# Official Journal L 5/2018

| | ISSN 1977-0677 |
| --- | --- |
| Official Journal
  of the European Union | L 5 |
| | |
| English edition | Legislation | Volume 6110 January 2018 |

ISSN 1977-0677

Official Journal

of the European Union

L 5

English edition

Legislation

Volume 6110 January 2018

---

| Contents | | II   Non-legislative acts | page |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |
| | | REGULATIONS |
| | * | Commission Regulation (EU) 2018/18 of 21 December 2017 establishing a prohibition of fishing for roughhead grenadier in Union and international waters of I, II and IV by vessels flying the flag of France | 1 |
| | * | Commission Regulation (EU) 2018/19 of 21 December 2017 establishing a prohibition of fishing for cod in Greenland waters of NAFO 1F and Greenland waters of XIV by vessels flying the flag of Germany | 4 |
| | * | Commission Regulation (EU) 2018/20 of 21 December 2017 establishing a prohibition of fishing for sandeel and associated by-catches in Union waters of IIa, IIIa and IV by vessels flying the flag of Germany | 7 |
| | * | Commission Regulation (EU) 2018/21 of 21 December 2017 establishing a prohibition of fishing for mackerel in area VIIIc, IX and X; Union waters of CECAF 34.1.1 by vessels flying the flag of Germany | 10 |
| | * | Commission Regulation (EU) 2018/22 of 21 December 2017 establishing a prohibition of fishing for herring in Union and Norwegian waters of IV north of 53° 30′ N by vessels flying the flag of France | 13 |
| | * | Commission Regulation (EU) 2018/23 of 21 December 2017 establishing a prohibition of fishing for herring in areas VIaS, VIIb and VIIc by vessels flying the flag of Ireland | 16 |
| | * | Commission Regulation (EU) 2018/24 of 21 December 2017 establishing a prohibition of fishing for plaice in areas VIIf and VIIg by vessels flying the flag of France | 19 |
| | * | Commission Regulation (EU) 2018/25 of 21 December 2017 establishing a prohibition of fishing for plaice in areas VIIh, VIIj and VIIk by vessels flying the flag of France | 22 |
| | * | Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2018/26 of 9 January 2018 approving amendments to the specification for a protected designation of origin or a protected geographical indication (Montravel (PDO)) | 25 |
| | * | Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2018/27 of 9 January 2018 conferring protection under Article 99 of Regulation (EU) No 1308/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council on the name Ribeiras do Morrazo (PGI) | 26 |
| | * | Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2018/28 of 9 January 2018 re-imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty on imports of bicycles whether declared as originating in Sri Lanka or not from City Cycle Industries | 27 |

Contents

II   Non-legislative acts

page

REGULATIONS

*

Commission Regulation (EU) 2018/18 of 21 December 2017 establishing a prohibition of fishing for roughhead grenadier in Union and international waters of I, II and IV by vessels flying the flag of France

1

*

Commission Regulation (EU) 2018/19 of 21 December 2017 establishing a prohibition of fishing for cod in Greenland waters of NAFO 1F and Greenland waters of XIV by vessels flying the flag of Germany

4

*

Commission Regulation (EU) 2018/20 of 21 December 2017 establishing a prohibition of fishing for sandeel and associated by-catches in Union waters of IIa, IIIa and IV by vessels flying the flag of Germany

7

*

Commission Regulation (EU) 2018/21 of 21 December 2017 establishing a prohibition of fishing for mackerel in area VIIIc, IX and X; Union waters of CECAF 34.1.1 by vessels flying the flag of Germany

10

*

Commission Regulation (EU) 2018/22 of 21 December 2017 establishing a prohibition of fishing for herring in Union and Norwegian waters of IV north of 53° 30′ N by vessels flying the flag of France

13

*

Commission Regulation (EU) 2018/23 of 21 December 2017 establishing a prohibition of fishing for herring in areas VIaS, VIIb and VIIc by vessels flying the flag of Ireland

16

*

Commission Regulation (EU) 2018/24 of 21 December 2017 establishing a prohibition of fishing for plaice in areas VIIf and VIIg by vessels flying the flag of France

19

*

Commission Regulation (EU) 2018/25 of 21 December 2017 establishing a prohibition of fishing for plaice in areas VIIh, VIIj and VIIk by vessels flying the flag of France

22

*

Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2018/26 of 9 January 2018 approving amendments to the specification for a protected designation of origin or a protected geographical indication (Montravel (PDO))

