Studiu Directiva ZGOMOT 16 10

Stieltjesweg 1
P.O. Box 155

2600 AD Delft
www.tno.nl
TNO report
MON-RPT-033-DTS-2007-02554
Study on the experience in the implementation and

administration of Directive 2000/14/EC relating to
the noise emission in the environment by
equipment for use outdoors - Final Report
EU Tender No. ENTR/05/105
Contract No. 2006 / SI2.449579
Date
September 28, 2007
Author(s)
M. Dittrich (TNO)
H.J. Beckmann (TV-Nord)
P. Cellard (LNE)
A. Bowker (VCA)
Assignor
European Commission DG Enterprise and Industry
Project number
033.11768
Number of pages
Number of appendices
271 (incl. appendices)
T +31 15 269 20 00
F +31 15 269 21 11
info@tno.nl
TNO report | MON-RPT-033-DTS-2007-02554 | v4.3 | September 28, 2007
2 / 235
3 / 235
Summary
The NOMEVAL project is a study on the experience in the implementation and
administration of Directive 2000/14/EC relating to the noise emission in the
environment by equipment for use outdoors.
The main objectives of the study are the following:
- to review the existing available noise data and to assess the comparison of
measured and guaranteed noise levels, feasibility of stage I limits, stage II
limits and stricter limits. This is done only on the basis of a statistical analysis;
- to formulate a statement of the need for revision of the lists in Articles 12 and
13, especially whether new equipment should be added in either Article 12 or
Article 13;
- to formulate a statement of the need and possibilities for revision of the limit
values laid down in Article 12 taking into account technological development;
- to formulate a statement setting out an integrated range of instruments to be
used in continuing the reduction of noise by equipment.
From the assessment of the database it can be concluded that it could be used for the
statistical analysis, although for some equipment types, insufficient data is present.
Some data errors were eliminated from the analysis were possible. However it was not
always clear whether actual entered level were correct or not, although generally the
equipment types and models seemed correct. Such errors could be prevented in future
by automated data input checking.
Some general shortcomings of the database are:
- the technical parameter often missing and not always defined, especially for article 13
equipment;
- a lot of data from important manufacturers are obviously missing;
- electrical and combustion engine powered equipment is often mixed in the database;
- for the quality of data, essential parameters should be included in the DOC.
The results of the statistical analysis were used where possible and considered
acceptable as a background reference for the proposals for limit changes.
Two consultations were performed, one with environmental NGOs, national and
municipal autorities, notified bodies and market surveillance authorities, the second
with manufacturing companies and industry associations.
The environmental and industry consultations have some results in common. In
particular the lack of market surveillance and enforcement, the clarity of noise marking
and shortcomings in some of the test codes seem to be agreed on. Suggestions for
several new equipment types and a number of limit proposals were derived from the
environmental consultation, some of which were retained in later proposals.
The market surveillance of the directive is generally considered insufficient and leads to
unfair competition from non-compliant suppliers who make less costs. Many
respondents would prefer a simplification of the directive. Uncertainty is an issue which
manufacturers would like to have clearer rules for and would prefer to handle it
themselves. The EC database in its current form to contain many errors and needs
improving in the form of an IT tool as is currently underway.
4 / 235
Most companies state that there is little demand for quieter equipment and therefore
little direct financial benefit. However R&D on noise reduction is performed in many
companies and many known noise reduction solutions are applied.
For many equipment types and for new ones, improvements to the test cycles or test
codes have been made.
The overall environmental impact has been assessed for all the equipment types in the
directive and for potential new equipment types. Based on this, 12 high and medium
priority types for Article 12 limit changes were identified. For the remaining Article 12
types, limit changes are expected to have much less impact. For Article 13 equipment, a
group of 18 equipment types has been identified that clearly would be worth moving to
Article 12. For potentially new equipment types, 9 out of 21 were shown to be potential
candidates for addition to the Article 13 list, based on the expected environmental
impact. Limit changes of 3 dB or moving equipment from article 13 to 12, is most
effective for those types with a high environmental impact, as it affects most people.
A general analysis of available technical knowledge and progress was made.
The common noise sources and relevant noise control measures for the equipment in the
directive and potential new equipment were reviewed. Future trends and developments,
common constraints and design conflicts such as noise emission versus cooling
requirements in combustion engines were reviewed. Also links to other European
directives are covered, especially the Exhaust Directive and the Machinery Directive.
For moving equipment into Article 13 or from Article 13 to article 12, the technical
impact is generally small, as labelling or initial limits are only intended to result in
applying known techniques and existing components for noise reduction, and to
eliminate unnecessarily noisy equipment. Introduction of stage II limits for current
Article 12 equipment would have strongest technical impact on combustion engine
concrete breakers and picks, steel-tracked dozers and loaders. Currently there is more
research required to reduce steel track noise further before introducing the stage II limit.
For the other equipment with indicative stage II noise limits, such as lawnmowers, lawn
trimmers, vibratory plates, lift trucks and compacting screed paver finishers, the
technical impact is considered moderate, as noise control solutions are considered
feasible although not always straightforward.
Based on general considerations, the directive and its noise emission limits can be
considered significant for the European economy. The performed cost-benefit analysis
illustrates that the benefits of noise reduction clearly outweigh the costs for the
equipment types which have a medium to high environmental impact. The costs are in
the end borne by the purchaser or user of equipment. In those cases where limits are not
applied or tightened where it is needed, the citizens and employers pay the price, often
indirectly, in terms of sleep disturbance, concentration loss, fatigue, annoyance and
stress and reduced speed intelligibility. The benefits to citizens are estimated at around
10 Euros per person per year once the foreseen changes to the directive have taken
effect. For equipment types with a low environmental impact it is clearly not
economically worthwhile changing the limits.
Most importantly, without market surveillance the Directive is ineffective as costs are
incurred by industry complying to the Directive, whilst at the same time the may loose
market share to non-compliant companies.
5 / 235
The following equipment list revisions are proposed, based on all the considerations
available from the statistical, environmental, technical and economic analyses, the
consultations and the background documents.
New in Article 13
Mobile waste breakers and sieves (screens) (after 5 years), Mobile cranes for harbours
and terminals (bridge/gantry cranes), Road sweepers without aspirators.
Move from Article 13 to Article 12
Aerial access platforms CE powered, Brush cutters, Building site circular saw bench;
Combined high pressure flushers and suction vehicles, High pressure flushers, Suction
vehicles, combined; Cooling equipment on vehicles, Chain saws, portable, Drill rigs,
Glass recycling containers, Grass trimmers/grass edge trimmers, Hedge trimmers CE
powered, High pressure water jet machines, upto 3 kW, electric), Hydraulic hammers,
Joint cutters, Leaf blowers and Leaf collectors, combined, Mobile waste containers,
Piling equipment (vibratory), Power generators (>_ 400 kW), Power sweepers, Refuse
collection vehicles, Road milling machines, Scarifiers CE powered, Shredders/chippers,
Truck mixers, Water pump units.
New in Article 12
Snowmobiles (after 5 years) and Mobile waste breakers and screens (wood, concrete)
(after 8 years).
Removal from the directive
Builders' hoists for the transport of goods (with electric motor), Building site band saw
machine, Compaction machines (explosion rammers), Concrete breakers and picks,
handheld, <3 kg, Construction winches (all), Conveyor belts, Landfill compactors,
loader-type with bucket (< 500 kW), Motor hoes (<3 kW), Pipelayers, Piste
Caterpillars, Trenchers.
Noise limit proposals were made for all equipment to be moved to Article 12, for
snowmobiles, waste breakers and screens, for handheld stone saws, and for the current
Article 12 equipment. Eleven equipment types are proposed to be moved from the
directive, of which three from Article 12.
Detailed proposals are given for all equipment types in Chapter 10. General instruments
for noise reduction are given including: improved DOC, improved marking, proposals
to improve market surveillance, technical R&D topics, information to the public.
6 / 235
Contents
Summary ........................................................................................................................ 3
1
Introduction.................................................................................................................... 9
2
2.1
2.2
2.3
2.4
2.5
2.6
Phase 1.1 Review of noise data - statistical analysis.................................................. 13

Assessment of European Machinery Noise Database.................................................... 13
Methodology statistical analysis .................................................................................... 17
Comparison of measured and guaranteed values........................................................... 19
Feasibility of current stage II limits and more stringent limits ...................................... 22
Potential for limits for marked equipment ..................................................................... 28
Conclusions from the statistical analysis ....................................................................... 34
3
3.1
3.2
3.3
3.4
3.5
3.6
Consultation ................................................................................................................. 36
Introduction.................................................................................................................... 36
Consultation of environmental stakeholders.................................................................. 36
Conclusions from the environmental consultation......................................................... 57
Consultation of Industry and Industry associations ....................................................... 58
Conclusions from the industry consultation................................................................... 76
General conclusions from the consultations .................................................................. 77
4
4.1
4.2
4.3
4.4
4.5
4.6
4.7
Environmental impact assessment ............................................................................. 78

Introduction.................................................................................................................... 78
Background information ................................................................................................ 80
Environmental indicator ................................................................................................ 82
Environmental impact of moving from Article 13 to 12 and limit changes .................. 92
Environmental impact of new equipment list ................................................................ 92
The issue of timescale................................................................................................... 96
Conclusions for the environmental analysis .................................................................. 96
5
5.1
5.2
5.3
5.4
Review of test cycles and procedures ......................................................................... 97

Introduction.................................................................................................................... 97
General findings valid for more than one type of Equipment........................................ 98
Proposed test code improvements and test codes for new equipment types ................ 101
Test cycles for lift trucks ............................................................................................. 104
6
6.1
6.2
6.3
6.4
6.5
6.6
6.7
6.8
6.9
6.10
6.11
Technical impact assessment .................................................................................... 106

Introduction.................................................................................................................. 106
Common noise sources and control measures ............................................................. 107
Technical trends and future options............................................................................. 117
Common constraints and design conflicts ................................................................... 118
Links with other directives........................................................................................... 118
Technical progress for existing equipment .................................................................. 120
Technical impact of previous and current Directives .................................................. 120
Equipment with indicative noise limits........................................................................ 122
Technical impact of new or stricter noise limits .......................................................... 123
Technical impact of new equipment ............................................................................ 123
General conclusions..................................................................................................... 124
Economic impact assessment .................................................................................... 125
7 / 235
7.1
7.2
7.3
7.4
7.5
7.6
7.7
7.8
7.9
Introduction.................................................................................................................. 125
General economic considerations ................................................................................ 125
Market situation ........................................................................................................... 126
Overall impacts ............................................................................................................ 129
Main options and economic impacts............................................................................ 134
Costs for manufacturers and customers ....................................................................... 134
Benefits in terms of monetorised noise reduction........................................................ 136
Cost-benefit calculation ............................................................................................... 139
Conclusions on the economic impact .......................................................................... 145
8
8.1
8.2
8.3
Phase 1.2 Statement on the need to revise the lists of Article 12 and Article 13 .. 146
Introduction and approach ........................................................................................... 146
New equipment types................................................................................................... 147
Proposals for Article 12 and 13 list revisions .............................................................. 149
9
9.1
9.2
9.3
9.4
Phase 1.3 Statement on the need and possibilities to revise the limit values laid
down in Article 12 ...................................................................................................... 151
Introduction.................................................................................................................. 151
Compliance to stage I and II limits .............................................................................. 151
Need and possibilities to revise the limits.................................................................... 151
Limit proposals ............................................................................................................ 152
10
10.1
10.2
Phase 1.4 Instruments for noise reduction............................................................... 155

Findings for each equipment type, including new types.............................................. 155
General Instruments..................................................................................................... 228
11
11.1
11.2
11.3
11.4
11.5
11.6
11.7
11.8
11.9
11.10
11.11
Conclusions and recommendations .......................................................................... 237

EC database and statistical analysis ............................................................................. 237
Consultations ............................................................................................................... 237
Environmental impact.................................................................................................. 238
Test codes .................................................................................................................... 239
Technical impact.......................................................................................................... 240
Economic impact ......................................................................................................... 240
Proposals for Article 12 and 13 list revisions .............................................................. 241
Noise limits .................................................................................................................. 241
Research proposals ...................................................................................................... 242
Recommendations towards a future revision of the outdoor noise directive ............... 242
Key recommendations ................................................................................................. 245
12
References................................................................................................................... 246
13
Signature..................................................................................................................... 254
Appendices
A Review of test codes, further proposals
B Proposal for a new standard for noise measurement for snowmobiles
This page is intentionally blank
8 / 235
9 / 235
Introduction
European Directive 2000/14/EC [1] requires noise marking for 57 types of equipment
used outdoors, and additionally, sets noise limits for 22 of these. It brings together a
number of previous separate Directives covering noise emission from some types of
machinery such as lawnmowers, compressors and construction equipment, adding
several new ones, such as cooling equipment on vehicles, glass recycling containers and
piling equipment.
Article 1 of the Directive states:
The aim of this Directive is to harmonise the laws of the Member States relating to
noise emission standards, conformity assessment procedures, marking, technical
documentation and collection of data concerning the noise emission in the environment
of equipment for use outdoors. It will contribute to the smooth functioning of the
internal market, while protecting human health and well-being.
The provision of noise information is also consistent with the requirements of the
Machinery Directive 98/37/EC [2] and CE-marking. The benefits from quieter
machinery not only benefit the environment but also the workplace, both for the
operator and the bystander of machinery. European Directive 2003/10/EC [3]
recommends users to select work equipment so that noise exposure is effectively
reduced.
All equipment listed in the 2000/14/EC Directive must be marked with a guaranteed
sound power level, which is based on a measurement performed according to the
methods specified by the Directive. Equipment types subject to noise marking only are
known as Article 13 equipment, whereas equipment types also subject to noise limits
are known as Article 12 equipment. These limits are for the guaranteed noise level,
which is higher than the measured level to take measurement and production
uncertainties into account. Both measured and guaranteed levels are registered and
should be submitted to the Commission in Declarations of Conformity (DOC) [4].
Since Directive 2000/14/EC has come into force in January 2002, the Commission has
collected Declarations of Conformity, and assembled thousands of measured and
guaranteed noise levels in a database which has now been made available on the
Internet.
Directive 2005/88/EC [5] is an amendment to 2000/14, adapting the stage II limits for
Article 12 equipment, some of which are indicative. In this Directive the following is
stated:
The experience of the first five years of application of Directive 2000/14/EC has
demonstrated that more time is needed to fulfill the provisions under Articles 16 and 20
thereof and highlighted the need to review that Directive with a view to its possible
amendment, in particular with respect to the stage II limits referred to therein. It is
therefore necessary to extend by two years the deadline for submission of the report to
the European Parliament and to the Council on the Commissions experience in
implementing and administering Directive 2000/14/EC as referred to in Article 20(1) of
that Directive.
10 / 235
This study, in response to European Tender ENTR/05/105 [6,7] and corresponding to

Article 20(1), is formulated to review these issues, taking into account available
collected noise data, technological development, available position papers and relevant
documents, consultations with various stakeholders, and environmental, economic and
technical impact analyses. The stakeholders include industry and industry associations,
notified bodies, purchasers and users of equipment, affected citizens, cities and
communities, environmental organisations, and national and local authorities.
Some examples of outdoor machinery in situations causing considerable noise at the
nearby dwellings are shown in figures 1.1-1.4.
Figure 1.1 Construction machinery in an inner

city area with nearby newly developed
appartments
Figure 1.2 Excavator working in a narrow

residential street
Figure 1.3 Lawnmower in residential area
Figure 1.4 Compressor in inner city

residential area
Limit values for Article 12 equipment are listed in table 1.1. The full list of equipment
types in the Directive can be found in the tables in chapter 2. The equipment types can
be grouped into the following application areas:
-
construction;
road building and maintenance;
horticulture and forestry, both private and professional;
municipal services;
energy supply and cooling systems.
Means of transportation of people and goods by road, rail, water or air are excluded
from this Directive. Also equipment for military, police and emergency services and
agricultural machinery such as tractors, attachments and harvesters are not included.
Table 1.1: Limits for Article 12 equipment (from Directive 2005/88/EC [5])
11 / 235
12 / 235
The main objectives of the study are the following:

1. to review the existing available noise data [8] and to assess the comparison of
measured and guaranteed noise levels, feasibility of stage I limits, stage II
limits and stricter limits. This is done only on the basis of a statistical analysis;
2. to formulate a statement of the need for revision of the lists in Articles 12 and
13, especially whether new equipment should be added in either Article 12 or
Article 13;
3. to formulate a statement of the need and possibilities for revision of the limit
values laid down in Article 12 taking into account technological development;
4. to formulate a statement setting out an integrated range of instruments to be
used in continuing the reduction of noise by equipment.
These 4 objectives define the 4 main phases 1.1-1.4 stated in the tender. The report is
structured in the following way. In Chapter 2, the EC machinery noise database
provided by the Commission in January 2007 is assessed and analysed, drawing initial
conclusions on noise limits where possible (Phase 1.1). In Chapter 3, a consultation
with environmental NGOs, national and municipal authorities, and notified bodies is
reported together with a consutlation with industry. An environmental impact
assessment investigating the noise impact and the need for noise reduction is reported in
chapter 4. Test cycles and procedures relevant for the directive are reviewed in chapter
5, and proposals for changes are made. The technical impact of changes to the directive
is is covered in chapter 6, followed by the economic impact analysis in chapter 7. On
these basis of all these analyses, proposals for equipment list changes are formulated in
chapter 8 (Phase 1.2) and proposals for revision of limit values are given in chapter 9
(Phase 1.3). Instruments for noise reduction (Phase 1.4) are reported in chapter 10,
which includes general instruments, research proposals and a summary of findings and
proposals for each equipment type. Overall conclusions are set out in chapter 11.
Relevant documentation is taken into account, including position papers, reports and
studies from industry and authorities.
This study was performed by staff from TNO (Netherlands), TV-Nord (Germany)
LNE (France), and VCA (UK). The nature of the study is multidisciplinary and required
statistical, environmental, technical, economical and regulation expertise including
practical knowledge about outdoor machinery and the market.
Thanks are due to the many contributors to the report and to all those who responded to
the consultation and helped to provide relevant background data for the study.
2.1
13 / 235
Phase 1.1 Review of noise data - statistical analysis
Assessment of European Machinery Noise Database
2.1.1
General review
A version of the EC machinery noise database [8] was provided by the Commission in
the form of a spreadsheet, dated January 5th, 2007. This database was examined and it
was found that in general, the database is usable but for some equipment types little
data is present. Also in a limited number of cases fields are not always filled or
incorrectly filled. For Article 13 equipment the technical parameter is generally
missing. For some Article 12 equipment the guaranteed levels are all rather similar
and/or close to the limit. Many companies seem to be missing from the EC database,
which is either due to non-submission of DOCs or due to the fact that the DOC was
only submitted to the national authority and not to the EC.
The extract from the database as provided by the EC contained 19080 records including
most of the 57 equipment types. 17866 records could be used for the statistical analysis,
after eliminating faulty or double entries. A summary table of the entries in the database
with overall statistics is given in table 1. Here it can clearly be seen in the shaded fields
that for some equipment types, the number of measured or declared data, the number of
models, the number of suppliers or the number of technical parameters is too low.
Especially article 13 equipment does not always include the value of the technical
parameter. In some cases more than one measured value per model is given.
In table 2, an overview of data records is presented, sorted by year of declaration and
indicating the number of measured values and parameter values per equipment type.
Equipment types with too low amounts of data are indicated by shading in the table.
Detailed comments are given in the following on the amount of data, its validity and
suitability for the analysis.
14 / 235
Table 2.1: Summary of database entries and analysis of the EC database per January 2007. Blue shaded
fileds indicate the Article 12 equipment. Orange shaded fields indicate a relatively low number, red shaded
fields are extremely low or zero.
Eq
no.
1
2
3a
3b
4
5
6
7
8a
8b
9
10
11
12a
12b
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36a
36b
37
38
39
40
41a
41b
42
43
44
45a
45b
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
Row
Number of
Number of admissible Number of
% with Number of Number of
number
power guaranteed parameter measured measured
in Art 12 Number Number
Number of parameter
Art.
values
levels sound levels
value values per values per
limits
of
of sound power
Equipment name
12/13
model
supplier
available
available available
table suppliers models measurements available
Aerial access platforms with combustion engine
13
20
129
154
66
0
154
43%
1.2
7.7
Brush cutters
13
24
206
223
118
0
223
53%
1.1
9.3
Builders' hoists for the transport of goods (combustion-engine driven)
12
4
2
4
4
4
4
4
100%
1.0
2.0
Builders' hoists for the transport of goods (with electric motor)
13
1
2
2
2
0
2
100%
1.0
2.0
Building site band saw machine
13
0
0
0
0
0
0
0%
0.0
0.0
Building site circular saw bench
13
0
0
0
0
0
0
0%
0.0
0.0
Chain saws, portable
13
28
216
278
69
0
277
25%
1.3
9.9
Combined high pressure flushers and suction vehicles
13
6
83
107
0
0
107
0%
1.3
17.8
Compaction machines (explosion rammers only)
13
1
11
11
11
0
11
100%
1.0
11.0
1
43
1639
2938
2875
2872
2938
98%
1.8
68.3
Compaction machines (only vibrating and non-vibrating rollers, vibratory plates 12
Compressors (< 350 kw)
12
8
30
397
642
553
552
640
86%
1.6
21.4
Concrete-breakers and picks, hand-held
12
5
19
220
247
221
221
247
89%
1.1
13.0
Concrete or mortar mixers
13
12
57
78
12
0
78
15%
1.4
6.5
Construction winches (combustion-engine driven)
12
4
3
119
119
119
119
119
100%
1.0
39.7
Construction winches (electrically driven)
13
0
0
0
0
0
0
0%
0.0
0.0
Conveying and spraying machines for concrete and mortar
13
10
50
76
68
0
76
89%
1.5
7.6
Conveyor belts
13
3
9
9
1
0
9
11%
1.0
3.0
Cooling equipment on vehicles
13
1
5
5
4
0
5
80%
1.0
5.0
Dozers (< 500 kw)
12
2
10
65
77
76
76
77
99%
1.2
7.7
Drill rigs
13
13
132
156
149
0
156
96%
1.2
12.0
Dumpers (< 500 kw)
12
3
32
153
211
157
157
211
74%
1.4
6.6
Equipment for loading and unloading silos or tanks on trucks
13
6
42
47
0
0
45
0%
1.1
7.8
Excavators, hydraulic or rope-operated (< 500 kw)
12
4
53
692
906
885
885
904
98%
1.3
17.1
Excavator-loaders (< 500 kw)
12
2
29
181
217
216
216
215
100%
1.2
7.5
Glass recycling containers
13
6
25
25
0
0
25
0%
1.0
4.2
Graders (< 500 kw)
12
3
6
29
33
33
33
33
100%
1.1
5.5
Grass trimmers/grass edge trimmers
13
24
111
122
28
0
122
23%
1.1
5.1
Hedge trimmers
13
43
285
350
71
0
349
20%
1.2
8.1
High pressure flushers
13
7
27
29
0
0
29
0%
1.1
4.1
High pressure water jet machines
13
18
137
154
18
0
154
12%
1.1
8.6
Hydraulic hammers
13
19
122
139
66
0
131
47%
1.1
7.3
Hydraulic power packs
12
3
20
36
42
36
36
39
86%
1.2
2.1
Joint cutters
13
7
72
84
32
0
84
38%
1.2
12.0
Landfill compactors, loader-type with bucket (< 500 kw)
12
3
15
87
89
66
66
89
74%
1.0
5.9
Lawnmowers (excluding agricultural and forestry equipment)
12
9
77
1675
1955
1643
1930
1952
84%
1.2
25.4
Lawn trimmers lawn edge trimmers
12
9
27
215
279
110
275
278
39%
1.3
10.3
Leaf blowers
13
29
102
126
9
0
126
7%
1.2
4.3
Leaf collectors
13
12
28
36
2
0
36
6%
1.3
3.0
Lift trucks, CE driven, counterbalanced (rough terrain/construction)
12
3
34
792
958
434
434
956
45%
1.2
28.2
Lift trucks, CE driven, couterbalanced (others excl. Container handling)
13
3
17
18
3
0
18
17%
1.1
6.0
Loaders (< 500 kw)
12
2
67
773
1068
921
921
1067
86%
1.4
15.9
Mobile cranes
12
3
30
272
302
273
273
301
90%
1.1
10.1
Mobile waste containers
13
7
22
23
0
0
23
0%
1.0
3.3
Motor hoes (< 3 kw)
12
4
11
37
38
21
21
38
55%
1.0
3.5
Paver-finishers (equipped with a high-compaction screed)
13
2
14
15
10
0
15
67%
1.1
7.5
Paver-finishers (excl. paver-finishers with high-compaction screed)
12
3
14
142
166
162
162
166
98%
1.2
11.9
Piling equipment
13
1
1
1
0
0
1
0%
1.0
1.0
Pipelayers
13
2
6
7
7
0
7
100%
1.2
3.5
Piste caterpillars
13
1
4
4
4
0
4
100%
1.0
4.0
Power generators (< 400 kw)
12
7
34
411
537
382
382
535
71%
1.3
15.8
Power generators (>_ 400 kw)
13
7
33
49
7
0
48
14%
1.5
7.0
Power sweepers
13
9
68
73
2
0
73
3%
1.1
8.1
Refuse collection vehicles
13
9
3611
3763
12
0
3762
0%
1.0
418.1
Road milling machines
13
5
15
15
9
0
15
60%
1.0
3.0
Scarifiers
13
19
65
83
34
0
76
41%
1.3
4.4
Shredders chippers
13
26
187
235
97
0
233
41%
1.3
9.0
Snow-removing machines with rotating tools (self-propelled, excl. attachments)
13
10
49
49
13
0
49
27%
1.0
4.9
Suction vehicles
13
3
30
31
0
0
31
0%
1.0
10.3
Tower cranes
12
6
6
83
95
87
87
95
92%
1.1
15.8
Trenchers
13
3
20
20
20
0
20
100%
1.0
6.7
Truck mixers
13
12
41
46
22
0
46
48%
1.1
3.8
Water pump units (not for use under water)
13
22
189
275
67
0
275
24%
1.5
12.5
Welding generators
12
7
5
19
25
21
21
25
84%
1.3
5.0
Number of records per year of certificate
Number of parameter values available
1994 1995 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 TOTAL
0
0
0
25
6
27
62
31
3
154
0
0
0
81
54
46
39
1
2
223
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
3
1
4
0
0
0
0
0
2
0
0
0
2
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1 119
90
18
26
21
4
279
0
0
0
0
2
4
49
45
7
107
0
0
0
0
11
0
0
0
0
11
1
0
0 382 871 474 582 446 183
2939
0
1
0
53 207 194
39 127
22
643
0
0
1
33 100
40
4
48
22
248
0
0
0
6
38
14
4
2
14
78
0
0
0
0
0 117
1
0
1
119
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
2
23
27
4
18
2
77
0
0
0
0
0
7
1
0
1
9
0
0
0
0
0
1
3
1
0
5
0
0
0
2
29
6
21
6
13
77
0
0
0
2
33
24
44
22
31
156
0
0
0
14
77
45
25
31
19
211
0
0
0
0
1
5
19
13
9
47
0
0
0 103 311 189 115 100
88
906
0
0
0
33
56
62
11
34
21
217
0
0
0
0
15
0
5
2
3
25
0
0
0
0
11
13
0
0
9
33
0
0
0
67
34
9
7
5
0
122
0
0
2 107 122
41
43
23
14
352
0
0
0
15
1
4
6
3
0
29
0
0
0
1
46
25
40
23
19
154
0
0
0
0
71
9
11
18
30
139
0
0
0
1
11
6
6
2
16
42
0
0
0
8
16
0
30
2
28
84
0
0
0
24
36
4
12
10
3
89
0
0
0 171 690 420 155 390 129
1955
0
0
0
28 108
66
20
48
9
279
0
0
3
62
17
11
13
17
6
129
0
0
0
6
8
3
8
8
3
36
0
0
0
26 277 300 201 135
20
959
0
0
0
0
2
13
0
1
2
18
0
0
0
73 291 284 215 122
84
1069
1
0
0
0 149
41
35
33
44
303
0
0
0
0
0
0
12
11
0
23
0
0
0
2
9
7
7
4
9
38
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
14
1
15
0
0
0
3
40
47
16
42
18
166
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
4
0
3
0
0
7
0
0
0
0
0
0
4
0
0
4
0
0
0
91 245
27
50
78
46
537
0
0
0
0
4
4
3
5
33
49
0
0
0
13
0
53
0
5
2
73
0
0
1
11 884 950 983 935
1
3765
0
0
0
0
4
1
0
8
2
15
0
0
0
8
32
18
7
18
0
83
0
0
0
43
66
75
28
15
8
235
0
0
0
1
11
13
19
3
2
49
0
0
0
0
0
0
17
14
0
31
0
0
0
0
4
70
16
5
0
95
0
0
0
0
0
4
5
9
2
20
0
0
0
0
9
7
5
0
25
46
0
0
0 109
32
7
72
41
14
275
0
0
0
2
18
2
2
1
0
25
2
1
9 1727 5176 3837 3105 2999 1025 17881
1994 1995 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 TOTAL
0
0
0
25
2
22
0
17
0
66
0
0
0
39
45
34
3
0
0
121
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
3
1
4
0
0
0
0
0
2
0
0
0
2
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
43
21
0
0
4
1
69
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
11
0
0
0
0
11
1
0
0 368 868 469 606 441 173
2926
0
1
0
58 167 176
41 121
18
582
0
0
0
18
98
40
4
46
15
221
0
0
0
0
3
2
3
0
4
12
0
0
0
0
0 117
1
0
1
119
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
19
26
3
18
2
68
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
1
3
0
0
4
0
0
0
3
30
5
21
6
13
78
0
0
0
0
32
33
43
20
32
160
0
0
0
0
72
29
18
23
19
161
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0 100 298 201 123
99
86
907
0
0
0
33
60
82
14
34
21
244
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
11
13
0
0
10
34
0
0
0
1
26
1
1
0
0
29
0
0
0
7
42
6
1
10
5
71
0
0
0
0
8
0
0
0
0
8
0
0
0
0
2
5
0
9
4
20
0
0
0
0
30
3
2
10
21
66
0
0
0
1
11
3
8
2
13
38
0
0
0
0
1
0
8
0
25
34
0
0
0
1
36
6
13
10
3
69
0
0
0 116 608 386 118 352
89
1669
0
0
0
6
45
14
1
38
6
110
0
0
0
1
4
0
0
0
4
9
0
0
0
0
1
1
2
0
0
0
0
0
0
14 256 124
32
28
11
465
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
2
3
0
0
0
73 212 266 181 124
84
940
1
0
0
0 180
42
34
31
18
306
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
4
6
2
2
7
21
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
9
1
10
0
0
0
3
40
47
15
40
18
163
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
4
0
3
0
0
7
0
0
0
0
0
0
4
0
0
4
0
0
0
93 191
25
23
48
15
395
0
0
0
0
3
2
1
1
0
7
0
0
0
0
0
2
0
0
0
2
0
0
0
10
1
1
0
0
0
12
0
0
0
0
1
1
0
5
2
9
0
0
0
0
21
4
1
8
0
34
0
0
0
9
44
40
0
5
1
99
0
0
0
0
6
3
1
1
2
13
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
3
67
19
5
0
94
0
0
0
0
0
4
5
9
2
20
0
0
0
0
2
5
0
0
15
22
0
0
0
16
10
18
14
34
9
101
0
0
0
2
15
3
2
1
0
23
2
1
0 1040 3543 2337 1373 1616 754 10666
Table 2.2: Overview of database entries per year.

Red shaded fields have an insufficient number of entries, yellow intermediate, green sufficient
15 / 235
Equipment name
art. 12/13 1994 1995 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 TOTAL
13
0
0
0
25
6
30
93
32
3
189
Brush cutters
13
0
0
0
81
57
46
44
1
2
231
12
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
3
1
5
13
0
0
0
0
0
2
0
0
0
2
13
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
13
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
13
0
0
1 119
90
19
33
22
4
288
13
0
0
0
0
2
8 102
47
7
166
13
0
0
0
0
11
0
0
0
0
11
12
1
0
0 382 871 821 686 457 190
3408
Compaction machines (only vibrating and non-vibrating rollers, vibrato
Compressors (< 350 kW)
12
0
1
0
96 217 194
43 127
23
701
12
0
0
1
33 100
41
4
48
22
249
13
0
0
0
6
38
14
4
2
14
78
12
0
0
0
0
0 117
1
0
1
119
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
13
0
0
1
2
23
27
4
18
2
77
Conveyor belts
13
0
0
0
0
0
26
17
0
1
44
13
0
0
0
0
0
1
3
1
0
5
Dozers (< 500 kW)
12
0
0
0
3
30
6
21
6
13
79
0
0
0
2
33
34
47
27
33
176
Drill rigs
13
Dumpers (< 500 kW)
12
0
0
0
14
78
46
25
33
21
217
13
0
0
0
1
1
6
19
15
10
52
Excavators, hydraulic or rope-operated (< 500 kW)
12
0
0
0 103 323 201 123 102
88
940
Excavator-loaders (< 500 kW)
12
0
0
0
33
71
82
14
34
22
256
13
0
0
0
0
15
0
5
2
3
25
Graders (< 500 kW)
12
0
0
0
0
11
13
0
0
10
34
13
0
0
0
69
35
12
8
5
0
129
Hedge trimmers
13
0
0
2 112 124
41
45
23
14
361
0
0
0
15
9
4
6
3
0
37
13
13
0
0
0
1
48
26
41
23
19
158
Hydraulic hammers
13
0
0
0
0
71
9
12
18
31
141
12
0
0
0
1
11
6
8
2
16
44
Joint cutters
13
0
0
0
8
16
0
32
2
28
86
Landfill compactors, loader-type with bucket (< 500 kW)
12
0
0
0
24
36
6
13
10
3
92
12
0
0
0 180 715 429 169 391 129
2013
12
0
0
0
28 108
67
23
48
9
283
Leaf blowers
13
0
0
3
62
19
12
14
17
7
134
0
0
0
6
8
3
8
8
4
37
Leaf collectors
13
12
0
0
0
26 280 330 205 137
21
999
Lift trucks, CE driven, couterbalanced (others excl. Container handlin
13
0
0
0
0
2
13
0
1
2
18
Loaders (< 500 kW)
12
0
0
0
76 307 298 215 126
84
1106
Mobile cranes
12
1
0
0
0 180
42
36
33
44
336
13
0
0
0
0
9
1
12
11
0
33
Motor hoes (< 3 kW)
12
0
0
0
2
9
7
7
4
9
38
13
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
14
1
15
12
0
0
0
3
40
50
17
42
18
170
Piling equipment
13
0
0
0
0
0
2
2
0
0
4
Pipelayers
13
0
0
0
0
4
0
3
0
0
7
Piste caterpillars
13
0
0
0
0
0
0
4
0
0
4
Power generators (< 400 kW)
12
0
0
0
93 253
27
54
78
46
551
Power generators (>_ 400 kW)
13
0
0
0
0
4
4
3
5
33
49
Power sweepers
13
0
0
0
13
0
53
0
5
2
73
1
11 949 952 984 936
1
3834
13
0
0
0
0
0
0
4
1
0
8
2
15
13
Scarifiers
13
0
0
0
8
32
22
7
18
0
87
Shredders chippers
13
1
0
0
43
72
76
32
17
8
249
13
0
0
0
1
11
13
19
3
2
49
Snow-removing machines with rotating tools (self-propelled, excl. atta
Suction vehicles
13
0
0
0
0
0
1
29
14
0
44
Tower cranes
12
0
0
0
0
4
83
22
5
0
114
Trenchers
13
0
0
0
0
0
4
5
9
2
20
Truck mixers
13
0
0
0
0
9
7
5
0
26
47
13
0
0
0 109
41
25
72
48
14
309
Welding generators
12
0
0
0
2
33
3
2
1
0
41
TOTAL
3
1
9 1793 5420 4364 3402 3042 1045 19079
Number of measurements available
Eq. no.
1
2
3a
3b
4
5
6
7
8a
8b
9
10
11
12a
12b
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36a
36b
37
38
39
40
41a
41b
42
43
44
45a
45b
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
Number of records
2.1.2
16 / 235
Amount of data
The amount of data per equipment type varies considerably. Most equipment entries are
from 2001-2006. The following was found.
- The database does not give a representative picture of the market, many brands
are missing.
- Many smaller manufacturers do not provide data to the EC.
- For refuse vehicles and for compaction machines too many equivalent model
types are declared, all with the same sound power level;
- For Article 12 equipment: parameter information is missing for some types, in
particular lawntrimmers, lift trucks and welding generators.
- For Article 13 equipment: No data is present at all on circular saw and band
saw machines.
- The following is often unclear:
name and address of the person who keeps the technical documentation.
conformity assessment procedure followed, and, where appropriate, name
and address of the notified body involved.
In 12 cases, a too low number of models or manufacturers is present (much more is on
the market), for
- builders' hoists for the transport of goods (combustion-engine driven)
- builders' hoists for the transport of goods (with electric motor)
- band saw machines
- circular saw benches
- compaction machines (explosion rammers only)
- construction winches, electrically driven
- conveyor belts
- cooling equipment on vehicles
- paver-finishers (equipped with a high-compaction screed)
- piste caterpillars
- piling equipment
- pipelayers.
For the purposes of the statistical analysis, these equipment types have a rather low
number of entries, 20 or less. Also the following 3 types have a too small number of
entries:
- lift trucks, combustion-engine driven, counterbalanced (Art. 13)
- road milling machines
- trenchers.
So for 15 equipment types, the amount of data is too low for the statistical analysis.
For some types such as lift trucks for example, this is surprising, as these are very
numerous in the market.
It was concluded that additional data from other sources (VCA, TV-Nord, LNE and
NL database) was required to properly perform the analysis, especially for the
equipment types lacking data. However, only a limited amount of external data actually
could be used to supplement the database, partly due to similar limitations of external
data, partly to avoid doubling of information and also because notified bodies could
only pass on customer data with permission from the manufacturers.
17 / 235
2.1.3
Data validity
In a limited number of cases, errors are present in the data. In some cases these errors
could be easily corrected typographically, in others data is actually faulty or missing.
The errors are the following:
- The technical parameter is often not included, especially for Article 13
equipment. A consequence is that difficult to use this data to derive limits
based on the technical parameter;
- Some syntax errors are present in the field netpower_noise_value:
- both dot . and comma , separators are used; Units such as kW are
sometimes included in the number for mechanical power;
- some values are incorrect (widely out of range);
- sometimes the admissible sound power level is not stated;
- sometimes a value of 0 is given for measured or guaranteed sound power
level for Article 12 equipment;
- the technical parameter is sometimes stated as kW where it should be cm (e.g.
lawnmowers);
- in some cases the measured level is higher than the guaranteed level.
- For cooling equipment on vehicles, a serious error is present: the 5 data entries
belong to mobile cranes, not cooling equipment.
2.1.4
Other observations
The following additional observations were made in the database:
- for Article 12 equipment dozers, loaders and excavator-loaders, different limits
are set for tracked and wheeled equipment, but no indication of this
subtype is in the database.
- for lawn edge trimmers, lift trucks, combustion-engine driven, counterbalanced
(excluding 'other counterbalanced l....), and for welding generators
information on the limit is poor.
- no noise limits are given in the database for equipment, which was amended by
the 2005/88/EC directive, where the set noise limit was applied in two stages.
- under cooling equipment, several of the few available entries are wrong as they
belong to mobile cranes.
In conclusion, for those equipment types where a sufficient amount of data is present,
the statistical analysis can be performed. For the others, additional data is required. In
all cases where the error was clear, a correction was made, otherwise the erroneous data
was omitted from the analysis. The errors found in the database could be prevented in
future by automated checking during input.
2.1.5
Considerations based on ISO 11689

According to ISO 11689 [9], for a statistical analysis of this type of data, at least 50% of
manufacturers on the market or 50% of sold models of the group needs to be present to
ensure representativeness. For equipment types with low numbers of entries, this is
clearly not the case. For other equipment types, it is not clear to what extent the market
is well represented. This would require more detailed market analysis.
2.2
Methodology statistical analysis

The first step in the statistical analysis was to assess the quantity and quality of the data
present and summarise the data present. This is described in the previous section.
18 / 235
The second step was to analyse the data for each equipment type to examine
- the measured values and their spread; this is indicative of measurement
uncertainty and differences in the application of noise control; the measured
values can be used to estimate what limits might be achievable with currently
applied technology;
- the guaranteed values and their spread; this is indicative of compliance to the
limits, uncertainty in measurement and production and how the manufacturers
choose the guaranteed value (e.g. close to limit);
- the difference between measured and guaranteed values; this is indicative of
the margin taken by manufacturers, and suggests potentially available scope for
noise reduction and limit changes, although uncertainty in measurement and
production also play a role here;
- overall level averages and spread; this is indicative for potential noise reduction
and limit changes.
- a number of other statistical indicators for each equipment type in Articles 12
and 13.
The results of these analyses are presented in the following sections. For the sake of
compactness, all the statistical graphs are not included in this report but some examples
are given.The graphs on which the analyses were based includes the following:
-
spread/distribution plots for each year (2001-2006) for the difference between
measured and guaranteed values; this illustrates the margin taken for the
guaranteed level and the potential for noise reduction, also the trend over time.
plots for measured level data, against the technical parameter, together with
curves corresponding to 30%, 50%, 70% and 90% pass rates. The 50% pass
rate curve corresponds approximately to the average curve. The measured data
is used to assess the amount of available data and its distribution, and the
potential future limit taking noise reduction into account. Where the technical
parameter is missing, an average and the variation is determined over the whole
dataset. This at least gives an indication of the levels and their variation.
plots for guaranteed level data, against the technical parameter, together with
stage I and stage II limits and potentially stricter limits based on the measured
data; this illustrates the feasibility of the stage I, stage II and potential new
limits.
The statistical software package GENSTAT [10] was used by TNO to perform the
various analyses and presentation. The statistical analysis is formulated in such a way as
to enable statements on the limits and equipment lists.
Evaluation of the stage I and stage II limits is done in relation to the guaranteed levels,
also in a separate comparison with data from 2006.
Potential other limits for article 12 equipment and potential new limits for article 13
equipment are generated from the measured data, adding a margin for measurement and
production uncertainty. For article 12 equipment, alternative limits follow the same
shape as the stage I and II limits, just the relative level is different.
The percentage of existing equipment that should satisfy new limits is a choice that
depends on the approach to limit setting. From an environmental viewpoint, limits
could be set to approve only equipment that is quieter than the average currently on the
19 / 235
market. In that case, around 30% pass rate might be required. At the other extreme, if
no additional cost is allowed, a much higher pass rate might be taken, for example 90%.
In that case, little or no noise reduction would be expected in practice and the Directive
would be ineffective. Therefore, the potential limits resulting from 30%/50%/70%/90%
pass rate were investigated.
Proposals for new limits for Article 13 equipment are based on a regression line of
measured values Lmeas,avg , in some cases without the technical parameter if it was not
available. In principal, all equipment types could be moved from Article 13 to Article
12, and given a noise limit based on the average of the measurements plus an
uncertainty margin of 2 dB. This would require that the test codes are improved where
necessary.
The general approach for limit proposal can be expressed as follows:
Llim,new = Lx% + 2
(2.1)
Llim,new is the new limit, either as a single value or as function of the technical
parameter. Guaranteed levels are checked against this limit.
Lx% is the curve below which x% of the measured data lies. This curve is either given as
a single value (horizontal line) or as as function of the technical parameter, usually
resulting in a stepped positive slope. The 2 dB margin is to produce a limit level that
can be compared with the guaranteed level.
The form of the limit curve is the same as stage I and II limits for Article 12 equipment.
For new limits of Article 13 equipment a similar limit was chosen, i.e. of the form
A + B lg (parameter).
2.3
Comparison of measured and guaranteed values

The difference between measured and guaranteed values are set out in table 2.3 together
with statistical parameters, including the mean, min/max, standard deviation and
percentages of differences above 2 dB and 5 dB. 5 dB indicates a larger margin than
most other equipment types. In some cases this is due to the small number of available
measurements. The min/max values can in some cases be misleading, if there is
erroneous measured or guaranteed level data present.
20 / 235
Table 2.3: Difference between measured and guaranteed values for all equipment types.
Orange shaded fields indicate comparitively large differences or in the case of number of
values, a small number.
Eq.no.
3a
8b
9
10
12
16
18
20
21
23
29
31
32
33
36a
37
38
40
41b
45a
53
57
1
2
3b
4
5
6
7
8a
11
13
14
15
17
19
22
24
25
26
27
28
30
34
35
36b
39
41a
42
43
44
45b
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
54
55
56
Equipment name
Art.
12
Compaction machines (only vibrating and non-vibrating rollers, vibratory plates)
12
12
12
12
Dozers (< 500 kW)
12
Dumpers (< 500 kW)
12
12
12
Graders (< 500 kW)
12
12
12
12
12
12
Loaders (< 500 kW)
12
Mobile cranes
12
Motor hoes (< 3 kW)
12
12
12
Tower cranes
12
Welding generators
12
13
Brush cutters
13
13
13
13
13
13
13
13
13
Conveyor belts
13
13
Drill rigs
13
13
13
13
Hedge trimmers
13
13
13
Hydraulic hammers
13
Joint cutters
13
Leaf blowers
13
Leaf collectors
13
Lift trucks, CE driven, couterbalanced (others excl. Container handling)
13
13
13
Piling equipment
13
Pipelayers
13
Piste caterpillars
13
13
Power sweepers
13
13
13
Scarifiers
13
Shredders chippers
13
Snow-removing machines with rotating tools (self-propelled, excl. attachments)
13
Suction vehicles
13
Trenchers
13
Truck mixers
13
13
%
%
Number of
Standard
% of guaranteed guaranteed
values
measured
Mean Minimum Maximum deviation of
guaranteed
minus
minus
minus difference difference difference differences values above measured measured
(dBA)
(dBA)
guaranteed
(dBA)
(dBA)
measured
> 2 dBA
> 5 dBA
4
2.0
1
4
1.4
0
25.0
0.0
2042
1.9
0
10
1.4
0
14.9
3.6
467
2.9
-3
20
3.5
0.2
28.1
20.3
240
2.9
0
11
2.4
0
46.2
15.4
119
1.6
0
15
2.0
0
11.8
1.7
72
1.9
0
5
1.2
0
26.4
0.0
193
2.2
0
12
2.5
0
26.4
7.3
798
1.1
-9
4
0.8
0.1
2.5
0.0
188
1.5
0
6
1.0
0
12.2
0.5
33
1.7
0
5
1.1
0
18.2
0.0
36
1.8
0
5
1.4
0
38.9
0.0
89
1.1
0
4
1.0
0
9.0
0.0
1784
1.8
0
20
1.7
0
19.2
2.9
252
2.9
0
25
3.3
0
35.3
15.1
821
2.3
-1
18
1.3
0.1
63.0
0.5
890
1.2
0
5
1.1
0
9.9
0.0
285
2.2
-1
8
1.5
0.4
35.8
4.9
48
2.0
0
8
1.5
0
18.8
6.2
156
1.6
0
9
1.3
0
15.4
1.9
505
1.1
-7
24
1.8
0.2
6.7
2.0
87
2.7
1
7
1.2
0
35.6
1.1
34
0.1
0
1
0.3
0
0.0
0.0
136
1.9
0
6
1.4
0
38.2
2.2
209
2.3
0
21
2.1
0
24.9
2.4
2
3.5
3
4
0.7
0
100.0
0.0
0
0
233
2.0
0
10
1.7
0
32.6
3.4
83
1.0
0
2
0.2
0
0.0
0.0
11
1.5
1
2
0.5
0
0.0
0.0
78
2.5
1
8
1.3
0
51.3
2.6
58
3.0
0
15
3.2
0
44.8
12.1
9
2.2
1
3
0.7
0
33.3
0.0
6
5.0
2
7
2.4
0
66.7
66.7
138
2.0
0
5
1.0
0
29.0
0.0
40
1.1
1
4
0.5
0
2.5
0.0
25
2.9
2
4
0.5
0
80.0
0.0
111
3.0
0
16
2.1
0
56.8
9.0
328
2.9
0
25
2.2
0
54.6
7.0
28
1.8
1
7
1.3
0
17.9
3.6
141
3.7
0
17
3.2
0
51.8
19.1
120
3.4
1
9
1.6
0
68.3
11.7
76
1.2
0
3
0.7
0
10.5
0.0
111
2.6
0
21
2.4
0
44.1
5.4
33
3.0
1
12
2.5
0
60.6
6.1
17
2.9
2
3
0.3
0
88.2
0.0
22
3.3
0
24
4.9
0
59.1
9.1
16
2.5
2
5
1.0
0
25.0
0.0
2
4.0
4
4
0.0
0
100.0
0.0
6
2.8
1
5
2.0
0
50.0
0.0
4
0.0
0
0
0.0
0
0.0
0.0
40
0.7
0
3
0.8
0
5.0
0.0
78
2.9
1
15
2.5
0
53.8
2.6
5594
4.5
0
16
3.3
0
74.4
27.0
15
2.3
2
4
0.6
0
26.7
0.0
67
2.8
0
21
2.6
0
49.3
6.0
216
3.3
0
43
6.8
0
38.4
4.6
81
2.4
0
10
1.7
0
40.7
2.5
30
1.1
0
6
0.9
0
3.3
3.3
21
1.4
0
4
1.0
0
14.3
0.0
41
2.8
0
5
1.4
0
63.4
0.0
214
3.0
0
13
1.8
0
56.1
5.1
The equipment types for wich more than 10% of the values have a difference larger
than 5 dB are the following:
-
lawn trimmers and lawn edge trimmers (no. 33, Art. 12, 252 samples)
compressors <350 kW (no. 9, Art. 12, 467 samples)
concrete breakers and picks, hand-held (no. 10, Art. 12, 240 samples)
conveying and spraying machines for concrete and mortar (no. 13, Art. 13, 58
samples)
cooling equipment on vehicles (no. 15, Art. 13, 6 samples)
high pressure water jet machines (no. 27, Art. 13, 141 samples)
hydraulic hammers (no. 28, Art. 13, 120 samples)
refuse collection vehicles (no. 47, Art. 13, 5594 samples)
21 / 235
These equipment types may have a large margin applied due to measurement or
production uncertainty, but may also have potential for stricter noise limits (at least the
Article 12 equipment). Another reason may be that the limit value is declared, even
where the equipment is electrically powered. In general a larger uncertainty margin is
used for Article 13 equipment.
The difference between measured and guaranteed values can be plotted for each
equipment type in the form of a box plot, showing the median or mean value, the
min/max spread and the distribution (25%-75% range) of the difference for each year.
An example is given in figure 2.1. It can be seen that the spread decreases in time,
although the mean value remains about the same. As such plots did not reveal any
significant trends, they are not included in this report, and it sufficed to tabulate the
results of this analysis.
Figure 2.1 Box plot of guaranteed minus measured levels, for compressors (< 350 kW), N=467 samples,
including the mean value, the 25%-75% distribution (box) and the minimum and maximum
values for each year (vertical line).
From a visual comparison of the differences plotted in these graphs the following trends
were found (Article 12 types in bold):
- a general decrease in the difference and the spread for equipment types
2, 7, 10, 13, 17, 18, 22, 24, 27, 30, 36a, 41a, 45b, 46, 48, 49, 52, 56
- a general increase in the difference and the spread for equipment types
1, 6, 11, 16, 21, 23, 25, 26, 29, 31, 32, 34, 40, 41b, 51, 54, 55
- a constant trend for equipment types
8b, 9, 19, 20, 28, 33, 35, 36b, 37, 38, 39, 45a, 47, 50, 53, 57.
- No trend for types 8a and 12; others lack sufficient data.
22 / 235
These trends do not seem to be sufficiently clear to draw conclusions on. The average
difference between guaranteed and measured values over all equipment types is 1.8 dB
for Article 12 equipment and 2.6 dB for Article 13 equipment.
2.4
Feasibility of current stage II limits and more stringent limits

The limits for the Article 12 equipment are assessed here for the feasibility of the stage
II limits and more stringent limits. The potentially stricter limits are generated from the
measured data with a margin of 2 dB added. In table 2.4 pass rates of measured values
are given relative to the L30%, L50%, L70%, L90% curves. The curves are given for each
pass rate by a difference in dB relative to the stage II limit. The new potential limits are
obtained from these curves with an uncertainty margin of 2 dB added, then allowing
comparison with the guaranteed values. In table 2.5, the compliance of stage I and stage
II limits is given in terms of the pass rates, and also for the potential modified limits
based on the L30%, L50%, L70%, L90% curves. It should be emphasised that this is only a
statistical exercise.
23 / 235
Table 2.4: Measured values and pass rate curves for Article 12 equipment types. The lower table is for 2006
data only. The columns above or below stage II indicate the number of dB difference with the stage II
limits. Light green shaded fields indicate an equal or lower value than the stage II limits.
Eq.
no.
3a
8b
9
10
12
16
18
21
20
23
29
31
33
32
36a
37
38
40
41b
45a
53
57
Equipment name
builders' hoists for the transport of goods (comb
compaction machines (only vibrating and non-v
compressors (< 350 kW)
concrete-breakers and picks, hand-held
construction winches (combustion-engine driven
dozers (< 500 kW)
dumpers (< 500 kW)
excavator-loaders (< 500 kW)
excavators, hydraulic or rope-operated (< 500 k
graders (< 500 kW)
hydraulic power packs
landfill compactors, loader-type with bucket (< 5
lawn trimmers lawn edge trimmers
lawnmowers (excluding agricultural and forestry
lift trucks, combustion-engine driven, counterba
loaders (< 500 kW)
mobile cranes
motor hoes (< 3 kW)
paver-finishers (excluding paver-finishers equip
power generators (< 400 kW)
tower cranes
welding generators
Art
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
Eq.
no. Equipment name
Art
3a Builders' hoists for the transport of goods (comb 12
8b Compaction machines (only vibrating and non-v 12
9 Compressors (< 350 kW)
12
10 Concrete-breakers and picks, hand-held
12
12 Construction winches (combustion-engine driven 12
16 Dozers (< 500 kW)
12
18 Dumpers (< 500 kW)
12
21 Excavator-loaders (< 500 kW)
12
20 Excavators, hydraulic or rope-operated (< 500 k 12
23 Graders (< 500 kW)
12
29 Hydraulic power packs
12
31 Landfill compactors, loader-type with bucket (< 5 12
33 Lawn trimmers lawn edge trimmers
12
32 Lawnmowers (excluding agricultural and forestry 12
36a Lift trucks, combustion-engine driven, counterba 12
37 Loaders (< 500 kW)
12
38 Mobile cranes
12
40 Motor hoes (< 3 kW)
12
41b Paver-finishers (excluding paver-finishers equipp 12
45a Power generators (< 400 kW)
12
53 Tower cranes
12
57 Welding generators
12
number
of
measure
ments
4
1976
403
216
119
69
140
189
790
33
33
66
103
1499
305
778
257
21
153
363
83
34
number
of
measure
ments
1
113
17
13
1
11
14
21
82
9
13
3
6
84
9
57
17
7
18
15
0
0
mean min max std

98.2 89 102 6.2
105.4 85 115 2.6
94.6 79 102 5.0
104.1 95 110 3.4
95.6 76 109 4.3
107.9 97 115 3.6
103.1 89 114 5.5
99.9 88 111 3.9
100.1 87 112 4.8
105.1 98 109 3.0
100.2 88 112 4.5
103.4 97 111 2.5
93.7 60 104 5.6
96.4 72 125 4.5
104.0 83 112 4.8
102.4 93 113 3.0
103.5 93 112 2.5
93.9 78 105 7.0
106.4 101 117 2.6
95.5 69 101 4.5
91.7 82 99 5.1
96.6 91 99 3.1
new 90%
new 70%
new 50%
new 30%
curve: dB
curve:dB
curve: dB
curve: dB
above or
above or
above or
above or
below % below
below % below
below % below
below % below
stage II new 90%
stage II new 70%
stage II new 50%
stage II new 50%
curve
curve
curve
curve
curve
curve
curve
curve
5
100.0
4
75.0
4
75.0
2
50.0
2
99.5
1
88.5
0
52.9
-2
32.8
1
91.6
1
91.6
-1
55.3
-7
31.5
1
95.8
0
77.8
-1
60.2
-3
31.9
3
94.1
1
79.8
0
66.4
-5
37.0
2
97.1
2
97.1
1
50.7
0
31.9
2
91.4
1
72.1
0
55.0
-2
31.4
-1
91.0
-2
72.0
-4
51.9
-5
41.3
2
95.1
1
77.3
0
56.2
-1
33.9
2
97.0
2
97.0
1
69.7
0
30.3
2
90.9
0
72.7
-1
63.6
-3
39.4
5
90.9
3
89.4
2
56.1
1
30.3
2
99.0
1
81.6
0
58.3
-3
30.1
1
92.7
1
92.7
0
55.1
-1
34.6
5
94.1
3
82.6
2
67.9
1
46.2
1
97.6
0
88.4
-1
65.8
-3
38.6
1
97.3
-1
82.5
-2
64.2
-4
36.6
7
90.5
2
76.2
1
66.7
1
66.7
4
90.2
2
76.5
2
76.5
1
34.6
2
99.4
1
77.1
1
77.1
-1
35.5
0
97.6
0
97.6
-5
57.8
-11
31.3
2
91.2
2
91.2
2
91.2
-2
32.4
mean
89.0
104.7
95.9
104.4
109.0
107.7
104.1
100.5
98.6
102.1
98.2
99.0
81.7
96.5
103.3
101.5
101.6
97.9
107.7
91.8
new 90%
new 70%
new 50%
new 30%
curve: dB
curve:dB
curve: dB
curve: dB
above or
above or
above or
above or
below % below
below % below
below % below
below % below
stage II new 90%
stage II new 70%
stage II new 50%
stage II new 50%
curve
curve
curve
curve
curve
curve
curve
curve
-4
100.0
-4
100.0
-4
100.0
-4
100.0
2
99.1
1
89.4
0
59.3
-2
31.9
0
100.0
-1
76.5
-1
76.5
-2
47.1
1
100.0
-1
84.6
-1
84.6
-2
38.5
3
100.0
3
100.0
3
100.0
3
100.0
8
100.0
0
72.7
0
72.7
-1
45.5
0
100.0
0
100.0
-1
64.3
-2
42.9
-2
90.5
-3
76.2
-4
57.1
-6
33.3
0
95.1
-1
80.5
-1
80.5
-2
31.7
2
100.0
-3
77.8
-3
77.8
-3
77.8
-1
100.0
-3
76.9
-3
76.9
-3
76.9
-2
100.0
-2
100.0
-2
100.0
-2
100.0
0
100.0
-2
83.3
-7
50.0
-26
33.3
2
96.4
1
86.9
-1
63.1
-3
32.1
2
100.0
0
77.8
0
77.8
0
77.8
-2
93.0
-2
93.0
-3
59.6
-4
31.6
3
100.0
-1
70.6
-2
64.7
-4
47.1
9
100.0
7
71.4
6
57.1
6
57.1
8
94.4
2
83.3
1
55.6
0
38.9
0
93.3
-1
73.3
-1
73.3
-3
46.7
min
89
97
86
101
109
104
92
93
92
98
95
99
60
85
93
98
96
81
104
69
max
89
110
99
108
109
111
110
107
109
105
101
99
94
104
110
107
107
105
117
98
std
0.0
2.6
3.2
2.4
0.0
2.2
5.6
3.6
4.5
2.5
1.8
0.0
14
4.2
4.8
2.1
3.1
8.8
3.4
9.0
24 / 235
Table 2.5: Guaranteed values and limit compliance for Article 12 equipment types. The
lower table is for 2006 data only. The L30%-L90% limits are taken from the measured values
with 2 dB added. Light green shading indicates 30-50% compliance, dark green shading
indicates more than 50% compliance.
Eq.
no.
3a
8b
9
10
12
16
18
21
20
23
29
31
33
32
36a
37
38
40
41b
45a
53
57
Equipment name
Art.
Builders' hoists for the transport of goods (comb 12
Compaction machines (only vibrating and non-v 12
12
12
Construction winches (combustion-engine drive 12
Dozers (< 500 kW)
12
Dumpers (< 500 kW)
12
12
Excavators, hydraulic or rope-operated (< 500 k 12
Graders (< 500 kW)
12
12
Landfill compactors, loader-type with bucket (< 12
12
Lawnmowers (excluding agricultural and forestr 12
Lift trucks, combustion-engine driven, counterba 12
Loaders (< 500 kW)
12
Mobile cranes
12
Motor hoes (< 3 kW)
12
Paver-finishers (excluding paver-finishers equip 12
12
Tower cranes
12
Welding generators
12
Number of
guaranteed
values
4
2017
406
216
119
71
143
204
804
34
33
69
102
1514
322
790
287
21
154
373
90
34
Eq.
no.
3a
8b
9
10
12
16
18
21
20
23
29
31
33
32
36a
37
38
40
41b
45a
53
57
Equipment name
Art
Builders' hoists for the transport of goods (combu 12
Compaction machines (only vibrating and non-vib 12
12
12
Construction winches (combustion-engine driven) 12
Dozers (< 500 kW)
12
Dumpers (< 500 kW)
12
12
Excavators, hydraulic or rope-operated (< 500 kW 12
Graders (< 500 kW)
12
12
Landfill compactors, loader-type with bucket (< 50 12
12
Lawnmowers (excluding agricultural and forestry 12
Lift trucks, combustion-engine driven, counterbala 12
Loaders (< 500 kW)
12
Mobile cranes
12
Motor hoes (< 3 kW)
12
Paver-finishers (excluding paver-finishers equippe 12
12
Tower cranes
12
Welding generators
12
Number of
measurements
1
114
18
13
1
11
16
19
81
10
13
3
6
84
9
57
17
7
18
15
0
0
mean min max

