fact that motorcyclists cover their face with helmets so cannot be identified in countries that require identification of the driver/rider when issuing penalties.
Enforcement of helmet-wearing should be improved, especially in countries with very low levels of helmet-wearing such as Greece and Cyprus. The EU and national governments could also promote a consumer information scheme on the safety performance of helmets and other protective equipment such as airbag jackets.
Manufacturers of cars, vans and lorries should also improve their detection of motorcyclists by safety technologies such as Automated Emergency Braking.
Much more attention should be placed on delivery riders who now face a ‘perfect storm’ of risk factors, including distraction from mobile phone-based apps, pressure to make deliveries quickly and while unwell, a lack of protective equipment and little oversight of vehicle condition.
Jenny Carson, the manager of ETSC’s Road Safety Performance Index programme commented:
“In recent years motorcyclists have been less of a focus in road safety. But there are several smart and straightforward measures that can be taken to reduce the unacceptable number of deaths every year. Some are obvious such as not allowing children aged 14 to ride motorcycles. Others require a bit of innovation such as ensuring that motorcyclists can be sanctioned for exceeding the speed limit like any other road user.“
“We also need to pay close attention to growing trends such as the number of young people, mostly men, now delivering hot food in our cities on motorcycles, working under time pressure on poorly maintained vehicles, while being distracted by app-based tools.”
The full report, “Reducing Road Deaths among Powered Two Wheeler Users”, published as part of the ETSC Road Safety Performance Index programme, can be downloaded from the ETSC website at www.etsc.eu/pinflash44
Close to half of all waste electrical and electronic equipment (WEEE) across Europe is not properly processed.
New figures include data for WEEE that is difficult to gather information for, and therefore may not have been previously reported to the European Commission under WEEE Directive obligations. These regulations aim to address environmental concerns by promoting sustainable production and consumption, particularly in light of the growing number of discarded electronic items.
Electronic waste contains a complex mixture of materials, some of which are hazardous. These can cause major environmental and health problems if the discarded devices are not managed properly. In addition, modern electronics contain rare and expensive resources, which can be recycled and reused if the waste is effectively managed. This is of course a priority when considering the finite resources available for manufacturing.
The staff of the European Commission’s Directorate-General for Mobility & Transport (DG MOVE) are organising a bike collection to support the #BikesForUkraine campaign.
Initiated by 6 Ukrainian NGOs, #BikesforUkraine is collecting bikes to help Ukrainian volunteers & community services.
The bicycle has become the main way of getting around in the Ukrainian cities that have suffered most from the Russian military aggression: Kharkiv, Chernihiv, Sumy and others. These cities are struggling with interrupted or non-operational public transport and a lack of fuel.
The bicycle is often the only option for delivering humanitarian aid and moving personnel working on critical services.
How to donate:
Donate your bike(s) that you no longer use, but which are still in good working condition. Both bikes for children and adults are welcome. Electric bikes with working batteries are also welcome.
Donate spare parts, bike trailers and saddle bags for carrying medical supplies, food, etc., child trailer bikes with one wheel, helmets, bike locks, lights for driving safely on damaged roads, pumps, etc.
Spread the word! Use European Commission visuals and activate your networks so that the scheme reaches a maximum number of bike owners.
Volunteer and help to repair donated bikes, ensuring they are fit for use. Get in touch by email.
Drop off bikes, spare parts, and locks at the entrance of DG MOVE, Rue de Mot/De Motstraat 28, 1040 Etterbeek, Brussels during the following hours:
Monday (31 October) – Friday (4 November) by personal appointment (please send an email)
Comments Off on Personal Mobility Devices Workshop – Commission: quo vadis?
The very well-attended European Commission workshop on Personal Mobility Devices (PMD) left us with mixed feelings. It is far from clear which direction the Commission wants to take further.