25

*

Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2018/27 of 9 January 2018 conferring protection under Article 99 of Regulation (EU) No 1308/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council on the name Ribeiras do Morrazo (PGI)

26

*

Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2018/28 of 9 January 2018 re-imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty on imports of bicycles whether declared as originating in Sri Lanka or not from City Cycle Industries

27

| | | Corrigenda |
| --- | --- | --- |
| | * | Corrigendum to Commission Directive (EU) 2015/996 of 19 May 2015 establishing common noise assessment methods according to Directive 2002/49/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council ( OJ L 168, 1.7.2015 ) | 35 |

Corrigenda

*

Corrigendum to Commission Directive (EU) 2015/996 of 19 May 2015 establishing common noise assessment methods according to Directive 2002/49/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council ( OJ L 168, 1.7.2015 )

( OJ L 168, 1.7.2015 )

35

| EN | Acts whose titles are printed in light type are those relating to day-to-day management of agricultural matters, and are generally valid for a limited period.
  The titles of all other Acts are printed in bold type and preceded by an asterisk. |
| --- | --- |

EN

Acts whose titles are printed in light type are those relating to day-to-day management of agricultural matters, and are generally valid for a limited period.

The titles of all other Acts are printed in bold type and preceded by an asterisk.

---

II Non-legislative acts

REGULATIONS

| 10.1.2018 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | L 5/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

10.1.2018

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 5/1

---

COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) 2018/18

of 21 December 2017

establishing a prohibition of fishing for roughhead grenadier in Union and international waters of I, II and IV by vessels flying the flag of France

THE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,

Having regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,

Having regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1224/2009 of 20 November 2009 establishing a Union control system for ensuring compliance with the rules of the common fisheries policy (1), and in particular Article 36(2) thereof,

Whereas:

| (1) | Council Regulation (EU) 2016/2285 (2) lays down quotas for 2017. |
| --- | --- |

(1)

Council Regulation (EU) 2016/2285 (2) lays down quotas for 2017.

| (2) | According to the information received by the Commission, catches of the stock referred to in the Annex to this Regulation by vessels flying the flag of or registered in the Member State referred to therein have exhausted the quota allocated for 2017. |
| --- | --- |

(2)

According to the information received by the Commission, catches of the stock referred to in the Annex to this Regulation by vessels flying the flag of or registered in the Member State referred to therein have exhausted the quota allocated for 2017.

| (3) | It is therefore necessary to prohibit fishing activities for that stock, |
| --- | --- |

(3)

It is therefore necessary to prohibit fishing activities for that stock,

HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:

Article 1

Quota exhaustion

The fishing quota allocated to the Member State referred to in the Annex to this Regulation for the stock referred to therein for 2017 shall be deemed to be exhausted from the date set out in that Annex.

Article 2

Prohibitions

Fishing activities for the stock referred to in the Annex to this Regulation by vessels flying the flag of or registered in the Member State referred to therein shall be prohibited from the date set out in that Annex. In particular it shall be prohibited to retain on board, relocate, tranship or land fish from that stock caught by those vessels after that date.

Article 3

Entry into force

This Regulation shall enter into force on the day following that of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.

Official Journal of the European Union

This Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.

Done at Brussels, 21 December 2017.

For the Commission,

On behalf of the President,

João AGUIAR MACHADO

Director-General

Directorate-General for Maritime Affairs and Fisheries

---

(1)  
  OJ L 343, 22.12.2009, p. 1.

1

(2)  Council Regulation (EU) 2016/2285 of 12 December 2016 fixing for 2017 and 2018 the fishing opportunities for Union fishing vessels for certain deep-sea fish stocks and amending Council Regulation (EU) 2016/72 (OJ L 344, 17.12.2016, p. 32).

2

---

ANNEX

| No | 47/TQ2285 |
| --- | --- |
| Member State | France |
| Stock | RHG/124- |
| Species | Roughhead grenadier (Macrourus berglax) |
| Zone | Union and international waters of I, II and IV |
| Closing date | 7.12.2017 |

No

47/TQ2285

Member State

France

Stock

RHG/124-

Species

Roughhead grenadier (Macrourus berglax)

Zone

Union and international waters of I, II and IV

Closing date

7.12.2017

---

| 10.1.2018 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | L 5/4 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

10.1.2018

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 5/4

---

COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) 2018/19

of 21 December 2017

establishing a prohibition of fishing for cod in Greenland waters of NAFO 1F and Greenland waters of XIV by vessels flying the flag of Germany

