open public consultation on an evaluation and possible ... · 230 -...

Open Public Consultation on an evaluation and possible revision of the Outdoor Noise Directive 2000/14/EC Position papers:

50 - Distribution_mobile_crushing_screening_plants_public_consultation_OND.pdf

79 - Position_paper-database.pdf

79 - ICSV24_noise_classes.pdf

82 - EGMF_Position_Paper_-_OND_public_consultation_-_2018.04.10_compressed.pdf

87 - Nilfisk_positions_on_Outdoor_Noise_Directive.docx

108 - Laubbl_ser_im_Herbst.pdf

131 - CECE-Draft_position_paper_on_OND_180412.pdf, 172 - CECE-Draft_position_paper_on_OND_18-04-12.pdf, 181 - 2018-04-12_CECE-Draft_position_paper_on_OND.pdf

133 - EUnited_Cleaning_Position_Paper_OND_Public_Consultation_13_04_2018.pdf

133 - OND_comments_of_EUnited_Cleaning_10092015.pdf

137 - EUnited_ME_Position_OND_2018-04.pdf

179 - 2018-04-16_Position_ALD_Outdoor_Machinery_Noise_final.pdf

188 - 2002_24_EG_Noise_Directive___Outdoor_Noise_Directive_2000_14_EC_and_motocross.docx

191 - Position_paper_NOISE_CONSULTATION_FINAL.pdf

201 - FEM_Position_Paper_-_OND_public_consultation_-_2018.04.17.pdf

211 - 96208-2018_ma27-8207-2018-10__ffentl-konsultation-2000-14-zusatz.pdf

230 - Consultazione_UE_Direttiva_rumore_macchine_esterno_18-4-2018.pdf

231 - 2018-04-18_Position_UBA-Germany.docx

Distribution of mobile crushing and screening plants in different application areas The total population in the European Union of mobile crushing and screening plants is approx. 10.000 to 15.000. 55-65% of this amount (round about 9.000) are mobile screening plants and 35-45% (round about 6.000) are mobile crushing plants. This numerical data are an estimation based on the estimation of new crushing- and screening plants sold in the European Union per year and the average lifetime of the plants. Mobile crusher and screens are often used in quarries and recycling applications. Recycling applications are divided in recycling yards, demolition sites outside urban areas and demolition sites inside urban areas. Demolition sites outside urban areas are large road construction sites like reconstruction of motorways. Quarries, recycling yards and demolition sites outside urban areas are far away from urban or populated area. Mobile screens are very rarely used in demolition sites inside urban areas. Only crushing and screening plants which are located in demolition sites inside urban areas contributes to environmental noise exposure in urban areas. The following distribution shows the different application areas of mobile crushing and screening plants:

This diagram demonstrates very clearly that in the European Union only round about 615 crushing and screening plants of a total amount of round about 15.000 plants are placed in urban areas which contributes to environmental noise exposure. Finally the numerical data are only estimations. However it is relatively insignificant if there are deviations in the values. Fact is that only a very small number of mobile crushing and screening plants are located in urban areas based on the different applications. The operating period of a crusher or a screen on a demolition site in urban areas is normally limited in time. It could be one day up to a few weeks. Process noise measurements are very dependent on feed material, size of material, crusher setting, fine material separation setup, construction site geometry etc.. Each natural stone has very different properties and each quarry compared with other quarries has different sources of natural stone. Therefore the recycling material has also different properties. It is impossible to create a standardized measurement method without standardized material. On account of this process noise measurements with this kind of machinery are not reproducible. However a reproducibility is the base for comparable process noise measurements. Therefore only machine noise is reproducible and could be measured. For reduction of process noise instead of metal screens it is possible to use screens made of rubber or polyurethane. With such screen material the process noise of screens could reduced. According to the web thickness of rubber or polyurethane screens the throughput rate in relation to the sieve surface is up to 30% lower than the throughput rate of metal screens.

gabrimo

Typewritten Text

gabrimo

Typewritten Text

gabrimo

Typewritten Text

gabrimo

Typewritten Text

50 - Distribution_mobile_crushing_screening_plants_public_consultation_OND.pdf

The consequence is either that 2 mobile screening plants are used instead of 1 plant for processing the existing material or the operation time of only 1 plant is 30% longer. This effects that the investment costs and the processing costs will increase. Additionally a very important factor is that the exhaust emissions on account of the use of two machines or the longer operation time are considerably higher regarding the use of rubber or polyurethane screen media. The benefit for noise emissions is a disadvantage for exhaust emissions. A distinction of mobile crushing and screening plant between machinery only working in quarries or only working in recycling applications is very difficult. The european working group CEN/TC 151/WG 9 which is currently creating a product standard divides mobile crushing and screening plants in heavy mobile machine and compact mobile machine independent of the application area. For heavy mobile machine the main components e.g. feed hopper, vibrating feeder, crushing chamber or screen box need to be removed prior to transportation regarding the limitation of transportation dimensions and weights. Therefore heavy mobile machines are not used in demolition sites in urban areas because of the complicated transportation procedures. By contrast it is very common that compact mobile crushing and screening plants are used in quarries. Primary to save investment costs, where only a smaller processing capacity is needed or to be more flexible because the machine could also be used in other quarries or at a demolition site. Conclusion: There are numerous facts and reasons that have been mentioned:

a very small number of crushing and screening plants operating at urban areas (no relevance for environmental impact)

a short operating time in those urban areas

the fact that process noise is largely dominant, but could not be measured in a standardized procedure

the awareness that process noise reduction often has other negative effects to other environmental impacts

the fact that the mobile crusher and screens are used in recycling applications as well as in quarries All those reasons add up to the conclusion that it makes no sense for crushing and screening machinery to be added to the outdoor directive.

POSITION PAPER This paper contains some considerations and proposals by IMAMOTER-National Research Council of Italy referring to a main issue in the frame of the revision process of the Outdoor Noise Directive (OND):

a) the provisions in Art.16 concerning the requirement of the collection and the periodical publication of noise data (Noise Emission Database for Outdoor Equipment)

a) Noise Emission Database for Outdoor Equipment

Following the provisions in Art.16 about the collection and the periodical publication of the noise emission data, a Noise Emission Database for Outdoor Equipment is available for public consultation. It is worth noting that thanks to the OND provision of mandatory test codes, for each equipment type this database contains noise emission data from different manufacturers and different models which are mutually comparable, this being a peculiar added value of this Directive. Currently, the collection of data into the system is manual: manufacturers send their DoCs to the Commission and information are then manually entered onto the EU database. In practice this system has proved to be ineffective and the end results are more limited than expected. For some equipment types few data are present. In a limited number of cases fields are blank or incorrectly filled or other errors are present in the data. For Art.13 equipment the technical parameter is generally missing. Only in few cases these errors could be easily corrected without looking at the DoCs again, in other cases data are actually faulty or missing. Despite these problems and shortcomings, however, large numbers of proper data are available for many equipment types. The recent experience in the ODELIA study on the suitability of the current scope and limit values showed the fundamental role of this database, despite its limitations. After the necessary adjustments and corrections this database was a valid source of evidence to reach sensible decisions about the limit values. However, it is common opinion that the compliance with Art.16 obligations causes too administrative burden to manufacturers, Member States and EU Commission in comparison to the limited value of the database. For these reasons, CEPS study and many stakeholders have proposed to remove Art.16 and replace the data collection by “dedicated periodic studies reviewing the state of the art of noise emission of equipment placed into the market”. But … Carrying out the data collection by periodic studies would be really feasible in the complete absence of a database ? … and … How can reliable noise emission data be collected in order to be representative of the totality of the complying machines currently on the market ? …

gabrimo

Typewritten Text

79 - Position_paper-database.pdf

2

It is our opinion that the requirement of data collection should remain in the Directive: the database is a fundamental instrument, an added value peculiar to this Directive that cannot be lost. In the revision process the way of collecting data must be changed and an effective online system has to be implemented so that the data collection can be fruitfully used by manufacturers, NBs, MS authorities at different authorization levels in order to assure an effective application of the Directive and improve the market surveillance effectiveness.

Main features of the new online procedure to be implemented

In our opinion, the renovating features of the updated registration system should at least include: 1. the data entry by the manufacturer, or his authorised representative established in the EU 2. a revised data field structure designed to solve the main sources of current problems; 3. the enhancement of automatic controls. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

1. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The direct data entry by the manufacturer would surely reduce the number of errors due to a lack of knowledge of that specific type of equipment (some of the current mistakes are an incorrect attribution of the equipment identification code). Moreover, the manufacturer is strongly interested in the proper data input in the database because they are under his responsibility. On the other hand, this procedure would not be a further commitment for the manufacturer but it would simply substitute the current burden of collecting and sending the declarations of conformity to the Commission and to the national authorities. Another aspect that should strongly improve the QUALITY and the QUANTITY of the data collection would be the download of the DoC template from the internet portal when the input of the data has been successfully completed. In this template also possible reference to other directives could be added by the manufacturer. This choice would force the input of data from all the complying equipment as well as the entering of correct data.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

A different structure of the database is absolutely necessary, with a unique tracking code for each model of equipment (a sort of bar code or QR code, …) so that the history of each model can be built. This would permit to identify which serial numbers of each model have certain declared values and which others have been successively updated; which models have stopped their production and when it happened. Additional fields should also be added in order to have information on the type of engine (electric, CE powered, hybrid), on the test code used (helpful if in the future the database could collect data also from other directives), on the serial numbers which the conformity assessment refers to. For the equipment in Art.12 a check field should be included to be used by NBs to confirm that all the requirements for the conformity have been successfully completed.

3

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 3.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The enhancement of the automatic controls is also a key element. It is necessary to provide automatic connections among the fields so that, for example, the characteristic parameter of a machine can appear automatically when the type of equipment is chosen. For equipment in Art.12, also the permissible value (limit) should appear automatically or should be calculated as a function of the characteristic parameter when this latter value is entered. Moreover, automatic controls are needed to prevent from leaving blank fields, entering null values or doing clumsy errors such as entering a guaranteed sound power level lower than the measured one or higher than the limit, when it applies. Also a control is necessary in order to check that all the data have been input. These renovating features will assure the reliability and the representativeness of the database content. The following table tries to summarise some main reasons why in our opinion Art.16 should remain beyond the revision of the Directive after the appropriate modifications above described.

CURRENT PROBLEMS ADVANTAGES GIVEN BY DATABASE ONLINE SYSTEM

Manufacturers. Manufacturers complying with this Directive are suffering for the unfair competition by an high percentage of competitors putting non complying equipment on the EU market.

A reliable database is an effective and quick tool for the conformity check of all machines put on the EU market. It could be useful to MS authorities, NBs and also to customs for their checks at the borders.

Notified Bodies. Many NBs report of several cases of false DoCs including their name and NANDO identification code.

DoC falsification would become a hard task thanks to the download of DoC templates from internet portal and the introduction of control fields in the database. In addition, NBs could periodically check the records in which their name is included in an easy and quick way.

MS authorities. They generally have limited economic resources which limit the number of possible controls per year and then the effectiveness of the Directive.

Database could help MS authorities to address their controls and could significantly improve the market surveillance.

Noise emission label. The current noise label has not had the expected strength in stimulating the EU market towards low noise equipment.

Thanks to a reliable noise data collection which is representative of noise emissions for each equipment type (and thanks to the OND mandatory test code system), noise classes could be defined for each equipment type from lower to higher noise emissions and a new meaningful and understandable label could be introduced.

NOISEJECT TEleonora IMAMOTERemail: e.car

One proviquieteemissto beinformly knnoisymatioemissclustedetailpossiportapowewas pplicatcableable sisten

Keyw

1. Intr

Noise limon and uchinery. Nemission pemissions legal instruthen will stity to noiseHealth Orga better unproper infoimportant s

The direquipment of these. In

E CLASSTO NOICarletti a

R Institute – rletti@imam

of the main iding meaniner equipmension marking inadequate mation in de

nowledge of y a given proon requires thsion to the her the declarl this procedble criteria

ant aspects. Aer levels in thperformed intion of this p

e only in thredata is assig

nt criteria arewords: Direct

roduction

imits and nuniform appNoise limitsproblem andare avoided

ument, comtimulate a ge problems ganisation (Wnderstandinormation onstrategy forective 2000for use out

n addition,

SES FOISE LIMand France

National Reoter.cnr.it

targets of thngful informnt. Informatiog that shows for the defin

ecibel but alsthe guarante

oduct is comhe definitionhighest one. ed sound po

dure when apdriving the

An extract of he period 20n order to excprocedure to ee cases. In agned to the ne proposed fotive 2000/14

n

noise markinproach acros, in particud have the d. On the o

mplementarygradual disahas increasWHO) on tg of the ris

n machine nr the gradual0/14/EC regtdoors: it reit establishe

OR THEMITS esca Pedriesearch Coun

he Directivemation on theon on noise ethe guarante

ned target duso to the limieed sound po

mpared to simn of a certain In a previouwer levels in

pplied to the definition of

f the EU NOI006-2015 waclude all the the revised d

all the other cnoisiest classor the noise d4/EC, EU noi

ng are the mss Europe toular, force mconsequent

other hand,y to noise liappearance osed over thehe health efsks caused noise emissil dismission

gulates noisquires noisees the mand

E OUTD

elli ncil of Italy, I

e 2000/14/ECe noise emisemissions areed sound poue not only titation of infower level imilar ones. Tnumber of n

us paper authnto three claoutdoor equf noise classISE database

as used for therroneous a

database brincases, the cris is not fulfidata clusterinise label, noi

milestones o reduce thmachine mt effect to enoise mark

imits, to proof the noisie past decadffects of noiby noise e

ions throughn of the noisse emission e marking fdatory soun

DOOR M

IT

C is to inforsions and the currently p

ower level. Tto the difficuformation givis meaningleThe assessmnoise classes hors defined sses. This stu

uipment subjeses are conse containing his purpose. And incomple

ngs to the resiterion that nilled. Therefng process. ise control, o

of the EU nhe noise pol

manufacturerensure that king turns oovide informest equipme

de. Recent aise are now

expositions h effective nsiest producin the envi

for all typesnd power te

MACHIN

rm and educhen encouragprovided by ahis label, howulties in inteven by the lass as it doesent of this cranging froma statistical

udy aims at ect to noise lidered in ligthe declared A further sel

ete data. Unfosult that the pno more thanfore, new and

utdoor mach

noise policylution in thrs to take iexcessive a

out to be anmation on nent from theand ongoingof public k[1]. Conseqnoise labelscts. ironment of and it sets st codes for

NES SU

cate consumeging the choa mandatorywever, has p

erpreting the abel itself. Ths not explaincomparative m the lowestprocedure aanalysing inlimit and difght of severa

d guaranteed lection of th

fortunately, thprocedure is n 30% of the d reasonably

hines, noise l

y guaranteehe environminto accounand unnecen extremelynoise emisse market. Tg studies byknowledge aquently, thes can really

f 57 differenoise limitsr each equi

1

UB-

ers by oice of y noise proven

given he on-n how infor-

t noise able to n more fferent al im-sound

he data he ap-appli-avail-

y con-

limits.

eing a com-ment by ma-nt the noiseessary noisey importantsions whichhe sensitiv-

y the Worldand providee effects ofbecome an

ent types ofs for 22 outipment type

--e e t h -d e f n

f t e

gabrimo

Typewritten Text

gabrimo

Typewritten Text

79 - ICSV24_noise_classes.pdf

gabrimo

Typewritten Text

ICSV24, London, 23-27 July 2017

2 ICSV24, London, 23-27 July 2017

and requires the collection and the periodical publication of the noise data for all the compliant ma-chines [2]. Referring to all machines and equipment in the scope of this directive, the information on noise emissions is provided by a mandatory noise emission label that shows the guaranteed sound power level, in dB(A). This label must be affixed to each item of equipment in a visible form. Unfortunately, its effectiveness in guiding consumers or professional customers to choose the quiet-est equipment types has proved to be extremely poor. The main reason for this failure is the abso-lute lack of useful indications for the comparison of the noise emitted by similar products and, in addition, the difficulties in interpreting the dB levels. Consequently, the replacement of this noise emission marking with a different and more understandable label scheme seems an attractive op-tion. Such a label could explain how noisy a given product is compared to similar ones but it re-quires the division of the noise data relevant to each equipment type into a certain number of noise classes ranging from the lowest noise emission to the highest.

In a previous paper, the authors set up a possible statistical procedure in order to cluster the de-clared sound power levels of each equipment type into three noise classes [3]. Only few examples of application were considered based on the data taken from the EU NOISE database, an online tool for managing the conformity processing in relation to directive 2000/14/EC on noise emissions [4], which reports the guaranteed sound power levels of compliant equipment types.

In this paper the procedure is evaluated in more detail and different possible criteria driving the definition of noise classes are considered in light of several important aspects. The investigation was limited to the equipment types subject to noise limits only and an extract of the EU NOISE database containing the declared guaranteed sound power levels in the period 2006-2015 was used for this purpose. A further selection of the data was performed in order to exclude all the erroneous and incomplete data, reject the under-represented equipment types and make a distinction among different models (electric/combustion engine driven (CE-driven), wheeled/rubber-tracked/tracked) for those machines whose limits were amended by directive 2005/88/EC [5].

2. Procedure for the definition of noise classes

From a technical point of view the definition of noise classes for the machines and equipment in the scope of the directive 2000/14/EC is practicable. A mandatory sound power test code for each equipment type is required and then the comparison of the noise data relevant to each equipment type from different manufacturers and models is meaningful. On the other hand, the collection and the periodical publication of the noise data for each equipment type is also required; then the EU NOISE database turns out to be a noise data source feasible for the clustering process.

Because of these preconditions, a statistical procedure based on ISO 11689 [6] had already been defined by the authors with the purpose of grouping the different models of the same equipment type into three noise classes (A, B, C) on the basis of their noise emission data, ranging from the lowest noise emission to highest [3].

2.1 The EU NOISE database The EU NOISE database contains the declared guaranteed sound power levels of the equipment

types in compliance with Directive 2000/14/EC, starting from 2001. For the purposes of this study the analysis was limited to the noise data relevant to the equipment types subject to noise limits in the period 2006-2015. In such a way all the noise data pertain to the period of validity of the second stage limits (noise limits still in force). This extraction of data contained 16872 records relevant to 22 different equipment types.

Subsequently, an accurate analysis was performed for each equipment type, aimed at: excluding the records: with omitted data, with guaranteed sound power levels higher than

the noise limits, with measured sound power levels higher than the guaranteed ones, with some parameter out of range;

excluding duplicate records;


ICSV24, London, 23-27 July 2017 3

separating the electric models from the CE driven and the wheeled/rubber-tracked/tracked models for those machines whose limits were amended by directive 2005/88/EC.

After this data reduction, the final database contained 4159 records, differently distributed over the several equipment types. Some of them (builders’ hoists for the transport of goods, construction winches, wheeled-loaders < 500 kW, graders < 500 kW, landfill compactors < 500 kW, tracked-loaders < 500kW, paver-finishers, tower cranes and welding generators) were not included in the analysis due to the extremely low number of data available. At the end, a database of 4022 records became available for the application of the noise class procedure. These records belong to 14 differ-ent equipment types subject to noise limits and to 28 subgroups of equipment types with different noise limit values.