Attendance was high for the Commission’s workshop on Personal Mobility Devices (PMDs). There were more than 70 people in the Brussels’ meeting room and about 150 attendants online. Unfortunately, the meeting could not really pass as a workshop. The Netherlands, France, Germany and Spain were given extensive time to present their national rules, mainly for e-scooters. After that, there was hardly any time left for discussion.
Also, it is not clear what the purpose of presenting those national rules was. The workshop was organised by the Commission unit, which is responsible for Regulation 168/2013. E-scooters, along with electric bicycles and self-balancing vehicles, do not fall under Regulation 168/2013 but under the Machinery Directive. Consequently, one would expect that the Commission unit competent for the Machinery Directive would have at least attended the meeting. Quod non.
Mark Nicklas, who became Head of the unit responsible for Regulation 168/2013 not that long ago, stated that he himself was not so sure where the current legislation came from. He argued that Regulation 168/2013 had been introduced at a time when PMDs did not really exist yet. However, electric bicycles, e-scooters and self-balancing vehicles were already on the market in 2013. The Commission deliberately excluded them from Regulation 168/2013 because they simply did not know what to do with them. Moreover, they did not realise that by excluding them, they were referring the vehicles to the Machinery Directive. Even almost 10 years later, Mark Nicklas admitted that he was very surprised, when he took on his new position, to find that the vehicles were covered by the Machinery Directive.
Nevertheless, the Netherlands, Germany and Spain explained at length the specific national technical rules they had developed, because they believe there is no European framework. So, they simply ignore the Machinery Directive as the current European harmonized framework for PMDs excluded from Regulation 168/2013. At the same time, through the Council, these very same member states have overruled the Commission’s proposal to exclude PMDs from the new Machinery Regulation to create an opportunity for a specific harmonized technical framework for PMDs.
It is particularly unfortunate and incomprehensible that with this workshop, the Commission did not address the member states on their illogical and possibly illegal national rules. It is particularly unfortunate and incomprehensible that the Commission did not seize the opportunity of this workshop to start a real discussion on a European harmonized PMD framework. Nevertheless, the few companies that managed to get the floor, clearly expressed their despair at having to make a different vehicle for almost every member state. One of them was Nathan Debaets, from Taito a young Belgian company and member of LEVA-EU, which is enthusiastically developing a high-quality e-scooter. He stated: “It is nearly impossible for a start-up like ours to follow up on all those different requirements.”
The Light Electric Vehicle (LEV) sector has been plagued and hampered by legal obstructions for over a decade now. In these times of climate, energy and cost-of-living crises, it is no longer morally justifiable for the European Union to continue to shelve a European LEV-framework.
Comments Off on European Commission announces 100 cities participating in EU Mission for climate-neutral and smart cities by 2030
The European Commission today announced the 100 EU cities that will participate in the EU Mission for 100 climate-neutral and smart cities by 2030, the so-called Cities Mission. The 100 cities come from all 27 Member States, with 12 additional cities coming from countries associated with, or with the potential of being associated with, Horizon Europe, the EU’s research and innovation programme (2021-2027).
Our urban areas are home to 75% of EU citizens. Globally, urban areas consume over 65% of the world’s energy, accounting for more than 70% of CO2 emissions. It is therefore important that cities act as experimentation and innovation ecosystems to help all others in their transition to becoming climate-neutral by 2050.
Ursula von der Leyen,President of the Commission, said: “The green transition is making its way all over Europe right now. But there’s always a need for trailblazers, who set themselves even higher goals. These cities are showing us the way to a healthier future. We will support them on this! Let’s begin the work today.”
The Cities Mission will receive €360 million of Horizon Europe funding covering the period 2022-23, to start the innovation paths towards climate neutrality by 2030. The research and innovation actions will address clean mobility, energy efficiency and green urban planning, and offer the possibility to build joint initiatives and ramp up collaborations in synergies with other EU programmes.
