Upload
others
View
1
Download
0
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
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/.
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?
(n = 24, multiple answers were possible) Answers Ratio
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?
(n = 14, multiple answers were possible) Answers Ratio
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?
(n = 12) Answers Ratio
Less than 1 h 9 75 %
Between 1 h and 3 h 3 25 %
Between 3 h and 5 h 0 0 %
Between 5 h and 8 h 0 0 %
More than 8 h 0 0 %
At what time of the day do you usually use this equipment?
(n = 12) Answers Ratio
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?
(n = 198, multiple answers were possible) Answers Ratio
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?
(n = 173, multiple answers were possible) Answers Ratio
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?
(n = 105) Answers Ratio
Less than 1 h 11 10 %
Between 1 h and 3 h 50 48 %
Between 3 h and 5 h 26 25 %
Between 5 h and 8 h 10 10 %
More than 8 h 8 8 %
At what time of the day does this kind of activities take place usually?
(n = 105) Answers Ratio
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
(n = 150) Answers Ratio
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
(n = 150) Answers Ratio
Strongly disagree 9 6 %
Disagree 28 19 %
Agree 32 21 %
Strongly agree 11 7 %
Do not know / No opinion 70 47 %
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
(n = 150) Answers Ratio
Strong negative effect 1 1 %
Negative effect 9 6 %
No effect 29 19 %
Positive effect 84 56 %
Strong positive effect 13 9 %
Do not know / No opinion 14 9 %
b) Noise performance of equipment
(n = 150) Answers Ratio
Strong negative effect 2 1 %
Negative effect 3 2 %
No effect 25 17 %
Positive effect 90 60 %
Strong positive effect 23 15 %
Do not know / No opinion 7 5 %
c) Level of compliance of equipment / Prevention of non-compliant equipment on the market
(n = 150) Answers Ratio
Strong negative effect 0 0 %
Negative effect 3 2 %
No effect 51 34 %
Positive effect 51 34 %
Strong positive effect 18 12 %
Do not know / No opinion 27 18 %
8
d) Information to customers / users
(n = 150) Answers Ratio
Strong negative effect 1 1 %
Negative effect 3 2 %
No effect 59 39 %
Positive effect 63 42 %
Strong positive effect 13 9 %
Do not know / No opinion 11 7 %
e) Ability of sectorial SMEs to compete in the market
(n = 150) Answers Ratio
Strong negative effect 6 4 %
Negative effect 16 11 %
No effect 33 22 %
Positive effect 21 14 %
Strong positive effect 3 2 %
Do not know / No opinion 71 47 %
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
(n = 150) Answers Ratio
Strongly disagree 1 1 %
Disagree 32 21 %
Agree 61 41 %
Strongly agree 6 4 %
Do not know / No opinion 50 33 %
b) Noise emissions by outdoor equipment subject to noise limits (Article 12) have been reduced thanks to Directive 2000/14/EC
(n = 150) Answers Ratio
Strongly disagree 11 7 %
Disagree 21 14 %
Agree 84 56 %
Strongly agree 12 8 %
Do not know / No opinion 22 15 %
9
c) Noise emissions by outdoor equipment subject to noise marking only (Article 13) have been reduced thanks to Directive 2000/14/EC
(n = 150) Answers Ratio
Strongly disagree 11 7 %
Disagree 55 37 %
Agree 62 41 %
Strongly agree 3 2 %
Do not know / No opinion 19 13 %
d) Noise emissions by outdoor equipment would have been reduced anyway without the Directive due to technological development and the market itself
(n = 150) Answers Ratio
Strongly disagree 29 19 %
Disagree 46 31 %
Agree 39 26 %
Strongly agree 9 6 %
Do not know / No opinion 27 18 %
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)?
(n = 150) Answers Ratio
Yes 20 13 %
No 49 33 %
Do not know / No opinion 81 54 %
In your opinion, are there any specific difficulties / barriers for stakeholders involved, in terms of practical and legal issues, in complying with the Directive?
(n = 32) Answers Ratio
Yes 17 53 %
No 9 28 %
Do not know / No opinion 6 19 %
How the requirements of the Directive have effect in the innovation of equipment?