THE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,

Having regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,

Having regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1224/2009 of 20 November 2009 establishing a Union control system for ensuring compliance with the rules of the common fisheries policy (1), and in particular Article 36(2) thereof,

Whereas:

| (1) | Council Regulation (EU) 2017/127 (2) lays down quotas for 2017. |
| --- | --- |

(1)

Council Regulation (EU) 2017/127 (2) lays down quotas for 2017.

| (2) | According to the information received by the Commission, catches of the stock referred to in the Annex to this Regulation by vessels flying the flag of or registered in the Member State referred to therein have exhausted the quota allocated for 2017. |
| --- | --- |

(2)

According to the information received by the Commission, catches of the stock referred to in the Annex to this Regulation by vessels flying the flag of or registered in the Member State referred to therein have exhausted the quota allocated for 2017.

| (3) | It is therefore necessary to prohibit fishing activities for that stock, |
| --- | --- |

(3)

It is therefore necessary to prohibit fishing activities for that stock,

HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:

Article 1

Quota exhaustion

The fishing quota allocated to the Member State referred to in the Annex to this Regulation for the stock referred to therein for 2017 shall be deemed to be exhausted from the date set out in that Annex.

Article 2

Prohibitions

Fishing activities for the stock referred to in the Annex to this Regulation by vessels flying the flag of or registered in the Member State referred to therein shall be prohibited from the date set out in that Annex. In particular it shall be prohibited to retain on board, relocate, tranship or land fish from that stock caught by those vessels after that date.

Article 3

Entry into force

This Regulation shall enter into force on the day following that of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.

Official Journal of the European Union

This Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.

Done at Brussels, 21 December 2017.

For the Commission,

On behalf of the President,

João AGUIAR MACHADO

Director-General

Directorate-General for Maritime Affairs andFisheries

---

(1)  
  OJ L 343, 22.12.2009, p. 1.

1

(2)  Council Regulation (EU) 2017/127 of 20 January 2017 fixing for 2017 the fishing opportunities for certain fish stocks and groups of fish stocks, applicable in Union waters and, for Union fishing vessels, in certain non-Union waters (OJ L 24, 28.1.2017, p. 1).

2

---

ANNEX

| No | 51/TQ127 |
| --- | --- |
| Member State | Germany |
| Stock | COD/N1GL14 and related special conditions COD/GRL1 and COD/GRL2 |
| Species | Cod (Gadus morhua) |
| Zone | Greenland waters of NAFO 1F and Greenland waters of XIV |
| Closing date | 9.12.2017 |

No

51/TQ127

Member State

Germany

Stock

COD/N1GL14 and related special conditions COD/GRL1 and COD/GRL2

Species

Cod (Gadus morhua)

Zone

Greenland waters of NAFO 1F and Greenland waters of XIV

Closing date

9.12.2017

---

| 10.1.2018 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | L 5/7 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

10.1.2018

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 5/7

---

COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) 2018/20

of 21 December 2017

establishing a prohibition of fishing for sandeel and associated by-catches in Union waters of IIa, IIIa and IV by vessels flying the flag of Germany

THE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,

Having regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,

Having regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1224/2009 of 20 November 2009 establishing a Union control system for ensuring compliance with the rules of the common fisheries policy (1), and in particular Article 36(2) thereof,

Whereas:

| (1) | Council Regulation (EU) 2017/127 (2) lays down quotas for 2017. |
| --- | --- |

(1)

Council Regulation (EU) 2017/127 (2) lays down quotas for 2017.

| (2) | According to the information received by the Commission, catches of the stock referred to in the Annex to this Regulation by vessels flying the flag of or registered in the Member State referred to therein have exhausted the quota allocated for 2017. |
| --- | --- |

(2)

According to the information received by the Commission, catches of the stock referred to in the Annex to this Regulation by vessels flying the flag of or registered in the Member State referred to therein have exhausted the quota allocated for 2017.

| (3) | It is therefore necessary to prohibit fishing activities for that stock, |
| --- | --- |

(3)

It is therefore necessary to prohibit fishing activities for that stock,

HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:

Article 1

Quota exhaustion

The fishing quota allocated to the Member State referred to in the Annex to this Regulation for the stock referred to therein for 2017 shall be deemed to be exhausted from the date set out in that Annex.

Article 2

Prohibitions

Fishing activities for the stock referred to in the Annex to this Regulation by vessels flying the flag of or registered in the Member State referred to therein shall be prohibited from the date set out in that Annex. In particular it shall be prohibited to retain on board, relocate, tranship or land fish from that stock caught by those vessels after that date.