Benefits for cities include tailor-made advice and assistance from a dedicated Mission Platform run by NetZeroCities, additional funding and financing opportunities and the possibility to join large innovation actions and pilot projects. The Mission also provides networking opportunities, exchange of best practices between cities and support to engage citizens in the mission.
Next Steps
The Commission will invite the 100 selected cities to develop Climate City Contracts, which will include an overall plan for climate neutrality across all sectors such as energy, buildings, waste management and transport, together with related investment plans. This process will involve citizens, research organisations and the private sector. The clear and visible commitments made by the cities in the Climate City Contracts will enable them to engage with the EU, national and regional authorities – and most importantly with their own citizens to deliver on this ambitious objective.
Moreover, in light of the overwhelming interest from 377 cities to join the mission, the Commission is also putting in place support for cities that were not selected, including support through the Mission Platform and funding opportunities under the Cities Mission Work Programme of Horizon Europe.
Members of the College said:
Executive Vice-President Frans Timmermans, for the European Green Deal,said: “Cities are at the forefront of the fight against the climate crisis. Whether it’s greening urban spaces, tackling air pollution, reducing energy consumption in buildings, or advancing clean mobility solutions: cities are often the hub of the changes Europe needs to succeed in our transition to climate neutrality. My congratulations to the cities selected today, I look forward to the solutions you will develop to guide your inhabitants and businesses towards a greener future.”
Executive Vice-President Margrethe Vestager, for A Europe Fit for the Digital Age,said: “We need to speed up Europe’s transition to climate neutrality, to end our reliance on fossil fuels, and to deliver benefits such as cleaner air and lower energy bills for our citizens. It is great that so many cities will participate. We can support their ambition with our EU research and innovation budget. The Cities Mission has the potential to make a major contribution to our Green Deal and for Europe to become a climate-neutral continent by 2050.”
Mariya Gabriel, Commissioner for Innovation, Research, Culture, Education and Youth, said: “Horizon Europe Missions have a great potential to deliver the European Green Deal objectives, including European energy security. The selected cities represent a first step in covering a wide geographical footprint. We want concrete benefits to reach all our regions and citizens, through innovation, empowering large and small cities with different levels of experience and capacities. I encourage all cities to reach out and work with all stakeholders, including of course their citizens, to achieve together our ambitious goals.”
Adina Vălean, Commissioner for transport, said: “In their quest to become smart and climate-neutral by 2030, the 100 EU cities announced today will be natural “test beds” for innovative integrated solutions to many of the issues facing our citizens today, including urban mobility. Drawing on our New Urban Mobility Framework, they have the tools to make interurban and urban mobility healthy and sustainable, for instance by doubling high-speed rail traffic and developing extra cycling infrastructure over the next 10 years, investing in safe bike lanes, and ensuring connectivity with rural and suburban areas so that commuters are given sustainable mobility options. I am sure they will succeed, and I encourage other cities across Europe to follow their lead.”
Virginijus Sinkevičius, Commissioner for Environment, Oceans and Fisheries said: “The Mission for climate-neutral and smart cities will help us deliver our environmental commitments on zero pollution, biodiversity and circular economy. Many of the selected cities have already shown their environmental credentials in our Green Capital, Green Leaf and Green City Accord initiatives by tackling air, noise and waste issues. These cities’ ambitions for climate and innovation, as well as the Mission’s wider research funding, will help make urban living greener, cleaner and healthier for European citizens.”
Background
Cities were invited to express their interest to become part of the Mission in November 2021. The call closed on 31 January 2022. In a first step, independent experts evaluated each expression of interest. In a second step, the Commission applied additional criteria to ensure a geographical balance and a diverse group of cities in terms of size, impact and innovative ideas. Overall, 377 cities applied to be part of the cities mission. The 100 EU Cities chosen today represent 12% of the EU population.