Table 1 summarises some statistical data for each equipment type under investigation. The char-acteristic parameter reported in the second column indicates a non-acoustic quantity which charac-terizes each equipment and identifies the characteristic of the machine which is more related to the noise emission: P is for “net installed power” in kW, Pel is for “Electric power” in kW, m is for “mass of appliance” in kg, and L is for “cutting width” in cm.

Table 1: Final noise database used for the application of the noise class procedure

EQUIPMENT TYPE CHARACTERISTIC

PARAMETER N.

RECORDS %

LWg=Lim

% Lwg=Lim

and LWg-LWm=0

% Lwg=Lim

and LWg-LWm>3

9. compressors P ≤ 15 kW 69 52% 6% 25%

15 kW < P < 350 kW 142 98% 7% 1%

10. concrete-breakers

(CE-driven) m ≤ 15 kg 26 73% 11% 37%

m > 15 kg 32 13% 0% 0%

(electric) m ≤ 15 kg 37 70% 0% 31%

15 kg < m < 30 kg 15 0% - -

16. dozers (only steel tracked) 55 kW < P < 500 kW 26 92% 13% 29%

18. dumpers (< 500 kW) P ≤ 55 kW 42 36% 7% 20%

55 kW < P < 500 kW 52 81% 36% 0%

20. excavators P ≤ 15 kW 45 71% 31% 0%

15 kW < P < 350 kW 362 58% 27% 0%

21. excavator-loaders P ≤ 55 kW 5 40% 0% 0%

55 kW < P < 500 kW 34 79% 4% 0%

29. hydraulic power packs P ≤ 55 kW 24 54% 8% 0%

32. lawnmowers

L ≤ 50 cm 824 66% 8% 10%

50 cm < L ≤ 70 cm 334 88% 4% 13%

70 cm < L ≤ 120 cm 260 98% 16% 2%

L > 120 cm 342 96% 18% 21%

33. lawn trimmers L ≤ 50 cm 223 62% 4% 38%

36. lift trucks P ≤ 55 kW 24 58% 0% 7%

P > 55 kW 133 79% 18% 1%

37. loaders (wheeled) P ≤ 55 kW 164 81% 14% 0%

55 kW < P < 500 kW 177 64% 27% 4%

38. mobile cranes (single-engine) P > 55 kW 68 60% 0% 39%

40. motor hoes P < 3 kW 50 90% 4% 7%

45. power generators

Pel ≤ 2 kW 41 32% 8% 8%

2 kW < Pel ≤ 10 kW 290 46% 31% 2%

10 kW < Pel ≤ 400 kW 181 25% 49% 0%

OVERALL 4022 69% 14% 10%



The table reports information on: the name of the equipment with the numerical id reported in the directive (Annex I); the range of the characteristic parameter identifying a specific sub-group; the No. of records in the sub-group; the percentage of records with a declared guaranteed sound power level (LWg) equal to the

limit value (Lim). The cases with a percentage value lower than 30% are shown in grey background colour.

In addition, within the group of records with LWg=Lim, the table shows: the percentage of records with a declared guaranteed sound power level (LWg) equal to the

measured sound power level (LWm), i.e. LWg=LWm the percentage of records with a declared guaranteed sound power level (LWg) much greater

than the measured sound power level (LWm) ), i.e. LWg-LWm >3 dB It is worth reminding that the guaranteed sound power level should be calculated from the meas-

ured sound power level by adding an estimated value that accounts for the uncertainties due to pro-duction variation and measurement procedures.

2.2 The application of the noise class procedure According to the noise class procedure defined in [3], the three noise classes were defined as

such: Class A identifies the models with the lowest noise emission, i.e. the best ones as far as the noise impact on the environment is concerned; Class B groups the models with noise emissions halfway between the highest and the lowest levels and then with an average noise impact on the environment and Class C identifies the models with the highest noise emission, i.e. the worst ones as far as the noise impact on the environment is concerned.

These three noise classes are separated by the two percentile lines L1 and L2, both parallel to the limit curve. L1 is chosen as the percentile curve greater than or equal to L70 (with the maximum dis-tance from the limit curve) and L2 is the percentile curve at the fixed distance 2 dB from L1. These criteria guarantee that no more than 30% of the data is assigned to the noisiest class. No specific justifications were given for this choice, apart from the necessity of avoiding an overcrowding of data in the noisiest class C.

The application of this procedure to the revised database resulted in the procedure being applica-ble only in three cases: 10. concrete-breakers (CE-driven) with m>15 kg, 10. concrete-breakers (electric) with 15 kg<m<30 kg, and 45. power generators with 10 kW<Pel≤400 kW.

In all the other cases, the criterion that no more than 30% of the available data is assigned to the noisiest class is not fulfilled. This result is clearly shown by the statistics reported in Table 1, i.e. 21 cases out of 28 have more than 50% of machines with a guaranteed level coincident with the limit.

The noise classes obtained for power generators are shown in Figure 1. Since there was a signifi-cant percentage of noise data concentrated in a narrow range of levels around the limit, L1 turned out to be only 1 dB below the limit, while L2 is 2 dB below L1, according to the above mentioned definition. The machines within Class C all have a guaranteed sound power level coincident with the limit. In ascending order of noise emission, the classification is as follows:

58.0 % of machines in Class A (the quietest machines with LWg ≤ L2); 17.1 % of machines in Class B (with L2 < LWg ≤ L1); 24.9 % of machines in Class C (the noisiest machines with L1 < LWg ≤ Limit).



Figure 1: Noise classes for power generators with 10 kW<Pel≤400 k

3. Representativeness of the guaranteed sound power level

Figures in Table 1 show that more than 69% of the machines have a declared level equal to the limit. This may be interpreted as a dramatic situation because it means that the great majority of the machines have a very high noise emission, close to the limit. Analysis in depth shows that this is probably not reflecting the real noise emission of these machines because 18% of them have a measured level which differs more than 2 dB from the guaranteed level. This may rather reflect a clear choice made by manufacturers to declare the maximum admissible level in order to be sure not to exceed this level.

In order to identify the best criteria for the noise data clustering it is fundamental to know wheth-er the declared guaranteed sound power levels may be considered representative of the current sit-uation concerning the noise emitted by outdoor equipment.

For this purpose, the state of the art of noise control technologies already available for outdoor equipment together with the existence on the market of quieter versions were investigated. Assum-ing that noise limits should have forced manufacturers to move closer to the state of the art of noise performance, this investigation was limited to the outdoor equipment subject to noise limit.

3.1 Technology trends In bibliography, some studies and patents can be found showing that several developments have

significantly affected the noise reduction capacity of outdoor machines. Hybrid engines are increas-ingly used especially due to the fact that the market dynamics on fuel consumption are pushing in this direction [7]. Similarly, the use of electrically powered equipment instead of combustion engine (CE) driven is quickly growing particularly for small and medium size machines, mainly due to the improving performance and lower cost of battery-powered units [8]. Referring to CE driven ma-chines, almost all the equipment of medium-high size have replaced the noisier 2-stroke engine with the quieter 4-stroke one. In addition, quieter fans and improved airflow design are available to re-duce the noise emitted by the engine cooling systems [9]. Also the use of electronic controls able to drive efficiency and noise reduction, are advanced [10].

On the market, some quieter versions of outdoor equipment subject to noise limits are available, even if at a higher cost compared to the standard version of the same machine. Quieter models gen-erally have sound power levels 2 to 4 dB lower than the standard versions of the same machine. Referring to equipment types with high noise contributions coming from the working process rather than from the machine itself, such as hydraulic hammers or concrete-breakers, great differences can

84

86

88

90

92

94

96

98

100

10 40 70 100 130 160 190 220 250 280 310 340 370 400

Guaram

teed sound power level, LWg(dB(A))

Electric power, Pel (kW)

45. Power generators (15kW<Pel≤400kW)

L2

L1

Limit



be found (5÷10 dB) among sound power levels of models having similar mechanical power, sug-gesting that machines with different noise emissions are on the market. In some cases, new working principles have been developed resulting in significant noise reduction (for example robotic lawnmowers).

3.2 New scenario Based on the outcome of the above investigation, the real noise emitted by outdoor equipment

subject to noise limits could be different from that inferable from the noise data in the EU NOISE database. For this reason, a new scenario was defined and the guaranteed sound power level de-clared in the EU NOISE database was replaced by a different parameter, Lnew.

For the definition of this new parameter, it is important to note that the average difference be-tween guaranteed and measured sound power levels over all equipment types was LWg-LWm=1.7 dB. Considering the whole set of data, 673 machines out of 4022 (16.7%) had a measured sound power level more than 3 dB lower than the guaranteed one. This means that a large uncertainty value was applied and probably there was a sufficient gap for lowering the guaranteed sound power levels. The new parameter Lnew was then defined as reported in Eq. (1). The level remains equal to LWg when the difference between the guaranteed and the measured sound power levels is lower than 3 dB, otherwise it is replaced by the measured sound power level increased by 2 dB, which is a rea-sonable estimate of the total uncertainty.

(1)

where: LWg is the guaranteed sound power level; LWm is the measured sound power level. The noise class procedure was then applied to this new set of noise data in order to test the ef-

fects on the data distribution and to verify whether the division in classes is now applicable. Table 2 shows the results.

In this table, the original percentage of records with a declared guaranteed sound power level equal to the limit value (% LWg = Lim) is still shown in order to facilitate the comparison with the new percentage given by (% Lnew = Lim). Apart from three cases (those for which the original pro-cedure was applicable), for all the others (highlighted with a grey background colour) the percent-age value decreases from a minimum of 7% (dumpers) to a maximum of 46% (CE-driven concrete breakers with m ≤ 15 kg). Furthermore, the table reports also the distance of L1 from the limit (1 or 2 dB) and the percentage of machines assigned to each class.

Table 2: Noise class procedure applied to the new noise data set

EQUIPMENT TYPE CHARACTERISTIC

PARAMETER %

LWg=Lim %

Lnew=Lim Lim-L1 Class C Class B Class A

9. compressors P ≤ 15 kW 52% 23% 1 23% 33% 43%

10. concrete-breakers

(CE-driven) m ≤ 15 kg 73% 27% 1 27% 58% 15%

m > 15 kg 13% 13% 2 25% 47% 28%

(electric) m ≤ 15 kg 70% 30% 1 30% 35% 35%

15 kg < m < 30 kg 0% 0% 2 0% 87% 13%

18. dumpers (< 500 kW) P ≤ 55 kW 36% 29% 1 29% 64% 7%

29. hydraulic power packs P ≤ 55 kW 54% 29% 1 29% 46% 25%

33. lawn trimmers L ≤ 50 cm 62% 30% 1 30% 21% 50%

45. power generators Pel ≤ 2 kW 32% 22% 1 22% 10% 68%

10 kW < Pel ≤ 400 kW 25% 25% 1 25% 17% 58%



The criterion to have no more than the 30% of data in the noisiest class turns out to be appropri-ate for 10 subgroups out of the 28 listed in Table 1. Apart from 2 cases, 1 dB is the highest possible distance between L1 and the limit curve.

Consequently, a “first stage” classification could be based on the definition of noise classes fol-lowing the criteria reported in Eq. (2); they seem indeed to be reasonably consistent with the above reported data and turn out to be the only possible compromise to take into account also the possible economic impact on manufacturers.

(2)

4. Conclusions

A noise class procedure defined by the authors in a previous paper [3] was applied to all the out-door equipment within the scope of directive 2000/14/EC and subject to noise limits.

The investigation was performed on a selection of data extracted from the EU NOISE database which contains the declared guaranteed sound power levels for these machines/equipment. The se-lection permitted to exclude all the erroneous and incomplete data and to ignore all the certificates emitted before the current limits (II stage limits) entered into force (3rd January 2006). The data reduction brought to a final database of 4022 records belonging to 14 different equipment types subject to noise limits and to 28 subgroups of equipment types with different noise limit values.

The application of the noise class procedure ended up with the result that the procedure is appli-cable only in three cases. In all the other cases, the criterion that no more than 30% of the available data is assigned to the noisiest class is not fulfilled. Moreover, it appeared that more than 69% of the machines have a declared level equal to the limit. A deeper analysis showed that this is probably not reflecting the real noise emission of the machines but it rather reflects a clear choice made by the manufacturers to declare the maximum admissible level in order to be sure not to exceed this level.

A survey on the state of the art of noise control technologies already available for outdoor equipment revealed the existence on the market of quieter versions of different equipment types. For this reason, there is the doubt that the real noise emitted by outdoor equipment subject to noise limits could be different from that inferable from the noise data in the EU NOISE database. Then, a new scenario was defined and the guaranteed sound power level declared in the EU NOISE data-base was replaced by a different parameter, Lnew. The application of the noise class procedure to this new set of noise data brought to the conclusion that the division in classes is applicable and a “first stage” classification may follow the procedure already defined.

On the other hand, the definition of noise classes makes it possible the design of a new “gradua-tion label scheme” (similar to the energy labelling used for domestic appliances) which would show the guaranteed sound power level for each equipment type and the relative noise emission of that equipment type compared with the current full range of noise emission marking [11]. The meaning and the transparency of this label should lead to multiple advantages: it would gradually educate people in preferring low-noise products; it would incentivise the demand for quieter products; last but not least, it would push manufacturers to declare guaranteed sound power levels that represent the real status of noise emission of their production.

Once the label system is properly developed and understood, a “second stage” classification will be necessary to have noise classes with higher dB ranges.



REFERENCES

1 WHO/Europe publication, (2011). Burden of disease from environmental noise. Quantification of healthy life years lost in Europe. [Online] available http://www.who.int/quantifying_ehimpacts/ publications/e94888/en/ (accessed on 26.01.2017)

2 Directive 2000/14/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 8 May 2000 on the approxima-tion of the laws of the Member States to the noise emission in the environment by equipment for use outdoors, Official Journal of the European Communities L162, 3 July 2000.

3 Carletti, E. Pedrielli, F., “Outdoor machinery: a reliable statistical approach for a new noise labelling based on current noise emission marking data”, Proceedings of the 23rd International Congress on Sound and Vibration, Athens, Greece, 10-14 July, (2016).

4 Noise emissions for outdoor equipment – Database. [Online] available http://ec.europa.eu/growth/tools-databases/noise-emissions-outdoor-equipment/index_en.htm (accessed on 26.01.2017)

5 Directive 2005/88/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 14 December 2005 amending Directive 2000/14/EC on the approximation of the laws of the Member States to the noise emission in the environment by equipment for use outdoors, Official Journal of the European Communities L344, 27 December 2005.

6 ISO 11689:1996/Cor 1:2007, Acoustics: Procedure for the comparison of noise emission data for ma-chinery and equipment.

7 Tianliang L., Qingfeng W., Baozan H. and Wen G., Development of hybrid powered hydraulic con-struction machinery, Automation in Construction, 19 (1), 11-19, (2010).

8 Dittrich, M., Carletti, E., Spellerberg, G., The ODELIA Study on Noise Limits for Outdoor Machinery, Proceedings of INTERNOISE Conference, Hamburg, Germany, 21-24 August, (2016).

9 Hyrynen, K., Saarinen,K., Heinonen,K., Fan Concept Study for Low Noise Cooling of Mobile machin-ery, Noise Control Engineering Journal, 57 (4), 304-309, (2009).

10 Gessi, S., Martelli, M., Tonini, E., A survey on negative control architectures for hydraulic excavators, ASME/BATH 2015 Symposium on Fluid Power and Motion Control, Bath, Germany, 12-14 October, (2015).

11 Gwosdz, F., Noise labelling: an integrated approach to noise reduction, BUY QUIET Symposium, Paris, France, 5-6 July. (2011).

EGMF position paper

Outdoor Noise Directive Review EGMF input to the public consultation

Brussels, 10 April 2018

This position paper contains the following parts:

Introduction ........................................................................................... 2

A. General statements on the OND Review............................. 2

1. Enable self-certification for all equipment ............................................................................. 2

2. Maintain the scope and noise limits ......................................................................................... 3

3. Consider the overall legislative environment ........................................................................ 4

4. Update test codes ............................................................................................................................ 4

5. Withdraw the current database .................................................................................................. 4

6. Revise the OND by aligning it with the provisions of the NLF ........................................ 4

7. Regulation preferable to a Directive......................................................................................... 5

B. Product specific comments ...................................................... 5

gabrimo

Typewritten Text

gabrimo

Typewritten Text

82 - EGMF_Position_Paper_-_OND_public_consultation_-_2018.04.10_compressed.pdf

2

Introduction EGMF is the European federation representing major garden, landscaping, forestry and turf equipment manufacturers. Through its 30 European corporate members and 7 National Associations, EGMF represents over 17 million units placed on the European market, accounting for around 80% of garden machinery, and EGMF members employ over 120,000 people in the EU. The garden and outdoor power equipment industry represents a very wide variety of equipment. In addition, a single category of equipment covers a large range of products in terms of size, and consequently users: consumers and professionals.

EGMF members are heavily impacted by the Outdoor Noise Directive (2000/14/EC - OND): today, garden and outdoor power equipment represents more than a quarter of all the equipment falling under the OND scope is. Some equipment is subject to labelling requirements only, such as brush cutters, chain-saws, grass trimmers, hedge trimmers and shredders. Other types are also bound by noise emission limits, such as lawnmowers and lawn-edge trimmers. Therefore, EGMF would like to submit its contribution to the ongoing public consultation on the Outdoor Noise Directive review.

A. General statements on the OND Review

EGMF recognises the need to review the Outdoor Noise Directive to reflect changes in applied technology and the mix of products on the market today. Furthermore, EGMF and its members support the development of new quieter products to improve the environment for European citizens. However, EGMF advocates that new or changed limits should be realistic and achievable. Stricter noise limits are likely to negatively impact the performance of equipment, thus reducing the efficiency of our equipment. As a result, garden and outdoor power equipment will require more

time for the completion of the task, which of course leads to a greater noise nuisance. We firmly believe further noise limit reduction should not result in any further erosion of product performance.

1. Enable self-certification for all equipment

EGMF questions the efficiency and added-value of using third-party certification for noise declarations for equipment subject to noise limits (Article 12). From a technical point of view, garden machinery equipment manufacturers have the necessary technical expertise to measure and reduce noise emissions and are competent to declare guaranteed sound power values.

3

From an efficiency point of view, the use of self-certification reduces administrative burden, simplifies the compliance process, reduces the time to place products on the market and lowers the costs for manufacturers. From a legal point of view, the use of self-certification would align the revised OND with the principles of the New Legislative Framework (NLF). The benefits and effectiveness of the self-certification has already been proven by the implementation of other Directives, such as the Machinery Directive. Finally, it should be pointed out that dropping third-party certification will have no impact on product conformity, which is ultimately guaranteed by market surveillance of. Indeed, this ensures a level playing field between all manufacturers placing products on the EU market. EGMF takes this opportunity to remind of the importance of effective and pro-active market surveillance, including physical testing of products.