Article 3

Entry into force

This Regulation shall enter into force on the day following that of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.

Official Journal of the European Union

This Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.

Done at Brussels, 21 December 2017.

For the Commission,

On behalf of the President,

João AGUIAR MACHADO

Director-General

Directorate-General for Maritime Affairs and Fisheries

---

(1)  
  OJ L 343, 22.12.2009, p. 1.

1

(2)  Council Regulation (EU) 2017/127 of 20 January 2017 fixing for 2017 the fishing opportunities for certain fish stocks and groups of fish stocks, applicable in Union waters and, for Union fishing vessels, in certain non-Union waters (OJ L 24, 28.1.2017, p. 1).

2

---

ANNEX

| No | 49/TQ127 |
| --- | --- |
| Member State | Germany |
| Stock | SAN/2A3A4. and related special conditions OT1/*2A3A4, SAN/234_1R, SAN/234_2R, SAN/234_4, SAN/234_5R, SAN/234_6, SAN/234_7R, SAN/234_3R |
| Species | Sandeel and associated by-catches (Ammodytes spp.) |
| Zone | Union waters of IIa, IIIa and IV |
| Closing date | 9.12.2017 |

No

49/TQ127

Member State

Germany

Stock

SAN/2A3A4. and related special conditions OT1/*2A3A4, SAN/234_1R, SAN/234_2R, SAN/234_4, SAN/234_5R, SAN/234_6, SAN/234_7R, SAN/234_3R

Species

Sandeel and associated by-catches (Ammodytes spp.)

Zone

Union waters of IIa, IIIa and IV

Closing date

9.12.2017

---

| 10.1.2018 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | L 5/10 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

10.1.2018

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 5/10

---

COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) 2018/21

of 21 December 2017

establishing a prohibition of fishing for mackerel in area VIIIc, IX and X; Union waters of CECAF 34.1.1 by vessels flying the flag of Germany

THE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,

Having regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,

Having regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1224/2009 of 20 November 2009 establishing a Union control system for ensuring compliance with the rules of the common fisheries policy (1), and in particular Article 36(2) thereof,

Whereas:

| (1) | Council Regulation (EU) 2017/127 (2) lays down quotas for 2017. |
| --- | --- |

(1)

Council Regulation (EU) 2017/127 (2) lays down quotas for 2017.

| (2) | According to the information received by the Commission, catches of the stock referred to in the Annex to this Regulation by vessels flying the flag of or registered in the Member State referred to therein have exhausted the quota allocated for 2017. |
| --- | --- |

(2)

According to the information received by the Commission, catches of the stock referred to in the Annex to this Regulation by vessels flying the flag of or registered in the Member State referred to therein have exhausted the quota allocated for 2017.

| (3) | It is therefore necessary to prohibit fishing activities for that stock, |
| --- | --- |

(3)

It is therefore necessary to prohibit fishing activities for that stock,

HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:

Article 1

Quota exhaustion

The fishing quota allocated to the Member State referred to in the Annex to this Regulation for the stock referred to therein for 2017 shall be deemed to be exhausted from the date set out in that Annex.

Article 2

Prohibitions

Fishing activities for the stock referred to in the Annex to this Regulation by vessels flying the flag of or registered in the Member State referred to therein shall be prohibited from the date set out in that Annex. In particular it shall be prohibited to retain on board, relocate, tranship or land fish from that stock caught by those vessels after that date.

Article 3

Entry into force

This Regulation shall enter into force on the day following that of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.

Official Journal of the European Union

This Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.

Done at Brussels, 21 December 2017.

For the Commission,

On behalf of the President,

João AGUIAR MACHADO

Director-General

Directorate-General for Maritime Affairs and Fisheries

---

(1)  
  OJ L 343, 22.12.2009, p. 1.

1

(2)  Council Regulation (EU) 2017/127 of 20 January 2017 fixing for 2017 the fishing opportunities for certain fish stocks and groups of fish stocks, applicable in Union waters and, for Union fishing vessels, in certain non-Union waters (OJ L 24, 28.1.2017, p. 1).

2

---

ANNEX

| No | 50/TQ127 |
| --- | --- |
| Member State | Germany |
| Stock | MAC/8C3411 and related special condition MAC/*08B. |
| Species | Mackerel (Scomber scombrus) |
| Zone | VIIIc, IX and X; Union waters of CECAF 34.1.1 |
| Closing date | 9.12.2017 |

No

50/TQ127

Member State

Germany

Stock

MAC/8C3411 and related special condition MAC/*08B.

