summary report of the public consultation on an evaluation and … · 2018-12-13 · 1 summary...

1

Summary report of the Public consultation on an evaluation and

possible revision of the Outdoor Noise Directive 2000/14/EC

The Public consultation on an evaluation and possible revision of the Outdoor Noise

Directive 2000/14/EC1 ran from 23 January to 18 April 2018. It was conducted in the context

of the “Supporting study for an evaluation and impact assessment of Directive 2000/14/EC

on noise emission by outdoor equipment” developed between May 2017 and July 20182.

This summary report takes stock of the contributions and presents preliminary trends that

emerge from them, focusing on the quantitative aspects of the consultation input. The

contributions received cannot be regarded as the official position of the Commission and its

services and thus does not bind the Commission.

1. Objectives of the consultation

The objective of the consultation was to collect inputs on the performance of the Outdoor

Noise Directive 2000/14/EC3 since it became applicable in 2002, as well as on the options for

the possible revision of the Directive.

The questions in the survey related to the evaluation take into account the five evaluation

criteria:

Effectiveness: the extent to which the main objectives of the Directive (contribution to the

smooth functioning of the internal market, while protecting human health and well-being

as well as protecting the environment) were achieved, and factors preventing this;

Efficiency: the extent to which the objectives of the Directive were achieved at a

reasonable cost;

Relevance: the extent to which the objectives of the Directive are still relevant to the

needs of the market, including manufacturers and users;

Coherence: the extent to which the Directive is coherent with other legislation;

EU added value: the extent to which the Directive adds value as compared to what could

have been achieved at Member State level.

1 https://ec.europa.eu/info/consultations/public-consultation-evaluation-and-possible-revision-

outdoor-noise-directive-2000-14-ec_en.

2 The final reports of the Study and their annexes were published in October 2018: Evaluation

supporting study: https://publications.europa.eu/en/web/eu-law-and-publications/publication-detail/-

/publication/90f4d795-e192-11e8-b690-01aa75ed71a1 and Impact assessment supporting study:

https://publications.europa.eu/en/web/eu-law-and-publications/publication-detail/-

/publication/69de2e48-e17d-11e8-b690-01aa75ed71a1.

3 Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council of 8 May 2000 on the approximation of the

laws of the Member States relating to the noise emission in the environment by equipment for use

outdoors (OJ L 162, 3.7.2000, p. 1). Commission’s sectoral website:

http://ec.europa.eu/growth/sectors/mechanical-engineering/noise-emissions/.

https://ec.europa.eu/info/consultations/public-consultation-evaluation-and-possible-revision-outdoor-noise-directive-2000-14-ec_en

https://ec.europa.eu/info/consultations/public-consultation-evaluation-and-possible-revision-outdoor-noise-directive-2000-14-ec_en

https://publications.europa.eu/en/web/eu-law-and-publications/publication-detail/-/publication/90f4d795-e192-11e8-b690-01aa75ed71a1

https://publications.europa.eu/en/web/eu-law-and-publications/publication-detail/-/publication/90f4d795-e192-11e8-b690-01aa75ed71a1

https://publications.europa.eu/en/web/eu-law-and-publications/publication-detail/-/publication/69de2e48-e17d-11e8-b690-01aa75ed71a1

https://publications.europa.eu/en/web/eu-law-and-publications/publication-detail/-/publication/69de2e48-e17d-11e8-b690-01aa75ed71a1

http://ec.europa.eu/growth/sectors/mechanical-engineering/noise-emissions/

2

On the other hand, the questions related to the impact assessment considered the possibility

of changes in the format of the legislation, the alignment to the “New Legislative

Framework”, the scope, the noise limits, the measurement methods and test codes, the

conformity assessment procedures, the noise labelling and the collection of noise data.

Respondents had the possibility to choose the section or sections of the questionnaire for

which they wanted to provide their contribution according to their profile, and also to

complement their answers with a position paper and other relevant information.

2. Who replied to the consultation?

The consultation collected contributions from interested parties, stakeholders, organisations

and citizens in general affected by the Directive on its current functioning or by any

modifications potentially made to it.

The online survey gathered 232 contributions (129 individuals, 103 organisations), coming

from 14 EU Member States, as well as from Switzerland (EFTA/MRA country) and the

United States of America: see Figure 1.