100,2 93 104
107,3 88 118
97,2 83 102
107,1 98 113
97,2 77 111
109,5 100 116
105,2 97 114
100,8 89 113
101,1 88 112
106,8 99 111
102,7 99 115
104,1 98 111
95,9 85 104
98,2 75 128
105,3 96 114
103,4 96 114
105,7 97 113
96,3 82 105
107,9 104 120
96,5 78 102
94,4 84 100
96,7 91 99
std
5,0
2,5
4,0
2,3
3,4
3,8
4,3
4,1
4,7
2,9
2,8
2,2
3,0
4,4
4,0
2,9
2,6
6,5
2,8
3,7
4,2
3,1
%
meeting
stage I
limit
50,0
99,2
98,8
89,4
80,7
97,2
100,0
100,0
99,9
100,0
97,0
87,0
99,0
95,8
78,9
100,0
99,0
76,2
76,6
99,2
100,0
88,2
%
meeting
stage II % meeting % meeting % meeting % meeting
limit
limit L90
limit L70
limit L50
limit L30
25,0
100,0
75,0
75,0
50,0
32,1
99,7
99,2
45,7
32,1
44,1
100,0
100,0
52,2
20,2
26,4
89,4
89,4
38,4
12,5
43,7
95,8
80,7
78,2
27,7
11,3
97,2
97,2
97,2
22,5
35,7
100,0
100,0
53,8
35,7
79,9
99,5
79,9
69,1
49,0
34,6
99,9
99,9
73,6
52,5
29,4
100,0
100,0
100,0
50,0
60,6
97,0
66,7
66,7
24,2
17,4
98,6
89,9
87,0
87,0
38,2
99,0
99,0
99,0
24,5
20,8
95,9
95,9
95,8
24,4
23,3
97,2
87,9
82,3
78,9
65,2
100,0
96,5
95,8
50,6
71,4
99,0
77,7
71,4
29,6
19,0
90,5
76,2
76,2
76,2
1,3
90,9
79,9
79,9
76,6
35,9
100,0
99,7
99,7
45,3
66,7
100,0
100,0
56,7
3,3
32,4
100,0
100,0
100,0
32,4
mean
93.0
107.0
98.2
106.3
111.0
111.6
106.1
101.9
99.5
104.9
100.7
101.7
91.2
99.9
104.9
102.4
103.4
100.4
109.8
95.1
% meeting
std stage I limit
0.0
100.0
2.4
100.0
0.8
100.0
1.9
100.0
0.0
0.0
2.8
81.8
3.6
100.0
3.2
100.0
4.7
100.0
3.2
100.0
0.9
100.0
2.3
100.0
3.8
100.0
3.8
88.1
3.9
100.0
2.0
100.0
3.4
82.4
8.1
28.6
3.6
72.2
2.0
100.0
% meeting % meeting % meeting % meeting % meeting

stage II new 90% new 70% new 50% new 30%
limit
limit
limit
limit
limit
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
37.7
100.0
100.0
41.2
37.7
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
0.0
61.5
100.0
100.0
76.9
23.1
0.0
100.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
81.8
81.8
81.8
9.1
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
42.1
95.1
100.0
100.0
100.0
97.5
90.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
90.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
30.8
33.3
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
83.3
100.0
100.0
100.0
66.7
23.8
88.1
88.1
88.1
23.8
66.7
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
96.5
100.0
100.0
100.0
93.0
70.6
82.4
70.6
70.6
47.1
28.6
71.4
28.6
28.6
28.6
5.6
88.9
83.3
83.3
72.2
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
min
93
99
97
104
111
108
101
95
88
99
99
99
85
89
101
99
97
85
105
91
max
93
111
100
109
111
116
110
108
109
107
102
103
96
105
111
108
109
105
120
97
The Article 12 equipment tends to generally fulfil the stage I limits, with pass rates of
well above 70% (for guaranteed levels). The only exception is type 3a, with a 50% pass
rate, which may be caused by the low number of available values. Therefore the stage I
limits can be considered feasible. For the stage II limits, pass rates (guaranteed levels)
of more than 50% are only achieved by equipment types 21, 29, 37, 38 and 53 (all
construction machines). For these, stricter limits are feasible. Pass rates of above 30%50% are achieved for the types 8b, 9, 12, 18, 20, 33, 45a and 57. For these types the
stage II limits could be considered feasible. Types 3a, 10, 16, 23, 31, 32, 36a, 40 and
41b have less than 30% pass rate for stage II and therefore stage II may not yet be
feasible for these.
The compliance is even better if only 2006 data is taken, for as far as data is available:
Types 10, 23 and 36a are shown to be feasible based on 2006 data.
Possible limit changes based on the statistical analysis are given in table 2.6.
25 / 235
The graphical data is presented for each equipment type in chapter 10. Measured data is
set out as a function of the technical parameter together with the L30%, L50%, L70%, L90%
curves. Guaranteed levels are set out as a function of the technical parameter together
with the stage II and stage II limit curves, and with the L30%, L50%, L70%, L90% curves
plus 2 dB. All the pass rate and limit curves are rounded to the nearest whole number,
and follow the same curve shape as in the Directive. Both the measured and guaranteed
levels are indicated by a number, which corresponds to the year of declaration (1=
2001, 2=2002 etc.).
An example of the data is shown for Article 12 compressors (<350 kW) in figures 2.2
and 2.3 below. In this particular case the L70% and L90% lines coincide. This is possible
due to the particular data distribution with many values on or near the limit and due to
rounding of values.
Figure 2.2 Measured sound power levels of 403 samples set out against the technical parameter
with the L30%, L50%, L70%, L90% curves for compressors (< 350 KW).
The numbers on each measurement point indicate the year (2001-2006).
26 / 235
27 / 235
Figure 2.3 Guaranteed level data of 406 samples set out against the technical parameter with the L30%, L50%,
L70%, L90% curves+ 2dB and the stage I and stage II limit curves for compressors (< 350 KW).
The numbers on each measurement point indicate the year (2001-2006).
28 / 235
In table 2.6 the feasibility of the stage I and stage II limits is given for pass rates of 30%
and 50% in the measured data; this was performed for both the whole dataset and again
for only the 2006 (stage II) data. The potential new limits are given as an addition to the
stage II limits. The feasibility is derived where possible from 2006 data, and where
insufficient data for 2006 was available, from the whole dataset.
In the column on the far right, the recommendations for limit changes are given, based
on the findings.
Table 2.6 Feasibility of the stage I and stage II limits, and potential new limits based on pass rates of 50%
and 30%. Potential new limits are indicated as a difference to stage II limits. Concluded
possible limits are given in the right hand column.
Eq.
no.
3a
8b
9
10
12
16
18
21
20
23
29
31
33
32
36a
37
38
40
41b
45a
53
57
Stage I Number
limit of 2001Equipment
feasibility 6 data
4
Builders' hoists for the transport of goods (combustion-Yes
1976
Compaction machines (only vibrating and non-vibratingYes
Yes
403
Yes
216
Yes
119
Dozers (< 500 kW)
Yes
69
Dumpers (< 500 kW)
Yes
140
Yes
189
Yes
790
Graders (< 500 kW)
Yes
33
Yes
33
Landfill compactors, loader-type with bucket (< 500 kWYes
66
Yes
103
Lawnmowers (excluding agricultural and forestry equip Yes
1499
Lift trucks, combustion-engine driven, counterbalancedYes
305
Loaders (< 500 kW)
Yes
778
Mobile cranes
Yes
257
Motor hoes (< 3 kW)
Yes
21
Paver-finishers (excluding paver-finishers equipped wit Yes
153
Yes
363
Tower cranes
Yes
83
Welding generators
Yes
34
Potential new limit

L50, Stage II +
based on 2001-6
data
2
1
1
2
3
2
-2
2
3
1
4
2
2
4
1
0
3
4
3
-3
4
Potential new limit

Potential new limit Potential new limit
Proposed new
L30, Stage II + Number
L50, Stage II +
L30, Stage II +
Stage II limit
limit, based
based on 2001-6 of 2006 based on 2006 data based on 2006 data
Limit
feasibility
only on stat
data
data
only
only based on
L50/L30
analysis
stage II (?)
1
insufficient dunclear
stage II
0
113
2
0 all
No/yes
stage II
-5
17
1
0 all
No/yes
stage II
-1
13
1
0 all
No/yes
stage II
-3
1
2001-2005 No/yes
stage II + 1
2
11
2
1
2006 No
stage II
0
14
1
0
2006 No/yes
stage II - 2
-3
21
-2
-4 all
Yes
stage II
1
82
1
0
2006 No/Yes
stage II - 1
2
9
-1
-1
2006 Yes
stage II - 1
-1
13
-1
-1
2006 Yes
stage II
3
3
0
0
2006 Yes
stage II - 3
-1
6
-5
-24
2006 Yes
stage II
1
84
1
-1
2006 No/yes
stage I
3
9
2
2
2006 No
stage II - 1
-1
57
-1
-2
2006 Yes
stage II - 1
-2
17
0
-2
2006 Yes
stage I
3
7
2001-2005 No
stage I
3
18
3
2
2006 No
stage II
1
15
1
-1
2006 No/yes
stage II - 3
-9
0
2001-2005 Yes
stage II
0
0
2001-2005 No/yes
From this table it can be seen that the stage II limits are feasible for some of the
equipment types.
- for types 21, 23, 29, 33, 37, 38 and 53 stage II limits are feasible;
- stricter limits than stage II are also feasible for these types, as indicated in table
2.6.
- for types 8b, 9, 10, 12, 18, 20, 32, 45a and 57 the stage II limits are feasible if a
30% pass rate is applied; in that case, also stricter limits than stage II may be
feasible, as indicated in table 2.6;
- for types 16, 31, 36a, 40 and 41b the stage II limits may not yet be feasible, but
further analysis of the data and other considerations may disprove this;
- for type 3a, no conclusions can be drawn due to lack of data.
It should be noted, that the technical feasibility and implementation level of noise
control measures has not yet been taken into consideration here, and that in some cases
the stage II limits or even stricter limits than listed here may be possible. There may
also however be technical or economic limitations.
2.5
Potential for limits for marked equipment

Potential new limits for marked equipment (Article 13) were investigated by analysing
measured and guaranteed levels. Potential limit curves were proposed, based on a
regression curve and percentage pass rates of measured data plus a margin of 2 dB. The
limit curves were based on the data from the database that included the parameter value.
For equipment types with a potentially flat limit curve (i.e. single value), also the other
values without technical parameter were included in the analysis. Data with apparently
incorrect parameter values were omitted when determining a regression curve; in
29 / 235
particular negative slopes were not allowed and in this case, flat limit curves were
generated.
In table 2.7, the mean values, min/max values, the standard deviation, the median
(baseline) curve as A + B lg(parameter) are listed, together with pass rates for L30%,
L50%, L70% and L90% curves based on measured values from the database. Next to each
of these, the difference in dB relative to the baseline is given. The actual limit is then
obtained by adding 2 dB to these values.
In table 2.8 the pass rates for guaranteed values are given for these new potential limits.
A limit based on the L50% curve would seem to be appropriate here as these would be
new limits.
An example of available measured data and guaranteed level data together with new
potential limits for Article 13 equipment is given in figure 2.4, showing the measured
data marked by year, the mean regression curve and the L30%, L50%, L70% and L90%
curves. An example of the presentation of guaranteed level data and potential new
limits is shown in figure 2.5.
New potential noise limits for all Article 13 equipment purely based on the statistical
analysis are proposed as set out in table 2.9. Here, environmental, technical or economic
factors are yet taken into account.
30 / 235
Table 2.7: Measured values and potential new limits for Article 13 equipment types.
Median (baseline) = A+B lg(parameter). Green shaded fields have a pass rate of 50% or higher. The columns titled
New x% limit indicate the number of dB to be added to the baseline to obtain the Lx% curve. Zero or negative
differences are marked light green. Orange shaded fields have insufficient samples to determine a limit.
Eq.
no. Equipment name
Art
1 Aerial access platforms with combustion engine
13
2 Brush cutters
13
3b Builders' hoists for the transport of goods (with electric mo 13
4 Building site band saw machine
13
5 Building site circular saw bench
13
6 Chain saws, portable
13
7 Combined high pressure flushers and suction vehicles
13
8a Compaction machines (explosion rammers only)
13
11 Concrete or mortar mixers
13
13 Conveying and spraying machines for concrete and morta 13
14 Conveyor belts
13
15 Cooling equipment on vehicles
13
17 Drill rigs
13
19 Equipment for loading and unloading silos or tanks on truc 13
22 Glass recycling containers
13
24 Grass trimmers/grass edge trimmers
13
25 Hedge trimmers
13
26 High pressure flushers
13
27 High pressure water jet machines
13
28 Hydraulic hammers
13
30 Joint cutters
13
34 Leaf blowers
13
35 Leaf collectors
13
36b Lift trucks, CE driven, couterbalanced (others excl. Contain 13
39 Mobile waste containers
13
41a Paver-finishers (equipped with a high-compaction screed) 13
42 Piling equipment
13
43 Pipelayers
13
44 Piste caterpillars
13
45b Power generators (>_ 400 kw)
13
46 Power sweepers
13
47 Refuse collection vehicles
13
48 Road milling machines
13
49 Scarifiers
13
50 Shredders chippers
13
51 Snow-removing machines with rotating tools (self-propelled 13
52 Suction vehicles
13
54 Trenchers
13
55 Truck mixers
13
56 Water pump units (not for use under water)
13
number
of
measure
ments mean min max std
A
136 93.0 78 112 8.1 99.6
209 107.9 95 118 4.8 106.0
2 89.5 80 99 13.4 89.5
233
83
11
78
36
9
0
132
42
31
27
329
28
141
61
76
111
33
17
22
12
2
6
4
40
78
5595
15
67
217
81
30
20
41
214
new 90%
new 70%
new 50%
new 30%
limit: dBA
limit: dBA
limit: dBA
limit: dBA
above or % meeting above or % meeting above or % meeting above or % meeting
below new 90%
below new 70%
below new 50%
below new 30%
B baseline
limit baseline
limit baseline
limit baseline
limit
0
5
92.6
-3
73.5
-8
52.2
-12
36.0
0
7
96.2
6
85.2
3
52.6
-2
36.8
0
9
100.0
9
100.0
9
100.0
-10
50.0
106.8 90
108.4 75
102.7 98
99.7 72
87.7 64
108.1 103
117 6.0 108.8

0
121 4.6 108.4
0
107 2.3 102.7
0
120 10.0 98.2
0
104 12.2 72.9 19.21
113 3.4 103.0
0
6
3
1
16
9
10
94.4
94.0
90.9
98.7
94.4
100.0
2
1
1
9
5
7
71.2
71.1
90.9
75.6
75.0
77.8
-2
1
0
1
1
5
53.6
71.1
54.5
51.3
58.3
55.6
-6
0
-1
0
-4
2
35.2
43.4
45.5
37.2
30.6
33.3
110.7
108.0
92.2
108.0
96.6
97.6
103.8
109.9
107.0
102.2
100.8
102.9
95.6
107.7
115.5
114.2
106.2
95.1
97.9
104.5
110.5
91.7
103.1
102.6
107.2
105.4
108.0
100.6
127
111
99
113
108
111
123
132
115
115
109
111
105
109
129
124
107
102
115
112
118
102
123
108
113
112
113
115
8
2
7
4
7
10
24
5
6
5
9
12
6
2
0
2
1
3
11
2
2
5
11
2
4
4
1
16
90.2
92.9
100.0
100.0
94.2
96.4
91.5
90.2
97.4
90.1
100.0
100.0
90.9
91.7
100.0
100.0
100.0
95.0
92.3
99.9
93.3
94.0
92.6
91.4
93.3
100.0
90.2
98.6
2
1
4
2
3
3
20
1
2
2
5
6
4
1
0
2
0
2
9
-2
-1
2
0
1
1
2
1
12
72.7
78.6
80.6
74.1
72.3
75.0
75.9
73.8
76.3
73.0
72.7
70.6
72.7
83.3
100.0
100.0
75.0
87.5
80.8
73.8
80.0
82.1
70.0
71.6
73.3
90.0
90.2
73.8
0
0
1
-1
-2
-2
17
-2
2
0
2
3
2
1
-27
0
0
1
-2
-2
-1
-1
-2
-1
1
0
-2
12
50.8
59.5
51.6
51.9
50.2
53.6
51.1
54.1
76.3
50.5
51.5
58.8
63.6
83.3
50.0
66.7
75.0
60.0
52.6
73.8
80.0
53.7
61.3
53.1
73.3
55.0
53.7
73.8
-3
-1
-5
-3
-4
-3
13
-4
-1
-2
-1
1
-3
0
-27
-1
0
-1
-13
-2
-1
-4
-9
-3
-1
-2
-3
8
34.8
45.2
32.3
40.7
32.2
35.7
32.6
36.1
34.2
36.9
36.4
47.1
31.8
50.0
50.0
33.3
75.0
32.5
34.6
73.8
80.0
31.3
30.9
33.3
40.0
30.0
41.5
33.2
98
105
84
103
77
83
75
95
95
81
66
94
78
102
102
104
106
88
70
93
106
79
82
89
103
98
84
62
6.8
1.7
5.3
4.0
5.4
7.6
9.4
11.5
4.9
4.8
9.9
4.5
7.0
2.7
19.1
9.2
0.5
3.3
11.7
3.3
2.6
5.4
9.8
3.7
2.6
4.1
6.9
10.5
99.8
108.0
92.2
110.9
96.5
97.6
88.7
92.7
106.7
101.7
100.3
98.5
95.6
86.1
129.0
38.2
106.3
94.9
100.0
107.4
111.1
92.8
106.5
103.9
107.2
96.7
111.3
92.9
5.28
0
0
18.58
0
0
0
10.46
0
0
0
0
0
10.63
0
34.85
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
6.29
0
0
31 / 235
Table 2.8: Pass rates of potential new limits for Article 13 equipment types. Green shaded fields have a pass rate of
50% or higher. Orange shaded fields have insufficient samples to determine a limit.
Eq.
no. Equipment name
Art
1
Aerial access platforms with combustion eng 13
2
Brush cutters
13
3b Builders' hoists for the transport of goods (w 13
4
13
5
13
6
13
7
Combined high pressure flushers and suctio 13
8a Compaction machines (explosion rammers o 13
13
13 Conveying and spraying machines for concr 13
14 Conveyor belts
13
13
17 Drill rigs
13
19 Equipment for loading and unloading silos o 13
13
13
25 Hedge trimmers
13
13
13
13
30 Joint cutters
13
34 Leaf blowers
13
35 Leaf collectors
13
36b Lift trucks, CE driven, couterbalanced (other 13
13
41a Paver-finishers (equipped with a high-compa 13
42 Piling equipment
13
43 Pipelayers
13
13
13
46 Power sweepers
13
13
13
49 Scarifiers
13
13
51 Snow-removing machines with rotating tools 13
52 Suction vehicles
13
54 Trenchers
13
55 Truck mixers
13
56 Water pump units (not for use under water) 13
number
of
measure
ments
148
215
2
0
0
235
130
11
78
36
43
0
142
42
25
28
333
35
145
55
78
112
33
17
32
12
5
6
4
40
78
5660
15
71
224
81
42
20
42
247
mean min max std

94.4 80 112 8.3
110.2 100 118 4.7
93.0 84 102 12.7
108.8
109.2
104.2
102.2
90.9
110.9
94
76
99
73
77
99
112.6
108.9
96.1
110.4
99.5
101.5
107.5
112.1
108.1
104.8
103.7
105.8
94.9
110.1
109.2
117.0
106.2
95.8
100.8
109.0
112.8
94.6
106.2
105.1
108.3
106.9
110.9
103.6
99
102
88
106
85
85
77
98
96
93
78
96
82
105
97
108
106
89
84
98
110
85
91
91
95
98
86
63
118 6.2
123 4.0
108 2.4
123 10.0
106 11.2
120 4.1
130
112
102
116
109
117
126
136
116
120
112
114
107
112
133
125
107
104
116
113
120
104
126
110
114
113
117
120
6.9
2.0
5.1
4.0
5.0
8.4
9.1
10.8
4.8
4.9
7.9
4.6
8.6
2.4
13.8
7.3
0.5
3.1
10.0
0.4
2.4
4.8
9.8
4.2
3.3
4.1
7.2
10.8
% meeting % meeting % meeting % meeting

new 90% new 70% new 50% new 30%
limit
limit
limit
limit
89.9
73.0
56.8
36.5
92.6
92.1
44.7
37.7
50.0
50.0
50.0
0.0
90.6
96.2
90.9
96.2
88.9
90.7
70.2
85.4
90.9
73.1
66.7
72.1
53.2
85.4
63.6
51.3
50.0
39.5
37.9
74.6
54.5
35.9
22.2
14.0
90.1
100.0
80.0
100.0
88.6
85.7
93.1
90.9
97.4
80.4
81.8
88.2
90.6
83.3
80.0
66.7
100.0
95.0
91.0
99.9
93.3
88.7
89.3
74.1
97.6
95.0
73.8
83.8
71.8
92.9
56.0
71.4
68.2
65.7
68.3
67.3
84.6
62.5
75.8
64.7
90.6
75.0
80.0
66.7
100.0
95.0
84.6
0.9
73.3
74.6
67.9
63.0
78.6
90.0
73.8
47.0
54.9
78.6
36.0
42.9
41.7
45.7
37.9
36.4
84.6
49.1
51.5
47.1
53.1
75.0
20.0
16.7
100.0
95.0
48.7
0.9
73.3
43.7
59.8
50.6
78.6
70.0
42.9
47.0
33.8
59.5
28.0
28.6
9.3
34.3
26.2
30.9
35.9
33.0
15.2
5.9
50.0
50.0
20.0
16.7
100.0
45.0
10.3
0.9
73.3
23.9
27.2
28.4
45.2
30.0
16.7
30.8
32 / 235
Figure 2.4 Measured levels for hydraulic hammers, with regression curve (baseline) and L30%, L50%, L70% and
L90% curves.
33 / 235
Figure 2.5 Guaranteed levels for hydraulic hammers, with potential limits based on L30%, L50%, L70% and L90%
curves.
34 / 235
Table 2.9 Potential new limits for Article 13 equipment in the form A + B lg(parameter).
Orange shaded fields indicate that insufficient data is present and a limit is to be determined
when more data is available. Bold text indicates recommended potential limits.
Eq. no.
1
2
3b
4
5
6
7
8a
11
12b
13
14
15
17
19
22
24
25
26
27
28
30
34
35
36b
39
41a
42
43
44
45b
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
54
55
56
2.6
Equipment
Aerial access platforms with combustion
Brush cutters
Builders' hoists for the transport of goods
Combined high pressure flushers and su
Compaction machines (explosion ramme
Conveying and spraying machines for co
Conveyor belts
Drill rigs
Equipment for loading and unloading silo
Hedge trimmers
Hydraulic hammers
Joint cutters
Leaf blowers
Leaf collectors
Lift trucks, CE driven, couterbalanced (ot
Paver-finishers (equipped with a high-co
Piling equipment
Pipelayers
Piste caterpillars
Power sweepers
Scarifiers
Shredders chippers
Snow-removing machines with rotating to
Suction vehicles
Trenchers
Truck mixers
Water pump units (not for use under wat
Art Baseline A
13
99.6
13
106.0
13
89.5
13
13
13
108.8
13
108.4
13
102.7
13
98.2
13
13
72.9
13
13
13
99.8
13
108.0
13
92.2
13
110.9
13
96.5
13
97.6
13
88.7
13
92.7
13
106.7
13
101.7
13
100.3
13
98.5
13
95.6
13
86.1
13
13
13
13
94.9
13
100.0
13
107.4
13
111.1
13
92.8
13
106.5
13
103.9
13
107.2
13
96.7
13
111.3
13
92.9
B
0.0
0.0
0.0
New limit New limit

based on based on
L50%
L30%
A
A
93.6
89.6
111.0
106.0
100.5
81.5
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
108.8
111.4
104.7
101.2
104.8
110.4
103.7
100.2
19.2
75.9
70.9
5.3
0.0
0.0
18.6
0.0
0.0
0.0
10.5
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
10.6
101.8
110.0
95.2
111.9
96.5
97.6
107.7
92.7
110.7
103.7
104.3
103.5
99.6
89.1
98.8
109.0
89.2
109.9
94.5
96.6
103.7
90.7
107.7
101.7
101.3
101.5
94.6
88.1
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
6.3
0.0
0.0
97.9
100.0
107.4
112.1
93.8
106.5
104.9
110.2
98.7
111.3
106.9
95.9
89.0
107.4
112.1
90.8
99.5
102.9
108.2
96.7
110.3
102.9
Conclusions from the statistical analysis

From the assessment of the database it can be concluded that it could be used for the
Although there are some data errors, these were eliminated from the analysis were
possible. Such errors could be prevented in future by automated data input checking.
With the database version provided, it was not possible to see whether certain figures in
particular noise levels were incorrectly entered.
35 / 235
- the technical parameter often missing and not always defined, especially for article 13
equipment;
- a lot of data from important manufacturers are obviously missing;
Based on the results of the statistical analysis, the following background indications
could be given.
The stage I limits forArticle 12 equipment seem feasible. The stage II limits seem
feasible for some of the equipment types:
- for types 21, 23, 29, 33, 37, 38 and 53 stage II limits are feasible;
- stricter limits than stage II are also feasible for these types, as indicated in table
2.6.
- for types 8b, 9, 10, 12, 18, 20, 32, 45a and 57 the stage II limits are feasible if a
30% pass rate is applied; in that case, also stricter limits than stage II may be
feasible, as indicated in table 2.6;
- for types 16, 31, 36a, 40 and 41b the stage II limits may not yet be feasible, but
further analysis of the data and other considerations may disprove this;
- for type 3a, no conclusions can be drawn due to lack of data.
The technical feasibility and implementation level of noise control measures is not yet
taken into consideration here, and the impact assessments are essential to draw final
conclusions on the limits (see following chapters).
For the Article 13 equipment, some potential limits are proposed in table 2.9, based on
the available measured data with a 50% pass rate. This was only possible for equipment
types with sufficient measured data. Also here, these findings serve only as a
background reference in limit setting.
Consultation
3.1
Introduction
36 / 235
The consultation of stakeholders was divided in two parts: the first round involved
environmental NGOs, authorities and notified bodies; the second involved
manufacturers of outdoor equipment and industry associations. The results of these
consultations are presented in the following sections. Also some of the relevant
background documents are discussed here.
3.2
Consultation of environmental stakeholders
3.2.1
General approach and results

The first consultation round included Non-governmental Organisations (NGOs) active
in the field of environmental protection, municipalities, ministries of environment,
notified bodies and market surveillance authorities. The organisations within these
groups may be considered to represent the recipients of environmental noise produced
by outdoor machinery. For each of these groups, specific questionnaires were used that
were adapted to their specific tasks and positions within the field.
Common elements in all questionnaires were the following questions:
a. What types of machinery are mostly subject of noise complaints?
b. Which equipment do you consider critical for noise in the environment?
c. Which type of equipment should be removed completely from the Directive?
d. Which type of equipment should be moved from article 12 to article 13?
e. Which type of equipment should be moved from article 13 to article 12?
f. Which new types of equipment should be introduced to article 13 or article 12?
g. For which type of equipment should new limit values be introduced or existing
ones sharpened?
The answers of all respondents to the questions a. and b. are gathered in Table 3.1:
Equipment Overview Consultation results concerning environmental impact.
This summary table gives for each machine type the number of times this machine was
mentioned in answer to one of the questions a. and / or b. By comparing the numbers
one may derive a rating of the different types of machines with regard to their
environmental impact. The rating of the environmental impact derived this way is based
on a subjective assessment by the respondents of the noise impact and annoyance. In
addition to this subjective assessment an objective assessment is obtained from the
environmental impact assessment reported in Chapter 4.
The 10 machines types that are considered to be the most frequent cause of complaints
and/or producing the most significant environmental impact are:
- (10) Concrete breakers and picks, hand held;
- (42) Piling equipment;
- (34) Leaf blowers;
(6) Chain saws;
(8b) Compaction machines (only vibrating and non-vibrating rollers, vibratory
plates, )
37 / 235
(5) Building site circular saw bench;

(21) Excavator-loaders (<500 kW);
(28) Hydraulic hammers;
(32) Lawn mowers (excluding agricultural and forestry equipment);
(8a) Compaction machines (explosion rammers only)
From the total of 57 machine types, 24 types were not mentioned at all in answer to the
questions about noise impact and complaints. However, 10 equipment types were
mentioned that are currently not included in the Directive. The most prominent one of
these was externally mounted air-conditioning and cooling equipment for buildings. It
is debatable whether this type of equipment should be included in the list of machines
under Directive 2000/14/EC, because it is not mobile and it is fixed to a building.
Therefore one could argue that it belongs to the Construction Products Directive [11].
In view of the observed environmental noise problem caused by this equipment type
some regulatory action would be strongly advisable.
The answers of all respondents to the questions c.- g. are gathered in Table 3.2:
Equipment Overview Consultation results concerning changes in the equipment list.
This summary table gives for each equipment type the number of times this type was
mentioned in response to one of the questions c. to g. By comparing the numbers a
rating of the different equipment types is derived with regard to the need for change of
their current position and treatment in the Directive.
Moving an equipment type from Article 12 to Article 13 was only suggested twice, but
the opposite movement (Article 13 to Article 12) was suggested 86 times, with the
following equipment types ranking highest:
-
(6) Chain saws

(24) Grass trimmers/grass edge trimmers
(49) Scarifiers
(50) Shredders / chippers
(2) Brush cutters
(15) Cooling equipment on vehicles
(27) High pressure water jet machines
(34) Leaf blowers
(35) Leaf collectors.
These types are notably mainly consumer products for gardening, with the exception of
cooling equipment on vehicles.
In 21 cases it was suggested to remove an equipment type from the Directive, but this
was often in contrast with suggestions to move the same type from Article 13 to Article
12. Additionally, 30 new types of equipment were suggested as addition to the existing
list in the Directive, of which cooling and air conditioning equipment was mentioned
most frequently. These suggestions are discussed further in section 3.10.
The results of the answers on other questions are discussed separately for each organisation
type in the next sections.
38 / 235
Table 3.1 Consultation results on environmental impact

Eq. Type of equipment
no.
1
2
3a
3b
4
5
6
7
8a
8b
9
10
11
12a
12b
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36a
36b
37
38
39
40
41a
41b
42
43
44
45a
45b
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
Article
12/13

Brush cutters
Builders' hoists for the transport of goods (combustion-en
Builders' hoists for the transport of goods (with electric mo
Compaction machines (only vibrating and non-vibrating ro
Conveying and spraying machines for concrete and morta
Conveyor belts
Dozers (< 500 kw)
Drill rigs
Dumpers (< 500 kw)
Equipment for loading and unloading silos or tanks on tru
Graders (< 500 kw)
Hedge trimmers
Hydraulic hammers
Joint cutters
Lawnmowers (excluding agricultural and forestry equipme
Leaf blowers
Leaf collectors
Lift trucks, CE driven, counterbalanced (rough terrain/con
Lift trucks, CE driven, couterbalanced (others excl. Conta
Loaders (< 500 kw)
Mobile cranes
Motor hoes (< 3 kw)
Paver-finishers (excl. paver-finishers with high-compactio
Piling equipment
Pipelayers
Piste caterpillars
Power sweepers
Scarifiers
Shredders chippers
Snow-removing machines with rotating tools (self-propelle
Suction vehicles
Tower cranes
Trenchers
Truck mixers
Welding generators
13
13
12
13
13
13
13
13
13
12
12
12
13
12
13
13
13
13
12
13
12
13
12
12
13
12
13
13
13
13
13
12
13
12
12
12
13
13
12
13
12
12
13
12
13
12
13
13
13
12
13
13
13
13
13
13
13
13
12
13
13
13
12
Most
complaints
Critical for
env. Noise
1
1
1
1
2
3
2
2
5
1
1
6
1
1
4
5
3
6
2
2
2
2
1
2
2
2
3
1
2
2
2
2
2
2
3
2
2
2
1
5
3
1
4
2
1
1
2
2
2
5
2
1
2
2
2
Combined
env. Score
1
2
3
0
0
5
7
0
4
6
4
12
3
3
0
2
0
4
3
0
3
0
4
5
1
2
2
2
0
2
5
2
3
0
5
2
9
0
0
0
3
3
0
0
2
2
11
0
0
2
0
3
2
2
0
2
0
0
0
0
3
0
0
39 / 235
Table 3.2 Consultation results on changes in the equipment list .

Eq.
no.
Type of equipment
Article
12/13
Remove
from list
1
2
3a
3b
4
5

Brush cutters
Builders' hoists for the transport of goods (combustion-engine driv
13
13
12
13
13
13
13
7
8a
8b
9
10
11
12a
12b
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36a
36b
37
38
39
40
41a
41b
42
43
44

Compaction machines (only vibrating and non-vibrating rollers, vib
Conveyor belts
Dozers (< 500 kw)
Drill rigs
Dumpers (< 500 kw)
Graders (< 500 kw)
Hedge trimmers
Hydraulic hammers
Joint cutters
Leaf blowers
Leaf collectors
Lift trucks, CE driven, counterbalanced (rough terrain/construction
Lift trucks, CE driven, couterbalanced (others excl. Container han
Loaders (< 500 kw)
Mobile cranes
Motor hoes (< 3 kw)
Paver-finishers (excl. paver-finishers with high-compaction screed
Piling equipment
Pipelayers
Piste caterpillars
13
13
12
12
12
13
12
13
13
13
13
12
13
12
13
12
12
13
12
13
13
13
13
13
12
13
12
12
12
13
13
12
13
12
12
13
12
13
12
13
13
13
45a
12
45b
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57

Power sweepers
Scarifiers
Shredders chippers
Snow-removing machines with rotating tools (self-propelled, excl.
Suction vehicles
Tower cranes
Trenchers
Truck mixers
Welding generators
13
13
13
13
13
13
13
13
12
13
13
13
12
Move
Art. 12
-->
Art. 13
Move
Art.13
-->
Art. 12
1
5
New /
sharpened
limits
Suggested new
limit value
105 + 6 * log P
110 + 2 * log P
109 + 2,4*P (IC)
104 (electr)
109
109
7
1
1 (< 3 kg)
1
1
1
1
109
7
4
2
5
1
105 + 6 * log P
109
109
1
1
1
1
1
1
6
5
exclude 30%
exclude 30%
109
109
1
1
1
1
2
1
3
2
3
1
6
6
4
1
1
2
Pel < 2 kW:

-> 90 dB
2 < Pel < 10 kW: > 93 dB
Pel > 10 kW:
-> 93 + 2 log Pel
109
109
98
109
109
3.2.2
40 / 235
Environmental NGOs
The number of respondents in this group was 9, with an emphasis on organisations from
Germany and Austria. The respondents in this group were considered as key
information sources with regard to the environmental impact of outdoor machinery
noise. Seven of the nine organisations reported to receive complaints about outdoor
machinery noise, but none of them keeps a systematic data base of these complaints.
Only 2 of the respondents held the opinion that the noise marking on the machines is
clear to consumers and only 3 of them believed that the public understands the labeling
system. A few suggestions were made to replace the noise emission labeling by a
simpler classification label that expresses the relative position of a machine in
comparison to its competitors.
The opinion of the respondents about the gravity of the noise impact of the different
machine types is included in table 3.1 and commented upon in section 3.1.
Five of the nine respondents have a noise policy which is employed within their field of
activities, sometimes related to national legislation.
Five respondents mentioned that there is no active market surveillance in their member
state and four did not know about it. None of the respondents was positive about the
way the market surveillance is carried out.
Several respondents expressed concern about the effectiveness of the Directive, mostly
due to the lack of market surveillance and to the lack of public awareness of outdoor
equipment noise. It was also noted that the guaranteed level in many cases does not
express the actual noise emission but is equal to the limit value from the Directive or
gives some value that is agreed between the competitors in the market. This reduces the
effectiveness of noise marking and the possibility to choose a low noise machine.
Several suggestions were made to put more emphasis on regulations and limitations for
use (limits on duration of use; bans for certain hours of the day) instead of testing and
certification of the noise emission. For some consumers a gardening tool with an
indication that it is low noise may be used more at all hours, regardless of the
annoyance it may cause.
The answers of this group concerning the desired changes in the equipment list are
included in table 3.2.
3.2.3
Notified bodies
With a total number of 17 the response from the notified bodies was satisfactory.
Furthermore, the amount of information that could be retrieved from the questionnaires
was also large. Most of the notified bodies (16) are notified as testing laboratory and as
certification body, applying the conformity assessment methods of Annexes VI and VII.
10 of the notified bodies perform certifications according to Annex VIII.
For conformity assessment according to Annex VI the number of tested samples
required for certification varies between 1 and more than 5.
11 notified bodies also carry out conformity assessment according to Annex V for
article 13 equipment. The number of samples tested varies between 1 and 5 and the
uncertainty margin added to the test value varies between 1 and 3,8 dB.
11 respondents reported that they check the EC database. Their average judgment about
the correctness of the data yields a rating of 52%.
41 / 235
Within the group of Notified Bodies, technical problems concerning the definitions of
the machine categories and the test codes were investigated. These questions resulted in
the reporting of a serious number of problems. The machines types for which these
problems were reported are given in Table 3.3. The main causes for definition problems
are ambiguity of the type definitions (a lift truck with a bucket could be similar to a
loader) or a too small distinction between 2 sub-categories, which can lead to confusion,
e.g. lift trucks for rough terrain and lift trucks for other purposes.
The test code problems may have the following reasons:
- test conditions are not always representative for normal use;
- prescribed test conditions cannot be realized in practice;
- test conditions are not prescribed in an unambiguous way;
- test conditions do not cover all variations in use;
- the noise caused by the operating process of a machine (material handling)
exceeds the noise originating from the machine itself and disturbs the
measurement accuracy;
- the prescribed operating speed or engine speed according to the speed
specified by the manufacturer leaves room for abuse: by specifying a reduced
speed the noise emission drops below the level that will occur during normal
working conditions.
Several suggestions for machine types to be included in a Round Robin test were made
and are noted in Table 3.3.
13 of the notified bodies considered the Stage I, Stage II or other limits feasible in a
technical sense, while an equal number expected that stricter limits would require the
manufacturers to take additional noise control measures.
8 respondents gave an opinion about the percentage of the noisiest equipment that
should be excluded by stricter limits. From this group 3 would prefer to exclude the
noisiest 10 %, 4 would prefer 30 % and 1 mentioned both percentages.
9 Notified Bodies would agree to moving all machine types from article 13 to article 12;
6 Notified Bodies would agree to apply 3 dB stricter limits in general and 5 Notified
Bodies would favour stricter limits than Stage II. 5 Notified Bodies indicated that the
noise levels should be driven down by the Directive by 3 dB over a period varying
between 2 and 10 years, while the others did not prefer a change or did not respond to
this question. All suggestions for changes in the list of machines are included in table
3.2.
The equipment types with one of the following problems:
- definition ambiguities,
- measurement conditions in test code,
- equipment not properly handled by manufacturers,
- or reduced speed settings during test
are set out in Table 3.3.
42 / 235
Table 3.3 Consultation results on problems with definitions, test codes, improper handling or testing
Eq.
no.
Type of equipment
1
2
3a
3b
4
5
6
7
8a
8b
9
10
11
12a
12b
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36a
36b
37
38
39
40
41a
41b
42
43
44
45a
45b
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57

Brush cutters
Builders' hoists for the transport of goods (combustion-engine driv
Compaction machines (only vibrating and non-vibrating rollers, vib
Conveyor belts
Dozers (< 500 kw)
Drill rigs
Dumpers (< 500 kw)
Graders (< 500 kw)
Hedge trimmers
Hydraulic hammers
Joint cutters
Leaf blowers
Leaf collectors
Lift trucks, CE driven, counterbalanced (rough terrain/construction
Lift trucks, CE driven, couterbalanced (others excl. Container han
Loaders (< 500 kw)
Mobile cranes
Motor hoes (< 3 kw)
Paver-finishers (excl. paver-finishers with high-compaction screed
Piling equipment
Pipelayers
Piste caterpillars
Power sweepers
Scarifiers
Shredders chippers
Snow-removing machines with rotating tools (self-propelled, excl.
Suction vehicles
Tower cranes
Trenchers
Truck mixers
Welding generators
All types of equipment
Article
12/13
13
13
12
13
13
13
13
13
13
12
12
12
13
12
13
13
13
13
12
13
12
13
12
12
13
12
13
13
13
13
13
12
13
12
12
12
13
13
12
13
12
12
13
12
13
12
13
13
13
12
13
13
13
13
13
13
13
13
12
13
13
13
12
Problem
category
definition
Problem
test code
Round
Not
Reduce
Robin
properly
speed
test
handled setting for
recom- by manutest
mended facturer
1
1
1
1
1
2
3
1
1
3
1
1
1
1
2
1
1
4
1
2
1
1
1
1
3.2.4
43 / 235
Municipal Authorities
The response from the municipal authorities of the larger European cities was very low;
only 4 completed questionnaires were received, despite some effort to stimulate
reactions from the contact persons. Some of these needed more time to respond, which
was not available.
All four municipalities receive complaints and two of them are collect them in a
systematic way.
Half of the respondents considered the labelling system and the noise marking to be
clear to the public. Three of the municipalities have a noise abatement policy towards
the public and also have a purchasing policy in favour of quieter equipment. One of the
municipalities verifies the specified noise emission of newly purchased machines with
noise measurements.
Three respondents did not know how the market surveillance in their member state was
organised or which authority was responsible for it. The answers of this group
concerning the desired changes in the list of machines are included in table 3.2.
3.2.5
Ministries
The Ministries of Environment of six EU member states responded to the Ministry
questionnaire. Their opinion about the effectiveness of the Directive was quite diverse,
ranging from No significant effects to Good instrument, could be used more
rationally and effectively.
Only two Ministries beleived that the noise marking and the labeling system was clear
to the public. A suggestion for a more transparent labeling system, similar to the energy
consumption of household appliances, was made. Three Ministries reported to have a
policy to reduce outdoor equipment noise. The most specific answer concerning the
methodology behind it was that the authorities give a permit for the time schedule of the
professional use of outdoor equipment based on the employed techniques. Time limits
are also imposed for the use of garden equipment.
In 4 of the 6 member states market surveillance is reported to be operational, but only
one of these member states also responded to the market surveillance questionnaire.
Only two respondents gave an opinion about the percentage of the noisiest equipment
that should be excluded by stricter limits: one indicated a preference for 10 % while the
other preferred 70 %. Two Ministries would agree to moving all machine types from
article 13 to article 12; 2 would agree to apply 3 dB stricter limits in general and 2
Ministries would favour stricter limits than Stage II. One Ministry indicated that the
noise levels should be driven down by the Directive with 3 dB over a period of 4 years,
while the others did not prefer a change or did not respond to this question.
On the topic of changes in the list of machines very little specific response was received
from this group of respondents. Some general suggestions were made for extension of
the list with additional equipment used in residential areas and to introduce limit values
for all Article 13 equipment.
3.2.6
44 / 235
Market surveillance authorities

Although each of the EU member states is supposed to carry out market surveillance
activities the number of respondents in this group is only 7. This supports the
observations from other sources that active market surveillance practice only exists in a
small number of member states. Most of the respondents are from new member states
that joined the EU in 2004 (Cyprus, Estonia, Lithuania, Poland, Slovakia). Of the older
member states only the UK and Belgium reported about an active market surveillance
practice.
The amount of manpower invested in market surveillance is as follows:
Belgium
0.75 man year available for enforcement
France
existant, but extent for this directive unknown
Germany
existant, but extent for this directive unknown
Cyprus
2 surveillance officers
Estonia
1 surveillance officer (partially available for 200/14/EC)
Lithuania
Poland
Slovakia
UK
3 surveillance officers (+ 2 senior managers and 1 administrative
staff available for 2000/14/EC)
In most member states the effort spent on market surveillance for this Directive is rather
small. This is in line with the fact that many respondents from other organisations report
that they are not aware of the market surveillance practice in their country and indicate
that a stronger enforcement of the Directive is necessary.
Most of the Market Surveillance authorities verify the presence of the labels and the
availability of the DoC as the foremost method of inspection. Some of them also have
measurements carried out, either as a means of verification of noise emission
characteristics of specific machines (UK) or as a tool for investigation of the market
situation (Belgium). The Belgian Market Surveillance body proposed the development
and use of a simplified measurement method as a means of rapid verification during
surveillance.
3.2.7
Review of background documents

A number of documents were also reviewed in relation to the directive, including
- Position Paper from the Working Group on Outdoor Equipment on Technical
issues emerging from the application of Directive 2000/14/EC to some types of
equipment (2004);
- The study for the Commission into the available technology offering noise
reduction for lawnmowers as presented to the European Union market;
- The study of the German Federal Environmental Agency (UBA) on
"Investigation for technical-scientific support to update EC directive
2000/14/EC and its transportation into national law 32. BImSchV" (2006).
- Reports relating to the environmental impact of outdoor equipment, such as
RIVM/TNO studies, the Dutch VAMIL regulation, the Dutch Construction site
guidelines, the Belgian studies on chainsaw noise and others;
- Industry and other position papers and reports, including those from EGMF
(Lamonov project), CeCe, EPTA and others;
- Relevant articles, communications and letters concerning with the noise limits,
technical progress and economic aspects.
The most relevant of these are summarised and discussed here.
45 / 235
3.2.7.1
WG7 Position paper July 2004

The working group on outdoor equipment WG7 published a position paper in 2004
dealing with technical issues from the application of the Directive 2000/14/EC to some
types of equipment [12]. These included the test cycles, classification of equipment and
feasibility of noise limits for some cases. WG7 gave recommendations upon which the
Commission based the amendments to the Directive. The main points that emerged are
summarised in table 3.4 (from [12]). Key points include:
- the difficulty of further reducing noise for steel tracked equipment;
- improved definition and classification for dumpers, paver-finishers, handheld
breakers and lift trucks;
- issues with the test code for hand guided compaction machines (process noise),
lift trucks (cover variable reach trucks, align with loaders), landfill compactors
(formulate the test cycle), tower cranes (complete the test code) and concrete
and mortar mixers (adapt the test).
- maintaining of stage I limits for various reasons: for tracked dozers and loaders
(>55 kW), for wheeled dozers and loaders, landfill compactors, excavators,
dumpers (>250 kW), paver-finishers with compacting screed, industrial lift
trucks > 10t, mobile cranes. In some cases this was due to lack of time or
manpower.
3.2.7.2
CALM strategy paper 2007

In February 2007, the CALM II Network published an updated strategy paper titled
Research for a Quieter Europe in 2020 [13]. In this paper, outdoor equipment noise is
covered specifically. The main recommendations are the following.
a) The target for 2020 is to halve the noise annoyance caused by outdoor
equipment.
b) The Directive is recognised as an important instrument to achieve this,
although a higher efficiency in real world noise reduction is sought.
c) To achieve these goals, more thorough knowledge and new technologies are
required.
d) The most suitable noise-relevant parameters for each equipment type need to
be identified.
e) Correlation between noise emmission, performance parameters and real
operation nuisance is required; interaction with ground or process noise needs
to be taken into account.
f) Improved regulation related to noise emission is required, including test
methods.
g) The effect of single and combined noise sources on noise perception sould be
researched.
h) Practicable test and maintenance methods are required to ensure in-use
compliance.
46 / 235
Table 3.4 Overview of technical issues related to the amendment of the Directive, from WG7 in 2004.
47 / 235
These points are relevant for this study in the following ways:
- A halving of the noise annoyance could be interpreted as a reduction in the
number of disturbed people by 50% or a noise reduction of at least 3 dB for the
most relevant sources. However, this may well imply that a much larger noise
reduction is required for the important (numerous and noisy) sources.
- The link to real world noise reduction, the taking into account of process noise
and secondary sound radiation and the improvement of legislation can be
achieved by improving test codes and test cycles, which is also part of this
study. Also a subdivision of current equipment types would be necessary.
It should however be added that test codes closer to real conditions may be
much more expesive and less reproducible.
- Technical parameters for existing and new equipment will be identified or
redefined where necessary.
- Perception of combined sources and national and local legislation are outside
of the scope of this study.
3.2.7.3
UBA study
Under assignment of the German Umwelbundesamt (Federal Environmental Agency) in
2006 a study was executed by TV-Nord and DLG [14]. A report with the title
Examination of the technical and scientific support provided for the updating of the EC
directive 2000/14/EC and its implementation in national law (32. BimSchv) is
available in German.
As part of the examination, market investigations were conducted to establish the status
of the marking of equipment, the competent supervisory authorities were questioned as
to the market supervision measures they conducted, noise emission measurements were
conducted on 22 devices by 3 measuring institutes and the results were compared.
The measurement procedure for shredders was checked with respect to reproducibility
and a modified measurement procedure was proposed. Proposals for new types of
equipment to be included in the Directive were drawn up, and equipment types were
proposed for transfer from Article 13 to Article 12. Alongside proposals for user
benefits from the use of low-noise equipment, proposals were also put forward for limit
values for low-noise equipment. In addition, general problems with implementation of
the Directive were highlighted.
Concerning the market surveillance it was observed that large differences exist between
the Bundeslnder (German Federal States) and between the European member states
with regard to the market surveillance strategies and practices. It is concluded that
without harmonization of the market surveillance throughout the EU, the goals of
Directive 2000/14/EC will not be achievable.
For the evaluation of the test procedures and the uncertainties 22 machines were
investigated: 12 lawn mowers, 4 grass trimmers, power generators, leaf collector, 1
motor hoe, 1 hedge trimmer, 1 shredder / chipper. For most of the machines the
measured noise emission values were compliant with the guaranteed sound levels and
the limit values. However for 7 of the samples, the guaranteed values and the limit
values were exceeded considerably (2 5 dB). The measurements had been carried out
by 3 different institutes and differences in the results of up to 2,5 dB(A) occurred
between these, mainly caused by the difference between indoor and outdoor
measurements. The current measurement standards do not deal with this difference in a
correct way.
48 / 235
The test procedure for the shredders / chippers appeared to be somewhat ambiguous.
Proposals are given for a stricter specification of the dimensions and the moisture
content of the wood to be chipped. This proposal will lead to a significantly better
reproducibility of the tests.
The report proposes to include the following new equipment types in the Directive:
tree stump cutters, telescopic pruners and power sweepers without aspirators. Also
proposals for measurement procedures are made.
For existing machine types under Article 13, proposals are presented to bring them
under Article 12 with the limit values given in table 3.5. If the proposed revision of the
test procedure for shredders / chippers is adopted, this limit value should be adapted in
accordance with new measurement data.
Table 3.5 Proposed new sound power limits for several equipment types together with suggested limits to define
low noise equipment.
Electrical hedge trimmers

Combustion engine hedge trimmers
Combustion engine chain saws
Brush cutters
Leaf blowers / leaf collectors (all types)
Shredder / chippers
Limit
[dB(A)]
98
108
110 + 1,93 P
99 + 6,3 P
108
108
Low noise
limit
[dB(A)]
93
93
102
102
96
93
In the consultation, the UBA responded to the questionnaire with an updated proposal
for limit values for these equipment types.
In order to promote the use of low noise equipment the study proposes to define low
noise equipment in the following way: the sound power level LWA should always be
lower than 103 dB(A). In addition to this, the limit values for individual equipment
should be adapted to the current limit values and the state of the art of low noise
technology as given in table 3.5 in the right hand column.
Further stimulation of the use of low noise equipment could be achieved by giving user
advantages to the purchasers of low noise equipment. These advantages could either be
a less restrictive regulation for the allowed time periods of use or the introduction of tax
incentives similar to the tax benefit system for professional purchasers in the
Netherlands.
In the last chapter of the report a number of regulatory issues are discussed that occur in
the implementation of the Directive in the EU and in Germany in particular.
3.2.7.4
Dutch MIA/VAMIL incentive programme

In the interviews with the Dutch Ministry of Housing, spatial planning and the
Environment (VROM) and Aboma/Keboma (a Dutch notified body) an important point
was made in relation to the feasibility of noise limits for certain machinery types. In the
Netherlands, the government financial incentive programme MIA/VAMIL [15] has
been in place for more than 10 years, which allows a tax relief on the depreciation of
49 / 235
quieter equipment. It is updated regularly. Lower noise limits are given than those in the
Directive. It is a way of stimulating the use of quieter equipment without forcing the
market immediately to provide only quieter machines. A comparison between the stage
I, stage II and VAMIL noise limits is given in table 3.6. This illustrates that the VAMIL
limits, i.e. stage II or stricter, are feasible for at least part of the market as they are
already applicable.
Table 3.6 Noise limits according to the Dutch VAMIL incentive programme
Eq.
no. Equipment name
Net installed power (P)

Art. kW
Cutting width L in cm
Air flow Q
9
12 P < 15
3
P > 15; Q < 30 m /min
3
P > 15; Q > 30 m /min
20 Excavators, hydraulic or rope-opera 12 P < 15
15 120 cm
36a Lift trucks, CE driven, counterbalanc 12
P < 55
vertical mast
vertical mast
P > 55
P < 25
telescopic handler
25 55
36b Lift trucks, CE driven, couterbalance 13
12 P < 25
25 < P < 55
55 < P < 66
wheeled, rubber tracked
wheeled, rubber tracked
66 55
max. load > 60 t; P < 55
max. load > 60 t; P > 55
P < 55
Mobile cranes, on tracks
P > 55
12 Pel < 2
2 < Pel < 10
10 < Pel
45b
46
47
50

Power sweepers
Shredders chippers
52
53
Suction vehicles
Tower cranes
57
mobile, on tires
stationary, on rails or on tracks
Welding generators
3.2.7.5
Permissible sound power level

Stage I
Stage II
Stage II
indicative
99
97
97+2logP 95+2logP
97+2logP 95+2logP
96
93
83+11logP 80+11logP
104
101
85+11logP 82+11logP
85+11logP 82+11logP
96
94
100
98
100
98
105
103
Vamil
2003
95+2logP
95+2logP
Vamil
2004+2005
95+2logP
95+2logP
Vamil
2006+2007
95+2logP
95+2logP
79+11logP
100+2logP
100+2logP
100+2logP
79+11logP
100+2logP
100+2logP
100+2logP
82+9logP
100+2logP
100+2logP
100+2logP
82+9logP
100
100
83+9logP
98
103
98
103
98
103
98
102
87+8logP
87+8logP
87+8logP
87+8logP
74+16logP 100
74+16logP 100
104
85+11logP
104
104
85+11logP
101
82+11logP
101
101
82+11logP
104
104
85+11logP
85+11logP
85+11logP
85+11logP
101
101
82+11logP
82+11logP
104
85+11logP
104
85+11logP
104
85+11logP
97+logPel
101
82+11logP
101
82+11logP
101
82+11logP
95+logPel
103
103
101
101
82+11logP 90+5logP
100
81+11logP
89+logPel
89+logPel
87+logPel
87+logPel
98+logPel
96+logPel
89+logPel
89+logPel
87+logPel
87+logPel
97+logPel
95+logPel
89+logPel
89+logPel
87+logPel
87+logPel
89+logPel
85+11logP
96
117
120
98
89+logPel
85+11logP
96
117
120
98
87+logPel
85+11logP
96
117
120
98
87+logPel
85+11logP
96
117
117
98
13
13
13
13 inlet < 200 mm
inlet > 200 mm
13
12
12 Pel < 2
2 < Pel < 10
10 < Pel
Vamil
2002
95+2logP
95+2logP
82+11logP 82+11logP 82+11logP 82+11logP

82+11logP 82+11logP 82+11logP 82+11logP
87+8logP 87+8logP 74+16logP 100
81+11logP
81+11logP
81+11logP
82+11logP 81+11logP
82+11logP 81+11logP
81+11logP
81+11logP
81+11logP
81+11logP
81+11logP
81+11logP
81+11logP
81+11logP
81+11logP
81+11logP
100
100
80+11logP
100
80+11logP
98+logP
98+logP
97+logPel
96+logP
96+logP
95+logPel
96
96
96
96
89+logPel
89+logPel
87+logPel
87+logPel
98+logPel
97+logPel
96+logPel
95+logPel
89+logPel
89+logPel
89+logPel
89+logPel
87+logPel
87+logPel
87+logPel
87+logPel
Aboba/Keboma/VROM report
In 2002, a report was written by Aboma/Keboma for the Dutch Ministry of VROM on
the progress on the reduction of noise emission levels from equipment and the effects of
the Dutch financial incentive available for purchasing quieter equipment [16]. The
report contains detailed data on the noise production of construction equipment,
50 / 235
municipal equipment and other equipment between 1986 and 2001. The data was used
to examine the extent to which noise from construction equipment and municipal
equipment was affected by the statutory requirements on noise emission and incentive
schemes. The study drew on data from noise measurements by Aboma+Keboma, on
information regarding the use of incentives and for some types of construction
equipment on results of type-examinations from elsewhere in Europe.
Initially, in the considered period, statutory regulations had a limited effect on the noise
roduction of construction equipment. The main effect of the regulations was that the
noisiest types were excluded from the market. With the introduction of the directive
2000/14/EC regarding equipment for use outdoors more types of equipment became
subject to noise emission limit values and many other types of equipment had to be
marked with a sound power level, guaranteed by the manufacturer. The statutory
regulations to date already had a clear effect on the design of construction equipment.
Economical incentives played an important role in stimulating relatively quieter
construction equipment, forklift trucks and municipal equipment. In 1991, the
possibility was introduced of arbitrary depreciation of relatively quiet construction
equipment, wood chippers and forklift trucks (VAMIL). In 2000 an additional
economical incentive titled MIA was introduced. The technical requirements for
equipment are identical for VAMIL and for MIA. These financial incentives clearly
appear to have had a stimulating effect on reducing noise emission levels of equipment
in the market.
3.2.7.6
Blue Angel Environmental Mark

In Germany, an environmental quality mark for noise and gas emissions called the Blue
Angel [17,18,19] is available for some construction equipment types from the Directive
if they comply with 2 dB tighter noise limits, and are below 104 dB(A). There is no
direct financial benefit, except that the equipment will be required by some purchasers,
thereby giving a market advantage. This is another example of the feasibility of lower
noise limits.
The Blue Angel is also available for power sweepers and for refuse collection vehicles,
with sound power limits of 101 and 102 dB(A) respectively.
3.2.7.7
CETIM report on lawnmowers for the Commission

In April 2002 a report was produced by CETIM on the available technology offering
noise reduction for lawnmowers as presented to the European Union market [20]. This
report describes the market situation and technical and economic aspects of noise
reduction on lawnmowers, giving potential noise control options but also the
constraints. No information on environmental impact is given, although a general
recommendation is made to also take the sound quality into account, as not only the
dB(A) level is considered relevant for disturbance and annoyance.
This study concluded that there is still scope for further noise reduction of lawnmower
noise without loss of efficiency, although substantial R&D effort is necessary, which
will also affect the selling price of new products. Two approaches are recommended,
each with a different timescale. The first is the empirical approach, optimising
components and balancing the contributions and operating parameters. The second is
the modelling optimisation approach for blade noise.
51 / 235
Table 3.7 Two approaches for noise reduction on lawnmowers (taken from [#]).*Assumption: the length of
time between the end of the development stage and marketing of the product is around 1 year.
Approach
Optimisation:
- components
- overall design
- operating
conditions
Development of tools
Optimisation of
blades/casing
Noise
reduction
(dBA)
2 to 3
Time needed for

development
Year ready for

marketing
1 to 2
2004 to 2005*
3 to 4
2 to 3
2 to 4
2004 to 2005
2007 to 2010*
The study states that the combustion engine is the dominant source for cutting widths
less than 50 cm. To reduce the engine noise, enclosure or a improvements in engine
design such as camshaft and valve layout, air/fuel mixture, component optimisation and
choice of materials are options. Combined with enclosure, these could result in a few
dB reduction.
For blade noise which is important for the widths above 50 cm, optimised blade design
is expected to result in reductions upto around 3 dB. Optimisation of the blade/deck
assembly may offer addition reduction of upto 3-4 dB, if new computational tools can
be applied to work on the non-stationary pressure fields.
It is estimated that assembly methods, including separation of components may result in
upto 1 dB noise reduction. In those cases where the casing is contributing to the sound
radiation, extra damping may be applied to reduce its noise.
A balancing of the source contributions from the various sources is considered to
possibly result in reductions of 2-3 dB for many lawnmowers.
Reduction of the blade speed is not considered a worthwhile option as it has already
been applied in the past to fulfil the stage I noise limits. For rotary blades, the noise
tends to vary by about 1 dB per 100 rpm ( 60 lg rpm ).
It is noted that mulching lawnmowers, which do not eject the grass, produce less noise
than others, where there is an opening through which noise is radiated.
3.2.7.8
Position paper from WG7 on the Implications for Directive 2000/14/EC resulting from
the Study on Lawnmower noise reduction
This position paper by WG7 [21] evaluates the implications of the lawnmower study, in
particular which option for limit proposals should be chosen. The options considered
were: 1) retain stage I; 2) implement stage II; 3) set tighter levels for stage II; 4)
reconsider present categories. Option 2 was chosen, as for many years the limits
remained unchanged. This paper also gives some insight into the original considerations
behind the directive, especially that it was intended to gradually result in removing
noisy equipment from the market. New limits cannot be only based on the quietest
52 / 235
machines, but also not simply on the arithmetic average of all guaranteed or measured
data. So an evaluation was made of the noise reduction technology available to all
manufacturers on the market. A future stage III was considered feasible at an
unspecified date. Workable alternatives for the current categories were not yet
identified.
3.2.7.9
Guidelines for management of noise at construction sites

(Dutch: Circulaire bouwlawaai)
In the Netherlands, guidelines from the Ministry of Environment have been published
for the management of noise from building sites [22]. Already in 1981 it was
established that noise from building and demolition sites was a serious source of
disturbance, and a guideline was provided for authorities at all levels, based on the state
of technical progress and the existing legislation. In 1978 a TNO study showed that
31% of residents near building sites were disturbed by noise, 8% of which were
seriously disturbed. In 1988, the percentage of disturbed residents increased to 57%,
9.5% of whom were seriously disturbed. However, not only nearby residents are
affected, but a larger number of people in the vicinity of building sites, such as workers
and those involved in recreational activities.
It was clearly established in Dutch environmental policy that building site noise not
only needs to be controlled locally, but also the limiting of emission from machinery at
the source is essential. The guideline provides some examples of sound power levels of
machinery which can be considered as low noise design. Local regulations can be used
to limit the amount of noise in the environment. Legal procedures are however
generally only effective for larger construction projects due to the time required for
submitting and acquiring permits.
In the guideline, an Leq exposure level of 60 dB(A) averaged over the period 07:0019:00 is recommended. For a duration of less than one month 65 dB(A) is accepted. It is
assumed that building activities do not occur during the evening and night hours. For
noise sensitive locations such as schools and hospitals a lower exposure limit than 60
dB(A) can be set.
Whereas initially the increasing mechanisation of the construction industry caused
higher noise levels in the environment, later developments resulted in significantly
quieter equipment which was nevertheless counteracted by the large numbers of
machines put into service.
Municipalities have the authority and the means by local permits and bylaws to regulate
the maximum noise levels, the time of usage and the location of noise source at building
sites and at goods distribution points. This also includes sources such as radios.
The guideline also gives an overview of sound power levels from different construction
equipment types, clearly illustrating that the existing noise limits are not related to
technical progress. In other words, there are often machines on the market with much
lower noise levels than the European limits.
3.2.7.10
Studies on on piling machines

In the Netherlands, several studies [23,24,25,26,27] have been untertaken to evaluate
reduction of noise from piling machines both by operational and noise control
53 / 235
measures. Also the cost aspects have been investigated. These studies were particularly
in relation to occupational noise, but also are relevant for environmental noise.
Main types of piling machines are hammers (hydraulic, diesel, pneumatic, gravity)
vibration machines, hydraulic and pneumatic static push/pull machines. These may
include noise control devices such as shrouds, shock and vibration absorbers and others.
A characteristic issue is that noise is often also radiated from the pile itself, varying
with the length in the ground and with the pile material, i.e. concrete or steel. Typical
sound pressure levels at 15 m distance are given for various types if piling machines. In
terms of sound power the levels are between 100-135 dB(A) depending on the type of
machine. Especially hammer systems are noisiest.
3.2.7.11
Studies on on cooling equipment

Cooling equipment on vehicles was identified as an important environmental noise
source in the eighties and nineties. Some studies have been performed on this topic [28]
to assess the noise emission and potential noise control options, including operational
aspects such as operating times, duration and location. Especially when parked near
residential areas, refrigeration vehicles may cause some disturbance. Also, when goods
delivery takes place in the early morning or evening hours, the cooling equipment may
be a source of local disturbance. This equipment is also included in the dutch Peak
noise programme which regulates the noise reception of goods delivery noise sources
[28].
3.2.7.12
Peak noise programme

The dutch Peak noise programme (see www.piek.org) was set up to encourage and
enable stakeholders in the goods delivery business to tackle peak noise occurring
around shopping centres and delivery points in residential areas, especially during the
evening and night hours. These stakeholders include residents, retailers, transport
companies, local authorities and manufacturers. A list of equipment types exists,
together with measurement methods [28], low noise products, guidelines for quieter
operation and a financal support for developing quieter equipment. Many specific
equipment types are included. The ones that overlap with the Directive 2000/14 are
cooling equipment on vehicles, vehicle-mounted portable forklift trucks, reversing beep
systems, engine speed management, hybrid engines. Quieter solutions for these have
been developed and put on the market.
3.2.7.13
Studies on chainsaws
In Belgium, several studies [29,30,31,32] were performed on chainsaws in relation to
the directive, in particular on typical sound power levels, the performance of the
measurement method and on a round robin test. Limit proposals are given and findings
on the repeatibility and reproducibility of the measurement method are presented.
3.2.7.14
CALM/CRF Study on OE noise in operation

A study performed by CRF has been published by the CALM network in 2003, on the
status of research related to the noise of outdoor equipment in operation [33].
The following aspects were investigated:
- the comparison between the noise test data and noise emission in real operating
conditions;
- development of a noise perception indicator for outdoor equipment;
- effects of combined or simultaneous noise sources on perception.
Research needs and proposals for these issues are put forward. The importance of
representative test codes for real operation and simultaneous sources is emphasised.
3.2.7.15
54 / 235
Letters to the Commission