The Commission launched the Mission for 100 climate-neutral and smart cities by 2030 in September 2021 with the adoption of a Communication on EU missions. This following the approval of the missions’ individual implementation plans in summer 2021. As well as the Cities Mission, there are four other EU missions covering global challenges in the areas of adaptation to climate change, restoring our ocean and waters, healthy soils and cancer. A dedicated Work Programme for Horizon Europe Missions was published on 15 December 2021.
Comments Off on TRL-study: LEVA-EU pleased but not fully satisfied
LEVA-EU has fully analysed the TRL-study on Personal Mobility Devices for the European Commission. The trade association is extremely pleased with TRL’s conclusion that dedicated legislation for LEVs is the best way forward. However, LEVA-EU is not as pleased with some of the finer details of the study.
Regulation 168/2013 on the approval and market surveillance of 2- or 3-wheel vehicles and quadricycles is the core of technical legislation and categorization of light electric vehicles (LEVs).
These are either included in the scope of the legislation. That is for instance the case for electric cargocycles with more than 250W or for speed pedelecs. Or, they come under one of the exclusions listed in Article 2.2 of the Regulation. That is for instance the case for EPACs, i.e. electric bikes with pedal assistance up to 250W and 25 km/h, but also for e-scooters, self-balancing vehicles, etc.
If they are excluded from Regulation 168/2013, the vehicles come under the Machinery Directive. This opens the possibility of developing harmonized standards, which offer presumption of conformity. If your vehicle complies with the standard, it is presumed to be in conformity with the Machinery Directive.
So far, there is only one harmonized standard for LEVs, i.e. EN 15194:2017. The EN 17128:2020 for vehicles without a seat and self-balancing vehicles has not been harmonized.
Two major legal problems
Current legislation for LEVs poses two major problems. First, the legislation has not been specifically written for LEVs and is therefore not adequate. This results in very serious legal bottlenecks, which obstruct market development. One of the worst affected vehicle categories is L1e-A “Powered Cycles”, i.e. electric cycles with a maximum speed of 25 km/h and maximum 1 kW. As a result, virtually no vehicles have been type-approved in L1e-A
Second major problem is that inclusion in Regulation 168/2013 results in national rules that are particularly restrictive and hindering, since they have been developed for vehicle concepts, which are quite different from LEVs. The worst example is the categorization of speed pedelecs as mopeds. Consequently, in most member states they are subject to moped terms of use that seriously hinder the use of speed pedelecs, thus the market development.
Commission acknowledges problems
Vehicles excluded from Regulation 168/2013 are for their use completely dependant on national rules. Some member states for instance do not allow the use of e-scooters on public roads. On the other hand, all member states have granted EPACs the same status as conventional bicycles, which allowed the market to prosper.
As the market is growing, the European Commission is beginning to acknowledge that there are problems. In April, the Commission has proposed to exclude all vehicles from the Machinery Directive. With that however, the Commission has not yet made any statements as to where these excluded vehicles should be housed instead. It appears this decision is left to the Commission department responsible for Regulation 168/2013.
5 regulatory options
Last year, that department has commissioned TRL to conduct a study into so-called “Personal Mobility Devices” (PMDs). This term covers standing and seated e-scooters, EPACs, L1e-A Powered Cycles, cycles designed to pedal in L1e-B (speed pedelecs), electric cargocycles, self-balancing vehicles, e-hoverboards, e-monowheels and e-skateboards.
The study had 5 objectives: 1) to provide a PMD-inventory 2) to provide a detailed analysis of the market and of the influence of existing legislation at EU and national level 3) to collect and evaluate data on PMD-accidents 4) to assess current use and safety aspects of PMDs not covered by Regulation 168/2013 5) to provide recommendations on technical requirements and traffic rules
The most important element of the study consisted of the 5 regulatory options, which TRL formulated:
Include all PMDs within the scope of Regulation (EU) No 168/2013,
Exclude from the scope of Regulation (EU) No 168/2013 any PMD with a maximum speed less than 25km/h,
Exclude from the scope of Regulation (EU) No 168/2013 any PMD with a maximum speed less than 30km/h,
Exclude from the scope of Regulation (EU) No 168/2013 any PMD with a maximum motor power less than 1,000W, and
Devise a dedicated system for the harmonised approval of PMDs that is separate from both Regulation (EU) No 168/2013 and the Machinery Directive.