Figure 1: Country of origin of the 232 participants in the public consultation

Out of the 232 participants, 91 (39%) declared to have detailed knowledge of the Directive,

its objectives, the limits and the requirements/obligations that it imposes. 58 (25%) of them

are aware of the existence of the Directive but not of all its specific contents. 82 (35%) of

them, mostly either people exposed to noise from outdoor equipment or users of such

equipment, indicated that they did not know the Directive. They were not asked questions

related to the functioning of the OND but a set of questions investigating their experience

with sources of outdoor noise and usage habits.

2.1. Organisations

Different types of organisations (103, 44% of the respondents) took part in the consultation,

including:

4 4 4 2 2 1 1 2

3

14

1 2

13

1

8 3

1 3 3

17 3

Organisations

Individuals

31

109

3

38 private enterprises

24 trade, business or professional associations

14 regional or local public authorities

9 international or national public authorities

5 non-governmental organisations, platforms or networks

3 professional consultancies, law firms, self-employed consultants

3 research and academia

7 other (2 manufacturers of machines, 1 public enterprise, 1 notified body, 1 organism

in charge of standards, 1 local authority, 1 NGO)

The majority of the 38 private enterprises participating in the consultation were large

enterprises (27 or 71%), 8 were medium-sized (21%), 2 were small (5%) and one of them

was a micro-enterprise; 32 (84%) of them are manufacturers or distributors of outdoor

equipment covered by the Directive, and in particular of construction equipment (18 or 47%).

See the answers to the question below and the related Figure 2.

What type of equipment does your organisation produce or distribute?

(n = 54, multiple answers were possible) Answers Ratio

Cleaning equipment 6 11 %

Construction equipment 18 33 %

Gardening equipment 6 11 %

Loading and lifting equipment 4 7 %

Power generators and cooling equipment 6 11 %

Pumping and suction equipment 5 9 %

Snowmobiles and snow groomers equipment 1 2 %

Waste collection, processing and recycling equipment 5 9 %

Other 3 6 %

Figure 2: Type of equipment produced or distributed by the 38 private enterprises which took part in

the public consultation (Note: some of the respondents are active in several sectors)

3

1

4

5

5

6

6

6

18

0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20

Other

Snowmobiles and snow groomers equipment

Loading and lifting equipment

Waste collection, processing and recycling equipment

Pumping and suction equipment

Power generators and cooling equipment

Cleaning equipment

Gardening equipment

Construction equipment

4

Only 9 (28%) out of the 32 manufacturers of outdoor equipment covered by the Directive

declared to have developed an internal quality assurance system: see the answers to the

question below.

Have you developed an internal quality assurance (QA) system to apply the full quality assurance procedure (Annex VIII to the Directive) to Article 12 equipment?

(n = 32) Answers Ratio

Yes 9 28 %

No 23 72 %

2.2. Associations

As for the 24 respondents included in the category of trade, business or professional

associations, 21 (88%) of them are business organisations. All the trade, business or

professional associations represent manufacturers of outdoor equipment covered by the

Directive or companies using such equipment.

2.3. Individuals

129 (56%) participants in the consultation responded as individuals. Out of these, only 12

(5%) reported being users of outdoor equipment, mostly gardening equipment, while 105

(45%) reported being exposed to noise emissions by outdoor equipment. See the answers to

the questions below.

What type of equipment do you usually buy / use?


Cleaning equipment 5 21 %

Construction equipment 2 8 %

Gardening equipment 12 50 %

Loading and lifting equipment 0 0 %

Power generators and cooling equipment 2 8 %

Pumping and suction equipment 2 8 %

Snowmobiles and snow groomers equipment 1 4 %

Waste collection, processing and recycling equipment 0 0 %

Other 0 0 %

Where do you use such equipment usually?


In domestic / residential environment 12 86 %

5

In community areas 1 7 %

In industrial environment 0 0 %

In construction works 0 0 %

Other 1 7 %

For how long do you usually use this equipment per day?


Less than 1 h 9 75 %

Between 1 h and 3 h 3 25 %



More than 8 h 0 0 %

At what time of the day do you usually use this equipment?


Early morning (05.00 - 08.00) 0 0 %

During the day (08.00 - 18.00) 9 75 %

Late evening (18.00 - 22.00) 3 25 %

Night (22.00 - 05.00) 0 0 %

All day-and-night long 0 0 %

Which type of the following activities causing noise from outdoor equipment are you exposed the most to?