2. Maintain the scope and noise limits

First, the current scope of the OND should not be changed. The classification split between equipment subject to noise limits (Article 12) and equipment subject to noise marking only (Article 13) should also be maintained. EGMF believes that the noise limits, where applied, should not be lowered at the expense of extending usage time due to the lowered equipment efficiency because of the new limits. In addition, lowering the current noise limits will also reduce the safety of our equipment, especially hand-held tools.,. Indeed, reducing noise emissions of equipment will force manufacturers to cover the engine that make equipment heavier. The weight of equipment, especially for hand-held machines, is a key criterion for users since it has an impact on their health and safety. This would jeopardize the primary objective of equipment manufacturers and other EU legislation, which is an unacceptable compromise. Furthermore, the revised legislation should not be design restrictive: it should in our view not stifle the developments of new technologies. Instead, the revised legislation should solve the current OND issue that hampers innovation. Indeed, the current noise limits hamper the placing on the EU market of innovative products and more powerful electrical equipment: for specific categories of electrical equipment, the noise limits keep manufacturers from providing more powerful battery powered machines that offer a viable alternative to combustion engine powered equipment. Therefore, noise limit of specific electrically-powered products, notably lawn-trimmers needs to be reviewed in the context of technical and market developments.

4

3. Consider the overall legislative environment

The noise emissions cannot be considered in isolation from other R&D targets, but also the overall EU legislative environment. Indeed, garden and outdoor power equipment manufacturers must comply with different pieces of legislation, such as the Machinery Directive and the engine exhaust emissions Regulation. The requirements stemming from the different pieces of legislation often entail contradictory technical constraints. This results in a technical challenge, which uses substantial R&D resources. This is especially true for the implementation of stricter exhaust emission limits according to the revised engine exhaust emissions Regulation (2016/1628). The continued reduction in permissible levels of exhaust gas emissions generally has a detrimental effect on noise emissions due to more efficient scavenging of the engine cylinder and more complete combustion. Therefore, manufacturers aim to achieve balanced noise emissions and product performance at a reasonable price.

4. Update test codes

EGMF calls for an update of the noise measurement methods (test codes) to adapt to technical progress in the industry and European standardisation. Moreover, we suggest removing them from the main body of the legal text to facilitate their regular update in the future. In addition, the use of harmonised standards related to noise emission should be aligned for both the Machinery and Outdoor Noise Directives. This would avoid a duplication of measurements with a resulting ineffective use of human and financial resources.

5. Withdraw the current database

The database does not fulfil its objective and merely creates administrative burden to the European Commission, to Member states and to the Industry. It should be withdrawn or at least profoundly refurbished.

6. Revise the OND by aligning it with the provisions of the NLF

The Outdoor Noise Directive should be updated using the provisions established by the New Legislative Framework. These provisions enable manufacturers to select the most adapted compliance assessment module and thus avoid excessive administrative burden.

5

7. Regulation preferable to a Directive

A Regulation is immediately applicable and will not be altered by its transposition into national law by the Member States.

B. Product specific comments

This part provides the main information related to garden and landscaping equipment impacted by the Outdoor Noise Directive, including definitions, standards, typical uses, users and usage areas. It also specifies the main technical challenges, technical developments and other applicable legislations. Finally, EGMF specifies its views for the review of noise limits for each type of equipment.

6

2.) Brush cutter & 24.) Grass trimmer (combustion)

Product

description

Combustion engine power unit

Brush cutter: metal blade Grass trimmer: Mowing head

Definition current OND

A combustion-engine driven portable hand-held unit fitted with a rotating blade made

of metal or plastic intended to cut weeds,

brush, small trees and similar vegetation. The cutting device operates in a plane

approximately parallel to the ground. Product Standard Brush cutter: EN ISO 11806-1:2011

Definition Product

Standard

ISO 7112 vocabulary: grass-trimmer:

unit using flexible line(s), string(s), or similar non-metallic flexible cutting

attachment, such as pivoting cutters,

intended to cut small weeds, grass or similar soft vegetation

brush-cutter: unit with a rotating blade made of metal or

plastic, intended to cut weeds, brush, small trees and similar vegetation

brush saw:

brush-cutter fitted with a circular saw blade

Market description estimated:

90% consumers 10% professionals (P > 1,5kW)

Areas used: Gras trimmer: Urban/ Suburban

Brush cutter: Suburban/Rural/ Forest

Standard for

sound power

measurement

Please update CURRENT OND to ISO

22868:2011

User:

Consumer, Semi-professional,

Professional

Typical use Brush cutter: with metal blade to clear

bushes and weeds in outdoor non-

residential areas. Grass trimmer: Mowing head, to finish

the work done by lawnmowers around trees, fences or walls.

Time:

Seasonal

Vegetation growth period from spring to autumn

Challenges - Handheld (Power-Weight-Ratio; compact design of the product)

- Tip speed of attachment is key factor for efficiency and noise emission

Other legislation

- Machinery Directive 2006/42/EC - EMC Directive

- Exhaust emissions REGULATION (EU) 2016/1628

Technical developments

“quiet” trimmer lines are already in use

Limit Proposal EGMF

Merge 2. Brush cutter & 24. Grass trimmer P≤1.5kW: 107 dB(A)+ 6.3 *P

P > 1.5kW: Art. 13. Combine the product group(s) with electric

product (lawn trimmer) as a subcategory

with different limits: Brush Cutter & grass trimmer:

a) Combustion b) Electric (Limit proposal please see

33) Lawn trimmer)

Current OND:

Art.13

7

6.a) Chain-saw (combustion)

Product description

Combustion engine powered unit for cutting wood

Definition

current OND

A power-driven tool designed to cut wood

with a saw chain and consisting of an integrated compact unit of handles, power

source and cutting attachment, designed to be supported with two hands. [identical to

ISO 6531]

Product Standard

ISO 11681-1:2011 ISO 11681-2:2011

Definition

Product Standard

ISO 6531 Vocabulary:

Power-driven tool designed to cut wood with a saw chain and consisting of an

integrated compact unit of handles, power

source and cutting attachment, designed to be supported with two hands

Market description

estimated: 95% consumers

5 % professionals

Areas used: Chain-saws: Rural areas

Professional Chain saws: Farms & Forest

Standard for

sound power measurement

ISO 22868:2011 Reflecting surface

Typical use Consumers:

To cut small trees and prepare firewood for stoves. Twice a year in early autumn.

Semi-professional: For wooden house building and roof. All

year-round episodic use

Professional: Forestry: cutting trees in forests for the

logging industry. Winter time. For emergency services when trees are

brought down by bad weather events. In

rare occasions.

User:

Consumer, Semi-professional, Professional

Time: Seasonal – mostly during winter

time Consumers: 0-6 hours per year

Professionals: 150 hours per

year

Challenges

- Handheld (Power-Weight-Ratio; compact design of the product)

- Starting ability & overall cutting performance are essential for professional users

- Multi-positional

Other legislation



Technical developments

for low noise products

Some consumer chain-saws will be replaced by quieter battery chain-saws

Limit Proposal EGMF

P ≤ 2.5kW: 112 + 2*P P > 2.5kW: Art. 13

Current OND

Art.13

8

6.b) Chain saw (electric)

Product description

Electric power unit Corded and cordless electric hand tool

to cut trees and branches

Definition current OND (same as combustion product)

A power-driven tool designed to cut wood with a saw chain and consisting of

an integrated compact unit of handles, power source and cutting

attachment, designed to be supported

with two hands.

Product Standard

EN 60745-2-13:2009

Definition Product Standard

EN 62841-4-1:2017 (published soon): chain saw

machine designed to cut wood with a

saw chain and consisting of an integrated unit of handles, motor, guide

bar and saw chain, designed to be supported with two hands.

Market description: Consumers, roofers

Areas used:

Suburban/ rural

Standard for


EN 62841-4-1:2017 (published soon)

(Note: ISO 22868:2011 – is only for Combustion engine driven products)

Typical use Consumer: To cut small trees and

prepare firewood for stoves. Twice a year in early autumn.

Semi-professional:

For wooden house building and roofs. All year-round sporadic use.

User:

Consumer Sometimes semi-professional

Time:

Seasonal

Consumers: 2hrs/year

Challenges

- Handheld, light weight

- Regarding cordless products, battery capacity, price, life time and machine performance are crucial considerations for professional

users.

Other legislation

- Machinery Directive 2006/42/EC

- EMC Directive

- Battery Directive (for cordless tools)

Technical

developments for

low noise products

Limit Proposal EGMF 112dB(A)

Current OND Art. 13

9

25 a.) Hedge Trimmer

(combustion)

Product description

Combustion power unit to cut hedges

Definition current

OND

Hand-held, integrally driven powered

equipment which is designed for use by one operator for trimming hedges

and bushes utilising one or more linear reciprocating cutter blades.

Product Standard

EN ISO 10517:2009/A1:2013

Definition Product

Standard

Petrol combustion engine hedge

trimmer:

machine fitted with reciprocating blades made of metal, intended to

cut and form hedges, bushes and similar vegetation

Market description:

90% consumers

10% professionals

Areas used:

Urban, Suburban, Rural

Standard for


ISO 22868:2011 (change of the speed at which the sound is measured.)

Typical use Hedge trimmers are used once or

twice a year- not more.

User:


Time: Seasonal

Challenges

- Handheld (Power-Weight-Ratio; compact design of the product).

- Multi-positional

- Low weight is an extremely important factor. (mostly used at shoulder height, away from the body).

- The mechanical noise from the moving cutting blades cannot be eliminated.

Other legislation



Technical developments for

low noise products

Limit Proposal EGMF

Art 13

Current OND

Art. 13

10

25b.) Hedge Trimmer (electric)

Product description

A hand-held machine designed to cut hedges in gardens powered by an

electric motor corded or cordless.


Hand-held, integrally driven powered equipment which is designed for use by

one operator for trimming hedges and bushes utilising one or more linear

reciprocating cutter blades.

Product Standard

EN 60745-2-15:2009 (EN 62841-4-2:2017 in the future)

Definition Product

Standard

EN 60745-2-15:2006

This standard applies to hedge trimmers which are designed for use by one

operator for trimmers hedges and

bushes, utilizing one more linear

reciprocating cutter blades.

This standard is not applicable to hedge trimmers with a rotating blade.

Market description:

Areas used:

Urban, suburban, rural

Standard for


EN 60745-2-15 User:


Typical use Hedge trimmers are used once or twice

a year – not more

Time:

Seasonal – once or twice on a hedge

Challenges

- Handheld (Power-Weight-Ratio; compact design of the product).

- Multi-positional - Low weight is an extremely important factor (mostly used at shoulder

height, away from the body) - The mechanical noise from the cutting blades cannot be eliminated

Other legislation - Machinery Directive 2006/42/EC

- EMC Directive - Battery Directive (for cordless products)

Technical

developments for low noise

products

Limit Proposal EGMF

Art. 13

Current OND

Art. 13

11

27.) High Pressure water jet machine

Product

description A machine compressing water to spray off dirt of products or areas.

Definition current

OND

A machine with nozzles or other speed-increasing openings which allow water, also with ad mixtures, to emerge as a free jet. In general, high pressure jet machines consist of a drive, a pressure generator, hose lines, spraying devices, safety mechanisms, controls and measurement devices. High pressure water jet machines maybe mobile or stationary: —mobile high-pressure water jet machines are mobile, readily transportable machines which are designed to be used at various sites, and for this purpose are generally fitted with their own under gear or are vehicle-mounted. All necessary supply lines are flexible and readily disconnectable — stationary high-pressure water jet machines are designed to be used at one site for a length of time but capable of being moved to another site with suitable equipment. Generally, skid or frame-mounted with supply line capable of being disconnected.

Product Standard

EN 60335-2-79:2012 <3 kW (*)

EN 1829-1:2010 ≥ 3 kW (**)

Definition Product

Standard

(*) Household and similar electrical

appliances - requirements for high

pressure cleaners and steam cleaners (**) High pressure water jet machines -

safety requirements

Market description:

Large Variety from appliances

suitable for consumers up to commercial stationary equipment

Standard for sound power

measurement

(*) ISO 3744 / 3743-1 (**) ISO 11203 (withdrawn)

User: Consumer, Semi-professional,

Professional

Typical use - Consumer cleaning vehicles, drive-ways, walls – very rare use.

- Semi-professional - Farmers: vehicles, attachments, stables; Plasterers: walls,

walkways - few times. - Professional - Car wash, dairy farms,

food industry - daily use.

Time:

Just once/ twice per year up to several times per month

depending on the user

Challenges

- Compact design of the products. - Motor cooling requires free air flow or larger motors and bulky design.

- Noise of water jet relates to the cleaning power.

- Water pump technology: Pressure generating pistons cause vibrations, causing noise.

Other legislation - Machinery Directive 2006/42/EC - EMC Directive

Technical

developments for low noise products

Water cooled motors in high end products (patent protected)

Limit Proposal EGMF

Art. 13

Current OND

Art. 13

12

32.) Lawnmower Product description

A machine designed to cut grass and lawns with a metal blade.

Definition current

OND

A walk-behind or ride-on grass cutting

machine or a machine with grass-cutting attachment(s) where the cutting device

operates in a plane approximately parallel to the ground and which uses the ground

to determine the height of cut by means

of wheels, aircushion or skids, etc., and which utilises an engine or an electric

motor for a power source.

Product Standard

EN ISO 5395-1:2013 EN ISO 5395-2:2013+A1 :2016 +A2:2017

EN ISO 5395-3:2013+A1:2017 EN 60335-2-77:2010 (Electric)

Definition Product

Standard

Pedestrian-controlled lawnmower:

lawnmower, with or without traction drive.

Lawnmower lawn-cutting machine, powered by a combustion engine, where

the cutting means operates in a plane

approximately parallel to the ground and which uses the ground to determine the

height of cut by means of wheels, air-cushion or skids, etc.

Ride-on lawnmower self-propelled

lawnmower on which an operator rides

Market description:

Large Variety

Areas used:

Private gardens, municipalities,

sport fields, graveyards, golf courses.

Standard for


EN ISO 5395-1:2013

EN ISO 5395-2:2013+A1 :2016 +A2:2017 EN ISO 5395-3:2013+A1:2017

EN 60335-2-77:2010 (electric)

User:


Typical use Cut lawn and mostly collect lawn clippings

approximately 20 times per year.

“Mulching” without collection is gaining popularity in some markets but requires

more frequent cuts in high growing season.

Time:

Vegetation period spring to autumn (generally)

Challenges

- Keep good quality of cut and good collecting performance while

reducing noise emissions.

Other legislation


- EMC Directive

- Exhaust emissions REGULATION (EU) 2016/1628 (for the combustion engine powered products)

Technical


products

Limit Proposal EGMF

Should stay unchanged L ≤ 50cm: 96 dB(A)

50 cm<L≤70 cm: 98 dB(A) 70 cm<L≤120 cm: 100 dB(A)

L>120 cm: 105 dB(A)

Current OND L ≤ 50cm: 96 dB(A)

50 cm<L≤70 cm: 98 dB(A)

70 cm<L≤120 cm: 100 dB(A) L>120 cm: 105 dB(A)

13

33.) Lawn trimmer / lawn edge trimmer (electric)

Product description

By definition, an electrically powered machine designed to trim lawns / lawn

edges with a not metallic line or blades.


An electrically powered walk-behind or hand-held grass cutting machine with

cutting element(s) of non-metallic filament

line(s) or freely pivoting non-metallic cutters with a kinetic energy of not more

than 10 J each, intended to cut grass or similar soft vegetation. The cutting

element(s) operate(s) in a plane approximately parallel (lawn trimmer) or

perpendicular (lawn edge trimmer) to the

ground. The kinetic energy is determined using EN 786:1997, Annex B.

Product Standard EN 50636-2-91:2014


Electric powered walk-behind and hand-held lawn trimmers and lawn edge

trimmers, with cutting element(s) of non-metallic filament line or freely pivoting non-

metallic cutter(s), with a kinetic energy of

not more than 10 J each, used by a standing operator for cutting grass, their

rated voltage being not more than 250 V for A.C. or 75 V D.C.

Market description: 100% consumers

Areas used:

Urban, suburban, rural

Standard for


EN 50636-2-91

User:

Consumer

Typical use Consumer

Used periodically after mowing for finishing areas not accessible to lawn mowers.

Not used by professionals right now.

Time: Seasonal

Challenges

- Hand-held (power-weight-ratio; compact design of the product) - The trimming line is the main source of noise

- The noise depends on the line, line length and speed, so does the performance.

Other legislation


- EMC Directive

Technical

developments for

low noise products

“Quiet” trimmer lines are already in use

Limit Proposal

EGMF

1. Define all tools for the machine 2. Tool with the largest diameter for the

cutting width defines the limit. L ≤ 280mm: 95 dB(A) 280mm< L < 450: 95 + 0,1 * (L-280) L ≥ 450mm: 112 dB(A)

Larger machines are louder but needed to “do the job”

Current OND

Art. 12: 96 dB(A) identical to lawnmowers

L 50 cm 96

50 < L 100

70 < L ≤ 120 100

L > 120 105

Note: there are no lawn trimmers > 50 cm.

14

34 a.) & 35 a.) Leaf Blower (combustion)

Product

description

Power unit is a combustion engine

Generating a air stream to clear special areas from leaves


A powered machine appropriate to clear lawns, paths, ways, streets, etc.

of leaves and other material by

means of a high velocity air flow. It may be portable (hand-held) or not

portable but mobile.

Product Standard EN 15503:2009+A1:2013+A2:2015

Definition Product

Standard

Garden Blower

machine which moves debris by the force of blasting air.

back-pack powered garden blower designed to have the power source

carried on the operator's back by means of a supporting device

consisting of a frame and harness

back-pack powered vacuum.

Market description:

Large Variety. Back pack is used mainly by professional users

Areas used:

Parks, public areas to keep them clean and safe

Standard for


ISO 22868:2011 (= EN 15503:2009)

(Surface change due to the current measurement results in approx. 2dB

higher value)

User:


Typical use Clean pathways or sidewalks in streets or gardens from leaves or

debris.

Time:

Seasonal;

twice per year for consumers

Challenges

- weight is important for handheld and especially for professional users

who use the machine all day (back-pack)

Other legislation


- EMC Directive - Exhaust emissions REGULATION (EU) 2016/1628 (for the combustion

engine powered products)


low noise products

e.g. quiet fans, bigger diameter fans, lower rotating speed fans, high tech turbine design, lower noise engines.

Limit Proposal EGMF

Art. 13 Combine leaf blower and leaf collector

Current OND

Art.13

15

34 b.) & 35 b.) Leaf Blower (electric)

Product description

Electric power unit, corded and cordless, to clear special areas from leaves

Definition current

OND

A electrically powered machine

appropriate to clear lawns, paths, ways, streets, etc. of leaves and other material

by means of a high velocity air flow. It

may be portable (hand-held) or not portable but mobile.