Some letters to the Commission were provided dealing with various aspects of the
Directive.
A letter from the Italian Ministry of the Environment states that the proposed new limits
for lawnmowers should be achievable despite the lawnmower study results. In addition,
it was stated that lawn trimmers and lawn edge trimmers were not sufficiently covered
by that study and that the following points are relevant:
- these machines have different structures according to the cutting width;
- the sound emission depends strongly upon this structure;
- the machines with the larger cutting widths compete directly on the market with grass
trimmers/grass edge trimmers;
- more ambitious sound power limits are possible for cutting widths below 30 cm.
The proposals are given in table 3.8 below.
Table 3.8 Proposed limit changes from the Italian Ministry of the Environment
Type of equipment
Lawnmowers
Lawn trimmers/lawn
edge trimmers
Cutting width L in
cm

in dB(A)/1 pW
Stage I
as from
3 January 2002
Stage II
as from
3 January 2006
L 50
50 < L 70
70 < L 120
L > 120
96
100
100
105
94
98
98
103
L 30
L > 30
96
96
92
96
In a letter from the German Ministry of Environment the following is stated (selection
of translated text):
- Since most of the time the outdoor equipment will only be operated at one and
the same locality intermittently, we are not so much confronted with an impact
such as traffic noise but rather with acute annoyance and/or disturbance, not
taking into account the impact on the workers in the professional range of use
(here the EC Machinery directive would apply, in particular).
- Aside from numerous complaints received by UBA and by the Ministry, there
are also complaints at the police department and the municipal departments of
public order, the number of which is unknown to us. The German federal states
(Lnder) are in charge of this matter.
- Market surveillance does take place, although it still can and must be improved.
- The benefits to the end-user are of importance for the development and
marketing of low-noise equipment (see German law 32. BImSchV). This aspect
should be considered in the amendment of the Outdoor Directive. Here, the
comprehensibility of the marking should be considered, as a mere delaration of
the dB level does not mean much to the layman. Maybe the significance could
be explained by means of a scale (akin to the energy consumption of household
appliances). Besides that, the comprehensibility of the marking is debatable,
since the layman is not informed about the type of equipment. A reference to
the Outdoor Directive and the appropriate number of the annex could clarify
55 / 235
things. This would also facilitate the implementation of end-user benefits

and/or operating restrictions.
The Swiss Federal Office for the Environment FOEN submitted a letter to the
Commission [xx] with the following remarks:
-
As noise complaints of leaf blowers are among the most frequent, its regulation
in the directive is considered insufficient and it should be tightened by
introducing permissible sound power levels and/or possible time restrictions for
operation, e.g. recommendation to use the devices only from 9:00 to 11:30 and
from 14:00 to 17:00.
The directive should be complemented with an incentive regulation that
differentiates between state of the art (Stand der Technik) and latest state of the
art (neuster Stand der Technik), similar to the label "Blauer Engel" of the
German Bundesumweltamt. Maybe the system could be adapted to the already
defined two stages in the directive (Stage I: mandatory; stage II: indicative).
In a letter from a manufacturer of horticultural equipment concern was expressed about

the accuracy of the database, as his submitted values were entered late and incorrectly.
The Swedish government (Environmental Protection Agency) submitted a full proposal
for noise limits and a measurement method for snowmobiles [34], as these are
considered a serious environmental noise problem in remote mountain areas. The
proposal includes a LpAFmax noise limit of 75 dB(A) measured according to SAE
standards as a first step in 2009, and a second step noise limit of 73 dB(A) for 2012. A
clear argumentation is set out that the 2000/14 Directive is the only one suitable to
include off-road vehicles.
An important issue is that the proposed noise limits are for LpAFmax and measurement
method are full throttle pass-by acceleration measurements, similar to those for road
vehicles. This is an important difference with the sound power measurements applicable
for other machinery types in the Directive.
From the general perspective of the 2000/14 Directive snowmobiles should be possible
to include as they are off-road.
3.2.8
New equipment list

The consultation resulted in various proposals for new equipment types for Article 13.
These are listed in table 3.9 below. Only some of the suggested types are relevant as
potential new additions to the directive. Some of types are already covered by the
directive or partly covered. Others fall outside the scope of the directive or belong in
other directives. For example, noise limits for jetskis are given in the Recreational Craft
Directive; non-powered attachments are excluded from the directive; means of transport
for goods or persons on (public) roads, rail or waterways are also excluded. All
machinery is in principle covered by the Machinery Directive, although this is not an
instrument for noise limits and does not specify particular measurement methods.
56 / 235
Table 3.9 Consultation results concerning environmental impact and suggested addition of equipment types
currently not included in the Directive.
Eq.
no.
Type of equipment
Most
Critical for
complaints env. Noise
Air / climat conditioning equipment + heat pumps

(Swimming pool) heat pumps
Ventilation equipment
Sheet piling machines
Horticultural equipment
Agricultural + forrestry equipment (espec. ride on lawnmowers)
Road sweepers without aspirators (motorized broom)
Telescopic pruner
Combined equipm for multi-use function in homes and gardens
Bird scare canons
Agricultural tractors used to drive water pumps
Remote control model airplanes
Unpowered lawn mower attachment (to tractors)
Unpowered shredder/chipper attachment
Motor Hoe (< 6 kW)
Telehandlers
Mobile waste breakers (wood, concrete)
Mobile sieve installations
Drillin rigs (foundation, dam plates)
Bridge and gantry cranes (used in harbour and portal cranes)
Vehicle mounted loader cranes
Power driven none fixed lifting gear (magnets, vaccuum) with thei
Motor Hoe <10 kW
Street washing machine
Recerational eqquipment (jet-ski, ski-doo, quad)
Tracked dumpers < 500 kW (equal to other tracked machines)
Tractors used in construction
Reverse movement alarm signals (on all machines)
Golf green edger
5
2
1
1
1
New type Suggested

suggested
limit
9
3
2
2
art 13
art 13
art 13
art 12
2
2
2
1
art 13
art 13
art 13
art 13
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
3
1
1
art 12
art 12
art 13
art 13
art 13
art 13
83+11*log P
art 13
art 13
art 12
1
1
art 13
art 13
Problem
category
definition
Problem
test code
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
art 12
art 12
Several equipment types are considered realistic options to be added to the directive,
normally to the Article 13 list first, and possibly later given limits as Article 12 types.
Some logical additions are also given. All these proposals are listed in table 3.10.
Table 3.10 New equipment list for Article 13, resulting from the NGO/No/Bo/Authorities consultation and logical
addtions. An indication of average sound power levels in the field and typical environment type (see next chapter)
are indicated.
Eq.no. New Equipment name
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
120
121
Air conditioning and ventilation equipment

Heat pumps
Tractors used in construction and for driving water pumps
Reverse movement alarm signals (on aal machines)
Non-fixed lifting gear (magnets, vaccuum) , own power source.
Snowmobiles
Quad (off-road)
Golf green edger
Bird scare canons
Telescopic pruner
Tree stump grinder
Straddle carrier
Reach stacker
Stone circular saw
Stone chainsaw
Swimming pool pumps
Art/12/13 LWA avg Environment

13
13
13
13
13
13
13
13
13
13
13
13
13
13
13
13
13
13
13
13
13
13
85 C
85 F
110 D + F
120 D + F
110 C+D
100 C+D
100 D
105 D+F
100 D+E
95 C
100 C
110 F
110 F
96 F
90 F
95 B
110 B+F
110 D+F
110 D+F
120 D
120 D
100 A
57 / 235
3.2.9
Suggested limit changes and article moves

Suggested limit changes based on all considerations and impacts are presented in
chapter 9, also taking the environmental consultation into account. Suggested
equipment moves from Article 13 to Article 12 based on all considerations and impacts
are presented in chapter 8, together with the new equipment list and types to be
removed..
3.3
Conclusions from the environmental consultation

The consultation of environmental NGOs, public authorities and notified bodies
resulted in 43 responses to the questionnaire and several individual interviews. An
overview of proposals was set up for limit changes, Article 13 to 12 moves and new
equipment types.
In general the Directive was known to the respondents, although not in great detail.
General suggestions were made for improving the clarity of the marking system, for
example by a more global rating. As a complementary measure to the directive,
incentive programmes were considered to be an effective way of encouraging quieter
equipment in the market. Many respondents emphasised the need to improve market
surveillance and enforcement, which is not practiced very widely for this Directive (the
UK is most active).
Based on the consultation responses a rating was obtained for each equipment type, as
to whether complaints were often received and whether it is considered critical. Many
of the types in the directive were mentioned. The highest score was found for concrete
breakers, piling equipment, leaf blowers, chainsaws and compaction machines.
Problems with equipment definitions, test codes and improper handling or testing by
manufacturers were identified.
A list of 21 potential new equipment types (see table 3.9) was derived from the
consultation results, which need to be ranked (see following chapter).
New limit proposals were given for electric hedge trimmers, combustion engine hedge
trimmers, combustion engine chain saws, brush cutters, leaf blowers and leaf collectors
(all types), shredders/ chippers, grass and grass edge trimmers, lawnmowers (Art 12),
lawn and lawn edge trimmers (Art 12), glass recycling containers, cooling equipment
on vehicles, scarifiers, power sweepers, refuse collection vehicles, suction vehicles and
combined high pressure and suction vehicles, high pressure flushers, power generators
(< 400 kW, Art 12).
The following equipment types were indicated for moving to Article 12: all of the
above mentioned types, and in addition, aerial access platforms, builders hoists with
electric motor, equipment for silo loading, high pressure water jet machines, hydraulic
hammers, lift trucks (Art 13), piling equipment, power generators (>400 kW), road
milling machines and truck mixers.
Several relevant reports were reviewed, including the WG7 position paper, the CALM
position paper, the UBA study, the lawnmower study and its implications, the Dutch
MIA/VAMIL incentive programme, the dutch guidelines on construction site noise, and
other documents, all providing information in relation to noise limits. The following
points are of special interest:
58 / 235
the UBA recommendation for the definition of low noise equipment with a
sound power level of below 103 dB(A);
the choice by WG7 to recommend stage II limits for lawnmowers ;
the balancing of new limits between low noise technology and the multitude of
data from existing noisier equipment on the market (WG7 paper);
the existing lower noise limits in the Dutch MIA/VAMIL programme;
the CALM recommendations, amongst which the ambition to halve the noise
from outdoor equipment by 2020;
the importance of European noise emission limits as an instrument
complementary to local operational noise control and planning.
A number of communications to the Commission were reviewed including proposals

for snowmobiles, leaf blowers, lawnmowers and lawn trimmers. Also suggestions were
made to take the state of technical progress better into account.
3.4
Consultation of Industry and Industry associations
3.4.1
Approach and involved companies and organisations

The industry consultation consisted of a questionnaire sent out by email, in some cases
accompanied by an interview during which additional information was obtained. The
questionnaire was sent out to a selection of companies, originally based on a crosssection including various EU countries and equipment types. Not all of the companies
approached responded, but the questionnaire was also spread on a larger scale by
industry associations to their members. Some companies were contacted during the
BAUMA trade fair in Munich in April 2007. It was not possible in the given timescale
to approach all EU companies, but many of the main manufacturers, a cross-section of
SMEs and the main industry associations were contacted.
The key industry associations responded to the questionnaire and were interviewed
including EGMF, CeCe, FEM, BCAS/PNEUROP, ORGALIME and VDMA. Other
associations responded via the questionnaire, some gave limited or no response. Some
additional discussions were held with EGMF for example on the issue of lawnmowers,
and with VDMA to explain the scope of the study.
Several companies were interviewed individually including both SMEs and larger
companies.
Some particular documents were of use for this study, provided by the associations:
- Position papers CeCe, FEM, EPTA
- Economic report 2007 of CeCe
- Annual report Orgalime
- Lamonov report executive summary (EGMF)
The response to the questionnaire and some input from individual interviews is
presented in the following sections, followed by a summary of the above mentioned
documents and recent information.
3.4.2
Response to the industry questionnaire

42 responses to the questionnaire were received from individual companies in 9
countries including 1 Japanese and 3 US companies. 8 of these were small, 14 were
medium sized and 20 were large, although some companies were in fact part of a larger
59 / 235
international holding company. 26 companies were from the construction machinery

sector, 8 from the materials handling and logistics sector, 7 from the horticultural
equipment sector and 5 from the municipal equipment sector. Some of these companies
are active in more than one sector. 14 responses from 8 industry associations were
received, some with separate responses per product group. The response figures are set
out in figure 3.1.
The responses to the questionnaire varied significantly in their level of detail. Some
companies, especially large ones, produce a large range of equipment types falling
under the directive.
A consolidated overview of the results is given here, due to reasons of confidentiality of
company-specific data, but also for the sake of brevity. The results are based on all
provided responses to each particular question, both from companies and associations.
3.4.3
Structure of the questionnaire

The questionnaire for industry was similarly structured to that for the environmental
questionnaire, although more industry-specific questions were included. Separate
versions were provided for companies and for industry associations, as individual
companies were able to give a more detailed response on specific product types and on
particular technical issues. Areas covered included:
- the directive in general
- noise marking effectiveness
- company information and products put on the market
- market aspects
- technical aspects
- economic aspects
- environmental aspects
- EC database
- category definitions
- test codes
- testing
- need for round robin test
- Limit changes
- Article 13-12 shifts and new equipment
- further remarks.
3.4.4
Company information and products put on the market

Aspects such as company size and sectors provided by the respondents are illustrated in
figure 3.10. Most of the equipment types in the Directive were covered by the responses
to the questionnaire. Exceptions were concrete and mortar mixers, band and circular
saw benches, construction winches, conveying and spraying machines for concrete and
mortar, conveyor belts, cooling equipment on vehicles, glass and mobile waste
containers, piste caterpillars, trenchers and truck mixers. There were no responses from
manufacturers of these products.
60 / 235
Com panie s : 42 Re s pons e s

USA ; 3
AT ; 1
UK; 7
DE; 15
SE; 2
NL; 3
I; 3
F; 7
JP; 1
Industry Associations: 14 Responses

FNADE
Environmental
waste handling
federation (F); 1
EPTA - Power
tools (D/EU); 1
FEM - Materials
handling (EU); 3
CeCe Construction
equipment (EU
1
VDMA - German
Engineering
Federation; 3
BCAS/Pneurop Compressed air

equipment
(UK/EU); 3
FGR - Garden
machinery (D); 1
EGMF Garden
machinery (EU);
1
Company size
Small; 8
Large; 20
Medium; 14
Industry sectors
Logistics/
Mat.Handling; 8
Horticultural; 7
Construction; 26
Municipal; 5
Figure 3.1 Overview of responses to the industry consultation.
3.4.5
61 / 235
The Directive in general

In the first part of the questionnaire some general questions on the directive were asked:
1. Are the general requirements and provisions known to the respondent?
2. Is the national or EU enforcement satisfactory?
3. What are the main shortcomings of the directive?
4. What alternative options are there for these?
5. Should there be more information in the DOC?
6. Does the directive cause significant administrative burden?
All respondents were familiar with the directive (Q1), all though not always in detail.
The enforcement of the directive (Q2) was considered insufficient by 55%, sufficient by
31% and was uncertain to 14% of the respondents. The main shortcomings (Q3) and
alternative options (Q4) for these are listed in table 3.11, the highest priority issues
being uncertainty (unclear need and open interpretation), lack of market surveillance
and rules, the EC database and data collection and equipment and category definitions.
Concerning the DOC (Q5), 89% was against including more information in the DOC,
11% for. The directive is considered to cause a significant administrative burden by
87% of the respondents (Q6). This is due to a variety of factors; two factors mentioned
were the conformity verification by notified bodies and the preparation of the Technical
Construction File (TCF, required for the Machinery Directive).
3.4.6
Understanding of noise marking

Concerning noise marking, 65% of responses consider it to be unclear to consumers and
purchasers; the difference between sound power levels and the operator sound pressure
level value given in the manual may not be properly understood. 88% of the
respondents consider noise marking unclear for the public, in particular the difference
between sound power and sound pressure levels, which is often not known or
understood.
3.4.7
EC database
The following questions were asked concerning the EC database:
1. Do you check the database?
2. Are the data reported correctly?
3. Are you satisfied with the EC database, and if not, what improvements do you
propose?
4. Should the manufacturer input his own data?
78% of respondents check the database (Q1) sometimes or at regular intervals. On the
correct reporting of data (Q2), 24% state it is incorrectly reported, 62% state it is
sometimes correctly reported, 7% always and 7% not always. This does not mean that
all the data is incorrecty reported, but that there are often errors present or that the data
is sometimes not reported or reported late.
93% of respondents are not satisfied with the database, either with its content or with
the way it is set up or maintained. 67% of respondents believed that the manufacturer
should be allowed to enter and correct his own data, 30% did not believe this should be
allowed and 4% did not know. The concern was expressed that incorrect data may be
entered by some manufacturers.
62 / 235
Table 3.11 Results of the industry consultation: Suggested shortcomings in the directive and possible alternatives
for these, with the number of times the issue was mentioned by respondents (count). Shaded items were mentioned
3 times or more. Note: not all alternative options listed are necessarily solutions to identified shortcomings.
Shortcomings
Categories and definitions
Categories
Definitions, also to cope with future types
Database/data collection
DOC issues
DOC and data collection confusion
count
Alternative options
count
7
6
9
Categories and equipment definition improvements
Separate DOC and data collection

Manufacturer DOC
DOC should indicate main parameter determining
noise
More performance related data in DOC
2
1
Take annoyance and tonal noise into account

Reword as new approach directive and refer to EN
standards
Simplification
Better stakeholder communication
Market driven regulations
SME exemptions for small series
Verification of declared values as in 84/533
Allow manufacturer to perform SU verification
More research on process noise and jobsite
organisation before new limits
More knowledge of the market
Not always main influence parameter in DOC

General issues
Annoyance/tonal quality not taken into account
Not New Approach directive

Unclear criteria for Art 13/12
Lack of user understanding
1
4
1
Large effort for small series

Too short implementation period stage II (esp. SMEs)
1
3
Jobsite organisation not covered

Verification of declared noise value
Limit issues
Stage II introduced before feasibility
Limit value evaluation
Limits not based on environmental need and technical
feasibility
Market surveillance
Lack of market surveillance and harmonised rules, leading
to trade obstacle
1
1
4
3
2
13
Limit to limits / less tight limits

Revert to labeling and performance rating
Take techno-economical aspects better into account in
limits
Consistent/more market surveillance + info sharing

Harmonised approach to MS, uncertainty and
database
2
1
2
1
2
1
1
1
1
2
1
2
1
2
8
2
Test codes
Test not representative for real noise
Engine power definition inconsistent
No account of process noise
Unclarity on fan speed
Tools separate from machine (e.g. piling)
Mistakes in test codes (e.g. towercranes)
Uncertainties
Uncertainties-no benefit, unnecessary burden,
unclear/interpretation
10
6
2
1
1
1
18
Test codes more repr. of real conditions, e.g.

telehandlers, mini-excavators, compactors
Better engine power definition, ISO 14396
Add engine at idle
Include fan speed guideline
Rules for separate machines and tools
Allow manufacturer to manage uncertainties

Set fixed values for uncertainties based on manuf.
Data, or guidelines
Apply ISO 7574-2
Eliminate uncertainty requirements
Proposed improvements are the following (with number of times mentioned):

- Introduce an IT tool with electronic DOC (9)
- Only retain the EC database, no data to member states (7)
- Faster updating of the data (6)
- Allow correction of existing data (4)
- Improvement of categories in database (4)
- Enable analysis of data (2)
- Include the current limit values (1)
- Validate the duration of the limit values and declared values (1)
- Database should be complete (1)
9
5
2
1
1
5
2
1
1
63 / 235
Improve administration (1)

Improve information and access (some companies do not know about the
database) (1)
Several of these points are already taken into account by the new IT tool made available
by the Commission in 2007. It was also remarked by several respondents that the newer
versions of the database are an improvement on the earlier versions.
3.4.8
Category/equipment definitions
On category defintions the following remarks were made. For all categories (5
respondents) it was suggested that equipment terminology and structures from ISO
standards should be used, including ISO 6155, ISO 15878 and others. This would also
permit better analysis of the database. Refinement of categories would enable
graduation of noise limits in the future. Individual categories mentioned included:
- combine equipment types 7,26 and 52 into 1 equipment type;
- for concrete picks and breakers (10), only consider impact range above 20 J;
smaller tools are mainly used indoors;
- for type 20, excavators, also name transfer systems for scrap handling;
- for type 22, glass containers, exclude underground containers;
- for type 31, landfill compactors, the bucket is not significant;
- for type 33, lawn trimmers/lawn edge trimmers, separate the limits from those
of lawnmowers;
- for type 36a, forklift trucks, the definition is unclear and this type could
possibly be merged with loaders;
- for type 40, motor hoes, a separate power group for mini tillers is required with
a noise limit at 93 dB(A);
- for type 41b, paver finishers with high compaction screed, the definition of
high compaction is unclear, use ISO definition;
- for type 50, shredders/chippers, separate these into two separate equipment
types;
- for types 8b, 16,18,20, 37,41 and 42 category definitions need improving.
3.4.9
Market aspects
The following questions were asked on market figures:
1. Overall number of equipment in use in the EU, for each type you produce.
2. Number of equipment sold by all manufacturers in the EU together, for your
for each type you produce.
3. Your market share in the EU.
As this information is company-sensitive and was not always answered or not clearly
answered in all cases, it is not presented here but has been used where possible to
support estimates for total machine populations in the EU.
The following qualitative questions about the market were asked; responses are given
after each question.
4. Is there a market demand for quieter equipment?
Yes: 36%, no: 60%, dont know: 4%. It was remarked by several respondents
that this market is limited and often related to incentive programmes (Blue
Angle and VAMIL) or special customer needs such as sensitive areas like
hospitals.
5. Do you put low noise equipment on the market? Yes: 34%, no: 66%.
64 / 235
6. Are there plans to do this in the short term?

Yes: 16%, remainder no or dont know.
7. Are there plans to do this in the long term?
Yes: 36%, remainder no or dont know:.
8. Are competitive products checked for noise emission?
Yes: 55%, remainder no or dont know:.
9. Are you aware of unfair competition?
Yes: 53%, no: 31%, dont know: 16%.
10. Do EU or national authorities take appropriate steps against unfair
competition? Yes: 3%, no: 66% , dont know: 32%.
11. Do you experience unfair competition and if so, from which countries?
Yes: 48%, no: 36%, dont know: 16%.
Countries mentioned were: EU countries (9), China (7), South-East Asia (5)
Non-EU (5), India (4), USA (1).
12. Do you see the directive as an instrument to eliminate low quality equipment
from the market? Yes: 43%, no: 49%, dont know 8%.
It was remarked that better market surveillance would improve this.
13. Is there growth in your sector of the market? 88% responded with yes.
14. Are there any other key market issues in relation to the directive?
The following issues were mentioned:
- re-importing of non-compliant machinery;
- no clear link with other directives (PUWER and Physical Agents);
- noise reduction not linked to performance or quality;
- burden for global companies, EU SKU.
It should be emphasised that the responses have been reviewed over all equipment
types, although some power categories, market categories or particular equipment types
have a unique situation. For example, market demand for quieter horticultural
equipment tends to be higher for professional than for consumer equipment; equipment
with long operating time and sensitive times and locations also tends to have demand
for quieter versions. In some of these cases there are even extra low noise products on
the market for special applications. Examples are power generators, compressors and
others. In some cases the drive to reduce workplace noise also benefits environmental
noise, where the operator is not protected by a cabin.
3.4.10
Technical aspects
The following questions were asked concerning technical aspects:
1. Do you consider stage I, II or other limits technically feasible?
2. Would stricter limits require that you take additional noise control measures?
3. Would stricter limits also reduce workplace noise exposure?
4. Do you see any technical progress that may enable quieter equipment?
5. Do you put R&D effort into developing quieter products?
6. Which developments do you believe would enable significantly quieter
equipment?
7. Which noise target do you design for, at or below the limit (in dB)?
8. Which typical noise control solutions do you apply?
9. What are the main noise sources?
10. Which of these is most important?
11. Are you highly dependent on suppliers for the noise of components?
12. Which measures do you take to avoid engine speed changes?
65 / 235
As it would go too far here to analyse responses for each equipment type, the general
response counted over all types is summarised, which does provide a broad picture of
the technical aspects.
The stage I, II or other limits are considered technically feasible by 32% of respondents
(Q1), not feasible by 45% and 22% gave no answer or did not know. In thoses cases
that the stage II limits are not considered feasible, reasons given were limitations due to
process noise, engine design constraints and the new exhaust directive (stages 3B and
4), technical barriers and trade-offs with performance. It was remarked that for stage II,
more complex solutions are required than for stage I. For some equipment types such
compaction machines and others with high process or workpiece noise, no solutions
were considered currently available to fulfil stage II limits. For some equipment
categories within a certain power range, the stage II limits were considered feasible,
whereas the remainder was not. This suggests that a more detailed review of those
equipment types where part of the equipment range might fulfil the limits (especially
those with indicative stage II limits), could be worthwhile.
90% of respondents indicated that additional noise control measures would be required
to fulfil stricter limits (Q2).
49% believe that stricter limits would also result in a reduction of workplace noise
exposure (Q3). 20% believed this is not the case and 31% did not know or did not
answer. A lack of workplace noise reduction for some equipment types could be due to
the use of cabins or the combination with other sources (e.g. compressor noise often
exceded by concrete breaker noise).
43% see technical progress that may enable development of quieter equipment (Q4), in
particular quieter components. It was mentioned that continued R&D efforts should
result in further progress in the long term. 47% see no progress and 10% did not know.
The majority of respondents, 94% stated that they put R&D effort into developing
quieter products (Q5).
The following technical developments were considered to enable significantly quieter
equipment (Q6):
- quieter engines (11)
- quieter fan technology or cooling systems (4)
- quieter hydraulic components (4)
- quieter gear transmissions (4)
- electronic speed control and engine management (2)
- exhaust technology (2)
- enclosures (2)
- vibration isolation (1)
- new materials (1)
- new blade shapes (1)
- new concept machines (2)
- quieter electric motors (1)
- energy recovery (1)
- improved energy efficiency (1)
- water cooling (1)
- lower heat rejection from diesel engines (1)
- process noise management (1)
- none currently known or dont know (10)
66 / 235
Some of the above points are worth highlighting although they were only mentioned
once; for example, the issue of new concept machines is relevant if a technical barrier
for further noise reduction has been reached. Improved energy efficiency, energy
recovery and lower engine heat rejection are developments that may well also lead to
noise reduction. Electronic speed control, engine and process management are also
relevant options for noise reduction.
Respondents design for differing targets below the noise limits (Q7), shown in table
3.12. This shows that most, but not all, take a margin into account. It was sometimes
stated that designing exactly to the limit is the case where no further reduction is
currently feasible or where performance might be affected.
Table 3.12 Noise level design targets below the limits
dB below limit
Number of
respondents
-1
-1.5
-2
-3
-4
Typical noise control measures are applied by most companies (Q8), including
- operational measures such as speed/pressure/torque/power regulators (79%)
- intrinsically quieter components (79%)
- vibration isolators (84%)
- enclosures and shielding (93%)
- damping layers or materials (90%)
- absorbtion and insulation materials (90%)
- layout/geometry/directivity (78%)
- mass and stiffness control (73%)
Other measures mentioned included
- aerodynamic blades and nylon line shapes
- quieter gearboxes and tooth profile
- hydraulic pulsation and vibration suppressor hoses
- component sizing
- reduced structural resonance
- exhaust and intake acoustics
- regulated fans and optimised cooling system
- electronic control systems.
The main noise sources (Q9) depend on the equipment type, but there was a clear
tendency towards engine, fan and hydraulics noise. In order of response numbers, the
main sources are: engines (47), fans (32), hydraulics/pumps (25), exhaust (8), blades
(7), gear transmissions (6), process noise (6), impact noise (4), motors (2), tracks (2),
intakes (2), compaction drums (2), tool cutting or workpiece noise (2), vibrating parts or
body (2), driveline (2), rotating drum/cutter (1), tamping bars (1), compressor (1),
water jet (1), brushes (1), running gear (1), air or vacuum pumps (1).
In terms of ranking (Q10), sometimes all noise sources in a given machine are of
similar importance (11), but the ranking is often model and machine dependent.
Engines were mentioned as the source found to be most dominant (19), followed by
blades (6) and fans (5).
67 / 235
85% of respondents stated that they are highly dependent on the suppliers for the noise
levels of their components (Q11).
Various measures are taken by manufacturers to avoid tampering or changes in engine
speed (Q12). Where applicable and possible, these included electronic speed control or
locking, sealing of adjustments and fixation screws, fixation of the throttle or its cable,
engine governors, special tools for settings, adjustment free engines or general design.
Also operating instructions combined with the warranty was mentioned as a measure.
3.4.11
Economic aspects
On economic aspects, the following questions were asked.
1. What is the typical price of equipment in the market?
2. What is the economic impact of the directive in % of product cost?
3. Is there any competitive benefit of quieter products on the market?
4. What type of costs are incurred in relation to the directive?
5. Can these be quantified as a percentage of product cost?
6. What is the average cost of testing?
7. What is the average cost of certifying?
8. Are these costs also combined with other product development aspects?
9. What economic benefits would changing the equipment list have?
10. What economic benefits would modifying noise limits have?
Prices of equipment (Q1) in the market vary hugely, from less than 100 Euros for some
consumer garden tools, to upto over 1 million Euros for large construction equipment.
Indicative prices were provided for equipment types, which are not given here for
reasons of confidentiality. Average prices were derived to be used as input to the
economic impact analysis.
The economic impact in percentage of product cost (Q2) also varied substantially, from
about 1% to 25%. The impact tends to be lower for capital products, for large product
series and for large companies. These costs are sometimes combined with other
development costs, for example reduction of workplace noise, exhaust emissions and
safety improvement (Q8).
39% of respondents indicated there is some competetive benefit from putting quieter
products on the market. 57% did not and 4% did not know (Q3).
Various types of costs to the directive were mentioned (Q4), including
R&D, testing, administration, certification, conformity assessment, notified body fees,
materials, design and production, resolution of other constraints, parts obselescence,
training and communication. These cost types are given a quantitative estimate in
chapter 7, based on the respondents cost estimates (Q5).
Typical costs for testing (Q6) were stated between 300-45000 Euro per model, above
10000 Euro if development and facilities costs are included. Typical costs for
certification are between 40-4000 Euro per model, and potentially higher if special
facilities or procedures are required.
Almost no economic benefits were mentioned for changing the equipment list (Q9) or
changing limits (Q10), unless it concerned removing equipment or retaining stage I
limits. A possible benefit was mentioned of reducing the numbers of non-compliant
imports from low cost countries (only if market surveillance is applied).
68 / 235
3.4.12
Environmental aspects
Environmental aspects such as typical usage times and operating conditions were
queried to support the input data for the environmental impact analysis. These are not
presented here.
3.4.13
Test codes
Remarks on improvements in the test codes are taken into account in chapter 7. It was
frequently recommended to adopt EN standards or to adjust the test cycle and improve
definitions. Improvements were suggested for equipment types 8b, 9, 10, 16, 18, 20, 21,
23, 27, 32, 33, 36a, 36b, 37, 38, 41a, 41b, 43, 45a, 45b, 47, 48, 50, 55.
3.4.14
Testing
For testing, most manufacturers take 5 pieces of equipment. Some take 3 pieces or less,
and others take more, especially for large production volumes. Conformity of
production checks are performed by most companies at least once a year and in some
cases more frequently, for example before batch testing or after final inspection of a
model series. In one third of the cases the DOC is not submitted to the EC, as shown in
table 3.13. In practice the number of non-submitted or incorrectly submitted DOCs may
be much larger, as this figure is based on the respondents to the inquiry.
Table 3.13 Submission of the DOC to authorities, number of respondents
Authority
Respondents
National
authority
1
Notified
body
6
EC
3
EC and
National
authority
25
None
2
No
answer
6
Client
only
1
Applied measurement uncertainty varies between 0.3 to 4 dB with an average around

1.5 dB. In some cases companies ask the notified body to determine this. The
uncertainty depends strongly on the product type and model, article 12/13, production
volume and other factors. Only a minority of the respondents tests every unit.
3.4.15
Need for round robin test

On the question of whether a round robin test would be of value for critical equipment,
28% responded with yes, 42% with no and 30% did not respond or did not know. The
equipment types proposed for round robin testing are listed in table 3.14.
Table 3.14 Responses on equipment types proposed for round robin testing
Equipment type (number)

Excavators (20)
Lawnmowers (32)
Power sweepers (46)
Lawn trimmers/lawn edge trimmers (33)
Lift trucks, CE driven, counterbalanced
(36b)
Hydraulic powerpacks (29)
Chainsaws(6)
Grass trimmers/grass edge trimmers (24)
Brush cutters (2)
Number
of
responses
1
3
1
2
3
1
1
1
1
3.4.16
69 / 235
Limit changes, Article 13-12 shifts and new equipment

The following questions were asked in relation to limit changes and equipment list
changes.
1. Should new or sharpened limits exclude the noisiest 10%,30%,50% or 70%?
2. Could you agree to moving all article 13 equipment to Article 12,
i.e. setting limits for all equipment types?
3. Should the originally proposed stage II limits (3 dB stricter) be introduced in general?
4. Should stricter limits than stage II be introduced?
5. Should the Directive drive noise levels down by 0,3,5, or more dB(A)?
6. On what timescale should this be achieved?
7. Types to be removed completely from the directive
8. Types to be moved from article 12 to article 13
9. Types to be moved from article 13 to article 12
For questions 7-9 also proposals for limits were requested, and suggestions for the
environmental, technical and economic impact.
The question on which percentage of noisy equipment should be excluded (Q1) resulted
only in a minority of 27% with the opinion that 10% or more of noisy equipment should
be excluded by new or sharpened limits (see table 3.15).
Table 3.15 Responses on exclusion of noisiest equipment due to new or sharper limits
Percentage
exclusion
%
Respondents
0%
10
30
50
70
Dont
know
No
answer
Case
by case
Question
unclear
28%
2%
19%
4%
2%
2%
7%
21%
11%
5%
73% does not agree to moving all article 13 equipment to article 12, only 13 % does
agree and the remainer did not know or did not answer (Q2). It was remarked that this
should only be done if necessary, if it justifies the increased effort and if it can be done
at a reasonable price.
68% does not agree to the introduction of the stage II limits in general, only one
respondent does and the rest did not know or did not answer (Q3).
82% of respondents indicated that no stricter limits than stage II should be introduced,
the remainder did not know or answer (Q4).
61% of respondents believe that the Directive should not drive down noise levels, 4%
stated 1 dB, 11% stated 3 dB and the remainder did not know or did not answer (Q5).
74% of respondents gave no suggestion on timescales (Q6), but 8% suggested 5 years,
8% suggested 10 years, 4 % 6 years, 4% 3 years and 1% 2 years.
Types of equipment mentioned to be removed from the directive (Q7) were (times
mentioned in brackets):
- 3a builders hoists (1);
- 8b compaction machines, due to process noise, and the low cost-benefit ratio (2);
- 9 compressors (< 350 kW), as driven tools make more noise and high effort and cost is
required to reduce by 1-2 dB more;
- 10, small breakers < 20J (2);
- 28 hydraulic hammers, because process noise dominates (1);
70 / 235
- 29 hydraulic powerpacks, as it is quieter than the equipment it powers (1);

- 33 lawn trimmers, due to low environmental impact (1);
- 38 Mobile cranes, as noise reductions are difficult to achieve due to space, and several
EC directives are applicable (3);
- 39 mobile waste containers (1);
- 40 motor hoes <3 kW, very difficult to comply (1);
- 56 Water pumps, as they have low noise emission (1).
Equipment types suggested for moving from article 12 to 13 (Q8) are
- 10 concrete breakers and picks (1);
- 29 hydraulic powerpacks, as they are quieter than equipment powered (1);
- 32 lawnmowers, as they have low environmental impact (4);
- 33 lawn trimmers, as they have low environmental impact (4);
- 36b counterbalanced lift trucks,>10t capacity, as they are not used in residential areas
(2);
- 38 mobile cranes, especially crawler cranes (1);
- 40 motor hoes < 3kW, as they have low environmental impact and few are on the
market (4);
- all indicative stage II types (2).
There were no responses to Q9, on moving equipment from Article 13 to article 12, and
no responses to Q10, on new equipment types for article 12 or 13.
Concerning new or sharper limits there were no suggestions for this, only some
remarks:
- to keep 36b-lift trucks, 9-compressors, 10-small breakers, 29-hydraulic powerpacks in
stage I;
- to keep 28-hydraulic hammers in article 13.
No environmental impacts due to any of the possible changes were mentioned.
On technical impacts the following was suggested:
- stricter limits would require more precise machining and improved tribology;
- in some cases small manufacturers would be penalised;
- it would be harder to fulfil stricter requirements and take substantial effort;
The following economic impacts were mentioned:
- stricter limits would drive up the price;
- demand for quieter products may not be present;
- removal from the market may sometimes be cheaper;
Several further remarks were made, which are listed below.
- Coordination between gas emission rules and noise emission is necessary (time
schedule).
- Proposals for changes of the directive getting addressed is difficult. The chances of
getting them considered are very low.
- Protecting people from noise exposure should not only be the burden and
responsibility of the machine manufacturers but also the manufacturers of the
components and enforcement agencies.
- There is no clear benefit for citizens due to operational noise.
- Limits are difficult to achieve for particular categories.
- Changes should be in line with other directives.
71 / 235
- Investigate where type 36-other counterbalanced trucks, are operating.

- A thorough study is required on the need and the effect of limits.
- Amendment to the Directive should only follow after detailed study.
- Costs for this Directive (noise) are disproportionate to other topics e.g. safety.
- Generators tend to be far below the limit.
- Compared to other noise sources such as roads, OE noise is low.
- There is often misunderstanding of sound power levels by users.
- Limit changes should only be made if the market surveillance and the uncertainty
issues are resolved.
- The more regulations, the more difficult competition is with low-wage countries such
as China.
3.4.17
Trends and issues in the construction equipment industry

For the construction equipment industry the following issues are important, based on
interviews with the industry associations and some manufacturers.
There is currently growth in the sector. At the same time there is considerable import
from the far east (India, Korea, China). In Eastern Europe there is a large second hand
market, but also in western Europe for smaller companies. New equipment is mainly
purchased by fleet owners and equipment leasing is widespread. Non-compliant
machines are coming mainly from China and Turkey. Especially compact construction
machinery is an important growth area, often used by small contractors. Also new types
of machines are appearing on the market, sometimes used for other applications than
construction, for example landscaping (currently strong in USA, more expected in
Europe). Hydbrid powered machines are also beginning to appear on the market.
Currently, and in the coming 10 years, the industry is putting significant R&D effort
into the compliance with all new and coming environmental legislation, including
exhaust emissions, noise (OE and Physical agents Directives), biofuels, chemicals
(REACH Directive), waste (WEEE Directive) and safety (Machinery Directive). An
estimated 80% of R&D costs are allocated to ensuring compliance.The new engine
emission requirements as in European Directive 2004/26/EC [35], stage IIIb and 4, are a
major challenge for the industry and it is not yet clear to what extent these may be in
conflict with stricter noise emission requirements. The cooling requirements of the new
engines may increase, leading in turn to higher fan noise. The new version of the
Machinery Directive 2006/42/EC [36] may also have consequences for the sector.
The approximate development time for a completely new machine concept is 3-5 years,
1-2 years for a new model and upto 1 year for minor changes. An important issue is the
integration of components in a machine with combined noise sources, especially given
the technical limitations of the available components. The trend towards compacter
machines such as mini-excavators (since about 2000) makes it difficult to reduce the
noise as there is little space for the components, including noise reduction materials and
devices. In this respect, the limit categories for construction machines are considered
too wide by industry and a review of the classification needs to be considered.
More large machines are also appearing on the market, which are mostly used at remote
sites far from residential areas, having less environmental impact.
The stage II limits are considered a major challenge for small and medium sized
machines, due to the lack of available space, required enclosures and future fan noise
expected for lower exhaust emission engines. Engine speed management may be a
72 / 235
solution for the future but is not yet commonplace as power availability is considered
most important. There are not yet machines on the market with a silent mode. Most
noise control is based on quieter fans and installed sound absorption materials in the
engine enclosure. Hydraulics components and transmissions are usually standard
supplier components without special noise reduction features.
Concerning the in-situ noise production, the industry considers the manner of usage of
equipment very important. Maintenance can significantly affect noise levels over time,
but also the simple closing of engine hoods or adjustment of track tension and cleaning
of the machine may influence the noise level. If the cooling capacity of the engine is
reduced, this can lead to increased rpm and higher noise levels. The construction
equipment is not always properly selected for the application it is used for, also
resulting in higher noise levels. For all these reasons, jobsite management is
considered to be an important way to control in situ noise levels.
3.4.18
Trends and issues in the materials handling equipment industry

In the materials handling industry, the market is currently growing in a similar way to
the construction equipment sector. Many issues are also similar, such as the question of
noise reduction versus engine emission reduction.
3.4.19
Trends and issues in the horticultural equipment industry

For lawnmowers, the market is considered mainly a replacement market.
A general issue for this sector is the large variety op equipment that is covered in the
Directive, which is difficult to manage. In this respect a new approach directive would
be preferred by the sector. The dumping of low cost equipment from China is
mentioned as a current problem in the market.
The sector is has to cover several European directives including the OE Noise directive,
the Machinery directive, the WEEE directive (waste and electronics), the EUP directive
(Energy Using Products) and others. The 13 members of EGMF cover 75% of the
European market and include several SMEs, for example manufacturers of shredders.
3.4.20
Trends and issues in the pump and compressor industry

There are about 5 main compressor manufacturers in the EU. The compressor market
for outdoor machinery is considered a replacement market in Europe. Pumps are
manufactured by a large number of small companies.
3.4.21
CeCe position paper 2002

In 2002, The Committee for European Construction Equipment (CeCe) produced a
position paper [37] on proposed modification of the directive, based on a first study of
DOCs. Issues were identified and proposals made concerning the noise limits for
mobile steel tracked equipment, excavators and wheeled loaders with engine power >
250kW, the process noise of compaction machines, gasoline powered hand-held
breakers and various types of paver-finishers. The paper presents a number of declared
data for various equipment types and shows the market situation for earthmoving
equipment. Also R&D efforts on undercarriage noise, and process noise of concrete
breakers, compaction machines and paver-finishers are explained in an annex.
For steel-tracked dozers, loaders and excavator-loaders, stage II is difficult to achieve
due to the noise produced by the tracks and undercarriage. It is stated that the numbers
of steel-tracked equipment are only about 2.5% of the total, and that their operation is
very seldom in urban environment and for a limited duration (a few weeks every 30-40
73 / 235
years). Therefore CeCe proposed to maintain the stage I limits for the duration of stage
II. The previous R&D effort on this topic is emphasised (10 million Euro), as are the
difficulties of reduced component life, wear of rubber and damping material, weight
increase, mud packing problems, complex manufacturing and cost increase of around
7%.
For excavators with power > 250 kW it is stated that they represent only 0.3% of all
earthmoving equipment and also have a very limited usage time in urban areas. Also the
process noise often exceeds the equipment noise. Here it was also proposed to retain
stage I limits.
For wheeled loaders, wheeled dozers and loader-type landfill compactors with engine
power > 250 kW it was stated that these only represent 0.6% of earthmoving equipment
and are mainly used in remote areas. It was proposed to retain stage I limits.
A transition period of 1 year until January 1st 2007 was proposed for earthmoving
equipment with engines 75-130 kW (39% of the total CeCe earthmoving population), to
reduce the burden to manufacturers. For the smaller equipment which is 53% of the
equipment population, and for the larger equipment which is 8%, the transition was not
required.
For hand-guided compaction equipment the inclusion of process noise in the
measurement was considered a problem, and it was proposed either to subtract 3 dB
from the measured value, retain stage I limits or to move it to Article 13. The non
availability of quieter engines and the difficulty of reducing the process noise without
losing performance were emphasised.
For hand-held concrete breakers an issue was identified with the gasoline powered
breakers, which have additional weight compared with compressor-driven breakers. It
was therefore proposed to either move this to article 13, or to reclassify them to the
same limits as for breakers with m>= 30: 96+ 11 lg m for stage I and 2 dB lower for
stage II. This group is stated to be a low population group, but not as a percentage.
Noise reduction is stated to be likely lead to weight increase or performance loss, which
are both unacceptable.
For paver-finishers it is stated that these represent only a small group of equipment with
less than 1000 units annual production, and that the exposure time for citizens is very
low due to the short presence and long idle time. There are 3 types identified:
Precompacting screed paver finishers, where engine noise is dominant, compacting
screed paver finishers, and high compaction screed paver finishers, both of which have
impact noise as the main source. These last two types are 20% of the total population.
Proposals included adding a new category of compaction machines, or identifying
compacting screed paver finishers as a compaction machine, or replacing the definition
of paver finishers by three separate definitions.
3.4.22
Economic report CeCe 2007

CeCe publishes an annual economic report Facts and figures about the European
Construction Equipment Industry [38]. The 2007 edition was available for this study.
It provides information on the market growth and development, on a country-by country
and per machine group basis. Some of these data were cross-checked with the
environmental impact input data and others are referred to in the economic impact
analysis (chapter 7).
74 / 235
3.4.23
EPTA paper 2002

In 2002, the European Power Tool Association (EPTA) presented a paper on the
definition of tool categories [39], in particular hand-held concrete breakers and picks
(no. 10). It is stated that the smaller chiselling hammer with single impact energy below
20 J do not belong in the directive as it is for lighter work and used for shorter periods;
it already has noise levels well below the stage II limits. The consequence is that
industry is making costs for unnecessary certification.
3.4.24
FEM position paper 2004

In 2004 the European Federation of Materials Handling and Storage Equipment (FEM)
produced a position paper [40] on the directive.
For industrial lift trucks, the following issues were put forward.
- Rough terrain trucks should be treated in a different way to other types of lift
truck due to their specific use (i.e. on construction sites).
- Lift trucks higher than 10 t are produced in very low volume, 1.2% of CEpowered trucks, mainly used in non-populated area, 27% used for container
handling.
- Lift trucks below 10 t are designed and constructed to operate in industrial
locations, indoors and inside factories.
- The test cycle results in higher levels than those found in practice.
- Existing legislation is sufficient incentive for manufacturers to design quieter
trucks.
The following recommendations were made for the future:
- include in Article 12 rough terrain trucks with vertical mast and self propelled
variable reach trucks, with revised test code as provided;
- include CE-powered counterbalanced lift trucks in Article 13;
- Exclude counterbalanced stackers with electric engine and container lift trucks
from the directive.
An additional letter was sent to the Comission May 2006 by VDMA Materials Handling
in relation to the work cycle of the lifttruck. A higher proportion of engine idling is
proposed for the test cycle in the directive.
A document on mobile cranes was also available from FEM [40]. It explains the
different types of mobile cranes and their design requirements. Due to the expected
extra heat generation for the new 97/68/EC directive on exhaust emissions, is is stated
that the stage II noise limits will be difficult to achieve. This is also explained to be due
to the lack of available space, to allow use on public roads. At transition period was
proposed of 1 year for cranse with engines 75-130 kW; it was proposed to maintain
stage I limits for All Terrain (AT) cranes with engines >130 kW for at least 2 years due
to the number of models to improve; and it was proposed to maintain stage I limits for
Rough Terrain (RT) and crawler cranes for at least 3 years due to theuncertainty in
achievability of the noise limits.
3.4.25
Annual report Orgalime 2006

Orgalime is the European Engineering Industries Association, representing the interests
of the mechanical, electrical, electronic, metalworking and metal articles industries. The
total output of this sector was 1779 billion Euro in 2006, with 10.6 million people
employed. The 2006 annual report [41] provides information on key issues in the sector
including the economic situation, regulatory issues, internal market and trade,
standardisation, legal aspects and R&D. Environment and energy are high on the
75 / 235
agenda, and a number of position papers on the impacts of various directives have been
produced. The general economic situation is stated to be good, with a growth rate of
6.6% in 2006 for Orgalime industries, the highest since 2000. Orgalime works together
with European institutions on a number of directives which affect the industry.
One important issue is the New Approach and market surveillance (NAMS). Orgalime
produced some position papers on CE marking and conformity assessement and placing
on the market. The Commission has been requested to provide a common definition for
- determining when a product is placed on the market;
- equal treatment for imported and EU-manufactured products;
- covering all product legislation, including other areas such as the environment.
The new Machinery Directive 2006/42/EC is now to be transposed by the member
states by June 2008, and Orgalime is working to ensure a smooth introduction. Other
Directives which have been reviewed and commented by Orgalime include the Eco
Design Requirements for Energy Using Products (EuP), the WEEE directive [42]
(2002/96/EC Waste electrical and electronic equipment), the REACH directive
(Registration, Evaluation, Authorization and Restriction of Chemicals).
3.4.26
Lamonov report EGMF executive summary and EGMF/FGR interview

The European Garden Machinery Federation provided background information and an
executive report on their Lamonov study on lawnmower noise and vibration [43],
carried out by CETIM. The goals of this project were
- to develop design tools and techniques aimed at enabling low noise design of
lawnmowers, including software and measurement techniques;
- to evaluate psycho-acoustic annoyance of lawnmowers and compare it with
stadardised evaluation of sound annoyance using the dB(A) level.
This study established that certain aspects of the noise components can be better
evaluated and possibly redesigned to achieve the present stage I limits withoud
jeopardising the Quality of Cut (QOC) parameter, which is one of the main concerns
of the manufacturers.
The blade-deck interaction of rotary lawnmowers was identified as a complicated
subject forming an obstacle to further noise reduction. Virtual prototyping software
(PRONS) was judged to be a useful tool to further investigate the design options but
time is neede to achieve this in industry. It was established that reduction of blade tip
speed reduces QOC too much and other design changes need to be sought to reduce the
noise level. The main conclusion was that the stage II limits are currently not achievable
without compromising QOC, and additional evaluation is needed.
Based on measurements on a number of walk-behind, ride-on and deck and huge
lawnmowers were tested. Variation in measured levels was found mainly due to engine
speed and temperature variation. For walk behind lawnmowers, the main sources are
the blade, the engine and the exhaust. For ride-on lawnmowers, the blades tend to
dominate followed by the engine and then in equal measure the exhaust and the
transmission.
Subjective noise parameters were investigated on 32 lawnmowers, including loudness,
sharpness and roughness. A universal annoyance indicator was not found, but loudness
was considered to be better than the dB(A) level.
Blade noise was investigated by means of a test rig. The change of air flow conditions
due to the deck was found to be the the prime cuase of blade-deck interaction. This
changes the noise of a free blade. Deck cavity resonances were only relevant in a
76 / 235
specific frequency range. The use of CFD computational methods was considered, but a
full 3D model with prohibitive calculation times is required. Therefore the experimental
approach was adhered to. A parametric model was developed to predict the noise
spectrum from blade diameter, thickness, width, cross-sectional area and rpm. A
database was created for 32 blades.
The relative contributions of engine airborne, engine structureborne and exhaust noise
were investigated. It was found that engine airborne noise was most commonly
dominant above structureborne and exhaust noise. Measurement methods were
proposed to perform this type of analysis.
A limited investigation was done into transmission noise. It was found that in some
cases, it can be important or at least comparable to blade and engine noise.
Finally, acoustic virtual prototyping tools and models were developed for different
types of mowers, based on experimental data. This allows to study the effect of
changing parameters in the noise level and simulated audible sound signals.
3.5
Conclusions from the industry consultation

From the consultation with industry, several interviews and background documents the
following points can be concluded.
The market surveillance of the directive is considered insufficient and leads to unfair
competition from non-compliant suppliers who make less costs. Many respondents
would prefer a simplification of the directive. Uncertainty is an issue which
improving in the form of an IT tool as is currently underway. Equipment and category
definitions need improving for several equipment types. Most respondents were against
adding more information to the DOC and considered the directive a significant
administrative burden resulting in costs due to administration, testing, uncertainty,
R&D, certification and other aspects. The noise marking system could be made more
clear for the market and the public, as there is often confusion between sound pressure
and sound power levels.
Some problems with test codes were identified, for example the lack of a consistent
definition for the engine power and the fact that the test is not always representative for
noise in the field. There is a preference for use of EN standards where possible; the ISO
14396:2002 standard was mentioned in this respect. Also the question of intermittently
reversing cooling fans needs to be taken into account in the measurement methods: the
direction with highest noise level, or only forward operation should be specified.
Most companies see little scope for further noise reduction than stage II or would rather
see equipment from Article 12 into Article 13 or removed from the directive. There
were no proposals on new limits or equipment types made by industry. 32% considered
the stage II limits feasible. The main barriers identified are process noise, engine design
constraints, the new Exhaust directive stages 3B and 4, technical barriers and trade-offs
77 / 235
with performance. Especially equipment types given indicative limits in the 2005/88/EC
directive have technical barriers in certain power ranges.
A whole series of future technical developments was given for further noise reduction.
Further remarks were made on the need to link new limits and changes to the Directive
to other Directives, in particular the Engine Exhaust directive, especially in terms of
time schedules. There are doubts about the need and effectiveness of some of the limits.
Stricter limits are expected to lead to a higher price level and in some cases removal
from the market would be cheaper.
The CeCe and FEM position papers give proposals for alternative limits or transition
periods, with an indication of the technical and economic barriers. The Lamonov report
on lawnmower noise gives an analysis of the various noise sources, their influence
parameters and noise control options. The limited progess on reduction blade/deck
noise is the main argument stated against stage II limits for lawnmowers.
3.6
General conclusions from the consultations

and shortcomings in some of the test codes seem to be agreed on.
The environmental consultation identified new potential equipment types, potential
limit changes and equipment to be moved to Article 12, and it provided insight into
some of the types considered to have most environmental impact. Also some
suggestions for removing equipment were made.
The industry consultation tended to give less proposals on limit changes except where
stage II limits are considered hard to fulfil. However, it gave more detailed insight into
the current solutions applied, difficulties encountered and costs incurred due to the
directive.
Environmental impact assessment
4.1
Introduction
78 / 235
The environmental impact of the directive in terms of stage I, stage II and other limits is
assessed in this chapter. Also the environmental impact of moving equipment from
Article 13 to Article 12 and new equipment in Article 13 is assessed. The impact of
changes to the Directive can only be assessed if the initial environmental impact is
known for all equipment types. A first step is therefore to perform this analysis and then
apply it to limit and equipment list changes. The relative importance of each equipment
type in terms of environmental impact provides a priority list which can be used to
determine which changes to the directive are needed most. It should be emphasised that
little has been done in the past to obtain an overall picture of the environmental impact
of the directive, and a first global assessment is made here.
4.1.1
Characteristics of outdoor equipment noise

The characteristics of outdoor equipment noise differ significantly from those of
transportation noise. Typically, outdoor equipment is mobile, and will cause annoyance
and noise exposure during a limited period, after which it moves elsewhere. This period
can be very short but at repeated intervals, or longer and continuous over several weeks,
months or years (e.g. large construction sites). The sound sources and the exposed
population can change continually. A key difference with transportation noise is that
outdoor machinery can occur anywhere and often does not have noise barriers or fixed
control measures in place, whereas roads, railways, airports and industrial plants have
infrastructure at fixed locations and can be better planned in terms of noise abatement.
Although outdoor equipment noise is temporary, whilst present it can be strongly
variable and quite near to dwellings, causing significant disturbance and annoyance. In
contrast, transportation noise is often a series of vehicle pass-bys or a continuous
background noise. Another feature is that outdoor equipment may be used in
environments where the noise is amplified by reflecting surfaces such as surrounding
buildings in courtyards, street canyons, enclosed suburban gardens or local
infrastructure. Outdoor equipment noise may often occur as a combination of two or
more equipment types in operation simultaneously. However, this is not a reason to
disregard quieter types, as operation is often different in time, duration and location; the
affected observer will tend to hear the noisiest or the closest noise source.
4.1.2
Impacts
Compared with other environmental factors, environmental noise is probably the one
that affects the largest number of Europeans [44]. The main health risks of noise are
annoyance, interference with social behaviour and speech communication, sleep
disturbance and all its consequences, cardiovascular effects, hormonal responses and
poor performance at work or school. Many of these effects are similar to occupational
noise, with the exception of sleep disturbance and hearing loss (main risk for
occupational noise) as shown in table 4.1. For outdoor machinery, the long term effects
are only possible by longer exposure from a machine or from a variety of machines
operating periodically. For outdoor machinery, the cumulative effect may be most
relevant, i.e. the combined noise experienced at home, at work and in outdoor areas in
general.
Table 4.1 Health effects of environmental and occupational noise
Sleep disturbance (night)

Concentration loss
Fatigue
Stress
Reduced intelligibility
Hearing loss (long term)
Heart disease risk (long term)
Environmental noise
x
x
x
x
x
x
79 / 235
Occupational noise
x
x
x
x
x
x
4.1.3
Usage restrictions versus noise limits

Noise from outdoor equipment can of course be regulated in terms of usage restrictions,
equipment location and process type selection. This can be done for example in certain
sensitive areas such as near hospitals and schools and at nighttime, in the evening and
on Sundays. In some situations, building site permits are formulated in terms of
allowable noise levels and times of activity. A good example of this is the use of piling
equipment, which in some situations is not allowed to start before 07:00 or 08:00 in the
morning. Although this type of local regulation is an essential and effective way of
reducing the environmental impact, further reduction may still be required. It is
therefore just as important to control the noise at the source with noise limits, making
quieter equipment available to contractors, residents and municipal and commercial
services, and giving local authorities an additional instrument to reduce noise
disturbance.
4.1.4
Current trends in outdoor equipment noise

Some important trends in relation to outdoor equipment noise are the following:
-
increased automation of all sorts of construction, services, maintenance and

garden activities; thereby also an increase in the numbers of equipment;
increased construction activity, especially in a growing economy;
increased sensitivity of citizens together with higher population density, but
also limited leasure time, in which a quiet environment, for example in green
areas, is valued;
increased service activities during the night, early hours or evening hours, for
example after public events or at special construction sites;
new types of equipment such as powered garden tools, mini-excavators,
handheld stone saws and others;
increased sensitivity and valuation of quiet rural areas; although this does not
always affect large numbers of people, there is public awareness of the sound
quality of the environment, especially in places of natural beauty, tourist and
recreational areas; examples are snowmobiles, jetskis and quads;
in some cases, increase in installed power of machinery, leading to higher noise
levels. This may however be counteracted by shorter operating times.
These trends are not all simple to quantify, but are observable in daily life and point
generally to a significant increase in outdoor equipment noise.
4.1.5
Approach for the environmental impact assessment

Due to the variety of equipment in the Directive and the many ways the equipment is
used, a special approach is needed for this study to describe the environmental impact.
A common approach is to assess the numbers of people exposed to a certain noise level
80 / 235
such as LDEN as done in noise mapping of roads, railways, airports or industry. Another
approach is to assess the number or seriously annoyed people based on complaints or
questionnaires. This is often done for a much wider variety of noise sources, such as
noise from entertainment systems, noise from neighbours, mopeds, military aircraft and
others. A somewhat new approach was developed for this study, to provide a suitable
environmental indicator for outdoor machinery, taking its particular characterstics into
account. This includes the average noise level, the typical duration of use, the character
of the sound, the typical working environment, the population of equipment in the EU
and other factors. The environmental indicator can be used to rank the relative impact of
all the equipment types.
The inputs for the environmental assessment are the following:
- Background information on environmental analysis methods including relevant
reports, standards and articles;
- The proposed limit list and equipment list based on the statistical analysis and
the NGO/Authorities/NoBo consultation;
- Average guaranteed levels for each equipment type from the database;
- Other statistical data on equipment such as population in the EU, time, duration
and location of usage, type of noise produced.
4.2
Background information
A number of literature sources are available relating to environmental impact of outdoor
machinery noise. Some relevant ones are discussed here.
4.2.1
RIVM/TNO reports
In the Netherlands, comparitive impact studies of environmental noise sources are
performed at regular intervals by TNO and RIVM to monitor the situation.
A study has been performed in 2003 to assess the numbers of seriously annoyed people
for different sources of noise [45], including road vehicles and mopeds, railways,
commercial and miltary aircraft, construction machinery, industrial sites and noise from
neighbors (stereo/tv). The results are shown in figure 4.1. Construction machinery does
not rank very high in comparison with for example mopeds or road traffic noise, but is
comparable to railway noise. Neighbour noise (stereo/tv) scores moderately in
comparison with other sources. It should however be noted that the comparison was
made for seriously annoyed people; a much larger number of people may be affected to
a slightly less degree, although with the same relative importance between source types.
81 / 235
Figure 4.1 Percentage of highly annoyed people in the Netherlands by various sound sources.
For outdoor equipment, the general implication is that although it is not the most
important noise source, it is significant. Noise in residential areas can be particularly
critical, especially when the equipment is operating close to dwellings. This is
especially the case for garden equipment and municipal vehicles, but also for
construction sites next to residential areas.
Where construction or goods handling equipment is working as part of an industrial
activity, it will often be included in the environmental assessment required by local
authorities, or more recently as required by the Environmental Noise Directive (END
[46,47] ) for noise mapping of large agglomerations. In addition, action plans could
include the stipulation of use of quieter or noise marked machinery for sensitive
locations.
4.2.2
Aboma/Keboma/VROM study
In the previously cited report by Aboma/Keboma/VROM from 2002 [16], besides an
overview of noise emission levels, also an approximate environmental impact is
estimated using the Dutch population of machines and their average sound power level.
This is done by calculating the area in square kilometers over which a noise level above
50 dB(A) would be produced, based on the effective area for a single machine,
multiplied by the population. Although this is a good first approach it does not yet
include numbers of affected people, type of operating environment, usage time or sound
characteristics.
82 / 235
4.3
Environmental indicator
4.3.1
Concept
An environmental indicator EI is proposed for the purpose of this study which takes
into account several significant parameters affecting the exposure and perception of
outdoor equipment noise in various surroundings.
4.3.2
Rated sound power

The first input parameter for the environmental indicator is the average guaranteed
sound power level LWA,g based on the database (see chapter 2); where no data was
available (equipment types 4, 5, 7, 12b, 9, 22 and 52) a global best estimate was used.
Next, the average rated sound power level LWA,rated is deduced by applying level
adjustments to take into account human perception of sound. Adjustments are taken into
account for evening and nighttime use, tonal and/or impulsive sound components and
the typical sound character due to intermittent use. The adjustment for tonal or
impulsive noise is consistent with ISO 1996 [48,49]. Also an adjustment in dB is
applied where considered appropriate, to take into account the differences between the
typical field operating conditions and the operating conditions according to the test
code. Finally, the use of the equipment over a year has been estimated (number of
months in use, number of days in a month and minutes per day) resulting in a year
averaged equivalent rated sound power level LWA,rated,yeareq:
n t
n
LWA, rated, yeareq = LWA,guaranteed + Cevening/ni ght + Ctonal/imp + Cintermitte nt + Copcon + 10 lg months days dayuse
364 24 60
where
nmonths
ndays
tdayuse
Cevening/night
Ctonal/imp
Cintermittent
Copcon
4.3.3
number of months per year in use;

number of days per month in use;
minutes per day in use;
adjustment for evening/night use (0 or 5 dB)
adjustment for tonal and/or impulsive sound character (0 or 5 dB)
adjustment for sound character due to intermittent use
(0, 3 or 6 dB)
adjustment for difference in operating condition between normal use
and testing conditions (0 or 3 dB).
Typical sound immission in Europe

Outdoor equipment is used in various surroundings depending on its function. To
estimate the environmental impact of the equipment in Europe, at least in a relative
way, the resulting sound levels in typical surroundings have been estimated and the
number of people experiencing those levels. Combining the resulting sound levels with
the corresponding percentage of people affected, taking into account the number of
equipment used within Europe, gives the (relative) environmental impact level for each
type of equipment.
For the typical surroundings five situations are chosen:
A. Gardening equipment for private use, characterised by three typical urban areas;
83 / 235
B. Horticultural equipment for professional use, characterised by two typical urban

areas;
C. Municipal services, characterised by three typical urban areas;
D. Small and large construction sites, characterised by four (sub)urban areas;
E. Shopping centers, characterised by three urban areas;
F. Rural areas.
A small number of equipment is at least partly used also in rural areas, such as
farmland, woods, skitracks and skislopes or industrial areas. For the impact, those types
of equipment only need to be considered as far as they are used within urban areas. This
is effectively done by characterising the rural areas in an equivalent way by only a few
inhabitants at a typical distance of 100 to 200 m, the exact numbers being irrelevant in
this way.
As typical examples of the various surroundings, several areas in the city of Delft were
chosen. With the prediction model URBIS (TNO), the sound levels in the vicinity were
calculated for a typical position of each equipment type in those areas, and the number
of people affected at each level (in 1 dB steps). The noise modelling was done for a
fictitious source with a reference sound power level of 100 dB(A). The figures 4.2 to
4.6 give examples for each type of surroundings with the corresponding level
distributions.
Figure 4.2 Illustration of a typical urban area in category A with the resulting sound level distributions for a
source of 100 dB(A) sound power.
84 / 235
Figure 4.3 Illustration of a typical urban area in category B with the resulting sound level distributions for a
Figure 4.4 Illustration of a typical urban area in category C with the resulting sound level distributions for a
85 / 235
Figure 4.5 Illustration of a typical urban area in category D with the resulting sound level distributions for a
Figure 4.6 Illustration of a typical urban area in category E with the resulting sound level distributions for a
86 / 235
The resulting distributions of inhabitants in each situation (see fig. 4.7) is then shifted
for each type of equipment in accordance with the appropriate LWA, rated, yeareq giving the
distribution Dequip,situ,i . This distribution is normalized by the total of inhabitants
considered in the noise mapping procedure. The calculations were performed in 1 dB
steps, the final distribution is based on sound level classes of 5 dB.
Numbe rs of e xpose d inhabitants

for sound source with LW A=100 dB(A)
for diffe re nt e nv ironme nts
Number of inhabitants
1000
100
Atot-cum
10
Btot-cum
Ctot-cum
Dtot-cum
Etot-cum
1
50
55
60
65
70
75
Sound pre ssure le v e l in dB(A)