Industrial noise from outdoor activity (from depots, freight handling, ports…)

8 4 %

Construction / demolition noise (building sites, land redevelopment…)

28 14 %

Community noise (cleaning and refuse collection, park and road maintenance, service vehicles, outdoor events services, building maintenance including aerial access platforms, power generation and pumping…)

59 30 %

Neighbour noise from gardening tools (mowers, chainsaws, leaf blowers, shredders, brush cutters, trimmers…)

94 47 %

Other 9 5 %

In which area(s) are you when exposed to noise from outdoor equipment the most?


In my domestic / business environment 90 52 %

In residential / community areas 60 35 %

6

Near to industrial sites 2 1 %

Near to construction / maintenance works 20 12 %

Other 1 1 %

For how long does this kind of activities take place usually?


Less than 1 h 11 10 %




More than 8 h 8 8 %

At what time of the day does this kind of activities take place usually?


Early morning (05.00 - 08.00) 6 6 %

During the day (08.00 - 18.00) 80 76 %

Late evening (18.00 - 22.00) 5 5 %

Night (22.00 - 05.00) 0 0 %

All day-and-night long 14 13 %

3. Preliminary findings

The preliminary findings from the public consultation are based on the answers of all

respondents to the questions as reproduced below. They are structured taking into account the

evaluation criteria and the options for changes.

o Findings in relation to the effectiveness of the Directive

Please state the extent to which you agree on the following statements on Directive 2000/14/EC:

a) The Directive has ensured harmonisation of rules and procedures across the EU for the covered outdoor equipment


Strongly disagree 1 1 %

Disagree 12 8 %

Agree 90 60 %

Strongly agree 30 20 %

Do not know / No opinion 17 11 %

7

b) The Directive has had an impact on competition from manufacturing companies outside of the EU



Disagree 28 19 %

Agree 32 21 %



In your opinion, to what extent did Directive 2000/14/EC have effects to any of the following?

a) Research, development and innovation on equipment


Strong negative effect 1 1 %

Negative effect 9 6 %

No effect 29 19 %

Positive effect 84 56 %

Strong positive effect 13 9 %


b) Noise performance of equipment




No effect 25 17 %




c) Level of compliance of equipment / Prevention of non-compliant equipment on the market




No effect 51 34 %




8

d) Information to customers / users




No effect 59 39 %




e) Ability of sectorial SMEs to compete in the market




No effect 33 22 %




To what extent do you agree on the following statements?

a) The implementation of Directive 2000/14/EC through national transposition acts was adequate and timely



Disagree 32 21 %

Agree 61 41 %



b) Noise emissions by outdoor equipment subject to noise limits (Article 12) have been reduced thanks to Directive 2000/14/EC



Disagree 21 14 %

Agree 84 56 %



9

c) Noise emissions by outdoor equipment subject to noise marking only (Article 13) have been reduced thanks to Directive 2000/14/EC



Disagree 55 37 %

Agree 62 41 %



d) Noise emissions by outdoor equipment would have been reduced anyway without the Directive due to technological development and the market itself



Disagree 46 31 %

Agree 39 26 %



In your opinion, does the Directive have effects or impacts that would be unrelated directly to its policy goals (the policy goals of the Directive being: smooth functioning of the EU internal market, protection of health and well-being of citizens and of the environment)?


Yes 20 13 %

No 49 33 %


In your opinion, are there any specific difficulties / barriers for stakeholders involved, in terms of practical and legal issues, in complying with the Directive?


Yes 17 53 %

No 9 28 %


How the requirements of the Directive have effect in the innovation of equipment?


No effect 8 25 %




10

According to your experience, which sectors have the largest share of non-compliance with the requirements of the Directive, and what is the share of non-compliant products on the market?

a) Cleaning equipment


Very small (<5%) 8 5 %

Fairly small (5-10%) 4 3 %

Relatively small (11-20%) 15 10 %

Fairly significant (21-40%) 17 11 %

Very significant (>40%) 12 8 %


b) Construction equipment


Very small (<5%) 10 7 %






c) Gardening equipment








d) Loading and lifting equipment








11

e) Power generators and cooling equipment








f) Pumping and suction equipment








g) Snowmobiles and snow groomers








h) Waste collection, processing and recycling








12

Do you think that third party conformity assessment procedures (with the intervention of a notified body) contribute to ensure that only compliant products are placed on the EU/EEA market?