Preferred option
TRL added a judgment to these options. Option 1 should be dismissed. Options 2, 3 and 4 would simplify the criteria for exclusion from Regulation 168/2013. This would open up possibilities for creating new types of PMDs. However, TRL points out that these options do not resolve the issue of harmonizing the rules for PMDs across Europe. Option 5 provides for technical regulation outside the Machinery Directive and Regulation 168/2013 and would, according to TRL, be tailored to the needs of the PMD industry. The system could include a variety of assessment methods, ranging from self-certification to independent testing. TRL concludes on option 5: “In our view this new system for the regulation and approval of PMDs would provide the flexibility necessary to support innovation in this rapidly evolving sector, while maintaining technical standards and road safety.”
Option 5 itself does not hold any criteria for exclusion from Regulation 168/2013. TRL suggests that for this purpose, option 5 could be combined with option 2, 3 or 4. In their recommendations they take the matter a step further: they propose to exclude all vehicles up to 30 km/h from Regulation 168/2013. The proposal to increase the limit to 30 km/h is “to bring the speed of these vehicles in line with the speed limits now being used in many urban areas”.
In line with LEVA-EU position
TRL’s preferred option, i.e. dedicated LEV-legislation, is fully in line with LEVA-EU’s position as explained in our position paper. Such dedicated legislation offers many advantages that are essential to the development of the LEV-market. Just like Regulation 168/2013 does for conventional mopeds and motorcycles, a horizontal regulation with essential requirements for all LEVs can provide for an automatic right for vehicles to be placed on the market. This would prevent Member States from denying vehicles that comply with the Regulation access to public roads.
Second important advantage is that such a horizontal Regulation will force Member States to think carefully about categorization of vehicles. It will no longer be possible to bury them in unadapted categories, as is the case now, for example with L1e-A vehicles and speed pedelecs in the moped category.
The Member States will also be forced to think about the terms of use for LEVs. LEVA-EU believes that the Commission must play a proactive role in this by encouraging the Member States to exchange experience and of best practice. In this framework, the Commission could for instance initiate an LEV observatory. This observatory could monitor market developments and analyse how regulations in the Member States influence that development.
And last but not least, dedicated legislation will curb the growing tendency of Member States to develop their own, national, technical requirements. This will allow the LEV-sector to return to the basic principle of the single market in which manufacturers can supply the whole of the EU with one and the same vehicle. This, in turn, creates the possibility to organize structural consultation with the LEV-sector on that technical legislation. Today, the national requirements developed by Member States are too often resulting from guesswork.
Repurpose L1e-A
Whilst LEVA-EU fully supports TRL’s preferred option for dedicated legislation, we find their additional proposals unacceptable and illogical. In their recommendations, they propose to only exclude vehicles up to 30 km/h from Regulation 168/2013. For vehicles with a higher speed limit, such as speed pedelecs, TRL suggests to repurpose category L1e-A. In this category the speed limit should be raised to 45 km/h, whilst the power limit of 1,000 W could be retained.
TRL adds: “The revision of this category would provide for mechanism by which cycles designed to pedal could be regulated separately from mopeds. This would allow special consideration to be given to the standards and tests that need to be applied to these vehicles without inadvertently interfering with the arrangements in place for mopeds. Moving cycles designed to pedal into L1e-A would also permit manufacturers to design three and four wheeled cycles designed to pedal, which are currently not permitted under L1e-B, thus creating a sub-category that would be highly suitable for pedal assisted cargo tricycles and quadricycles.”