Figure 4.7 Cumulative distribution of inhabitants indicating the number of people experiencing the
indicated sound pressure level or more for a source of 100 dB(A) sound power for five typical
urban situations.
For each equipment type those numbers of people were multiplied by the amount of
equipment in use within the EU. This gives the relative number of people, percentage of
the total number of people for all situations considered, experiencing a given year
averaged equivalent sound level. Combining the level and percentage according to
energy summation, results in the relevant Environmental Impact indicator, the (relative)
energy-averaged sound level that inhabitants in the EU25 experience on an average day
in the year due to the considered equipment:
10
EI equip = 10 lg N equip, situ Dequip, situ, i10 Li / 10

i =1
where
Nequip,situ
Li
Dequip, situ,i
87 / 235
number of equipment in use in specific situation;

sound level class i (5 dB classes);
distribution of inhabitants over sound level class i for each equipment
and in each situation, normalized to the total number of inhabitants
considered.
For each type of equipment one or two dominant environmental situations were
selected. If more than one of those situations is applicable, the final indicator is the
energy sum of the two partial indicators.
It was found that for the environments considered, a 3 dB reduction in sound power
level resulted in on average in 35% less exposed people.
4.3.4
Input data
The input data used for each equipment type is listed in table 4.1. All the inputs are
based on best estimates of the parameters from different sources.
Equipment population numbers are estimated from various sources, such as national
estimates, human population, sales figures per annum, probable ratios between
equipment types and average life. No great accuracy is possible here, but is also not
required; it suffices to know the order of magnitude. For example, there are tens of
millions of lawnmowers, millions of power generators, hundreds of thousands of
hydraulic hammers, tens of thousands of piling equipment and thousands of landfill
compactors. In some cases, data has been scaled up from the Netherlands using the
human polulation ratio of 456 million (EU25) to 16 million (Netherlands).
It should be noted that all elements of the environmental indicator are in logarithmic
form, such as number of people or number of equipment, reducing the sensitivity to
small changes.
88 / 235
Table 4.2 Overview of the input data for the Environmental Impact indicator for each type of equipment
and the apporpriate surroundings.
Eq.
no.
1
2
3a
3b
4
5
6
LWA,g Cop
Equipment
Ce/n
Ct/p
Cint
Aerial access platforms, combustion engine - 1

94
Brush cutters - 2 109
3
3
0
0
0
5
6
6
100
93
110
110
112
3
3
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
5
5
5
5
0
0
6
6
6
7Combined high pressure flushers/suction vehicles - 7

8a
Compaction machines (explosion rammers) - 8a
8b Compaction machines (rollers, vibratory plates) - 8b
9
Compressors (< 350 kW) - 9
10
Concrete-breakers and picks, hand-held - 10
11
Concrete or mortar mixers - 11
12a
Construction winches (CE driven) - 12a
12b
Construction winches (electric) - 12b
13Conveying / spraying machines, concrete/mortar - 13
14
Conveyor belts - 14
15
Cooling equipment on vehicles - 15
16
Dozers (< 500 kW) - 16
17
Drill rigs - 17
18
Dumpers (< 500 kW) - 18
19
Equipment loading/unloading silos /tanks - 19
110
104
107
97
107
104
97
92
110
111
105
110
113
105
100
0
0
0
0
3
0
3
3
0
3
0
3
3
3
3
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
5
0
0
0
0
0
5
0
0
5
0
0
5
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
3
0
0
0
6
0
0
0
3
0
0
3
3
3
3
20
Excavators, hydraulic / rope (< 500 kW) - 20 101
21
22
Excavator-loaders (< 500 kW) - 21 101

Glass recycling containers - 22 100
3
0
0
0
0
5
3
6
107
107
100
109
93
3
0
3
3
3
0
0
0
0
0
0
5
0
0
5
3
6
6
3
6
Hydraulic hammers - 28 112

Hydraulic power packs - 29 103
Joint cutters - 30 108
3
0
3
0
0
0
5
0
5
6
0
3
31 Landfill compactors, loader+bucket (< 500 kW) - 31 104

32
Lawnmowers (excl agricul/forestry equip) - 32
98
32
98
33
Lawn trimmers lawn edge trimmers - 33
96
34
Leaf blowers - 34 104
3
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
5
5
5
5
3
6
6
6
6
35
105
106
103
106
106
0
0
3
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
5
6
6
3
3
6
40
41a
Motor hoes (< 3 kW) - 40

96
Paver-finishers (high-compaction screed) - 41a 110
3
0
0
0
0
0
3
0
41b
Paver-finishers (others) - 41b 108
42
43
Piling equipment - 42 125

Pipelayers - 43 117
3
3
0
0
5
0
6
3
28
29
30
Graders (< 500 kW) - 23

Grass trimmers/grass edge trimmers - 24
Hedge trimmers - 25
High pressure flushers - 26
High pressure water jet machines - 27
Leaf collectors - 35 104
36a
Lift trucks, CE (rough terrain/construction) - 36a
36bLift trucks, CE (others excl. Container handling) - 36b
37
Loaders (< 500 kW) - 37
38
Mobile cranes - 38
39
Mobile waste containers - 39
44
45a
45b
46
47
48
Piste caterpillars - 44
Power generators (< 400 kW) - 45a
Power generators (>_ 400 kw) - 45b
Power sweepers - 46
Refuse collection vehicles - 47
Road milling machines - 48
106
97
96
101
109
113
3
0
0
3
0
3
5
0
0
5
5
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
6
0
0
0
6
3
49
Scarifiers - 49
95
50
Shredders chippers - 50 109
51
Snow-removing machines, rotating tools - 51 105
52
53
54
Suction vehicles - 52 105

Tower cranes - 53
94
Trenchers - 54 107
3
0
3
0
0
0
5
0
0
3
3
3
55
56
Truck mixers - 55 114

Water pump (not for under water) - 56
98
3
0
0
5
0
0
3
0
57
nday
tuse
Env %use
Builders' hoists, goods (CE driven) - 3a

Builders' hoists, goods (electric motor) - 3b
Building site band saw machine - 4
Building site circular saw bench - 5
Chain saws, portable - 6
23
24
25
26
27
nmont
Welding generators - 57
97
10
8
8
10
10
10
10
5
5
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
12
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
12
12
10
8
8
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
8
8
8
4
4
4
4
10
10
10
10
12
12
6
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
5
10
10
12
12
10
10
4
4
4
4
4
4
10
10
10
10
10
12
4
10
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
10
10
10
20
10
20
15
15
20
20
25
20
10
20
20
20
20
20
20
30
25
15
10
1
10
10
1
20
20
20
20
20
2
20
1
1
20
1
20
20
20
20
20
5
30
5
15
15
15
15
20
20
20
30
30
30
20
20
15
15
10
1
10
1
5
5
10
20
20
20
20
30
30
20
60
240
240
60
60
60
60
60
60
240
60
60
240
120
120
60
60
120
240
720
240
240
240
120
120
120
120
240
60
60
240
60
60
60
60
60
120
120
120
120
240
60
60
30
60
60
60
60
240
240
240
60
2
60
120
120
120
120
120
60
60
60
240
480
480
240
360
240
240
60
60
120
120
120
120
60
60
120
120
120
960
960
360
D
B
F
D
D
D
D
B
F
C
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
E
D
D
D
D
F
D
F
D
E
C
D
B
A
C
D
A
D
D
D
F
F
A
B
A
A
B
A
B
D
D
D
D
C
E
F
D
F
D
F
D
D
F
F
D
D
C
C
D
F
B
A
B
A
C
F
C
D
D
F
D
D
F
D
100%
50%
50%
100%
100%
100%
100%
50%
50%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
50%
50%
75%
25%
100%
75%
25%
100%
100%
100%
100%
75%
25%
100%
100%
75%
25%
100%
75%
25%
100%
50%
50%
50%
50%
100%
100%
100%
100%
90%
10%
100%
50%
50%
50%
50%
100%
50%
50%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
50%
50%
75%
25%
75%
25%
50%
50%
100%
100%
50%
50%
100%
50%
50%
100%
in
NEU25
use
(1000x)
(%)
200 75%
2000 75%
75%
50 75%
50 75%
25 75%
200 75%
2000 75%
75%
20 75%
10 75%
90 75%
200 75%
400 75%
200 75%
25 75%
25 75%
50 75%
50 75%
1000 75%
14 75%
10 75%
29 75%
100 75%
75%
692 75%
692 75%
162 75%
2000 75%
75%
5 75%
5000 75%
5000 75%
50 75%
500 75%
75%
400 75%
100 75%
50 75%
75%
5 75%
50000 75%
50000 75%
5000 75%
3000 75%
75%
3000 75%
75%
225 75%
800 75%
326 75%
100 75%
100000 75%
75%
1000 75%
10 75%
75%
10 75%
75%
20 75%
50 75%
75%
5 75%
2000 75%
200 75%
30 75%
100 75%
40 75%
75%
1000 75%
75%
1000 75%
75%
10 75%
75%
10 75%
20 75%
20 75%
75%
50 75%
1000 75%
75%
1000 75%
4.3.5
89 / 235
Results
In figure 4.8 and 4.9 the overview is presented of the ranking of all types of equipment
based on averaged guaranteed sound power level (fig. 4.8) and the environmental
impact indicator (fig. 4.9). The range in dB for the various equipment types varies
substantially: for the sound power level it is 33 dB(A) and for the Environmental
Impact indicator 63 dB. This is caused by the effect of sound characteristics (10 dB
range), population of equipment (range 40 dB), usage time (range 30 dB) and the
variation in environment (less than 10 dB).
A major result is that the ranking in sound power levels is completely different to the
ranking in environmental impact, which is understandable when considering that some
equipment types (e.g. lawnmowers) are far more numerous than others (e.g. piste
caterpillars).
For the average sound power levels as shown in figure 4.8, the top 10 include piling
machines and other noisy construction equipment.
The top 10 equipment types in environmental impact are mobile waste containers,
hydraulic hammers, brush cutters, piling equipment, cooling equipment on vehicles,
refuse collection vehicles, grass trimmers, lawnmowers, chain saws, and lift trucks.
Most of these are either very numerous, have a long usage time and/or a high noise
level combined with poor sound characteristics. Instead of considering the top 10, it is
probably better to consider all equipment with an indicator value above 50 dB as most
relevant for stricter limits. All equipment below 30 dB might be considered of low
importance for any effort in terms of Article 12 limits. This includes construction
winches, electric builders hoists, paver finishers (all types), explosion rammers, snowremoving machines, tower cranes, piste caterpillars, landfill compactors and motor
hoes.
These results seem consistent with some of the findings from the environmental
consultation.
It could well be argued that a further analysis of subtypes of equipment in power classes
or drive systems would be useful, but this would go beyond the scope of this study.
Piling equipm ent - 42

Pipelayers - 43
Truck m ixers - 55
Road m illing m achines - 48
Drill rigs - 17
Hydraulic ham m ers - 28
Chain s aws , portable - 6
Conveyor belts - 14
Paver-finis hers (high-com paction s creed) - 41a
Conveying / s praying m achines , concrete/m ortar - 13
Com bined high pres s ure flus hers /s uction vehicles - 7
Building s ite circular s aw bench - 5
Building s ite band s aw m achine - 4
Dozers (< 500 kW) - 16
Refus e collection vehicles - 47
High pres s ure flus hers - 26
Shredders chippers - 50
Brus h cutters - 2
Joint cutters - 30
Paver-finis hers (others ) - 41b
Gras s trim m ers /gras s edge trim m ers - 24
Com paction m achines (rollers , vibratory plates ) - 8b
Concrete-breakers and picks , hand-held - 10
Trenchers - 54
Graders (< 500 kW) - 23
Pis te caterpillars - 44
Mobile was te containers - 39
Lift trucks , CE (others excl. Container handling) - 36b
Mobile cranes - 38
Cooling equipm ent on vehicles - 15
Lift trucks , CE (rough terrain/cons truction) - 36a
Dum pers (< 500 kW) - 18
Snow-rem oving m achines , rotating tools - 51
Suction vehicles - 52
Com paction m achines (explos ion ram m ers ) - 8a
Landfill com pactors , loader+bucket (< 500 kW) - 31
Leaf collectors - 35
Leaf blowers - 34
Concrete or m ortar m ixers - 11
Loaders (< 500 kW) - 37
Hydraulic power packs - 29
Excavators , hydraulic / rope (< 500 kW) - 20
Power s weepers - 46
Excavator-loaders (< 500 kW) - 21
Builders ' hois ts , goods (CE driven) - 3a
Glas s recycling containers - 22
Equipm ent loading/unloading s ilos /tanks - 19
Hedge trim m ers - 25
Lawnm owers (excl agricul/fores try equip) - 32
Water pum p (not for under water) - 56
Cons truction winches (CE driven) - 12a
Com pres s ors (< 350 kW) - 9
Lawn trim m ers lawn edge trim m ers - 33
Scarifiers - 49
Tower cranes - 53
Aerial acces s platform s , com bus tion engine - 1
Builders ' hois ts , goods (electric m otor) - 3b
High pres s ure water jet m achines - 27
Cons truction winches (electric) - 12b
90 / 235
80
90
100
110
LWA [dB(A)]
Figure 4.8 Ranking of equipment according to the average guaranteed sound power level.
120
130
91 / 235
Mobile w aste containers - 39

Brush cutters - 2
Hydraulic hammers - 28
Piling equipment - 42
Law nmow ers (excl agricul/f orestry equip) - 32
Chain saw s, portable - 6
Lift trucks, CE (others excl. Cont. handling) - 36b
Water pump (not f or under w ater) - 56
Glass recycling containers - 22
Leaf blow ers - 34
Lif t trucks, CE (rough terrain/construction) - 36a
Truck mixers - 55
Pow er generators (< 400 kW) - 45a
Loaders (< 500 kW) - 37
Joint cutters - 30
Pipelayers - 43
Excavators, hydraulic / rope (< 500 kW) - 20
Conveyor belts - 14
Hedge trimmers - 25
Law n trimmers law n edge trimmers - 33
Conveying/spraying machines, concr/mortar - 13
Dumpers (< 500 kW) - 18
Dozers (< 500 kW) - 16
Scarifiers - 49
High pressure w ater jet machines - 27
Drill rigs - 17
Pow er sw eepers - 46
Mobile cranes - 38
Pow er generators (>_ 400 kw ) - 45b
Combined h.p. flushers/suction vehicles - 7
A erial access platforms, combustion engine - 1
Hydraulic pow er packs - 29
Trenchers - 54
Compaction machines (rollers, vibr. plates) - 8b
Graders (< 500 kW) - 23
Paver-f inishers (high-compaction screed) - 41a
Paver-finishers (others) - 41b
Construction w inches (CE driven) - 12a
Construction w inches (electric) - 12b
Tow er cranes - 53
Snow -removing machines, rotating tools - 51
Landfill compactors, loader+bucket (<500 kW) - 31
30
40
50
60
Environmenta l Impa ct Indica tor, dB
Figure 4.9 Ranking of equipment according to the Environmental Impact indicator.
70
80
4.4
92 / 235
Environmental impact of moving from Article 13 to 12 and limit changes

Any potential limit changes and moving from Article 13 to 12 should be considered in
the light of the above results. Although the output of the Environmental Impact
indicator is somewhat uncertain due to the input uncertainties in machine populations,
average sound power levels and usage time for example, due to its logarithmic
formulation it gives a reasonable indication of the environmental importance of each
equipment type. Notably, many Article 13 equipment types have a higher impact than
many of the Article 12 types.
The following Article 13 equipment should be given top priority for moving to Article
12: mobile waste containers, hydraulic hammers, brush cutters, piling equipment,
cooling equipment on vehicles, refuse collection vehicles, grass and grass edge
trimmers, chain saws. High priority should be given to lift trucks, glass recycling
containers, water pumps, circular saw benches, shredders/chippers, truck mixers, leaf
collectors, leaf blowers, joint cutters and pipelayers. Medium priority should be given to
conveyor belts, road milling machines, band saw machines, hedge trimmers, concrete
conveying/spraying machines, power sweepers, drill rigs, high pressure water jet
machines, flusher and flusher/suction vehicles, power generators (> 400 kW),
concrete/mortar mixers and scarifiers. All others should be considered low priority.
In some cases the moving of Article 13 equipment to Article 12 is more important than
the stage II limits, in thoses cases where the environmental impact is higher.
For Article 12 equipment, most priority should be given to lawnmowers, CE-driven lift
trucks, handheld concrete breakers and picks, power generators and loaders.These
should definitely require tighter limits. Medium priority should be given to hydraulic
excavators, welding generators, excavator-loaders, dumpers, dozers, lawn and lawn
edge trimmers and mobile cranes. These should be given tighter limits if possible. Low
priority should be given to compressors, hydraulic power packs, graders, builders
hoists (CE). Lowest priority is given to paver-finishers (HCS), explosion rammers,
construction winches (CE), landfill compactors, tower cranes and motor hoes; it is
probably not worth changing limits for these types.
4.5
Environmental impact of new equipment list

The new equipment to be considered is assessed in exactly the same way as the current
equipment from the Directive, although less information is available on the input data
such as sound power level, usage and machine population. For all the required input
data for the environmental impact assessment, an estimate was made as presented in
table 4.2.
The results, following the same procedure as for the existing equipment, are given in
figure 4.10 (average guaranteed sound power level) and figure 4.11 (environmental
impact indicator). These results can be compared directly with those from figures 4.8
and 4.9. The sound power levels and the environmental impact indicator for new
equipment types cover about the same range as the equipment currently in the directive.
Once again, the environmental impact indicator gives a completely different ranking
than the average sound power levels. The highest levels of environmental impact are
found for reverse alarm signals, airco and ventilation equipment, stone circular saws,
mobile waste breakers, stone chainsaws, bridge and gantry cranes, mobile sieve
93 / 235
installations, vehicle mounted loader cranes, tractors for construction sites/water pumps
(also municipal uses).
Significantly, all the others score too low in terms of environmental impact. This in part
due to low numbers of equipment and low usage time related to seasonal use.
It might however be argued that some of these types can be highly relevant for certain
local communities.
94 / 235
Table 4.3 Overview of the input data for the Environmental Impact indicator for new equipment types and
the appropriate surroundings.
Eq.
no.
LWA,g
Equipment
85
85
Mobile sieve installations - 102 110
Cop
Ce/n
Ct/p
Cint
nm
nd
tuse
Env
%use
in use
(%)
NEU25
(1000x)
100
Airco/ ventilation equipment - 100
15
720 C
100%
10000
75%
101
Heat pumps - 101
12
20
360 F
100%
20
75%
10
20
240 D
50%
20
75%
10
20
240 F
50%
10
20
240 D
50%
20
75%
10
20
240 F
50%
10
20
60 C
50%
10
20
60 D
50%
102
102
103
Mobile waste breakers (wood, concrete) - 103
120
Tractors for construction / water pumps - 104
110
103
104
104
105
Reverse movement alarm signals (all machines) - 105
100
105
106
107
100
Bridge /gantry cranes (harbours/ portal cranes) - 107 105
Non-fixed lifting gear, own power source. - 106
107
108
Vehicle mounted loader cranes - 108
100
108
109
Road sweepers, no aspirators (motorized broom) - 109
110
Street washing machine - 110
111
Snowmobiles - 111
112
Quad (off-road) - 112
113
Golf green edger - 113
114
Bird scare canons - 114
115
Telescopic pruner - 115
116
Tree stump grinder - 116
95
100
110
110
96
90
95
110
120
121
50%
10000
75%
10
20
60 D
100%
20
75%
20
75%
10
20
240 D
50%
12
15
240 F
50%
10
20
30 D
50%
10
20
30 E
50%
20
240 C
100%
75%
75%
1000
75%
20
75%
75%
12
12
20
240 C
100%
20
75%
10
120 F
100%
150
75%
10
60 F
100%
100
75%
10
60 F
100%
10
75%
30
30 F
100%
75%
60 B
100%
100
75%
60 B
50%
20
75%
60 F
50%
10
20
240 D
50%
75%
75%
10
75%
Straddle carrier - 117
110
Reach stacker - 118
110
120
Stone chainsaw - 120 120
Swimming pool pumps - 121 100
Stone circular saw - 119
50%
20 D
75%
12
15
240 F
50%
10
20
240 D
50%
12
15
240 F
50%
10
20
60 D
100%
10
20
60 D
100%
75%
480 A
100%
50
75%
118
119
10 E
20
75%
75%
117
118
20
75%
50
116
117
12
10
75%
75%
75%
Stone chainsaw Stone circular saw Mobile waste breakers (wood, concrete) Reach stacker Straddle carrier Tree stump grinder Quad (off-road) Snowmobiles Tractors for construction / water pumps Mobile sieve installations Bridge /gantry cranes (harbours/ portal cranes) Swimming pool pumps Street washing machine Vehicle mounted loader cranes Non-fixed lifting gear, own power source. Reverse movement alarm signals (all machines) Golf green edger Telescopic pruner Road sweepers, no aspirators (motorized broom) Bird scare canons Heat pumps Airco/ ventilation equipment -
120
119
103
118
117
116
112
111
104
102
107
121
110
108
106
105
113
115
109
114
101
100
95 / 235
80
90
100
110
120
130
LW A [dB(A)]
Figure 4.10 Ranking of new equipment types according to the estimated average guaranteed sound power level.
Reverse movement alarm signals (all machines)

Airco/ ventilation equipment
Stone circular saw
Stone chainsaw
Bridge /gantry cranes (harbours/ portal cranes)
Tractors for construction / water pumps
Reach stacker
Non-fixed lifting gear, own power source.
Telescopic pruner
Swimming pool pumps
Road sweepers, no aspirators (motorized broom)
Snowmobiles
Quad (off-road)
Straddle carrier
Tree stump grinder
Heat pumps
Golf green edger
Bird scare canons
- 105
- 100
- 119
- 103
- 120
- 108
- 107
- 102
- 104
- 118
- 110
- 106
- 115
- 121
- 109
- 111
- 112
- 117
- 116
- 101
- 113
- 114
30
40
50
60
70
Environmental Impact Indicator, dB
Figure 4.11
Ranking of new equipment types according to the Environmental Impact indicator.
80
4.6
96 / 235
The issue of timescale

The environmental impact due to limit changes or adding equipment to Article 12 or 13
would take time to take effect. This would typically be the average replacement time of
equipment (average of 10 years), although in those cases where there is growth in the
consumer and professional markets the impact might be noticably sooner. Given the
growth of the construction sector and corresponding need for new and efficient
equipment there is a potential for increased environmental impact if limits are not
introduced or tightened. For example if the population of one equipment type doubles,
the environmental impact increases by 3 dB.
If any impact on a large scale is to be achieved within a few years, and if the expected
overall increase in noise exposure is to be limited, it is essential to adjust the limits and
equipment types soon and in an appropriate measure, to protect and benefit the
environment within a reasonable timescale.
A local benefit is possible on a much shorter timescale if local authorities or contractors
can purchase quieter equipment for specific construction projects or municipal
activities. Some municipalities already require the use of low noise equipment, as was
found in the consultation.
4.7
Conclusions for the environmental analysis

The overall environmental impact has been assessed for all the equipment types in the
directive and for potential new equipment types. Based on this, 12 high and medium
priority types for Article 12 limit changes were identified. For the remaining Article 12
types, limit changes are expected to have much less impact.
For Article 13 equipment, a group of 18 equipment types has been identified that clearly
would be worth moving to Article 12.
For potentially new equipment types, 9 out of 21 were shown to be potential candidates
for addition to the Article 13 list, based on the expected environmental impact.
The results of this analysis are indicative, in particular for the need to change the
equipment lists or limits. Other considerations than only the environmental impact may
still lead to other conclusions. For example, it may be considered appropriate to modify
some types based on high sound power levels only, or on the impact on rural areas.
Limit changes of 3 dB or moving equipment from article 13 to 12, is most effective for
those types with a high environmental impact, as it affects most people.
Review of test cycles and procedures
5.1
Introduction
97 / 235
It takes 25 pages of the current directive to define as precisely as possible the test
conditions for each equipment type in Annex III. The scope of these definitions and the
deviations from the ISO and CEN standards contained therein are frequently criticised.
The same holds true, in a sense, for those 8 pages of Annex II where engine definitions
have been stated. This scale was considered as a requirement at the time the directive
was first released, since for many groups no standard definitions and applicable test
conditions were available or these did not correspond to the directives principles.
Test cycles were not supposed to have phases of idle operation (even though they
dominate in practical operation of the equipment), to allow easier comparison, and the
process noise was also to be eliminated.
In the meantime, some C-Type standards have been adapted to the requirements of the
directive and could now be applied; for other equipment groups revisions and/or new
listings have been prepared.
Deviations from standards are still partly necessary in order to obtain a better
reproducibility of the measurement values as could be feasible with the application of
the currently applicable standards, especially if the leeway contained therein would be
fully used. It is favourable to manufacturers, operators and authorities if uncertainty K
can be kept as low as possible.
There are several issues related to the test cycles that affect the measurement
uncertainty, including
- determination procedure of the K-factor itself;
- temperature range;
- influence of the environmental correction K2A;
- reproducibility of the loading and operating conditions;
- the sound radiation due to the process or work piece;
- multiple sources and./or complex work cycle.
The relation between the measured sound power level and the level occurring under real
field conditions is not always straightforward. Firstly, it may not always be easy to recreate the conditions found under normal field conditions. Secondly, if these conditions
are created, the reproducibility may be too low due to a large spread in the noise levels
in these conditions.
A number of equipment types are in the Article 13 group due to the fact that the
measurement method still has too large uncertainty to be able to reliably set limits. A
good example of this is the test code for shredders/chippers, where the type of material
used in the test can significantly affect the results by several dB.
For these reasons, a number of improvements for test codes with reference to current
standards and standard proposals, where possible, are recommended in the following.
Annex II and III of the directive could be shortened by compiling the data in tables.
However, since in some places amendments with long text portions still are necessary
that would have to be depicted in additional annexes, this might not be clear enough.
98 / 235
Since the test conditions partly have a direct impact on the test result, the comparison
with a limit could also be affected. Here the parliaments proviso for eventual
amendments would apply. For the same reason then too, if more recently issued
standards can be referenced, the used standard will have to be codified with its year of
issue.
5.2
General findings valid for more than one type of Equipment

The general findings which are valid for more than one equipment type are listed in
table 5.1 below. Further details for particular codes can be found in appendix A.
Table 5.1a
No.
5.2.1
Keyword/
concerning
General findings on test codes valid for more than one equipment type.
Reference
Problem/
in the
Insufficient Because
Directive
Proposed Solution
Further
Remarks
Landfill
Annex I,
Only the loader-type with
Land fill compactor = A self propelled
Test cycle and limits
compactor
Definitions,
bucket is covered by the
compaction machine on steel wheels (drums) or
for tracked landfill
no. 31
directive
tracks, primarily designed to compact, move,
compactors should be
grade and load soil, landfill or sanitary (refuse)
the same as dozers and
materials
like vibrating rollers

for vibrating roller
type compactor.
5.2.2
Net power
Annex III,
Power declaration in EC
Take reference to 80/1269 EC as generally used
Part A, 2.2
kW isnt suitable anymore
for road- and non-road engines.
and isnt verifiable for NBs.

5.2.3
Electronic
Annex III,
power control Part B
Most noise tests are carried
Noise test for machinery equipped with
out at high idle.
electronic load-dependent speed control should

be done at 75% of high idling-speed. But static
test at high idle shall never exceed the limit
value.
5.2.4
Hybrid drives none
Hybrid drive are less noisy
Limit shall be calculated using the system
in practice. Its necessary to
power (addition of CE power and EE power).
find a suitable solution for
Test should be done at CEs high idling-speed.
testing and calculating the
From the test result at high idle a factor
limit value in accordance to
10*log((PEE+PCE)/PCE) has to be subtracted to
the power.
get the measured for declaration and

calculating the uncertainty K. But static test at
high idle shall never exceed the limit value.
5.2.5
Where dynamic test is done
Add the condition: High idle engine speed is the
at dynamic
while the equipment is
more important condition
tests
travelling, ISO 6395 is
Travel speed
ISO 6395
over-determining the test

conditions
5.2.6
Statistics,
Annex III,
Acceptance of repeatability
Max of 2
Part A
should be determined by the standard deviation of repeatability sr of at least
highest
standard deviation of
repeatability sr only.
The measurements have to be repeated until the

3 successive measurements is < 0.5 dB.
Standards like
ISO 7574 and
ISO 8471 define
repeatability sr as
being included into
standard deviation of
reproducibility R
5.2.7
Measured
Article 3 e + f
For the calculation of
and
and Annex III
uncertainty K a uniform
Guaranteed
approach must be laid
Sound Power
down. In addition, a
Level
verification procedure
99 / 235
Solution is following the NB proposal 2006-11

See the detailed wording in a separate annex
within the regular CoP

(Control of Production) and
for verification purposes by
notified bodies must be
established.
5.2.8
Environment
Annex III,
It's not useful to set K2A to
Used test grounds with non ideal conditions
The usage of
al Correction
Part A, 6
zero
must be checked by an RSS. If K2A 0.5 dB
corrections is difficult
will be determined, the measuring place will be
and requires a
considered adequate; otherwise a correction
considerable amount
must be made.
of experience.
K2A
See detailed wording in a separate annex

5.2.9
Reference
None in the
To use small figures for R
All sound power levels guaranteed should be
Originally air density
Temperature
directive,
a restriction of temperature
verifiable at a temperature range between
is influencing the
ISO 3744
range is necessary.
+10C and +30C. If measurements out of this
result. So, high above
range are unavoidable, a correction is
sea level may also
recommended (manufacturers, NBs) or
influence the result.
obligatory (market surveillance).

5.2.10
Rules for
none
Market
See the detailed wording in a separate annex
what it wants (or is doing
Surveillance
5.2.11
Every member state does

nothing)
Performing a surveillance
Surveillance measurements shall follow
Measurement
measurement the authority
principle of Shared Risk.
s by Market
has own risk of uncertainty
Surveillance
which should not be borne
Verification
none
See detailed wording in separate annex
by the manufacturer.
5.2.12
Help of
None, Blue
Different position of
MS authorities may award organization and
Notified
Guide
accreditation authorities
measurements for MS to notified bodies
Bodies at
whether NBs may be
competent for this type of machine. But final
Market
involved in MS or not.
assessment has to be done always by the
Surveillance
authority. An NB active in MS has to declare

that it has had no commercial contacts with the
manufacturer for the last 3 years.
5.2.13
Round Robin
none
Test
Current proposal to
EC Round Robin Test for typical products,
Tender published Mai
calculate uncertainty K is
revision of listed R. Minimum R should in
2007
based on estimated figures
future be listed for every type of equipment in
for standard deviation of
Annex III, Part 2
reproducibility R.
5.2.14
Uncertainty
Annex VII;
Wording imprecise,
If the measurement is done by the laboratory of
Annex VII is
K and Single
ISO 4871
different interpretation in
the notified body itself or in presence of the NB
something like an
the MS
staff, no uncertainty K is added to the measured
official verification,
Verification
LWA. The measured LWA rounded to the next
where the NB has a
Annex VII
whole figure is identical to the LWAd labelled.
state replacing
The manufacturer may label/declare a higher
function. If a
figure to declare equipment of one type always
manufacturer uses a
with the same LWAd.
single unit
Unit
measurement under
100 / 235
Annex V, VI or VIII,
he has to add an
uncertainty K of
K = 1.5 * R
5.2.15
Qualification and working
Every MS names an independent accreditation
The subcontracting of
of Notified
conditions of NBs varies
agency. Accreditation has to follow ISO 17025
alien laboratories
Bodies
throughout EC
for test laboratories, ISO 45011 for certification
abroad of EC should
following Annex VI or VII and ISO 45012 for
be restricted or bound
certification following Annex VIII.
to strict observation
Qualification
Annex IX
(China!).
5.2.16
Admittance to be an NB
Every MS names an independent accreditation
of
different in the MS
agency. This agency has to follow
Accreditation
throughout EC
EN ISO/IEC 17011:2004 at the assessment of
Qualification
Article 15
Bodies for
NBs. The accreditation body has to observe
Notified
regularly the activities of the NBs.
Bodies
5.2.17
Inconsistent
none
New engine generation with EC has to install an internal steering group,
It is too much for
Demands of
low NOx emission has an
ensuring that environmental goals and time
construction engineers
Noise and
increased demand on
schedule between gas and noise emission (and
in the industry to do
Gas Emission
cooling. This leads to
perhaps further upcoming directives) becomes
the home work of
Legislation
increased sound power
coordinated.
COM.
levels.
5.2.18
5.2.19
5.2.20
Receipt for
A lot of brands are missing
Print out an electronic receipt after every input
After improving the
Sending the
in the database while the
in the database
EC database, any
DoC to COM
manufacturers claim to have
national database is
sent there Docs to COM
superfluous.
For some equipment there is For this equipment binding equipping should be
Alternatively set a
Binding
none
none
Construction
only one possible way for
stipulated. For example, at the building site,
limit which could only
Regulation
noise reduction.
only measure for noise reduction of a circular
be achieved by this
saw is a damped saw blade. This should be
construction (or
obligatory.
others)
Single Unit
Annexes V
For some equipment under
Installing something like a simplified single
A manufacturer
Declaration
and VII
article 13, every unit is
unit declaration for article 13 equipment
declared 1,500 units of
and Annex V
constructed on specific
waste collecting
customers demands and
vehicles in the
has ever so often different
database.
sound power levels unit-byunit (waste collecting

vehicles etc.) although it is
the same model.
5.2.21
ISO 3746
Annex III,
Reference to EN ISO 3746
For the determination of the sound power level
Other methods with at
Part A
should be withdrawn
of equipment used outdoors, a class II
least engineering
because the accuracy of a
engineering method, primarily EN ISO 3744,
accuracy may be used
survey measurement
should be used. If any doubts, reference to
as well, but on risk of
could not be used to
EN ISO 3744 under free field conditions is
the manufacturer.
calculate an uncertainty K
taken.
Increased R-values
Consumer products as lawn
The CE marking of conformity and the
Further step: In
movers are normally sold
indication of the guaranteed sound power level
brochures the sound
packed in a carton. How
shall be affixed in a visible, legible and
power level
could a buyer see the sound
indelible form to each item of equipment and if
guaranteed has to be
power declaration?
sold packed visible also at the package.
lined out together with
with reasonable accuracy.

5.2.22
Labelling the
product
Article 11 (3)
are necessary.
101 / 235
other performance
data.
5.2.23
Combined
none
products
Market provides some
Test should be done for both (all) functions, but
combined products like
labelling and declaration is done for the type of
power + welding generator
the higher limit.
or even combinations of
Article 12/13 combination must fulfil the limit
article 12 +13 products
only in their article 12 function, but label has to

show max sound power level
5.2.24
Idling
Annex III
Current directive avoids
In practical use of machines (low) idling is an
A question of
idling work cycles in any
considerable part of use. Many machinery test
philosophy
test codes
codes in type C-standards are taking that into

consideration. Taking reference directly to this
standards would simplify the directive a lot. Of
course limits have to be adapted/reduced then.
An other advantage is that labelled figures
become more reliable. Disadvantage is the noncomparability of old and new LWAd in the data
base.
A uniform engine definition of power (same as for traffic type approval) should be used
with reference to an EU directive or an EN or ISO standard. For intermittently operating
and reversing fans, new provisions need to be made.
5.3
Proposed test code improvements and test codes for new equipment types
Improvements for particular test codes and proposed test codes for new equipment
types are listed in table 5.2.
102 / 235
Table 5.2 Test code improvements and test code proposals for new equipment types (contd. on next page)
Eq.
no.
Equipment name
Art
Improvement of test code
Remarks
1
2
3a
3b
4
5
6
7

13
Brush cutters
13
Builders' hoists for the transport of goods (combustion-engine driven 12
13
13
13
13
13
No
ISO 22868 (2005-02)
No
No
No
No
ISO 22868 (2005-02)
No
8a
8b
9
10

13
Compaction machines (only vibrating and non-vibrating rollers, vibrat 12
12
12
No
EN 500-4:2006
no
EN 60745-2-6: 3 kg should
be excluded, beacause these
small tools are used only
private and mainly indoors
11
12a
12b
13
14
15
16
17
18

Conveyor belts
Dozers (< 500 kW)
Drill rigs
Dumpers (< 500 kW)
13
12
13
13
13
13
12
13
12
No
No
No
Revise testcode
No
PrEN 12102:2005
ISO DIS 6395 E 2006/05
No
ISO DIS 6395 E 2006/05
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26

Graders (< 500 kW)
Hedge trimmers
13
12
12
13
12
13
13
13
Revise testcode
ISO DIS 6395 E 2006/05
ISO DIS 6395 E 2006/05
no
ISO DIS 6395 E 2006/05
ISO 22868 (2005-02)
ISO 10517
No
27
13
28
Hydraulic hammers
13
29
30
31

Joint cutters
12
13
12
32
33
34
35
36a
36b
37
38
39
Lawnmowers (excluding agricultural and forestry equipment, )

12
12
Leaf blowers
13
Leaf collectors
13
Lift trucks, CE driven, counterbalanced (excluding 'other counterbala 12
Lift trucks, CE driven, couterbalanced (others excl. Container handlin13
Loaders (< 500 kW)
12
Mobile cranes
12
13
Change measurement
surface to hemisphere,
nozzle outside
CEN/TS 13778:2004
exclude big hammers only
used in mining
No
EN 13862:2001
ISO DIS 6395 E 2006/05,
consider all landfill
compactors also without
bucket
No
No
Pr EN 15503
Combine as one group
Pr EN 15503
Remove exceptions
Combine in one group
Remove exceptions
ISO DIS 6395 E 2006/05
EN 13000:2004
Results are not reproducible,
develop new test cycle
40
41a
41b
42
Motor hoes (< 3 kW)

12
13
Paver-finishers (excluding paver-finishers equipped with a high-comp12
Piling equipment
13
43
44
Pipelayers
Piste caterpillars
13
13
45a
45b
46

Power sweepers
12
13
13
47
13
48
13
No
EN 500-6:2006
EN 500-6:2006
EN 996 A2:2003
CEN
work
program
m M_373
TC 144
TC 142
TC 142
TC 144
7, 26 and 52 should be combined
into 1 group
TC 151
TC 151
But withdraw low idle mode and
calculate 90% driving and 10%
stationary work cycle
TC 144
TC 144
into 1 group
TC 151
TC 151
TC 144
TC 144
TC 151
TC 151
TC 151
TC 151
ISO DIS 6395 E 2006/05
PrEN 15059:2004 / ISO DIS
TC 151
6393
ISO 8528-10:1998
ISO 8528-10:1998
Precise speed setting
Division into 3 subgrops using the
definitions in PrEN 15429-1/IEC
60336-2-72: road sweeper,
industrial sweeper, pedestrian
controlled motorized broom (see
109)
New EN 101-4, under
preparation
EN 500-2:2006
no, definition of engine
power acc ISO 9249:1997
TC 151
49
Scarifiers
50
51
52
Shredders chippers
13
Snow-removing machines with rotating tools (self-propelled, excl. atta13
Suction vehicles
13
EN 13684:2007 ?
remove electric powered
from directive
EN13683; EN13525
No
No
53
54
55
56
Tower cranes
Trenchers
Truck mixers
12
13
13
13
No
No
No
EN 12639:2000
57
100
Welding generators
12
13
101
Heat pumps
13
ISO 8528-10:1998
EN ISO 12102draft Nov 2005 Same physical principal. So a
common defintion and test code
EN ISO 12102draft Nov 2005 should be suitabe.
102
13
ISO 3744
103
13
ISO 3744 with material?
104
13
ISO 3744
105
106
107

Non-fixed lifting gear (magnets, vaccuum). own power source.
13
13
13
ISO 3744
ISO 3744
ISO 3744
108
13
109
13
110
13
111
112
Snowmobiles
Quad (off-road)
13
13
113
114
115
Golf green edger

Bird scare canons
Telescopic pruner
13
13
13
116
Tree stump grinder
13
117
118
119
120
121
Straddle carrier
Reach stacker
Stone circular saw
Stone chainsaw
Swimming pool pumps
13
13
13
13
13
General
13
103 / 235
TC 144
into 1 group
Improve definition so that 121

swimming pool pumps are
covered by the definition of 56!
TC 197
difficult to determinate the

destinated use for all the different
applications
Many different work-principles and
types on the market. So it will be
difficult to determine the
designated use for all the different
applications. But only loaded
measurement and declaration
makes sense.
Noise measurement and
assessment is done following
regulations for road traffic use.
German standard DIN 45635 T 61

may be used to define
microphone positions and test
cycle
ISO 3744+cycle from mobile In practical use the CE of the
cranes
chassis is the main noise source.
The manufacturer of an attached
loader crane has has no chance
to influence this. Tested with an
electric driven hydraulic pump is
the only possibility to get an sound
power level of the loader crane it
self.
ISO 3744 Running with high see 46 power sweepers
idle and switched on broom;
Attitude of the broom 5 cm
over the soil
ISO 3744
really an equipment of interest?
"Nordic proposal"
ISO 3744 at high idle
ISO 3744, high idle +
passing
ISO 3744
ISO 3744
Measurement according EN
11680-1 with deviation
measure on sound-hard soil
because of the high weight of
the devices; Enterprise with
full power and with switched
on milling tool; Attitude of the
milling disk 10 cm over the
soil
see 36
see 36
see 6
see 6
EN 12639:2000
ISO 3744:2007
improve definition so that 121

swimming pool pumps are
covered by the definition of 56!
After publishing this new basic
standard, effects to 2000/14/EC
must be analyses carefully
TC 197
5.4
104 / 235
Test cycles for lift trucks

The test code for lift trucks has been a source of discussion since the first work on the
directive. With the aim to simplify and to take into account a larger definition of this
category, the situation can be summarised in table 5.3 below:
Table 5.3 Overview of test codes for lift trucks and loaders
Use
Definition
Article
Directive
test code
Construction site
Industrial
Container handlings:
Lift trucks
Loaders
Rough terrain
(in competition)
Lift trucks
Rough
terrain
<=10 t
>10 t
Straddle carriers
& Reach stackers
12
12
13
12
Out of the directive field
ISO 6395
EN 12053 modified
In addition to the objective to have a representative test, simple and usable for the
broadest possible range of machines, it is important not to further distort the
competition with the loaders. Some lift trucks equipped with a bucket conform to the
two definitions, but the loader test is more favorable. In detail, the different test
conditions are compared in table 5.4 below:
Table 5.4 Comparison of test conditions for lift trucks and loaders
Test
conditions
and weights:
Lift with a
load
Lift cycle
Directive lift truck

EN 12053
test codes
EN 12053
Counterbalanced:
- 18 % lifting
modified:
- 24 % driving
30% lifting
- 58 % low idle
70% driving
Rough terrain:
- 15 % lifting
- 9 % driving
- 76 % low idle
*
Yes (70% max)
Yes (70% max)
Only one up
Driving speed Full acceleration

from 3 machine
lengths.
Driving cycle Only forward
Only one up
Full acceleration
from 3 machine
lengths.
Only forward
Loader
50% lifting
50% driving
Without
Up and down, 3
times
Travel speed
limited to 8 km/h
Forward and
backward
moving
Microphones 6 on hemispherical 4 at 1.5 m height
6 on
positions
surface
hemispherical
surface
* These mixed cycles are duty to evaluate the noise exposure of a worker
105 / 235
Proposals to modify the current test cycle are rthe following:

a To use the simplest test code of the directive according to the fact that the major
source of noise is the engine,: "Equipment tested free of load (static)" paragraph 0 of
annex 3 Part B. It is a good way to simply and to reduce the competition problem with
the loaders but the competition should be bent with other similar earth moving
machines like the excavator-loaders.
b To use the loader test code (ISO6395 50-50% - 8 km/h) even for lift trucks to
reduce the competition problem. It seems expensive for the industry to have two
different test codes, one for the machinery directive and another for the outdoor
directive. In fact, the EN standard is not mandatory for the machinery directive and the
industry can find an advantage to have a simplest test code and a limited speed. For the
machinery directive field, it could be better to declare the noise during each principal
use conditions. Contrary to the outdoor directive, there is not the requirement to give
only one level for a mixed cycle, average of a standardized use
c VDMA proposes to use the EN 12053 (With or without the two highest microphone
positions ?) and to move the >10 t industrial trucks from article 12 to article 13. It can
reduce the test costs but the EN 12053 standard is more favorable than the directive test
code, taking account a large part (58% or 76%) of a low idle condition with a negligible
sound power level. To compensate the lower result the noise limit must be decrease
from 3 to 6 dBA, worsening the problem of competition.
d FEM proposes to only adapt the present test code, adding a speed limit of 8 km/h for
the drive condition and giving a new wording to clarify the lifting height.
It is the most reasonable proposal. An 8 km/h speed can by easily measured by the time
between lines AA' and BB'. A new limit has to be fixed with the information that a 8
km/h speed is an advantage of around 2 dBA.
The FEM proposal is also to keep in article 12 only the rough terrain lift trucks, to put
all the industrial lift trucks in article 13 and to exclude the containers handlers. With
only a difference on the lifting height, all the lift trucks can be measured with the same
test code.
The industry must take in account all the proposals and arguments to find the best
compromise. The "b" and "d" proposals can be brought closer and they are compatible
with a larger definition of lift trucks.
Technical impact assessment
6.1
Introduction
106 / 235
The technical impact of changing the directive is analysed in this chapter.

It is by far the strongest when introducing or tightening noise limits. Introducing
equipment into Article 13 requires relatively little effort, and the noise reduction may be
achieved by means of first simple-to-implement measures.
The impacts of setting new or stricter noise limits can be the following:
- changes to existing equipment designs;
- redesign or new design of equipment;
- resolving of technical barriers and constraints, e.g. process noise or tool noise,
weight, performance, maintenance, safety, efficiency or cooling.
Nearly always, additional costs will be incurred for R&D and in production, but if noise
is included in an early stage of product development, these costs will be less.
Manufacturers need to have access to knowlegde on low noise design to be able to
achieve noise reduction, especially after an initial noise reduction has already been
achieved. Noise control is a well-established engineering discipline with a sufficient
number of books, publications and standards covering the subject for example [50,
51,52,53].
This knowledge or know-how is required, but it is just as important to understand all
other design requirements related to noise reduction, for example speeds, power,
efficiency, weight, cooling and others. Such other requirements often form the barrier
beyond which further noise reduction is difficult to achieve without change of working
or drive principles.
For machinery noise control and low noise design, the following expertise is required:
- knowledge of general and component-specific low noise design rules;
- understanding of the noise generation, transmission and radiation;
- noise and vibration measurement technology;
- source identification and noise path analysis;
- knowledge of control measures, balancing of measures with other design
requirements and combination of noise control measures;
- for more detailed analysis, calculation methods.
It was clear from the industry consultation that many manufacturers make R&D efforts
to develop quieter products and that a variety of noise control measures is already
applied (see section 3.13.8).
This impact analysis firstly reviews in section 6.2 the common noise sources and
relevant noise control measures for the equipment in the directive and potential new
equipment. In section 6.3 the outlook to future trends and developments that may be
relevant for noise emission are discussed. Common constraints and design conflicts
covered in section 6.4. Links to other European directives are made in section 6.5.
The technical impact of the directive is assessed in section 6.7, and conclusions drawn
in section 6.8.
107 / 235
For some products in particular, technical barriers to further noise reduction are
encountered.
The various equipment types in the directive have a number of noise sources and
potential noise control measures in common. These sources and measures are first listed
and described.
As a next step, the technical trends and future developments are reviewed, to provide
insight into the possibilities for noise reduction in the near or further future.
As outdoor machinery is also subject to other European directives, some of the
associated technical issues are outlined, to the extent that there may be a clear link to
noise reduction.
Then, for those equipment types that come into question for new limits or tighter limits,
a review is given as to what the current state of technical progress is, i.e. to what extent
known technology has been applied to reduce noise emission.
6.2
Common noise sources and control measures
6.2.1
General
For all of the equipment in the directive, a number of noise sources are relevant, many
of which which were also mentioned in the industry consultation. These are:
internal combustion engines (+exhaust and intake), fans (mostly of a cooling system),
hydraulics components including pumps, motors, valves and hoses, gear transmissions,
electric motors, compressors, pumps, compaction drums(impact), rolling noise, tracks
(impact), rotating drums/cutters, tamping bars (impact), blades (aerodynamic), and
process noise including impact, cutting, brushes and water jets. Typical influence
parameters and noise control measures are listed in table 6.1.
Most of these components or processes are active noise sources, which means they are
the root cause of the noise. The actual sound radiation may also be indirectly radiated
by other (passive) machine parts, such as the bodywork, enclosures, silencers, hoses,
plating or other structural parts.
108 / 235
Table 6.1 Overview of noise characteristics of components commonly found in equipment from the directive.
Components
Noise generation
Combustion engines (Petrol, Pressure

Diesel, 2 and 4 stroke)
mechanical
unbalance forces
Noise Radiation
Main
parameters
influence Noise
measures
control
variation, Engine block, exhaust and Engine rpm, load, stroke Electronic
speed
control,
contact, inlet and via mounts and volume, number of cylinders, shielding, ignition type and
attached components.
type.
timing,
pressure
curve,
balancing,
exhaust/intake
silencer optimisation.
Cooling fans and suction Turbulence
and
blade Via ducts and openings.
Fan
speed,
diameter, Flow
streamlining,
blade
devices
interaction
efficiency,
blade
shape, design, diameter increase,
obstacles.
speed reduction, efficiency
increase.
Cutting blades (aerodynamic Blade/deck
interaction, Turbulent
airflow,
via Tip speed, blade geometry, Optimal blade shape, reduced
noise)
turbulence
openings.
deck geometry
deck
interaction,
speed
reduction, alternative cutting
principle.
Hydraulic pumps and motors, Pressure
pulsation,
fluid Housing, piping, hoses and Rpm, pressure load, flow rate, Pump
type
selection,
valves, pipes and hoses
turbulence, mechnical contact attached components.
pump type.
pulsation
filters
and
absorbers,
valve/piping
Gear transmissions
Gear forces
Housing
and
attached Rpm and tooth number of Gear type selection, gear
components.
fastest stage, load, gear type tooth shape optimisation and
and quality
quality,
reduction
of
transmission error.
frequency
controlled
Electric motors
Often cooling fan, also Cooling vents and housing, Rpm and Torque, type of For
electronic
filters;
electromagnetic
attached components.
motor, number of fields, motors:
motor type selection; see also
current
fans.
Compressors
Pressure
variation, Direct, via outlet, inlet and via Rpm, pressure load, stroke Type selection, valve timing,
mechanical
contact, mounts and and attached volume, number of cylinders, pressure curve, balancing,
outlet/intake
silencer
type
components.
unbalance forces
optimisation.
Pumps
Pressure
variation, Housing
and
attached Rpm, type, flow velocities, Pump type selection, flow
mechanical
contact, components.
flowrate, pressure.
streamlining, reduction in rpm
turbulence
or local flow velocities.
Cutting
and
impacting Impact forces
Impacting components and Masses and velocities of Reduce
impact
speed,
elements/tools
attached components
impact, contact elasticity
minimise impacting masses,
cushion impact, eliminate
impact, detach or isolate
coupled
components.
Alternative processes.
Brushes
Friction forces
Brush
Stiffness, area, rpm
Reduce contact speed or rpm,
soften bristles, shield brush.
Water jets
Turbulence
Turbulent airflow
Flow velocity, flowrate, orifice Reduce turbulence by special
geomerty,
jet
geometry, nozzles, reduce flow velocity.
Alternative processes.
obstacles
Rolling noise
Surface roughness
Contacting parts
Roughness, speed, contact Reduce
rolling
speed,
stiffness,
geometry
and smoother contact surfaces,
damping
flexible contact point, smaller
rolling body.
Elastic mounts
Not applicable
Sometimes from mount itself Stiffness (dynamic), mobility Ensure
stiff/flexible/stiff
ratio
transition between component
and machine
Support frames and plates
Not applicable
Beams and plates
Material,
thickness
and Reduce radiating area, detach
geometry, damping
or isolate from vibration where
possible. Reduce radiation
efficiency, increase damping if
undamped.
Enclosures and covers
Not applicable
Outer casing and openings
Covered area, open area, Minimise leakage, include
absorbent area
absorbtion
for
open
enclosures.
Exhaust/outlets and intakes Potentially flow noise
Orifice and casing
Volume, cross-section ratio, Selection and tuning for
with silencers
internal
absorption, specific engine and operating
condition is important.
impedance
109 / 235
In table 6.2 and 6.3 an overview of relevant noise sources is given for each equipment
type.
For active components, the key to noise reduction is the appropriate choice of
- quietest working principle;
- quietest component model and sizing;
- running speed and operating conditions;
- vibration isolation and mounting conditions;
- enclosure and shielding.
Errors such as component misalagnment, unbalance, too large tolerances, loose parts,
structural resonances and acoustically leaky enclosures should be avoided.
For passive noise control, generally acoustical devices are added to the machine such
as enclosures, silencers, damping systems, absorbtion materials, sound insulation
materials, vibration isolators, shock and vibration absorbers. These often introduce
weight and other design issues, and are best optimised to be in balance with other
design parameters.
Some noise reduction can often also be achieved by paying attention to layout,
geometry and directivity of components. Control of mass and stiffness of components
and the links between them can also sometimes offer potential noise reductions.
In all cases, it is essential to tackle the loudest source(s) first. As this can vary per
equipment type, model and even operating condition, this always needs careful analysis.
In an excavator for example, the engine noise, fan noise and hydraulic noise can all be
at a similar level, and in that case all need to be reduced together.
110 / 235
Table 6.2 Overview of noise sources for equipment in the directive. Key to noise sources:
E=engine (+exhaust and intake), F=Fan (cooling system), H=Hydraulics, G=Gears, T=Tracks, P=Process, B=Blade
I=Impact, C=cutting, M=Electic motor, CP=compressor, BR=Brushes, W=Water jet, R=Rolling noise, PU=Pump.
Process
noise
during
Eq.
Drive type as in
Noise source during Noise
no. Equipment name
Directive Process noise type
test
operation sources
1
CE
no
Engine
E/F/H
2
Brush cutters
CE
Cutting+blade rotationo
Engine
E/B/C
3a Builders' hoists for the transport of goods (combustion-engineCE
no
Engine
E/H/P
3b Builders' hoists for the transport of goods (with electric motor) Electric
no
Engine
E/H/P
4
Electric
Sawing
yes
Engine
B/C
5
Electric
Sawing
yes
Sawing
B/C
6
CE/Electric
Sawing
yes
Engine/Sawing
E/B/C
7
CE
Flushing/suction
no
Engine/flushing
E/H
8a Compaction machines (explosion rammers only)
Explosion
Compaction
yes
Engine
E/P
8b Compaction machines (only vibrating and non-vibrating rollersCE/External
Compaction
yes/no Engine/compaction
E/P
9
CE/Electric
no
Engine/Compressor
E/CP/F
10 Concrete-breakers and picks, hand-held
CE/pneumatic/elecBreaking
no
Breaking
E/F/I/P
CE/Electric
Mixing
yes
Engine/Material mixing
P
12a Construction winches (combustion-engine driven)
CE
no
Engine
E/G
12b Construction winches (electrically driven)
Electric
no
Engine
M/G
13 Conveying and spraying machines for concrete and mortar CE/Electric
Concrete spraying yes
Engine
E/F/P
14 Conveyor belts
CE/Electric
no
Engine/Rolls
E/F/G
CE/External
no
Engine/Compressor
E/F
16 Dozers (< 500 kW)
CE
no
Engine
E/F/T
17 Drill rigs
CE/External
no
Engine/Drilling
H/G
18 Dumpers (< 500 kW)
CE
no
Engine
E/H/P
19 Equipment for loading and unloading silos or tanks on trucks Electric/Truck Engine
no
Engine/Compressor
E/P
20 Excavators, hydraulic or rope-operated (< 500 kW)
CE
no
Engine/Digging
E/H/F
21 Excavator-loaders (< 500 kW)
CE
no
Engine/Digging
E/H/F
None
Glass breaking
yes
Glass breaking
I
23 Graders (< 500 kW)
CE
Cutting/spreading no
Engine
E/F
CE
Cutting and blade ro no
Engine/Rotation of tool
E/C
25 Hedge trimmers
CE/Electric
Cutting
no
Engine/Blades
E/C
CE
Flushing
no
Engine/Compressor/Nozzle E/H
CE/Electric
Water jet
no
Engine/Compressor/Water JeM/W
Hydraulic
Hammering
no
hammering
I/P
CE
no
Hydraulic
E/F/H
30 Joint cutters
CE
Cutting
no
cutting
E/P
31 Landfill compactors, loader-type with bucket (< 500 kW)
CE
no
Engine
E/F/H
32 Lawnmowers (excluding agricultural and forestry equipment,
CE/Electric
Engine/Blade Rotation
B/E/H
33 Lawn trimmers lawn edge trimmers
Electric
Blade Rotation
B/E
34 Leaf blowers
CE/Electric
Airflow
no
Engine/Airflow
F
35 Leaf collectors
CE/Electric
Airflow
no
Engine/Airflow
F
36a Lift trucks, CE driven, counterbalanced (excluding 'other coun CE
Fork impacts
no
Engine/fork
E/F/G
36b Lift trucks, CE driven, couterbalanced (others excl. Container CE
Fork impacts
no
Engine/fork
E/F/G
CE
Bin impacts
no
Engine/bin
E/H/F/P
38 Mobile cranes
CE
no
Engine/Hydraulic
E/H/F
None
Impacts
no
Wheels
I/R
40 Motor hoes (< 3 kW)
CE
no
Engine
E
41a Paver-finishers (equipped with a high-compaction screed)
CE
Tracks
yes
Engine/Equipment
E
41b Paver-finishers (excluding paver-finishers equipped with a hig CE
Tracks
yes
Engine/Equipment
E
42 Piling equipment
Various
Impacts
yes
piling
E/H/F
43 Pipelayers
CE
no
Engine
E/F/T
CE
no
Engine
E/F
CE
no
Engine
E/F
CE
no
Engine
E/F
46 Power sweepers
CE
Sweeping
no
Engine/Sweeper/suction unit E/F/BR
CE
Impacts
yes
Engine/Compactor/Collecting E/I/H
CE
Milling
no
Engine/milling
E/C/P
49 Scarifiers
CE/Electric
no
Engine
B/E
CE/Electric
Shredding/chipping yes
Shredding/chipping
E/P
51 Snow-removing machines with rotating tools (self-propelled, eCE
Snowblowing
no
Engine/snow blowing
E/F
52 Suction vehicles
CE
Suction
no
Engine/suction unit
E/H
53 Tower cranes
CE/Electric
no
Engine/Break
M/G
54 Trenchers
CE
Impacts/friction
no
Engine
E/F/P
55 Truck mixers
CE
Mixing
no
Engine/mixing
E/F/P
56 Water pump units (not for use under water)
CE/Electric
no
Engine/Pump
E/F
CE/Electric
no
Engine
E/F
111 / 235
Table 6.3 Overview of noise sources for possible new equipment types. Key to noise sources:
E=engine (+exhaust and intake), F=Fan (cooling system), H=Hydraulics, G=Gears, T=Tracks, P=Process, B=Blade
I=Impact, C=cutting, M=Electic motor, CP=compressor, BR=Brushes, W=Water jet, R=Rolling noise, PU=Pump.
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
120
121
Electric
Electric
Heat pumps
CE/Electric
CE/Electric
CE
Electric
Non-fixed lifting gear (magnets, vaccuum). own power source ?
Bridge and gantry cranes (used in harbour and portal cranes) Electric
CE/Electric
CE
CE
CE
Snowmobiles
CE
Quad (off-road)
CE
Golf green edger
Electric
Bird scare canons
CE/Electric
Telescopic pruner
CE
Tree stump grinder
CE
Straddle carrier
CE
Reach stacker
CE/Electric
Stone circular saw
CE
Stone chainsaw
Electric
Swimming pool pumps
6.2.2
Sieving
Waste crushing
Container impact
Sweeping
Sweeping
Grinding
Container impact
Container impact
Cutting
Cutting
Compressor
Pump
Engine/sieving
Engine/Breaking
Engine
Beeper
Engine
Trolly/Winch/Spreader
Engine
Engine/sweeper
Engine/sweeper/Water jet?
Engine
Engine
Engine
Shot
Engine/blade
Engine/grinding
Engine/hydraulics
Engine/hydraulics
Engine/sawing
Engine/sawing
Engine/pump
F
PU/E/F
E/F/P
E/F/I/P
E/F
P
E/F
R/I/G/M
E/H
E/BR
E/BR
E
E
E
P
E/B
E/C
E/H
E/H
E/C
E/C
E/PU
Combustion Engines
As combustion engines are a major noise source they are given more attention here.
For handheld and small equipment, mostly petrol engines are used, often 2-stroke
engines for the lighter handheld equipment such as chainsaws, hedge trimmers and
brush cutters. The requirements of peak power, compact size and low weight are reason
to use compact 2-stroke engines. For combustion engine powered lawnmowers,
currently mostly 4-stroke petrol engines are used. 4-stroke engines tend to be quieter
than 2-stroke engines as they have lower shaft speed for the same power. This implies
that over recent years the engine noise has reduced due to the application of 4-stroke
engines.
There are 4-stroke petrol engines on the market advertised as low noise or silent
versions. These tend to be well-enclosed units. Several manufacturers supply these to
the European market.
For medium and large equipment, mostly diesel engines are applied. These do not tend
to be of especially quiet design, and do not tend to have features used in the automotive
sector such as common rail injection. The reason for this is lack of demand for quieter
engines from the OEMs on a suffiently large scale, but also the available space for
enclosures and sound insulation in many machines. The engines used for outdoor
machinery are also applied in other markets such as marine engines, fixed power
generators and others.
For noise emission, the type of engine, the cooling system, its size, its operating regime
and especially engine shaft speed are main influence parameters. As there are three
main noise radiators, the engine block including the fan, the inlet and the exhaust, all of
these have to be reduced to a sufficiently low noise level, for the specified usage
pattern. The engine block needs an effective enclosure with sufficient absorbtion inside
as there are usually openings present.
112 / 235
Electronic engine management is a technique that can reduce noise. For outdoor
equipment this has to be balanced with the requirement for sufficient power when it is
needed.
Noise generation in combustion engines originates from the combustion pressure curve,
forces on the crankshaft, valve impacts, and various other internal friction forces and
impacts such as piston slap. The combustion noise is emitted via the exhaust and intake,
for which properly tuned silencers are required. Broadband flow noise can also be
emitted by the exhaust.
Due to the many mechanical sources the engine block is a major noise source itself.
Plate-like components such as oil sumps and valve covers can contribute significantly
to the noise radiation, and should be well damped to avoid this. Much of the noise
reduction technology required is already widely applied in the automotive industry.
Combustion engines, both small spark ignition engines and diesel engines are also
subject to the European exhaust emission directive, which is regularly amended. The
stage 3B and stage 4 requirements will lead to application of exhaust filters and other
combustion conditions which may increase cooling requirements and thereby noise
emission. It is not yet clear to what extent this will make the stage II noise limits harder
to fulfil, according to industry.
Issues for the near future are the introduction of biofuels and hybrid drive systems.
Hybrid systems are now beginning to appear in some construction machines and forklift
trucks, which with correct engine management can be potentially much quieter than
existing equipment.
Outdoor equipment manufactured by SMEs is often built upon a base vehicle supplied
by the large truck manufacturing companies. They are designed in order to fulfil traffic
noise regulations, tested in a pass-by procedure where the engine does not have to run at
maximum speed. In the final application built by the SME, the engine is running at
stationary high idle mode. If there would be a stricter limitation of sound power level at
high idle for trucks, it would be much easier for SMEs to reduce the noise level of their
products. Due to the small number of units bought by SMEs they have no chance to
demand low noise vehicle units at the big truck manufacturers.
Broadly speaking, for each application, engine type and parameters can be optimised to
suit the task and also to fulfil the noise requirements. For handheld and compact
equipment there is a space and weight limitation and power requirement which need to
be taken into account. It may be possible to apply some of the low noise technology
developed in the automotive industry. Automotive diesel engines have become quieter
in recent years. But as long as the component requirements are not determined by the
outdoor equipment sector, it remains difficult to reduce engine noise at the source.
6.2.3
Cooling fans
Cooling fans are another major noise source often applied in combination with a
combustion engine. The fan can in some cases dominate engine noise, if it is for
example controlled by the cooling requirement and running at high speed. Fans which
are electronically controlled can provide a means of noise reduction, as fans driven
directly by the engine shaft are always running.
113 / 235
It is often a design challenge to balance enclosure noise reduction with cooling

requirements.
Low noise fans are available on the market with various blade shapes, often skewed.
Besides the selection of the fan type, the choice of diameter, operating speed, efficiency
and flow streamlining are just as important to minimise noise emission. Also obstacles
in the flow, especially close to the fan, need to be avioded, minimised or streamlined.
The direction of flow can be of importance and local flow velocities need to be kept
within limits. In some situations, water cooling might be a quieter alternative.
There are many possibilities to reduce fan noise. If the cooling requirement can
somehow be reduced, also the noise can come down. Fan noise can consist of both
broadband noise and tonal noise. Tonal noise is often caused by obstacles close to the
blades. Increasing the diameter, reducing the tip speed and increasing the fan efficiency
are all ways of reducing the noise emission.
The airflow which is really necessary to cool the engine compartment can be calculated
and optimised by using fluid mechanical simulation programs. This way, often a
possible reduction of heat transfer has been achieved.
6.2.4
Hydraulics
Hydraulic systems if present can often contribute to the overall noise level, especially
tonal noise. This is mainly generated in the hydropumps en hydromotors, but due to the
good fluid coupling, propagates through all the piping, hoses and valves, which also
radiate noise in turn. If the hydraulic components are not well isolated from the
structure, there may also be structureborne noise. The hydraulic pulsation can
sometimes be reduced by applying resonance dampers, which have to be tuned and
need to be compatible with the system without reducing performance.
The type of hydropump is highly relevant for the noise emission, as there are different
types with different characteristics, such as piston pumps, vane pumps, gear pumps and
screw pumps. The noisiest of these, the piston pump, is often applied due to its high
efficiency and pressure characteristics.
If the hydraulic power source is well enclosed and isolated such as is often now the case
for hydraulic power packs, then noise levels can be reduced. Possibilities to reduce
hydraulic noise by means of dampers seem not always to be used by industry.
6.2.5
Transmission and gear noise