(n = 32) Answers Ratio
No effect 8 25 %
Negative effect 10 31 %
Positive effect 11 34 %
Do not know / No opinion 3 9 %
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
(n = 150) Answers Ratio
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 %
Do not know / No opinion 94 63 %
b) Construction equipment
(n = 150) Answers Ratio
Very small (<5%) 10 7 %
Fairly small (5-10%) 11 7 %
Relatively small (11-20%) 10 7 %
Fairly significant (21-40%) 24 16 %
Very significant (>40%) 16 11 %
Do not know / No opinion 79 53 %
c) Gardening equipment
(n = 150) Answers Ratio
Very small (<5%) 3 2 %
Fairly small (5-10%) 7 5 %
Relatively small (11-20%) 7 5 %
Fairly significant (21-40%) 20 13 %
Very significant (>40%) 28 19 %
Do not know / No opinion 85 57 %
d) Loading and lifting equipment
(n = 150) Answers Ratio
Very small (<5%) 5 3 %
Fairly small (5-10%) 12 8 %
Relatively small (11-20%) 21 14 %
Fairly significant (21-40%) 10 7 %
Very significant (>40%) 3 2 %
Do not know / No opinion 99 66 %
11
e) Power generators and cooling equipment
(n = 150) Answers Ratio
Very small (<5%) 8 5 %
Fairly small (5-10%) 6 4 %
Relatively small (11-20%) 19 13 %
Fairly significant (21-40%) 27 18 %
Very significant (>40%) 4 3 %
Do not know / No opinion 86 57 %
f) Pumping and suction equipment
(n = 150) Answers Ratio
Very small (<5%) 4 3 %
Fairly small (5-10%) 6 4 %
Relatively small (11-20%) 19 13 %
Fairly significant (21-40%) 14 9 %
Very significant (>40%) 7 5 %
Do not know / No opinion 100 67 %
g) Snowmobiles and snow groomers
(n = 150) Answers Ratio
Very small (<5%) 5 3 %
Fairly small (5-10%) 3 2 %
Relatively small (11-20%) 12 8 %
Fairly significant (21-40%) 15 10 %
Very significant (>40%) 10 7 %
Do not know / No opinion 105 70 %
h) Waste collection, processing and recycling
(n = 150) Answers Ratio
Very small (<5%) 9 6 %
Fairly small (5-10%) 10 7 %
Relatively small (11-20%) 15 10 %
Fairly significant (21-40%) 13 9 %
Very significant (>40%) 14 9 %
Do not know / No opinion 89 59 %
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?
(n = 150) Answers Ratio
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 %
Do not know / No opinion 16 11 %
Is information on noise emission level of equipment a criterion offered to and/or required by your customers?
(n = 32) Answers Ratio
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
(n = 32) Answers Ratio
Very good 0 0 %
Good 6 19 %
Fair / Neutral 10 31 %
Poor 6 19 %
Very poor 4 13 %
Do not know / No opinion 6 19 %
b) Implementation, administrative and information burdens
(n = 32) Answers Ratio
Very good 0 0 %
Good 2 6 %
Fair / Neutral 12 38 %
Poor 6 19 %
Very poor 6 19 %
13
Do not know / No opinion 6 19 %
c) Legal clarity and certainty
(n = 32) Answers Ratio
Very good 0 0 %
Good 10 31 %
Fair / Neutral 12 38 %
Poor 3 9 %
Very poor 0 0 %
Do not know / No opinion 7 22 %
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
(n = 12) Answers Ratio
1st 0 0 %
2nd 4 33 %
3rd 3 25 %
4th 2 17 %
5th 3 25 %
6th 0 0 %
7th 0 0 %
b) Power / strength
(n = 12) Answers Ratio
1st 5 42 %
2nd 2 17 %
3rd 2 17 %
4th 1 8 %
5th 0 0 %
6th 2 17 %
7th 0 0 %
c) Energy efficiency
(n = 12) Answers Ratio
1st 2 17 %
2nd 2 17 %
3rd 4 33 %
14
4th 2 17 %
5th 1 8 %
6th 1 8 %
7th 0 0 %
d) Safety
(n = 12) Answers Ratio
1st 3 25 %
2nd 3 25 %
3rd 1 8 %