Not at all. Internal control or production ("self-assessment") should be enough in any case

41 27 %

To a small or moderate extent. Internal control of production ("self-assessment") should be the most widely applicable conformity assessment procedure

34 23 %

To a large or very large extent. Internal control of production ("self-assessment") should be used in very few cases only or even removed as a conformity assessment procedure

59 39 %


Is information on noise emission level of equipment a criterion offered to and/or required by your customers?


It is offered and required 16 50 %

It is offered but not required 14 44 %

It is not offered but required 0 0 %

It is neither offered nor required 2 6 %

In your opinion, how the conformity assessment procedures of the Directive can be considered with regard to the following aspects?

a) Adaptation to technical progress


Very good 0 0 %

Good 6 19 %

Fair / Neutral 10 31 %

Poor 6 19 %

Very poor 4 13 %


b) Implementation, administrative and information burdens


Very good 0 0 %

Good 2 6 %


Poor 6 19 %

Very poor 6 19 %

13


c) Legal clarity and certainty


Very good 0 0 %

Good 10 31 %


Poor 3 9 %

Very poor 0 0 %


Please rank in order of importance (1st: the most important; 7th: the least important) the features that you consider when buying / renting outdoor equipment:

a) Price


1st 0 0 %

2nd 4 33 %

3rd 3 25 %

4th 2 17 %

5th 3 25 %

6th 0 0 %

7th 0 0 %

b) Power / strength


1st 5 42 %

2nd 2 17 %

3rd 2 17 %

4th 1 8 %

5th 0 0 %

6th 2 17 %

7th 0 0 %

c) Energy efficiency


1st 2 17 %

2nd 2 17 %

3rd 4 33 %

14

4th 2 17 %

5th 1 8 %

6th 1 8 %

7th 0 0 %

d) Safety


1st 3 25 %

2nd 3 25 %

3rd 1 8 %

4th 2 17 %

5th 1 8 %

6th 1 8 %

7th 1 8 %

e) Weight


1st 0 0 %

2nd 0 0 %

3rd 0 0 %

4th 5 42 %

5th 1 8 %

6th 6 50 %

7th 0 0 %

f) Aesthetics / style


1st 0 0 %

2nd 0 0 %

3rd 0 0 %

4th 0 0 %

5th 1 8 %

6th 0 0 %

7th 11 92 %

g) Noise emission level


1st 2 17 %

15

2nd 1 8 %

3rd 2 17 %

4th 0 0 %

5th 5 42 %

6th 2 17 %

7th 0 0 %

To what extent do you agree with the following statements?

a) I always prefer to buy / rent quieter equipment no matter what is the compromise with other aspects of the product



Disagree 5 42 %

Agree 5 42 %



b) I am happy to buy / rent quieter equipment as long as it offers similar features / performances to other noisier alternatives



Disagree 0 0 %

Agree 4 33 %



c) I am happy to buy / rent quieter equipment as long as it is not more expensive of other noisier alternatives



Disagree 6 50 %

Agree 4 33 %



d) I usually do not consider noise emission levels when buying / renting outdoor equipment



Disagree 5 42 %

16

Agree 2 17 %



Could you indicate the main reason for not taking noise emission levels into consideration when purchasing / renting outdoor equipment?


I just consider the price of equipment 1 25 %

I just consider other technical performance features o parameters of equipment

2 50 %

I do not consider noise emission levels as really important 1 25 %

How much more would you be prepared to pay for quieter equipment in comparison to comparable, but noisier, alternatives?


Nothing more (0%) 0 0 %

A bit more (up to 5%) 4 33 %

Moderately more (up to 10%) 2 17 %

Quite a bit more (up to 15%) 4 33 %

Substantially more (up to 20%) 2 17 %

To what extent do you consider the noise marking on equipment clear for consumers and users?


Not at all 2 16 %

To a small extent 3 25 %

To a moderate extent 5 42 %

To a large extent 0 0 %

To a very large extent 2 16 %

Where do you look for information with regards to outdoor equipment characteristics?