Noise from transmissions can be a main noise source for example for electrically
powered equipment such as tower cranes, often gear noise. Timing belts other types of
drive belt may emit a certain amount of airborne noise, which often can easily be
reduced.
Gear noise is mostly tonal noise with many harmonics, and if not isolated from the
structure, can cause significant structureborne noise. The noise generation depends
strongly on the type, quality and material and loading of gears. The gearsets with the
highest running speeds will often generate most noise. The quietest gear transmissions
tend to have smooth and well overlapped tooth engagement (low transmission error).
Setting the gear tooth at an angle, as in helical gears, generally produces lower noise
levels than teeth parallel to the axle, as in spur gears. Bevel gears, with non-parallel
shafts, tend to produce more noise than those with parallel shafts. The tooth shape can
114 / 235
sometimes be optimised to reduce noise as this affects the action smoothness. The
loading of gears is important as it affects the gear interation and thereby the noise.
Dynamic and irregular loading may easily lead to wear and increased noise levels,
especially if shaft misalignment occurs.
6.2.6
Lawnmowers and blade noise

From recent studies ([20], see 3.2.7.7 and [21], 3.2.7.8) it was found that in modern
consumer lawnmowers with a rotary blade, the blade-deck aerodynamic interaction is a
major noise source that can dominate the engine noise, especially for lawnmowers with
a cutting width larger than 50 cm. This seems to partuclarly the cases for the stationary
test condition, although when listening to a CE mower working, often the engine noise
can clearly be heard.
In the available publications there does not seem to be a clear discussion about the main
types of aerodynamic noise: the blade-passing frequency (and harmonics), which
produces tonal noise, and the broadband turbulence noise. This is a question that should
be addressed as it is important for noise reduction, and it does not require extensive
calculations to investigate it.
Figure 6.1 Blade-deck interaction is considered an important aerodynamic noise source; the blade
performs both a cutting action and a grass-removal function by the airflow. The wing passing the
opening generates tonal noise; the blade movement causes broadband noise.
Since the earlier directives on lawnmower noise, there have been intensive discussions
on the possibilities to lower the noise emissions of lawnmowers. The most common
technology works with a rotating blade. The industrys point of view is that the noise is
solely determined by the aerodynamics of the (bent) blade, in interaction with the deck.
In using flat blades a reduction could be achieved however, but then there would be no
grass cutting collection, a feature that is considered important for the user. Reducing the
rotational speed is out of the question, since this would reduce the cutting quality; the
blade tip speed therefore cannot be lowered.
115 / 235
There does not seem to be an objective definition of good cutting quality. The question
should be posed to what extent a reduction of cutting quality could be acceptable in
return for noise reduction. Also it may be possible to improve alternative cutting
methods such as the cylinder mower or others to provide better cutting quality. Even the
type of lawn may be a factor worth consideration here. If the noise is mainly caused by
the blade, it should be questioned why there are mowers with the same cutting width
but different sound power levels.
The quieter 4-stroke engine is now widely applied for lawnmowers. Given the fact that
at the time of the introduction of the directive 4-stroke engines were not always applied,
and therefore the engine noise was more important, it should now be possible to reduce
by 1 or 2 dB.
There are questions as to whether the industry point of view is correct in all respects.
The lawnmower market is characterized by tough price competition. For mowing
equipment featuring more elaborate design with dampened body parts, hydraulic power
transmission and/or low-noise engines, there is little market. In the Lamonov project
[21], the lawnmower industry invested significantly into the research on noise emission.
The results of this research have only been made partly available for this report in an
extract form of an executive summary and during some discussions with EGMF. The
CETIM report of 2002 [20] remains the last independent survey of this topic. This
report had been interpreted in different ways. It does conclude that some further
reduction should be possible by applying basic low noise design principles.
Since doubts remain that noise reduction is not possible, and since there is no distinct
proof of feasibility either, it is recommended to do away with large jumps in the limits
(upto 5 dB) and to apply instead a non-compromising limit formula that is oriented
towards the cutting width, as is the case with other equipment groups:
LWAlim = 71 + 15 lg L.
This limit curve is calculated in such a way that an estimated 75% of the equipment in
the EC database will meet the requirements. After 4 years another verification can
render proof if there is additional potential for reductions. At the same time,
independent research on for example applicability of alternative cutting methods and
the aerodynamic noise reduction should be performed. It should also be verified for
which categories of lawnmowers the aerodynmaic noise is most dominant.
The current directive excludes attached equipment. This has led to the fact that in the
upper cutting width segment a number of lawn tractors are being placed officially on
the market as a garden tractor with mowing unit attachment, in order to by-pass the
noise directive. This gap can be closed by subjecting the attached mowing units to the
test and declaration obligations. For measurement purposes, the mowing attachment can
be powered at its highest allowable rpm by an electric motor. The limits should be
identical to those of a regular lawnmower.
In the event that other equipment is attached to a garden tractor and mowing unit
combination, the same meaning should apply for these components. Grass collectors
belong to the same definition of leaf collectors; however, they have been excluded as
attachment equipment at this time. They could also be measured with an electric motor
and be declared.
116 / 235
In the end, under the current regulation, a combination of attached equipment with an
LWA = 108 dB (and higher!) can drive through the city parks. Therefore, considerable
doubt as to the meaning and sense of these exceptions will occur.
Notified Bodies have been reporting that lawn mowers with rpms have been presented
that did fulfil the limits, but that certainly could not mow any lawns. Whenever the
directive requires that measurements must be conducted at the highest rpms, the
following wording should be used for the measurement prescriptions: at the highest
speed for designated use of the operation of the working equipment. Furthermore, the
directive should oblige that the following operating instructions should be incorporated
in the safety instructions: In case of exceeding the highest speed for designated use of
the operation of the working equipment, the operating license will become void. The
respective rotating speed must be stated.
In conclusion, in some cutting width ranges, a reduction towards stage II seems
possible. It is recommended to replace the large steps in the limits by a limit calculation
following the curring width more closely.
6.2.7
Process noise
Some of the highest noise levels are caused by process noise, in particular impact and
cutting processes. The noise from such processes is often radiated by the equipment or
tool, and the workpiece. Circular saws are an example for which the tool, i.e. the
sawblade, is the main sound radiator. This is so dominant in comparison to the drive
noise, that it would seem most appropriate to limit the noise emission of sawblades. For
other impacting equipment such as piling hammers, the impact noise can be radiated by
both the hammer and the pile. As it is possible to counter noise radiation from the pile,
it is also worth reducing the noise from the piling equipment itself. For concrete
breakers, picks and hydraulic hammers noise is often generated by the workpiece, but
also the chisel itself radiates noise. Here again it is therefore worthwhile to limit the
noise from the tool, even if in some situations the workpiece noise can be dominant.
Compaction machinery with vibratory plates is a special case of impact noise, where the
compaction plate can radiate noise strongly. Here it should be investigated whether
improvements are possible.
But for all of the equipment with process noise, application of some of the basic
principles for low noise design should allow at least a few dB noise reduction. The
alternative is to seek new working principles and to adjust the process where possible to
reduce the noise level.
6.2.8
Speed reduction vs. performance

For many equipment types, one of the most effective means of noise reduction is to
reduce the rotational speed of the engine or the process. For mechanical noise, a 20%
speed reduction could give about 3 dB noise reduction. This is of course often not
possible due to power and performance requirements. For new models, a higher power
may be used to reduce the process time or increae efficiency. A halving of the process
time at the same noise level reduces the overall exposure by 3 dB, however to achieve
this, the power consumed by the work process may have to be doubled; if this leads to
an increase in rotational speed by more than 20%, the noise level would increase by
more than 3 dB. So reducing the process time whilst increasing the power and engine or
drive speed will often result in a net increase in noise in the environment (equivalent
noise level).
117 / 235
The continuous increase of power and performance is very important for future noise
policy. It should be considered whether the setting of upper sound power limits for
some equipment types for which this may be an issue. For example, LWAmax = 112
dB(A) in 5 years, 109 in 2020, except for impact piling, hydraulic hammers and forestry
shredding. This might encourage industry to consider new technologies before
increasing performance whilst further impacting the environment with higher noise
levels.
6.2.9
Balancing noise contributions

If several noise sources are contributing to the overall noise level, noise reduction is
only achievable if they are all reduced to a similar level. This is often the case with CEpowered equipment, where engine noise, fan noise and hydraulics or transmission noise
all have to be reduced. For two equal sources, reducing one source by 3 dB results in a
total reduction of just over 1 dB; 6 dB reduction on the same source results in 2 dB
overall reduction.
6.2.10
Structure-borne noise transmission and radiation

As explained above, the coupling of noise generating (active) components to other
structural (passive) parts can often result in structureborne noise. This needs to be
evaluated in equipment design, and can sometimes be avoided with straightforward
measures, for example by choice of materials at interfaces, choice of mounting or
fixation, or by ensuring that hard-coupled components are at least well damped and/or
shielded.
6.3
Technical trends and future options
6.3.1
Technical trends
There are some clear trends identifiable for certain types of equipment, which are often
linked to other requirements such as occupational safety, exhaust emission,
performance and efficiency. Some examples are given here, but with further
examination probably more trends can be found and new trends will occur in future.
1. Introduction of smaller machines or new machine types where heavy manual work
can be reduced or eliminated. Some good examples of this are the introduction of
compact excavators and loaders, remotely controlled hydraulic hammers, new
horticultural equipment such as power pruners and tree stump grinders.
2. Introduction of more electrically powered equipment, for example electric concrete
breakers, replacing pneumatic ones.
3. Combination of quiet hydraulic power packs with hydraulic equipment such as
hydraulic breakers instead of pneumatic powering seems to be a new trend. Hydraulics
has the advantage that impact forces can be transmitted more smoothly and better
controlled. This reduces structure-borne transmission and the overall vibration levels.
3. Dissappearance of certain equipment types from the market, for safety or other
reasons, for example explosion rammers.
4. Switch from 2-stroke engines to 4-stroke engines on lawnmowers and some other
equipment.
118 / 235
5. Appearance of smaller construction machines on the consumer market, previously

only available for professional use, for example vibratory plate compaction machines.
6. Introduction of new technologies, for example low speed cutting speeds for garden
chippers at reasonable price. Excessive noise levels should also be a reason to do this.
6.3.2
Future options
Due to the future more stringent exhaust regulations, it can be expected that new
developments will occur in relation to combustion engine design, both for small and
larger engines. If this leads to an increase in noise, this will become a focus point.
Quieter cooling technology and engine and fan speed management may be one of the
ways forward to deal with this.
If battery life and capacity increases and the size is reduced, this may lead to more and
quieter electrically powered equipment on the market, reducing the numbers of
combustion engine powered equipment.
Hybrid drives, if shown to be viable and economic may also have a significant impact
on noise levels of machinery with variable work cycles.
6.4
Common constraints and design conflicts

There are several constraints and design conflicts which are common to many
equipment types. These include:
-
cooling requirements vs. noise, especially for fans and engine enclosures;
performance vs. noise, e.g. blade speed vs. quality of cut, for lawnmowers.
weight and size vs. noise, especially for compact and handheld equipment and
for exhaust silencer size;
balancing different noise sources, such as process and tool noise vs. engine
noise.
Solving these design conflicts often requires an experimental or calculatory

optimisation process.
6.5
Links with other directives
6.5.1
Machinery Directive
The most important other directive in relation to noise is the Machinery Directive
95/16/EC [2], amended by 2006/42/EC, on minimum machinery safety including noise.
For this directive, the noise at the relevant operator position(s) has to be measured
according to the appropriate standard(s). The measurement report is part of the
compulsory Technical Construction File (TCF) and the noise level must be stated in the
instruction manual. If the sound pressure level exceeds 80 dB(A), then also the sound
power level must be measured and stated. If the peak C-weighted sound pressure level
exceeds 130 dB(C), then this must also be measured and stated.
The Machinery Directive also requires that
119 / 235
Machinery must be designed and constructed in such a way that risks resulting from
the emission of airborne noise are reduced to the lowest level, taking account of
technical progress and the availability of means of reducing noise, in particular at
source. The level of noise emission may be assessed with reference to comparative
emission data for similar machinery.
The manual must also include instructions relating to installation and assembly for
reducing noise or vibration.
The consequences of this directive are that most manufacturers have to measure the
operator noise levels and for noisier machines also the sound power level. So many
companies are already dealing with the noise issue, and noise reduction, especially
where high noise levels are concerned. The solutions to reduce operator noise are not
always the same as to reduce environmental noise, as the operator can be protected by
cabins, placed further away from the machine or shielded locally. However, measures to
reduce environmental noise will often result in lower noise at operator positions.
6.5.2
Physical Agents Directive

The Physical Agents Directive 2003/10/EC [3] covers the exposure of workers to noise,
thereby having an indirect impact on noise requirements set by users of machinery. A
consequence of this legislation is that purchasers of machinery for professional use will
tend to set contractual noise requirements to minimise the noise exposure to workers.
An exposure limit value of 87 dB(A) over 8 hours is set, together with upper and lower
action level values of 85 and 80 dB(A) respectively.
To compare this requirement with sound power levels, if an operator were to be
standing next to outdoor equipment operating for 8 hours, the effective sound power
limit would be around 95-98 dB(A).
6.5.3
Exhaust Emission Directives

The Exhaust Emission Directive 97/68/EC [35] covers measures against the emission of
gaseous and particulate pollutants from internal combustion engines to be installed in
non-road mobile machinery. Stages 3B (in force 2007) and 4 (in force 2009) are defined
in amendment 2004/26/EC. This will affect the future design of engines for outdoor
equipment. The stage 3B and stage 4 requirements will lead to application of exhaust
filters and other combustion conditions which may increase cooling requirements and
thereby increase noise emission.
In the 2002/88/EC directive, also exhaust emission limits are given for spark ignition
(petrol) engines for non-road mobile machinery, including small engines for handheld
applications.
6.5.4
Other Directives
Several other Directives may indirectly be related to noise emission of outdoor
equipment. These are listed below.
- Directive 70/157/EC on type approval of vehicles (last amendment 2007/34/EC)
which may affect availability of truck chassis with reduced noise emission. It is relevant
in the sense that trucks at and around construction sites often operate at high rpm,
whereas the pass-by acceleration test is not at high rpm. Another issue is that the limit
values for truck pass-by noise is engine related; as quieter truck engines become
available, this should also have spin-off for non-road mobile machinery.
120 / 235
- The Environmental noise directive 2002/49/EC (END) [46,47] is relevant, in as far as

outdoor machinery is taken into account in industrial noise mapping and action plans.
- Biofuels Directive 2003/30/EC [54] on the promotion of the use of biofuels or other
renewable fuels for transport: this gives definitions of alternative fuels to diesel and
petrol and aims to promote theuse of more environmentally friendly fuels for roa
ehicles. This may at a later stage also be relevant for outdoor equipment and its noise
emission.
- Directive 1907/2006/EC [] concerning the Registration, Evaluation, Authorisation and
Restriction of Chemicals (REACH), which may effect the types of materials or
lubricants applied in outdoor equipment.
- Directive 2002/96/EC [42] on Waste Electrical and Electronic equipment (WEEE)
which may affect material choice and design of electrically powered equipment.
- Directive 2005/32/EC [55] on Ecodesign requirements for energy-using products
(EUP), which may affect the power management of equipment and its basic design.
6.6
Technical progress for existing equipment

For the equipment in the directive several types have already made significant progress
in terms of noise over the past years, especially if there is also a market requirement for
operation in sensitive areas or at night, or an occupational noise requirement. Examples
of such equipment are compressors, excavators and loaders (all Article 12). These
equipment types also have in common that they are produced in large numbers. This
combination of factors seems to be beneficial for noise reduction and is understandable
as more resources are available for product development. It would therefore be of
interest to see to what extent the technology applied for these equipment types can be
applied for other types.
6.7
Technical impact of previous and current Directives
6.7.1
Impact of previous directives

Before the 2000/14 Directive, there were several separate directives starting from 1984
giving noise limits for some equipment currently in Article 12. This is listed in table 6.4
below. For most of these types, new limits were set in 1989 of between 1-5 dB lower,
followed by power-dependent limit formulas in 1997 similar to stage I of 2001.
Only for lawnmowers, no limit changes were made since the introduction of limits in
1984.
The average noise limit reduction has been around 3 dB, with the largest reductions of
4-5 dB for medium and large power generators. Such reductions are generally harder to
achieve if the measurement methods are not fully representative, or if there are
particular technical barriers that are difficult to overcome.
121 / 235
Table 6.4 History of noise limits for equipment types in earlier directives (1984-2001)
Eq
no. Equipment name
10
20
21
32
37
Art. Net installed power (P) kW

Cutting width L in cm
Air flow Q
12 P < 15
3
P > 15; Q < 30 m /min
3
P > 15; Q > 30 m /min
3
Q < 5 m /min
Compressors
5 < Q < 10 m3/min
3
10 < Q < 30 m /min
3
Q > 30 m /min
Concrete-breakers and picks, h 12 m < 20 kg
20 kg < m < 35 kg
m > 35 kg
with combustion engine
Excavators, hydraulic/ropeoperated (< 500 kW)
12 P < 15
15 350
Excavator-loaders (< 500 kW) 12
P < 70
Excavator-loaders
70 350
Lawnmowers (excluding agricu 12 L < 50
50 < L < 70
< 70 cm; < 120 cm
> 120 cm
Loaders (< 500 kW)
12
P < 70
Loaders, wheeled
70 350
P < 70
Loaders, tracked
70 350
Power generators (< 400 kW) 12 Pel < 2 kVA
Directive
number

19841986-08- 1989-101989-09
1989-09
1996
19972001
84/533/EEC 101
102
104
106
84/537/EEC 110
113
116
116
100
100
102
104
108
111
114
114
100
100
102
104
108
111
114
114
86/662/EEC
89/514/EEC
95/27/EC
106
108
112
118
min(96; 83+11logP)
min(96; 83+11logP)
min(96; 83+11logP)
min(96; 83+11logP)
min(93; 80+11logP)
min(93; 80+11logP)
min(93; 80+11logP)
min(93; 80+11logP)
86/662/EEC
89/514/EEC
95/27/EC
106
108
113
118
96
100
100
105
min(104; 85+11logP)
min(104; 85+11logP)
min(104; 85+11logP)
min(104; 85+11logP)
96
100
100
105
min(101; 82+11logP)
min(101; 82+11logP)
min(101; 82+11logP)
min(101; 82+11logP)
min(104; 85+11logP)
min(104; 85+11logP)
min(104; 85+11logP)
min(104; 85+11logP)
min(107; 87+11logP)
min(107; 87+11logP)
min(107; 87+11logP)
min(107; 87+11logP)
102
min(101; 82+11logP)
min(101; 82+11logP)
min(101; 82+11logP)
min(101; 82+11logP)
min(104; 84+11logP)
min(104; 84+11logP)
min(104; 84+11logP)
min(104; 84+11logP)
84/538/EEC 96
100
100
105
84/536/EEC 104
106
108
113
118
106
108
113
118
102
2 < Pel < 8 kVA
104
100
100
8 < Pel < 240 kVA
103
100
100
240 kVA < Pel
105
100
100
45b Power generators (>_ 400 kW) 13 240 kVA < Pel
53 Tower cranes
12
12 I < 200 A
I > 200 A
84/536/EEC 105
84/534/EEC
84/535/EEC 104
101
100
100
101
100
100
100
101
100
45a
6.7.2
2002
86/662/EEC
89/514/EEC
95/27/EC
86/662/EEC
89/514/EEC
95/27/EC
102
Impact of 2000/14 directive

So far the impact of the 2000/14 directive has been to lead to noise control for most
equipment types, especially for Article 12 equipment, and especially for those types
where stage II is set in the 2005 amendment. It is not clear to what extent this is the case
for Article 13 equipment, but it would seem that labeling at least should result in a
market selection effect for some equipment with low noise levels, and for which the
simple and inexpensive noise control solutions have been applied. In all cases, a clear
long term prospect on how limits may develop is important for industry to be able to
anticipate and prepare for technical measures in good time.
The noise control principles applied for excavators should be applicable for other
equipment types with similar drive configuration, which is why for many equipment
types the stage II limits are considered achievable.
122 / 235
A general assumption on the process of limit evolution is given in figure 6.1 below.
No limit
Only noise
labeling
0-3 dB
Limit
2-3 dB
Tighter limit
2-3 dB
2-3 dB
Figure 6.2 Evolution from new equipment type, to article 13 (labelling) to limits (Art. 12) and tighter
limits, with typical reduction indicated.
6.8
Equipment with indicative noise limits

Equipment with indicative stage II limits are discussed in the following.
6.8.1
Walk-behind vibrating rollers, vibratory plates (> 3kW) and vibratory rammers
These all have impact noise although the main radiation comes from the machine itself.
A brief technical investigation should reveal whether the plate radiation can be reduced
or whether the other radiating components such as the engine or the vibration
mechanism can be reduced in noise level without affecting the functional lower
frequency vibration. If this is possible then stage II limits should be feasible. Until then,
a reduction 1 dB below stage I seems feasible.
Vibratory plates have been exempt from the enforcement of stage II with the argument
that process noise evoked during the test from the test ground would impede all efforts
to reduce the noise levels. A German manufacturer developed a new test procedure
suitable to show compliance with stage II. Other major companies in this sector insist
on the established test code being used nowadays, because tests for declarations of
hand-arm vibration also use this method.
But the main argument is, that in practical use, noise emission of stage II compliant
vibratory plates would not differ from that of stage I equipment. If so, noise measured
would only show the low frequency single tone emitted by the test ground. This is not
the case, as the plate, the casing and the engine still remain relevant sound sources.
This was the reason to finally propose a reduction by 1 dB and retain the proven test
code.
6.8.2
Steel tracked dozers and loaders (> 55 kW)

Track impact noise from steel-tracked equipment forms a technical barrier, which
requires further R&D. So stage II limits may be difficult to achieve for this group for
the present.
6.8.3
Combustion-engine driven counterbalanced lift trucks

Stage II limits should be feasible as there is no severe weight or space limitation. This
equipment type is sufficiently numerous to allow stricter limits.
123 / 235
6.8.4
Compacting screed paver-finishers

Here, impact noise is relevant, radiated by the machine; it should also be possible to
limit the impact noise by partial shielding or enclosure, or by modifying the impact
force curve.
6.8.5
Hand-held internal combustion-engine concrete-breakers and picks (15<m<30)

These are only a small proportion of the total population, as most are pneumatic and
now increasingly electric or hydraulic; quieter compact combustion engines may be
insufficiently available, so stage I could be retained for the combustion engine type.
On manufacturers websites hydraulic breakers are stated to be more efficient than
electric, pneumatic or petrol-driven tools.
6.8.6
Lawnmowers
See 6.2.6.
6.8.7
Lawn trimmers/lawn-edge trimmers

Stricter limits than stage II are possible for these, as they are all electrically powered
and as non-metallic wires are used, which produce less noise than in the case of bladedeck aerodynamic noise in lawnmowers. The high frequency noise may to a certain
extent be reduced by shielding.
6.9
Technical impact of new or stricter noise limits

The technical impact of new limits for equipment shifted from Article 13 to Article 12
or for completely new equipment should be mainly to eliminate unnecessarily noisy
models, or to encourage implementation of relatively simple and inexpensive noise
control measures such as those described in previous sections. For the Article 12
equipment, the considerations may differ. For those types which have already made
significant progress (generators, compressors, excavators) further reduction than stage
II may be difficult, although technically not impossible. For those types where little
progress has been made to date, if there are no technical barriers, the stage II limits and
possible stricter limits should be technically feasible. Current technical barriers to stage
II limits are considered to be mainly for concrete breakers and picks, vibrational
compaction plates, and for steel-tracked dozers and loaders. In some cases, the
achieving of stage II limits may be difficult if the same blade speed is retained.
6.10
Technical impact of new equipment

The strongest technical impact for adding new equipment to the directive is mainly for
the new equipment put straight into article 12, which is only snowmobiles.
6.10.1
Snowmobiles
A snowmobile could be defined as an engine driven track-equipped vehicle with a
maximum service weight of 400 kilograms built to transport persons or freight across
snow and ice. The sound power level of snow mobiles may exceed 110 dB. Besides
people movement, this equipment is also used as a sports and recreational vehicle in the
same way as motorbikes, ATVs (quads) or jetskis. Particularly for this group of users,
engine noise is a question of image.
Snowmobiles are off-road vehicles, but not covered by directive 97/24/EC limiting the
noise emission of road vehicles. Noise tests of road vehicles are pursuant to ISO 362,
124 / 235
describing a pass-by test of an accelerated vehicle. The maximum sound pressure level
at a distance of 7.5 m to the track has to meet the limits. There is a useful Nordic
proposal (see appendix B) adapting this kind of pass-by test to the special conditions of
snowmobiles. The test could be done on snow as well as on grass.
In contrast, directive 2000/14/EC refers to sound power measurements based on ISO
3744. All tools, descriptions, test procedures, limits and labelling are based on sound
power levels.
Integration of a pass-by test into the outdoor noise directive seems not quite consistent.
But the advantage would be to have an established test procedure, limits founded on this
procedure and realistic results. A disadvantage is the need to accept a break with the
system of the outdoor noise directive. So as not to increase the text length by importing
the wording of the Nordic proposal, the transfer to an EN standard (EN 632-3x) is
advised. If this cannot be achieved in time, the Nordic proposal should become an
appendix of the directive.
A sound power level is obtained by replacing the surface sound pressure level LpAf of
ISO 3744 has by the energy equivalent average LpAFmax eq of two measured LpAFmax of
the pass-by test. The microphone distance of 7.5 m to the track is used as hemisphere
radius, LS = 25.5 dB. Measured sound power level for snowmobiles results in
LWA = LpAFmax eq + LS. Taking the uncertainty K into consideration, limits stage III and
IV should be LWAlim = 107 dB and 105 dB.
An alternative might be a separate European directive for snowmobiles supplementing
97/27/EC.
The technical impact of setting noise limits for snowmobiles may be the increased
application of 4-stroke instaed of 2-stroke petrol engines.
6.11
General conclusions
impact is generally small, as labelling or initial limits are only intended to result in
applying known techniques and existing components for noise reduction, and to
eliminate unnecessarily noisy equipment. Introduction of stage II limits for current
Article 12 equipment would have strongest technical impact on combustion engine
concrete breakers and picks, steel-tracked dozers and loaders. Currently there is more
research required to reduce steel track noise further before introducing the stage II limit.
Conclusions on each individual equipment type are included in chapter 10.
Economic impact assessment
7.1
Introduction
125 / 235
The economic impact of the directive in terms of introducing new equipment in Article
13, of moving equipment from Article 13 to Article 12, of changing noise limits and of
removing equipment from the directive is assessed in this chapter.
Firstly some general considerations are presented on economic aspects of the Directive
and its justification in section 7.2. This is followed in section 7.3 by an overview of the
market situation indicating some of the key market characteristics and trends. In 7.4, the
impacts as described in the Impact Assessment Guidelines of the Commission [56] are
discussed, some of which are given further attention. The main impacts in the form of
specific costs for industry and users and benefits for citizens are defined in 7.5 and 7.6,
followed by a cost-benefit analysis for the three main options in section 7.7.
Conclusions on the economic impact are drawn in section 7.8.
The analysis is consistent with European Commission guidelines on impact analysis,
including economic impact. Impact assessment is defined therein (page 4) as a set of
logical steps which structure the preparation of policy proposals. It involves building on
and developing the practices that already accompany the process of policy development
by deepening the analysis and formalising the results in an autonomous report.
Responsibility for developing the impact assessment lies with the service in charge of
developing the proposal. Further it is stated (page 29) that as a rule, the economic
impacts of a policy, whether it is aimed at achieving economic, social or environmental
objectives, are transmitted to the economy through changes in prices and costs. These
changes affect the behaviour of (some) economic actors, which in turn affect firms,
households and public authorities.
7.2
General economic considerations

The aim of the directive is to harmonise the laws of the Member States relating to noise
emission standards, conformity assessment procedures, marking, technical
documentation and collection of data concerning the noise emission in the environment
of equipment for use outdoors; in addition it is meant to contribute to the smooth
functioning of the internal market, while protecting human health and well-being.
It is worth considering the economic justification for the directive. It could be assumed
that if it were not in force, member states would be free to enforce their own
regulations, which would lead to a multiple of the current costs for industry. Even if 2
or 3 member states were to do this, the costs for industry would be significantly higher
and more trade barriers would be present.
If market surveillance is applied, both citizens and industry benefit, as the noise
reduction is achieved and there is no competetive advantage for non-compliant
companies or loss of market share for compliant companies. For example, if 10% of
equipment on the market were non-compliant and cheaper, better market surveillance
could result in 10% gain in market share for compliant companies. So market
surveillance is an essential condition for the proper functioning of the directive and to
avoide unfair competition. The limited costs for market surveillance, even at about 3-5
126 / 235
manyears per year in each member state, would be very modest in comparison to its
potential benefits.
The current environmental situation will improve if the directive is periodically
reviewed, and where necessary and possible limits are tightened. The growth in the
market is such that the numbers of equipment are increasing, new equipment types are
appearing and population density in increasing.
It could also be questioned why European noise emission limits are necessary; it is also
an option to only have noise reception limits, although these are always local or national
and cannot be regulated at European level. However due to the mobile nature of outdoor
machinery and its very diverse usage, limiting the emission is really by far the best way
to reduce the noise. European or international noise emission limits are also in force for
all the transportation noise sources (road/rail/air).
In the industry consultation, it was often mentioned that there was little or very limited
demand for quieter machinery. This is a logical consequence of the fact that the user is
not directly confronted with the effects or costs of noise disturbance, in the way the
affected people in the vicinity are. The European regulation is therefore an appropriate
means of protecting the population. Local regulations, if present, tend to vary
significantly and do not always offer the appropriate protection, especially if they are
not properly enforced. An alternative option is state incentives, such as for example
VAT or other tax reductions on quieter equipment. This can provide the required
economic impulse to encourage manufacturers to put quieter equipment on the market.
For industry, a clear and understandable set of noise requirements with a clear timetable
is needed. This will allow timely preparation for future models also in relation to other
environmental and safety requirements.
Throughout this chapter, benefits for citizens are measured through a lowering of
noise levels, which in itself is a reduction of the environmental impact including
annoyance and all its associated effects. Annoyance is considered here as a cost factor
to society.
7.3
Market situation
The market situation for the equipment in the Directive can firstly be related to the
overall economic situation: after a recession in the first years of the new millenium, the
economy in most EU countries is reviving since 2005 and growth is seen in both the
consumer and professional markets, both in trade and industry [57]. The equipment in
the Directive is produced within the engineering sector, which has seen an estimated
growth of 6.6% in 2006 (source: Orgalime). Also an increase in employment of around
0.5% was observed in 2006. Prospects for 2007 seem similar, although it is not clear
whether this will continue in the following years. Key sectors for the equipment in the
directive are the construction sector, the transport and logistics sector, the horticultural
sector and the public services sector.
Customers and users can be found in industry, leasing and rental companies, local
authorities (cities and towns), service companies, construction companies and
contractors, individual consumers and others.
127 / 235
From the industry consultation it was found that small, medium and large companies
are all represented for most equipment types, 20% were small companies, 33% were
medium sized, in total more than 50% SMEs. However, many of these companies are
owned or part-owned by larger companies or holdings.
Estimates for equipment populations in the EU 25 are given in table 4.2. Given an
average estimated lifetime of 10 years, approximate annual sales numbers for the EU
can be made.
In both professional and consumer markets there seems to be a demand for more
automation, to reduce manual labour, to save time, to work more efficiently and more
safely. This results in an increase in the numbers of new equipment, for example miniexcavators, special garden tools such as power pruners and others.
At the same time there is enormous price pressure on the market due to cheap imports
from East Asia, resulting in a flood of cheaper consumer products also sold in EU
supermarkets, hardware stores and discount shops. Price is often the leading purchase
motive as opposed to quality. This is exacerbated by advertising products at bargain
prices. Also construction machinery imported from the Far East can be purchased via
internet. The industry consultation indicated that this equipment is often non-compliant.
There is nevertheless still some demand for quality, in terms of performance, efficiency,
durability, energy consumption, ergonomics, and other factors. Noise does not often
tend to be a key demand, although many companies offer a low noise version of their
products for special customer groups. Noise is frequently included in product ratings in
consumer magazines.
There is a difficulty for many OEMs to reduce noise as they have little control over the
noise performance of components from suppliers. This is especially an issue for SMEs.
Also the required development time for new products or modified products is constantly
under pressure. Noise reduction is often not realized due to a combination of economic
and technical reasons. For SMEs, access to know-how for noise control or alternative
drive systems can play a role in the ability to redesign or newly design a system.
Industry is however putting substantial effort into compliance with all the EU
Directives on safety and environmental aspects, although it was stated in the
consultation that there is often unfair competition from suppliers of non-compliant
products. Higher prices for quieter products means that market surveillance becomes
even more important to avoid unfair competition from non-compliant sources.
7.3.1
Construction equipment sector

The construction sector comprises residential, transport, energy, waterworks,
telecommunications and other civil engineering activities, which all require
construction machinery. This includes new projects, renovation and maintenance work.
The total value of construction activity in the EU amounted to 1287 billion Euros in
2006, showing a slight increase from 2005 [38]. This corresponds mostly to an increase
in Spain, France and Germany. 2007 is expected to be a year of strong growth with the
best health in the UK and German economies.
The industry related to the manufacturing of construction machinery involves more than
1200 companies, with a total turnover of 26 billion Euros in 2006. There is an increased
128 / 235
demand for the same reasons as given above, as construction activities also increase. A
distinction is made between the following product groups:
- Road equipment (11%)
- Concrete equipment (12%)
- Tower cranes (5%)
- Crushing, washing, sizing equipment (8%)
- Earthmoving equipment (63%)
The percentage in brackets is the percentage in turnover as in 2005.
Between 2002-2006 the sales have increased between 30-70% depending on the
equipment type. Total sales of earthmoving equipment, the most common type, were at
142000 units in western Europe in 2006. 27% of these were mini-excavators. Europe
accounts for around 28% of the world market for earthmoving equipment.
A large proportion of European manufacturers produce for the market within the
European Union, which means that their competitive position might not significantly be
altered by changed legislation.
Most construction equipment is used professionally and is considered a capital
investment. It is often rented or leased and there is a strong second-hand market,
particularly for small contractors and especially in the new EU member states.
There are some trends towards non-construction applications of this machinery and in
some cases introduction in the consumer market, for example walk-behind compaction
machines. Mini-excavators are a noticeable trend, allowing automation of what was
previously manual labour, for example trenching in streets and digging in small
enclosed areas.
7.3.2
Transport and logistics/material handling

Cooling equipment on vehicles is used on about 5% or more of trucks and trailers,
mostly for transport of food products. The total number of trucks in the EU is estimated
at near 31 million in 2004 (see [57]), which implies a number of at least 1.6 million
cooling units in the EU, but possibly double this number.
For lift trucks, the market is mainly covered by multinational companies with a
comprehensive product range and many smaller companies producing a reduced
product range or niche products [40]. The total sales of combustion engine-powered lift
trucks for Western Europe in 2002 was around 53 000, having been 50-60000 each of
the previous 7 years. Assuming an average life of 10 years, this implies a population of
at least 500 000 in Western Europe, so potentially much larger taking the rest of the EU
and growth since 2002 into account.
The total market for mobile cranes (all the different types) in the EU is 2150 per year
[40], of which the terrain mobile cranes take up more than half (1250).
7.3.3
Horticultural equipment sector

The European market for lawnmowers is primarily a replacement market with a growth
rate of 1% annually, and estimated sales of around 4.5 million pieces per year [20].
Ride-on mower sales are at around 300 000 annually (probably higher by now). The
replacement rate is about 10 years. The largest European markets for lawnmowers are
the U.K, Germany and France.
129 / 235
Other low cost garden tools have become widely available, especially under price
pressure of imports from East Asia. Also new power tools have appeared in recent
years, such as the power pruner and the tree stump grinder and multi-purpose
attachments. The low cost of some of these tools has resulted in increased numbers in
use. Milliones of these tools are sold each year on the European market, with
chainsaws, leafblowers and collectors, hedgetrimmers, lawntrimmers, brush cutters,
shredders/chippers and scarifiers each all well into the millions sold annually.
The increasing wealth levels in new member states will gradually result in increasing
numbers of consumer garden tools in those countries. The same can be expected for
professional horticultural equipment, as municipalities and service companies
endeavour to increase efficiency and reduce health risks of manual labour.
7.3.4
Public service sector

Due to the gradual increase in environmental awareness in Europe more and more
countries and local authorities are introducing waste separation and waste recycling.
This leads to an increase in the numbers of waste vehicles, containers, handling and
processing equipment required. Also increased privatization and subcontracting of
public services may to lead to an increase in the numbers of equipment sold.
7.4
Overall impacts
Potential economic impacts as listed in the guidelines for impact assessment are
analysed in table 7.1. These are rather wide-ranging, therefore an indicative answer is
given to each of the relevant questions. The option as mentioned in the guidelines (see
table 7.1) refers in this case to changing limits or equipment lists. Following this table,
impacts on employment, SMEs, supply and demand reactions, timescale, product
quality and the single market are discussed. The additional costs for industry and
consumers and the benefits for citizens are proposed as the most relevant impacts,
which are worked out in more detail in the following sections.
130 / 235
Table 7.1 Summary of various economic impacts of changing the directive (limits and equipment list
changes), with questions from Guidelines on economic impact analysis.
Impacts on:
Competitiveness,
trade and investment
flows
Key questions (as in Guidelines)

1. Does the option have an impact on the
competitive position of EU firms in comparison
with their non-EU rivals?
Answers (NOMEVAL analysis)

1. In principle not, in fact it could improve their
competitive position so that they also could
export to other parts of the world where there is
increasing demand for quieter equipment.
2. Does it provoke cross-border investment

flows (including relocation of economic
activity)?
2. In principle not, but it will be along

developments as seen with other products.
Increasingly the production relies on parts
assembly. It could be that quieter components
might also come from outside the EU.
3. Are the proposed actions necessary to

correct undesirable outcomes of market
processes in European markets?
3. An adequate enforcement of the regulation

by market surveillance bodies, otherwise it pays
to use cheaper non-compliant equipment.
Competition in the
internal market
1. Does the option affect EU competition policy

and the functioning of the internal market? For
example, will it lead to a reduction in consumer
choice, higher prices due to less competition,
the creation of barriers for new suppliers and
service providers, the facilitation of anticompetitive behaviour or emergence of
monopolies, market segmentation,etc?
1. Possibly SMEs cannot follow the innovation

process and a smaller number of suppliers will
emerge. However some may be more flexible
than large companies. It could be the case that
some of these smaller suppliers will be
incorporated by the larger firms.
Operating costs and

conduct of business
1. Will it impose additional adjustment,

compliance or transaction costs on
businesses?
2. Does the option affect the cost or availability
of essential inputs (raw materials, machinery,
labour, energy, etc.)?
3. Does it affect access to finance? Does it
impact on the investment cycle?
4. Will it entail the withdrawal of certain
products from the market? Is the marketing of
products limited or prohibited?
5. Will it entail stricter regulation of the conduct
of a particular business?
6. Will it directly lead to the closing down of
businesses? Are some products or businesses
treated differently from others in a comparable
situation?
1. Does the option impose additional
administrative requirements on businesses or
increase administrative complexity?
2. Do these costs weigh in relative terms
heavily on SMEs (Small and Medium
Enterprises)?
1. Yes, for those producers with new or stricter

noise limits or new equipment types.
Administrative costs
on businesses
Property rights
1. Are property rights affected (land, movable

property, tangible/intangible assets)?
2. Is acquisition, sale or use of property rights
limited?
Or will there be a complete loss of property?
2. No
3. No
4. Possibly non-compliant products will be
withdrawn, to be replaced by compliant ones.
5. Increased regulation for getting equipment
compliant
6. Probably not directly, as many other factors
involved.
1. Additional burden for those producers with

new equipment types or producing equipment
going into Article 12.
2. Notably to get equipment certified and
labelled according to the Directive might be a
burden for smaller firms that are not familiar
with these procedures. A European helpdesk
could be considered to help SMEs in this
respect.
1. Not applicable
2. Not applicable
Impacts on:
Innovation and
research
Consumers and
households
131 / 235
Key questions (as in Guidelines)

1. Does the option stimulate or hinder research
and development?
2. Does it facilitate the introduction and
dissemination of new production methods,
technologies and products?
3. Does it affect intellectual property rights
(patents, trademarks, copyright, other knowhow rights)?
4. Does it promote or limit academic or
industrial research?
5. Does it promote greater resource efficiency?
Answers (NOMEVAL analysis)

1. It stimulates research and development
3. Does it have an impact on the quality and

availability of the goods/services they buy, and
on consumer choice? (cf. in particular nonexisting and incomplete markets)
3. It will lead to a harmonised European market

which could lead to economies of scale and
thereby to lower prices of equipment and a
broader choice of equipment.
4. Does it affect consumer information and

protection?
4. Equipment labelling is an information source

for consumers. Lower noise levels will lead to a
healthier environment for European citizens.
2. Yes, of compliant lower noise emission

equipment, in long term extra reason for
alternative quieter processes and systems
3. It could increase the number of patents and
trademarks
4. It promotes research
5. Lower noise emission could go along with

resource efficiency (e.g. lower energy
consumption.
1. Does the option affect the prices consumers 1. It may lead to an increase of price, but
pay?
probably this will not be accruable to the
implementation of the Directive. Other price
determining requirements such as exhaust,
energy and safety, will also play a role.
2. Does it impact on consumers ability to
2. Yes, economies of scale, due to a large
benefit from the internal market?
single market will lead to more product choice.
5. Does it have significant consequences for the 5. Not really, it is expected that price rises will
financial situation of individuals / households,
be moderate.
both immediately and in the long run?
6. Does it affect the economic protection of the
family and of children?
Specific regions or
1. Does the option have significant effects on
sectors
certain sectors?
2. Will it have a specific impact on certain
regions, for instance in terms of jobs created or
lost?
3. Does it have specific consequences for
SMEs?
Third countries and
1. Does the option affect EU trade policy and its
international relations international obligations, including in the WTO?
2. Does it affect EU foreign policy and EU/EC
development policy?
3. Does the option affect third countries with
which the EU has preferential trade
arrangements?
4. Does the option affect developing, least
developed and middle income countries?
6. No.
1. Compared with other regulations, limited
effects.
2. No
3. In some cases the administrative burden

might be too large.
1. No, although stricter controls on imports from
non EU countries will have to take place.
2. No
3. No
4. No
7.4.1
132 / 235
Impact on employment
It is estimated that about 1 million people find employment in the manufacturing of the
different equipment types in the European Union. The ways in which a changed
directive could affect employment are for example:
- if market surveillance is insufficient, more unfair competition can occur
leading to reduced market share and thereby losses;
- if the effort to develop quieter models is too large or unsuccessful at a given
point in time, some models might have to be withdrawn leading to lower
market share; new or stricter limits may be difficult to achieve for some
companies, however the knowledge on noise control is available and such
companies also have to deal with all requirements from other directives.
- if the demand for compliant equipment increases, employment could increase;
- if quieter equipment is combined with other innovations, employment could
increase.
There are potentially both positive and negative impacts related to company turnover
and thereby also employment. The net effect of changes to the directive on employment
is considered to be low, as other factors such as the economic situation are more
important.
7.4.2
Impact on SMEs
As there are many SMEs producing outdoor machinery, the impact of the directive for
such companies needs consideration. Factors such as administrative burden, R&D,
production changes and testing all lead to additional effort especially for smaller
companies and especially if a new limit or labelling requirement is introduced. Large
companies are usually better able to anticipate and cope with new regulations as they
have more resources including investment, manpower and know-how. Notably SMEs
may be most dependent on external component suppliers, such as for engines, fans,
pumps, hydraulics, transmissions and others. SMEs often have little influence on their
suppliers concerning noise performance of components. On the other hand, smaller
companies may be more flexible in adjusting to new requirements as the production
means tend to be on a smaller scale. The impacts are expected to be highest for the
smaller companies with small product series in the lower price range.
It is important that the right information and knowledge is made available to SMEs,
both on noise control options and the practical issues on DOC compilation and
submission.
7.4.3
Impact on product quality

New requirements for noise emission may sometimes lead to design compromises such
as engine or fan speed reduction, larger silencers or larger fans, but possibly also better
combined solutions improving not only the noise level but also other product aspects
such as emissions, energy consumption, weight or compactness. In this case the product
sales may well increase due to a better product quality. This does have to go hand in
hand with market demand.
7.4.4
Impact on demand reactions

The changes in the directive will in some cases affect the competitive situation of
European manufacturers of outdoor equipment. Some compliant machinery will
become more expensive to produce. The price increase will generally be passed on to
the consumer. Whether this will lead to lower sales depends on the price rise and
whether it is in proportion to increased product quality (if combined with other product
133 / 235
improvements). This higher quality standard could offset the price increase so that the
demand decrease is reduced. Within Europe, different markets can be identified; there is
a tendency that second hand equipment is exported from Western Europe to Central and
Eastern Europe. It is also expected that until the Central and Eastern European countries
have reached the same welfare level as Western European countries, demand will be
more flexible, i.e. in case of a price change a stronger demand reaction is expected in
these countries.
Notably for consumer products there is an increasing demand for low price equipment.
From the consultation it emerged that some products from the Far East but also other
countries fulfil this demand, but are frequently not compliant. There is also a segment
within the consumer market that demands more powerful and more professional
equipment to reduce working time; consequently the equipment needs to be reliable.
7.4.5
Impact on supply side reaction

European equipment manufacturers are focussed on here, as they are relevant for
attaining the Lisbon goals for a competitive industry in Europe. The development of
quieter equipment may lead to higher R&D expense in order to develop quieter
machinery. This may in turn lead to a change in the production process of equipment
and price increase. It depends on the size of the non-EU market of European
manufacturers whether the production of compliant equipment will improve their
competitive position or not. However, some parts of the non-EU market might be better
served. For example, in wealthier and more densely populated areas, the demand for
European compliant equipment may increase. Also, in countries with high population
densities and high living standards, some noise regulations or incentives exist that could
benefit the industries in these countries (notably Japan, Korea and US). Some non-EU
countries even apply the outdoor machinery noise directive, for example Turkey. In
countries without noise regulations, there is no need to develop new technologies. In
some of these countries design imitation could occur, resulting in a supply of cheap
copies, and in some cases incorrectly labelled or unlabelled equipment.
Therefore the enforcement of the directive is important in order not to overburden
European producers due to a) higher market prices for compliant equipment and b)
competition against low price non-compliant imported equipment.
7.4.6
Impact of timscale and parts supply

It should be stressed that the European industry will need time, typically upto 3 years, to
adapt to the changes in the directive so that where necessary, R&D capacity can be
mobilized, and quieter components can be obtained, which may be supplied from all
over the world.
7.4.7
Impact for single market

Another effect could be that due to harmonization and uniform regulation, the
emergence of a single EU market with about 500 million consumers could lead to
scaling up of production and benefit European industry in a free market. At the same
time a technology spin-off could occur boosted by the production of quieter equipment.
7.5
Main options and economic impacts
7.5.1
Main options
134 / 235
The main economic impacts chosen here include

- additional costs for manufacturers, including R&D, manufacturing, testing and
adiministration costs;
- higher equipment prices due to passing on of these costs to the customer;
- monetarised environmental benefits in terms of reduced annoyance, reduced
health effects, better work environment, possible longer operation times of
equipment and better quality of life.
There are 3 main options to be assessed in relation to economic impact:
1. Adding new equipment to the directive: this leads to new costs for testing and
administration. No large noise reduction is assumed here although some manufacturers
may bring down noise levels of some machines, especially if this is at low cost. This
could be upto about 3 dB reduction.
2. Moving equipment from Article 13 to Article 12: this leads to additional R&D and
production costs. An average required noise reduction is estimated at around 3 dB for
this step.
3. Stage II or stricter limits: this leads to additional R&D and production costs. Typical
noise reduction would be around 2 or 3 dB for stage II limits.
For each equipment type it is therefore assumed that a change in either the equipment
list or in the limits will result in a similar net noise reduction of about 2-3 dB. If the
article number (13/12) or the limit remains unchanged, then the economic impact is
considered nil. In this way, the analysis can be simplified for each equipment type to
change or no change.
7.6
Costs for manufacturers and customers

Introducing new limits or introduction into Article 13 may affect the price of outdoor
equipment, notably due to extra R&D, testing, administration and production costs.
These extra costs will tend to be passed on to the customer. Design modification,
redesign and new technology may have more than just noise reduction benefits,
especially if leading to lower exhaust emissions, improved ergonomics, safety or other
aspects. These effects are hard to quantify but may have a positive external effect for
the companies concerned.
As higher equipment prices might lead to higher sales of non-compliant equipment
(unfair competition), the enforcement of stricter regulation needs progressively more
attention in order to a) not disadvantage manufacturers of compliant equipment and b)
to prevent use of non-compliant equipment which avoids paying the social costs related
to noise.
The costs due to equipment list changes, stage II or stricter limits may vary significantly
per equipment type, and depend on production quantity, product cost and size of the
135 / 235
company. Also experience, know-how and flexibility may be important factors

determining the costs. Based on the general findings from the industry consultation
several cost types were identified, which may differ for each situation in relation to the
directive. These are listed indicatively in table 7.2.
Removing equipment from the directive obviously will result in cost savings for the
companies concerned, especially administration, testing and certification costs.
Table 7.2 Additional costs due to changes in the directive, with indicative size, for each option of change to
the directive.
Costs
R&D
Testing
Administration
Certification
Conformity assessment
NoBo fees
Materials
Design/Production
Other constraints resolution
Parts obselescence
Training/communication
Introduction
into Art 13 (only Art 13 to Art 12
labelling)
(new limit)
++
+
+
+
++
++
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
Tighter limit
(Art 12)
++
+
++
++
+
++
+
+
It is estimated that the ratio of costs between the 3 options is as 1:5:4. To be able to
estimate the additional costs a formula is proposed, taking the above mentioned factors
into account:
Ca = Sdir * ( 30 2 lg (NC) 2 lg (NP) 2 lg (CP) )
(7.1)
where
Ca = costs due to the change in the directive (Euros),
Sdir = percentage costs due to option: 10% for Article 13 introduction, 50% for Article
12 introduction and 40% for stage II or stricter limits,
NC = company size in number of employees,
NP = quantity of products of a particular series,
CP = cost of the product (Euros).
This formula gives a relationship which seems to be broadly in line with costs
mentioned in the consultation. The results for various situations are given in table 7.3
below. They should be considered as indicative and may differ significantly in
individual cases.
In some cases it may be difficult for SMEs to comply with new or stricter limits,
especially for low priced products and smaller production quantities. An increase in
product price will tend to make the competition situation more difficult.
136 / 235
Table 7.3 Percentage additional costs in price due to changes in the directive, based on formula (7.1), for
each option of change to the directive, and for various cost, series size and company size.
Distribution over type of change

Percentage
Product
additional
cost
Series
Company cost in price
(Euro)
size
size
(total)
100
100
50
18,6
1000
100
50
16,6
10000
100
50
14,6
100000
100
50
12,6
1000000
100
50
10,6
100
1000
500
14,6
1000
1000
500
12,6
10000
1000
500
10,6
100000
1000
500
8,6
1000000
1000
500
6,6
100
10000
5000
10,6
1000
10000
5000
8,6
10000
10000
5000
6,6
100000
10000
5000
4,6
1000000
10000
5000
2,6
7.7
Introduction
into Art 13
Art 13 to Art
(only
12 (new
Tighter limit
labelling)
limit)
(Art 12)
1,9
9,3
7,4
1,7
8,3
6,6
1,5
7,3
5,8
1,3
6,3
5,0
1,1
5,3
4,2
1,5
7,3
5,8
1,3
6,3
5,0
1,1
5,3
4,2
0,9
4,3
3,4
0,7
3,3
2,6
1,1
5,3
4,2
0,9
4,3
3,4
0,7
3,3
2,6
0,5
2,3
1,8
0,3
1,3
1,0
Benefits in terms of monetorised noise reduction

The monetary valuation of the benefits requires an approach based upon economic
theory. As noise is included in most European countries in the assessment of transport
infrastructure, theories developed in this area are applied here. Notably in the HEATCO
[59,60] project the recommendation was made to base the assessment for noise on the
number of people exposed to certain noise levels. From this, annoyance effects and
health impacts can be calculated and valued monetarily, resulting in monetary values
per person exposed per dB(A) for different noise levels.
This study focuses to a large extent on the effects on the population exposed to the
noise levels, assuming that operators of equipment will take precautionary measures, as
they already do (or at least are supposed to by law), against noise and its effect on
personal health. The lowering of noise levels could have a slight effect in that it results
in lower cost for precautionary measures. In this study these effects are not taken into
account.
Besides the benefits of reduced noise levels for EU citizens, also other benefits can
occur; for example the time frame in which construction work is permitted could be
extended. In the Netherlands, some noisy construction work cannot be started before
7:00 AM due to noise regulations. It is the question however if the new regulation
provides sufficient improvements in noise levels to allow this. In this study these wider
economic benefits are not included in the cost benefit analysis.
Once the Directive is changed, not all noisy equipment will be replaced immediately,
but only after some period of time. This is called the inter-temporal effect. Machines
will be replaced sooner, the higher the incentive is to use new and quieter equipment.
137 / 235
This may be the case if there is a more flexible depreciation regime or if there is high
economic growth.
The benefits of the various options are mainly related to an environmental noise
reduction of on average 3 dB per equipment type that is introduced (see 7.5.1), given
new or stricter limits in the directive. It is fairly complex to monetarise the benefits for
outdoor equipment, so it is done here in analogy with transportation noise.
For transport infrastructure that affects the noise level in nearby areas, the effects on
noise are included in the cost benefit analysis (CBA) of most countries. All countries
but three within the EU take this effect into account in some form in the appraisal. 13
Countries include the effect on noise levels with a monetary value (see table 7.4 below).
Table 7.4
Coverage Noise in Europe in infrastructure assessment1
There is a clear regional tendency in the treatment of noise. None of the countries in the
south include noise with a monetory value, whereas all but three countries in the north
include noise in the CBA. Around half of the countries in Eastern Europe include noise
with a monetary value.
7.7.1
Types of costs included

Noise effects are normally considered to consist of two elements;
a) noise annoyance;
b) health related costs.
Implicitly, these include all the consequential effects such as sleep disturbance, fatigue,
stress, concentration loss and speech intelligibility.
All countries, which include noise with a monetary value in the appraisal, include the
effect of noise annoyance. All these take into account the effect of annoyance in
dwellings, whereas around half (France, Germany, Lithuania, Slovenia, Sweden and
Switzerland) also include the annoyance at other locations. Only five countries
(Denmark, France, Lithuania, Poland and Switzerland) include health related costs
related to noise with a monetary value. Only Lithuania and Switzerland base health
related costs on a dose-response assessment. This is in fact one of the special features of
Swiss practice of project appraisal. The approach is based on a recent study, which
showed that noise is related to ischaemic heart diseases and to hypertension related
1
The table is for EU25; for Bulgaria and Romania no information is available within HEATCO, MCA =
multicriteria analysis, QM = Quantitive measurement, QA = Qualitative Assessment
138 / 235
diseases, which both lead to premature deaths (measured in years of life lost) and
hospital treatment. In Switzerland, health costs are equivalent to one seventh of the
costs of noise annoyance (measured by hedonic pricing).
7.7.2
Valuation techniques in different countries

The monetary value of noise annoyance is based on hedonic pricing2 [61] in all
countries except for Germany, where it is based on stated preference3/contingent
valuation analysis. In Austria both hedonic pricing and stated preference/contingent
valuation is used. The monetary value for health related costs is derived from different
sources in the five countries where included. France and Lithuania base their monetary
value on hedonic pricing, whereas in Switzerland it is based on a combination of stated
preference /contingent valuation and an assessment of the net production loss/costs of
medical treatment. Poland bases it solely on net production loss/costs of medical
treatment, whereas Denmark uses a rather pragmatic approach assuming that health
related costs are 50% of noise annoyance. More details on valuation techniques can be
found in [59]. For future values UNITE [62] recommends that the values for noise
should grow over time with real incomes.
7.7.3
Harmonised values for Europe

The noise valuation literature is dominated by Hedonic Price (HP) studies (mainly not
of recent date) on road traffic and aircraft noise of varying quality. HP studies analyse
the housing market to explore the extent to which differences in property prices reflect
the willingness-to-pay (WTP) of individuals for lower noise levels. Resulting values
seem to be problematic to transfer, however, both theoretically and in practice (Day
[61]). The number of Stated Preference (SP) studies on road traffic noise is increasing,
but only a few present WTP in terms of euro per annoyed person per year for
different annoyance levels (little annoyed, annoyed and highly annoyed), which
correspond to the endpoints of exposure-response functions. Due to the low number of
studies that can be used for this approach, a second-best alternative was to evaluate
the SP studies available with regards to quality (e.g. avoid using studies with scenarios
based on changes in exposure rather than annoyance and health impacts), choose the
best ones, and calculate a value in terms of euro per dB per person per year. This was
done by Navrud (2002) [63] to establish an EU-value. The country-specific central
values per person exposed to a certain noise level are given in figure 7.1 below and
comprise the WTP for reducing annoyance based on stated preference studies (see
Working group on health and socio-economic aspects, 2003 [64]) and quantifiable costs
of health effects. The WTP is shown for each EU country in 2002 PPP (purchasing
power parity) values. It gives the annoyance level related to a certain level of dB. This
means that a change in the level of dB can be expressed in monetary terms (in Euro) by
the Euro difference between the two dB levels. These values have been extrapolated
here at the lower end to allow for low environmental impacts of certain equipment
types. In this analysis the unweighted average of EU countries valuation was used that
was corrected with purchasing power parities (PPP), shown in the table below (the
valuation for all countries is derived from the HEATCO study). The correction for PPP
is in line with the recommendations of the European Working group on health and
socio-economic aspects [64]) .
Hedonic pricing can be summarized as using the different characteristics of a traded good to estimate the
value of a non-traded good. For example, the value of a piece of lakefront could be calculated by comparing
the price of a house on the lakefront with the price of a similar house located elsewhere.
3
This approach involves surveying people to identify their preference for trading off costs and benefits
against stated hypothetical scenarios.
139 / 235
Cost factor as function of environmental impact

350
300
Cost factor for noise [Euro]
250
200
150
100
50
0
40
45
50
55
60
65
Environmental Impact indicator EI [dBA]
70
75
80
Figure 7.1 Cost factors (Central values) for noise exposure (2002 PPP, factor costs, per year per
person exposed) for EU25 unweighted average (including the extrapolated costs below 51 dB)
The calculation procedure for determining the benefits is as follows:

Step 1:
Step 2:
Step 3:
Step 4:
Estimate number of persons exposed to certain noise levels (available from

environmental noise calculations) for the reference case - no change in the
directive, and the case of changing the directive (options 1-3).
Multiplication of costs per person (derived from figure 7.1) by the number of
persons exposed for both cases. Determine when the directive becomes
effective and the percentage of equipment that complies to the new directive.
Subtraction of total for the case with the new directive from total for
reference case to estimate the benefits.
Reporting of benefits.
The number of persons exposed is derived from an estimation of the number of

European citizens living in the different environments used in the environmental impact
analysis and on numbers from the ESPON project [#] where a categorization is made
between 9 different areas.
7.8
Cost-benefit calculation
In the previous section the calculation method for the benefits for one year was set out.
When carrying out a cost-benefit-analysis of the implementation of a new directive,
benefits will stretch out into the future. In addition it should be noted that once the
directive enters into force, not all equipment will be immediately replaced. In this
section first the total benefits are determined, then the total cost of the implementation,
and the total costs are compared to the total benefits.
7.8.1
Benefits
The benefits are expressed in terms of reduced external costs due to noise from outdoor
equipment. These are not directly available, therefore they have to be derived from
similar estimates for other sources, in particular transportation noise sources. A recent
140 / 235
report [65] gives annual figures for different modes of transport

(road/rail/aviation/water). Total external costs due to transportation noise are estimated
at 7% of GDP, 45 billion Euros in 2004 (for EU17). For 2007 this would be a slightly
higher figure. A large part of these costs are due to road transport (84%).
As a large number of outdoor equipment is combustion engine powered, a careful
comparison might be made by total numbers of equipment: 60 million CE-powered
pieces of outdoor equipment vs. 250 million road vehicles in the EU25. If we assume
the costs due to outdoor machinery proportional to those for road vehicles, then the
costs would amount to around 9 billion euros per annum. Outdoor equipment may
affect far more people at different locations and times than traffic noise, but the average
duration may be much shorter. Another comparison between road noise sources and
outdoor machinery can be made by comparing percentages of seriously annoyed people
(see fig.4.1), which shows percentages between 2% for construction equipment and
around 18% for mopeds (comparable to CE powered garden equipment), whereas for
road vehicles the percentages are between around 5-10%. So a best current estimate of 9
billion euros per annum is chosen.
In order to calculate the total benefits a replacement rate is used, assuming that within
10 years all existing equipment will be replaced so that after 10 years the full fleet is
replaced with quieter equipment. Further it is assumed that this process of replacing is
linear (i.e. 10% annually). Thus the directive will within the first ten years produce
increasing benefits as more equipment is replaced. After 10 years the directive will have
resulted in a completely replaced machine fleet as from the present day. In order to add
the monetary benefits, depreciation has to take place in order to bring to todays Euro
value. A discount rate of 3% is assumed, which is the prevailing market rate; benefits
are taken for a 20 year period.
Values of Euro per dB noise reduction per person per year are available for each
country within the EC which form the basis for the valuation, but the machine fleet per
country is not identified in this study. Only an estimate of the total machine fleet for the
EU25 is available. For the calculation of the benefits therefore an average EC value
euro per dB per person per year is used (as presented in figure 7.1).
The calculation is carried out for each equipment type. Based on these values a total
annual value of 44419 million Euro is estimated within the EU 25 if all equipment were
replaced immediately with quieter equipment. With this estimation method, the annual
benefit is in line with previously reported figures (see the beginning of this section).
With the assumptions made on discounting and the interest rate and the replacement
within 10 years, the following flow of benefits will emerge from the changed directive.
After a period of 20 years the total discounted sum of benefits amounts to 481111
million Euro. It should be noted that this is a conservative estimate, not including the
growth of volume of sales. As this is unpredictable, the current stock of equipment is
used.
Table 7.5
7.8.2
141 / 235
Total calculated benefits for all equipment types,

assuming a change in limits or shift to Article 12.
Benefits on a
yearly basis
Discounted
Million per year
Y1
Y2
Y3
Y4
Y5
Y6
Y7
Y8
Y9
Y10
Y11
Y12
Y13
Y14
Y15
Y16
Y17
Y18
Y19
Y20
Total
4313
8374
12195
15786
19158
22320
25282
28052
30639
33052
32089
31155
30247
29366
28511
27681
26874
26092
25332
24594
481111
Costs
The costs of changing the directive will have different origins:
a) The higher production costs resulting in a higher unit price of the equipment; these
are annually recurring costs;
b) The development costs, these are in principle incidental costs made in the first year
when developing quieter equipment;
c) The costs of enforcement of the regulation, these are important as with the changed
directive it may be more attractive to put non-compliant equipment on the market.
These costs vary per country as in some countries market surveillance is in place
whilst in other EC countries it is virtually absent. These are annually recurring
costs.
The costs for the above 3 items are based on figure 7.3. The middle column
(Additional cost in price) is used and the costs are based on the number of equipment
present in the EU. The cost of R&D will be only partly accruable to the directive, as
R&D not only targets noise reduction but also other product improvements, that could
for example lead to increased comfort and lower energy use.
7.8.3
Cost-benefit analysis
From the above total benefits and costs, the overall benefit-cost ratio is clearly higher
than 1 for the majority of equipment types, which means that from an economic point of
view, the directive is worth implementing in terms of stage II and moving equipment
with high environmental impact from Article 13 to Article 12. The societal value of a
142 / 235
quieter machine fleet outweighs the monetary costs of production and enforcement,
although the distribution of these costs could be an issue still to be resolved.
The benefits and costs are set out for each equipment type in tables 7.7-7.8.
For each equipment type the log of the Benefit-Cost ratio is presented in figure 7.2.
Some equipment types have no benefits (B/C ratio=0); this has two possible
explanations. Firstly the environment the equipment operates in: if machines operate in
environment F they have no benefits, because this is a rural area and very few people
are affected. Economic benefits of noise reduction in rural areas have not been
quantified here. A second explanation can be found in already very low Environmental
Impact indicators (below 40 dB(A) ): lowering these levels with more than 3 dB will
produce no benefits from an economic point of view.
It can also be seen that there are a few equipment types with a BC ratio lower than 1;
this indicates that the costs of limit or article changes for these equipment types are
higher than the benefits. Therefore it can be concluded that changes for these equipment
types would not be economically viable. In general it can be concluded that
implementation of the proposed changes to the directive have major societal benefits
which in most cases far outweigh the incurred costs in terms of increased price or
required implementation effort.
The benefits and costs that are involved with the directive seem very large, however if
the total population of Europe is taken into account, it can be calculated that the benefits
for an average EU citizen in the first year would result in 9,74. In table 7.6 a
differentiation is made for the different costs per EU citizen in relation to the various
costs due to changing the directive. This figure can be found by dividing the earlier
given amount of 481 billion Euros (table 7.6) by the total population of 497 million
citizens (1st January 2006).
Table 7.6
Costs and benefits per EU-citizen
9,74
0,01
0,59
0,19
Total benefits
Costs adding equipment
Costs switching articles
Costs changing limits
143 / 235
Stone chainsaw - 120