Species

Mackerel (Scomber scombrus)

Zone

VIIIc, IX and X; Union waters of CECAF 34.1.1

Closing date

9.12.2017

---

| 10.1.2018 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | L 5/13 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

10.1.2018

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 5/13

---

COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) 2018/22

of 21 December 2017

establishing a prohibition of fishing for herring in Union and Norwegian waters of IV north of 53° 30′ N by vessels flying the flag of France

THE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,

Having regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,

Having regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1224/2009 of 20 November 2009 establishing a Union control system for ensuring compliance with the rules of the common fisheries policy (1), and in particular Article 36(2) thereof,

Whereas:

| (1) | Council Regulation (EU) 2017/127 (2) lays down quotas for 2017. |
| --- | --- |

(1)

Council Regulation (EU) 2017/127 (2) lays down quotas for 2017.

| (2) | According to the information received by the Commission, catches of the stock referred to in the Annex to this Regulation by vessels flying the flag of or registered in the Member State referred to therein have exhausted the quota allocated for 2017. |
| --- | --- |

(2)

According to the information received by the Commission, catches of the stock referred to in the Annex to this Regulation by vessels flying the flag of or registered in the Member State referred to therein have exhausted the quota allocated for 2017.

| (3) | It is therefore necessary to prohibit fishing activities for that stock, |
| --- | --- |

(3)

It is therefore necessary to prohibit fishing activities for that stock,

HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:

Article 1

Quota exhaustion

The fishing quota allocated to the Member State referred to in the Annex to this Regulation for the stock referred to therein for 2017 shall be deemed to be exhausted from the date set out in that Annex.

Article 2

Prohibitions

Fishing activities for the stock referred to in the Annex to this Regulation by vessels flying the flag of or registered in the Member State referred to therein shall be prohibited from the date set out in that Annex. In particular it shall be prohibited to retain on board, relocate, tranship or land fish from that stock caught by those vessels after that date.

Article 3

Entry into force

This Regulation shall enter into force on the day following that of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.

Official Journal of the European Union

This Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.

Done at Brussels, 21 December 2017.

For the Commission,

On behalf of the President,

João AGUIAR MACHADO

Director-General

Directorate-General for Maritime Affairs and Fisheries

---

(1)  
  OJ L 343, 22.12.2009, p. 1.

1

(2)  Council Regulation (EU) 2017/127 of 20 January 2017 fixing for 2017 the fishing opportunities for certain fish stocks and groups of fish stocks, applicable in Union waters and, for Union fishing vessels, in certain non-Union waters (OJ L 24, 28.1.2017, p. 1).

2

---

ANNEX

| No | 48/TQ127 |
| --- | --- |
| Member State | France |
| Stock | HER/4AB. and related special condition HER/*4AB-C |
| Species | Herring (Clupea harengus) |
| Zone | Union and Norwegian waters of IV north of 53° 30′ N |
| Closing date | 7.12.2017 |

No

48/TQ127

Member State

France

Stock

HER/4AB. and related special condition HER/*4AB-C

Species

Herring (Clupea harengus)

Zone

Union and Norwegian waters of IV north of 53° 30′ N

Closing date

7.12.2017

---

| 10.1.2018 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | L 5/16 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

10.1.2018

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 5/16

---

COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) 2018/23

of 21 December 2017

establishing a prohibition of fishing for herring in areas VIaS, VIIb and VIIc by vessels flying the flag of Ireland

THE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,

Having regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,

Having regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1224/2009 of 20 November 2009 establishing a Union control system for ensuring compliance with the rules of the common fisheries policy (1), and in particular Article 36(2) thereof,

Whereas:

| (1) | Council Regulation (EU) 2017/127 (2) lays down quotas for 2017. |
| --- | --- |

(1)

Council Regulation (EU) 2017/127 (2) lays down quotas for 2017.

| (2) | According to the information received by the Commission, catches of the stock referred to in the Annex to this Regulation by vessels flying the flag of or registered in the Member State referred to therein have exhausted the quota allocated for 2017. |
| --- | --- |

(2)

According to the information received by the Commission, catches of the stock referred to in the Annex to this Regulation by vessels flying the flag of or registered in the Member State referred to therein have exhausted the quota allocated for 2017.

| (3) | It is therefore necessary to prohibit fishing activities for that stock, |
| --- | --- |

(3)

It is therefore necessary to prohibit fishing activities for that stock,

HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:

Article 1

Quota exhaustion

The fishing quota allocated to the Member State referred to in the Annex to this Regulation for the stock referred to therein for 2017 shall be deemed to be exhausted from the date set out in that Annex.