Product Standard EN 50636-2-100:2014


hand-held garden blower: machine supported by hand, possibly

assisted by a harness, etc., which blows debris

hand held garden blower/vacuum:

machine supported by hand, possibly assisted by a harness, etc., which may

perform as a garden blower, or, as a garden vacuum, for picking up debris into

a debris collector hand held garden vacuum:

machine supported by hand, possibly

assisted by a harness, etc., which collects debris into a debris collector

Market description: Mostly consumers, some semi-

professionals

Areas used:

Urban, suburban, rural residential areas


measurement

EN 50636-2-100:2014 User: Home owners, caretakers

Typical use Home owner. Usually to clean paths and lawn of leaves

and debris. Can also be used for snow removal in

winter.

Time:

Seasonal

Challenges - Handheld (Power to weight-ratio, compact design of the product)

Other legislation


- Battery Directive (just cordless products)


low noise products

Lower fan speed, better efficiency of the fan.

Limit Proposal EGMF

Art. 13 Combine leaf blower and leaf collector

Current OND

Art. 13

16

40.) Motor hoe (<3 kW) Product description

A small machine to cultivate land.

Definition current

OND

A self-propelled machine designed to

be pedestrian-controlled - with or without support wheel(s), in such a

way that its working elements act as hoeing tools to ensure propulsion

(motor hoe), and- propelled by one

or various wheel(s) directly actuated from the engine and equipped with

hoeing tools (motor hoe with drive wheel(s)).

Product Standard EN 709:1997+A4:2009.

Definition Product

Standard

motor hoe

agricultural self-propelled machine designed to be pedestrian controlled

with or without support wheel(s), in such a way that is working elements

act as hoeing tools to ensure propulsion.

Market description:

Standard for


ISO 11094:1991 User:

Consumer, Semi-professional

Typical use Home grown vegetable gardens.

Allotments, rural or peri urban locations.

Time: Seasonal

Challenges - Market is stable or diminishing.

Other legislation




Technical

developments for

low noise products

The current limit is already quite severe for small displacement engines

running at high rpm such as 4500 rpm.

Limit Proposal EGMF Art 12: P<3kW: 93 dB (A)

Art.13: P>3 kW: no limits

Current OND 93 dB(A) for P <3kW

17

49.) Scarifier

Product description

Machine powered by either an electrical motor or an ICE, to activate knives

rotating vertically on a horizontal shaft

to perform dethatching of lawns.

Definition current

OND

A walk-behind or ride-on powered

machine which uses the ground to

determine the depth of cut and which is equipped with an assembly appropriate

to slit or scratch the surface of the lawn in gardens, parks and other similar

areas. …

Product Standard EN 13684 :2004+A3:2009 (Combustion)

EN 50636-2-92 :2014 (Electric)

Definition Product

Standard

Market description:


measurement

ISO 11094:1991 EN 13684:2004+A3:2009 (Combustion)

EN 50636-2-92:2014 (Electric)

User: Consumer, Semi-professional,

Professional

Typical use Use once in early spring time and late autumn to dethatch and remove moss

and provide aeration of the grounds. This aeration is done at the beginning

and at the end of the lawn growing season. It allows water, fertilisers to

penetrate grounds.

Time:

Seasonal/ just once/ twice per year.

Challenges

Other legislation



- Battery Directive (for battery powered products)


low noise products

Low noise development mainly on Combustion Engines.

Limit Proposal EGMF

Art. 13

Current OND

Art. 13

18

50.) Shredder/Chipper

Product description

Definition current

OND

A powered machine designed for use in

a stationary position having one or more cutting devices for the purpose of

reducing bulk organic materials to smaller pieces. Generally, it consists of a

feed intake opening through which

material (which may be held by an appliance or not) is inserted, a device

which cuts up the material by whatever method (cutting, chopping, crushing or

other methods) and a discharge chute

through which the cut material is discharged. A collecting device may be

attached.

Product Standard EN 13683 :2003+A2 :2011/AC:2013 EN 50434 :2014 (Electric)

For forestry equipment, the standard is EN 13525:2005+A2:2009.

The standard for forestry equipment has

been withdrawn by formal objection.

Definition Product

Standard

Shredder/chipper

Machine designed for use in a stationary position having a shredding means for

the purpose of reducing organic materials to smaller pieces. See Figures

1a) and 1b)

Market description:

Areas used: Large gardens, suburban, rural


measurement

ISO 11094:1991

Typical use Private consumer, or professional

gardener

Forest use: wood chipper.

User:


Time: Seasonal/ just once/ twice per

year.

Challenges

Other legislation



Technical


products

Disk blade chippers are known to be noisier than gear type which

alternatively process wood slowly.

Limit Proposal EGMF Art. 13

Separate garden shredder/chipper from wood chipper.

Current OND Art. 13

19

51.) Snow Removing machine with rotating tools

Product description

A machine to remove fresh snow from pathways and sidewalks.

Definition current

OND

A machine with which snow can be

removed from traffic areas by rotating means, accelerated and ejected by

blower means.

Product Standard

ISO 8437 part 1 to part 4… ISO/FDIS 8437-1:2016

Definition Product

Standard

• 3.16.1 hand-held snow thrower that, at some time during normal operation,

is intended to be completely supported by the user

• 3.16.2 lever-steer ride-on machine in which steering, traction-drive engagement, and speed-control functions are combined and controlled by hand-operated levers(s)

• 3.16.3 ride-on Self-propelled ride-on machine generally used for mowing with an attachment that is designed for throwing snow

• 3.16.4 self-propelled Snow thrower equipped with a means for powered

propulsion, other than the collector or impeller, such as wheels or tracks

• 3.16.5 pedestrian-controlled Snow throwing machine, pushed or self-propelled, normally controlled by the operator walking behind the

unit, including machines with an attachment that is designed for throwing snow.

• 3.16.6 single-stage Machine that uses a single high-speed impeller to both

move the snow into the machine and force it out of the discharge chute, typically used for light duty work

• 3.16.7 multi-stage Machine that uses one or more augers to break up snow

and move it into a high-speed impeller that will throw the snow out of the discharge chute.

Market description:

Consumer and professional

Areas used:

Rural, suburban, mountain, in areas where snow fall is

seasonally regular.

Standard for


EN ISO 3744:1995


At each snow event which could be often in certain parts of the world or in

mountain areas.

Semi-professional Restaurant and hotel owners

Professionals City employees would use large units or

tractor attachments

User:


Time: Seasonal; just once/twice a year

Challenges - Cold and humid weather conditions

Other legislation


- EMC Directive



low noise

products

Not aware of any low noise machines

Limit Proposal EGMF

Art. 13

Current OND

Art. 13

20

56.) Water pump Product description

A machine to move water or similar liquids from one place to one other.

Definition current

OND

A machine consisting of a water

pump itself and the driving system. Water pump means a machine for

the raising of water from a lower to a higher energy level.

Product Standard

EN809:1998+A1:2009/AC:2010


Liquid pumps covered by this European Standard are:

• rotodynamic pumps; • rotary positive displacement pumps; • reciprocating displacement pumps;

supplied separately without drive (electric

motor or internal combustion engine). In general, pumps are defined as being terminated by their inlet and outlet connections as well as by their shaft ends. Pump units are described as: Liquid pumps together with a driver and including transmission elements, baseplates, and any auxiliary equipment.

Market description: Large Variety

Areas used: Small units Consumer use

Larger units Professional use only

and outside of built-up areas.

Standard for


EN ISO 3744:1995

EN ISO 20361:2015


Typically, a few times a year to fill or

drain a pool

Semi-professional Farmers could use in drought

conditions

Professionals

In the construction sector, episodically.

In emergency situations, Firefighting.

User:

Consumer, Semi-professional,

Professional

Time:

Challenges - To ensure work performance of the unit with encapsulation: Heat, checking before start-up, cleaning.

Other legislation


- Exhaust emissions REGULATION (EU) 2016/1628 (for the combustion


Technical

developments for

low noise products

Small units: electrification.

Larger units: none so far.

Limit Proposal EGMF Art.13

Current OND Art.13

21

109.) Sweeper

Product description

A machine to clean sidewalks and roads from dust and snow

Combustion power unit


Would be new for OND

Product Standard

No product specific standard

Definition Product

Standard

A pedestrian controlled, self-

propelled machine, with front

mounted sweeping attachments, with sweeping and/or collecting

system.

Market description:

Areas used: Roads, sidewalks


measurement

Directive 2000/14/EC User: Consumer

Typical use Consumer Typically, a few times a month

especially during autumn season. Or just to clean patios or a path.

Time:

Throughout the year

Challenges

Other legislation



products)


low noise

products

Limit Proposal EGMF

Out of scope

Current OND

Out of scope

22

115.) Telescopic or pole pruner

Product description

A machine to prune trees of moderate height / size without

climbing on them.

Power unit can be combustion engine or electric (corded or

cordless)


Not in the current OND ODELIA Suggestion: Extendable

pole-mounted combustion engine or electrically powered chain saw for

pruning branches.

Product Standard

EN ISO 11680-1:2011 (ICE)

Definition Product

Standard

portable, hand-held machine fitted

with a cutting attachment mounted on a pole to enable an operator to

cut the branches of standing trees

Market description:

Large Variety

Areas used:

Gardens, Suburban, rural


measurement

ISO 22868:2011 User: Consumer, Semi-professional,

Professional

Typical use Cut the branches of standing trees

Time: just once/ twice per year

Challenges


Other legislation




- Battery Directive for Cordless electric products

Technical

developments for

low noise products

Limit Proposal EGMF Out of scope

Current OND Out of scope

23

119.) Handheld cut-off machine

Product description

A combustion engine driven machine to cut almost all materials that can

be found on construction sides. Also

used for road works.

Definition current

OND

ODELIA Suggestion: Handheld

machine for cutting stone, general construction materials, cast iron and

steel with a grinding process.

Product Standard

ISO 19432: 2012


portable, hand-held, internal combustion engine-driven, cut-off machines, intended to be used by a single operator in the cutting of construction materials, such as asphalt, concrete, stone and metal

Market description: 100% professionals

Areas used:

Construction sites


measurement

ISO 19432: 2012 Annex B User: Professional

Typical use On construction sites for cutting to

length of material (concrete, iron

etc.) or for cut-outs in walls, for example for windows. Use for road

works

Time:

Around the year, but only when work outside is possible (Temperature >

0°C) The usage time for a cut is short

(just a few minutes)

Challenges


- Multi-positional

- Usage in rough environment

Other legislation


- Exhaust emissions REGULATION (EU) 2016/1628 (for the combustion powered products)

Technical


products

The main noise comes from the process and depends on the material that is

cut

Limit Proposal EGMF Out of scope

Current OND Out of scope

24

120.) Stone chain-saw Product description

Combustion power unit to make special precise cuts in wall, concrete

pipes etc.


ODELIA Suggestion: Chain-saw suitable for sawing bricks, stones and

other hard materials.

Product Standard

None

Definition Product

Standard

No product specific standard.

Niche Product. Definition must not refer to a “chain

saw” as no wood is cut. [English product name is misleading]

Market description:

100% professionals

Areas used:

Construction sides

Standard for


(in dependence on ISO 22868:2011) User:

Professional

Typical use On construction sites for cut-outs in

walls, for example for windows.

Time: Around the year, but only when work

outside is possible (Temperature > 0°C)

Challenges

- Handheld (Power-Weight-Ratio; compact design of the product) - Multi-positional

- Usage in rough environment

Other legislation


- EMC Directive

- Exhaust emissions Regulation (EU) 2016/1628 (for the internal combustion engine powered products)


low noise products

The main noise comes from the process and depends on the material that is cut

Limit Proposal EGMF

Out of scope Expensive niche product with short

usage times (Not comparable to a chain-saw)

Current OND

Out of scope

25

For further information, please contact: EGMF Secretariat, [email protected]

The European Garden Machinery Industry Federation – EGMF – has been the voice of the entire garden machinery industry in Europe since 1977. With 30

European corporate members and 7 National Associations representing manufacturers of garden, landscaping, forestry and turf maintenance equipment, we are the most powerful network in this sector in Europe.

www.egmf.org

mailto:[email protected]

http://www.egmf.org/en/members/companies/

http://www.egmf.org/en/members/companies/

http://www.egmf.org/

of 2

Nilfisk positions: 11.04.2018 / KNO

Position (I):

Clear definition of sweepers is needed in order to make a clear differentiation of the intended use between: Outdoor ↔ Indoor application Typical cleaning of public areas↔ industrial areas, residual zones

Definition with reference to EN 15429-1 46. Road sweeper: A machine as defined in EN 15429:2007 primarily for sweeping material from airports, highways

or other traffic areas (e. g. parking areas, market places pedestrian zones, pavements, bicycle lanes, parking lots). These machines are fixed or dismountable attached on a carrier vehicle, on a specially designed chassis, on a pedestrian controlled vehicle or on a towed vehicle.Sweeper can move material to a hopper or other type of container attached to the machine by mechanical or pneumatic means, or by combination of each. Position (II):

Sweepers (No 46) EunitedME requests to keep the formula "90+11lgP" proposed by NOMEVAL by which the noise emission limit value is calculated depending on the engine power, but, however, it is not deemed to be the proper basis for all types of sweeping machinery. The noise emissions of these machines not only depend on the engine power, but, besides of the engine, are significantly influenced by the hydraulic pump, the blower and the power take-off to the sweeper body with the sweeping gear.

gabrimo

Typewritten Text

gabrimo

Typewritten Text

87 - Nilfisk_positions_on_Outdoor_Noise_Directive.docx

of 2

Position (III):

In particular for truck mounted sweepers, which have an additional engine for the drive of the sweeping gear besides of the traction engine of the truck chassis, a significant disadvantage arises towards "single-engine" sweepers as both types of sweeping machines do not differ from each other in view of the noise emission behaviour, but as different criteria are applied when only the engine power of the drive engine of the sweeper gear is used for the calculation of the limit value for "twin-engined" sweepers

Noise limit value must be calculated based on the installed engine power (including auxiliary engine power if applicable) Position (IV):

No further reduced noise limits by legal requirements but regulated by the market on customers’ demands! Position (V):

Nilfisk appreciates the proposal of Working Group on Outdoor Equipment Noise (former WG7) to maintain refuse collection vehicles in article 13 and not to transfer to article 12 and, as a consequence, to impose with limit values.

We further agree that the measurement method described in EN 1501-4 should be revised because it has only inferior relation to the development of noise emissions under real operating conditions of an RCV.

Future noise emission limit values should be agreed on based on the revised noise test method! Position (VI):

Self-propelled snow removing machines with rotating tools according to EN 15906 should not be imposed with limit values.

12.4.2018 Druckversion - Laubbläser im Herbst: Der große Krach - SPIEGEL ONLINE - Panorama

http://www.spiegel.de/panorama/laubblaeser-graz-loest-laerm-problem-mit-verbot-a-995805-druck.html 1/3

08. Oktober 2014, 08:20 Uhr

Laubbläser im Herbst

Der große Krach

Pünktlich zum Herbstbeginn dröhnen Laubbläser durch die Straßen, umherabfallende Blätter zu beseitigen. Im österreichischen Graz sind die Geräte nunverboten worden - damit ist das Laubproblem jedoch noch nicht gelöst.

Hamburg - Der Herbst ist an schönen Tagen die Zeit der langen Spaziergänge. Das Laubraschelt, die Kastanien glänzen, in der Luft knistert schon ein Stück Winter. Der Herbst istaber auch die Zeit großer Quälgeister. Laubbläser und -sauger kommen zum Einsatz. IhreAufgabe: Zehntausende Tonnen Laub beseitigen, die jedes Jahr in den zehn größtendeutschen Städten fallen.

Unter großem Getöse und mit einer Schnelligkeit von zweihundert, manchmal dreihundertKilometern pro Stunde faucht die Luft aus den Geräten über Spielplätze und Straßen, treibtBlätter auf Gehwegen und in Parks zusammen. Abgasschleudern, Lärmbelästiger - es gibtwohl kaum Gartengeräte, die so unbeliebt sind und so emotional diskutiert werden wie diedröhnenden Laubbeseitiger.

Lärmbelästigung

Laut dem Umweltbundesamt in Dessau (UBA) lärmt der Laubsauger zwischen 80 und 100Dezibel - so laut wie eine Kreissäge oder sogar ein Presslufthammer. Bereits 60 Dezibelkönnen die Gesundheit beeinträchtigen. "Von einem Laubbläser wird man noch nichtkrank", sagt Lärmexperte Thomas Myck vom UBA, "aber belästigt." Über sein Büro brechejedes Jahr eine Beschwerdewelle hinein. Wissenschaftliche Studien belegen, dass Lärmkrank machen kann. In Deutschland gibt es daher Einschränkungen, wann die Laubbläserbenutzt werden dürfen: in Wohngebieten zwischen 9 und 13 Uhr sowie zwischen 15 und 17Uhr; an Sonn-und Feiertagen gar nicht. So ist es im Bundesimmissionsschutzgesetzfestgehalten.

Gefährlich für Flora und Fauna

Umweltverbände kritisieren, dass die Nutzung der Laubbläser den Lebensraum vielerKleintiere zerstöre. Ohne Laub keine Nährstoffe. Es kann kein Humus gebildet werden, indem sich wiederum Larven und Insekten als Futter für Vögel und andere Kleintiereansiedeln. "Schlimmer noch sind die Geräte mit Häckselfunktion", sagt Ilka Bodmann vomNaturschutzbund Hamburg (NABU). Frösche, Igel, Spinnen, Vogeljunge, Regenwürmer -sie werden mit den Blättern von den Maschinen zerstückelt wieder ausgespuckt.

Umweltbelastung

Viele der motorbetriebenen Geräte laufen auf Benzin. Vor allem ältere Modelle spucken lautUBA Schadstoffe aus. Durch das Gepuste wird auf Straßen und Gehwegen Feinstaubaufgewirbelt - und zwar eine nicht unerhebliche Menge. Laut einer Studie der TechnischenUniversität Graz von 2013 wirbelt der Laubbläser beim Säubern von Straßen sechs- biszehnmal so viel Feinstaub auf wie ein einfacher Besen.

http://www.spiegel.de/

http://www.spiegel.de/thema/gesundheit/

http://www.spiegel.de/gesundheit/diagnose/fluglaerm-wahrscheinlich-hoeheres-risiko-fuer-herz-und-kreislauf-a-926797.html

http://www.spiegel.de/thema/deutschland/

http://www.bmub.bund.de/themen/luft-laerm-verkehr/laermschutz/faqs/

http://www.spiegel.de/thema/benzin/

http://www.spiegel.de/thema/universitaeten/

gabrimo

Typewritten Text

108 - Laubbl_ser_im_Herbst.pdf

gabrimo

Typewritten Text

gabrimo

Typewritten Text



Das feinstaubgeplagte Graz hat nun gehandelt. Seit dem 1. Oktober darf in derösterreichischen Stadt und einigen umliegenden Regionen nur noch mit der Hand geharktund gefegt werden. Die lauten Geräte seien "im gesamten Stadtgebiet von Graz undLeibnitz sowie im Gemeindegebiet von Kaindorf an der Sulm ganzjährig verboten", heißt esin dem Beschluss. Wer trotzdem zur Maschine greift, muss bis zu 7250 Euro Bußgeldzahlen.