4th 2 17 %
5th 1 8 %
6th 1 8 %
7th 1 8 %
e) Weight
(n = 12) Answers Ratio
1st 0 0 %
2nd 0 0 %
3rd 0 0 %
4th 5 42 %
5th 1 8 %
6th 6 50 %
7th 0 0 %
f) Aesthetics / style
(n = 12) Answers Ratio
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
(n = 12) Answers Ratio
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
(n = 12) Answers Ratio
Strongly disagree 0 0 %
Disagree 5 42 %
Agree 5 42 %
Strongly agree 2 17 %
Do not know / No opinion 0 0 %
b) I am happy to buy / rent quieter equipment as long as it offers similar features / performances to other noisier alternatives
(n = 12) Answers Ratio
Strongly disagree 0 0 %
Disagree 0 0 %
Agree 4 33 %
Strongly agree 7 58 %
Do not know / No opinion 1 8 %
c) I am happy to buy / rent quieter equipment as long as it is not more expensive of other noisier alternatives
(n = 12) Answers Ratio
Strongly disagree 0 0 %
Disagree 6 50 %
Agree 4 33 %
Strongly agree 1 8 %
Do not know / No opinion 1 8 %
d) I usually do not consider noise emission levels when buying / renting outdoor equipment
(n = 12) Answers Ratio
Strongly disagree 5 42 %
Disagree 5 42 %
16
Agree 2 17 %
Strongly agree 0 0 %
Do not know / No opinion 0 0 %
Could you indicate the main reason for not taking noise emission levels into consideration when purchasing / renting outdoor equipment?
(n = 4, multiple answers were possible) Answers Ratio
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?
(n = 12) Answers Ratio
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?
(n = 12) Answers Ratio
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?
(n = 28, multiple answers were possible) Answers Ratio
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?
(n = 12) Answers Ratio
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?
(n = 12) Answers Ratio
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 %
Do not know / No opinion 1 8 %
Have you ever received complaints, by your neighbours for example, with regards to the noise produced by your outdoor equipment?
(n = 12) Answers Ratio
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…)
(n = 105) Answers Ratio
None 56 53 %
Less than 10 cases/year 25 24 %
Between 10 and 100 cases/year 19 18 %
Between 100 and 300 cases/year 3 3 %
More than 300 cases/year 2 2 %
18
b) Construction / demolition noise (building sites, land redevelopment…)
(n = 105) Answers Ratio
None 30 29 %
Less than 10 cases/year 43 41 %
Between 10 and 100 cases/year 21 20 %
Between 100 and 300 cases/year 4 4 %
More than 300 cases/year 7 7 %
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…)
(n = 105) Answers Ratio
None 17 16 %
Less than 10 cases/year 27 26 %
Between 10 and 100 cases/year 36 34 %
Between 100 and 300 cases/year 13 12 %
More than 300 cases/year 12 11 %
d) Neighbour noise from gardening tools (mowers, chainsaws, leaf blowers, shredders, brush cutters, trimmers…)
(n = 105) Answers Ratio
None 12 11 %
Less than 10 cases/year 12 11 %
Between 10 and 100 cases/year 48 46 %
Between 100 and 300 cases/year 20 19 %
More than 300 cases/year 13 12 %
e) Other
(n = 27) Answers Ratio
None 17 63 %
Less than 10 cases/year 3 11 %
Between 10 and 100 cases/year 3 11 %
Between 100 and 300 cases/year 1 4 %
More than 300 cases/year 3 11 %
Have you ever complained with authorities about noise disturbance?