Article 2

Prohibitions

Fishing activities for the stock referred to in the Annex to this Regulation by vessels flying the flag of or registered in the Member State referred to therein shall be prohibited from the date set out in that Annex. In particular it shall be prohibited to retain on board, relocate, tranship or land fish from that stock caught by those vessels after that date.

Article 3

Entry into force

This Regulation shall enter into force on the day following that of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.

Official Journal of the European Union

This Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.

Done at Brussels, 21 December 2017.

For the Commission,

On behalf of the President,

João AGUIAR MACHADO

Director-General

Directorate-General for Maritime Affairs and Fisheries

---

(1)  
  OJ L 343, 22.12.2009, p. 1.

1

(2)  Council Regulation (EU) 2017/127 of 20 January 2017 fixing for 2017 the fishing opportunities for certain fish stocks and groups of fish stocks, applicable in Union waters and, for Union fishing vessels, in certain non-Union waters (OJ L 24, 28.1.2017, p. 1).

2

---

ANNEX

| No | 52/TQ127 |
| --- | --- |
| Member State | Ireland |
| Stock | HER/6AS7BC |
| Species | Herring (Clupea harengus) |
| Zone | VIaS, VIIb, VIIc |
| Closing date | 12.12.2017 |

No

52/TQ127

Member State

Ireland

Stock

HER/6AS7BC

Species

Herring (Clupea harengus)

Zone

VIaS, VIIb, VIIc

Closing date

12.12.2017

---

| 10.1.2018 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | L 5/19 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

10.1.2018

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 5/19

---

COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) 2018/24

of 21 December 2017

establishing a prohibition of fishing for plaice in areas VIIf and VIIg by vessels flying the flag of France

THE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,

Having regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,

Having regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1224/2009 of 20 November 2009 establishing a Union control system for ensuring compliance with the rules of the common fisheries policy (1), and in particular Article 36(2) thereof,

Whereas:

| (1) | Council Regulation (EU) 2017/127 (2) lays down quotas for 2017. |
| --- | --- |

(1)

Council Regulation (EU) 2017/127 (2) lays down quotas for 2017.

| (2) | According to the information received by the Commission, catches of the stock referred to in the Annex to this Regulation by vessels flying the flag of or registered in the Member State referred to therein have exhausted the quota allocated for 2017. |
| --- | --- |

(2)

According to the information received by the Commission, catches of the stock referred to in the Annex to this Regulation by vessels flying the flag of or registered in the Member State referred to therein have exhausted the quota allocated for 2017.

| (3) | It is therefore necessary to prohibit fishing activities for that stock, |
| --- | --- |

(3)

It is therefore necessary to prohibit fishing activities for that stock,

HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:

Article 1

Quota exhaustion

The fishing quota allocated to the Member State referred to in the Annex to this Regulation for the stock referred to therein for 2017 shall be deemed to be exhausted from the date set out in that Annex.

Article 2

Prohibitions

Fishing activities for the stock referred to in the Annex to this Regulation by vessels flying the flag of or registered in the Member State referred to therein shall be prohibited from the date set out in that Annex. In particular it shall be prohibited to retain on board, relocate, tranship or land fish from that stock caught by those vessels after that date.

Article 3

Entry into force

This Regulation shall enter into force on the day following that of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.

Official Journal of the European Union

This Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.

Done at Brussels, 21 December 2017.

For the Commission,

On behalf of the President,

João AGUIAR MACHADO

Director-General

Directorate-General for Maritime Affairs and Fisheries

---

(1)  
  OJ L 343, 22.12.2009, p. 1.

1

(2)  Council Regulation (EU) 2017/127 of 20 January 2017 fixing for 2017 the fishing opportunities for certain fish stocks and groups of fish stocks, applicable in Union waters and, for Union fishing vessels, in certain non-Union waters (OJ L 24, 28.1.2017, p. 1).

2

---

ANNEX

| No | 41/TQ127 |
| --- | --- |
| Member State | France |
| Stock | PLE/7FG. |
| Species | Plaice (Pleuronectes platessa) |
| Zone | VIIf and VIIg |
| Closing date | 6.11.2017 |

No

41/TQ127

Member State

France

Stock

PLE/7FG.