Sw imming pool pumps - 121
Street w ashing machine - 110
Road sw eepers w ithout aspirators (motorized broom) - 109
Joint cutters - 30
Non-fixed lifting gear, ow n pow er source. - 106
Conveyor belts - 14
Mobile sieve installations - 102
Chain saw s, portable - 6
Brush cutters - 2
Leaf blow ers - 34
Tractors f or construction / w ater pumps - 104
Law n trimmers law n edge trimmers - 33
Hedge trimmers - 25
A irco/ ventilation equipment - 100
Mobile w aste breakers (w ood, concrete) - 103
High pressure w ater jet machines - 27
Reach stacker - 118
V ehicle mounted loader cranes - 108
Scarif iers - 49
Graders (< 500 kW) - 23
Mobile w aste containers - 39
Truck mixers - 55
Bridge /gantry cranes (harbours/ portal cranes) - 107
Dumpers (< 500 kW) - 18
Pow er generators (< 400 kW) - 45a
Law nmow ers (excl agricul/f orestry equip) - 32
Water pump (not for under w ater) - 56
Pow er sw eepers - 46
Hydraulic pow er packs - 29
Drill rigs - 17
Dozers (< 500 kW) - 16
Conveying / spraying machines, concrete/mortar - 13
A erial access platforms, combustion engine - 1
Loaders (< 500 kW) - 37
Lift trucks, CE (others excl. Container handling) - 36b
Pow er generators (>_ 400 kw ) - 45b
Combined high pressure f lushers/suction vehicles - 7
Mobile cranes - 38
Compaction machines (rollers, vibratory plates) - 8b
Heat pumps - 101
Snow -removing machines, rotating tools - 51
Quad (off -road) - 112
Construction w inches (electric) - 12b
Construction w inches (CE driven) - 12a
Snow mobiles - 111
Landf ill compactors, loader+bucket (< 500 kW) - 31
Paver-f inishers (others) - 41b
Trenchers - 54
Paver-f inishers (high-compaction screed) - 41a
Tow er cranes - 53
Pipelayers - 43
-1
Figure 7.2 Benefit/cost ratio BC expressed as lg BC for each equipment type.
Table 7.7
144 / 235
Calculated benefits and costs for equipment currently in the directive, in millions of Euros.
Equipment type
Benefits M Costs M
Aerial access platforms, combustion engine - 1
277
32
Brush cutters - 2
13179
9
48
5
0
5
542
1
5006
4
Chain saws, portable - 6
7518
4
Combined high pressure flushers/suction vehicles - 7
132
26
0
1
Compaction machines (rollers, vibratory plates) - 8b
84
39
120
4
2724
8
132
3
Construction winches (CE driven) - 12a
0
1
Construction winches (electric) - 12b
0
1
Conveying / spraying machines, concrete/mortar - 13
182
13
Conveyor belts - 14
5720
7
3632
32
Dozers (< 500 kW) - 16
169
15
Drill rigs - 17
157
11
Dumpers (< 500 kW) - 18
182
5
108
5
1091
220
4587
70
8571
1720
Graders (< 500 kW) - 23
194
3
13445
18
Hedge trimmers - 25
2640
11
120
26
High pressure water jet machines - 27
580
2
5734
13
Hydraulic power packs - 29
96
11
Joint cutters - 30
1270
0
Landfill compactors, loader+bucket (< 500 kW) - 31
0
3
8348
292
Lawn trimmers lawn edge trimmers - 33
2005
9
Leaf blowers - 34
4590
5
4590
5
1817
89
Lift trucks, CE (others excl. Container handling) - 36b
2724
318
Loaders (< 500 kW) - 37
1634
280
Mobile cranes - 38
481
129
Mobile waste containers - 39
40009
219
0
6
Paver-finishers (high-compaction screed) - 41a
0
9
Paver-finishers (others) - 41b
0
9
4822
69
Pipelayers - 43
0
65
0
5
1634
106
481
86
Power sweepers - 46
525
26
3271
86
2084
34
Scarifiers - 49
580
2
8571
2
Snow-removing machines, rotating tools - 51
0
0
60
13
Tower cranes - 53
0
22
Trenchers - 54
0
9
Truck mixers - 55
1634
22
Water pump (not for under water) - 56
2360
106
0
53
Table 7.8
Calculated benefits and costs for potential new equipment, in millions of Euros.
Equipment type
Airco/ ventilation equipment - 100
Heat pumps - 101
Mobile sieve installations - 102
Mobile waste breakers (wood, concrete) - 103
Tractors for construction / water pumps - 104
Non-fixed lifting gear, own power source. - 106
Bridge /gantry cranes (harbours/ portal cranes) - 107
Vehicle mounted loader cranes - 108
oad sweepers without aspirators (motorized broom) - 109
Street washing machine - 110
Snowmobiles - 111
Quad (off-road) - 112
Reach stacker - 118
Stone chainsaw - 120
Swimming pool pumps - 121
7.9
145 / 235
Benefits M Costs M
9893
95
0
0
906
7
2178
34
1320
16
5123
11
108
0
906
106
906
40
262
1
437
0
0
6
0
3
0
0
0
0
194
1
0
1
0
3
132
3
2360
0
1817
0
268
0
Conclusions on the economic impact

considered significant for the European economy.
The cost-benefit analysis illustrates that the benefits of noise reduction clearly outweigh
the costs for the equipment types which have a medium to high environmental impact.
The costs are in the end borne by the purchaser or user of equipment. In those cases
where limits are not applied or tightened where it is needed, the citizens and employers
pay the price, often indirectly, in terms of sleep disturbance, concentration loss, fatigue,
annoyance and stress and reduced speed intelligibility.
The benefits to citizens are estimated at around 10 Euros per person per year once the
foreseen changes to the directive have taken effect. For equipment types with a low
environmental impact it is clearly not economically worthwhile to change the limits.
146 / 235
Phase 1.2 Statement on the need to revise the lists of

Article 12 and Article 13
8.1
Introduction and approach

In this chapter a preliminary statement is made on the need to revise the lists of Article
12 and Article 13 equipment.
A decision scheme was devised to derive the recommendations for each equipment type
in a consistent manner. All proposals are primarily based on the need due to
environmental impact and the feasibility taking technical and economic impacts into
account. Equipment with a high environmental impact has high priority for changing its
current status in the directive. Where appropriate, also the statistical analysis of the
database and consultation results have been taken into account.
The decision scheme was not always followed strictly, if new or further information
was available leading to other considerations. This scheme, shown in figure 8.1, is also
referred to in the next chapter. Each decision step is identified with a capital letter. The
decision sequence is always starts at the top of the diagramme and ends at one of the
boxes at the bottom. The decision taken for each equipment type is indicated in the
datasheets in chapter 10. For example, the decision code ABDFIN indicates how for
aerial access platforms currently in Article 13, are proposed to be put into Article 12.
The decision scheme has as input the equipment type. If there is a severe problem in a
single member state, a new equipment type might be placed directly into Article 13 or
12, regardless of the average environmental impact, but taking into account technical
and economic feasibility.
For all other existing and new equipment types, if the environmental impact is low (3746) or very low (< 37), there is no priority to move the equipment from Article 13 to 12,
or to tighten the limits. If the environmental impact is high (57-67) or very high (>67),
the equipment should be either moved to Article 12 or given stricter limits in the form
of stage III (in 5 years) and stage IV (in 8 years), if technically and economically
feasible. If the environmental impact is medium (47-56), introduction into Article 12 or
stage III limits should be considered, if technically and economically feasible.
If there is low technical feasibility, then current stage II limits or indicative limits
should be retained, while performing the necessary R&D at the same time to make
further progress. If the economic feasibility is insufficient, then also current stage II
limits or indicative limits should be retained.
If an equipment type is reducing in relevance, i.e. is dissappearing from the market or
has rather low numbers, it may be removed from the directive.
147 / 235
Equipment type
A Severe local
noise problem in one
member state?
yes
no
Low or very low
High or very high
Environmental
Impact EI
medium
12
12
Now in Article
13
new
Now in Article
P
Q
Reduced
relevance?
13
Reduced
relevance?
yes
F
Technically
feasible?
yes
no
no
H
R&D
13 or new
12
Now in Article
new
13 or new
yes
I
Economically
feasible?
yes
no
G
no
Technically
feasible?
yes
no
J
Economically
feasible?
yes
12
Now in Article
R
Remove from
directive
L
LWA Label
only
Article 13
Retain Limits
Stage I or II1
Define new
Limits
Stage III (5 years)
O
Define Limits
Stage III (5 years)
Stage IV2 (8 years)
1)
Equipment with indicative figures (2005/88/EC) remain in stage I

) For equipment with EI very high only
Figure 8.1 Decision scheme for equipment list and limit revision.
8.2
New equipment types

The new potential equipment types listed in chapter 3, table 3.10, are not all considered
to be candidates for this directive, at least for the next five years. Some types can be
fitted into existing categories, and others can be combined. Especially vehicle-like
equipment should be covered in other directives.
8.2.1
Types not to include

The following new equipment types are currently considered not appropriate to add to
the 2000/14 directive:
- Bird scare cannons and the golf green edger have very low environmental
impact and can be considered as agricultural equipment operating seasonally
and in more or less rural areas. These would only be worth including if the
noise in rural areas should be tackled.
8.2.2
148 / 235
Tree stump grinders also have such low environmental impact that they are
considered not worth including.
Street washing machines are also considered to have insufficient numbers and
impact.
The ATV or quad is often licensed for use on public roads and should be
tested in the same manner as a road vehicle, with a pass-by test. Although it is
also used for off-road recreational or professional purposes, it is more logical to
include it in a road vehicle directive.
Tractors used for construction and powering water pumps are covered by
the existing regulations for agricultural tractors, although not well for high rpm
conditions.
Non-fixed lifting gear (vacuum, magnetic and other) with its own power
source: this group is insufficiently defined.
Vehicle-mounted loader cranes are fixed attachments to vehicles, and
although they are very numerous, they are often hydraulically powered and
have relatively low noise levels. Most noise comes from the vehicle engine at
high rpm.
Reverse movement alarm systems have a very high environmental impact as
they are on so many machines, especially constuction machines, and vehicles
and cause many complaints. They need to be replaced by alternative warning
and vision systems, in part already available on the market [#]. Reverse alarm
systems can be considered attachments or electrical components added to the
vehicle or machine. They should receive further attention in a different
regulatory context, possible another directive or a standard.
New types to include

For the remaining new equipment types the following is proposed.
- Snowmobiles should be put into Article 12, at the express request of a member
state.
- Mobile waste breakers and mobile sieve (screen) installations can be
combined in a single new equipment type in Article 13, and after 8 years in
Article 12.
- Stone circular saws, including CE-powered handheld ones should be
introduced into the type building site circular sawbenches in Article 12.
- Stone chain saws and telescopic pruners should be included in the portable
chain saw group, moved to Article 12.
- Air conditioning and ventilation equipment is not mobile, but it is outdoor
equipment and therefore should be considered for including in the directive, in
Article 12, especially due to its large numbers and long term operation
including nighttime.
- Heat pumps may increase in numbers in the near future. They should be
combined with airconditioning and ventilation equipment.
- Swimming pool pumps should be included with water pumps.
- Road sweepers without aspirators are proposed for Article 13.
- Motorised brooms (road sweepers without aspirators) are proposed for Article
13.
- Mobile cranes for harbours and terminals (Bridge and gantry cranes) should
be a completely new type in Article 13.
- Reach stackers and straddle carriers should be included in the forklift group
if possible (Article 12).
8.3
149 / 235
Proposals for Article 12 and 13 list revisions

The following equipment list revisions are proposed.
8.3.1
New in Article 13
- Mobile waste breakers and sieves (screens)
- Mobile cranes for harbours and terminals (bridge/gantry cranes)
- Road sweepers without aspirators
8.3.2

- Aerial access platforms with combustion engine
- Brush cutters
- Building site circular saw bench
- Combined high pressure flushers and suction vehicles, High pressure flushers, Suction
vehicles, combined
- Cooling equipment on vehicles
- Chain saws, portable
- Drill rigs
- Glass recycling containers
- Grass trimmers/grass edge trimmers
- Hedge trimmers, CE only
- High pressure water jet machines, upto 3 kW (electric)
- Hydraulic hammers
- Joint cutters
- Leaf blowers and Leaf collectors, combined
- Mobile waste containers
- Piling equipment, vibratory
- Power generators (>_ 400 kW)
- Power sweepers
- Refuse collection vehicles
- Road milling machines
- Scarifiers, CE
- Shredders/chippers
- Truck mixers
- Water pump units (not for use under water)
8.3.3
New in Article 12
- Snowmobiles (after 5 years)
- Mobile waste breakers and screens (wood, concrete) (after 8 years)
8.3.4

- Builders' hoists for the transport of goods (with electric motor)
- Building site band saw machine
- Compaction machines (explosion rammers)
- Concrete breakers and picks, handheld, <3 kg
- Construction winches (all)
- Conveyor belts
- Landfill compactors, loader-type with bucket (< 500 kW)
- Motor hoes (<3 kW)
- Pipelayers
- Piste Caterpillars
- Trenchers.
150 / 235
Phase 1.3 Statement on the need and possibilities to

revise the limit values laid down in Article 12
9.1
Introduction
151 / 235
In this chapter a statement is made on the need and possibilities to revise the limit
values of existing or new Article 12 equipment. The qualitative decision scheme
presented in the previous chapter (figure 8.1) is used to determine the need and
feasibility. However, this scheme cannot be applied rigidly to all equipment groups.
Therefore, for the additionally recommended individual limit values, consideration was
given to results of statistical analysis, to questioning, to background knowledge arrived
at during consultations and to diverse policy documents and reports as well the
environmental and economic impact assessments.
If limit proposals were to be based only on the statistical analysis of the EU database,
this would partially result in a considerable reduction potential (as presented in the
interim report). However, the data collection is incomplete with respect to the large
number of equipment and performance variants put on the market. However, since limit
values must apply to all equipment defined in the equipment group, frequently the
limits cannot be lowered to the desirable extent for some areas. Furthermore, it is not
always possible to use the few low noise equipment types being offered on the market
(NL VAMIL, DE Blue Angel) as universally valid benchmark, since this equipment has
been reduced in its performance to some extent in order to comply with noise
requirements.
9.2
Compliance to stage I and II limits

During the analysis of the database, some pieces of equipment that would not have
fulfilled the limits were observed. This could also have been caused by data entry errors
or lack of knowledge. In any case, there is no evidence that presently valid limits (with
consideration given to the revision by 2005/88/EC) are intentionally being ignored by
manufacturers who are aware of Directive 2000/14/EC. Unfair competition by providers
from outside of Europe, the Far East, is complained about; it is assumed that this
equipment is being placed on the market illegally without certification and that it is also
not contained in the data base. It is nevertheless assumed that where the limits of Stage
II entered into force on 03 January 2006, they can and will be adhered to by the
manufacturers. On the part of the Notified Bodies are there also are no signs of noncompliance.
The introduction of new engines with low fuel consumption are causing some
difficulties for manufacturers. Since this equipment requires larger cooling capacities,
an increased fan speed may be necessary which would produce higher noise levels.
Compact equipment (hydraulic excavators), in particular, has limited and diminishing
space for additional or larger components.
9.3
Need and possibilities to revise the limits

Besides the environmental impact, there can also be other reasons to change the limits,
for example if there are categories which have changed technically in recent years or if
152 / 235
there are new variants of equipment on the market. A new feasible technological
development for the equipment groups listed in Article 12 that could (or should) lead to
a revision of the limits is currently not recognizable. The sole development which might
eventually lead to a lowering is the introduction of the hybrid drive in the construction
equipment sector. Preliminary development engineering studies have been presented
during the BAUMA 2007 exhibition in Munich, Germany, where some manufacturers
indicated during discussions that they are working on this.
The study of the environmental impact in Chapter 4 indicates, that much equipment
with an envrionmental indicator EI of high or very high is listed in Article 13, or has
not been registered at all so far. Of the equipment subject to limits, only lawnmowers,
lift trucks, concrete breakers, power generators < 400 kW and loaders have been listed
there; most of the equipment groups under Article 12 have been allocated the EI
assessment of medium.
Equipment of Article 12 can scarcely be found in the upper classes of strong argument
for reduction and economically desirable (exceptions: lawn trimmer/lawn edge
trimmers, concrete hammers and picks, excavator loaders, graders, dumpers). Thus, for
most of the equipment listed under Article 12, retention of the limits of Step I and/or
Step II of 2005/88/EC valid up to now is recommended. If in individual cases a
different recommendation is given, the reasons are listed in Chapter 10.
An EI assessment of low or very low does not result in a recommendation to
eliminate the current limits (transition from Article 12 to Article 13), since then further
imports of cheap products can be expected, but some manufaturers may then also omit
noise reduction measures, resulting in noisier products. Manufacturers producing
quality equipment may then be forced by cost competition to abandon the standard so
far achieved in the European Union.
The implemented limits of stages I and II have resulted in a distinct reduction of noise
emissions, in particular of investment goods. A need for noise reduction is now required
for equipment groups listed in Article 13 or for those that have not been registered at
all. Therefore, a recommendation for reduction is made for equipment that has been
listed up to now in Article 12 and a few selected groups, providing this has an
environmental benefit, is technically feasible and makes good economic sense.
9.4
Limit proposals
A complete overview of limit proposals and Article moves is given in table 9.1 below.
A colour coding is applied to illustrate the type of change: orange for tighter limits,
yellow for new limits, light green for no change in current directive, dark green for
removal from the directive.
153 / 235
Table 9.1 Proposals for limit changes based on all the analyses
(continued, and colour coding on next page)
Eq.
no.
1
2
3a
3b
4
5
6a
6b
7
8a
8b
8c
9
10a
10b
10c
10d
11
12a
12b
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25a
25b
26
27a
27b
28
29a
29b
29c
30
31
32a
32b
32c
32c
33
34a
34b
35a
35b
36a
36b
37a
37b
37c
38
39
40
41a
41b
42a
42b
43
44
Equipment
Range, subgroup
Current limit
Art. 13
Brush cutters
Art. 13
93; 80 + 11 lg P
Builders' hoists for the transport of goods (combusti
Builders' hoists for the transport of goods (with elec
Art. 13
Art. 13
Art. 13
CE driven
Art. 13
Electrically driven
Art. 13
Art. 13
Combined high pressure flushers and suction vehic
Compaction machines
Explosion rammers only Art. 13
Compaction machines
Walkbeh. vibr.rollers+pla 108; 109; 89 + 11
Compaction machines
Ride on vibr. rollers
105; 106; 86 + 11
97; 95 + 2 lg P
CE driven 15kg<m<30kg 94 + 11 lg m
Others m < 15 kg
105
15 kg < m < 30 kg
92 + ll lg P
30 kg < m
94 + ll lg P
Art. 13
93; 80 + 11 lg P
Art. 13
Art. 13
Conveying and spraying machines for concrete and
Conveyor belts
Art. 13
Art. 13
Dozers (< 500 kW)
106; 97 + 11 lg P
Drill rigs
Art. 13
Dumpers (< 500 kW)
101; 82 + 11 lg P
Equipment for loading and unloading silos or tanks
Art. 13
93; 80 + 11 lg P
103; 84 + 11 lg P
Art. 13
Graders (< 500 kW)
101; 82 + 11 lg P
Art. 13
Hedge trimmers
CE driven
Art. 13
Hedge trimmers
Electrically powered
Art. 13
Art. 13
Electr. powered <3kW Art. 13
Others
Art. 13
Hydraulic hammers
Art. 13
P < 40 kW
101
40 kW < P < 55 kW
101
78 < P
82 + 11 lg P
Joint cutters
Art. 13
Landfill compactors, loader-type with bucket (< 500
101; 82 + 11 lg P
96
Lawnmowers (excluding agricultural and forestry eqL < 50
98
Lawnmowers (excluding agricultural and forestry eq50 < L < 70
100
Lawnmowers (excluding agricultural and forestry eq< 70 cm; < 120 cm
105
Lawnmowers (excluding agricultural and forestry eq> 120 cm
96
Leaf blowers
CE powered
Art. 13
Leaf blowers
Art. 13
Leaf collectors
CE powered
Art. 13
Leaf collectors
Art. 13
104
Lift trucks, combustion-engine driven, counterbalan P < 55
Lift trucks, combustion-engine driven, counterbalan P > 55
85 + 11 lg P
Loaders (< 500 kW)
On wheels,rubber tracked101; 82 + 11 lg P
Loaders (< 500 kW)
steel tracked P 55 kW 103
Loaders (< 500 kW)
steel tracked P > 55 kW 87 + 11 lg P
Mobile cranes
101; 82 + 11 lg P
Art. 13
Motor hoes (< 3 kW)
P < 3 kW
93
Paver-finishers (equipped with a high-compaction s
Art. 13
Paver-finishers (without a high-compaction screed)
104; 85 + 11 lg P
Piling equipment
Impacting
Art. 13
Piling equipment
Vibrating
Art. 13
Pipelayers
Art. 13
Piste caterpillars
Art. 13
Final proposal
101; 82+11 lg P
105 + 6 lg P; 103 + 6 lg P
Stage II
Remove from directive
110
110 + 2 lg P; 108 + 2 lg P
104
109
Stage I-1
Stage II
Stage II
Stage II
Stage II
Stage II
Stage II
Art. 13
Art. 13
100 + 2 lg P; 98 + 2 lg P
Stage I
99; 86 + 11 lgP
Stage II
Art. 13
Stage II
Stage II
100
Stage II
105 + 6 lg P; 103 + 6 lg P
109
Art. 13
109
95
Art. 13
93 + 11 lg P; 90+11 lg P
99
82 + 11 lg P (stage II)
Stage II
111
71 + 15 lg L
71 + 15 lg L
71 + 15 lg L
71 + 15 lg L
91
104
99
104
99
101
82 + 11 lg P
Stage II
Stage II
Stage I
Stage II
100; 95
Art. 13
Stage I
Art. 13
115; 112
Further comment
if any
Reduced relevance
Not relevant for noise
Combine with 115, 120
Combine 7, 26 and 52 in 1 group
Only a few left on the market
R&D feasibility for vibratory plates
Exclude m < 3 kg
R&D on process noise
R&D on process noise
R&D on test code + limits

R&D on track noise reduction
Change test code
Reduce baseline
Include attached mowers

Combine in 1 group
1 group for all equipment with
moving and lifting function
proposed including loaders, fork
lifts, telescopic handlers,
straddle carriers, reach
Improve test code
R&D
154 / 235
(contd. from table 9.1)

Eq.
no.
Equipment
Range, subgroup
Pel < 2
Current limit
95+lgPel
45b Power generators (< 400 kW)
2 < Pel < 10
96+lgPel
10 < Pel
95+lgPel
Art. 13
Power sweepers
Art. 13
Art. 13
Art. 13
Scarifiers
CE powered
Art. 13
Scarifiers
Art. 13
Inlet < 200 mm, CE drive Art. 13
Shredders chippers
Inlet < 200 mm, electric Art. 13
Shredders chippers
Shredders chippers
Inlet > 200 mm
Art. 13
Snow-removing machines with rotating tools (self-p
Art. 13
Suction vehicles
Art. 13
Tower cranes
96+lgP
Trenchers
Art. 13
Truck mixers
Art. 13
Art. 13
Pel < 2
Welding generators
95+lgPel
2 < Pel < 10
57b Welding generators
96+lgPel
10 < Pel
57c Welding generators
95+lgPel
100 Airco/ ventilation equipment
new
101 Heat pumps
new
102 Mobile sieve installations
new
103 Mobile waste breakers (wood, concrete)
new
104 Tractors for construction / water pumps
new
105 Reverse movement alarm signals (all machines)
new
106 Non-fixed lifting gear, own power source
new
107 Bridge /gantry cranes (harbours/ portal cranes)
new
108 Vehicle mounted loader cranes
new
109 Road sweepers, no aspirators (motorized broom)
new
110 Street washing machine
new
111 Snowmobiles
new
112 Quad (off-road)
new
113 Golf green edger
new
114 Bird scare canons
new
115 Telescopic pruner
new
116 Tree stump grinder
new
117 Straddle carrier
new
118 Reach stacker
new
119 Stone circular saw
new
120 Stone chainsaw
new
121 Swimming pool pumps
new
45c
45d
46
47
48
49a
49b
50a
50b
50c
51
52
53
54
55
56
57a
Final proposal
Further comment
if any
90
93
93 + 2 lg Pel
93 + 2 lg Pel
100; 90+11lgP
107; 104
105; 86 + 11 lg P
97 + 2 lg P
Art. 13
109
99
86 + 11 lg P; at least 109
Art. 13
109
stage II
101; 85 + 11 lg P
99; 82 + 11 lg P
90
Combine with welding generators

in 1 group. New formula.
93
Combine with welding generators
in 1 group. New formula.
93 + 2 lg Pel
To be investigated
R & D by UBA, Germany
To be investigated
Art. 13; 84 + 11 lg P
Art. 13; 84 + 11 lg P
Not to be included
Not to be included
Not to be included
Art. 13
Not to be included
Art. 13
Not to be included
107; 105
Not to be included
Include in EU road vehicle limits.
Not to be included
Not to be included
Include with chain saws
Not to be included
Include with lift trucks
Include with lift trucks
Include with circular saws
Include with chain saws
Included in waterpumps 56
Tighter limits
New limits (Art.13 before)
No change current directive
10
Phase 1.4 Instruments for noise reduction
10.1
Findings for each equipment type, including new types
155 / 235
In this chapter the findings and recommendations for each equipment type, including
potential new types for the directive, are presented. Besides this, some general
suggestions for European noise abatement policy are given. Where relevant, reference is
made to other parts of the report. Also some special issues of some products are
discussed here in more detail than is possible in the tables. The findings are based on
each impact assessment of the study and displayed at the end of this chapter.
10.1.1
Findings and conclusions for each equipment type

In the following pages, the findings and conclusions for each equipment type including
relevant new equipment are presented.
Most of the fields in each data form are self-explanatory.
- The field Workpiece noise refers to noise radiated by a workpiece such as by
a plate being cut or concrete being impacted.
- The field Typical operationrefers to the engine speed under typical working
conditions.
- The field range of sound power levels in practive is a best estimate of values
found in the field.
- The field range of guaranteed sound power levels is based on the EC
database;
- The field typical difference field guaranteed is an estimate of expected
difference between guaranteed values and those encoutered in practice.
- The field Compliance refers to labelling, DOC submission and limit
compliance, whatever information is available.
- In the field Recommended limits, the code in capital letters behind the word
decision refers to the path taken in the decision diagramme in figure 8.1.
156 / 235
1. Aerial access platforms, combustion engine
Current definition (Directive)

Remarks/changes in definition
Remarks/changes in subcategories
Technical parameter
Drive types (electrical/CE/other)
Main noise sources
Workpiece noise relevant/dominant
Process noise relevant/dominant
Typical field operation (high/medium/low
Typical areas of use
Estimated EU25 equipment population
Typical usage
Acoustical characteristics
Range of sound power level in practice
Range of guaranteed sound power levels
Environmental impact
Avg. difference guar.-meas. levels
Typical difference field - guaranteed
Current compliance (label, DOC, limits)
Recommended list (New/Art 13->12)
Current limit if any (Art 12)
Recommended limits (Stage I/II/stricter)
Recommended timetable
Recommendation test code/cycle
Market situation
Technical progress to date
Current and future technical progress

Technical impact (required
modifications/developments)
Economic impact (costs/benefits)
Research proposals
Other remarks
Equipment consisting of a minimum of a work platform, an extending

structure and a chassis. The work platform is a fenced platform
None
None
Installed power
Unit kW
Range(s)
CE-Diesel
Engine (+exhaust+intake), fan, hydraulics
No
No
Dynamic rpm
Urban/suburban/rural
200000
Months
10 Days
20 Minutes
60 Eve/Night
0
Tonality
0 Impact
0 Intermittent
6
95-115
91-112
46, low, but expected medium in coming years
1.9
3
Not always labeled
Art. 12
None, Art 13.
82 + 11 lg P (decision: ABDFIN)
5 years
No standard available but testcode in 2000/14/EC (high idle without load
only) also insufficent.
Improvement: Moving the platform with highest load and speed up to
the highest possible position and down again (70%), turning (10%);
idling (20%)
Many EU manufacturers, all sizes; growth in sector, numerous rental
companies. Wide and various application (e.g. windowcleaning, tree
pruning, street light maintenance, events)
Relatively new product; diesel powered types often not engine speed
optimised. Electric battery-powered models on the market (not in
directive).
Better engine management, hybrid drives, quieter engines/exhaust
Some models are unneccesarily running at high idle even when the
platform is standing still at a work position.
Application of developing technology.
Benefits outweigh costs.
Quieter engines
Some CE powered types may in future be replaced by battery powered
models.
157 / 235
2. Brush cutters

Technical parameter
Main noise sources
Typical usage
Market situation
Research proposals
Other remarks
A combustion-engine driven portable hand-held unit fitted with a rotating

blade made of metal or plastic intended to cut weeds, .
None
None
Installed power
Unit kW
Range(s)
CE-petrol 2-stroke
Engine (+exhaust+intake), blade noise and cutting noise
No
Generally not
High rpm
Urban/Suburban/Rural
2,000,000
Months
8 Days
20 Minutes
240 Eve/Night
0
Tonality
5 Impact
5 Intermittent
6
100-125
103-117
75, very high (higher power than grass or lawn trimmers)
2.3
3
EU products labelled
Art. 12
None, Art. 13
105 + 6 lg P; 103 + 6 lg P (decision: ABEGJO)
5/8 years
ISO 22868:2005
Increasing demand to reduce manual work. Also cheap imports.
Little
Quieter compact engines or battery powered systems
Quieter compact engines.
Benefits easily outweigh costs.
Quieter compact engines
Extremely annoying because many tonal components and non constant
speed
158 / 235
3a. Builders'hoists, goods (CE driven)

Technical parameter
Main noise sources
Typical usage
Market situation
Research proposals
Other remarks
A power-operated, temporarily installed builders hoist intended for use

by persons who are permitted to enter engineering and construction
sites
Include also: Combustion engine-powered hoists intended for removals
to and from dwellings
Unit kW
Range(sP15; P> 15
Installed power
CE petrol 2 or 4 stroke, or diesel
Engine (+exhaust+intake)
No
No
High/low rpm
Urban/suburban
50,000
Months
10 Days
20 Minutes
60 Eve/Night
Tonality
0 Impact
0 Intermittent
0
95-115
101-104
40, low
2.0
3
Few DOCs
Art. 12
93; 80 + 11 lg P (decision: ABCM)
Stage II
No change
No EN or ISO available, no change
Growth in construction market.
Some quieter models with enclosed engines exist.
Quieter small engines.
Apply known technology.
159 / 235
3b. Builders'hoists, goods (electric motor)
A power-operated, temporarily installed builders hoist intended for use

by persons who are permitted to enter engineering and construction
sites
None
None
Technical parameter
Installed power
Unit kW
Range(sP15, P>15
Electric
Main noise sources
Electric motor, transmission
No
No
Typical field operation (high/medium/low High rpm
Urban/suburban
50,000
Typical usage
Months
10 Days
20 Minutes
60 Eve/Night
0
Tonality
0 Impact
0 Intermittent
5
Range of sound power level in practice 85-105
Range of guaranteed sound power levels 84-102
37, low
3.5
3
Current compliance (label, DOC, limits) Few DOCs
None, Art. 13
Recommended limits (Stage I/II/stricter) Remove from directive (decision: ABCQR)
Market situation
Growth in construction sector.
Electrically powered hoists are mostly fairly quiet.
Not really required for noise.
None
Benefits for industry, saving of administrative costs.
Research proposals
Other remarks
Reduced relevance
160 / 235
4. Building site band saw machine
A hand-fed powered machine weighing less than 200 kg fitted with a

single saw blade in the form of a continuous band mounted on and
running between two or more pulleys.
None
None
Technical parameter
Installed power
Unit kW
Range
Electric
Main noise sources
Motor(fan), cutting and workpiece
Yes, more relevant then for circular saws
Yes
Typical field operation (high/medium/low Normal rpm
Urban, suburban, rural
25,000; number may cover work shop used band saws
Typical usage
Months
10 Days
20 Minutes
60 Eve/Night
0
Tonality
0 Impact
5 Intermittent
6
Range of sound power level in practice Assumed: 105-115
Range of guaranteed sound power levels No data available
53, medium, but possibly lower numbers present
0
0
Current compliance (labelling, DOC,
No DOCs
Art. 13
None, Art.13
Recommended limits (Stage I/II/stricter) Remove from directive (decision: ABCQR) considered as EI low
Market situation
Research proposals
Other remarks

Growth in construction sector
Different sawblade types, clamping and damping of workpiece.
Not really required for noise
None
n.a.
Used outdoors at complicated timber work only, rare on construction
sides
161 / 235
5a. Building site circular saw and 119. Stone circular saw
A hand-fed machine weighing less than 200 kg fitted with a single

circular sawblade (other than a scoring saw) with a diameter of 350 mm
or more, up to a maximum diameter of 500 mm, which is fixed during
the normal cutting operation, and a horizontal table, all or part of which
is fixed during operation. The sawblade is mounted on a horizontal nontilting spindle, the position of which remains stationary during
machining. The machine may have any of the following features:
the facility for the sawblade to be raised and lowered through the
table
machine frame below the table may be open or enclosed
the saw may be fitted with an additional, manually operated travelling
table (not adjacent to the sawblade).
Machinery fitted with a single circular sawblade (other than a scoring
saw) with a diameter of 350 mm or more, up to a maximum diameter of
500 mm intended to be used to cut wood ore stone materials on
construction sites as
- Hand-fed saw benches weighing less than 200 kg with a sawblade
which is fixed during the normal cutting operation, and a horizontal
table, all or part of which is fixed during operation. The sawblade is
mounted on a horizontal non-tilting spindle, the position of which
remains stationary during machining.
- Hand held equipment powered by a combustion engine.
None
Technical parameter
Sawblade diameter
Unit mm
Range 350-500 mm
Electric (new handheld: CE petrol 2-stroke)
Main noise sources
Sawblade and workpiece (for CE, engine also significant)
Sawblade mostly dominant; for some CE ones, engine dominant
Yes, but sawblade mostly dominant, sometimes CE.
Typical field operation (high/medium/low Not applicable
200,000 (+100 000 handheld CE powered saws)
Typical usage
Months
10 Days
20 Minutes
60 Eve/Nigh
0
5 Impact
5 Intermittent
6
Tonality
Range of guaranteed sound power levels No data
62, high
No data
no information
No DOCs submitted
Art. 12 or limits for sawblades
None, Art. 13/New.
Recommended limits (Stage I/II/stricter) 110 (decision: ABEGJO/ABFIN)
5 years
no ISO or EN available
162 / 235
(Circular saw contd.)
Market situation
Research proposals
Other remarks
Both consumer and professional markets. Building site saw benches

are a smaller part of the market in comparison to the larger workshop
sawbenches. Saw noise is a serious workplace noise problem. Quiet
sawblades are on the market, although with some drawbacks (lifetime,
durability, price).
Damped and slotted sawblades are on the market. Engine noise still
quite high.
Further improvements to sawblades and alternative cutting processes
and tools. Quieter compact engines.
Quieter sawblades, quieter cutting processes, quieter compact engines.
For a first step only quieter sawblades should be sufficient, therefore
little cost.
Alternative cutting processes.
Either limit the sawbench or the sawblade noise emission. Follow
developments in workshop sawbenches.
163 / 235
6. Chain saws, portable

(Including 115. Telescopic pruners and 120. Stone chain saws, portable)
A power-driven tool designed to cut wood with a saw chain and

consisting of an integrated compact unit of handles.
A power-driven tool designed to cut wood or stone with a saw chain and
consisting of an integrated compact unit of handles
- with a cutting sword direct attached to the engine
- with a cutting sword attached by an extension bar (telescopic pruners)
Technical parameter
Main noise sources
Typical usage

See above
Unit kW
Range(s)
Installed power
CE and electrical
Engine (+exhaust+intake), blade, chain and cutting process
Mostly well below machine noise
Relevant but not dominant
Dynamic
Suburban/Urban/Rural
2,000,000
Months
5 Days
20 Minutes
60 Eve/Night
0
0 Impact
5 Intermittent
6
Tonality
100-125 (data on stone chain saws and telescopic pruners unknown)
101-118 (data on stone chain saws and telescopic pruners unknown)
Chain saw for wood: 69, very high
Chain saw for stone: 61, high
Telescopic pruners: 44; low (increase expected)
2.0
0
EU manufactured labelled others unknown
Art. 12
Chain saws for wood: Art. 13.; chain saws for stone and pruners: new
CE: 110 + 2 lg P; 108 + 2 lg P; Electric: 104 (decision ABEGJO)
Chainsaws for stone:
Art. 13 for 5 years than decision on limits (decision ABEFHKL)
5 years / 8 years
ISO 22868:2005 (constant load by a brake)
Very large numbers on the market, comparable to lawnmowers. Variety
of applications, consumer and professional.
Hard low price competition from far east with short life time for private
use.
Also electrical chainsaws available. Use of available small petrol engine
technology.
Quieter engines required. More electrically powered units.

Difficult to achieve noise reduction due to high power requirement and

weight limitation.
(High/medium/low)

Market situation

Research proposals
Other remarks
If quieter engine available, higher price. But high environmental benefit,

combined with lower operator noise levels.
Quieter engine technology, active noise control. Possible limits for stone
chain saws and alternative cutting technologies for stone.
Proposed limits refer to ISO 22868 test code.
New generation of small engines (2002/88/EC) will cause higher noise
emission.
164 / 235
7. Combined high pressure flushers/suction verhicles

Technical parameter
Main noise sources
Typical usage
Market situation
Research proposals
Other remarks
A vehicle which may work either as a high pressure flusher or as a

suction vehicle. See high pressure flusher and suction vehicle.
Combine types 7, 26 and 52
None
Unit kW
Range(s)
Installed power
CE, diesel
Engine (+exhaust+intake), hydraulics, pumps, suction and flushing
No
In some cases flushing or suction
High idle, loaded
20,000
Months
10 Days
10 Minutes
240 Eve/Night
Tonality
0 Impact
0 Intermittent
3
100-125
103-123
47, medium
1.0
0
No docs
Art. 12
None, Art. 13
109 (Decision: ABDFIN)
5 years
Some growth (increasing drain maintenance in urban areas). Low noise

trucks (German Blue Angel / NL Vamil / customer demand. Many SMEs.
Some quieter engines depending on vehicle supplier.
Application of low noise design principles, quieter engines, hydraulics
and pumps
Application of low noise design principles and available quieter
components as on market.
Benefits of citizens just about outweigh costs. Slightly higher price of
quieter components, development costs of quieter system.
See general proposals for quieter enigines
Availability of know-how important for manufacturers, esp. SME's
165 / 235
8a. Compaction machines (explosion rammers)

Technical parameter
Main noise sources
Typical usage
Market situation
Research proposals
Other remarks
A machine which compacts materials, e.g. rock fills, soil or asphalt

surfacing, through a vibrating action of the working tool. .
None
None
Unit kW
Range n.a.
Installed power
Diesel ignition
Ignition unit/exhaust
No
Relevant
Low cycle
10,000
Months
10 Days
10 Minutes
60 Eve/Night
Tonality
0 Impact
5 Intermittent
0
105-125
99-108
34, very low, dissapearing from market
1.5
0
Few DOCs
Remove from directive, as dissappearing
None, Art. 13
Remove from directive (decision: ABCPR)
no EN or ISO standard available
Not on the market any more
None
Replaced by CE-driven vibratory plates
If removed from the Directive they might return, but this is improbable
due to safety regulations.
166 / 235
8b. Compaction machines (vibr. rollers, plates, rammers)

A machine which compacts materials, e.g. rock fills, soil or asphalt surfacing,
through a rolling, tamping or vibrating action of the working tool
None
None
P8, 8<P70,
Installed power
Unit kW
Range(s) P>70
CE-petrol/diesel, 2 or 4-stroke,
Vibratory plate, vibration mechanism or piston, Engine
Main noise sources
(+exhaust+intake). Radiation from plate, other platework or roller.
Ground sometimes contributes to dB(A) level, but mostly machine itself.
Groundborne vibrations cause secondary radiation in nearby buildings,
but mostly at lower frequencies.
Often, especially on hard surfaces.
90,000
Typical usage
10 Days
10 Minutes
60 Eve/Night
0
Months
Tonality
0 Impact
0 Intermittent
0
Range of sound power level in practice 95-125 (high levels for vibratory plates on hard surfaces)
44, low, but possible increasing due to new consumer market (plates)
1.9
0
Current compliance (label, DOC, limits) Labelled
Art. 12.
105; 106; 86+11 lg P (indicative for plates)
Rollers and rammers stage II, vibratory rollers, rammers and plates stage
Recommended limits (Stage I/II/stricter) I - 1dB: 107, 108, 85 + 11 lg P; (decision: ABDM)
Review progress on plates after 5 years.
EN 500-4:2006, no change (see chapter 10.1.2)
Growth in construction market. Vibratory plates also on consumer
Market situation
market. Non CE-marked vibratory plates offered in the Internet.
Rammers and rollers are quieter, also electronic control of vibration level
introduced. Application of hydraulics.
Further measures on vibratory plates to minimise noise also on hard
surfaces: plate damping, vibration mechanism.
Material or joint damping; shielding; vibration isolation; quieter engines
and vibratory machnisms.
Although low environmental impact, benefits still considered to balance
with costs, especially if numbers of equipment increase.
Contribution analysis on vibratory plates. Alternative compaction
Research proposals
principles.
Remote controlled compactors are often noisier due to looser noise
requirement at operator position.
Other remarks
See also Chapter 10.1.2
Technical parameter
167 / 235
9. Compressors (<350 kW)
<picture m

Technical parameter
Main noise sources
Typical usage
Market situation
Research proposals
Other remarks
<picture large variety>
Any machine for use with interchangeable equipment which compresses

air, gases or vapours to a pressurehigher than the inlet pressure. .
None
None
Installed power
Unit kW
Range P15, P>15
CE-Diesel, petrol, electric
Engine (+exhaust+intake), compressor, intakes
No
No
High rpm
200,000
Months
10 Days
20 Minutes
240 Eve/Night
0
Tonality
0 Impact
0 Intermittent
0
85-110
83-102
46, low; numbers may be underestimated.
2.9
0
Sufficient
Art. 12
97; 95 + 2 lg P
97; 95 + 2 lg P (stage II) (decision: ABCM)
No change, no EN or ISO standard available
Growth in construction market but reduced significance of pneumatic
(hammers) at construction sides.
Introduction of quiet screw compressors; enclosure, isolation and
damping applied.
Further reduction difficult according to industry, limits apparently
reached.
Significant effort required for further reductions.
Benefits would outweigh costs.
168 / 235
10. Concrete-breakers and picks, hand-held
Powered (by any method) concrete-breakers and picks used to perform

work on civil engineering and building sites.
Powered (by any method) concrete-breakers and picks with a mass of
more than 3 kg used to perform work on civil engineering and building
sites.
None
Mass m
Is it with or without a
3 <m 15
Technical parameter
standard tool.
Unit kg
Range 15<m<30m 30
Pneumatic, electric, hydraulic and CE
Main noise sources
Impact between chisel and workpiece, in some cases engine noise.
Yes, but tool may be dominant
Yes
Typical field operation (high/medium/low High
Urban/suburban
400,000
Typical usage
Months
10 Days
10 Minutes
120 Eve/Night
Tonality
0 Impact
5 Intermittent
6
65, high
2,9
3 or more
Sufficient
Art 12
105; 92 + 11 lg m; 94 + 11 lg m (stage II, indicative for 15<m<30, CE
powered)
Stage III (decision ABEGJO), 2 dB tighter may be possible but in
practice senseless because process noise may then be dominant.
stage II CE powered 15<m<30 only: As in 2005/88/EC, as above; if
Recommended limits (Stage I/II/stricter) possible 3 dB tighter after 8 years
Await technical progress
EN 60745-2-6
Growth in construction market. Replacement by hydraulic hammers or
Market situation
saws
Noise levels have been somewhat reduced.
Improved chisel damping, quieter engines. Possibly alternative breaking
concepts.
Technical limitation due to the nature of the process unless chisel can
be damped further.
R&D costs, but over time. Benefits potentially far higher than costs.
Investigate influence of process noise on practical sound emission,
Research proposals
Quieter breaking processes, damped chisels.
Other remarks
Hammers up to 3 kg are used privately and mainly indoors
169 / 235
11. Concrete and mortar mixers

Technical parameter
Main noise sources
Typical usage
Recommended limits
Recommendation test cycle
Market situation
Research proposals
Other remarks
A machine to prepare concrete or mortar, irrespective of the loading,

mixing and emptying process. It may be operated intermittently..
None
None
Installed power
Unit kW
Range(s)
CE-fuel/diesel; electrical
No
No
High rpm
200 000
Months
10 Days
20 Minutes
120 Eve/Night
Tonality
0 Impact
0 Intermittent
0
95-120
92-113
47, low
2.5
0
Few Docs
Art. 13
Art. 13
Art. 13 (decision ABCQL)
Housing and mounts of engines
Quieter engines
Quieter engines
Possibly many wrong DOCs in the data base
170 / 235
12a. Construction winches (CE driven)

Technical parameter
Main noise sources
Typical usage
Market situation
Research proposals
Other remarks
A power-operated, temporarily installed lifting appliance which is

equipped with means for raising and lowering a suspended load.
None
None
Installed power
Unit kW
Range(sP15, P>15
CE-Petrol 2 or 4 stroke, diesel
Engine (+exhaust+intake), gears and winch
n.a.
n.a.
Maximum rpm
25000
Months
10 Days
15 Minutes
60 Eve/Night
0 Impact
0 Intermittent
0
Tonality
95-115
77-111
34, very low
1.6
3
Only very few DOCs, mainly of 1 manufacturer
93; 80 + 11 lg P;
Remove from directive (decision: ABCPR)
n.a.
n.a.
Limited, compact engines.
None
Benefits for industry, saving of administrative costs
n.a.
Reduced relevance
171 / 235
12b. Construction winches (electric)

Technical parameter
Main noise sources
Typical usage
Market situation
Research proposals
Other remarks
A power-operated, temporarily installed lifting appliance which is

equipped with means for raising and lowering a suspended load.
None
None
Installed power
Unit kW
Range(s)
Electric
Electric motor, gears, winch
n.a.
n.a.
Avarage rpm
25,000
Months
10 Days
15 Minutes
60 Eve/Night
Tonality
5 Impact
5 Intermittent
0
75-95 (estimated)
No data
33, very low
1.6
3
No docs
None, Art.13
Remove from directive (decision: ABCQR)
n.a.
Not required for noise
None, electrically powered hoists are mostly fairly quiet
172 / 235
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..
Divide into conveying and spraying machines of
- mortar
- concrete
To be investigated; Flow
rate, concrete pumps
perhaps hydraulic power,
pneumatic operating
m/h
mortar pumps with
kW
Technical parameter
installed power?
Unit kW hydr.
Range(s)
CE-diesel
Main noise sources
Engine (+exhaust+intake), fans, pump/hydraulics
No
No
Typical field operation (high/medium/low high
Urban/suburban
50,000
Typical usage
Months
10 Days
20 Minutes
120 Eve/Night
0
Tonality
0 Impact
0 Intermittent
3
51, low
3.0
0
Current compliance (label, DOC, limits) Labelled, some DOCs
Art. 13
Art. 13
Recommended limits
Art. 13 (decision ABDFHKL)
Current test code is demanding to test with "concrete". Apart from the
fact of environmental problems to deposite the "test-material" of this
test, it procedure makes the product dirty so that it couldn't be selled to
customers anymore. Concrete pumps should be tested with water only,
conveying and spraying machines for mortair with a mixture of sand and
water. "Time out" of 5 s isn't comprhensible.
No EN or ISO available at time, industry initiative to integrate concreate
pumps into EN 12001 A1 (but work didn't start jet).
Many different types and versions could perhaps not be covered by one
unique test code.
Market situation
Housing of engines
Quieter engines
Quieter engines
Test code has to be developed further with participation of the
Research proposals
manufacturers
Confusion concerning the technical parameter caused by translation
Other remarks
problems. Max output or max power?
173 / 235
14. Conveyor belts

Technical parameter
Main noise sources
Typical usage
Market situation
Research proposals
Other remarks
A temporarily installed machine suitable for transporting material by

means of a power-driven belt.
None
None
Installed power
Unit kW
Range(s)
CE-Diesel
Engine (+exhaust+intake), fan, rollers
No
Possibly, for falling granulate or stones
High rpm
Suburban/rural
50,000
Months
10 Days
20 Minutes
240 Eve/Night
Tonality
0 Impact
0 Intermittent
0
100-115
Insufficient data
56, medium, probably lower
2.2
3
No DOCs
Art. 13
None, Art. 13
Remove from directive (decision: ABCQR) considered as EI low
no change, no EN or ISO available
Growth in construction market
Unknown
Quieter engines
None
None
174 / 235
15. Cooling equipment on vehicles
<picture small variety>
<picture m
A cargo space refrigeration unit on vehicle categories N2, N3, O3 and
O4 as defined by Directive 70/156/EEC.
None
None
Technical parameter
Unit kW
Range(s)
Installed power
CE-Diesel; also eutectic and alternative drive systems.
Main noise sources
Engine (+exhaust+intake), fans
No
No
Urban/suburban
1,000,000
Typical usage
Months
12 Days
25 Minutes
720 Eve/Night
5
Tonality
0 Impact
0 Intermittent
0
Range of guaranteed sound power levels Insufficient data
70, very high. Numerous refrigeration vehicles in circulation. Also
operates in night hours. The high position, 3 m above the ground, leads
(High/medium/low)
to wide noise propagation..
5.0
0
Current compliance (label, DOC, limits) No data in EC database, labelling poor.
Art 12.
None, Art. 13.
Recommended limits (Stage I/II/stricter) 100 + 2 lg P ; 98 + 2 lg P (decision: ABEGJO)
5 / 8 years
PrEN 12102:2005
Large number of cooling units installed, approx 1 in 15 trucks/trailers.
Growth in road traffic and numbers of trucks. Demand due to national
Market situation
and local regulations, for example Dutch peak programme.
Quieter cooling equipment is on the market. Under-chassis models,
eutectic systems and others. There is some market demand.
Other alternative quieter cooling systems.
Quieter engines, alternative power supply systems, eutectic cooling and
others. R&D effort from manufacturers and engine suppliers.
Major benefits for citizens due to high environmental impact. Low noise
technology already partly exists, manufacturer-supplier cooperation
important.
Research proposals
Quieter compact engines/fans.
Other remarks
Legislation exists in NL (Peak programme).
175 / 235
16. Dozers (<500 kW)
A self-propelled wheeled or crawler machine used to exert a push or

pull force through mounted equipment.
None
None
Technical parameter
Installed power
Unit kW
Range(sP<55; P>55
CE-diesel
Main noise sources
Engine (+exhaust+intake), fan, tracks
Possibly dozer bucket, for hard material
Can be relevant if hard material is handled
14,000, possibly higher
Typical usage
Months
10 Days
20 Minutes
240 Eve/Nig
0
Tonality
0 Impact
0 Intermittent
3
51, medium
2.4
3
Current compliance (label, DOC, limits) Limited number of DOCs
Art. 12
101; 82 + 11 P (wheeled dozers, indicative, for tracked dozers)
103; 84 + 11 P (tracked dozers)

Market situation
Research proposals
Other remarks
101; 82 + 11 P (wheeled dozers) (decision: ABDM)

103; 84 + 11 P (for tracked dozers) (decision: ABDM)
Verification after 4 years for tracked machines if track noise issue is
resolved
ISO DIS 6395:2006 (no essential changes to current edition)
Growth in construction and infrastructure market.
Not as much as excavators.
Possibly more electronic control, engine and cooling management. New
materials and solutions for quieter tracks.
Stage II limits may conflict with Exhaust directive requirements. Further
R&D effort required to achieve stage II limits for tracked dozers.
Quieter engines, cooling systems and engine management. Reduction
of track noise by new materials or design solutions.
Possibly R&D required if difficulties encountered with Exhaust Directive
requirements.
176 / 235
17. Drill rigs

Technical parameter
Main noise sources
Typical usage
Market situation
Research proposals
Other remarks
A machine which is used for drilling holes on construction sites by

percussive drilling, rotary drilling, rotary percussive drilling..
None
None
Unit kW
Range(s)
Installed power
CE, diesel
Engine (+exhaust+intake), hydraulics, gears, drilling
No
No
High rpm
10,000
Months
10 Days
10 Minutes
240 Eve/Night
Tonality
0 Impact
0 Intermittent
3
100-130
99 - 130
49, medium
2.0
3
None, Art. 13
Art. 12
None, Art. 13
99; 86 + 11 lgP (decision: ABDFIN)
5 years
According to available components
Possibly more electronic control, engine and cooling management,
quieter hydraulics.
Quieter engines, engine management, cooling systems and hydraulics.

Quieter engines, fans and hydraulics. Possibly R&D required if
difficulties encountered with Exhaust Directive requirements.
177 / 235
18. Dumpers (<500 kW)

Technical parameter
Main noise sources
Typical usage

Market situation
Research proposals
Other remarks
A self-propelled machine wheeled or crawler machine having an open

body, which either transports and dumps or spreads material.
None
None
Installed power
Unit kW
Range P55;P>55
CE-Diesel
Engine (+exhaust+intake), fans, gear transmission
No
Only for unloading stones, temporarily
High rpm
29,000
Months
10 Days
20 Minutes
240 Eve/Night
0
Tonality
0 Impact
0 Intermittent
3
100-120
97-114
51, medium
2.2
3
Sufficient
Art. 12
101; 82 + 11 lg P (decision: ABDPM)
101; 82 + 11 lg P (stage II)
ISO 6395 draft revision 2006
New test code nearer to practical use but results comparable to old test
code following current directive (test like wheel loaders)
Possibly more electronic control, engine and cooling management. New
Stage II limits may conflict with Exhaust directive requirements.
Quieter engines, cooling systems and engine management. Reduction
of track noise by new materials or design solutions.
requirements.
178 / 235
19. Equipment loading/unloading silos/tanks
Powered devices attached to silo or tanker trucks for loading or

unloading of liquids or bulk material by means of pumps ....
Not only for tanker trucks but also mobile pump, storage and transfer
units such as tank trailers, wheeled silos and bulk or fluid conveyor
None
Technical parameter
Installed power
Unit kW
Range(s)
Hydraulic, Electric, CE-diesel
Truck engine (+exhaust+intake), roots blower, pump, valves, reradiated
Main noise sources
noise from other parts.
No
In some cases
100,000 probably higher
Typical usage
Months
10 Days
20 Minutes
120 Eve/Night
0
Tonality
0 Impact
0 Intermittent
3
46, low, may potentially be higher
1.1
3
Few DOCs
Art 13
None, Art. 13
Recommended limits (Stage I/II/stricter) None, Art. 13
No EN or ISO available. Revise test code so that the component
delivered by the responsible manufacturer to the truck manufacturer is
tested independent on later installation condition: "The equipment shall
be tested at it's rated speed and load with the medium it is designed for.
Use pipes or hoses to simulate the load leading out of the hemisphere.
If the equipment is powered by an own engine, use this engine; in other
cases the equipment should be powered by an auxiliary low noise
energy source (electric, pneumatic, hydraulic)."
Growth in many parts of bulk and fluids transport. Includes many
sectors, such as oil, flower, dairy and food products, cements,
chemicals, Tank vehicle builder is responsible to balance noise from
truck engine and pump. Systems marketed as low noise. Strong
dependency on truck chassis manufacturers. Many SMEs. Noise level is
Market situation
market opportunity.
Quieter systems already on market. Better enclosure and isolation of
structure borne noise.
Further implementation of quieter engines, pumps, enclosures, isolation.
Alternative quieter loading or transport systems.
Implementation of quieter engines, pumps, enclosures, isolation.
Benefits far outweigh costs.
Research proposals
Practical guidelines for design implementation.
Often hidden in enclosure on vehicle, hard to see from outside.
Manufacturers could not influence installation conditions. In the directive
they should be only be responsible for what they could be responsible:
The attachment delivered. Too many small SMEs are active on the
Other remarks
truck/trailer equipping market. Difficult to control them all.
179 / 235
20. Excavators, hydraulic/rope (<500 kW)

Technical parameter
Main noise sources
Typical usage
Market situation

Research proposals
Other remarks

A self-propelled crawler or wheeled machine having an upper structure
capable of a minimum of 360 rotation, which excavates, ..
None
None
Unit kW
Range P15; P>15
Installed power
CE-Diesel
Engine(+exhaust+intake), fans, hydraulics
Not often
Can be if bucket is scraped or impacted, bucket then radiates noise.
Dynamic
692,000
Months
10 Days
20 Minutes
120 Eve/Night
0
0 Impact
0 Intermittent
3
Tonality
95-115
88-113
56, medium
1.1
3
Generally good.
Art 12.
93 , 80+11 lg P (decision ABDM)
As above, stage II. No stage III as levels are already acceptable.
Review when information on Exhaust directive impact is available.
ISO DIS 6395 E 2006/05 (But no change to valid 6395:1988 in terms of
content)
One of the most common construction machines, many manufacturers.
Increase in mini excavators. Growth in construction market.
Better engine enclosures, exhausts, quieter fans, hydraulics dampers.
Important progress in past compared to other construction machines.
This is reason for lower limits.
First hybrid drive systems coming on the market. Possibly more
electronic control, engine and cooling management, quieter hydraulics.
Stage II limits may conflict with Exhaust directive requirements. Little
space available for noise reduction in compact excavators.
High benefits due to large numbers of equipment. Cost to industry
depends on solution of combined environmental requirements.
Quieter engines, cooling systems and engine management.
requirements.
180 / 235
21. Excavator-loaders (<500kW)
A self-propelled wheeled or crawler machine having a main structural

support designed to carry both a frontmounted bucket loading
mechanism and a rear-mounted backhoe..
None
None
Technical parameter
Installed power
Unit kW
Range P15, P >15
CE-Diesel
Main noise sources
Engine (+exhaust+intake), fans, hydraulics
No
Only when scraping or impacting bucket on hard surfaces
Typical field operation (high/medium/low Dynamic rpm
162,000
Typical usage
Months
10 Days
20 Minutes
240 Eve/Night
0
Tonality
0 Impact
0 Intermittent
3
54, medium
1.5
3
Current compliance (label, DOC, limits) Sufficient
Art. 12
103;84 + 11 lg P
Recommended limits (Stage I/II/stricter) 103;84 + 11 lg P (decision: ABDPM)
ISO 6395 draft 2005 (no change to current directive)
Market situation
quieter hydraulics. New materials and solutions for quieter tracks.
Research proposals
Other remarks
181 / 235
22. Glass recycling containers

A container, built of whatever material, that is used for the collection of
bottles. It is equipped with at least one opening for filling in bottles and
anotherexcluded underground containers
A container, built of whatever material, that is used for the collection of
bottles. It is equipped with at least one opening for filling in bottles and
anotherexcluding underground containers.
None
Technical parameter
1-10
Unit m3
Range(s)
Volume
None
Main noise sources
Glass breaking, sound radiation from opeing and walls
Yes, in combination with walls
Yes
Typical field operation (high/medium/low Not applicable
2,000,000
Typical usage
Months
12 Days
30 Minutes
60 Eve/Night
0
Tonality
0 Impact
5 Intermittent
6
Range of guaranteed sound power levels No data available
63, high; often near dwellings
2.9
0
Poor
Art 12
None, Art. 13
Recommended limits (Stage I/II/stricter) 100 (decision ABEGJO)
5 years
no change
Municipalities already install undergound glass containers. There is a
clear market demand for quieter glass containers which is already
Market situation
provided for. Limits would help clarify the requirements.
Underground containers; damped containers; impact reduction plates,
covered openings, brushes inside to reduce the bottle fall speed.
The measured level can be under 90 dB.
Further implementation
Application of above measures on wider scale.
Minor economic impact for industry as technology is known and
available; demand is present in some markets.
Research proposals
Other remarks
182 / 235
23. Graders (< 500 kW)
Market situation
A self-propelled wheeled machine having an adjustable blade,

positioned between front and rear axles, which cuts, moves .
None
None
Unit kW
Range P55, P>55
Installed power
CE-diesel
Engine (+exhaust+intake), fan, hydraulics, scraping or impact of blade
No
Blade can radiate noise if scraped or impacted.
Dynamic
5,000, probably higher
Months
10 Days
15 Minutes
240 Eve/Night
0
Tonality
0 Impact
0 Intermittent
3
100-115
99 -111
43, low
1.7
3
DOCs available
Art. 12
101, 82 + 11 lg P
101, 82 + 11 lg P, Art. 12 (Decision: ABDM)
n.a.
ISO 6395 draft revision 2006 (no change to current directive)
Many manufacturers. Increase road maintenance activities due to traffic
growth.
Better engine enclosures, quieter fans.

Research proposals
Possibly more electronic control, engine and cooling management.