(n = 105) Answers Ratio
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
(n = 150) Answers Ratio
Strongly disagree 10 7 %
Disagree 26 17 %
Agree 92 61 %
Strongly agree 17 11 %
Do not know / No opinion 5 3 %
b) The Directive supports adaptation to technical progress for equipment in the scope
(n = 150) Answers Ratio
Strongly disagree 13 9 %
Disagree 67 45 %
Agree 50 33 %
Strongly agree 9 6 %
Do not know / No opinion 11 7 %
o Findings in relation to the efficiency of the Directive
To what extent do you agree on the following statements?
a) Ensuring an internal market for outdoor equipment could be achieved at a lower cost with respect to noise reduction efforts
(n = 32) Answers Ratio
Strongly disagree 3 9 %
Disagree 13 41 %
Agree 9 28 %
Strongly agree 2 6 %
Do not know / No opinion 5 16 %
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
(n = 32) Answers Ratio
Strongly disagree 5 16 %
20
Disagree 13 41 %
Agree 7 22 %
Strongly agree 1 3 %
Do not know / No opinion 6 19 %
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
(n = 32) Answers Ratio
Strongly disagree 2 6 %
Disagree 7 22 %
Agree 10 31 %
Strongly agree 7 22 %
Do not know / No opinion 6 19 %
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
(n = 32) Answers Ratio
Strongly disagree 5 1§ %
Disagree 2 6 %
Agree 10 31 %
Strongly agree 7 22 %
Do not know / No opinion 8 25 %
e) The improvement in reduction of noise emissions produced by the Directive exceeds its compliance costs to my company
(n = 32) Answers Ratio
Strongly disagree 3 9 %
Disagree 12 38 %
Agree 5 16 %
Strongly agree 0 0 %
Do not know / No opinion 12 38 %
f) The increase in market opportunities created by harmonised European noise limits exceeds the costs to my company of complying with the Directive
(n = 32) Answers Ratio
Strongly disagree 2 6 %
Disagree 14 44 %
Agree 4 13 %
Strongly agree 1 3 %
21
Do not know / No opinion 11 34 %
g) Having the same noise limits across the EU/EEA increased competitiveness and/or market opportunities for my company
(n = 32) Answers Ratio
Strongly disagree 2 6 %
Disagree 13 41 %
Agree 11 34 %
Strongly agree 2 6 %
Do not know / No opinion 4 13 %
What difference does better noise performance (more reduced emissions) make to design and manufacturing costs of equipment?
(n = 32) Answers Ratio
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 %
Do not know / No opinion 1 3 %
What difference does better noise performance (more reduced emissions) make to the final price that your customers pay for equipment?
(n = 32) Answers Ratio
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 not know / No opinion 3 9 %
Do you think that the implementation of the Directive cause excessive administrative burdens (information, collection and reporting of data, etc.)?
(n = 150) Answers Ratio
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
Do not know / No opinion 18 12 %
o Findings in relation to the coherence of the Directive
To what extent do you agree on the following statements?
a) By merging previous legislation (7 product and 2 procedure Directives), Directive 2000/14/EC improved the effectiveness and internal coherence of EU legislation
(n = 150) Answers Ratio
Strongly disagree 0 0 %
Disagree 8 5 %
Agree 70 47 %
Strongly agree 25 17 %
Do not know / No opinion 47 31 %
b) Directive 2000/14/EC complements other EU legislation / policy
(n = 150) Answers Ratio
Strongly disagree 0 0 %
Disagree 13 9 %
Agree 83 55 %
Strongly agree 10 7 %
Do not know / No opinion 44 29 %
c) Directive 2000/14/EC complements non-EU / national legislation / policy
(n = 150) Answers Ratio
Strongly disagree 9 6 %
Disagree 28 19 %
Agree 50 33 %
Strongly agree 5 3 %
Do not know / No opinion 58 39 %
d) There are overlaps / conflicts with other pieces of EU legislation (in terms of requirements, terminology, etc.)
(n = 150) Answers Ratio
Strongly disagree 3 2 %
Disagree 20 13 %
Agree 52 35 %
Strongly agree 14 9 %
Do not know / No opinion 61 41 %
23
e) There are overlaps / conflicts with other non-EU / national legislation
(n = 150) Answers Ratio
Strongly disagree 3 2 %
Disagree 43 29 %
Agree 21 14 %
Strongly agree 11 7 %
Do not know / No opinion 72 48 %
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)?