Species

Plaice (Pleuronectes platessa)

Zone

VIIf and VIIg

Closing date

6.11.2017

---

| 10.1.2018 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | L 5/22 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

10.1.2018

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 5/22

---

COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) 2018/25

of 21 December 2017

establishing a prohibition of fishing for plaice in areas VIIh, VIIj and VIIk by vessels flying the flag of France

THE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,

Having regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,

Having regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1224/2009 of 20 November 2009 establishing a Union control system for ensuring compliance with the rules of the common fisheries policy (1), and in particular Article 36(2) thereof,

Whereas:

| (1) | Council Regulation (EU) 2017/127 (2) lays down quotas for 2017. |
| --- | --- |

(1)

Council Regulation (EU) 2017/127 (2) lays down quotas for 2017.

| (2) | According to the information received by the Commission, catches of the stock referred to in the Annex to this Regulation by vessels flying the flag of or registered in the Member State referred to therein have exhausted the quota allocated for 2017. |
| --- | --- |

(2)

According to the information received by the Commission, catches of the stock referred to in the Annex to this Regulation by vessels flying the flag of or registered in the Member State referred to therein have exhausted the quota allocated for 2017.

| (3) | It is therefore necessary to prohibit fishing activities for that stock, |
| --- | --- |

(3)

It is therefore necessary to prohibit fishing activities for that stock,

HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:

Article 1

Quota exhaustion

The fishing quota allocated to the Member State referred to in the Annex to this Regulation for the stock referred to therein for 2017 shall be deemed to be exhausted from the date set out in that Annex.

Article 2

Prohibitions

Fishing activities for the stock referred to in the Annex to this Regulation by vessels flying the flag of or registered in the Member State referred to therein shall be prohibited from the date set out in that Annex. In particular it shall be prohibited to retain on board, relocate, tranship or land fish from that stock caught by those vessels after that date.

Article 3

Entry into force

This Regulation shall enter into force on the day following that of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.

Official Journal of the European Union

This Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.

Done at Brussels, 21 December 2017.

For the Commission,

On behalf of the President,

João AGUIAR MACHADO

Director-General

Directorate-General for Maritime Affairs and Fisheries

---

(1)  
  OJ L 343, 22.12.2009, p. 1.

1

(2)  Council Regulation (EU) 2017/127 of 20 January 2017 fixing for 2017 the fishing opportunities for certain fish stocks and groups of fish stocks, applicable in Union waters and, for Union fishing vessels, in certain non-Union waters (OJ L 24, 28.1.2017, p. 1).

2

---

ANNEX

| No | 42/TQ127 |
| --- | --- |
| Member State | France |
| Stock | PLE/7HJK. |
| Species | Plaice (Pleuronectes platessa) |
| Zone | VIIh, VIIj and VIIk |
| Closing date | 6.11.2017 |

No

42/TQ127

Member State

France

Stock

PLE/7HJK.

Species

Plaice (Pleuronectes platessa)

Zone

VIIh, VIIj and VIIk

Closing date

6.11.2017

---

| 10.1.2018 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | L 5/25 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

10.1.2018

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 5/25

---

COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) 2018/26

of 9 January 2018

approving amendments to the specification for a protected designation of origin or a protected geographical indication (‘Montravel’ (PDO))

THE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,

Having regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,

Having regard to Regulation (EU) No 1308/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 December 2013 establishing a common organisation of the markets in agricultural products and repealing Council Regulations (EEC) No 922/72, (EEC) No 234/79, (EC) No 1037/2001 and (EC) No 1234/2007 (1), and in particular Article 99 thereof,

Whereas:

| (1) | The Commission has examined France's application pursuant to Article 105 of Regulation (EU) No 1308/2013 for the approval of amendments to the specification for the protected designation of origin ‘Montravel’. |
| --- | --- |

(1)

The Commission has examined France's application pursuant to Article 105 of Regulation (EU) No 1308/2013 for the approval of amendments to the specification for the protected designation of origin ‘Montravel’.

| (2) | The Commission has published the application for the approval of amendments to the specification, as required by Article 97(3) of Regulation (EU) No 1308/2013, in the Official Journal of the European Union (2). |
| --- | --- |

(2)

The Commission has published the application for the approval of amendments to the specification, as required by Article 97(3) of Regulation (EU) No 1308/2013, in the Official Journal of the European Union (2).

| (3) | No statement of objection has been received by the Commission under Article 98 of Regulation (EU) No 1308/2013. |
| --- | --- |

(3)

No statement of objection has been received by the Commission under Article 98 of Regulation (EU) No 1308/2013.

| (4) | The amendments to the specification should therefore be approved in accordance with Article 99 of Regulation (EU) No 1308/2013. |
| --- | --- |

(4)

The amendments to the specification should therefore be approved in accordance with Article 99 of Regulation (EU) No 1308/2013.

| (5) | The measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Committee for the Common Organisation of Agricultural Markets, |
| --- | --- |

(5)

The measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Committee for the Common Organisation of Agricultural Markets,

HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:

Article 1

The amendments to the specification published in the Official Journal of the European Union regarding the name ‘Montravel’ (PDO) are hereby approved.