Technical parameter
Main noise sources
Typical usage
Other remarks
Engine management, quieter engines, optimisation cooling system

Quieter engines and cooling systems.
requirements.
183 / 235
24. Grass trimmers/ Grass edge trimmers
A combustion-engine driven portable hand-held unit fitted with flexible

line(s), string(s), or similar non-metallic flexible cutting elements
Technical parameter should be installed power.
"02 Brush cutters" and "24 Grass trimmers" may be summarized in 1
category "Brush and grass trimmers" (same test code, same limits)
Technical parameter
Unit kW
Range(s)
Installed power
Per definition with CE only
Main noise sources
Engine (+exhaust+intake), cutting element
No
Generally not
Urban/Suburban/rural
5,000,000
Typical usage
Months
8 Days
10 Minutes
60 Eve/Night
0
Tonality
5 Impact
0 Intermittent
6
71, very high; often used in public spaced in residential areas
3.0
0
Current compliance (label, DOC, limits) EU products labelled
Art. 12
None, Art. 13
Recommended limits (Stage I/II/stricter) 105 + 6 lg P; 103 + 6 lg P (decision: ABEGJO)
5 years / 8 years
EN ISO 22868:2005
Mass-produced product used widely. Increase in new EU markets
(Eastern Europe), especially with improving standard of living and
Market situation
growing economy. Cheap imports also present.
Unclear, relatively new product.
Quieter compact engines or battery powered systems
Little expected.
Research proposals
Technical parameter is stated as mm in 2000/14 Guidelines; installed
Other remarks
power is more appropriate as engine noise dominates.
184 / 235
25. Hedge trimmers

Technical parameter
Main noise sources
Typical usage
Market situation
Research proposals
Other remarks
Hand-held, integrally driven powered equipment which is designed for

use by one operator for trimming hedges and bushes ..
None
None
Unit kW
Range(s)
Installed power
Electrical, CE-petrol 2-stroke
Engine (+exhaust+intake), cutter mechanism
No
Relevant, seldom dominant.
High
5,000,000
8 Days
1 Minutes
60 Eve/Night
0
Months
0 Impact
0 Intermittent
6
Tonality
90-110
89-109
55, medium
2.9
3
labelled
Art. 12
None, Art. 13
CE Stage III: 109 dB (decision ABDFIN),
electric: remain in article 13.
5 years
PrEN ISO 10517:2003
Large consumer market. Many cheap imports.
Quieter engines/exhausts or shift to electrical or alternative drives.
Quieter compact engines, if possible alternative to 2-stroke.
Benefits outweight costs.
Quieter compact engines or alternative drive systems.
Electrical hedge trimmers are not noise relevant.
185 / 235
26. High pressure flushers

Technical parameter
Main noise sources
Typical usage
Market situation
Research proposals
Other remarks
A vehicle equipped with a device to clean sewers or similar installations

by means of a high pressure water jet
None
Unit kW
Range(s)
Installed power
CE, diesel
Engine (+exhaust+intake), hydraulics, pumps, suction and flushing
No
In some cases flushing or suction
High idle, loaded
50,000
Months
10 Days
10 Minutes
60 Eve/Night
0
Tonality
0 Impact
0 Intermittent
3
100-125
109-117
47, medium
1.8
3
Few docs
Art. 12
None, Art. 13
109 (Decision: ABDFIN)
5 years
trucks (German Blue Angel / NL Vamil / customer demand. Many SMEs.
and pumps
186 / 235
27. High pressure water jet machines
A machine with nozzles or other speed-increasing openings which allow

water, also with admixtures, to emerge as a free jet.
None
- electrical powered up to 3 kW
- others
Technical parameter
Unit l/h
Range(s)
Normal flow
Electric, CE-diesel or petrol
Main noise sources
Electric: pump and jet; CE: also engine (+exhaust+intake)
Work piece noise relevant/dominant
Depending on condition of service
Jet noise can be dominant for Electric units, and for some CE units.
Typical field operation (high/medium/low Dynamic
500,000
Typical usage
Months
10 Days
10 Minutes
60 Eve/Night
0
Tonality
0 Impact
5 Intermittent
6
49, medium
3.7
3
Art. 12
None, Art 13.
Electrical powered up to 3 kW: 95 dB (decision ABDFIN)
Recommended limits (Stage I/II/stricter) Others: Art. 13 (decision ABDFHKL)
5 years (revision after database for measurement without nozzle noise
is established)
No EN or ISO available. Change test code to hemisphere. Nozzle noise
should be excluded. Guidance note of NBs expected (so far valid in
Germany only)
Strong increase in consumer market, large number for private use. Also
SMEs producing larger powerful units for all sorts of cleaning
Market situation
applications.
Quieter nozzles, enclosed engines, pumps and drives. However due to
lack of limits, multiple sources and available components, not always
well balanced noise contributions.
Improved nozzles, quieter engines, quieter pumps. Alternative cleaning
techniques.

Research proposals
Other remarks
Improved nozzles, quieter engines, quieter pumps.

Alternative cleaning techniques.
Majority of annoyance by private used small electric powered units.
There are really powerful professional high pressure water jets for
industrial use (i.e. to clean concrete floors). It seems not possible to
cover this machines by a limit.
187 / 235
28. Hydraulic hammers

Technical parameter
Main noise sources
Typical usage
Market situation

Research proposals
Other remarks
Equipment which uses the hydraulic power source source of the carrier
machine to accelerate a piston which then hits a tool.
None
Exclude large hammers only used for mining
Range(s)
Unit kg
Mass m
Hydraulic power supply
Impact
Yes, in combination with noise from hammer
Dominant
Not applicable
Urban/suburban
400,000
Months
10 Days
20 Minutes
120 Eve/Night
0
0 Impact
5 Intermittent
6
Tonality
105-140
98-136
75, very high
3.4
3
Partly. There are copies (unfair competition) of the well known brands.
Art. 12
None, Art. 13.
93+10 lg m / 90 + 10 lg m (decision: ABEGJO)
5 years/8 years
CEN/TS 13778:2004 Equivalent to the present directive test
Growth in construction market. Products marketed as quieter available.
Hydraulic hammers are increasingly replacing handheld breakers.
Damping, shielding and vibration control applied.
Progress may be limited with given process. Possibly better electronic
control and shielding devices, hammer materials. Alternative breaking
processes may be developed.
Improved damping and shielding, possibly isolation and electronic
control.
Large benefits for citizens, R&D costs for industry; should be possible
for industry or for higher price.
Alternative processes, materials and design for impact equipment.
Attention should also be given to workpiece shielding if possible.
188 / 235
29. Hydraulic power packs
Any device comprising an internal combustion engine driving a rotary

electrical generator producing a continuous supply of electrical power.
None
New border of range at 40 kW
current 55;>55
Technical parameter
Unit kW
Range new 40; > 40
Electric power
CE-petrol or diesel, mostly 4 stroke.
Main noise sources
Engine (+exhaust+intake), enclosure, fans.
No.
No.
Typical field operation (high/medium/low High rpm.
100,000
Typical usage
Months
10 Days
20 Minutes
120 Eve/Night
0
Tonality
0 Impact
0 Intermittent
0
44, low
1.8
0
Art. 12
101; 82 + 11 lg P
99; 82 + 11 lg P (decision: ABCM)
Recommended limits (Stage I/II/stricter) new border of range at 40 kW
change of base line in 5 years
No EN or ISO standard available, no change to current directive
Growth in construction market. Increased use of hydraulics for
Market situation
efficiency.
Application of quieter 4 stroke engines and optimised enclosures and
silencers.
Further reductions may be difficult for some model types. Alternative
fuels, alternative engine types.
Sufficiently quiet generators are available on the market. Lower noise
levels can be achieved by additional enclosure/silencers, but at slightly
higher price. New exhaust emission regulations may cause some design
conflicts to retain current levels.
Benefits for citizens outweigh costs.
Research proposals
Base line for smaller units should be reduced to 99 dB,
Other remarks
borderline at 40 kW
189 / 235
30. Joint cutters

Technical parameter
Main noise sources
Typical usage
Market situation
Research proposals
Other remarks
A mobile machine intended for the production of joints in concrete,

asphalt and similar road surfaces. .
None
None
Range(s)
Maximum blade diameter Unit mm
CE-Diesel
Engine (+exhaust+intake), sawblade
No
Sawblade noise can dominate if blade is not deep into material
High rpm
50,000
Months
10 Days
20 Minutes
120 Eve/Night
Tonality
0 Impact
5 Intermittent
3
100-120
96-114
57, high
3.0
3
Labelled, limited DOCs
Art. 12
None, Art. 13.
111 (decision: ABEGJO)
5 years
Growth in infrastructure and construction sector.
Quieter engines sometimes applied, quieter swablades not often.
Where applicable, more use of quieter sawblades.
Application of known techniques and quieter engines.
190 / 235
31. Landfill compactors, loader+bucket (<500 kW)
A self-propelled wheeled compaction machine having a front-mounted

loader linkage with a bucket having steel wheels (drums) primarily
designed to compact, move, grade
None
None
Technical parameter
Installed power
Unit kW
Range P55, P>55
CE-Diesel
Main noise sources
Engine (+exhaust+intake), fan noise, hydraulics
No
No
Typical field operation (high/medium/low Average rpm, average load
5,000
Typical usage
Months
10 Days
20 Minutes
240 Eve/Night
0
Tonality
0 Impact
0 Intermittent
3
21, very low, mainly in remote areas, small numbers
1.1
3
101, 82 + 11 lg P
Recommended limits (Stage I/II/stricter) Remove from directive (Decision: ABCPR)
ISO DIS 6395:2005
Market situation
Relatively small market.
Not clear
Application of low noise design principles
Research proposals
Other remarks
191 / 235
32. Lawnmowers
A walk-behind or ride-on grass cutting machine or a machine with grasscutting attachment(s) where the cutting
Currrent directive excludes attached and agricultural mowers
Attached lawnmowers and attached blower units have significant noise
emission and are not covered by the directive
25 - 50; 50 - 70;
Technical parameter
Unit cm
Cutting width
Range 70 - 120; > 120
Petrol 2- and 4-stroke, diesel 4-stroke, electric.
Main noise sources
Engine (+exhaust+intake) and blade /deck; gear boxes for larger
No
No
All
50,000,000
Typical usage
Months
8 Days
2 / 20 Minutes
60 Eve/Night
0
5 Impact
0 Intermittent
6
Tonality
Range of sound power level in practice 76 - 108
Range of guaranteed sound power levels 76 - 105
70, Very high; garden equipment with a high rate of annoyance for
(High/medium/low)
neighbourhood.
1.8
0
Speed does not always comply with rated speed; incorrect marking,
Current compliance (label, DOC, limits) especially from far east
Article 12
Stage I, stage II for 50 to 70 cm only
Dependence of cutting width LWAlim = 71 + 15 * log L
Recommended limits
(decision ABEGHKM, special situation)
2 years, reexamination after 4 years
ISO 11094:1991
For the ride-on machines, with or without the collector including a
Recommendation test cycle (summary) suction unit ?
Hard price competition and low demand for low noise equipment; unfair
competition from far east. Many SMEs but also large companies. Some
Market situation
equipment marketed as low noise.
2-stroke engines replaced by 4-stroke engines. Some R&D done on
lawnmower noise, in particular blade noise and contribution analysis.
Maximum speed has to be fixed without possibility of change by the
user; more electric mowers by enhenced battery technology; alternative
cutting technologies. Optimise blade-deck designs to reduce blade
noise.

Research proposals
Other remarks
192 / 235
Engine noise should be consistently 8 dB lower than blade noise, use of

quieter gear boxes or hydraulic power transmission for mowers with
higher cutting width, damped decks or use of progressive plastics.
Approximatley 10% price rise for CE-mowers could enable quieter
mowers. Global benefits outweigh the costs.
Industry-independent research about feasibilty of reduced limits.
Research on new cutting technologies including an assessment of
"quality of cut" and possibilities to change lawn seed so that cutting with
cylinder mowers will cause a sufficient cutting result
New fomula may cut off about 25% of lawnmowers on the market. Time
period until enforcement of new limit intentionally set short to enable
some noise reduction in the short term.
Attached lawnmowers should be included, see information in chapter
10.1.3
193 / 235
33. Lawn trimmers lawn edge trimmers
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 ..
None
None
Technical parameter
Cutting width
Unit cm
Range L<50
Electric
Main noise sources
Rotating cutting elements or wires
No
Yes, but also without cutting
Typical field operation (high/medium/low Single rpm
5,000,000
Typical usage
Months
8 Days
1 Minutes
30 Eve/Night
0
Tonality
0 Impact
5 Intermittent
6
53, medium; numerous and an additional garden noise source.
2.9
0
Art. 12
94 (indicative)
Recommended limits (Stage I/II/stricter) 91 (decision: ABDM)
5 years
No change
Mass-produced product used widely. Increase in new EU markets
(Eastern Europe), especially with improving standard of living and
Market situation
growing economy. Cheap imports also present.
Unclear, relatively new product.
Probably hard to reduce noise from current levels without reducing
speed, but limits could be lower.
Little expected.
Research proposals
Other remarks
194 / 235
34. Leaf blower

Technical parameter
Main noise sources
Typical usage
Market situation
Research proposals
Other remarks
A powered machine appropriate to clear lawns, paths, ways, streets,

etc. of leaves and other material by means of a high velocity air flow.
None, but combine with leaf collectors.
None
Installed power
Unit kW
Range(s)
CE-petrol, electric
Engine (+exhaust+intake), fan
No
No
High
3,000,000
Months
4 Days
1 Minutes
60 Eve/Night
0
Tonality
5 Impact
5 Intermittent
6
100-115
101-107
62, high, often around dwellings
2.6
0
unknown
Art. 12
None
CE: 104, electric: 99 (Decision: ABEGJO)
5 years
PrEN 15503
It is a more favourable test code than the present one. There is an
average of 1/6 idling (low) and 5/6 racing (throttle fully open).
Relatively new equipment type, sold in large numbers in recent years.
Noticably noisy, so possible market for quieter versions. Far east cheap
imports.
Little.
New quieter blowers are coming onto the market.
Fan and aerodynamic design, quieter engines.
Large benefits for citizens. Possibly higher price required for quieter
versions, which may be acceptable given current high noise levels.
Combine with leaf collectors.
195 / 235
35. Leaf collectors
Market situation
A powered machine suitable for collecting leaves and other debris using
a suction device consisting of a power source ....
None, but combine with leaf blowers.
None
Installed power
Unit kW
Range(s)
CE-petrol, electric
No
No
High
3,000,000
Months
4 Days
1 Minutes
60 Eve/Night
0
Tonality
5 Impact
5 Intermittent
6
100-115
99-110
62, high, often around dwellings
3.0
0
unknown
Art. 12
None, Art. 13
CE: 104, electric: 99 (Decision: ABEGJO)
5 years
PrEN 15503
It is a more favourable test code than the present one. There is an
average of 1/6 idling (low) and 5/6 racing (throttle fully open)
Relatively new equipment type, sold in large numbers in recent years.
Noticably noisy, so possible market for quieter versions. Far east cheap
imports. There are two subcategories : the portable collectors which are
more suitable for domestic use, the non-portable which are attachments
to a truck.
Little.

New quieter collectors are coming onto the market.

Technical parameter
Main noise sources
Typical usage

Research proposals
Other remarks
Fan and aerodynamic design, quieter engines.

Large benefits for citizens. Possibly higher price required for quieter
versions, which may be acceptable given current high noise levels.
Combine with leaf blowers
196 / 235
36. Lift trucks
A wheeled, internal combustion-engine driven lift truck with

counterweight and lifting equipment (mast, telescopic arm or articulated
arm). These are rough terrain trucks, industrial trucks or container
handlers .
Make only one category with the two presents, 36a and 36b, adding
container handlers. The industrial trucks used indoor are excluded
because electrical. The present limit of 10t for industrial (article 13 to 12)
is not relevant. The containers handlers are straddle carriers or reach
stackers,
With a telescopic arm and a bucket, they are loaders. The declared
noise levels must be comparable,
Technical parameter
Installed power
Unit kW
Range(sP55;P>55
CE
Main noise sources
Engine (+exhaust+intake), fans, hydraulic
No
No
225 000 + 800 000
Typical usage
Months
10 Days
20 Minutes
240 Eve/Night
0
Tonality
0 Impact
0 Intermittent
6
60-65, high, together possibly higher
2.3
0
Art 12
101; 82 +11 lg P
Recommended limits (Stage I/II/stricter) stage II (decision ABEGJKM for 36a or 36b)
The directive test code must be modified, adding a 8 km/h speed limit
for drive condition and some information on the height level during the
lift condition,
Growth in construction market (rough terrain) because they are
multipurpose. Quieter models on the market, including first hybrid
Market situation
drives.
Quieter and well enclosed engines.
Quieter engines and alternative drive systems.
Effect of exhaust emission directive.
Benefits outweigh costs. Limited, due to price range of equipment.
Research proposals
Other remarks
197 / 235
37. Loaders (< 500kW)

Technical parameter
Main noise sources
Typical usage
Current compliance (label,DOC,limits)
Market situation

Research proposals
Other remarks
A self-propelled wheeled or crawler machine having an integral frontmounted bucket-supporting structure and linkage..
None
None
Unit kW
Range P55;P>55
Installed power
CE-diesel
Seldom
Bucket can radiate noise if scraped or impacted.
Dynamic
326,000
10 Days
20 Minutes
240 Eve/Night
0
Months
0 Impact
0 Intermittent
3
Tonality
95-120
96-114
59, high
1.2
3
Sufficient
Art. 12
101; 82 + 11 P; 103; 84 + 11 P (indicative, for tracked loaders)
100; 81 + 11 lg P (decision: ABEGJO, for tracked loaders ABEFHKM)
5 years
ISO DIS 6395:2006 (no essential changes to current edition)
Many manufacturers. Increase in compact loaders. Growth in construction
market.
Better engine enclosures, quieter fans, hydraulics dampers.
First hybrid drive systems coming on the market. Possibly more electronic
control, engine and cooling management, quieter hydraulics. New
Stage II limits may conflict with Exhaust directive requirements. Little
space available for noise reduction in mini-loaders. Further R&D effort
required to achieve stage II limits for tracked loaders.
Quieter engines, cooling systems and engine management. Reduction of
track noise by new materials or design solutions.
requirements.
198 / 235
36./37. new: Loading- and lifting equipment P 350 kW
36: A wheeled, internal combustion-engine driven lift truck with

counterweight and lifting equipment (mast, telescopic arm or articulated
arm). These are:
rough terrain trucks (wheeled counterbalanced trucks intended
primarily for operation on unimproved natural terrain and on disturbed
terrain of, e.g., construction sites)
other counterbalanced lift trucks, excluded are those
Current definitions (Directive)
counterbalanced lift trucks that are specifically constructed for container
handling.
37: A self-propelled wheeled or crawler machine having an integral frontmounted bucket-supporting structure and linkage, which loads or
excavates through forward motion of the machine, and lifts, transports
and discharges material.
Any wheeled or tracked combustion engine driven counterbalanced
equipment designed to pick up a load, to move it and to lift it to an upper
position. It may be one of the following subtypes: wheeled loader,
tracked loader, forklift, telehandler, straddle carrier, container handler,
New definition (Proposal)
reach stacker or a combination of these. It is equipped or can be
equipped with a front-mounted bucket, a telescopic boom or a vertical
mast
Wheeled, rubber tracked or steel tracked
Technical parameter
Installed power
Unit kW
Range P55;P>55
CE
Main noise sources
Engine (+exhaust+intake), fans, hydraulic
No
No
Typical field operation (high/medium/low high/mediun
550,000
Typical usage
Months
10 Days
20 Minutes
240 Eve/Night
0
Tonality
0 Impact
0 Intermittent
6
high
n.a.
0
Art 12
Art 12; Wheeled: 101; 82 +11 lg P; steel tracked: 106; 87 + 11 lg P
Recommended limits (Stage I/II/stricter) stage II (decision ABEGJKM)
5 years
Near to draft ISO 6395:2006. 50% driving, 50% lifting. The
hydraulic/lifting mode for non-loaders is replaced by lifting a load of 50%
of max load from a lower to a upper position and immediately down
again.
In driving mode the speed is limited to 8 km/h.
199 / 235
(36/37 Loading and lifting equipment contd.)
Market situation
Research proposals
Other remarks
Growth in construction market (rough terrain) because they are

multipurpose. Quieter models on the market, including first hybrid
drives.
Benefits outweigh costs. Limited, due to price range of equipment.
Defing lifting mode for different subtypes.
Simplification by summerizing two similar groups. Some universal
equipment available. Telehandlers are often attached with a bucket and
working like wheel loaders.
Former 10 to limit withdrawn because arbtrary. Small forklicfts are also
used outdoors at many business enterprises near to residental buidings.
200 / 235
38. Mobile cranes

Technical parameter
Main noise sources
Typical usage
Market situation
Research proposals
Other remarks
A self-powered jib crane capable of travelling, loaded or unloaded,

without the need for fixed runways and relying on gravity for stability.
None
None
Unit kW
Range
Installed power
P55, P>55
CE-Diesel
Engine (+exhaust+intake), fans, hydraulics
No
No
Dynamic
100,000
Months
10 Days
20 Minutes
60 Eve/Night
0
Tonality
0 Impact
0 Intermittent
3
95-120
97-113
48, medium
2.2
0
Sufficient.
Art. 12
101; 82+11 lg P (stage II)
stage II (decision: ABDM)
EN 13000:2004 (in line with current directive test code)
Growth in construction market. Increase in numbers of high buildings.
Limited, due to price range of equipment.
201 / 235
39. Mobile waste container

Technical parameter
Main noise sources
Typical usage
(High/medium/low)
Market situation

Research proposals
Other remarks
An appropriate designed container fitted with wheels intended to store

waste temporarily, and which is equipped with a cover.
None
None
Volume
Unit m3
Range(s)
0-10
None
Impact lid on container, rolling noise
No
Impact/rolling
Not applicable, no drive.
Urban/Suburban
100,000,000 (both steel and plastic)
Months
12 Days
5 Minutes
2 Eve/Night
0
Tonality
0 Impact
5 Intermittent
6
85-110 Highest levels for steel containers.
Insufficient data
77, very high. Large numbers, impact noise, daily use in residential
areas.
3.3
0
Probably insufficient, no data in database, no DOCs.
Art. 12
None, Art 13.
100/95 (ABEGJO)
5/8 years
No standard available except a French one (NF H 96-116) in line with
the directive code. Complicated measurements. Repeatibility and
reproducability poor, improve or renew test code.
Very large numbers in circulation. Increase due to recycling. Demand for
quiet containers from some municipalities. Quiet products are on the
market, especially plastic containers.
Many plastic types replacing steel ones. Some impact-absorbing
measures implemented and soft tyres.
Impact and rolling noise can be reduced. Steel containers can also be
made quieter with in addition, damping layers; also replacement by
plastic containers possible.
Cushioning of impacts; tyred or vibration isolated wheels; damped
plates and/or joints. Device for eliminating play.
Large benefits for relatively low costs.
None, technology is simple.
Data collection needs significant improvement.
202 / 235
40. Motor hoes (<3 kW)
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 ..
None
Extend to whole power range
Technical parameter
P3
Installed power
Unit kW
Range(s)
CE-petrol (2- or 4 stroke), diesel
Main noise sources
No
No
Typical field operation (high/medium/low High idle
Suburban, rural
1,000,000
Typical usage
Months
6 Days
5 Minutes
120 Eve/Night
0
Tonality
0 Impact
0 Intermittent
3
25, very low as mostly rural
2.0
3
Few DOCs
Art. 12 (current situation)
93
Recommended limits (Stage I/II/stricter) Remove from directive (Decision: ABDPR)
n.a.
Mainly used in agricultural sector, nurseries and large gardens. Also
rental. More common in southern Europe, but increasing in rest of EU.
Market situation
SMEs also producing.
Quieter engines, some 4-stroke replacing 2-stroke.
Quieter engines, enclosure/shieling and damping, improved
exhaust/intake
More 4-stroke engines, better exhaust/intake
Benefits do not outweigh costs.
Research proposals
Other remarks
If still in the directive, limit should be 15 kW
203 / 235
41a. Paver-finishers (equipped with a high-compaction screed)
A mobile road construction machine used for the purpose of applying

layers of construction material, such as bituminous mix, concrete and
gravel on surfaces.
None
None
Technical parameter
Installed power
Unit kW
Range P55, P>55
CE-Diesel
Main noise sources
Engine (+ exhaust and intake), fans, hydraulics, impacting screed
No
In some cases, impacting screed
10,000
Typical usage
Months
10 Days
15 Minutes
120 Eve/Night
0
Tonality
0 Impact
0 Intermittent
0
36, very low
2.5
0
None, Art. 13
Art. 13 (Decision: ABCQL)
None
Recommended limits (Stage I/II/stricter) None Art. 13
EN 500-6:2006
Market situation
Growth in construction and infrastructure sectors.
Quieter engines, cooling and hydraulics
New quieter engine types, cooling and hydraulics
None, no change
none
Research proposals
Other remarks
204 / 235
41b. Paver-finishers (excl. paver-finishers with high-compacting screed)
A mobile road construction machine used for the purpose of applying

layers of construction material, such as bituminous mix, concrete and
gravel on surfaces.
None
None
Technical parameter
Unit kW
Range P55, P>55
Installed power
CE-Diesel
Main noise sources
Engine (+ exhaust and intake), fans, hydraulics
No
No
10,000
Typical usage
Months
10 Days
15 Minutes
120 Eve/Night
0
Tonality
0 Impact
0 Intermittent
0
36,very low
1.6
0
Sufficient DOCS
No change, Art. 12
104, 85 + 11 lg P
Recommended limits (Stage I/II/stricter) 104, 85 + 11 lg P (Decision: ABCPM)
no change, stage I
EN 500-6:2006
Market situation
Growth in construction and infrastructure sectors.
Quieter engines, cooling and hydraulics
New quieter engine types, cooling and hydraulics
None, no change
none
Research proposals
Other remarks
205 / 235
42. Piling equipment

Pile installation and extraction equipment, e.g. impact hammers,
extractors, vibrators or static pile pushing/pulling
"Part of means pile installation and extraction equipment ,,,"
Excluding the power pack (electric or hydraulic) that are not on the
carrier machine,
Divide impacting, vibrating and static systems; exclude equipment
intended for offshore use 13 only (no limits)
kJ;
impact piling: impact energy;
Technical parameter
kgm
vibrators: static moment
Unit
Range
Engine diesel (+exhaust+intake) and/or Hydraulic power pack
Main noise sources
Pile and piling hammer/vibrator
Yes, for impact hammers and vibrators steel pile or profile
Yes
Typical field operation (high/medium/low Mixed
20,000
Typical usage
Months
10 Days
20 Minutes
60 Eve/Night
Tonality
5 Impact
5 Intermittent
6
72, very high, often associated with a high vibration level
4.0
3 (but potentially much larger)
Current compliance (label, DOC, limits) Unknown, some unlabelled equipment
Art 12 for vibrators , Art 13 for hammers, but R&D
None, Art 13.

Research proposals
Impacting systems: Investigate potential limit 100 + 11lg E, 95 + 11 lg E;

Vibrating systems 115/112; improve test method for both. (ABEGJO)
5 years/8 years
EN 996 A2:2003; Not applicable for horizontal piling equipment
Exclude noise emission from pile if possible.
Growth in construction market. Often specialised SMEs with systems in
high price range. System use depends on soil types, therefore varies
regionally.
Many studies performed in the past, some implemented. Quieter
hydraulic piling systems including system shrouds; enclosed and
isolated systems exist and are on the market.
Not much visible progress at present, except use of drilling and vibration
instead of hammering. Some diesel hammers could be quieter at
exhaust. More proof for contractors that vibratory systems can be a
viable quieter alternative to hammers.
Application of known solutions such as isolation, shielding, damping,
impact control.
Equipment is in high price range. Economic benefits of quieter
equipment may be significant given the many restrictions due to high
noise levels, also in non-EU countries, so potential export benefits.
Special impact materials, practical shroud systems, electronic control.
Other remarks
Possibilities to reduce the noise emission should be encouraged by

setting limits for the noise emitted by the machine itself.
Member states should consider usage restrictions for equipment
labelled with more than LWAd = 120 or make immission measurement
obligatory.

Market situation

206 / 235
43. Pipelayers

Technical parameter
Main noise sources
Typical usage
Market situation
Research proposals
Other remarks
A self-propelled crawler or wheeled machine specifically designed to

handle and lay pipes and carry pipeline equipment. .
None
None
Installed power
Unit kW
Range
CE-Diesel
No
No
Dynamic rpm
Urban/Suburban/rural
50,000
10 Days
20 Minutes
60 Eve/Night
Months
0 Impact
0 Intermittent
3
Tonality
105-130
108-125
57, high; population probably overestimated
2.8
3
Few DOCs
Art. 13
None, Art.13
None, Art.13 (decision ABDFIKL as EI medium)
ISO 6395 draft 2005 but no change to current directive
None, Art.13
None, Art.13
207 / 235
44. Piste caterpillars

Technical parameter
Main noise sources
Typical usage
Market situation
Research proposals
Other remarks
A self-propelled crawler machine used to exert a push or pull force on

snow and ice through mounted equipment.
None
None
Installed power
Unit kW
Range
CE-Diesel
Engine (+exhaust+intake), fan noise
No
No
Rural
Mountain regions (> 1000 meters)
5,000
Months
5 Days
30 Minutes
240 Eve/Night
5
Tonality
0 Impact
0 Intermittent
6
100-110
106-107 (few values)
26, very low, rural and low numbers
0.0
3
None, Art.13
n.a.
Remove from directive (Decision: ABCQR)
PrEN 15059:2004 / ISO DIS 6393
Little growth, climate change!
Use of available engines/fans
Application of low noise design principles
208 / 235
45a. Power generators (< 400 kW)

Combine with welding generators:
electrical generator producing a continuous supply of electrical power or
welding current.
None
Technical parameter
Unit kW
Range(s) 2; 2-10; 10
Electric power
Main noise sources
Engine (+exhaust+intake), enclosure, fan.
No.
No.
2,000,000
Typical usage
10 Days
30 Minutes
480 Eve/Night
Months
Tonality
0 Impact
0 Intermittent
0
60, high. Both home and professional use in construction, recreation,
(High/medium/low)
gardening and maintenance.
1.1
0
Current compliance (label, DOC, limits) Generally compliant
Art. 12.
95+lg P; 96+lg P; 95+lg P
Recommended limits (Stage I/II/stricter) 90; 93; 93+ 2 lg P (decision: ABEGJO)
5 years
ISO 8528-10:1999 should be used in the whole procedure and uniform
for power and welding generators
Market situation


Research proposals
Other remarks
Noise is frequently given as a sales argument and there are many low
noise models available on the market. Therefore there is demand.
silencers. Significant progress has been made due to market demand.
higher price. New exhaust emission regulations may cause some
design conflicts to retain current levels.
Small impact, given that many quiet models are already on the market.
Current limit calculation seems not to be suitable: limits for small
generators are unnecessarily high compared to that what's technical
feasible, but some difficulties to comply with generators near to 400 kW.
Unnecessarily noisy models should be excluded from the market. There
are some combined products (welding and power gerators) on the
market. Withdraw the limit of 400 kW (see 45b).
209 / 235
45b. Power generators ( 400 kW)

Technical parameter
Main noise sources
Typical usage
Market situation

Research proposals
Other remarks

None
None
Electric power
400 kW
Unit kW
Range
Mostly CE-diesel 4 stroke
No.
No.
High rpm.
200,000
Months
10 Days
30 Minutes
480 Eve/Night
0
Tonality
0 Impact
0 Intermittent
0
75-115
89-104
47, medium
0.7
0
Generally compliant
Art. 12.
None, Art. 13
93+ 2 lg P (decision: ABDFIN) Same limits as 45a
5 years
ISO 8510:1999 should be used in the whole procedure
Noise is frequently given as a sales argument and there are many low
noise models available on the market. Therefore there is demand.
silencers. Significant progress has been made due to market demand.
Unnecessarily noisy models should be excluded from the market.
Simply withdraw the limit of 400 kW.
210 / 235
46. Power sweepers (Road sweepers)

A sweeping collection machine having equipment to sweep debris into
the path of a suction inlet that would then pneumatically by way of a
high velocity airstream or with a mechanical pick-up system convey the
debris to a collection hopper. The sweeping and collecting devices may
either be mounted to a proprietary vehicular truck chassis or
incorporated into its own chassis embodiment. The equipment can be
fixed or demountable as in the case of an exchangeable bodywork
system.
Change name to Road sweepers. The PrEN 15429 definition for road
sweepers should be used in future:
Machine primarily to sweep material from traffic areas or highways, or
airports. 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. A 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.
Traffic areas are paved areas on which there is vehicular and or
pedestrian traffic (e. g. parking areas, market places pedestrian zones,
pavements, bicycle lanes, parking lots). Not included are rail tracks
which are solely for rail-mounted traffic, as well as traffic areas inside
buildings and underground.
Current definition on power sweepers includes industrial sweepers
which are mainly used indoors (outdoors only in industrial areas)
Technical parameter
Unit kW
Range <10 kW; 10 kW
Installed power
CE-Diesel
Main noise sources
Engine (+exhaust+intake), suction unit
No
No
Typical field operation (high/medium/low high
Urban/suburban
30,000
Typical usage
Months
12 Days
20 Minutes
240 Eve/Night
5
Tonality
0 Impact
0 Intermittent
0
49, medium
2.9
3
Art 13 -> 12
None (article 13)
Recommended limits (Stage I/II/stricter) 100; 90 + 11 * log P (decision:ABDFIN)
5 years
The power sweeper shall be tested in a stationary position. The engine
and auxiliary units operate at the highest speed for designated use for
the operation of the working equipment; the broom operates at its
highest speed, it is not in contact with the ground; the suction system
shall work at its maximum suction power the distance between ground
and mouth of the suction system not exceeding 25 mm. If the unit is
equiped with separate engines for driving and sweeping, the sweeping
engine is in use only.
211 / 235
(power sweepers contd.)
Market situation

Research proposals
Other remarks
Often small custom-designed batches ordered in small numbers.

Manufacturers are highly dependent on vehicle suppliers.
Low noise sweepers (German Blue Angel / NL Vamil / customer
demand) sometimes with reduced speed suction power only. Some with
quieter suction unit.
Application of low noise design principles.
Quieter engines, quieter fans
See general proposals for quieter engines or hybrid engines.
Road sweeper is a more exact term than power sweepers.
Limit power range to 350 kW. Calculation of limit value for 2-engine
units refer to the rated power of sweeping engine only. Availability of
know-how important for manufacturers, esp. SMEs.
212 / 235
47. Refuse Collection Vehicles
A vehicle designed for the collection and transportation of domestic and

bulky waste..
None
Technical parameter
None
Unit kW
Range
Installed power
CE-Diesel
Impacts by falling material/Bin against lift/Engine
Main noise sources
(+exhaust+intake)/hydraulics
No
Yes
Typical field operation (high/medium/low Dynamic
Urban/suburban
100.000
Typical usage
Months
12 Days
20 Minutes
360 Eve/Night
5
Tonality
0 Impact
0 Intermittent
6
Range of guaranteed sound power levels 101 -113
Very high, early morning and sometimes evening operation
4.5
0
Art 13 -> 12
None (article 13)
Recommended limits
107 decision (ABEFIN)
5 years
EN 101-4 (under preparation)
Growth (more recycling and waste separation). There is some demand
Market situation
in the market for quieter vehicles and some state incentives

Research proposals
Other remarks
Low noise trucks (German Blue Angel / NL Vamil / customer demand)

Damped impact plates / cushioned impact plates, quieter engines,
quieter hydraulics
Integration of quieter engines, hydraulics and impact plates, hybrid
drives
Low in relation to long term economic benefits to citizens. Slightly higher
price of quieter components, development costs of quieter system,
additional costs due to Art 12.
Availability of know-how important for manufacturers, esp. SMEs.
213 / 235
48. Road milling machines

A mobile machine used for removing material from paved surfaces
using a power-driven cylindrical body, on which surface ..
None
None
Technical parameter
Installed power
Unit kW
Range
P55, P>55
CE-Diesel
Main noise sources
Engine (+exhaust+intake), fans, milling tool
During milling
Relevant, but radiation from tool and attached components
40,000
Typical usage
Months
10 Days
15 Minutes
240 Eve/Night
0
Tonality
0 Impact
0 Intermittent
3
56, medium
2.3
3
Art. 13
None, Art. 13
Recommended limits (Stage I/II/stricter) 105; 86 + 11 lg P (decision: ABDFIN)
5 years
EN 500-2:2006
Market situation
quieter hydraulics.
Research proposals
Other remarks

214 / 235
49. Scarifiers
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..
None
None
Technical parameter
Unit kW
Range
Power
CE, electric
Main noise sources
Engine, blade, although balde noise is less due to no grass removal
None
None
Typical field operation (high/medium/low High idle
1,000,000
Typical usage
Months
4 Days
10 Minutes
60 Eve/Night
0
Tonality
0 Impact
5 Intermittent
6
50, medium
2.8
3
Limited amount of DOCS
CE to art. 12, electrical remain in art. 13
Art. 13
Recommended limits (Stage I/II/stricter) CE: 97 + 2 lg P (Decision: ABDFIN)
5 years
EN 13684:2007
Hard price competition and low demand for low noise equipment; unfair
Market situation
competition from far east.
2-stroke engines replaced by 4-stroke engines.
Maximum speed has to be fixed without possibility of change by the
user; more electric scarifiers by enhenced battery technology;
Low
Research proposals
Other remarks
215 / 235
50. Shredders/chippers
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.
None
None
Technical parameter
Unit kW
Range
Installed power
CE 2 stroke petrol, 4 stroke petrol/diesel, Electric.
Main noise sources
Shredding process(radiation from tool and platework), Engine.
Mostly not.
In many cases
Suburban/Urban/Rural
1,000,000
Typical usage
Months
4 Days
10 Minutes
120 Eve/Night
0
Tonality
0 Impact
5 Intermittent
6
64, high
3.3
0
Current compliance (label, DOC, limits) labelled
Art. 12
None, Art. 13
Recommended limits (Stage I/II/stricter) CE: 109; electric: 99 (decision: ABEGJO)
5 years
EN 13683 (Garden), EN 13525 (Forestry)
Many manufacturers, many SMEs producing a wide variety of models.
Increasing numbers on consumer market, including very noisy ones.
Market situation
Also low noise models on the market, advertised as such.
As there are no noise limits, there are still some rather noisy models
sold, even by larger manufacturers. Quieter models include cutting tools
with lower impact force, cushioned and damped cutting enclusure and
Simple application of known principles, tools and materials is required.
For larger equipment, possibly combination of quiet power generator
with electrical drive. Quieter cutting tools and new shredding principles.
Apply existing solutions.
Given the low implementation costs of quieter technology and the high
benefits for citizens, very low economic impact.
Research proposals
None.
Other remarks
Equipment used in private gardens is nearly exclusively electrically

powered. For this application less noisy low speed cutters are available
at a fair price. Drive noisy high speed cutters out of the market.
216 / 235
51. Snow-removing engine with rotating tools (self propelled, excl. attachments)
<picture m
A machine with which snow can be removed from traffic areas by
rotating means, accelerated and ejected by blower means.
Include snow ploughs and snow sweepers?
None
Technical parameter
Unit kW
Range
Installed power
CE, petrol, diesel
Main noise sources
Engine (+exhaust+intake), blower, blade scraping, snow blowing
None
Not dominant
10,000, probably much higher
Typical usage
Months
4 Days
5 Minutes
120 Eve/Night
Tonality
0 Impact
0 Intermittent
3
31, very low
2.4
3
None, Art. 13
No change, Art. 13
Art. 13
Recommended limits (Stage I/II/stricter) None (Decision: ABCQL)
No EN or ISO standard available, no change
Market situation
Increased number in tourist areas; also private use.
Current engine technology
Quieter engines, blowers.
Application of low noise design principles.
Benefits not expected to outweight costs.
Research proposals
Other remarks
217 / 235
52. Suction vehicles

A vehicle equipped with a device to collect water, mud, sludge, refuse or
similar material from sewers or similar installations by means of a
vacuum.
None
Technical parameter
Unit kW
Range
Installed power
CE, diesel
Main noise sources
Engine (+exhaust+intake), hydraulics, pumps and suction
No
In some cases suction
Typical field operation (high/medium/low High idle, loaded
10,000
Typical usage
Months
10 Days
10 Minutes
60 Eve/Night
0
Tonality
5 Impact
5 Intermittent
3
41, low (Hans check, you put medium in your table)
1.1
3
No docs
Art. 12
None, art. 13
109 (decision: ABDPM), as it should be combined with types 7 and 26;
Recommended limits (Stage I/II/stricter) then the environmental impact is medium.
5 years
trucks (German Blue Angel / NL Vamil / customer demand. Many
Market situation
SMEs).
and pumps
Research proposals
Other remarks
218 / 235
53. Tower cranes
<picture m
A slewing jib crane with the jib located at the top of a tower which stays
approximately vertical in the working position.
None
None
Technical parameter
Installed power
Unit kW
Range
Mostly electric, but a few CE powered.
Main noise sources
Electric motor, gear transmission
No
No
Typical field operation (high/medium/low Normal rpm
Urban/Suburban
20,000
Typical usage
Months
10 Days
20 Minutes
60 Eve/Night
0
Tonality
0 Impact
0 Intermittent
3
31, very low; relatively low numbers and low noise levels
2.7
0
Art. 12
96 + lg P
Recommended limits (Stage I/II/stricter) 96 + lg P (decision: ABCPM)
no change
Growth in construction market, increase in high buildings. More folding
Market situation
cranes coming on the market.
Quieter gear transmissions, more electric drives, smoother operation.
Limited as noise levels are already low. In some cases better isolation
or higher quality of the transmission.
Possibly quieter gear transmissions.
Costs probably exceed benefits
Research proposals
Other remarks
New mobile tower cranes powered by vehicle engine
219 / 235
54. Trenchers
<picture m
A self-propelled, ride-on or pedestrian-controlled, crawler or wheeled
machine, having a front- or rear-mounted excavator linkage and
attachment, primarily designed to produce trenches
None
None
Technical parameter
Unit kW
Range
Installed power
CE, diesel and petrol
Main noise sources
Engine (+exhaust+intake), fan, scraping/impacting
None
Scrapping
20,000
Typical usage
Months
10 Days
20 Minutes
120 Eve/Night
Tonality
0 Impact
0 Intermittent
3
44, low
1.4
3
None, Art. 13
Art. 13
n.a.
Market situation
Research proposals
Other remarks
Remove from directive (decision: ABCQR)

No EN or ISO standard available
Growth in construction market. Increasing number of models for various
situations, including tight access.
Quieter engines, hydraulics and enclosures
Quieter engines and hydraulics, application of low noise design
principles.
Engine and cooling management, quieter engines, enclosures and
cooling, quieter hydraulics, vibration isolation. Damping where relevant.
220 / 235
55. Truck mixers

A vehicle which is equipped with a drum to transport ready-mixed
concrete from the concrete mixing plant to the job site.
None
None
3
Drum capacity
Range
Unit m
CE-Diesel
Engine (+exhaust+intake), fans, hydraulic transmission, noise radiation
Main noise sources
of drum during mixing, and dumping
No
Present but not dominant
50,000 potentially more
Typical usage
Months
10 Days
20 Minutes
120 Eve/Night
0
Tonality
0 Impact
0 Intermittent
3
60, high
2.8
3
No, Art. 13
Art. 13 -> 12
None, Art. 13
Recommended limits (Stage I/II/stricter) 104; 85 + 11 lg P (Decision: ABEGJO)
5 years
No EN or ISO standard available, no change
Growth in construction market. Common vehicle. Dependency on truck
Market situation
manufacturers.
Mainly on truck engines
Damped drum.
Little expected for new limit.
Quieter engines, cooling systems and engine management. Durable
Research proposals
solutions for damping drum.
Other remarks
requirements.

Technical parameter
221 / 235
56. Waterpump (not for under water)


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.
Include swimming pool pumps
P 35 kW;
Technical parameter
Main noise sources
Typical usage
Installed power
EN 12639:2000
Growth in construction sector. Wide application range. Large numbers
for both home and professional use. Growing number of garden pools
and ponds with growing economy. Also cheap imports.
Quieter pumps and engines, more electrically powered pumps.
Mostly application of known technology, such as encosures, quieter
pump and drive types.
Market situation
Research proposals
Other remarks
Unit
kW
Engine (+exhaust+intake), fan, pump

No
Pumping noise for electrically powered pumps
High rpm
1,000,000
Months
12 Days
30 Minutes
Tonality
0 Impact
0 Intermittent
64-117
64-117
63, high
3.0
0
Sufficient
Art. 12
None, Art. 13.
99; 82 + 11 lg P (decision: ABEGJO)
5 years
Mostly application of known technology

Benefits outweight costs for citizens.
Range P > 35 kW
960 Eve/Night
0
222 / 235
57. Welding generators
Any rotary device which produces a welding current.

Combine with 45 power generators:
electrical generator producing a continuous supply of electrical power or
welding current.
None
Technical parameter
Electric power
Unit kW
Range(s) <2; 2-10; 10
Main noise sources
No.
No.
1,000,000
Typical usage
Months
10 Days
20 Minutes
360 Eve/Night
0
Tonality
0 Impact
0 Intermittent
0
54, medium
0,1
0
Current compliance (label, DOC, limits) Unknown
Art. 12.
95+lg P; 96+lg P; 95+lg P
Recommended limits (Stage I/II/stricter) 90; 93; 93+ 2 lg P (decision: ABDM) but new limit formula
5 years
ISO 8528-10:1999 should be used in the whole procedure and uniform
for power and welding generators
Growth in construction market. Similar technology for power generators,
but smaller market. There are some combined products (welding and
Market situation
power generators) on the market.
silencers.
Further reductions may be more difficult for powerful model types but
easy in the class of smaller units.
Research proposals
Current limit calculation seems not to be suitable: limits for small
generators are unneessarily high compared to what is technically
feasible. Unnecessarily noisy models should be excluded from the
Other remarks
market.
223 / 235
100/103. Airco/ventilation equipment and heat pumps
- Cooling or air-conditioning apparatus for mounting on the outside of a

building, for the purpose of supplying cooled or fresh air into the
building;
New definition
- device for transferring thermal energy, designated for use for dwellings
n.a.
n.a.
Technical parameter
Electrical power
Unit kW
Range
Electric
Main noise sources
Fan, compressor
No
No
Typical field operation (high/medium/low High/low rpm
10,000,000
Typical usage
Months
5 Days
15 Minutes
720 Eve/Night
5
Tonality
0 Impact
0 Intermittent
0
Range of guaranteed sound power levels n.a.
66, high; especially in warmer climate and increasing with climate
(High/medium/low)
change
n.a.
n.a.
Current compliance (label, DOC, limits) n.a.
Art. 12/Art.12
None
Recommended limits (Stage I/II/stricter) To be investigated.
5 years/8years
PrEN 12102:2005
Large numbers in cities in warm climates; increasing numbers in
Market situation
northern EU. Limited number of large companies.
Quieter fans and compressors
Further design optimisation of fans and cooling system
Mainly application of known techniques.
Benefits for citizens outweight costs.
German UBA (Federal Environmental Agency) is providing an
Research proposals
investigation on possible limits
Check whether this type of equipment can be included in the Directive.
Other remarks
Scope of equipment to include requires further investigation.
224 / 235
103/102. Mobile waste breakers and screens

Technical parameter
Main noise sources
A mobile machine for sorting, crushing and/or screening construction or

other recycling debris including stone, concrete, asfalt, wood, refuse
and other materials.
Combined with mobile sieve machines (screens)
Installed power
Unit kW
Range
CE-Diesel
Engine (+exhaust+intake), fans, hydraulics, crusher, screens, rubble
Sometimes rubble or material impacting, however, machinery platework
may radiate noise.
In some cases.
20,000
Typical usage
Months
10 Days
20 Minutes
240 Eve/Night
0
Tonality
5 Impact
5 Intermittent
3
63 (55 for sieves/screens); high/medium
n.a.
n.a.
Current compliance (label, DOC, limits) n.a.
Art. 13 / Art. 12
None
Recommended limits (Stage I/II/stricter) 84 + 11 lg P (decision: ABEFIN / ABDL)
Art. 13 in 5 years / Art. 12 after 8 years
No EN or ISO standard available only German DIN 45635-31. Mobile
Breakers must be measured under the conditions of intended use.
Engines have to run at least at the speed of rated power.
Inceased use due to benefits of local debris recycling and increased
recycling, saving on material transportation. Some machines on market
as 'low noise'. Variety of SMEs and large companies producing, both in
Market situation
EU and outside EU.
Unclear due to large variety in market.
Quieter engines and processes, process noise optimisation
Quieter engines/exhaust, process optimisation also for noise, impact
reduction/ isolation/damping and/or shielding.
Benefits outweigh costs
Research proposals
Further acoustic analysis required fro various machine types.
Standardisation urgently needed!
Other remarks
Market is also significant for mining/quarry sector.
225 / 235
107. Mobile cranes for harbours and terminals

Technical parameter
<picture m
Wheeled portal, gantry or boom cranes, running on a track or hard
surface.
New type
Installed power
Unit kW
Range
Electric or CE-diesel
Winch enclosure: motor/engine, alternator/converters, gears, cooling
fans; trolley: rolling noise, cable runner impacts; container: impacts with
Main noise sources
spreader and ground.
Impact noise from containers
Trolley, winch, spreader
Typical field operation (high/medium/low Work cycle including trolley movement, hoisting and lifting, spreader
idling / dynamic)
onto container, crane moving.
Urban or rural
20,000
Typical usage
Months
10 Days
20 Minutes
240 Eve/Night
5
Tonality
0 Impact
0 Intermittent
3
55, medium; harbours and terminals in town/city centres; vicinity of
(High/medium/low)
terminals to residential areas can be a problem.
n.a.
n.a.
n.a.
New, Art. 13 (Decision: ABDQL)
n.a.
Recommended limits (Stage I/II/stricter) n.a.
To be investigated; mobile harbour cranes like mobile cranes(38).
No EN or ISO standard available for portal cranes only German
DIN 54635-61:1990
Growth in transportation of containers by water and rail. Manufacturers
already have market requirements for noise, but lack of common
Market situation
standards. Cheaper imports from far east.
Enclosed machine room, smooth trolley wheels and rails, damped
structures, electronic control for hoisting and stabilising, padded cable
runners.
Further reduction of drive and transmission, electrical, winch and trolley
noise, reduction of impacts.
Small effort required, mainly measuring according to the standard;
implementing available solutions and good design.
Research proposals
Other remarks
226 / 235
109. Motorized brooms
Technical parameter
Main noise sources
Typical usage
Recommended limits
Market situation
Research proposals
Other remarks
None
The EN 12733 definition for motorized brooms should be used:
A pedestrian controlled, self-propelled machine, with front mounted
sweeping attachments, with sweeping and/or collecting system.
This self-propelled machine is controlled by the operator walking behind
the unit.
None
Unit kW
Range <10 kW; 10 kW
Installed power
CE-petrol/diesel
No
No
High rpm
Urban/suburban
20,000 (growth expected)
Months
12 Days
20 Minutes
240 Eve/Night
0
Tonality
0 Impact
0 Intermittent
0
95-110
43, Low, but potentially increasing
Unknown
Unknown
New
Art 13
None, Art 13 (decision: ABCL)
None
The motorized broom shall be tested in a stationary position. The

engine and auxiliary units operate at the highest peed for destinated use
for the operation of the working equipment; the broom operates at its
highest speed, it is not in contact with the ground
Relatively new equipment type, therefore potential growth. Also used for
snow and weed removal. Small handheld units also emerging, similar to
grass trimmer units.
Relatively new; as in compact engines.
Small impact if only in article 13.
See general proposals for quieter compact engines.
Very often multi-purpose units to be equippped with different types of
attachment (broom is one of many)
227 / 235
111. Snowmobiles
None
Engine driven track equipped vehicle with a maximum service weight of

400 kilograms built to transport persons or freight across snow and ice
None
Installed power
Unit kW
Range
CE-petrol, 2-stroke/4stroke
No
No
Transport: medium rpm; Sports use: high rpm.
Rural
300.000
Months
4 Days
10 Minutes
120 Eve/Night
0
Tonality
0 Impact
0 Intermittent
6
100 - 120
none
overall EC very low but severe local problems in Sweden
n.a.
n.a.
n.a.
Art. 12
None
107 / 105 (decision: AEGJO)
5 years / 8 years
Nordic proposal with special adaption into 2000/14/EC.
See more details in chapter 10.1.2
Market situation
1 SME manufacturer in EU, other large non-EU companies. Quieter

engines sometimes mentioned as advantage.
Technical parameter
Main noise sources
Typical usage
Recommended limits

Research proposals
Other remarks
Application of currently available engines. Trend towards 4 stroke.

Differentiation in engine type per application. Power determined by
'escape from deep snow' or sports requirements.
Lower engine noise, rpm control.
Quieter engines
Benefits may not outweigh the costs for industry in EU.
Alternative may be a separate European directive for snow mobiles
supplementing 97/27/EC
10.2
228 / 235
General Instruments
General instruments for reduction of noise from outdoor equipment are given in this
section. These instruments cover a broad range, not only research proposals but also
financial, technical, legislative and other types of instruments. A compact overview of
proposed instruments is given in table 10.1. Some of the most relevant instruments are
discussed in the following subsections.
10.2.1
Market Surveillance and Enforcement

One of the instruments for noise reduction is to ensure the effective application of the
Directive in EU member states. This can only be achieved through well managed
Market Surveillance activities in each member state. Such activity should ensure that
those responsible persons placing equipment on the EU market, take account of and
ensure that affected equipment are compliant with Directive 2000/14/EC.
It is apparent that such market activities are not always effectively applied by some
member states. For example at the recent Munich - BAUMA Exhibition in April 2007
less than 70% of affected equipment displayed noise label marking compliance. This
was evident in a spot check survey taken across a wide variety of different equipment
categories. Equipment from smaller far eastern manufacturers and others from some
European fringe country manufacturers, such as Turkish compressor/generator products
for example, were openly offered for sale and displayed without noise labels or any
supporting notice that the manufacturers intend to bring such equipment into
compliance.
At the UKs equivalent SED exhibition at Milton Keynes in 2006, a similar spot check
survey showed more than 95% compliance from exhibitors. Such variation in effective
market surveillance has drawn comment from various manufacturers in the UK Industry
questionnaire responses. Further reductions in noise limits will only be effective as an
instrument for noise reduction, if these reductions are properly enforced with effective
surveillance activity.
Such activity can be assisted with up to date information from Declarations of
Conformity ( DOCs ) at the central Commission database in Brussels. A UK industry
body BCAS referred in the industry survey to DOC data supplied by their members
in August 06, as still not appearing on this database in April 07. A database populated
by manufacturers in real time would better assist surveillance Authorities to be more
effective in policing the market. This would assist as one instrument to aid noise
reduction in the EU marketplace.
229 / 235
Table 10.1 General instruments for reduction of noise from outdoor equipment.
Instrument
Main effect
Key players
Better market
surveillance
Compliance with the EU, Member states

directive and improved
market situation
Technical/financial/p EU/National
olitical/regulatory/co
mmunication
Political/regulatory
EU/National
Currently
implemented
UK, B,
1
Automated data
2 collection
Revised Model DOC
with enhanced
information.
Correct values in EC
database
Assist Market
Surveillance
Authorities to test
product correctly.
Better consumer
information.
Information to industry More complete data
to provide declared
data to EC
Simplified or improved Better understanding
noise marking system by the purchaser and
the public of the noise
emission
New approach
Simplify regulation;
Directive; synergy with simplify amendment
process
other directives
Voluntary agreements Speeding up of overall
noise abatement,
more progress on
noise reduction
EU
Technical
EU
EU
Market Surveillance
authorities.
Consumers
Technical/Regulatory
EU
UK database , Where
enhanced data is
stated
EU, Member states
Communication
EU/National
Technical/regulatory
EU
Regulatory/political
EU
Industry/contractors/G
ovt.
Political
EU/National
Govt./Industry
Financial
EU/National
Govt./ industry/
experts
Communication /
technical
EU/National
Financial
National
NL(VAMIL), D (Blue
Angel)
Local authorities
Regulatory
National
NL,D,F.
Contractors/local
authorities
Regulatory/technical
National
NL,D,F.
Technical
National
D,NL,I,.
Regulatory
National
NL (Peak)
Regulatory
National
EU, Industry
EU, Member states
Example Machinery
Directive or Railway
noise TSI
10
11
Member State and EU Potentially, new

funding for research solutions for
and development
abatement or further
noise reduction
Better understanding
Information to
of noise effects and
stakeholders
potential solutions
Financial (or other)
Encourage quieter
incentives for
equipment on the
purchase of quieter
market
equipment
Local usage
Reduce noise at
restrictions
sensitive times
Noise planning
Minimise noise impact
by planning of the
noise emission and
possible reduction
Member states
EU (CALM, Nomeval
etc)
12
Procurement of
quieter equipment
Overall noise
reduction
13
Noise reception limits Limiting noise in the
neighbourhood
14
Noise emission ceiling
15 Leq or Lmax
Monitoring
16
Public
consultation(online
17 questionnaires)
Collection of
complaints
18
Limiting noise in the

neighbourhood
Ensuring compliance
Better assessment of
environmental impact
and annoyance
Better assessment of
and annoyance
Local authorities,
contractors,
companies
Govt./Municipal
auth./contractors/oper
ators
Govt./Municipal auth.
Municipal auth./
contractors
Govt/EU/local
authorities
Techn./regul.
National
F,
Communication /
technical
EU/National
Partly
Govt./local authorities
Technical
EU/National
230 / 235
(table 10.1 continued)
Integrated programme
on tackling all aspects
of outdoor equipment
noise:
behaviour/planning/qui
eter
equipment/communic
ation/implementation
Stronger positive
by improved
understanding and
solutions
All stakeholders (see Technical/Communica

NL example peak
tion/Financial/political
programme)
EU/National
NL, for mobile cooling

eqt. (peak
programme)
19
Indicative noise
prediction scheme to
improve interface
20 manufacturers/users
Research on improved
measurement
methods and
uncertainty
21
Research on noise vs.
usage/wear and life of
22 machinery
Research on
annoyance and
23 metrics and effects
Database of in situ
sound power levels
24
Creating an incentive
to the manufacturers
for competition by
noise emission: Feed
back by the market of
i. e. longer usage-time
by lower level
25
Consideration of all
noise sources without
political preference
(i.e. agriculture)
26
Creating an incentive
to the manufacturers
for voluntary noise
27 certification
Enable users to
predict approximate in
situ noise emission
Industry
Technical
EU/National
Lower uncertainty,
more representative
methods
Nobos/Research orgs.
Technical
EU/National
Potential benefits for

in situ noise
Research orgs.
Technical
EU/National
Improved
understanding of
environmental impacts
Research orgs.
Technical
EU/National
Use for prediction

tools; comparison with
declared data
Economic benefit to
produce low noise
equipment
Consultants
Technical
EU/National
EC, Member states
Market
EU/National
Reduce noise at all

areas
EC, Member states
Political,
Administrative
EU/National
Concentration of
market surveilence to
non-certified products
EU, Member states
Administrative/Market
EU
B,
D,
Another would be to have more comprehensive information on the DOC such as the
engine speed at which the noise reading was taken. This would enable verification tests
by market surveillance authorities to ensure that equipment parameters critical for
compliance are more easily verified. All European Type approved motorcycles for
example carry a noise marking at a specific identified engine speed on the data plate of
the vehicle. Such marking can assist in the surveillance checking activity as this
information is not always present in the Technical file despite its importance in the
measured result.
Without information on the critical parameters, such as net installed power, mass, or
cutting width of blade added to the DOC, the analysis of compliance by market
surveillance authorities is severely weakened. Similarly analysis of the central database
for the purposes of examination of potential future noise reduction possibilities is also
hampered. VCA along with Enforcement officers from Belgium and Sweden have
231 / 235
proposed a new model DOC to address this concern and the content of this is shown at
figure 10.1 below.
The advantages of the Figure 10.1 MODEL DOC as developed by UK/Belgium and
Sweden are as follows :
Numeric coding on left makes for easier information location and aids relevant
information translation into other EU languages.
Numeric coding will also facilitate an easier move to a database entry system
populated by the manufacturer in the future in order to reduce transcription
errors and provide real time updates.
Type is not always as described in the Directive and leads to errors of

classification , adding item 0.1 should resolve that.
Commercial name/branding makes it easier to locate who is the responsible

person placing on the market.
The addition of Serial number is optional but is relevant relevant for single
unit verification.
The Conformity Assessment procedure used is clarified to both the user and
reader of form by tick boxes and added explanation.
Provision is there to add compliance to other Directives e.g. Machinery
A Brief Description of equipment now added on page 2 to add relevant

technical parameters to ensure limit values are obeyed
The Permissable sound power levels cannot be established without these

parameters identified in tem 2( pg 2) completed.
Comments received from some of the newer EU members MS Authorities such as

Lithuania and Estonia consider that equipment used in the Urban/Residential
environments, such as chain saws, compaction machines, leaf blowers and brush
cutters are critical for noise and they believe that stricter limits are appropriate.
Conversly, Motor Hoes used for infrequent/seasonal use, should be considered for
removal from the noise limited category.
The effectiveness of MS authorities as an instrument for noise reduction in the real
world is critical in effecting real reductions in the marketplace. It was disappointing to
note that whilst many new EU member states contributed with comments in the MS
Authorities survey on their market surveillance activities, some larger well established
EU member states, such as Germany, France, Spain and Italy did not provide any
survey contribution. Comments on the effectiveness of MS Authority surveillance as an
instrument for noise reduction in these member states cannot therefore be commented
on.
(continued on next page)
232 / 235
233 / 235
Figure 10.1 Proposed new model Declaration of Conformity
10.2.2
Notified Bodies
The Notified Bodies must be called upon by the manufacturer according to the directive
if a product subject to limits listed under Article 12 will be placed on the market,
whereby the manufacturer presently can select between 3 different conformity
assessment procedures pursuant to Annex VI, VII or VIII.
For the 27 member states and Norway, presently 73 bodies have been notified for the
2000/14/EC. Frequently, they are a part of larger test organizations, yet they usually
still are rather small organizational units with 1 2 persons who aside from performing
this task for the government also pursue other acoustic technical assignments in order to
ensure economical survival.
The acoustical technical expertise of the NBs is assessed as highly competent.
However, since the number of notified bodies in some of the Member States does not
represent a meaningful relation to the number of manufacturers operating, the
experience of applying the directive has not been uniform. A distinct irregularity can
also be observed as far as working conditions are concerned. Of the 18 NBs that
participated in the NOMEVAL survey, only one third (1/3) are subjected to
accreditation by an independent accreditation body for the legally ruled areas and
thereby render proof of compliance with ISO 17025 for test laboratories and ISO 45011
and/or ISO 54012 standards for the certification. Most of the accreditations that are
being addressed by environmental ministries and/or ministries for economics are those
who do not always require compliance with a.m. standards. In some Member States it is
also possible to act as certifying body without having to render proof of competence for
testing. Therefore, during the course of a revision of the directive, the accreditation
procedure must be regulated more precisely and, most of all, a uniform accreditation
procedure by an independent accreditation office pursuant to the international
234 / 235
accreditation rules described above must be demanded as standard, whereby the

accredited body itself must proceed according to ISO 17011 and should be obliged by a
European WG to follow uniform assessment methods.
The compulsory involvement of notified bodies has proved successful for European
politics for noise limits for over 20 years. Foremost, it ensures the existence of smaller
NBs and the preservation of acoustic technical competence. If you compare the
adherence to prescriptions on hand of the data bank analysis of products according to
Article 12 with products of Article 13, the regulating effect of the NBs immediately
becomes apparent. And still, reflections as to how the certification costs can be offset
by adequate economic benefits to the manufacturer are necessary. This can be effected,
for example, by affording the certification (also voluntary for Article 13 equipment) an
economic advantage. If an NB certifies the conformity of a product, the market
surveillance for this product can then be abolished and/or it can be limited to the check
Existence of valid certification contract with NB. Thus, the manufacturer will not
encounter economic risks and at the same time, the MS will be relieved and can
concentrate on non-certified products. The separation of NB and market surveillance
demanded by Blue Guide will therefore not be put to question. A uniform quality level
of the NBs would be supportive to this approach, it also could be achieved by uniform
accreditation regulations and monitoring of NBs by the accreditation bodies.
For market surveillance purposes, the NBs can also call upon measuring technical
service providers. In these cases, it must be verified that there are no business relations
between the manufacturer of the product to be measured and the NB, nor one that has
existed during the past (e.g. 3 years). However, the initiative for surveillance measures
and the assessment of the results must be initiated by the authorities, in all cases.
Because these ideas are stirring the NBs up just a bit, being the same voluntary
institution as they are in the new machinery directive, it is necessary to point out a
fundamental difference between machinery and noise regulation. In the machinery
directive field, the market itself is the major market surveillance agent. The product
buyer is the user (consumer market) or a company obliged to fulfil a work regulation
and to improve worker safety. So, if the buyer finds that the product is bad/dangerous,
he can use the machinery directive to oblige the manufacturer (via the dealer) to correct
it. In the outdoor directive, for a noisy product, it is different. First, the people who
complain are very often not the product buyer/user, they cannot easily oblige the
producer to lower the noise. Second, it is expensive to prove the product default. So, the
noise directive demands more controls to be conducted and the best means to do this is
the approval by an NB before putting the product on the market.
10.2.3
Noise Policy
As equipment is frequently used at various locations in succession or is used at one
location only for a very short time, considerable noise disturbance occurs without being
taken into account in noise reception limits. This is one of the reasons for the existence
of the Outdoor Machinery Noise Directive. Since this equipment even though part of
it is not covered by the definition of the Machinery Directive is subject to the free
movement of goods within the European Union, noise emission limits are a meaningful
approach to the actual immission reduction envisaged. The importance of these limits
becomes even greater with larger population density (number affected) and greater
prosperity (number of construction sites, equipped with power tools and recreational
machinery). There is no reason to reduce noise if there is no disturbance.
235 / 235
The CALM-project has set as its goal lately to cut the annoyance to 50% by the year
2020. But annoyance is always a subjective impression of a person affected: it is
influenced by the personal situation, attitude and psychological factors. So it would be
necessary first to define annoyance by objective and reproducible criteria before
trying to put this into legislation. Limiting of the sound power level is probably the
simplest approach. The environmental impact indicator contains some new elements
related to annoyance and may be part of a future solution for this question.
Another advantage of limiting the sound power level of outdoor noise equipment is
simply the listing of relevant machinery groups. It may be used by the Member States to
issue operating restrictions during the phase of transposition into national law and to
grant low-noise equipment longer operating times.
10.2.4
Market for low noise products