(n = 150) Answers Ratio
Yes 109 73 %
No 22 15 %
Do not know / No opinion 19 13 %
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
(n = 150) Answers Ratio
Not at all 4 3 %
To a little extent 6 4 %
To a moderate extent 35 23 %
To a great extent 72 48 %
Do not know / No opinion 33 22 %
b) Establishing more specific definitions and obligations on economic operators (manufacturers, authorised representatives, importers and distributors)
(n = 150) Answers Ratio
Not at all 5 3 %
To a little extent 8 5 %
To a moderate extent 36 24 %
To a great extent 67 45 %
Do not know / No opinion 34 23 %
c) Establishing more specific requirements on conformity assessment bodies (notified bodies)
24
(n = 150) Answers Ratio
Not at all 9 6 %
To a little extent 11 7 %
To a moderate extent 29 19 %
To a great extent 43 29 %
Do not know / No opinion 58 39 %
d) Defining specific procedures on market surveillance
(n = 150) Answers Ratio
Not at all 7 5 %
To a little extent 9 6 %
To a moderate extent 25 17 %
To a great extent 71 47 %
Do not know / No opinion 38 25 %
e) Clarify the meaning, use and protection of CE marking
(n = 150) Answers Ratio
Not at all 9 6 %
To a little extent 13 9 %
To a moderate extent 31 21 %
To a great extent 66 44 %
Do not know / No opinion 31 21 %
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?
(n = 150) Answers Ratio
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 %
Do not know / No opinion 22 15 %
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
(n = 79) Answers Ratio
No difference 9 11 %
Increase of costs of between 1% and 20% 5 6 %
25
Increase of costs of more than 20% 1 1 %
Decrease of costs of between 1% and 20% 13 1§ %
Decrease of costs of more than 20% 3 4 %
Do not know / No opinion 48 61 %
b) Moving equipment from Article 12 (noise limits) to Article 13 (noise marking only)
(n = 79) Answers Ratio
No difference 10 13 %
Increase of costs of between 1% and 20% 2 3 %
Increase of costs of more than 20% 2 3 %
Decrease of costs of between 1% and 20% 15 19 %
Decrease of costs of more than 20% 3 4 %
Do not know / No opinion 47 59 %
c) Moving equipment from Article 13 (noise marking only) to Article 12 (noise limits)
(n = 79) Answers Ratio
No difference 5 6 %
Increase of costs of between 1% and 20% 16 20 %
Increase of costs of more than 20% 11 14 %
Decrease of costs of between 1% and 20% 2 3 %
Decrease of costs of more than 20% 0 0 %
Do not know / No opinion 45 57 %
d) Adding equipment to the scope in Article 12 (noise limits)
(n = 79) Answers Ratio
No difference 3 4 %
Increase of costs of between 1% and 20% 20 25 %
Increase of costs of more than 20% 13 16 %
Decrease of costs of between 1% and 20% 0 0 %
Decrease of costs of more than 20% 0 0 %
Do not know / No opinion 43 54 %
e) Adding equipment to the scope in Article 13 (noise marking only)
(n = 79) Answers Ratio
No difference 6 8 %
Increase of costs of between 1% and 20% 24 30 %
Increase of costs of more than 20% 3 4 %
26
Decrease of costs of between 1% and 20% 0 0 %
Decrease of costs of more than 20% 0 0 %
Do not know / No opinion 46 58 %
Which kind of costs have you considered?
(n = 106) Answers Ratio
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?