Ein Jahr wollen sie den Verzicht auf die Geräte in der Steiermark nun testen. "Hinsichtlichder Feinstaubproblematik ist das ein Tropfen auf den heißen Stein", sagt Gutachten-AutorPeter Sturm, Professor und Stellvertreter des Grazer Instituts fürVerbrennungskraftmaschinen und Thermodynamik. "Aber es ist ein Anfang."

In Graz freuen sich jetzt zwar viele, dass die Maschinen mit Rücksicht auf Ohren undUmwelt abgeschaltet werden. Von anderer Seite gibt es aber Kritik. Die Stadtreinigungpustete das Laub jedes Jahr von Straßen und Gehwegen, um die Unfallgefahr zu mindern.Sie steht nun vor der Aufgabe, die 250.000-Einwohner-Stadt ohne ihre 30 Blasgerätelaubfrei zu halten. Eine Maschine ersetzt vier händische Arbeiter - das ist die Rechnung derstädtischen Holding Graz. "Wir werden versuchen, intern umzuschichten, um das zustemmen", sagte Sprecher Gerald Pichler, "aber das wird dauern." Schwierig zuerreichende Stellen, etwa unter Autos, fallen ganz weg. Wesentlich härter dürfte das Verbotprivate Landschaftspfleger treffen.

Auch in Deutschland stehen die Laubbläser und -sauger seit Jahren in der Kritik. Es gibtwohl kaum einen Bezirksausschuss, der nicht schon einmal das Thema diskutiert hat. 2002hatte der damalige Bundesumweltminister Jürgen Trittin (Grüne) mit der Umsetzung derEU-Richtlinie 2000/14/EG eine striktere Handhabe motorisierter Gartengeräte gefordert:"Es darf mehr geharkt werden", lautete die Parole. Es reichte jedoch nur für einen besserenLärmschutz.

Die Beschwerden über den Lärm waren weiterhin so groß, dass einige Städte Alternativenausprobierten. Hamburg, München und Stuttgart sattelten teilweise auf leisere Akkugeräteum. Die machen zwar weniger Lärm. Das Problem für Flora und Fauna bleibt jedochbestehen.

gam

URL:

http://www.spiegel.de/panorama/laubblaeser-graz-loest-laerm-problem-mit-verbot-a-995805.html

Verwandte Artikel:

Fotostrecke: Laubsaison http://www.spiegel.de/fotostrecke/laubblaeser-diskussion-um-geraete-fuehrt-in-oesterreich-

zum-verbot-fotostrecke-119802.html

Psychologie: "An Lärm kann man sich nicht gewöhnen" (16.04.2014) http://www.spiegel.de/gesundheit/psychologie/laerm-wie-laute-geraeusche-die-psyche-und-

gesundheit-beeinflussen-a-964605.html

Lärmbelästigung: Die Welt hat keinen Lautstärkeregler (16.04.2014) http://www.spiegel.de/gesundheit/psychologie/laerm-ist-gesundheitsschaedlich-und-

verursacht-stress-a-964514.html

http://www.ris.bka.gv.at/Dokumente/Lgbl/LGBL_ST_20131108_111/LGBL_ST_20131108_111.pdf

http://www.spiegel.de/thema/umweltschutz/

http://www.spiegel.de/thema/juergen_trittin/

http://www.spiegel.de/thema/muenchen/

http://www.spiegel.de/thema/stuttgart/

http://www.spiegel.de/spiegel/print/d-89801843.html

http://www.spiegel.de/panorama/laubblaeser-graz-loest-laerm-problem-mit-verbot-a-995805.html

http://www.spiegel.de/fotostrecke/laubblaeser-diskussion-um-geraete-fuehrt-in-oesterreich-zum-verbot-fotostrecke-119802.html

http://www.spiegel.de/fotostrecke/laubblaeser-diskussion-um-geraete-fuehrt-in-oesterreich-zum-verbot-fotostrecke-119802.html

http://www.spiegel.de/gesundheit/psychologie/laerm-wie-laute-geraeusche-die-psyche-und-gesundheit-beeinflussen-a-964605.html

http://www.spiegel.de/gesundheit/psychologie/laerm-wie-laute-geraeusche-die-psyche-und-gesundheit-beeinflussen-a-964605.html

http://www.spiegel.de/gesundheit/psychologie/laerm-ist-gesundheitsschaedlich-und-verursacht-stress-a-964514.html

http://www.spiegel.de/gesundheit/psychologie/laerm-ist-gesundheitsschaedlich-und-verursacht-stress-a-964514.html



Mysteriöses Geräusch in Berlin: Der Wedding hat einen Knall (03.04.2014) http://www.spiegel.de/panorama/knall-von-wedding-raetselraten-um-geraeusch-

phaenomen-in-berlin-a-962307.html

Hauptstadtflughafen: Mehdorn entfacht wütenden Streit um Schallschutz (08.03.2014) http://www.spiegel.de/wirtschaft/unternehmen/mehdorn-wettert-gegen-nachtflugverbot-fuer-

berliner-flughafen-a-957661.html

Studie zu Lärmbelästigung: Flughafen-Anwohner erkranken häufiger am Herzen(09.10.2013)


Psychische Gesundheit von Großstädtern: Stadt, Land, Stress (30.08.2013) http://www.spiegel.de/gesundheit/diagnose/psychische-gesundheit-von-grossstaedtern-

stadt-land-stress-a-919418.html

Studie des Umweltbundesamts: Krachmacher Elektroauto (23.04.2013) http://www.spiegel.de/auto/aktuell/elektroautos-sind-laut-einer-umweltbundesamt-studie-

lauter-als-gedacht-a-896082.html

Lärmforschung: Wenn Geräusche bloß noch nerven (17.07.2011) http://www.spiegel.de/gesundheit/psychologie/laermforschung-wenn-geraeusche-bloss-

noch-nerven-a-864747.html

DER SPIEGEL 40/2013 Artikel zum Thema Lärm: "Schrei nach Stille" http://www.spiegel.de/spiegel/print/d-114948734.html

SPIEGEL-Bericht: "Leise im Laub" http://www.spiegel.de/spiegel/print/d-89801843.html

Mehr im Internet

Harley Days 2014 http://www.hamburg.de/harley-days/

Mogo 2014 - Motorradgottesdienst Hamburg http://www.hamburg.de/mogo/

Bundesimmissionsschutzgesetz http://www.bmub.bund.de/themen/luft-laerm-verkehr/laermschutz/faqs/

Das Land Steiermark: Landesgesetzblatt http://www.ris.bka.gv.at/Dokumente/Lgbl/LGBL_ST_20131108_111/LGBL_ST_20131108_111.pdf

SPIEGEL ONLINE ist nicht verantwortlich für die Inhalte externer Internetseiten.

© SPIEGEL ONLINE 2014 Alle Rechte vorbehalten Vervielfältigung nur mit Genehmigung der SPIEGELnet GmbH

http://www.spiegel.de/panorama/knall-von-wedding-raetselraten-um-geraeusch-phaenomen-in-berlin-a-962307.html

http://www.spiegel.de/panorama/knall-von-wedding-raetselraten-um-geraeusch-phaenomen-in-berlin-a-962307.html

http://www.spiegel.de/wirtschaft/unternehmen/mehdorn-wettert-gegen-nachtflugverbot-fuer-berliner-flughafen-a-957661.html

http://www.spiegel.de/wirtschaft/unternehmen/mehdorn-wettert-gegen-nachtflugverbot-fuer-berliner-flughafen-a-957661.html



http://www.spiegel.de/gesundheit/diagnose/psychische-gesundheit-von-grossstaedtern-stadt-land-stress-a-919418.html

http://www.spiegel.de/gesundheit/diagnose/psychische-gesundheit-von-grossstaedtern-stadt-land-stress-a-919418.html

http://www.spiegel.de/auto/aktuell/elektroautos-sind-laut-einer-umweltbundesamt-studie-lauter-als-gedacht-a-896082.html

http://www.spiegel.de/auto/aktuell/elektroautos-sind-laut-einer-umweltbundesamt-studie-lauter-als-gedacht-a-896082.html

http://www.spiegel.de/gesundheit/psychologie/laermforschung-wenn-geraeusche-bloss-noch-nerven-a-864747.html

http://www.spiegel.de/gesundheit/psychologie/laermforschung-wenn-geraeusche-bloss-noch-nerven-a-864747.html





http://www.hamburg.de/harley-days/

http://www.hamburg.de/harley-days/

http://www.hamburg.de/mogo/

http://www.hamburg.de/mogo/





http://www.spiegel.de/extra/a-853891.html

Draft CECE position on Odelia study

CECE aisbl | Bd. A Reyers 80 | B‐1030 Brussels (Belgium) Page | 2

This is an extract of the CECE Outdoor Noise Positionpaper concerning the ODELIA study. The final Positionpaper will be published soon.

Equipment nr 11: Concrete or mortar mixers Equipment nr 13: Conveying and spraying machines for concrete and mortar

Low population, no relevance to society.

The period of emitting noise during operation is short in comparison to run time.

Influence of the Construction equipment manufacturer on engine manufacturers and truck- manufacturers very low due to little quantity.

To make meaningful groups for limits it would be necessary to fracture of the products in many different categories with even lower quantities (electric vs. Combustion engine, power groups, other size categories).

CECE believes also that there is a lack and still wrong data to base a “curve” to decide.

A preliminary project had been started on CEN Level to prepare the inquiry of the revi-sion of the standard.

The actual measurement procedures and conditions differ from the requirements of the OND. The manufacturers kindly ask to revise the requirements in the OND,

During the last revision of the product standard for the safety of conveying, spraying and plac-ing machines for concrete and mortar, EN 12001:2012, all the relevant requirements according to the OND had been included in the normative Annex. These requirements describe the measurement procedures and conditions according to the state of the art. The CEN Consultant on Noise has issued a positive assessment concerning these requirements.

The measurement procedures and conditions of the actual standard differ from the require-ments of the current OND. Not knowing the outcome of the ongoing impact assessment on the OND, we kindly ask:

to adopt the requirements of the measurement procedures and conditions of the product

standard EN 12001:2012 as part of the new Directive or

to give reference to the requirements of the product standard EN 12001:2012 in the new

Directive.

Attached, you will find the CECE Position paper, stating this accordingly. Furthermore, the position paper also states the conveying, spraying and placing machines for concrete and mortar manufacturer position about the proposed re-classification of those ma-chines. CECE position: Concrete or mortar mixers, Conveying and spraying machines for concrete and mortar are to be kept in Art. 13.

gabrimo

Typewritten Text

131 - CECE-Draft_position_paper_on_OND_180412.pdf 172 - CECE-Draft_position_paper_on_OND_18-04-12.pdf 181 - 2018-04-12_CECE-Draft_position_paper_on_OND.pdf

gabrimo

Typewritten Text

gabrimo

Typewritten Text

gabrimo

Typewritten Text

gabrimo

Typewritten Text

gabrimo

Typewritten Text

gabrimo

Typewritten Text



Equipment nr 55: Truck mixers

Low population no relevance to society during stationary use.

The period of emitting noise during operation is short in comparison to road travelling time.

Influence of the Construction equipment manufacturer on engine manufacturers and truck- manufacturers very low due to little quantity.

To make meaningful groups for limits it would be necessary split the products in two dif-ferent categories with even lower quantities (PTO driven and auxiliary engine).

A preliminary project had been started on CEN Level to prepare the inquiry of the revi-sion of the standard.

The actual measurement procedures and conditions differ from the requirements of the OND.

In June 2018, the new product standard for the safety of truck mixers, EN 12609, will be sub-mitted to CCMC. This product standard describes amongst others all the relevant requirements according to the OND. These requirements also describe the measurement procedures and conditions according to the state of the art. The CEN Consultant on Noise has issued a positive assessment concerning these require-ments.

The measurement procedures and conditions of the standard differ from the requirements of the current OND. Not knowing the outcome of the ongoing impact assessment on the OND, we kindly ask:

to adopt the requirements of the measurement procedures and conditions of the prod-

uct standard as part of the new Directive or

to give reference to the requirements of the product standard in the new Directive.

Attached, you will find the CECE Position paper, stating this accordingly.

Furthermore, the position paper also states the truck mixer manufacturer position about the proposed re-classification of truck mixers.

CECE position: Truck mixers are to be kept in Art. 13.



Picture: CECE-Counter

22

Summary-sheet, ver.: 2016-08-24

Current definition:

Technical Parameter: of source: Unit: Range, from:Range, to < Range > Current limit value [db(A)]Current test-code: Current test-mode: Remark(s):

P_inst.,net.Primary energy

source (engine)[kW] Full Full Full 0

??


Net installed poweEngine

(+exhaust+intake), [kW] 0,0 2,0 - 95

0 0

" " " 2,0 Full - 92+11lgP0 0

EI-Indicator: Population (EU-28) Typical operational mode: [days/month] [min./day] Typical area of usage: Typical usage:

48 210000 [month/yea 10 20 120 urban/suburban/rural intermittent

Technical Parameter: of source: Unit: Range, from:Range, to < Range > Proposal limit value [db(AProposal test-code: Proposal test-mode: Remark(s):

None None None None None None None None None None



Economical Impact:

Environmental Impact:

Other Impact:

Summary:

0

Ide

nti

fica

tio

n

11. Concrete or mortar mixer: A machine to prepare concrete or mortar, irrespective of the loading, mixing and emptying process. It may be operated intermittently or constantly. Concrete

mixers on trucks are called truck mixers (see definition 55).

Cu

rre

nt

reg

ula

tio

n

He

ad

er

Equipment No.: 11Equipment Name: Concrete or mortar mixers

Equipment Characteristic: 0Falls under article: 13

Stage:

OD

EL

IA

PR

OP

OS

AL

D

ata

:

CE

CE

PR

OP

OS

AL

CE

CE

Co

nclu

sio

n

This type of machinery is offered from under 2,2 kW with electric motors to over 40 kW diesel combustion engines. The proposed 95, 92+11lgP (for >2kW) limit will

cut off the complete production of some manufacturers (the biggest combustion engines driven self loading concrete mixers)

The noise emission is measured under maximum output of the machine. This does not reflect the noise load emitted to the environment. The machines run mainly

(70%) in mixing operation and 30% in pump operation.

Annual recorded run time is about 800 hours.

Example floor screed:

For single-family house with 200m² about 10m³ floor screed are needed. Mixing operation is about 4 h at moderate rpm and load. Building construction takes about 9

months or 1500h . Laying the floor screed about a day.

Remark: Technical parameter for vehicles with PTO is installed engine power or auxiliary engine power

• Low population, no relevance to society.

• The period of emitting noise during operation is short in comparison to run time.

• Influence of the Construction equipment manufacturer on engine manufacturers and truck- manufacturers very low due to little quantity.

• To make meaningful groups for limits it would be necessary to fracture of the products in many different categories with even lower quantities (electric vs.

Combustion engine, power groups, other size categories).

• CECE believes also that there is a lack and still wrong data to base a “curve” to decide.

CECE position: Concrete or mortar mixers, are to be kept in Art. 13.

OND, Annex B, N° 55




25


Current definition:




??


P_inst.,net.Primary energy source

(engine)[kW] Full Full - 93+11lg*P

0 0



Technical Parameter: of source: Unit: Range, from:Range, to < Range > Proposal limit value [db(AProposal test-code: Proposal test-mode: Remark(s):

None None None None None None None Use EN ISO 12001:2012


?? ?? [month/yea 10 20 120 urban/suburban/rural intermittent

Economical Impact:


Other Impact:

Summary:

0

Ide

nti

fica

tio

n

13. Conveying and spraying machine for concrete and mortar: Items of plant pumping and spraying concrete or mortar, with or without agitator, whereby the material to be transported is

conveyed to the placing position through pipelines, distribution devices or distribution booms. Conveyance is carried out: - for concrete mechanically, by piston or rotor pumps; - for mortar

mechanically by piston, worm, hose and rotor pumps or pneumatically by compressors with or without air chamber. These machines may be mounted on trucks, trailers or special

vehicles.

Cu

rre

nt

reg

ula

tio

n

He

ad

er

Equipment No.: 13Equipment Name: Conveying and spraying machines for concrete and mortar


Stage:

There are mainly 2 types of machines: Truck mounted concrete pumps working on a typical job site, being fed by a truck mixer and pneumatic conveyors for the

transport of floor screed (there are also pump for conveying and spraying of exterior plaster. They should be dealy with separately, examples and the poulation in

Germany con be found in Annex 2.

Example Concrete Pump:

Distribution of the noise emission over time:

The noise emission is measured under maximum output of the machine. This does not reflect the noise load emitted to the environment. The machines are

predominantly operated under a partial load.

In average 11 000m3 of concrete is pumped per year per machine. The average output is about 70 m3/h which leads to a run time of the concrete pump of only 160 h

per year.

The actual noise exposure during a workday should be taken into account.

Example floor screed pump:


The noise emission is measured under maximum output of the machine. The machines run mainly (70%) in mixing operation and 30% in pump operation.

Annual recorded run time is about 1,000 hours.

30% is done at rated rpm as the pumping function requires the rated power. Noise emissions are rated at full load to be comparable among manufacturers.

For single-family house with 200m² about 10m³ floor screed are needed. Mixing operation is about 2,5 h at rated rpm and load. Building construction takes about 9

months or 1500h . Laying the floor screed about a day.

Duration of the discomfort caused by the mixing function 2,5h.

• Low population, no relevance to society.

• The period of emitting noise during operation is short in comparison to run time.


• To make meaningful groups for limits it would be necessary to fracture of the products in many different categories with even lower quantities (electric vs.

Combustion engine, power groups, other size categories).

• CECE believes also that there is a lack and still wrong data to base a “curve” to decide.

CECE position: Conveying and spraying machines for concrete or mortar are to be kept in Art. 13.

OD

EL

IA

PR

OP

OS

AD

ata

:

CE

CE

PR

OP

OS

AL

CE

CE

Co

nc

lusio

n

EN ISO 12001:2012, Annex C

47 9.000




89


Current definition:




??


P_inst.,net.

Engine

(exhaust+intake), fans,

hydraulic

transmission, noise

radiation of drum

mixing and dumping

[kW] 0,0 55,0 - 109

0 0

" " " - - 55,0 90+11lg*P0 0



Technical Parameter: of source: Unit: Range, from:Range, to < Range > Proposal limit value [db(AProposal for test-code: Proposal test-mode: Remark(s):

None None None None None None None Use EN ISO 12001:2012


?? ?? [month/yea 10 20 20 urban/suburban/rural intermittent

Economical Impact:


Other Impact:

Summary:

There are two possible ways to supply the power for the hydraulic pump: PTO (Power Take Off) of the truck engine (95% market share and ca. 220- 360 kW power

range) and auxiliary engine (5% markets hare and ca. 45-90 kW ).

kW kW. They should be dealy with separately. Examples and the poulation in Germany can be found in Annex 3.