An essential problem in noise protection of outdoor equipment is that there is no
functioning market for low noise products. In the case of noise emission the user and
the buyer of the equipment are not identically affected by the noise. The buyer/user
wants to get done with his work in a quick and cost effective way. Thereby, noise
emissions are of second rate and thus, not of interest. Therefore, the necessity to procure
expensive, low-noise equipment does not make sense to them. If only once I want to cut
down a tree, I will buy the cheapest equipment. This type of behaviour is being
supported by an advertisement that makes believe that the price is the essential product
characteristic.
Therefore an incentive to buy low-noise products must be supported in an artificial
manner. A good example (yet not to be applied to all of Europe) is the NL VAMIL
regulation. If low-noise products can enjoy benefits from value-added tax issues (see
proposal Sarkozy), they will encounter greater market opportunities! 10% benefit seems
to be necessary or cutting the VAT into half. Possibly the eco-label (1980/2000/EC)
could be upgraded with strict criteria for product relevant noise limits.
10.2.5
Research and Development

Generally, R&D should focus on the development of new less noisy work processes
(e.g. cutting of stone, wood, grass). It might be helpful, if developments of new low
noise technologies were supported by offering lucrative rewards.
Before considering the technical R&D items, there are there are some basic acoustical
fields to be developed urgently:
a broadly accepted Annoyance indicator which can be used for laws, ordinances, or
standards (see chapter 10.2.3);
Improvement of the Environmental Impact indicator (EI)
Establishing a definition of Noisy Machinery and Quiet Machinery.
In the technical field, particularly the following issues urgently need addressing to
enable more noise reduction:
Accumulators with more performance and less weight would enable electrical and
thus, quieter operation and encourage the usage of hybrid drives.
Applied research for liquid sound insulation in hydraulic systems and for the
development of low-noise hydraulic power transmission (involve manufacturers).
Quieter compact combustion engines, especially for powerful handheld machines
such as chainsaws.
236 / 235
A wider public online survey on outdoor machinery noise would be a useful tool to
establish a broader picture of real annoyance in Europe, and to cross-check with an
updated environmental indicator scorecard.
10.2.6
Information and Public Relations

The noise label of 2000/14/EC should also serve the buyers decision in consiously
selecting a low-noise product. It is assumed that this objective is far from achieved.
Only few know the meaning of LWA or how to interpret the difference of 3 dB as being
double/half of the sound emission.
Apart from marking that is adequate to the consumers (which must also be published in
leaflets and visible on the boxes in the case of series goods) a general informing of the
public and those who purchase professional equipment is the minimum duty of Member
States.
With reference to the purchaser:
the sense of urgency to buy and use low-noise equipment is lacking;
it is unknown how to gain access to the EU-data base.
If the directive is not applicable to electrically operated equipment, there will be no
comparison possibilities for the consumer.
With reference to the User:
Especially disturbing noise is that of equipment being misused, such as
- smashing of excavator shovel onto concrete plate to crash it
- removal of weed growing through the gaps of a walkway paved with concrete slabs
with a brush cutter.
Promotion of low noise products and low noise behaviour seldom occurs, due to a lack
of awareness. Awareness can be developed and influenced, to a certain extent.
11
237 / 235
Conclusions and recommendations

A study has been performed to evaluate the 2000/14/EC Outdoor machinery Noise
Directive. The following conclusions are drawn and recommendations made.
11.1
EC database and statistical analysis

From the assessment of the EC database it can be concluded that it could be used for the
Some data errors were eliminated from the analysis were possible. However it was not
always clear whether actuial entered level were correct or not, although generally the
equipment types and models seemed correct. Such errors could be prevented in future
by automated data input checking.
- the technical parameter is often missing and not always defined, especially for article
13 equipment;
- much data from major manufacturers are obviously missing;
The results of the statistical analysis were used where possible and considered
acceptable as a background reference for the proposals for limit changes.
The recently introduced direct electronic entry and corrections of the DOCs by the
manufacturers, eliminates essential deficiencies of the database. The results of the
statistical analysis were used where possible and considered acceptable as a
background. But only in a few cases have the results from the database analysis been
used for additional reference to propose limit changes.
11.2
Consultations
Two consultations were performed, one with environmental stakeholders such as
NGOs, national and municipal autorities, notified bodies and market surveillance
authorities, the second with manufacturing companies and industry associations.
and shortcomings in some of the test codes seem to be agreed on.
11.2.1
Environmental
A questionnaire relating to the impact of the directive, noise limits, known complaints
and other aspects was answered to by 43 respondents, some of whom were interviewed.
Several relevant reports were reviewed, including the WG7 position paper, the CALM
position paper, the UBA study, the lawnmower study and its implications, the Dutch
MIA/VAMIL incentive programme, the Dutch guidelines on construction site noise,
and many other documents, all providing information in relation to noise limits.
Suggestions for 21 potential new equipment types and a number of limit proposals were
derived from the environmental consultation, some of which were retained in later
proposals.
11.2.2
238 / 235
Industry
A questionnaire was answered by 42 companies and 14 industry associations, some of
whom were interviewed. The responses can be summarised as follows.
The market surveillance of the directive is generally considered insufficient and leads to
unfair competition from non-compliant suppliers who make less costs. Many
respondents would prefer a simplification of the directive. Uncertainty is an issue which
improving in the form of an IT tool as is currently underway. Equipment and category
definitions need improving for several equipment types. Most respondents were against
adding more information to the DOC and considered the directive a significant
administrative burden resulting in costs due to administration, testing, uncertainty,
R&D, certification and other aspects. The noise marking system could be made more
clear for the market and the public, as there is often confusion between sound pressure
and sound power levels. An example of such a marking is that used for computer
equipment, given in Bels instead of decibels (ISO 9296).
Some problems with test codes were identified, for example the lack of a consistent
definition for the engine power and the fact that the test is not always representative for
noise in the field. There is a preference for use of EN standards where possible.
Most companies see little scope for further noise reduction than stage II or would rather
see equipment from Article 12 into Article 13 or removed from the directive. There
were no proposals on new limits or equipment types made by industry. 32% considered
the stage II limits feasible. The main barriers identified are process noise, engine design
constraints, the new Exhaust directive stages 3B and 4, technical barriers and trade-offs
with performance. Especially equipment types given indicative limits in the 2005/88/EC
directive have technical barriers in certain power ranges.
A number of future technical developments was given for further noise reduction.
Further remarks were made on the need to link new limits and changes to the Directive
to other Directives, in particular the Engine Exhaust directive, especially in terms of
time schedules. There are doubts about the need and effectiveness of some of the limits.
Stricter limits are expected to lead to a higher price level and in some cases removal
from the market would be cheaper.
The CeCe and FEM position papers give proposals for alternative limits or transition
periods, with an indication of the technical and economic barriers. The Lamonov report
on lawnmower noise gives an analysis of the various noise sources, their influence
parameters and noise control options. The limited progess on reduction blade/deck
noise is the main argument stated against stage II limits for lawnmowers.
11.3
With the environmental impact indicator, a new approach was chosen to find out which
equipment contributes considerably to the noise exposure of the population. For the first
239 / 235
time, not only the median sound power level, but also the number of units in operation
throughout Europe, their approximate duration of operation, the sound content and the
usual vicinity to those affected and other factors are considered. The quality of these
calculations can only be as good as the data that is made available. Five categories were
formed that roughly describe the environmental impact. The precise result for each
individual equipment group can certainly open for discussion, but there is a remarkable
tendency: the equipment groups with a noise emission limit are mostly in the medium
group now, whereas most equipment that was only required to apply marking is
allocated to the categories of very high and high.
This suggested that it is more important to introduce a targeted reduction for equipment
currently in Article 13that has a strong environmental impact, than to lower the limit for
equipment that will be found in the medium range after the implementation of stage II.
It is also therefore not surprising that the environmental consutlation also revealed
many Article 13 equipment types as a source of noise complaints.
Twelve high and medium priority types for Article 12 limit changes were identified. For
the remaining Article 12 types, limit changes are expected to have much less impact.
For Article 13 equipment, a group of 18 equipment types were identified that clearly
would be worth moving to Article 12. For potentially new equipment types, 9 out of 21
were shown to be potential candidates for addition to the Article 13 list, based on the
expected environmental impact.
Equipment that is not considered as a machine in the sense of the Machinery Directive
can nevertheless be a substantial source of noise impact (glass recycling containers,
mobile waste containers) and is justifiably included in the directive.
In spite of the known shortcomings (that can be eliminated), the environmental impact
indicator EI represents an effective tool for long-term and more well-targeted noise
abatement policy. The input data for the EI needs to be improved. To achieve this,
reliable data is necessary, data that only the manufacturers and their associations can
deliver. Furthermore, actual periods of operation, the differences between declared
sound power level and noise emissions in practice, a more precise distribution of
equipment numbers on sound power level categories in studies should be examined as
well as the replacement of the annoyance impact by objective psycho-acoustic factors.
The current definition of the environmental impact indicator does not give a strong
weighting to rural areas. If this is deemed important in future, a modification will be
required to somehow take sparsely populated, but sensitive and rural areas into account.
11.4
Test codes
Since the entry into force of the directive, new international standards have been
established for a number of equipment, and others are at the final stage of being
approved and/or being discussed. They partly reflect the original measurement
procedure pursuant to 2000/14/EC.
Wherever an EN or ISO standard is available, it should be applied, even if it does not
totally correspond with the principals of the directive, for example, because it includes
idle periods as well. The report contains comprehensive detailed statements on test
codes and whether a conversion of measured values is necessary for the new or changed
240 / 235
test codes.
The test procedures are still inadequate for many Article 13 equipment types. Prior to
the implementation of limits the measurement method should be evaluated with the
industry and their associations in order to be able to obtain reliable results from
measurements that can be carried out.
11.5
Technical impact
A general analysis of available technical knowledge and availability was made.
The common noise sources and relevant noise control measures for the equipment in the
directive and potential new equipment were reviewed. Future trends and developments,
common constraints and design conflicts such as noise emission versus cooling
requirements in combution engines were discussed. Also links to other European
directives are covered, especially the Exhaust Directive and the Machinery Directive.
impact in terms of product redesign is generally small, as labelling or initial limits are
only intended to result in applying known techniques and existing components for noise
reduction, and to eliminate unnecessarily noisy equipment. Introduction of stage II
limits for current Article 12 equipment would have strongest technical impact on
combustion engine concrete breakers and picks, steel-tracked dozers and loaders.
Currently there is more research required to reduce steel track noise further before
introducing the stage II limit.
In many cases, accumulators with more performance and less weight would enable
electrical and thus, a quieter operation and support the usage of hybrid drives.
Application of liquid sound insulation in hydraulic systems and development of lownoise hydraulic in power transmission is undervalued.
11.6
Economic impact
An economic impact assessment was performed based on the European guidelines for
impact assessment.
considered significant for the European economy. The performed cost-benefit analysis
illustrates that the benefits of noise reduction clearly outweigh the costs for the
equipment types which have a medium to high environmental impact. The costs are in
the end borne by the purchaser or user of equipment. In those cases where limits are not
applied or tightened where it is needed, the citizens and employers pay the price, often
indirectly, in terms of sleep disturbance, concentration loss, fatigue, annoyance and
stress and reduced speed intelligibility. The benefits to citizens are estimated at around
10 Euros per person per year once the foreseen changes to the directive have taken
effect. For equipment types with a low environmental impact it is clearly not
economically worthwhile changing the limits.
241 / 235
Aspects of consequential costs for the economy such as damage to public health by
noise, degradation of working conditions, reduction of viability and decline in value of
private properties has often been underestimated and must be brought forward in terms
of effective policy.
Without market surveillance, the directive is ineffective as costs are incurred by
industry complying to the directive, whilst at the same time they may loose market
share to non-compliant companies.
11.7
Proposals for Article 12 and 13 list revisions

The following equipment list revisions are proposed, based on all the analyses. Other
changes are proposed by modification of the definitions of some equipment types.
11.7.1
New in Article 13
Mobile waste breakers and sieves (screens) (after 5 years), Mobile cranes for harbours
and terminals (bridge/gantry cranes), Road sweepers without aspirators.
11.7.2

Aerial access platforms CE powered, Brush cutters, Building site circular saw bench;
Combined high pressure flushers and suction vehicles, High pressure flushers, Suction
vehicles, combined; Cooling equipment on vehicles, Chain saws, portable, Drill rigs,
Glass recycling containers, Grass trimmers/grass edge trimmers, Hedge trimmers CE
powered, High pressure water jet machines, upto 3 kW, electric), Hydraulic hammers,
Joint cutters, Leaf blowers and Leaf collectors, combined, Mobile waste containers,
Piling equipment (vibratory), Power generators (>_ 400 kW), Power sweepers, Refuse
collection vehicles, Road milling machines, Scarifiers CE powered, Shredders/chippers,
Truck mixers, Water pump units.
11.7.3
New in Article 12
Snowmobiles (after 5 years) and Mobile waste breakers and screens (wood, concrete)
(after 8 years).
11.7.4

Builders' hoists for the transport of goods (with electric motor), Building site band saw
machine, Compaction machines (explosion rammers), Concrete breakers and picks,
handheld, <3 kg, Construction winches (all), Conveyor belts, Landfill compactors,
loader-type with bucket (< 500 kW), Motor hoes (<3 kW), Pipelayers, Piste
Caterpillars, Trenchers.
11.8
Noise limits
Noise limit proposals were made for all equipment to be moved to Article 12, for
snowmobiles, and for mobile waste breakers and screens. For current Article 12
equipment only slight changes of the limits have been recommended. This concerns in
particular lawn mowers, for which an improved dependence of the limits on the cutting
width has been proposed, and power and welding generators, for which unnecessarily
high limits exist in the low power range. Five current Article 12 types are proposed to
be removed from the directive. More details are given in Chapter 9 and the data sheets
in chapter 10.
11.9
242 / 235
Research proposals
Detailed proposals are given for all equipment types in Chapter 10. General instruments
for noise reduction are given including:
- improved DOC
- improved marking
- proposals to improve market surveillance
- technical R&D topics
- information to the public.
- Assessment of annoyance
- Improvements for EI Assessment.
Generally, an orientation toward the development of new less noisy work processes
(e.g. cutting of stone, wood, grass) seems to be necessary in the technical field, whilst in
environmental acoustics more emphasis should be set to develop an interdisciplinary
accepted measure of Annoyance, which can be used in various rules and regulations
(laws, ordinances, and standards). New definitions of Noisy Machinery as well as of
Low noise machinery are required.
11.10
Recommendations towards a future revision of the outdoor noise directive
11.10.1
Evaluation of the effectiveness of the directive

Concerning the targets the directive has set itself, it has been successful in
harmonization of laws, in reducing sound power levels for many types of capital
investment goods (3 -5 dB), but unfortunately not for so many consumer products.
Information for consumers do not live up to the expectations. Lacking market
surveillance leads to unfair competition especially with cheap Far East imports.
11.10.2
Current and future relevance

If the outdoor noise directive were to be withdrawn, densely populated Member States
would be forced to act immediately with their own legislation. Equipment covered by
the directive has no fixed location of operation and thus escapes the local approval
procedures. This is why limiting noise emission is the favoured instrument. In present
day Europe one could expect that such local regulations would never be consistent and
would cause more burdens and costs to European industry than the outdoor noise
directive today.
There is no proper functioning market for quieter products for most equipment types. In
the investment goods market, performance or price-related performance is considered
most important. Noise is considered as far as (own) workplace noise is affected, and if
local restrictions allow extended work time with low noise marked equipment only. In
the consumer market, price or price related performance is the most important issue.
Noise comes in second place especially if the intended time of personal use is assumed
to be short. In both cases, the main annoyance is experienced by the neighbour and not
by the user and purchaser. This is the main reason why noise emission requires
regulation by law. Impulses from market are not sufficiently strong, low-noise products
are more expensive, sometimes with reduced performance at the same time. They do
not offer sufficient market opportunities for manufacturers on a wide front.
11.10.3
243 / 235
Simplification
Machinery and equipment covered by the outdoor noise directive includes a very wide
range of different working principles, purposes of use, sizes and power sources. It is
sold both on the consumer and professional markets. A simple all-inclusive test
procedure and limit system covering all equipment is not possible (as is the case for
machinery safety). Nevertheless some simplifications seem feasible:
- more and consistent application of existing standards;
- grouping, especially where the market provides universal machinery (some proposals
have been made);
- universal, power dependent limit where combustion engine is the dominaant sound
source. To be coherent, this universal power dependent limit has to be associated with
the simplest universal test code, already given in the directive in "Equipment tested free
of load";
- forwarding of DoC to Member States can be abolished (EC data base is sufficient)
- define a baseline limit, a range of limit formula and/or a max limit;
- to have a (large) raising fixed value of the difference between the level measured on
only one machine and guaranteed level taking into account of uncertainties and
production spread. If the manufacturer wishes ir is obliged to exceed this do better,
more measurements have to be carried out and the results treated statistically.
In principle it is conceivable to have an tighter link to the machinery directive and to
cover All equipment that can be operated outdoors and emits a guaranteed sound
pressure level of LpA 80 dB at the work station or bystander position and including
them as subject to marking (Article 13) only. The noise test is obligatory for the
Machinery Directive. The advantage is that separate definitions and possibly also test
codes for this equipment can be abolished in a directive. A disadvantage is that the
database will become unclear, since the description of the equipment type must be left
up to the manufacturer if no harmonized standard is available. Even for Article 12
products it seems to be feasible to work with a published list of harmonized standards as
the Machinery Directive does. Standards (fixed to an year of edition) provide
definitions and test codes exact enough (or better) to be basis for a law.
Industry often requests more precise wording, but this is unfortunately often does not
lead to the also desired simplification.
11.10.4
SMEs
Smaller manufacturers most certainly encounter other difficulties in applying the
directive than large combines with own staff for standards and product certification.
However, they also are substantially more flexible than the latter, when it comes to
implementing modifications and frequently they are more innovative with respect to the
application of new technologies. But with respect to noise emission there is a strong
dependency on suppliers of engines, vehicle chassis and hydraulic components. Since
only low quantities are ordered there is little negotiation space for SMEs to specify low
noise components from their suppliers. Stricter demands with regard to noise emissions
from engines and chassis (measurements at high idle according to the EC method
instead of homologation procedures) can support the SMEs and result in long-term
noise reductions.
SMEs are known to be more prepared to deliver customised products. The noise
performance level then will have to be determined each time individually, and a product
certification according to Annex VII will have to be carried out occasionally. Since
these customized products are of a greater value to the end customer, this is not
considered as an obstacle and will be calculated as item in transit, whereas large
244 / 235
manufacturers are not in a position to offer customised products at all. The Notified
Bodies could develop procedures to accommodate manufactures with low lot sizes (n <
100/a) of equipment subject to declaration within the interpretation range of the EC
test modules with respect to test expense. However, obstacles could be encountered
with regard to the national accreditation authorities.
11.10.5
Measures proposed
From the assessment of the environmental impact indicator (EI) it could be concluded
that to aim the European noise protection goal (cut he annoyance to the half until 2020)
the focus of noise reduction has to be set to machinery groups not yet covered by the
directive (e.g. stone circular saws) or those listed in Article 13.
For several Article 12 equipment with limits and low environmental impact it makes no
sense to tighten them, so it was not proposed. Welding- and power generators should be
combined in 1 group. In the lower power class of this equipment it is technically
feasible to reduce the limits as sufficiently illustrated by the database.
For the new hydraulic power packs there should also be a lowering of the baseline. For
lawnmowers a new limit curve is recommended, one that is closer to the cutting width
and thus would present a compromise of stage I and stage II. All equipment with a
counter-weight, that lifts, transports and re-deposits something at another (possibly
higher) position is technically similar and should be classified in one group with a
uniform measurement method and the same limits. Details should be discussed with the
manufacturers. The industry also requires discussions on an improved measurement
method for vibratory plates. Here, a lowering of stage I by 1 dB is proposed based on
the measurement method used to date.
For much of the current Article 13 equipment, limits are proposed, for EI very high,
in 2 steps. Due to the unreliability of the database (missing reference values), only an
integral maximum value can be suggested. In as far as no resilient EN or ISO standards
can be applied for measurements, a validation of the outdoor noise test codes under
participation of the industry and notified bodies is indispensable prior to the
implementation of the limits. To some extent, reference values must be checked to the
extent as to whether they have been listed as being reasonable for all subgroups (e.g.
cement pumps) as stated in this report.
In general, a uniform method for Uncertainty K and the procedure of measurementtechnical verification within the framework of market surveillance, measures are long
overdue.
For consumer products a new type of labelling similar the EC power consumption label
seems necessary for better understanding by non-acousticians. It should also be visible
on the package. Opening the possibility of voluntary product certification under Article
13 equipment may relieve market surveillance to discern quality checked products or
generally the value of certification (upgrading of NBs) may be recommitted.
A better coordination is needed with other directives such as gas emissions, vehicle
noise, HDTs, and in particular the Machinery Directive. Perhaps the environmental
emblem can be used to mark low noise products and give them a monetary benefit to
stimulate a market of less noisy products.
11.11
245 / 235
Key recommendations
The following key recommendations are made, based on the the findings of the study.
1. Market surveillance is essential for the directive to be effective.
2. Focus should be put onto equipment with a high or very high environmental impact.
3. EN- or ISO standards should be used wherever possible.
4. The noise label should be made more understandable for consumers.
5. The market for low noise products should be stimulated.
6. Noise reduction should be balanced with requirements for gas emission, public health
and costs.
7. Similar equipment types should be combined into groups.
8. Non-standardised test codes and definitions should be improved in cooperation with
industry and notofied bodies.
9. Lawnmower limits may be reduced by an improved formula and further research is
needed.
10.Engine and truck manufacturers should be stimulated to offer more silent engines
and carrier vehicles.
12
246 / 235
References
[1] Directive 2000/14/EC of the European Parliament and the Council of 8 May 2000
on the approximation of the laws of the Member States to noise emission in the
environment by equipment for use outdoors. 3.7.2000 Official Journal of the
European Communities L162
[2] Directive 98/37/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 June 1998
on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to machinery. This
Directive consolidated the original Directive 89/392/CEE, amended by Directives
91/368/EEC, 93/44/EEC and 93/68/EEC
[3] Directive 2003/10/EC of the European Parliament and the Council of 6 February
2003 on the minimum health and safety requirements regarding the exposure of
workers to risks arising from physical agents (noise). 15.2..2003 Official Journal
of the European Communities L42/38
[4] European Commission (Directorate General Environment, Directorate C,
Environment and Health), EC Declaration of Conformity ECDoCs for 2000/14,
European Commission, DG-ENV, Brussels, Environmental Noise/B.M.R.D
(2003)
[5] Directive 2005/88/EC of the European Parliament and the Council of 14 december
2005 amending Directive 2000/14/EC on the approximation of the laws of the
Member States to noise emission in the environment by equipment for use
outdoors. L344/44 27.12.2005
[6] TNO Proposal for Tender ENTR/05/105, TNO project no. 033.11768, April 13,
2006.
[7] General Invitation to Tender ENTR/05/105, Specifications, EU DG Enterprise,
Brussels, January 2006.
[8] EU Noise Database, website DG Enterprise,
http://europa.eu.int/comm/enterprise/mechan_equipment/noise/citizen/index.htm
[9] ISO 11689 Acoustics procedure for the comparison of noise emission data for
machinery and equipment, December 1996
th
[10] Genstat 9 edition, version 9.1.0147, 2006, Lawes Agricultural Trust.

[11] Directive 89/106/EEC of 21 December 1988 on the approximation of laws,
regulations and administrative provisions of the Member States relating to
construction products (89/106/EEC) (OJ L 40, 11.2.1989, p.12)
[12] G.Billi, e.o. (Working Group on Outdoor Machinery), Position Paper on Technical
issues emerging from the application of Directive 2000/14/EC of some types of
equipment.8 July 2004
247 / 235
[13] European Commission, Research Directorate General, Research for a Quieter

Europe in 2020, an updated strategy paper for the CALM II network, Brussels
February 2007.
[14] G.Spellerberg (TV NORD), Untersuchung zur Technisch-Wissenschaftlichen
Unterstutzung bei der Fortschreibung der EG Richtlinie 2000/14/EG und Ihrer
Umsetzung in Nationales Recht, August 2006 (Examination of the technical and
scientific support provided for the updating of the EC directive 2000/14/EC and
1st implementation in national law (32.BimSchu)
[15] Dutch Ministry of Housing, Spatial planning and the Environment (VROM),
Milieulijst 2007 - Willekeurige afschrijving milieu-investeringen (VAMIL),
Milieu-investeringsaftrek (MIA) (Environmental list 2007 Selective Depreciation
of environmental investments (VAMIL) and Environmental Investment Deduction
(MIA) ), The Hague 2007.
[16] W.Buitenhuis (ABOMA-KEBOMA), Kentallen mobiele werktuigen t.b.v.
vamil/mia, 1986-2001, December 2002
[17] RAL Deutsches Institut fr Gtesicherung und Kennzeichnung BV,
Vergabegrundlage fr Umweltzeichen, Lrmarme Baumaschinen, RAL UZ-53,
Der Blaue Engel, Ausgabe Februar 2005
Vergabegrundlage fr Umweltzeichen, Lrmarme Baumaschinen, RAL UZ-53,
Entwurf 2006-10-30
Vergabegrundlage fr Umweltzeichen, Lrmarme und schadstoffarme
Kommunalfahrzeuge und Omnibusse, RAL UZ-59, Der Blaue Engel, Ausgabe
Mrz 2006
[20] CETIM, A study into the available technology offering noise reduction for
lawnmowers as presented to the european union market, CETIM, April 2002,
Contract : B4 3040/2000/286785/MAR/D3, Final Report (Period : 1/200112/2001)
[21] Working Group 7, The Implication for the Directive 2000/14/EC resulting from
the Study on Lawnmower Noise Reduction, A Position Paper
[22] Ministerie VROM (Directie Geluid en Omgeving, NL), Circulaire Bouwlawaai,
1991
[23] Het aspect geluid in het ARBOCONVENANT FUNDERINGSBRANCHE
(Pilingfield), Branchebegeleidingscommissie (BBC) arboconvenant
funderingsbranche (www.nvaf-arboconvenant.nl)
[24] Onderzoek naar het geluid op de arbeidsplaatsen binnen de funderingsbranche
(Pilingfield) concept eindrapportage, Rapport W.00.1213.CJ.Witte, L.P.Sturrus,
DGMR, Den Haag 21 augustus 2001.
[25] Kostenconsequenties van de maatregelen ter beperking van het geluidniveau bij
heiwerken (Implications on the costs of piledriving due to measures to attuate the
248 / 235
soundlevel), Financieel-economische aspecten, Onderzoekprogramma

geluidhinder, GH-HR-02-01, VROM 84885/12-84, december 1984
[26] Inventarisatie geluidsniveaus bij funderingstechnieken (Inventarisation noiselevels
at piling technics), Intern rapport, Juli 1999, ARBOUW
[27] Concept A-blad Geluidbeheersing funderingstechnieken (Noise control at piling
technics), Intern rapport, Juli 1999, ARBOUW
[28] TNO, Meetmethoden voor piekgeluiden bij laden en lossen". Dit rapport is de
opvolging van het rapport: "Voorstellen voor beoordelingsmethoden piekgeluiden
bij laden en lossen", uitgebracht in 1998, (www.piek.org)
[29] T.Schyvens (Federale Overheidsdienst Volksgezondheid DG V (Leefmilieu),
Brussel), Investigation of Ambiquities of the Sound Power Measurements
Standards Related to Chain Saws , 2006, Ref. 5RN 60129928-001
[30] M.Ludkovnikova (Federal Public Service of Health, Food Chain Safey and
Environment, DG Environment, Belgium) Noise Emissions of 24 Models of
Portable Chain Saws, Report, , Belgium, 2006
Environment, DG Environment, Belgium) Round robin test of noise emissions of
portable chain saws, Report, , 2005
[32] D. van Hooydonk, e.o. (SGS Belgium NV), Ambiquities in technical/acoustic
requirements in Directive 2000/14/EC and measuring standards of portable chain
saws, Report 05.488-01-v1, 22 december 2005
[33] A.Rust, (AVL List, Austria), Technical Report : Noise Technology Status Report ,
17 Nov 2003, CALM
[34] Surface Vehicle Recommended Practice. SAE International j192, REV.MAR2003,,

Issued 1970-09, Revised 2003-03, Superseding J192MAR1985, (R) Maximum
Exterior Sound Level for Snowmobiles
[35] Directive 2004/26/EC of the European Parliament amending Directive 97/68/EC
on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to measures
against the emission of gaseous and particulate pollutants for internal combustioan
engines to be installed in mobile machinery. 25.6.2004 Official Journal of the
European Communities L225/3
on machinery and amending Directive 95/16/EC. 9.6.2006 Official Journal of the
European Communities L157/24
[37] CECE, Proposal for a modification of Directive 2000/14/EC. Noise emission in
the environment by equipment for use outdoors, November 15, 2002.
[38] CECE, Economic Report / Edition April 2007. Facts and Figures about the
European Construction Equipment Industry.
249 / 235
[39] European Power Tool Association (EPTA), On the definition of tool categories,
2002
[40] European Federation of Materials Handling and Storage Equipment (FEM),
position paper, 2004
[41] Orgalime, the European Engineering Industries Association, Annual report 2006.
[42] Directive 2002/96/EC of the European Parliament and the Council of 27 January
2003 on waste electrical and electronic equipment . 13.2..2003 Official Journal of
the European Communities L37/24
[43] M. Bockhoff (Cetim, France), Lawn Mower Noise and Vibration (LaMoNoV),
Executive Summary 2007.
[44] European Environment Agency (EC-DG Joint Research Centre), Environment and
Health, EEA Report no 10/2005, ISNN 1725-9177
[45] E.A.M. Franssen e.a. , Hinder door Milieufactoren en de beoordeling van de
leefomgeving in Nederland Inventarisatie verstoringen 2003 (Disturbance due to
environmental factors and the assessement of the living environment in the
Netherlands Inventory of disturbances), RIVM report 81512001001,
RIVM/TNO July 2004.
[46] Directive 2002/49/EC of the European Parliament and the Council of 25 June 2002
relating to the assessment and management of environmental noise. 18.7.2002
Official Journal of the European Communities L189/12
[47] Commission of the European Communities, Report from the Commission to the
European Parliament and the Council concerning xisting Community measures
relating to sources of environmental noise, persuant to article 10.1 of Directive
2002/49/EC relating to the assessment and management of environmental noise.
Brussel, 10.3.2004
[48] ISO Acoustics 1996-1:2003 - Description, measurement and assessment of
environmental noise -- Part 1: Basic quantities and assessment procedures
[49] ISO Acoustics 1996-2:2007- Description, measurement and assessment of
environmental noise -- Part 2: Determination of environmental noise levels
[50] ISO/TR 11 688-1 and -2 (1995). Recommended practice for the design of lownoise machinery and equipment.
[51] M. Crocker e.a. Handbook of noise control engineering, 2007.
[52] R. White, J. Walker, Noise and Vibration.
[53] F.G. Kollmann, R. Angert, T. Schsser, Praktische Maschinenakustik,
Springer-Verlag Berlin and Heidelberg, 2005
250 / 235
on the promotion of the use of biofuels or other renewable fuels for transport.
17.5.2003 Official Journal of the European Communities L123/42
[55] Directive 2005/32/EC of the European Parliament and the Council of 6 July 2005
establishing a framework for the setting of Ecodesign for energy using products
and amending Council Directive 92/42/EEC and Directives 96/57/EC and
2000/55/EC of the European Parliament and the Council 22.7..2005 Official
Journal of the European Communities L191/29
[56] European Commission: Impact Assessment Guidelines of the Commission
SEC(2005) 791
[57] Panorama of Transport, Eurostat 2007.
[58] Eurostat Statistics in focus Theme 4 18/2003: Machinery and equipment
industries in the EU.
[59] HEATCO (Developing Harmonised European Approaches for Transport Costing
and Project Assessment Specific Support Action) PRIORITY SSP 3.2: The
development of tools, indicators and operational parameters for assessing
sustainable transport and energy systems performance (economic, environmental
and social); Deliverable 1 Current practice in project appraisal in Europe Analysis
of country reports, 31 January 2005 http://heatco.ier.uni-stuttgart.de/
[60] Peter Bickel, Institut fr Energiewirtschaft und Rationelle Energieanwendung,
Universitt Stuttgart, Germany, Derivation of fall-back values for impacts due to
noise, Annex E to HEATCO Deliverable 5, Stuttgart, 2006.
[61] DAY, B. (2001): The theory of Hedonic Markets: Obtaining welfare measures for
changes in environmental quality using hedonic market data. March 12th 2001,
Economics for the Environment Consultancy (Eftec), London.
[62] UNITE webpage: www.its.leeds.ac.uk\research.htm
[63] S.Navrud (Agricultural University of Norway), The State-Of-The-Art on
Economic Valuation of Noise, Final Report to Eurpean Commission DG
Environment April 14th 2002
[64] WORKING GROUP ON HEALTH AND SOCIO-ECONOMIC ASPECTS
(2003): Valuation of Noise. Position paper of the Working group on health and
socio-economic aspects.
[65] C.Schreier (IWW Universitat Karlruhe, INFRAS Zurich), External costs of
Transport, Update Study, October 2004, Infras/IWW Zurich/Karlsruhe, October
2004
251 / 235
Standards
[66] ISO Acoustics 4871 Declaration and verification of noise emission values of
machinery and equipment, International Standard, second edition
[67] ISO Acoustics 11094 Test code for the measurement of airborne noise emitted by
power lawn mowers, lawn tractors, lawn and garden tractors, professional
mowers, and lawn and garden tractors with moving attachments. International
Standard, first edition, 1991-11-01
Articles
[68] J.Jaques (INRS), K.Skovgaard-Nielsen (AkustikNet),P.Kurtz (BauA), Current
Contents of Uncertainty of Noise Testcodes for Machinery Families, dB, INCEEUROPE, CIDB Symposium Le Mans (France) 27-29June2005.
[69] C.Dussaugey (CISMA), G.Billy (UNACOMA), Noise Declaration Uncertainties,
an Industry pproach, dB, INCE-EUROPE, CIDB Symposium Le Mans (France)
27-29June2005
[70] H.J.Beckmann, M.Reimann (TV NORD CERT), Different Models Calculating
Uncertainty K within Directive 2000/14/EC- a Comparison, dB, INCE-EUROPE,
CIDB Symposium Le Mans (France) 27-29June2005
[71] E.Carletti (IMAMOTOR), Towards a Harmonised Procedure for the Declaration
of Sound Power Levels within Directive 2000/14/EC- the Position the Notified
Bodies Statistics-Sub-Group, dB, INCE-EUROPE, CIDB Symposium Le Mans
(France) 27-29June2005
[72] M.Bockhoff (CETIM), Declaration and Control of Noise Values: Towards Shared
Uncertainties, dB, INCE-EUROPE, CIDB Symposium Le Mans (France) 2729June2005
[73] V.Lahodny (TZUS), The First Command Using of Measurement Uncertainties and
Coming Mistakes, dB, INCE-EUROPE, CIDB Symposium Le Mans (France) 2729June2005
[74] W.Probst (ACCON), Measurement of the Emission Sound Pressure Level
Revision of the ISO 11200 Series, dB, INCE-EUROPE, CIDB Symposium Le
Mans (France) 27-29June2005
Environment, DG Environment, Belgium), On Statistical Concepts of Noise
Declaration, dB, INCE-EUROPE, CIDB Symposium Le Mans (France) 2729June2005
[76] L.Jacobs (Ministerie VROM, NL), EU Richtlijn Omgevingslawaai, 29 september
2004.
[77] J.Jacques (INRS, FR), Noise and Standardization, Focussing on Machinery and
Workplace Domains, Joint Baltic-Nordic Acoustics Meeting, 2004, Mariehamn
252 / 235
[78] M.van den Berg (Ministerie VROM, NL), The Ultimate Goal of Noise Control at
the Source
[79] M.G. Dittrich, Analysis of noise control measures on Outdoor Machinery using
EQUIP+, Proceedings International Conference on Sound and Vibration, Vienna
2006.
Reports and studies
[80] R.Martin (Agence de la Sante et des Services Sociaux de Chaudieres-Appalaches),
Bruits et Vibrations emis par des scies en chaine (tronconneuses) selon les
specifications declarees par les fabricants, Levis, 20 juillet 2006
[81] M.Vianio, eo, A billion Euro Question: How much should we pay for noise
control and how much is it worth?, Workshop on costs & benefits analysis in
noise policy, Internoise 2001, The Hague, Final Report 2001
[82] IFO Institut fur Wirtschaftsforschung (Munchen), Monitoring the evolution in the
competitiveness of the EU mechanical engineering industry, (ETD/95/84040),
study prepared for the European Commission by, 20 january 1997
[83] M.Brennan (AEA Technology Rail, London), Structure of Costs and Charges
Review Environmental Costs of Rail Transport, , Final Report to the Office of
Rail Regulation, 31 August 2005
[84] NAVRUD, S. (2002): The State of the Art on Economic Valuation of Noise.
Report prepared for the European Commission, DG Environment. April 14th
2002. http://europa.eu.int/comm/environment/noise/020414noisereport.pdf
[85] W. Buitenhuis, Analyse beleidseffecten mobiele werktuigen 1986 1999, Report
on the effects of outdoor machinery noise policy; in Dutch, by Aboma/Keboma for
Netherlands Ministry of Housing, Spatial planning and the Environment (VROM),
2000.
[86] E. Schneider (European Agency for Safety and Health at Work), Noise in figures,
Risk Observatory, Thematic Report
[87] H.Wallentowitz, (IKA-RWTH Achen), Study on the Time Scales for Availabilty
and Implementation for New Future Key Technologies for the Reduction of Road
Traffic Noise in the EU, Bericht 33290
[88] De Kluizenaar, Y., Passchier-Vermeer, W., Miedema, H.M.E. (2001) Adverse
effects of noise exposure on health - a state of the art summary. TNO report
2001.171, Leiden.
[89] S.L.Paikalla, e.o. (Working Group 5 Abatement), Inventory of Noise Mitigation
Methods, study prepared for the European Commission, Directorate-General
Environment, Ploicy Area Noise, 18 july 2002
253 / 235
[90] Bickel, P., Schmid, S.., Friedrich, R. (2005) Environmental Costs, in: Nash, C. and
Matthews, B. (eds.) Measuring the Marginal Social Cost of Transport, Research in
Transportation Economics, Volume 14, 185-209. Elsevier Ltd. Oxford, 2005. ISSN:
0739-8859/doi:10.1016/S0739-8859(05)14007-4.
Position Papers
[91] G.Billi, e.o. (Working Group on Outdoor Machinery), Position Paper on
Guidelines for the application of the European Parliament and the Council
Directive 2000/14/EC. on the approximation of the laws of the Member States to
noise emission in the environment by equipment for use outdoors , A report
produced for the European Commission, december 2001
[92] C.Baret, G.Boreanaz (CENTRO RICHERCHE FIAT), Study on the status of
research related to the noise of outdoor equipment in operation. Technical Report.,
September 2003, CALM Network.
[100] J.Affenzeller (AVL List, Austria), CALM An EU Network for Strategic
Planning of Future Noise Research, A.Rust (AVL), , Euronoise Naples, 2003
Other
[101] CECE, European Challenges for the Construction Equipment Industry and
CECEs Point of View, 2006
[102] NoBo minutes of meeting: Foundation Meeting Working Group Notified

Bodies Directive 2000/14/EC, Hannover, Germany 2004-09-17
[103]
NoBo minutes of meeting annual meeting, Brussels 2005-09-15
[104] STEERING GROUP ON ENVIRONMENTAL NOISE

Report on the activities of Outdoor Equipment Working Group (WG7),
Brussels, 18 March 2005
[105] Benzin- oder Elektro-Rasenmher, RASENMHER Haushalt+Garten, 5/2007
test, Page 69.
[106]
Equipment, Komatsu: the sun also rises. WorldHighways, September 2006 e18.
[107 ]International market analysis on the noise emission of woodworking machines,

proceedings, L. Gross, T. Stehle: Noise at Work Forum, Lille 2007.
[109] X. Carniel, H. Peppin: Noise synthesis for industrial equipment and installations,
Proceedings Noise at Work Forum, Lille 2007.
[110] P. Kurtz, J. Jacques et T. Ward, How to buy quieter machines? The European
strategy, Proceedings Noise at Work Forum, Lille 2007.
13 Signature
Delft, 19 September2007
TNO Science and Industry
P. Hendriksen
Manager Acoustics (TNO)
Authors
M.G. Dittrich (TNO)
H.J. Beckmann (TV-Nord)
P. Cellard (LNE)
A. Bowker (VCA)
254 / 235
Appendix A | 1/11
Review of test codes, further proposals
2 Brush Cutter, 6 Chain Saw, 24 - Grass Trimmer

ISO 22868:2005
For brush cutters and Gras Trimmers, the valid test code is described in ISO 10884.
The test code for Chain saws is described in ISO 9207:1995
The approved test code for all three types is specified in ISO 22868:2005.
The following table shows the working cycles in ISO 22868 compared to the valid
working cycles according to 2000/14/EC:
Machine type
Chain Saw < 80 cm
Chain Saw 80 cm
Brush Cutter and Gras

Trimmer
ISO 22868
low idle, full load and
high idle without load, all
same time weighting
low idle and full load, all
same time weighting
low idle and high idle
without load, all same
time weighting
2000/14/EC
full load and high idle
time weighting
full load and high idle
time weighting
high idle without load
The new test code will cause lower sound power levels because measurements are
carried out also in high idle and low idle mode.
Appendix A | 2/11
7 - Combined high pressure flushers and suction vehicles, 26 - High pressure flushers,
52 - Suction vehicles
The noise sources and the measurement method of these three machine types are
very similar. So the types can be combined in one group. This will reduce the
description of Test Code in the Directive. The following text could be possible:
7 High pressure flushers, suction vehicles and combined machines
Basic noise emission standard
EN ISO 3744
Operating conditions during test
Test under load
The high pressure flusher shall be tested in a stationary position. The engine and
auxiliary units operate at the speed provided by the manufacturer for the operation
of the working equipment; the high pressure pump(s) is (are) operating at its (their)
maximum speed and operating pressure provided by the manufacturer. Using an
adapted nozzle the pressure reduction valve shall be just on the point of reacting.
The flow noise of the nozzle shall not have any influence on the results of the
measurements
The suction vehicle shall be tested in a stationary position. The engine and auxiliary
units operate at the speed provided by the manufacturer for the operation of the
working equipment; the vacuum pump(s) is (are) operating at its (their) maximum
speed provided by the manufacturer. The suction equipment is operated in such a
way that the internal pressure is equal to atmospheric pressure (0 % vacuum). The
flow noise of the suction nozzle shall not have any influence on the results of the
measurements
Period of observation
The period of observation shall at least be 30 seconds
8 - Compaction machines (only vibrating and non-vibrating rollers, vibratory plates

In EN 500-4:2006 the changes of the revision 1 of 500-4:1995 are included. The
test results will be the same as described in 2000/14/EC now.
In Annex C the measurement method is described.
Appendix A | 3/11
15 - Cooling equipment on vehicles, 100 - Air conditioning and ventilation equipment,

101 - Heat pumps(100 and 101 new equipment)
PrEN 12102
The measurement methods described in PrEN 12102 should be used with
deviations. So the measurements should be carried out always according to ISO
3744. The sound intensity measurement may be not usable for the 2000/14/EC.
In our opinion the PrEN 12102 needs some adaptation for being usable.
16 - Dozers (< 500 kW), 18 - Dumpers (< 500 kW), 20 - Excavators, hydraulic or ropeoperated (< 500 kW), 21 - Excavator-loaders (< 500 kW), 23 Graders, 31 - Landfill
compactors, loader-type with bucket (< 500 kW), 37 - Loaders (< 500 kW), 42
Pipelayers, 43 Pipelayers
ISO DIS 6395

The new ISO 6395 is still draft. But it should be used as soon as it is passed. All the
machine types listed are now included in the ISO.
The test code for determination of the installed net-power now is clearly defined
according to ISO 9249.
The environmental correction K2A is to be determined in accordance to ISO 3744. I
fit is greater than 0.5 dB, the correction is accounted for in the calculation of the
sound power level.
Until now K2A is to be set to 0 dB, if it is lower than 2.0 dB.
For 18 Dumpers the low idle mode should be cancelled and the Sound Power
Level should be calculated with 90 % driving and 10 % stationary work cycle.
Appendix A | 4/11
25 Hedge Trimmer
ISO DIS 10517
The ISO 10517 should be used with following deviations:
The environmental correction K2A should be considered in any case, also if it is
lower than 2 dB.
CEN/TS 13778:2004
The description of the test code is the same as in 2000/14/EC. The text in
2000/14/EC can be shortened:
28 Hydraulic Hammers
EN ISO 3744
Test under load
EN 13778
The period of observation shall be at least 15 seconds
30 Joint Cutters
EN 13862:2001
30 Joint Cutters
EN ISO 3744
EN 13862
Appendix A | 5/11
34 Leaf Blowers 35 Leaf Collectors

PrEN 15503
Both categories could be combined into one because the measurement is the same.
34 Leaf Blowers, Leaf Collectors
EN ISO 3744
EN 15503
38 Mobile Cranes
EN 13000:2004
38 Mobile Cranes
EN ISO 3744
EN 13000
Appendix A | 6/11
41 Paver Finishers
EN 500-6:2006
41 Paver Finishers
EN ISO 3744
EN 500-6

EN 500-2:2006
48 Road Milling Machines
EN ISO 3744
EN 500-2
Appendix A | 7/11
49 Scarifiers
EN 13684
The test code of new EN13684 is different from the valid test code of ISO 11094.
The found Sound Power Levels will be different.
The Test code could be very short. The environmental correction K2A should not be
disregarded as in the valid Test code of 2000/14/EC.
49 Scarifiers
EN ISO 3744
EN 13684
50 Shredders, Chippers
EN 13683, EN 13525
The garden used shredders should be separated from the wood-chippers. For garden
used shredders the measurement method of EN 13683 and for wood-chippers the
EN 13525 should be used.
Both test methods will cause different sound power levels compared to the valid test
method.
50 Shredder / Chippers
EN ISO 3744
Garden Shredders / Chippers : EN 13684
Wood Chippers: EN 13252
Appendix A | 8/11
56 Water pump units (including 121 - swimming pool pumps)

EN 12639
The text in Annex II should be changed so that he swimming pool pumps are also
described.
The text in 2000/14/EC can be shortened:
56 Water pump units
EN ISO 3744

EN 12639
Appendix A | 9/11
Detailed text for cells Proposed Solutions of the table 5.1 in chapter 5.2
5.2.7 Calculating Uncertainty K
For the declaration of a mean sound power level LWAm measured, five pieces of
equipment must be measured. For the listing of the value in the DoC, the calculated
value will be rounded to the next whole number. From the technical documentation, the
not rounded value must be apparent.
With reference to ISO 7574 uncertainty K must be calculated as follows:
K = 1.5 * t.
The total standard deviation t can be calculated based on a sample with the size of at
least 5 machines:
t = R + p
The standard deviation of reproducibility R should be determined for each group of
equipment in Annex III. This provision is in reference to round robin tests and takes the
principle of shared risk into account.
The standard deviation of production p may be determined on base of a sample of the
first 5 machines produced (sp) using a safety factor SF. The safety factor SF depends of
the sample size n and of the relation of the value of the standard deviation of
production sp to the standard deviation of reproducibility R:
n
sp R
sp > R
5 -7
1.3
1.5
8 - 12
1.2
1.3
A manufacturer with adequate experience in

production spread of comparable serial
equipment can adopt these values of t.
For equipment that is produced occasionally,

each individual piece can be measured to start
with and placed on the market (single unit
verification, Annex VII or single unit
20
1.0
1.0
measurement under Annex V, VI or VIII),
until an adequate statistical base has been obtained or else an estimate of uncertainty K
based on measurement experiences gained will be conducted.
13 19
1.0
1.1
In any case, the validity of the declaration must be confirmed by means of regular
verifications, as a rule, annually, whereby the results obtained shall be referred to for
updating the statistics.
The guaranteed sound power level is calculated as:
LWAd = LWAm + K
For listing the calculated value on the equipment (label) and in the DoC it will be
rounded to the next whole number. The technical documentation must feature the not
rounded result. The manufacturer may select an uncertainty that is higher than the one
calculated; however, the increase may not exceed 2 dB.
Appendix A | 10/11
The manufacturer conducts regular verifications of the declared (guaranteed) sound

power levels (CoP). The sample size will be expected to reflect the scale of the annual
production.
Equipment fixed with a limit must undergo regular verifications by the notified.
The interval of this depends on the difference L between the mean measured sound
performance level LWAm and the limit LWAlim.
L = LWAlim - LWAd
At a difference of L 1 dB, the verification must be carried out after 1 year, at the
latest. At a difference of 1 dB < L 2 dB, the verification is carried out after 2 years,
at the latest. At a difference of L > 2 dB, the verification will be conducted after
3 years at the latest.
If there are less than 3 pieces of equipment available, the declaration will be considered
as being confirmed, if the measured value does not exceed the guaranteed value during
the verification L1.
If more than 3 pieces of equipment are available for verification, a spot check will be
made and measured at first. If thereby
L1 LWAd + 0.2 * t
is being determined, the verification will be considered as not passed.
If thereby
L1 LWAd - 1.2 * t
Is being determined, the verification is being considered as having passed with 1 test
sample. Is this not the case, 2 additional pieces of equipment will be selected and
measured (L2, L3) and the mean value L1-3 will be calculated. If thereby
L1-3 LWAd - 0.53 * t
is being determined, the declaration is considered as being confirmed, otherwise the
verification will be considered as not passed.
If the whole number of the value of LWAd was achieved by rounding down, the not
rounded value of LWAd may be referred to in the above mentioned procedure. The
verification of 3 pieces of equipment can be conducted throughout the period of
1 production year.
If the technical documentation does not provide any information as to t, then t = 2.5
will be considered as being set.
The double spot-check method described above can also be applied to internal control
of production.
5.2.8 Environmental Correction K2A
If the measurement entourage deviates from ideal conditions (reverberant measurement
surface of concrete or mastic asphalt, no reflecting barriers), the adequacy of the
measurement site must be verified by measurements with a comparison sound source.
If thereby K2A 0.5 dB will be determined, the measuring place will be considered
adequate; otherwise a correction must be made. The correction must be confirmed by
Appendix A | 11/11
comparison measurements with the same piece of equipment to be measured at ideal

conditions and may not exceed 2 dB. If a correction is being applied, R must be
increased, respectively. If K2A > 2 dB, the measuring site may not be used.
5.2.10 Rules for Market Surveillance
MS authorities are obliged to:
Visit fairs, trade shows and dealers
Check the labeling compare with data base
Visit the manufacturers/importers and check the DoC compare with data base
Check the technical documentation
Enough initial measurements?
Correct calculating of uncertainty K?
Certification by NB (ask, whether manufacturer is known there)
Regular CoP (Control of production)
Having surveillance measurement if there are doubts left or even without any
reason
Report the results to COM and manufacturer

5.2.11 Surveillance Measurements
Surveillance measurements shall follow principle of Shared Risk. So an amount of
k*R has to be subtracted from a test result before comparing it to the guaranteed sound
power level (minus tolerance). Factor k depends on the confidence level the authority
wants to get for actionable evidence on non-conformity (we propose K = 1.5 2.0).
The R should be the same as used by the manufacturer for declaration.
[For internal CoP or CoP by the NB, a plus tolerance is obligatory, see chapter 5.2.7 on
uncertainty K]
Appendix B | 1/6
Proposal for a new standard for noise measurement for

snowmobiles
F. van der Rijst, Swedish Environmental Protection Agency
Acoustics - Measurement of noise emitted by accelerating snowmobiles Engineering method
1.1
Scope and field of application
General
This Nordic standard specifies an engineering method for measuring the noise emission
of accelerating snowmobiles.
The method is designed to meet the requirements of simplicity as far as they are
consistent with reproducibility of results and realism in the operating conditions of the
vehicle.
The specifications are intended to reproduce the highest noise level with full utilization
of the engine power available.
This method can be used for:
- type approval measurements of vehicles,
- verification measurements, and
- measurements for production control
1.2
Measurement uncertainty
Determinations made in accordance with this standard result in standard deviations of

reproducibility, R, of the maximum A-weighted sound pressure level equal to or less
than 1,0 dB.
Note: As an example, for normal distribution of sound pressure levels, there is 95 %
confidence that the true value of the sound pressure level lies within the range 1,96 R
of the measured value.
2
Normative references
IEC 651:1979 Sound level meters and Amendment 1 1993-09

IEC 942:1988, Sound calibrators.
Definitions
3.1
Appendix B | 2/6
Snowmobile
Engine driven track equipped vehicle with a maximum service weight of 400 kilograms
built to transport persons or freight across snow and ice.
3.2
Maximum A-weighted sound pressure level, LpAFmax
The maximum sound pressure level using frequency weighting A and time weighting F,
according to IEC 651. The reference sound pressure is 20 Pa (20x 10-6 Pa)
3.3
Measurement area
The area formed by the start point, the end point, and the microphone locations. (see
fig.1)
Instrumentation
4.1
Instrumentation for acoustical measurements
The sound level meter (or equivalent measuring system) including the microphone and
the cable, shall meet the requirements of a type 1 instrument according to IEC 651. The
acoustical calibrator shall meet or exceed the requirements of class 1 calibrators
according to IEC 942.
At the beginning and end of each measurement series, the instruments shall be
calibrated with an acoustical calibrator. The calibration results shall be recorded in the
test protocol and the test shall be considered invalid if the two calibration results differ
more than 0,3 dB.
A windscreen shall be used and it should be of a type specified by the manufacturer as
suitable for the particular microphone. It should be ascertained from the manufacturer
that the use of windscreen does not influence the accuracy of the sound level meter
significantly under the ambient conditions of test.
At intervals of not more than 2 years, the sound level meter shall be calibrated for
compliance with IEC 651. At interval of not more than 1 year, the acoustical calibrator
shall be calibrated for compliance with IEC 942.
Some measuring equipment, especially old sound calibrators not complying with class 1
of IEC 942, is likely to be affected by air temperatures near and below 0C. Special
precautions must be taken to ensure the reliability of the sound calibration and sound
levels meter readings.
4.2
Other instrumentation
4.2.1
Appendix B | 3/6
Instrument for speed measurements
The speed of the vehicle during the approach shall be measured with instruments with
an accuracy of 10 % or better.
Note:
The vehicle speed meter can be used, if it is checked before the test. The check of the
speed meter can be done by measuring the passing time when the vehicle is passing the
measurement area (20 m) with constant speed according to 6.4.1.
4.2.2
Meteorological instruments
Thermometer
Wind vane
5.
Acoustical environment, meteorological conditions and background noise
5.1
Test site
The test site shall be an open plane with a plane surface and free from reflecting objects.
The surface of the ground shall be covered with compacted snow.
These conditions are deemed to be satisfied if the following requirements are met
Within a radius of 50 m around the centre of the trick the space shall be free from large
sound reflecting objects suck as fences, rocks or buildings (see fig.1).
The surface of the ground within the measurement area, including vehicle path, shall be
covered with at least 5 cm of snow sufficiently compacted to support the vehicle
without
An alternative surface of turf, primarily grass up to a maximum height of 10 cm may be
used.
This surface shall be dry.
The surface of the vehicle path shall be retained as flat as possible. If the vehicle has
penetrated the snow surface, the consecutive maximum and minimum points of the
surface and the depth of the vehicle path and surrounding surface should not be higher
than 10 cm.
As an alternative surface of the turf, primarily grass up to a maximum height of 10 cm
may be used. This surface shall be dry.
Notes:
It is recommended that the snow surface in the measurement area shall be packed
with a vehicle one day before the tests.
While making sound level measurements, only the person reading the meter, shall be
at the measurement area.
Appendix B | 4/6
The sound pressure level can be up to 3 dB higher when using the alternative surface
of turf.
5.2
Meteorological conditions
The measurements shall be made under the following weather conditions:

no strong gusts of wind
air temperature above 10 C
wind speed < 10m/s at the microphone height
5.3
Background noise
The background noise (including wind noise) shall be at least 10 dB below the noise
level from the vehicle under test.
6
Test procedure
6.1
Microphone positions
The distance from the microphone positions to the reference line CC (se figure 1) on the
vehicle path shall be 7,5 m.
Locate the microphone 1,2 m above the surface of the snow. Unless otherwise indicated
by the manufacturer of the sound level meter, the reference axis of the microphone (se
IEC 651) shall be horizontal and directed perpendicularly to the path of the vehicle (line
CC).
Figure 1 Test site and microphone positions
Appendix B | 5/6
The vehicle path should be marked with cones or marking pins on both sides of the
centre line in three sections, at line A-A, B-B and on the middle of the measurement
area. The width of the vehicle path should be the vehicle width plus 0,6 m.
6.2
Number of measurements
Make at least three measurements on each side of the vehicle.

6.3
Readings to be taken
Record the A-weighted maximum sound pressure level, LpAmax.F, during each passage of
the vehicle between the two lines AA and BB (se figure 1). If a peak obviously out of
character with the normal sound level is observed, discard the measurement
Repeat the tons until three consecutive readings within a 2,0 dB range per vehicle side
have been obtained.
The sound level for each side of the vehicle shall be the arithmetic average of all three
readings, rounded to nearest integer.
The sound level reported shall be the one for the side of the vehicle with the highest
mean value.
Note:
0,5 dB shall be rounded up to the. nearest highest integer.
6.4
Conditions of the vehicle
Make the measurements on vehicles unladen except for the driver and, except for the
case of non-separable vehicles, without sleigh.
Before the measurements are started, the engine shall be brought to its normal operating
conditions with respect of temperature. The vehicle shall be supplied with fuel, sparking
plugs, carburettor (s), exhaust systems, etc., as recommended by the manufacturer.
6.5
Operating conditions
6.5.1
General conditions
The vehicle shall approach the line AA with the path of its centre line following as
closely as possible the line CC as specified below. The centre line of the vehicle must
not deviate more than 0,3 m from either side of the centreline of the vehicle path.
The vehicle shall approach the line AA at uniform vehicle speed corresponding to one
of the following:
- 50 km/h, or
- a of maximum vehicle speed
whichever is the lowest
When the front of the vehicle reaches the line AA, the throttle shall be fully opened as
rapidly as possible and held fully open until the rear of the vehicle reaches line BB. The
throttle shall then be closed as rapidly as possible.
Appendix B | 6/6
The reference point of the vehicle, to indicate where the vehicle is at the acceleration
line AA, shall be the front of the vehicle ski(s).
6.5.2
Special conditions for vehicles with gear-box
Vehicles fitted with a gear-box shall be tested at the highest gear. In all cases the special
selector's positions for slow movements shall be excluded.
7
Information to be reported
The test report shall include the following information:

a)
Reference to this standard.
b)
Description of the vehicle under test including its

- type
- technical data
- manufacturer
- serial number of the vehicle and engine
- year of manufacture
c)
Place, date when the measurements were performed, and the name and person
responsible for the test
d)
Details of the test site, the testing ground conditions
e)
Weather conditions
- air temperature in degrees Celsius

- wind speed in m/s
f) All equipment used for the measurements, including name, type, serial number,
manufacturer and date of calibration
g)
The transmission gear during the test
h)
The vehicle approach speed at the beginning of the period of acceleration
i)
The maximum A-weighted sound pressure level of the vehicle according to 6.3,
in decibels
h)
The maximum A-weighted sound pressure level of the background noise in
decibels.

Studiu Directiva ZGOMOT 16 10

Diunggah oleh

Informasi Dokumen

Hak Cipta

Format Tersedia

Bagikan dokumen Ini

Bagikan atau Tanam Dokumen

Opsi Berbagi

Apakah menurut Anda dokumen ini bermanfaat?

Apakah konten ini tidak pantas?

Hak Cipta:

Format Tersedia

Studiu Directiva ZGOMOT 16 10

Diunggah oleh

Hak Cipta:

Format Tersedia

Stieltjesweg 1

P.O. Box 155

Study on the experience in the implementation and

September 28, 2007

European Commission DG Enterprise and Industry

271 (incl. appendices)

TNO report | MON-RPT-033-DTS-2007-02554 | v4.3 | September 28, 2007

TNO report | MON-RPT-033-DTS-2007-02554 | v4.3 | September 28, 2007

TNO report | MON-RPT-033-DTS-2007-02554 | v4.3 | September 28, 2007

TNO report | MON-RPT-033-DTS-2007-02554 | v4.3 | September 28, 2007

TNO report | MON-RPT-033-DTS-2007-02554 | v4.3 | September 28, 2007

Phase 1.1 Review of noise data - statistical analysis.................................................. 13

Environmental impact assessment ............................................................................. 78

Review of test cycles and procedures ......................................................................... 97

Technical impact assessment .................................................................................... 106

Economic impact assessment .................................................................................... 125

TNO report | MON-RPT-033-DTS-2007-02554 | v4.3 | September 28, 2007

Phase 1.4 Instruments for noise reduction............................................................... 155

Conclusions and recommendations .......................................................................... 237

TNO report | MON-RPT-033-DTS-2007-02554 | v4.3 | September 28, 2007

This page is intentionally blank

TNO report | MON-RPT-033-DTS-2007-02554 | v4.3 | September 28, 2007

TNO report | MON-RPT-033-DTS-2007-02554 | v4.3 | September 28, 2007

This study, in response to European Tender ENTR/05/105 [6,7] and corresponding to

Figure 1.1 Construction machinery in an inner

Figure 1.2 Excavator working in a narrow

Figure 1.3 Lawnmower in residential area

Figure 1.4 Compressor in inner city

TNO report | MON-RPT-033-DTS-2007-02554 | v4.3 | September 28, 2007

TNO report | MON-RPT-033-DTS-2007-02554 | v4.3 | September 28, 2007

The main objectives of the study are the following:

TNO report | MON-RPT-033-DTS-2007-02554 | v4.3 | September 28, 2007

Phase 1.1 Review of noise data - statistical analysis

Assessment of European Machinery Noise Database

TNO report | MON-RPT-033-DTS-2007-02554 | v4.3 | September 28, 2007

Number of records per year of certificate

Number of parameter values available

Table 2.2: Overview of database entries per year.

Number of measurements available

TNO report | MON-RPT-033-DTS-2007-02554 | v4.3 | September 28, 2007

TNO report | MON-RPT-033-DTS-2007-02554 | v4.3 | September 28, 2007

TNO report | MON-RPT-033-DTS-2007-02554 | v4.3 | September 28, 2007

Considerations based on ISO 11689

Methodology statistical analysis

TNO report | MON-RPT-033-DTS-2007-02554 | v4.3 | September 28, 2007

TNO report | MON-RPT-033-DTS-2007-02554 | v4.3 | September 28, 2007

Comparison of measured and guaranteed values

TNO report | MON-RPT-033-DTS-2007-02554 | v4.3 | September 28, 2007

TNO report | MON-RPT-033-DTS-2007-02554 | v4.3 | September 28, 2007

TNO report | MON-RPT-033-DTS-2007-02554 | v4.3 | September 28, 2007

Feasibility of current stage II limits and more stringent limits

TNO report | MON-RPT-033-DTS-2007-02554 | v4.3 | September 28, 2007

mean min max std

TNO report | MON-RPT-033-DTS-2007-02554 | v4.3 | September 28, 2007

mean min max

% meeting % meeting % meeting % meeting % meeting

TNO report | MON-RPT-033-DTS-2007-02554 | v4.3 | September 28, 2007

TNO report | MON-RPT-033-DTS-2007-02554 | v4.3 | September 28, 2007

TNO report | MON-RPT-033-DTS-2007-02554 | v4.3 | September 28, 2007

TNO report | MON-RPT-033-DTS-2007-02554 | v4.3 | September 28, 2007

Potential new limit

Potential new limit

Potential for limits for marked equipment

TNO report | MON-RPT-033-DTS-2007-02554 | v4.3 | September 28, 2007