On general internet search engines (Google, Yahoo!, etc.) 6 21 %

On specialised websites / on-line sectorial communities 3 11 %

On product comparison websites 3 11 %

On publications of manufacturing / rental / leasing companies in the internet, media, brochures…

6 21 %

In specialised magazines 1 4 %

I usually rely on the advice of shop assistants 3 11 %

I usually rely on the advice of other experts, users or friends 6 21 %

17

Do you usually find information regarding noise emission levels of outdoor equipment?


Never or rarely 1 8 %

Sometimes 6 50 %

Often 4 33 %

Always 0 0 %

Do not look for this information 1 8 %

Do you think that an EU-wide on-line database of noise emission levels of outdoor equipment would be a useful resource for customers and users to help to select quieter equipment at the time of purchase?


Yes, it would be a useful resource 6 50 %

No, there are already other websites offering this type of information for different equipment

1 8 %

No, this information is already provided by manufacturing / rental / leasing companies with the equipment itself

3 25 %

No, I would still not consider noise emission levels when buying outdoor equipment

1 8 %


Have you ever received complaints, by your neighbours for example, with regards to the noise produced by your outdoor equipment?


Never or rarely 11 92 %

Sometimes 0 0 %

Often 1 8 %

Always 0 0 %

Are you aware of cases - without being directly exposed - where outdoor equipment is the cause of significant issues for the following types of noise disturbances?

a) Industrial noise from outdoor activity (from depots, freight handling, ports…)


None 56 53 %

Less than 10 cases/year 25 24 %

Between 10 and 100 cases/year 19 18 %


More than 300 cases/year 2 2 %

18

b) Construction / demolition noise (building sites, land redevelopment…)


None 30 29 %





c) Community noise (cleaning and refuse collection, park and road maintenance, service vehicles, outdoor events services, building maintenance including aerial access platforms, power generation and pumping…)


None 17 16 %





d) Neighbour noise from gardening tools (mowers, chainsaws, leaf blowers, shredders, brush cutters, trimmers…)


None 12 11 %





e) Other


None 17 63 %





Have you ever complained with authorities about noise disturbance?


Yes, every time 4 4 %

Yes, but only when it was really unbearable 30 29 %

19

No, never 71 68 %

o Findings in relation to the relevance of the Directive

Please state the extent to which you agree on the following statements on Directive 2000/14/EC:

a) The Directive protects the health and well-being of citizens and the environment, by reducing permissible noise levels of outdoor equipment



Disagree 26 17 %

Agree 92 61 %



b) The Directive supports adaptation to technical progress for equipment in the scope



Disagree 67 45 %

Agree 50 33 %



o Findings in relation to the efficiency of the Directive


a) Ensuring an internal market for outdoor equipment could be achieved at a lower cost with respect to noise reduction efforts



Disagree 13 41 %

Agree 9 28 %



b) Protecting the health and well-being of citizens and the environment by reducing the noise of outdoor equipment could be achieved at a lower cost



20

Disagree 13 41 %

Agree 7 22 %



c) SMEs are disadvantaged by the efforts they have to put into complying with the noise limits set in the Outdoor Noise Directive in comparison to larger enterprises



Disagree 7 22 %

Agree 10 31 %



d) SMEs are disadvantaged by the need to follow the third party conformity assessment procedure set in the Outdoor Noise Directive in comparison to larger enterprises


Strongly disagree 5 1§ %

Disagree 2 6 %

Agree 10 31 %



e) The improvement in reduction of noise emissions produced by the Directive exceeds its compliance costs to my company



Disagree 12 38 %

Agree 5 16 %



f) The increase in market opportunities created by harmonised European noise limits exceeds the costs to my company of complying with the Directive



Disagree 14 44 %

Agree 4 13 %


21


g) Having the same noise limits across the EU/EEA increased competitiveness and/or market opportunities for my company



Disagree 13 41 %

Agree 11 34 %



What difference does better noise performance (more reduced emissions) make to design and manufacturing costs of equipment?


No difference 1 3 %

Increase of costs of between 1% and 20% 25 78 %

Increase of costs of more than 20% 4 13 %

Decrease of costs of between 1% and 20% 0 0 %

Decrease of costs of more than 20% 1 3 %


What difference does better noise performance (more reduced emissions) make to the final price that your customers pay for equipment?