People are commonly aware of truck mixers in transit from the mixing plant to the job site. Driving and waiting is not part of the machine in operation process, it is part

of the transportation process. The transportation process is excluded in the scope of the directive.


Remixing upon arrival on the job site takes about 4 minutes. The remixing is generally done under full power. For loading and unloading instead little power and

minimum rpm are necessary. Unloading time into a concrete pump is about 10 min. Afterwards the cleaning also at min rpm takes another 5 min. During transit and

waiting time only minimum rpm are allowed not to influence the concrete properties.

The noise created by turning over the material in the drum during transit or loading and unloading can not be influenced.

A truck mixer will do about 5 tours a day in average. That means the portion of high power and rpm operation is only about 4 %. The relevance to society may be

questioned.

Many of the data is not correct (wrong companies, cranes included, concrete mixers included, no truck mixers exists below 45 kW, etc.)

• Low population no relevance to society during stationary use.

• The period of emitting noise during operation is short in comparison to road travelling time.


• To make meaningful groups for limits it would be necessary split the products in two different categories with even lower quantities (PTO driven and auxiliary

engine).

CECE position: Truck mixers are to be kept in Art. 13.

OD

EL

IA PR

OP

OS

AL

Data

:

CE

CE

PR

OP

OS

AL

CE

CE

Co

nc

lusio

n

0

Ide

nti

fica

tio

n

55. Truck mixer: A vehicle which is equipped with a drum to transport ready-mixed concrete from the concrete mixing plant to the job site; the drum may rotate when the vehicle is driving

or stand still. The drum is emptied on the job site by rotating the drum. The drum is driven either by the driving engine of the vehicle or by a supplementary engine.

Cu

rre

nt

reg

ula

tio

n

He

ad

er

Equipment No.: 55Equipment Name: Truck mixers


Stage:

OND, Annex B, N° 55

prEN 12609, Annex B

47 38.000

1

Frankfurt, 9th April 2018

Contact: Frederik King

Phone: +49 69 6603 1396 Fax: +49 69 6603 2396 Email: [email protected]

Subject: Public Consultation OND

Dear Madam or Sir,

My name is Frederik King, I am the Technical Director of EUnited Cleaning1. EUnited Cleaning (http://www.eu-nited.net/cleaning/) represents the leading manufacturers of cleaning machines including High-Pressure Cleaner for commercial and industrial use in Europe. In addition to our previous position papers, we would like to point out the following items.

1) High pressure cleaners Setting a limit of LWA = 95 dB(A) with shift to Article 12 from Article 13: 1.1) High pressure cleaners have an Operator Presence Control (machine shut-off if not in use) as new state of the art and are used intermittently:

• Application time: 2-6 hours/a Max. 6-18 kWh/a energy consumption.

• Data supported by ErP Work Document 2015-2017: 19,2 kWh/a (with 12h/a application, worst case)2

1.2) Changes on Motor and Fan as also suggested in ErP Lot 30: Motors and Drives and revision of 327/2001/EU, which would also be here necessary, would lead to:

• Weight gain: Up to 100 %

• Size gain: Up to 150 %

• Additional cost for customer: ~ +250 %

• Efficiency of motor: ~ +10-15 %

• Cleaning efficiency: - 30-50 % longer application wrong approach!

1

The association of European cleaning machines manufacturers - EUnited Cleaning - represents the leading producers of floor cleaning machines and high-pressure cleaners for commercial and industrial use. Members are: Columbus, Comac, Diversey, Electrostar, FIMAP, Ghibli, Hako, Kärcher, Nilfisk, Numatic, RCM, RUWAC, Schwamborn, Starmix, Stihl, Stolzenberg, Tennant, Truvox, TTS Cleantech, Wetrok. 2 Working Plan 2015-2017 implementing Directive 2009/125/EC - Task 3 - Draft Final Report

gabrimo

Typewritten Text

gabrimo

Typewritten Text

133 - EUnited_Cleaning_Position_Paper_OND_Public_Consultation_13_04_2018.pdf

2

• Savings/efficiency not in relation to costs and inacceptable function reduction o High pressure cleaners receive exemption for review of Fans Regulation

(327/2011/EC) and Motors (Review of 640/2009/EC) due to intermittent duty and loss of efficiency and increase of material efficiency!

1.3) Lowering noise: Effect on efficiency as shown also for modifications on Motors and Fans:

• Leads to longer application time

• More material to be applied for isolation larger fan for cooling leads to more noise, which leads also to a new motor, which has the effects as shown above.

• Application of more material in contradiction to the strategic goal of the EU Com of material efficiency

• Price increases to large extent as shown above: Products in that range will not be sold anymore!

• Complete restructuring of machine would be needed in theory, which would lead to: o High impact on time of placing on the market due to extended tests, which do

not guarantee a successful conclusion on a new type of machine!

o Price range significantly higher as also described above

o Theoretical not in relation to costs and material waste!

• Application more in rural areas, difficult in dense areas in cities.

• Also, simultaneous application of several high-pressure cleaners is not given. Self-service washing systems e.g. have several lances connected to one central system in an isolated Technical Room.

As shown in our position paper in regard of the ODELIA Study taking the above-mentioned points into account, the results of the rated sound power level averaged over a year lead to a small value (see “OND Comments of EUnited Cleaning_10092015”)

2.) Sweepers falling under EN 60335-2-72 -> Ride-on and walk-behind sweepers 2.1) Walk-behind sweepers without an energy source under EN 60335-2-72: Particular requirements for floor treatment machines with or without traction drive, for commercial use, are manually pushed and are not machines as defined in the Machinery Directive. 2.2) Walk-behind sweepers under EN 60335-2-72 with a traction-drive are intended to be used inside factories and logistical facilities and not outside of them. That is why they are no machines that shall fall under the Outdoor Noise Directive. 2.3) Ride-on sweepers under EN 60335-2-72 are intended to be used, as walk-behind sweepers with traction drive under EN 60335-2-72, inside factories and logistical facilities and their population is the lowest in the field, which shows that even if once applied outside, their application is not dense and not within residential areas. As a conclusion we would suggest to leave sweepers under EN 60335-2-72 as a borderline to (road sweepers) EN 15429-1 out of the scope.

3

We thank you in advance for your time and looking forward to work together with you. Kind regards,

Frederik King

Technical Director EUnited Cleaning

1

Brussels, 10th September, 2015

Michael Dittrich Contact:

TNO

Stieltjesweg 1 Charalambos Freed and Jens Giegerich

2628 CK Delft Phone: +49 69 6603-1396

Fax: +49 69 6603-2396 Mobile: +49 170 5651265 Mobile: +49 160 96544567

Email: [email protected] and [email protected]

Request/Comments Concerning ODELIA Draft Intermediate Study Report with regards to high pressure cleaners

Dear Michael Dittrich,

My name is Charalambos Freed, I am the Technical Director of EUnited Cleaning and Chairman (CLC)/Issue Manager of EN 60335-2-79: Particular requirements for high pressure cleaners and steam cleaners. EUnited Cleaning1 (http://www.eu-nited.net/cleaning/) represents the leading producers of floor cleaning machines and high pressure cleaners for commercial and industrial use.

After closer study of the intermediate ODELIA report and the meeting with you, Michael Dodds and your colleagues we would like to comment on the high pressure cleaners <3 kW:

1.) PG 27: High pressure cleaners

1) Setting a limit of LWA = 95 dB(A) with shift to Article 12 from Article 13:

High pressure cleaners have an Operator Presence Control (machine shut-off if not in use) as new state of the art and are used intermittently.

i) Application time: 2-6 hours/a Max. 6-18 kWh/a energy consumption.

Data supported by ErP Work Document 2015-2017: 19,2 kWh/a (with 12h/a application, worst case)2

Changes on Motor and Fan as also suggested in ErP Lot 30: Motors and Drives and revision of 327/2001/EU, which would also be here necessary, would lead to:

Weight gain: Up to 100 %

i) Size gain: Up to 150 %

ii) Additional cost for customer: ~ +250 %

iii) Efficiency of motor: ~ +10-15 %

1 The association of European cleaning machines manufacturers - EUnited Cleaning - represents the leading

producers of floor cleaning machines and high pressure cleaners for commercial and industrial use. Members are: Columbus, Comac, Diversey, FIMAP, Ghibli, Hako, Kärcher, Nilfisk, Numatic, RCM, Schwamborn, Starmix, Stolzenberg, Tennant, Truvox, TTS Cleantech. 2 Working Plan 2015-2017 implementing Directive 2009/125/EC - Task 3 - Draft Final Report

gabrimo

Typewritten Text

gabrimo

Typewritten Text

133 - OND_comments_of_EUnited_Cleaning_10092015.pdf

gabrimo

Typewritten Text

2

iv) Cleaning efficiency: - 30-50 % longer application wrong approach!

savings/efficiency not in relation to costs and inacceptable function reduction!

High pressure cleaners receive exemption for review of Fans Regulation (327/2011/EC) and Motors (Review of 640/2009/EC) due to intermittent duty and loss of efficiency and increase of material efficiency!

Lowering noise: Effect on efficiency as shown also for modifications on Motors and Fans.

i) Leads to longer application time

ii) More material to be applied for isolation larger fan for cooling leads to more noise, which leads also to a new motor, which has the effects as shown above.

iii) Application of more material in contradiction to material efficiency set out by the EU COM for ecodesign requirements and mobility not given!

iv) Price increases to large extent as shown above: Products in that range will not be sold anymore!

v) Complete restructuring of machine would be needed in theory, which would lead to:

(1) High impact on time of placing on the market due to extended tests, which do not guarantee a successful conclusion on a new type of machine!

(2) Price range significantly higher as also described above

(3) Theoretical not in relation to costs and material waste!

Application more in rural areas, difficult in dense areas in cities.

Also simultaneous application of several high pressure cleaners not given. Self-service washing systems e.g. have several lances connected to one central system in an isolated Technical Room.

Taking the above mentioned points into account, the results of the rated sound power level averaged over a year as defined in Appendix B of the ODELIA Draft Intermediate Study Report for the EU Commission, would lead to a very different result as given.

(1)

Table 1: Parameters for the calculation of of the rated sound power level averaged over a year.

Eq. no.

Equipment Lwa C

op C

e/n C

t/p C

int n

month n

day t

use Figures

27 High pressure water jet machines

93 3 0 5 6 10 10 60 ODELIA

93 3 0 0 3 3 4 60 EUnited Cleaning

Results for equipment No. 27, high pressure water jet machines:

3

The result shows that the burden for the environment in terms of noise is far less than originally estimated and, as already stated above, additional restrictions to this product group would lead to contradictions of measures which are implemented or will be implemented by the EU COM such as material efficiency, less environmental burden, and an extreme rise in its costs.

1.1) Oil-/gas-heated high pressure cleaners Pel < 3 kW, however, Pheat ≥ 25 kW

The distinction made for high pressure cleaners in the ODELIA study leads to an issue regarding oil-/gas-heated high pressure cleaners Pel < 3 kW. Pel for these products may well be at 3 kW or less, however, Pheat has to be taken into account, which would lead to following:

Ptot = Pel + Pheat ≥ 28 kW!

These products are professional machines with a very low population in the market and are not sold via consumer markets! The machines are applied in rural areas and also have an Operator Presence Control, which shuts off the machine when letting off the trigger of the lance.

According to the definition of the machines made in ODELIA they would fall under EN 60335-2-79 and EN 1829-1!

As a conclusion we would suggest that these machines shall not fall under Article 12.

2.) PG 46: Sweepers falling under EN 60335-2-72 Ride-on and walk-behind sweepers

2.1) Walk-behind sweepers without an energy source under EN 60335-2-72: Particular requirements for floor treatment machines with or without traction drive, for commercial use, are manually pushed and are not machines as defined in the Machinery Directive.

2.2) Walk-behind sweepers under EN 60335-2-72 with a traction-drive are intended to be used inside factories and logistical facilities and not outside of them. That is why they are no machines that shall fall under the Outdoor Noise Directive.

2.3) Ride-on sweepers under EN 60335-2-72 are intended to be used, as walk-behind sweepers with traction drive under EN 60335-2-72, inside factories and logistical facilities and their population is the lowest in the field, which shows that even if once applied outside, their application is not dense and not within residential areas.

As a conclusion we would suggest to leave sweepers under EN 60335-2-72 as a borderline to (road sweepers) EN 15429-1 out of the scope.

We thank you in advance for your time and help and look forward to hearing from you soon.

Best regards,

Charalambos Freed Technical Director EUnited Cleaning Secretary IEC SC 61J Convenor CLC TC 61 WG 10 Issue Manager EN 60335-2-72+60335-2-79

gabrimo

Typewritten Text

137 - EUnited_ME_Position_OND_2018-04.pdf

• 2018-04[Frank Diedrich]

European Association of Municipal Equipment Manufacturers

Outdoor Noise – Roadsweepers (No. 46)

Sweeper – Definition according to EN 15429-1

machine primarily for sweeping material from airports, highways or other

traffic areas (e. g. parking areas, market places pedestrian zones,

pavements, bicycle lanes, parking lots). These machines are fixed or

dismountable attached on a carrier vehicle, on a specially designed

chassis, on a pedestrian controlled vehicle or on a towed vehicle.

Sweeper can move material to a hopper or other type of container

attached to the machine by mechanical or pneumatic means, or by

combination of each.

Sweeper can be grouped into several sub-types

Truck-mounted sweeper

Self-propelled sweeper




Truck mounted sweeper

sweeping machine, where the sweeping attachments are fixed or

mounted on a standard vehicle-chassis, e.g. truck.

Truck mounted sweepers are subdivided primarily depending on the net

volume capacity into:

Large (> 4 m2)

Small (≤ 4 m2)

LargeSmall





compact sweeper with a specially designed chassis, where the sweeping

attachments are integrated. This machine can be a ride-on machine,

operator-assisted machine or pedestrian controlled machine fitted with a

seat or a sulky.

Self-propelled machines are primarily depending on the net volume

capacity subdivided into:

maxi-compact-sweeper (> 2,5 m2)

compact-sweeper (≤ 2,5 m2)

midi-compact sweeper (≤ 1 m2)

mini-compact-sweeper (≤ 0,2 m2)





midi-compact sweeper

mini-compact sweeper ?

?

?

maxi-compact sweeper

compact sweeper




Sweepers can be divided into three machine types




EUnited ME position (I):

Clear definition of sweepers is needed in order to make a clear

differentiation of the intended use between:

Outdoor ↔ Indoor application Typical cleaning of public areas ↔ industrial areas, residual zones

Definition with reference to EN 15429-1

46. Road sweeper

A machine as defined in EN 15429:2007 primarily for sweeping material

from airports, highways or other traffic areas (e. g. parking areas, market

places pedestrian zones, pavements, bicycle lanes, parking lots). These

machines are fixed or dismountable attached on a carrier vehicle, on a

specially designed chassis, on a pedestrian controlled vehicle or on a

towed vehicle.

Sweeper can move material to a hopper or other type of container

attached to the machine by mechanical or pneumatic means, or by

combination of each.




EUnited ME position (II):

Sweepers (No 46)

Eunited ME requests to keep the formula "90+11lgP" proposed by

NOMEVAL by which the noise emission limit value is calculated

depending on the engine power, but, however, it is not deemed to be the

proper basis for all types of sweeping machinery. The noise emissions of

these machines not only depend on the engine power, but, besides of the

engine, are significantly influenced by the hydraulic pump, the blower and

the power take-off to the sweeper body with the sweeping gear.




Twin-Engine-Technology

Alternative to

one-engine drive

Especially for truck

mounted sweepers

Both engines must

run during sweeping!!

Traction engine (107 kW) -

movement of the vehicle

Auxiliary engine (24 kW) -

drive of the sweeping system




EUnited ME position (III):

In particular for truck mounted sweepers, which have an additional engine

for the drive of the sweeping gear besides of the traction engine of the

truck chassis, a significant disadvantage arises towards "single-engine"

sweepers as both types of sweeping machines do not differ from each

other in view of the noise emission behaviour, but as different criteria are

applied when only the engine power of the drive engine of the sweeper

gear is used for the calculation of the limit value for "twin-engined"

sweepers

Noise limit value must be calculated based on the installed engine power

(including auxiliary engine power if applicable)




Noise package:

Manufacturers provide noise packages by customer’s request

Noise packages are not available & applicable for all sweeper types

Noise packages are not needed for all sweeping applications, e.g.

sweeping highways or construction sides.

EUnited ME position (IV):

No further reduced noise limits by legal requirements but regulated by the

market on customers’ demands!



Outdoor Noise – refuse collection vehicles

(No. 47)

Noise test code according to EN 1501-4:

The most problematic issue measuring the noise

emissions according EN 1501-4 resp.

2000/14/EC is the use of plastic tubes to

simulate the refuse filled into the hopper. The

noise of the tubes touching one another is

significantly high and cannot be reduced by any

noise reduction measure added to the vehicle

structure except housing in the whole bin

emptying area.

Some German customer’s ask for noise

emission limits measured without emptying

plastic tubes because this procedure does not

reflect typical waste conditions

EUnited ME already started to draft a new

proposal for revision of EN 1501-4



Outdoor Noise – refuse collection vehicles

(No. 47)

EUnited ME position (V):

EUnited ME appreciates the proposal of

Working Group on Outdoor Equipment

Noise (former WG7) to maintain refuse

collection vehicles in article 13 and not to

transfer to article 12 and, as a

consequence, to impose with limit values.

We further agree that the measurement

method described in EN 1501-4 should be

revised because it has only inferior relation

to the development of noise emissions

under real operating conditions of an RCV.

Future noise emission limit values should be

agreed on based on the revised noise test

method!



Outdoor Noise – Self-propelled snow

removing machines with rotating tools(51)

Self-propelled snow removing machines with rotating tools(51):

Besides of the small hand-held machines, this definition comprises also

big snow-removers according to EN 15906, such as snow cutters and

snow blowers, which are used i.e. to remove big snow masses from rural

roads, highways and mountain roads.

The high-performance of these machines plays a decisive role and,

normally, these machines are not operated in inhabited areas or in cities.

EUnited ME position (VI):

Self-propelled snow removing

machines with rotating tools

according to EN 15906

should not be imposed

with limit values.

Arbeitsring Lärm der DEGA

Informations- und Geschäftszentrum

Präsident: Prof. Dr. rer. nat. Michael Vorländer, RWTH Aachen, Institut für Technische Akustik, Kopernikusstraße 5, 52074 Aachen Vizepräsident: Prof. Dr. rer. nat. Jesko L. Verhey, Otto-von-Guericke-Universität Magdeburg, Abt. Experimentelle Audiologie, Leipziger Str. 44, 39120 Magdeburg

Schatzmeister: Prof. Dr.-Ing. Klaus Genuit, HEAD acoustics GmbH, Ebertstraße 30a, 52134 Herzogenrath Geschäftsführer: Dr.-Ing. Martin Klemenz, DEGA e.V., Adresse s.o.