Under the heading “Important findings and recommendations”, TRL states the following on type-approval: “It should be noted that for pedal cycle derived vehicles different frame sizes of the same model and men’s and ladies’ versions of the same model are treated as separate types for type approval purposes. Thus, the overall cost of getting one model of bicycle approved may be some multiple of that figure. However, the costs of type approval do not add significantly to the overall purchase price to the consumer – one manufacturer estimated that type approval added only €8 per vehicle sold. More important than the economic cost of the process was the incompatibility of the business model of many PMD manufacturers and importers who have a short design cycle, often releasing new models every year and a diversified supply chain that has been developed to ensure resilience and redundancy so that component availability never stops production. This approach is fundamentally at odds with the type-approval system which requires design-freeze at the point of assessment and robust conformity of production throughout the product’s lifecycle. Clearly some middle ground needs to be found that ensures the safety and environmental sustainability of PMDs while acknowledging the differences in business approach between the PMD and automotive industries. An approach that is proportional to the level of risk resulting from potential technical failures should be devised.”
The issue of type-approval
We find it utterly illogical for TRL to conclude one thing for EPACs and something completely different for current L1e-A vehicles and cycles designed to pedal up to 45 km/h, such as speed pedelecs. All the above is equally valid for all those “pedal cycle derived vehicles”, which are now in type-approval.
The issue of the type-approval system is mainly to do with the fact that conventional mopeds and motorcycles are made up of components that are specifically designed for these vehicles and “pedal cycle derived vehicles” not. These are assemblies for components that may be used in different types of vehicles both in and out of type-approval. This shows that the TRL-study fails to meet one of the 5 predefined objectives: to provide a detailed analysis of the of the influence of existing legislation at EU level. The report does not say a word about the technical inappropriateness and inaccuracy of type-approval for light, electric vehicles. The proposal for repurposing L1e-A is therefore fundamentally unfounded. All arguments to set up dedicated legislation for LEVs up to 30 km/h are equally as valid for LEVs up to 50 km/h. LEVA-EU will continue to work for this.
Factor 4
One last important footnote: TRL proposes to get rid of assistance factor 4, should L1e-A be repurposed for vehicles up to 45 km/h and 1,000 W. That power limit “would provide sufficient differentiation from L1e-B.” To LEVA-EU this means exchanging one superfluous obstacle for another. The fact that TRL fails to acknowledge the huge damage caused to the LEV-sector by clinging to maximum continuous rated power limits is further proof of the fact that their analysis of the influence of existing legislation is failing.
Finally, we hope that the European Commission will read the latest edition of “Science for Environment Policy”. A study on material efficiency strategies concludes: “the current demand level of personal motorized transport is compatible with ambitious climate targets only under two major conditions: (1) consumers must switch to more energy- and material-efficient vehicles, for example, smaller or shared electrified vehicles, and (2) the energy used to charge these vehicles must be highly decarbonized.” They add that policy incentives will be required in order to nudge consumers toward more efficient behaviour. Specific LEV-legislation that allows the market to develop is one of those required policy incentives.
Comments Off on LEVA-EU proposes to end discrimination of EU e-bike assemblers
On 7 December 2020, LEVA-EU has reported on how Regulation 2020/1296 discriminates EU e-bike assemblers compared to companies that assemble both conventional and electric bicycles. The current rules result in truly surreal situations as described in the article below. Just before Christmas, LEVA-EU has presented the European Commission with amendments to remove the discrimination.
In order to prevent circumvention of anti-dumping duties on conventional bicycles, in 1997 the European Commission extended the duties to a number of essential bicycle components such as frames, forks, wheels, etc. In 2013, the Commission confirmed that, if these components were to be used for the assembly of electric bicycles, the 48.5% anti-dumping duty did not apply. This was laid down in Regulation 512/2013. E-bike assemblers could obtain that exemption from the duties by applying for end-use authorization. However, it has only now become clear how wrong and unfair the procedure of end-use authorization is.
