Proposal to Exclude E-Bikes from RoHS-II Directive
BRUSSELS, Belgium – Last year the European Parliament and Council included e-bikes that were previously excluded from the type-approval into the new Directive RoHS-II.
After the publication of the Directive in the Official Journal in July 2011, the EU Commission asked an external consultant to carry out an impact assessment for 17 product groups, including e-bikes. As a result of this consultation process the final decision on the e-bikes has not yet been taken by the EU Commission.
In Bike Europe’s September 2012 issue and on this website, this trade journal published that the latest European Directive for regulations on the use of certain hazardous substances in electrical and electronic equipment, the RoHS-II, would not apply to e-bikes for the next eight years.
Transitional period or not?
Siegfried Neuberger, GM of the German industry association ZIV stated at that time that there would be an extra rule for e-bikes. “There is a transitional period of eight years for electrical two-wheel vehicles which are not type-approved”, stated Siegfried Neuberger. “The Directive 2011/65 of the EU Parliament and of the Council article 2 says that e-bikes which are not type approved do not apply to this European regulation until 22 July 2019.”
However the consultancy BIO Intelligence Service who was asked by the European Commission for an impact assessment of the new Directive recently proposed a complete exclusion of electric bicycles from RoHS-II. “The consultant based that proposal to a large extent on ETRA’s argumentation against the inclusion of electric bikes in the RoHS II-Directive”, says ETRA Secretary General Annick Roetynck.
Impact assessment report
“The consultant’s report including the proposal to exclude electric bikes and many references to ETRA’s contribution to the impact assessment is publicly available on the Internet: http://rohs.biois.com/product-group-factsheets”
“It is surprising that ZIV has not seized this new opportunity that arose this year to obtain final exclusion since their original lobby work in 2010 only resulted in an 8 years’ transitional period”, says Annick Roetynck. “It is all the more surprising that ZIV made no use of the opportunity, since the consultant also suggests to delete Article 2.2, which provides for this transitional period. The consultant states on Article 2.2: “its assessment showed that its implications were likely to cause significant environmental, economic and social costs, with no or only limited benefits.”