Bankverbindung: Oldenburgische Landesbank, IBAN: DE23 2802 0050 1083 7201 00, BIC: OLBODEH2 Vereinsregister: Berlin VR 26648 B - Ust-IdNr. DE247578890

European Commission Directorate-General for Growth - Internal Market, Industry, Entrepreneurship and SMEs Unit C3 - Advanced Engineering and Manufacturing Systems 1049 Brüssel

Berlin, 14. April 2018

Öffentliche Konsultation zur Bewertung und eventuellen Überarbeitung der Richtlinie 2000/14/EG über umweltbelastende Geräuschemissionen (Geräusche von im Freien betriebene Maschinen und Geräte - Outdoor Machinery Noise)

Position des Arbeitsrings Lärm der Deutschen Akustischen Gesellschaft ALD zur Be-

wertung und Fortschreibung der Richtlinie

Der ALD befürwortet grundsätzlich die aktuell gültige Richtlinie 2000/14/EC zu den Geräuschvorschriften für im Freien betriebene Maschinen und Geräte. Sie trägt zur Umsetzung des Artikels 191 der KONSOLIDIERTE FASSUNG DES VERTRAGS ÜBER DIE EUROPÄISCHE UNION UND DES VERTRAGS ÜBER DIE ARBEITSWEISE DER EUROPÄISCHEN UNION von 2008 bei: „Die Umweltpolitik der Gemeinschaft zielt unter Berücksichtigung der unterschiedlichen Gegebenheiten in den einzelnen Regionen der Gemeinschaft auf ein hohes Schutzniveau ab. Sie beruht auf den Grundsätzen der Vorsorge und Vorbeugung, auf dem Grund-satz, Umweltbeeinträchtigungen mit Vorrang an ihrem Ursprung zu bekämpfen, sowie auf dem Verursa-cherprinzip“. Die Richtlinie unterstützt durch die Harmonisierung der Geräuschvorschriften die Schaffung des Gemeinsamen Markts.

Sie muss allerdings überarbeitet und besser umgesetzt werden, um ihre Schutzziele tatsächlich zu errei-chen und der technischen Entwicklung gerecht zu werden.

Fortentwicklung der Geräuschvorschriften (Art. 12) Damit die Geräuschvorschriften einen Beitrag zur Verminderung der schädlichen Umwelteinwirkungen durch Geräusche leisten können, müssen sie den Stand der Technik bei der Emissionsminderung der Ge-räte und Maschinen vorschreiben und langfristig einen Beitrag zur Dekarbonisierung auch dieser Geräte leisten (stufenweise Elimination von Geräten mit Verbrennungsmotoren, soweit dies technisch möglich ist). Geräuschemissionsvorschriften nach dem Stand der Technik entsprechen dem Verursacherprinzip und dem Vorrang der Minderung an der Geräuschquelle.

Deutsche Gesellschaft für Akustik e.V.

Geschäftsstelle

Alte Jakobstraße 88

10179 Berlin

Tel. (030) 340 60 38 02

Fax (030) 340 60 38 10

[email protected]

www.ald-laerm.de

gabrimo

Typewritten Text

179 - 2018-04-16_Position_ALD_Outdoor_Machinery_Noise_final.pdf

Öffentliche Konsultation zur Bewertung und eventuellen Überarbeitung der Richtlinie 2000/14/EG über umweltbelas-tende Geräuschemissionen (Geräusche von im Freien betriebene Maschinen und Geräte - Outdoor Machinery Noise)

Position des Arbeitsrings Lärm der Deutschen Akustischen Gesellschaft ALD 14 April 2018

Seite 2 von 3

Es sind grundsätzlich für alle Maschinen und Geräte Geräuschgrenzwerte einzuführen. Die bisherige Be-freiung einiger Maschinen und Geräte ist nicht nachzuvollziehen. Das bisherige Stufenkonzept ist beizube-halten. In der Richtlinie (oder besser noch in einer direkt wirksamen Verordnung) sind feste Revisionszyklen (z. B. alle 5 Jahre) vorzusehen, damit der technischen Entwicklung und den Marktgegebenheiten besser entsprochen werden kann. Die lange Zeitspanne von 18 Jahren zwischen Inkrafttreten der Richtlinie und der jetzt geplanten Revision zeigt deutlich das Ergebnis einer fehlenden Konkretisierung von Revisionsfris-ten. Die bisherige Verpflichtung der Kommission zu Berichten1 nach Artikel 20 ist offensichtlich nicht aus-reichend gewesen. Die Verfahren zur Bestimmung der Geräuschemissionen müssen überprüft und gegebenen falls weiterent-wickelt werden, um realistische Emissionen ermitteln zu können. Sie müssen transparent sein, um eine Nachprüfung zu ermöglichen.

Kennzeichnung (Art. 13) Die Kennzeichnung mit den Geräuschemissionspegeln ist fortzuführen.

Wir teilen nicht die folgende Aussage im INCEPTION IMPACT ASSESSMENT: “the ‘Indication of the guaran-

teed sound power level’ (Annex IV) appears to be unclear, due to the amount of information on the current

format and its highly technical nature. The current provisions could lead to provide inaccurate or misleading

information to the users of equipment and citizens in general, not always able to comply with the infor-

mation objectives of the Directive.”

Unsere fachkundigen Gutachter können sehr wohl mit einer – korrekt gemachten – Angabe des Schallleis-

tungspegels z. B. von Baumaschinen umgehen. Anders ist dies sicher bei den Bürgerinnen und Bürger als

Käufer z. B. von Gartengeräten. Es wird deshalb für diesen Fall angesichts der für den Konsumenten in der

Regel unverständlichen Angabe von Schallleistungspegeln zusätzlich empfohlen, analog zur vergleichenden

Bewertung z. B. beim Energieverbrauch von Haushaltsgeräten („Ampel“), auch für im Freien betriebene Ge-

räte und Maschinen eine vergleichende Bewertung der Schallemissionen einzuführen. Wir befürworten in

diesem Sinne eine doppelte Form der Kennzeichnung, ggfs. sogar eine entsprechende Aufspaltung der

Richtlinie.

Datensammlung & Veröffentlichung (Art. 16) Die Geräuschemissionen der im Freien betriebenen Geräte und Maschinen sind in einer öffentlich zugängli-

chen und grundsätzlich vollständigen Datenbank der Europäischen Kommission zu sammeln, wie in Artikel

16 der Richtlinie vorgeschrieben. Der ALD hält diese Datenbank für unerlässlich. Nur mit ihr können Ver-

braucher zielsicher und schnell vergleichbare Geräte beurteilen und die für den Baulärm zuständigen Auf-

sichtsbehörden und Planer schnell überprüfen, ob vergleichbare, aber leisere Maschinen verfügbar sind,

womit auch die Erstellung von Baulärmprognosen effektiver und einheitlicher durchgeführt werden kann.

Eine einheitliche Datenbank wäre aufgrund der besseren Vergleichbarkeit auch hilfreich, um mehr Druck

auf die Baugerätehersteller ausüben zu können, leisere Baumaschinen zu entwickeln bzw. den bereits er-

reichten Stand der Technik ebenfalls umzusetzen. All dies ist auch Inhalt der Erwägungsgründe 10 und 14

der Richtlinie 14/2000/EG.

Wir widersprechen deshalb auch der im INCEPTION IMPACT ASSESSMENT geäußerten Ansicht, dass es „no

clear added value“ für die Datensammlung gebe und diese “already available on the market for each cate-

gory of equipment” sei. Das Problem der hohen Kosten ("the management of the received data is very com-

plex and costly”) lässt sich grundsätzlich durch moderne online-basierte Erfassungssysteme lösen. Hohe

Kosten fallen derzeit vor allem bei der Planung und Überwachung von Baustellen an, da die vorgeschrie-

bene Datenbank seit Jahren nicht mehr verfügbar ist und entsprechend zeitaufwendige und teure Recher-

chen erforderlich sind.

Auch handelt es sich bei der Anforderung an die Datensammlung und Veröffentlichung nicht um übermäßi-

gen Verwaltungsaufwand "excessive administrative burden", wie Frage 49 es unterstellt, sondern um den

1 Die Berichte scheinen öffentlich auch nicht vorzuliegen.

Öffentliche Konsultation zur Bewertung und eventuellen Überarbeitung der Richtlinie 2000/14/EG über umweltbelas-tende Geräuschemissionen (Geräusche von im Freien betriebene Maschinen und Geräte - Outdoor Machinery Noise)

Position des Arbeitsrings Lärm der Deutschen Akustischen Gesellschaft ALD 14 April 2018

Seite 3 von 3

ganz normalen Aufwand bei jeder Form von Datensammlung, die zudem Firmen durch zahlreiche europa-

rechtlichen Vorschriften ständig auferlegt werden.

Betriebsbeschränkungen (Art. 17) Der Art. 17 der Richtlinie (Betriebsbeschränkungen) sollte erhalten bleiben Es wird dazu vorgeschlagen,

Grenzwerte für besonders leise Geräte und Maschinen einzuführen, damit die Mitgliedsstaaten ein einfa-

ches Instrument haben, um gegebenenfalls differenzierte Betriebsbeschränkungen einzuführen.

M. Jäcker-Cüppers Vorsitzender der ALD-Leitung

[…]

Our request is also that the machines used in recreational “lawaaisporten” (it says in Dutch: noise sports) are taken into the scope of Outdoor Noise Directive 2000_14_EC

[…]

gabrimo

Typewritten Text

188 - 2002_24_EG_Noise_Directive___Outdoor_Noise_Directive_2000_14_EC_and_motocross.docx

gabrimo

Typewritten Text

gabrimo

Typewritten Text

gabrimo

Typewritten Text

gabrimo

Typewritten Text

gabrimo

Typewritten Text

gabrimo

Typewritten Text

gabrimo

Typewritten Text

gabrimo

Typewritten Text

gabrimo

Typewritten Text

gabrimo

Typewritten Text

gabrimo

Typewritten Text

gabrimo

Typewritten Text

Orgalime, the European Engineering Industries Association, speaks for 42 trade federations representing the mechanical, electrical, electronic, metalworking & metal articles industries of 23 European countries. The industry employs nearly 11 million people in the EU and in 2016 accounted for some €2,000 billion of output. The industry represents over a quarter of the output of manufactured products

and over a third of the manufactured exports of the European Union.

www.orgalime.org

ORGALIME aisbl | BluePoint Brussels | Boulevard A Reyers 80 | B1030 | Brussels | Belgium

Tel: +32 2 206 68 83 | e-mail: [email protected]

Ass. Intern. A.R. 12.7.74 | VAT BE 0414 341 438

Position Paper

Brussels, 16 April 2018

HOW TO MODERNISE DIRECTIVE 2000/14/EC ON OUTDOOR NOISE

Orgalime core policy statements on the public consultation

Orgalime, the European Engineering Industries Association, speaks for 42 trade federations

representing the mechanical, electrical, electronic, metalworking and metal articles industries of 23

European countries. The industry employs nearly 11 million people in the EU and in 2016

accounted for some €2,000 billion of output. The industry represents over a quarter of the output of

manufactured products and over a third of the manufactured exports of the European Union.

Orgalime represents a wide variety of companies that manufacture equipment used outdoors, such

as garden equipment machinery, cranes and lifting equipment, and equipment used in the

construction sector in general.

Orgalime believes that, in the interest of better regulation, European industry needs a clearer and

fully harmonised legal framework. So, we welcome the evaluation of the Outdoor Noise Directive

(OND) as part of the REFIT programme.

We ask that the comments below are duly considered in the evaluation exercise:

1. The scope of the new piece of legislation should be maintained

Orgalime firmly believes that the scope of the Directive should not be extended. It is likely that most of the new equipment that would fall under a scope extension of the future OND is already regulated by the Machinery Directive (MD). The MD requires the manufacturer to provide the user with information on noise (sound pressure and sound power) in the instructions. Adding such new equipment to the scope of the OND would therefore only serve to add financial and administrative burdens for the companies concerned, by introducing noise marking requirements and possibly new noise limits without bringing any benefits in terms of better regulation or information for users. Rather, we believe the evaluation should serve as an opportunity to remove some equipment that still falls under the scope of the OND even though only a small number of items remain on the market.

http://www.orgalime.org/



gabrimo

Typewritten Text

191 - Position_paper_NOISE_CONSULTATION_FINAL.pdf

2

The European Engineering Industries Association




2. Mandatory third-party certification does not add value.

The industries represented by Orgalime have long-standing experience in deciding whether a

specific limit value is feasible or not, and so can easily use self-certification to place their

equipment on the market.

The OND should allow self-certification for all category of products.

The possibility to use self-certification will reduce costs for companies, enabling them to remain

competitive with their non-European counterparts.

3. Effective market surveillance

The industries represented by Orgalime are calling for an efficient and effective market

surveillance system, key to supporting better application of the legislation. As explained in our

recently adopted position paper on EC proposal “compliance and enforcement”, we are calling on

Member States to support an enforcement framework that requires equipment to be physically

checked for compliance and that makes it easy for each economic operator to demonstrate

compliance with EU legislation. Such a framework would require all actors involved to take

responsibility: in our view this would start with the EU co-legislators, who should adopt appropriate

and easily applicable law and keep compliance costs low and proportionate.

4. Test code assessments

The industries represented by Orgalime recommend reviewing the test codes in co-operation with

the sector involved, and advise the use of standards when available or the tabling of new ones if

necessary. Indeed, in the consultation performed within the framework of the Nomeval Report with

industry stakeholders, it was concluded that the test code assessment had many shortcomings

and needed to be reviewed. Manufacturers declared their preference for using European or

international standards, as many test codes presented a variety of problems including:

- Definition of equipment for which the test codes apply

- Test codes for which measured values no longer correspond to reality

- Modification of the operating conditions of measurements referred to in the test code

5. No database on noise

As already expressed in our contribution to the inception impact assessment, the industries

represented by Orgalime still believe that the noise database has failed to reach its primary

objective of informing the public as described in the Directive. The noise database includes many

examples of inaccurate or incomplete information and represents a heavy administrative burden on

manufacturers’ day-to-day operations. Should the co-legislators wish to continue publishing

information on noise, new digital information formats like QR codes linked to a manufacturer

website could be explored as an alternative. This would also help market surveillance authorities to

better perform their inspection duties.




http://www.orgalime.org/sites/default/files/position-papers/2018-04-05%20Orgalime%20position%20on%20Compliance%20and%20Enforcement.pdf

http://www.orgalime.org/sites/default/files/position-papers/2018-04-05%20Orgalime%20position%20on%20Compliance%20and%20Enforcement.pdf

3

The European Engineering Industries Association




6. Alignment of the OND to the New Legislative Framework

The industries represented by Orgalime call for an alignment of the OND to the New Legislative

Framework (NLF). As has been the case for several pieces of Internal Market legislation, this

would harmonise the definition of the economic operators and their role, the role of the notified

bodies and the various conformity assessment procedures available.

Alignment to the NLF would grant legal certainty to manufacturers and offer them guidance in their

daily business. It would also provide a flexible regulatory framework for placing products on the

market.

7. Turn the Directive into a Regulation

The adoption of a Regulation would enable coherent and homogenous application of the Directive

throughout the EU, would reduce administrative burden and limit scope for diverging

interpretations across Member States. By providing a fully harmonised legal framework in this area

across the EU, this would strengthen the competitiveness of our industries.

CONCLUSION

Orgalime industries believe that any potential revision of the Outdoor Noise Directive should take

into account the equipment specificities through a thorough assessment of the environmental

benefits and costs for equipment manufacturers.

Adviser in charge: Eleonora Piccinni (Firstname.Lastname [at] Orgalime.org)




European Materials Handling Federation

F E M A I S B L , B L U E P O I N T B U I L D I N G , B D A . R E Y E R S 8 0 , B - 1 0 3 0 B R U S S E L S – W W W . F E M - E U R . C O M F É D É R A T I O N E U R O P É E N N E D E L A M A N U T E N T I O N – E U R O P E A N M A T E R I A L S H A N D L I N G

F E D E R A T I O N - EUROPÄISCHER VERBAND FÜR FÖRDERTECHNIK – FEDERAZIONE EUROPEA DELLA MOVIMENTAZIONE

E DEL SOLLEVAMENTO

Tel: +32 2 206 68 65 Fax: +32 2 706 82 50 E-mail: [email protected]

FEM comments on the public consultation on the review of the Outdoor Noise Directive (2000/14/EC)

Brussels, 17 April 2018 FEM is the European federation representing manufacturers of materials handling, lifting and storage equipment. Several types of FEM equipment are affected by the Outdoor Noise Directive (2000/14/EC), notably industrial trucks, mobile elevating work platforms, cranes & lifting equipment, hoists and conveyor belts.

FEM would like to share its views on Outdoor Noise Directive (OND) in the context of its current evaluation and review.

1. The OND has brought minor benefits for the EU industry

The OND harmonised noise emissions limits for a series of outdoor equipment across the EU, which in theory increased market opportunities within the EU for equipment manufacturers. However, it should be noted that the noise emissions were not regulated in EU Member States for the vast majority of material handling equipment when the OND was adopted. Nevertheless, FEM acknowledges that the OND has prevented EU Member States from adopting different noise limits and measurements methods at national level. The very limited benefits provided by the OND did not compensate the substantial costs arising from its requirements, notably product redesign, third-party certification and administrative requirements. We firmly believe that the Internal Market objective can be achieved at a lower cost for equipment manufacturers.

2. The OND has negatively impacted on the competitiveness of the EU industry

The noise emission of outdoor equipment is not a key purchase criterion, unlike equipment performance. Therefore, quieter machines have not provided significant competitive advantage neither in Europe, nor on other markets where the noise issue is largely ignored. This latter aspect is all the more relevant since nearly 50% of our production value goes to exports outside the EU. This means our manufacturers are competing with non-EU manufacturers on external markets. In the context of the future OND review, this must be properly considered in order to preserve our companies’ competitiveness on external markets and their world leader position. Therefore, the revised regulation should neither prevent technological innovation, nor monopolise R&D resources.

http://www.fem-eur.com/


gabrimo

Typewritten Text

201 - FEM_Position_Paper_-_OND_public_consultation_-_2018.04.17.pdf




E DEL SOLLEVAMENTO


3. Benefits to the human health, well-being and environment have been limited

Besides its contribution to the Internal Market, the OND aims to protect human health and well-being. Direct impacts of the OND and its noise requirements on the health of citizens and environment have been limited to a certain extent. Average noise emissions of outdoor equipment have also been reduced due to local regulations restricting the usage time and locations. In addition, the noise aspect is also covered by other legislation, such as the Machinery Directive and regulations on noise exposure at work place. Furthermore, the noise emissions of outdoor equipment have been reduced thanks to technology, which is the core element of innovation and competitiveness of the material handling sector. This is notably due to the development of electric equipment, especially battery-driven and hybrid machines. These types of equipment, which are intrinsically quieter, progressively substitute combustion engine equipment in the market. The introduction of new technologies, like alternatives to lead-acid batteries, better monitoring of battery health and “quick charge” battery, will accelerate this trend. However, achieving a complete switch to electric equipment requires comparable performances to the combustion-engine products: this is not yet the case for all applications. Challenges in terms of battery capacity, weight and rechargeability have not been fully tackled yet. This market trend is also driven by other legislative requirements, such as the new engine exhaust emissions Regulation.