No difference 4 13 %

Increase of price (more expensive for customers) of between 1% and 20%

21 66 %

Increase of price (more expensive for customers) of more than 20% 4 13 %

Decrease of price (cheaper for customers) of between 1% and 20% 0 0 %

Decrease of price (cheaper for customers) of more than 20% 0 0 %


Do you think that the implementation of the Directive cause excessive administrative burdens (information, collection and reporting of data, etc.)?


Not at all. The administrative requirements of the Directive are adequate and proportionate

28 19 %

To a small or moderate extent 69 46 %

To a large or very large extent. The administrative requirements of the Directive are too heavy and mostly unnecessary

35 23 %

22


o Findings in relation to the coherence of the Directive


a) By merging previous legislation (7 product and 2 procedure Directives), Directive 2000/14/EC improved the effectiveness and internal coherence of EU legislation



Disagree 8 5 %

Agree 70 47 %



b) Directive 2000/14/EC complements other EU legislation / policy



Disagree 13 9 %

Agree 83 55 %



c) Directive 2000/14/EC complements non-EU / national legislation / policy



Disagree 28 19 %

Agree 50 33 %



d) There are overlaps / conflicts with other pieces of EU legislation (in terms of requirements, terminology, etc.)



Disagree 20 13 %

Agree 52 35 %



23

e) There are overlaps / conflicts with other non-EU / national legislation



Disagree 43 29 %

Agree 21 14 %



o Findings in relation to possible changes to the Directive

Would you be in favour of converting Directive 2000/14/EC into a Regulation (which would then be directly and uniformly applicable in each EU/EEA country)?


Yes 109 73 %

No 22 15 %


Directive 2000/14/EC could be aligned to the "New Legislative Framework" (in particular to Decision No 768/2008/EC). To what extent would you be in favour of the following changes which would be introduced by such alignment?

a) Aligning definitions and terminology to the body of EU legislation on health and safety of products in the internal market


Not at all 4 3 %

To a little extent 6 4 %


To a great extent 72 48 %


b) Establishing more specific definitions and obligations on economic operators (manufacturers, authorised representatives, importers and distributors)


Not at all 5 3 %





c) Establishing more specific requirements on conformity assessment bodies (notified bodies)

24


Not at all 9 6 %





d) Defining specific procedures on market surveillance


Not at all 7 5 %





e) Clarify the meaning, use and protection of CE marking


Not at all 9 6 %





Do you consider that the scope of Directive 2000/14/EC (in particular, the lists of equipment subject to noise limits and those subject to noise marking only in Articles 12 and 13 respectively) should be modified?


No. The current scope is appropriate and the lists of equipment are complete and exhaustive

49 33 %

Yes. The current scope is no longer adequate and the lists of equipment need to be updated

79 53 %


Could you please provide an estimation of the costs associated to the following options related to modification of the scope of the Directive?

a) Removing equipment from the scope of the Directive




25


Decrease of costs of between 1% and 20% 13 1§ %



b) Moving equipment from Article 12 (noise limits) to Article 13 (noise marking only)








c) Moving equipment from Article 13 (noise marking only) to Article 12 (noise limits)


No difference 5 6 %






d) Adding equipment to the scope in Article 12 (noise limits)


No difference 3 4 %






e) Adding equipment to the scope in Article 13 (noise marking only)


No difference 6 8 %



26




Which kind of costs have you considered?


Costs related to design and manufacturing of equipment 29 27 %

Costs related to marketing of equipment 7 7 %

Costs related to compliance / conformity assessment of equipment 29 27 %

Costs related to information on equipment 16 15 %

Costs related to administrative burdens 23 22 %

Other costs 2 2 %

Do you consider that the noise limits set by Directive 2000/14/EC should be modified?


No. The current noise limits are reasonable and achievable, as well as adapted to the state of the art, so there is no need for change

49 33 %

Yes. The current noise limits need to be updated according to the state of the art, and/or to make them more reasonable and achievable

81 54 %


Please state the extent to which you agree with the following statements:

a) Noise limits should be maintained only for a limited set of equipment



Disagree 31 32 %

Agree 16 16 %



b) Noise limits should be established also for equipment currently not subject to any limit or to noise marking only



Disagree 4 4 %

Agree 31 32 %



27

c) All the noise limits set by the Directive should be made stricter



Disagree 18 19 %

Agree 21 22 %



d) All the noise limits set by the Directive should be made less strict



Disagree 35 36 %

Agree 2 2 %



Could you please provide an estimation of the costs associated to the following options related to modification of noise limits?

a) More types of equipment to be subject to noise limits


No difference 3 4 %






b) Less types of equipment to be subject to noise limits








c) Making noise limits stricter


28

No difference 2 2 %






d) Making noise limits less strict















Other costs 2 2 %

Would you be in favour of changing the current marking system with a label indicating classes of sound power levels (as, for example, for energy efficiency class)?