(n = 150) Answers Ratio
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 %
Do not know / No opinion 20 13 %
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
(n = 97) Answers Ratio
Strongly disagree 28 29 %
Disagree 31 32 %
Agree 16 16 %
Strongly agree 15 15 %
Do not know / No opinion 7 7 %
b) Noise limits should be established also for equipment currently not subject to any limit or to noise marking only
(n = 97) Answers Ratio
Strongly disagree 13 13 %
Disagree 4 4 %
Agree 31 32 %
Strongly agree 45 46 %
Do not know / No opinion 4 4 %
27
c) All the noise limits set by the Directive should be made stricter
(n = 97) Answers Ratio
Strongly disagree 16 16 %
Disagree 18 19 %
Agree 21 22 %
Strongly agree 36 37 %
Do not know / No opinion 6 6 %
d) All the noise limits set by the Directive should be made less strict
(n = 97) Answers Ratio
Strongly disagree 54 56 %
Disagree 35 36 %
Agree 2 2 %
Strongly agree 0 0 %
Do not know / No opinion 6 6 %
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
(n = 81) Answers Ratio
No difference 3 4 %
Increase of costs of between 1% and 20% 27 33 %
Increase of costs of more than 20% 7 9 %
Decrease of costs of between 1% and 20% 1 1 %
Decrease of costs of more than 20% 2 2 %
Do not know / No opinion 41 51 %
b) Less types of equipment to be subject to noise limits
(n = 81) Answers Ratio
No difference 11 14 %
Increase of costs of between 1% and 20% 2 2 %
Increase of costs of more than 20% 3 4 %
Decrease of costs of between 1% and 20% 17 21 %
Decrease of costs of more than 20% 5 6 %
Do not know / No opinion 43 53 %
c) Making noise limits stricter
(n = 81) Answers Ratio
28
No difference 2 2 %
Increase of costs of between 1% and 20% 25 31 %
Increase of costs of more than 20% 10 12 %
Decrease of costs of between 1% and 20% 2 2 %
Decrease of costs of more than 20% 2 2 %
Do not know / No opinion 40 49 %
d) Making noise limits less strict
(n = 81) Answers Ratio
No difference 20 25 %
Increase of costs of between 1% and 20% 2 2 %
Increase of costs of more than 20% 3 4 %
Decrease of costs of between 1% and 20% 9 11 %
Decrease of costs of more than 20% 5 6 %
Do not know / No opinion 42 52 %
Which kind of costs have you considered?
(n = 111) Answers Ratio
Costs related to design and manufacturing of equipment 39 35 %
Costs related to marketing of equipment 5 5 %
Costs related to compliance / conformity assessment of equipment 30 27 %
Costs related to information on equipment 13 12 %
Costs related to administrative burdens 22 20 %
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)?
(n = 150) Answers Ratio
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 not know / No opinion 15 10 %
Do you think that changing label would be effective in increasing awareness on noise emission and in driving consumers' choice toward less noisy equipment?
(n = 63) Answers Ratio
Not at all 0 0 %
To a small extent 2 3 %
29
To a moderate extent 24 38 %
To a large extent 24 38 %
To a very large extent 13 21 %
Do not know / No opinion 0 0 %
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?
(n = 150) Answers Ratio
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 %
Do not know / No opinion 62 41 %
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
(n = 64) Answers Ratio
No difference 10 16 %
Increase of costs of between 1% and 20% 28 44 %
Increase of costs of more than 20% 4 6 %
Decrease of costs of between 1% and 20% 6 9 %
Decrease of costs of more than 20% 0 0 %
Do not know / No opinion 16 25 %
b) Removing the conformity assessment procedures involving a third party ("notified body")
and keeping the internal control of production procedure only
(n = 64) Answers Ratio
No difference 7 11 %
Increase of costs of between 1% and 20% 3 5 %
Increase of costs of more than 20% 2 3 %
Decrease of costs of between 1% and 20% 30 47 %
Decrease of costs of more than 20% 8 13 %
Do not know / No opinion 14 22 %
30
c) Keeping the same procedures and just aligning them to the modules of Decision No 768/2008/EC
(n = 64) Answers Ratio
No difference 34 53 %
Increase of costs of between 1% and 20% 5 8 %
Increase of costs of more than 20% 1 2 %
Decrease of costs of between 1% and 20% 6 9 %
Decrease of costs of more than 20% 0 0 %
Do not know / No opinion 18 28 %
Which kind of costs have you considered?
(n = 118) Answers Ratio
Costs related to design and manufacturing of equipment 19 16 %
Costs related to marketing of equipment 5 4 %
Costs related to compliance / conformity assessment of equipment 45 38 %
Costs related to information on equipment 7 6 %
Costs related to administrative burdens 38 32 %
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?
(n = 150) Answers Ratio
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 %
Do not know / No opinion 40 27 %
Which kind of modification(s) would you support?
(n = 108, multiple answers were possible) Answers Ratio
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?
(n = 150) Answers Ratio
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 %
Do not know / No opinion 48 32 %
Which kind of modification(s) would you support?
(n = 89, multiple answers were possible) Answers Ratio
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.