4. Machinery noise emissions should be considered in the overall legislative environment

Complying with requirements from different pieces of legislation affecting the same machinery results in a technical challenge, which consumes substantial R&D resources. The wide range and simultaneous application of several types of EU legislation often result in conflicting challenges and consequently additional technical constraints. The noise issue cannot be considered in an isolated manner from other objectives and requirements. Although noise emissions have been reduced thanks to innovation, results are rarely perceived by the end-user. Technological improvements have often been compromised by other design changes resulting from other legal requirements. For example, the implementation of new engine exhaust emission requirements (Stage V) will make difficult any further noise reduction for combustion engine equipment. The stricter requirement results in higher heat rejection caused by the engine itself and the after-treatment systems. Consequently, more air needs to be moved through the engine compartment to cool the engine through numerous or bigger fans. This is likely to generate more noise. Additional examples of supplementary obligations are energy efficiency requirements for electric driven machines, visibility and operability requirements for users as well as health and safety legislation.






E DEL SOLLEVAMENTO


The current noise emission requirements for machines, as set by the OND, do not overlap with other legislation. However, the noise aspect is also addressed in other technical legislation, such as the Machinery Directive, but also health and safety legislation on exposure to noise at the work place (2003/10/EC). The test codes required by other pieces of legislation are often different: results are not directly comparable. Consequently, this creates costs and unnecessary administrative burden for manufacturers. For specific types of machines, such as telescopic material handlers, there is a clear discrepancy between the different applicable pieces of EU legislation, especially the OND and the Tractor Mother Regulation (167/2013). In view of the OND review, FEM reiterates that a stable and coherent legislative framework is necessary for companies to plan their investments. A transition period between the implementation of two sets of legislative requirements is of utmost necessity for manufacturers to do R&D investment planning and remain competitive.

5. Self-certification should be enabled for all equipment types FEM believes that the Internal Market objective of the OND can be achieved at a lower cost for equipment manufacturers, notably by enabling self-certification for both Article 12 and Article 13 equipment. Manufacturers have gained experience in measuring noise emissions through the implementation of the OND and other pieces of legislation, such as the Machinery Directive. Indeed, the current OND already recognises that manufacturers can measure sound emissions for equipment subject to noise limits, but results are still checked by the notified bodies. In addition, self-certification will reduce the administrative burden, the time required to place new equipment on the market, as well as costs for manufacturers and, consequently, for end-users. Enabling self-certification for all equipment types is also in line with the present objective to align the OND with the New Legislative Framework. Furthermore, the current third-party certification does not substitute to proper market surveillance. Indeed, it neither enhances equipment compliance, nor guarantees a level playing field.

6. Current OND scope and noise limits should be maintained FEM calls for maintaining the current OND scope and noise limits for materials handling, lifting and storage equipment. However, some types of equipment, notably construction winches, should be removed from the scope due to the very low number of items on the market and the resulting disproportionality between compliance costs and impact on the environment. In addition, FEM suggests modifying test codes for some equipment types, such as cranes and lift trucks. The actual work cycle of the machines should be taken into consideration when defining the test codes. When a modification of the test code impacts the measured noise limit value, the latter should be revised to preserve the stringency level in line with the current legislation.






E DEL SOLLEVAMENTO


7. Transferring measurement methods in implementing acts

The OND does not support the adaptation to technical progress regarding measurements methods, also called ‘test codes’. Therefore, FEM supports transferring measurement methods from the main body of the Directive to implementing acts that could be more easily updated. In addition, the implementing acts should refer to harmonised standards. This will facilitate necessary changes in measurement methods according to technological and standardisation progress. Generally speaking, our industry supports the concept of “harmonised standards”, which are voluntarily used and confer a presumption of conformity to the legislation they refer to. Considering measurement methods determine compliance with noise emission limits, the voluntary use of standards risks creating loopholes that must be avoided. Indeed, equipment must be measured on the same basis to ensure a level playing field and avoid the use of alternative methods offering more favourable testing conditions. However, we acknowledge that manufacturers might need to use alternative methods to better reflect specificities of certain machines. If no standard exists for some equipment types, the implementing act should include the details of the test codes and give a mandate to standardisation bodies to develop the necessary standard. The objective should be to refer to the future standard once it is available.

8. The revised legislation should maintain the current labelling

FEM believes there is no need to change the current labelling requirements that have been used for around 15 years. Modifying noise marking is likely to lead to unnecessary confusion for both manufacturers and consumers. This will also result in unnecessary costs and administrative burdens for equipment manufacturers, which are contrary to the better regulation principles.

9. Data collection and the Article 16 database should be abolished

The current database and reporting obligation (Article 16) should be abolished to reduce the administrative burden for both the industry and the European Commission. This could be replaced by an indication of the noise level in sales literature.

10. Adopting a Regulation

FEM supports the adoption of a Regulation, instead of a Directive. It will contribute to a coherent and homogeneous application of the requirements in all EU Member States. Indeed, a Regulation reduces room for interpretation and mistakes when transposed into national legislation.



gabrimo

Typewritten Text

211 - 96208-2018_ma27-8207-2018-10__ffentl-konsultation-2000-14-zusatz.pdf

gabrimo

Typewritten Text

pag. 1/2

COMMISSIONE EUROPEA

Osservazioni

Consultazione pubblica aperta sulla valutazione e l'eventuale revisione della

direttiva 2000/14/CE sull'emissione acustica ambientale delle macchine ed

attrezzature destinate a funzionare all'aperto

18 APRILE 2017

gabrimo

Typewritten Text

230 - Consultazione_UE_Direttiva_rumore_macchine_esterno_18-4-2018.pdf

gabrimo

Typewritten Text

Consultazione UE Direttiva acque consumo umano pag. 2/2

OSSERVAZIONI RELATIVE ALLA DIRETTIVA 2000/14/CE

Nell’ambito della valutazione circa l’opportunità di modificare la Direttiva 2000/14/CE, vi sono alcuni aspetti delle procedure di attestazione della conformità di cui agli allegati VI e VIII della Direttiva che ACCREDIA ritiene utile siano presi in considerazione, al fine di garantire la sua omogeneità di applicazione da parte degli Organismi che rilasciano tali attestazioni e la necessaria trasparenza per il mercato.

OSSERVAZIONI ALL’ALLEGATO VI

Nell’ambito della procedura di attestazione della conformità di cui all’Allegato VI, l’Ente di accreditamento italiano ritiene opportuno specificare se gli accertamenti iniziali effettuati dall’organismo ai fini del rilascio del certificato possano essere effettuati sulla base di una sola verifica documentale o se invece necessitino anche di una verifica presso il fabbricante ed in tal caso andrebbe specificato il tipo di verifica da effettuare (strumentale, della conformità in produzione, ecc.).

Per quanto riguarda la sorveglianza periodica si ritiene opportuno definire: • per la prima procedura, relativa alle sorveglianze periodiche: il numero

indicativo di sorveglianze da effettuare nell’arco dei tre anni ed una periodicità di massima (ogni anno, ogni sei mesi) o, in alternativa, dei criteri con cui stabilirne numero e periodicità; sarebbe inoltre anche opportuno indicare la natura delle verifiche: solo documentali o in campo presso la sede del fabbricante;

• per la seconda procedura, relativa alle sorveglianze casuali: il numero di accertamenti di sorveglianza da effettuare nell’arco dei 3 anni, specificando le modalità operative per effettuarli.

OSSERVAZIONI ALL’ALLEGATO VIII

Per quanto riguarda la procedura di attestazione della conformità di cui all’allegato VIII “Garanzia di qualità totale” della Direttiva 2000/14/CE, relativamente alla sorveglianza sotto la responsabilità dell’organismo notificato, si ritiene opportuno specificare le periodicità ed il numero delle sorveglianze da fare, in particolare una verifica all’anno che è la medesima periodicità utilizzata per la certificazione dei sistemi di gestione della qualità.

Umweltbundesamt Dessau, 18.04.17

Christian Fabris +49 340 2103 6547

Richtlinie 2000/14/EG über umweltbelastende Geräuschemissionen von zur

Verwendung im Freien vorgesehenen Geräten und Maschinen (Outdoor-Richtlinie)

Umgebungslärm, der von Geräten und Maschinen ausgeht, stellt ein gravierendes

Umweltproblem dar. Dies hat die strategische Lärmkartierung nach der

Umgebungslärmrichtlinie 2002/49/EG für ganz Europa gezeigt. Für die Menschen in

Deutschland ist Lärm eine der am stärksten empfundenen Umweltbeeinträchtigungen. Dies

geht regelmäßig aus den repräsentativen Bevölkerungsumfragen zum Umweltbewusstsein in

Deutschland hervor, die das Umweltbundesamt im zweijährigen Rhythmus durchführt und

veröffentlicht (zuletzt im Jahr 2016). Nachbarschaftslärm, wie er auch insbesondere durch im

Freien betriebene Geräte und Maschinen innerhalb von Wohngebieten hervorgerufen wird,

spielt dabei eine nicht zu unterschätzende Rolle und belästigt regelmäßig mehr als die Hälfte

der Bürgerinnen und Bürger in Deutschland.

Vor diesem Hintergrund bildet Outdoor-Richtlinie 2000/14/EG mit ihren

Geräuschanforderungen an zur Verwendung im Freien vorgesehenen Geräten und

Maschinen einen wesentlichen Baustein zur Verbesserung des Lärmschutzes in Europa.

Deutschland hat die Outdoor-Richtlinie mit Inkrafttreten der Geräte- und

Maschinenlärmschutzverordnung (32. BImSchV) vom 29. August 2002 in deutsches Recht

umgesetzt. Über die aus der Outdoor-Richtlinie geltenden Emissionsanforderungen hinaus

beschränkt die 32. BImSchV die Betriebszeiten der im Geltungsbereich erfassten Geräte und

Maschinen in schützenswerten Gebieten in Deutschland. Damit wird die Bevölkerung

entscheidend vor erheblich belästigendem Nachbarschaftslärm geschützt.

Mittlerweile ist der Stand der Technik weit fortgeschritten: Es gibt neuartige Maschinen und

Geräte, die zur Verwendung im Freien vorgesehen sind. Neue Antriebstechnologien sorgen

für eine Veränderung der Geräuschsituation in sensiblen Gebieten. Neue Anwendungsfälle

bekannter und neuer Maschinen und Geräte führen zu bisher nicht bekannten Belästigungen

durch Geräte- und Maschinenlärm, die nicht durch die Regelungen der geltenden Outdoor-

Richtlinie und ihrer nationalen Umsetzungen erfasst werden. Soll die Outdoor-Richtlinie auch

zukünftig ihre sinnvolle Funktion erfüllen, bedarf sie dringend der Anpassung und

Fortentwicklung, insbesondere im Hinblick auf die Überprüfung der Geräte und Maschinen

im Geltungsbereich, auf die Bewertung und Überarbeitung der festgelegten Grenzwerte und

auf die Aktualisierung der Messverfahren unter Berücksichtigung der jeweiligen

technologischen Entwicklung.

Aus diesem Grund ist die Kommission durch Artikel 20 der Outdoor-Richtlinie dazu

verpflichtet, dem Europäischen Parlament und Rat über Erfahrungen mit der Outdoor-

Richtlinie und mögliche Anpassungen des Richtlinieninhalts zu berichten. Die Kommission

hat in den vergangenen Jahren dahingehende Arbeiten aufgenommen und unter Mithilfe von

Fachleuten aller Mitgliedsstaaten mehrere Studien finanziert und veröffentlicht. Zum jetzigen

Zeitpunkt liegen Ergebnisse aus fünf von der Kommission finanzierten Studien (NOMEVAL –

TNO 2007, Impact Assessment – Arcadis 2009, SME Test – Arcadis 2009, Merger – CEPS

2014, ODELIA – TNO 2016) mit konkreten Empfehlungen zur Überarbeitung der Outdoor-

Richtlinie vor. Derzeit wird bereits die sechste durch die Kommission in Auftrag gegebene

Studie durchgeführt. Damit sollten mehr als ausreichende fachliche Grundlagen für den

Bericht entsprechend Artikel 20 und die unverzügliche Anpassung der Richtlinie

entsprechend der Studienergebnisse vorhanden sein.

gabrimo

Typewritten Text

231 - 2018-04-18_Position_UBA-Germany.docx

gabrimo

Typewritten Text

gabrimo

Typewritten Text

gabrimo

Typewritten Text

Wir begrüßen grundsätzlich die vorangestellte Entscheidung der Kommission, die Outdoor-

Richtlinie 2000/14/EG unabhängig von der Maschinenrichtlinie 2006/42/EG zu revidieren.

Der Schutz der Allgemeinheit vor umweltbelastenden Geräuschen durch Geräte und

Maschinen, die für eine Verwendung im Freien vorgesehen sind, steht somit weiterhin im

Vordergrund. Ergänzend möchten wir folgende Hinweise und Anregungen zur Verbesserung

der Outdoor-Richtlinie geben, die die Kommission gern in ihre Erwägungen zur

Überarbeitung einbeziehen kann.

1 Grundsätzliche Regelungsart

Wie bereits das Impact Assessment 2009 gezeigt hat, erscheint es sinnvoll, aufgrund

grundsätzlicher Anwendungsbereiche der Geräte und Maschinen im Geltungsbereich (z.B.

Laden/Heben, Bauen/Erdbewegung/-verdichtung, Reinigen/Pumpen/Saugen, Garten-

/Landschaftspflege etc.) Produktgruppen zu bilden. Wir regen an, dies auch in einer

Novellierung der Outdoor-Richtlinie zu berücksichtigen. Es könnte der Kommission darüber

hinaus aus praktischen Gründen sinnvoll erscheinen, für die jeweiligen Produktgruppen

einzelne Durchführungsverordnungen zu entwerfen, vergleichbar mit der Systematik der

Ökodesign-Richtlinie 2009/125/EG.

2 Verwendungsvorschriften

Unter Berücksichtigung der Ziele des Immissionsschutzes darf den Mitgliedsstaaten nicht

das Recht genommen werden, Maßnahmen zu treffen, um die Verwendung von Geräten und

Maschinen im Geltungsbereich der Outdoor-Richtlinie in den von ihnen als sensibel

eingestuften Bereichen zu regeln. Nur durch eine solche Ermächtigung ist es in Deutschland

und anderen Mitgliedsstaaten möglich, den hohen Anspruch der Bürger an Ruhe in

sensiblen Gebieten zu gewährleisten.

3 Verfahren zur Messung und Kennzeichnung

Die Kommission sollte davon absehen, entsprechend der Neuen Rahmengesetzgebung

allgemein auf harmonisierte Normen zu verweisen. Das aus unserer Einschätzung

sinnvollere Verfahren wäre, bestehende (EN-)Normmessverfahren zur Bestimmung des

Geräuschpegels der Produkte im Amtsblatt der Europäischen Union konkret zu benennen

und zur verpflichtenden Anwendung in der novellierten Outdoor-Richtlinie festzulegen. Für

die Produkte im Geltungsbereich der Outdoor-Richtlinie, für die bisher keine normierten

Messverfahren bestehen, sollten Normungsaufträge an CEN vergeben werden.

4 Konformitätsnachweis

Um die Verlässlichkeit von Grenzwerten zu gewährleisten, müssen jegliche Angaben von

Schallleistungspegeln einer Nachprüfung standhalten. Sollte die Kommission in Betracht

ziehen, in einer novellierten Outdoor-Richtlinie ausschließlich auf Eigenerklärungen der

Inverkehrbringer zum Konformitätsnachweis zu vertrauen, regen wir dringend an, ein

Verfahren zur Ermittlung einer statistischen Unsicherheitskorrektur im Richtlinientext bzw.

Amtsblatt der Europäischen Union zur Anwendung zu verpflichten. Die Beibehaltung des

Konformitätsnachweises mit Hilfe benannter Stellen – zumindest für Geräte und Maschinen,

für die ein Grenzwert festgelegt wurde – stellt für uns jedoch die bessere Alternative dar.

5 Datenbank und Marktüberwachung

Wir regen an, dass die Kommission prüft, welches Datenverwaltungssystem für eine

elektronische Übermittlung und Verwaltung von Konformitätserklärungen i. S. d. Outdoor-

Richtlinie genutzt werden kann. Eine solche Datenbank kann durch den Zugriff der

zuständigen Behörden erheblich zur Verbesserung der Marktüberwachung beitragen. Eine

solche Datenbank ermöglicht es zudem, als fachliche Grundlage künftiger

Revisionsprozesse die Entwicklung des Technikstandes sorgfältig nachzuvollziehen.

Unterstützend sollten Inverkehrbringer dazu verpflichtet werden, den gekennzeichneten

Schallleistungspegel nicht nur auf dem Produkt selbst, sondern auch in Verkaufsdokumenten

wie z.B. Datenblättern oder Werbeprospekten anzugeben, um auch für Kunden komfortable

Vergleichsmöglichkeiten im Beschaffungsprozess zu ermöglichen.

6 Art der Kennzeichnung

Auf lange Sicht ist es ratsam, eine für Kunden verständlichere Kennzeichnung für die

Schallleistung eines Produkts zu entwickeln als die aus der Outdoor-Richtlinie bekannte.

Besonders in öffentlichen Beschaffungsprozessen ist es sinnvoll, Käufern die Möglichkeit

einer vergleichenden Bewertung durch sinnvolle Kennzeichnung zu geben (vergleichbar mit

der Energieverbrauchs-Kennzeichnungs-Richtlinie 2010/30/EU). Dabei muss das

Kennzeichen sowohl den absoluten Schallleistungspegel verdeutlichen als auch eine visuelle

Einordnung in die Bandbreite von Schallleistungspegeln in der Vergleichsgruppe gleicher

Produkttypen ermöglichen (bspw. durch Geräuschklassen). Wir regen an, für die Entwicklung

eines solchen Zeichens einen Normungsauftrag an CEN zu vergeben.

7 Europäisches Umweltzeichen

Wir regen an, dass anspruchsvolle Kriterien für ein Europäisches Umweltzeichen, z.B.

„besonders lärmarme Outdoor Produkte“, entwickelt werden. Ein solches Instrument bietet

einen geeigneten Anknüpfungspunkt für Verwendungsvorschriften der nationalen

Gesetzgebungen, um die Verwendung von besonders geräuscharmen Geräten und

Maschinen in sensiblen Gebieten zu privilegieren. Ein Europäisches Umweltzeichen kann

besonders für die öffentliche Beschaffung von umweltfreundlichen Produkten entscheidend

sein und damit die Entwicklung lärmarmer Technologien vorantreiben. Ein einheitliches

Europäisches Umweltzeichen für „besonders lärmarme Outdoor Produkte“ könnte auch für

die Kommission ein öffentlich wirksames Marketinginstrument zur Vermittlung einer

„neuen“ Outdoor-Richtlinie sein.

open public consultation on an evaluation and possible ... · 230 -...

Documents