Paying for non-existing duties
First of all, the application for end-use authorization can only be initiated if the company is already importing components. Even though the anti-dumping duty does not apply, the company has to pay the duties until end-use authorization is granted. There is in other words no suspension of duties during the procedure and no possibility of having the duties refunded once authorization is granted. This makes it virtually impossible for new assembly operations of e-bikes tot start up in Europe, unless the company has access to very substantial financial resources.
End-use authorization is granted by national customs who have the competence to decide on the procedure. In the cases reported to LEVA-EU, the customs impose often excessive administrative conditions and comprehensive guarantees. The authorization is only valid for a limited period of time, upon which companies have to reapply. Also, the companies have an obligation to discharge the end-use within 6 months. There is in other words a deadline for using the parts in the assembly of an e-bike. Imagine, today, with the huge shortage of component supplies that you are being stuck with for instance a number of frames that you cannot use in an assembly because other parts necessary to finish the e-bike will only arrive next year.
698 days
National customs authorities are not bound by any time limits in granting end-use authorization. So far, only two companies have confirmed to us that they have effectively obtained the authorization, which took several months. In another case, the company has first introduced an application in August 2018. In June 2020, exactly 698 days after their firs application, their request was denied and they were forced to introduce a new request. All this time, the company paid 48.5% on the essential bicycle components they imported for the assembly of e-bikes.
Despite that, last summer the company was raided by the customs and subsequently accused of … circumventing anti-dumping on e-bikes! The case may well be referred to a criminal court with the risk of a judicial conviction as well as having to pay anti-dumping duties on e-bikes and penalties. By now, Franz Kafka must be turning in his grave. The crux of the matter is that in the past 2.5 years, customs have made the fundamental mistake of treating this application for end-use authorization as a request for authorization to import less than 300 pieces a month instead of an authorization for the assembly of e-bikes.
Clear discrimination
The absurdity of end-use authorization has only come to light following the imposition of anti-dumping duties on electric bicycles. The new measures forced a lot of companies to find alternatives for their assembly operations in China. A number of them decided to move assembly to Europe and often found EU assemblers prepared to subcontract for them. These assemblers had Commission exemptions for the import of bicycle components for conventional bicycles, which they also used to import components for electric bicycles. However, there was uncertainty as to the legality of this process. That is why the European Commission issued Regulation 2020/1296 as a result of which all exemptions for components for conventional bicycles were extended into exemptions also valid for components for electric bicycles.
However, the capacity of European bike assemblers was quickly exhausted. So, some companies had to establish new assembly operations in Europe for electric bikes only. And these companies bumped into the huge hurdle of end-use authorization.
Admittedly, for the benefit of e-bike assembly in Europe there was a need for the legal clarification though Regulation 2020/1296. However, why the Commission found it necessary to also introduce a clear discrimination of e-bike assemblers remains a big question mark.
Substantiated proposal
In a meeting shortly before Christmas, LEVA-EU asked the Commission exactly that question. We did not get an answer as to the reasoning behind this bizarre Regulation but the Commission invited us to propose a solution to the problem. In the meantime, LEVA-EU in cooperation with its lawyers, has developed a substantiated proposal for amending the Regulation. The proposal is aimed at providing e-bike assemblers with access to the same exemption procedure as companies that assemble both bikes and e-bikes. The procedure would no longer be the competence of national customs authorities but of the European Commission and would be subject to the same deadlines as the existing exemption procedure. During the procedure, duties would be suspended. LEVA-EU also proposes to convert existing end-use authorization into Commission exemptions and on-going applications into applications for Commission exemptions.
The Commission has acknowledged receipt of LEVA-EU’s proposal. We are now waiting for the Commission’s answer on the substance. However, it is clear that this Regulation, which directly prohibits the establishment of new companies in the EU cannot remain unchanged. LEVA-EU calls on all companies who have applied for end-use authorization as well as those who have obtained end-use authorization to come forward. Please contact Annick Roetynck
Campaign success
Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipisicing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua.
Member profile
Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipisicing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua.