Yes. The current system is not appropriate to provide the necessary and useful information

63 42 %

No. The current system is appropriate to provide the necessary and useful information

72 48 %


Do you think that changing label would be effective in increasing awareness on noise emission and in driving consumers' choice toward less noisy equipment?


Not at all 0 0 %

To a small extent 2 3 %

29


To a large extent 24 38 %

To a very large extent 13 21 %


Directive 2000/14/EC provides for four conformity assessment procedures (Annexes V to VIII). In your opinion, is there any need for change at that respect?


Yes, by adding more conformity assessment procedures from the modules of Decision No 768/2008/EC to the current ones

15 10 %

Yes, removing the conformity assessment procedures involving a third party ("notified body") and keeping the internal control of production procedure only

11 7 %

Yes, but keeping the same procedures and just aligning them to the modules of Decision No 768/2008/EC

38 25 %

No, the conformity assessment procedures are appropriate and should be kept as they are

24 16 %


Could you please provide an estimation of the costs associated to the following options related to modification of conformity assessment procedures?

a) Adding more conformity assessment procedures to the current ones in the Directive








b) Removing the conformity assessment procedures involving a third party ("notified body")

and keeping the internal control of production procedure only








30

c) Keeping the same procedures and just aligning them to the modules of Decision No 768/2008/EC















Other costs 4 3 %

Do you think that the current status and use of standards as methods of measurement of airborne noise in Directive 2000/14/EC (noise test codes) should be modified?


Yes. The current system is not appropriate to carry out the required measurements with respect to the state of the art

72 48 %

No. The current system is appropriate to carry out the required measurements

38 25 %


Which kind of modification(s) would you support?


Making reference in the legal text to the latest versions of the standards as made available by the relevant international and European standardisation organisations

24 22 %

Removing references to standards from the legal text and linking the measurement methods to a separate list of standards of compulsory use, to be regularly updated

45 42 %

Introducing the concept of "harmonised standards" of voluntary use conferring a "presumption of conformity" with the legal requirements, in a similar way as in the Machinery Directive 2006/42/EC

28 26 %

Other 11 10 %

31

Do you think that the current requirements on collection of noise data (Article 16 of Directive 2000/14/EC) should be modified?


Yes, the current system is not appropriate with respect to the requirements of the Directive

69 46 %

No, the current system is appropriate and feasible 33 22 %


Which kind of modification(s) would you support?


Removing the obligation to send copies of declarations of conformity 41 46 %

Sending copies of declarations of conformity to the Commission only 21 24 %

Sending copies of declarations of conformity to Member States only 4 4 %

Other 23 26 %

4. Position papers and other contributions to the consultation

19 positions papers have been submitted by respondents:

6 by trade, business or professional associations

5 by private enterprises

2 by research and academia

2 by non-governmental organisations, platforms or networks

1 by regional or local public authorities

1 by international or national public authorities

1 by other organisations

1 by individuals

Furthermore, 55 contributions have been provided in the “further information” free text space

at the end of the questionnaire.

5. Next steps

The Commission is analysing the contributions to the public consultation on the evaluation

and possible revision of the Outdoor Noise Directive 2000/14/EC. This will feed into an

Evaluation Study as a Staff Working Document, to be issued and published on the EUROPA

website within the first quarter of 2019, and an Impact Assessment Report accompanying a

possible legislative proposal for revised legislation on outdoor noise, to be completed and

submitted to the co-legislators (European Parliament and the Council) likely in 2020.

This public consultation is part of a broader dialogue process in which the Commission is

consulting sectoral interested parties and stakeholders. It will proceed to a wrap-up of the

entire structured dialogue and draw conclusions on the issues related to the evaluation and

possible revision of the Directive.

summary report of the public consultation on an evaluation and … · 2018-12-13 · 1 summary...

Documents