Article 2

This Regulation shall enter into force on the twentieth day following that of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.

This Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.

Done at Brussels, 9 January 2018.

For the Commission

The President

Jean-Claude JUNCKER

---

(1)  
  OJ L 347, 20.12.2013, p. 671.

1

(2)  
  OJ C 255, 5.8.2017, p. 10.

2

---

| 10.1.2018 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | L 5/26 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

10.1.2018

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 5/26

---

COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) 2018/27

of 9 January 2018

conferring protection under Article 99 of Regulation (EU) No 1308/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council on the name ‘Ribeiras do Morrazo’ (PGI)

THE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,

Having regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,

Having regard to Regulation (EU) No 1308/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 December 2013 establishing a common organisation of the markets in agricultural products and repealing Council Regulations (EEC) No 922/72, (EEC) No 234/79, (EC) No 1037/2001 and (EC) No 1234/2007 (1), and in particular Article 99 thereof,

Whereas:

| (1) | In accordance with Article 97(2) and (3) of Regulation (EU) No 1308/2013, the Commission has examined the application to register the name ‘Ribeiras do Morrazo’ sent by Spain and has published it in the Official Journal of the European Union (2). |
| --- | --- |

(1)

In accordance with Article 97(2) and (3) of Regulation (EU) No 1308/2013, the Commission has examined the application to register the name ‘Ribeiras do Morrazo’ sent by Spain and has published it in the Official Journal of the European Union (2).

| (2) | No statement of objection has been received by the Commission under Article 98 of Regulation (EU) No 1308/2013. |
| --- | --- |

(2)

No statement of objection has been received by the Commission under Article 98 of Regulation (EU) No 1308/2013.

| (3) | In accordance with Article 99 of Regulation (EU) No 1308/2013, the name ‘Ribeiras do Morrazo’ should be protected and entered in the register referred to in Article 104 of that Regulation. |
| --- | --- |

(3)

In accordance with Article 99 of Regulation (EU) No 1308/2013, the name ‘Ribeiras do Morrazo’ should be protected and entered in the register referred to in Article 104 of that Regulation.

| (4) | The measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Committee for the Common Organisation of the Agricultural Markets, |
| --- | --- |

(4)

The measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Committee for the Common Organisation of the Agricultural Markets,

HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:

Article 1

The name ‘Ribeiras do Morrazo’ (PGI) is hereby protected.

Article 2

This Regulation shall enter into force on the twentieth day following that of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.

This Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.

Done at Brussels, 9 January 2018.

For the Commission

The President

Jean-Claude JUNCKER

---

(1)  
  OJ L 347, 20.12.2013, p. 671.

1

(2)  
  OJ C 255, 5.8.2017, p. 15.

2

---

| 10.1.2018 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | L 5/27 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

10.1.2018

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 5/27

---

COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) 2018/28

of 9 January 2018

re-imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty on imports of bicycles whether declared as originating in Sri Lanka or not from City Cycle Industries

THE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,

Having regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,

Having regard to Regulation (EU) 2016/1036 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 8 June 2016 on protection against dumped imports from countries not members of the European Union (1) (‘the basic Regulation’), and in particular Article 13 thereof,

Whereas:

A.   MEASURES IN FORCE AND JUDGMENTS OF THE COURTS

MEASURES IN FORCE AND JUDGMENTS OF THE COURTS

1.   Measures in force

Measures in force

| (1) | In 2011, by Implementing Regulation (EU) No 990/2011 (2), the Council imposed definitive anti-dumping duty on imports of bicycles originating in the People's Republic of China (‘the original measures’) following an expiry review under Article 11(2) of the basic Regulation. |
| --- | --- |

(1)

In 2011, by Implementing Regulation (EU) No 990/2011 (2), the Council imposed definitive anti-dumping duty on imports of bicycles originating in the People's Republic of China (‘the original measures’) following an expiry review under Article 11(2) of the basic Regulation.

2

| (2) | In 2013, by Implementing Regulation (EU) No 501/2013 (3) (‘the contested Regulation’), the Council extended the original measures to imports of bicycles consigned from Indonesia, Malaysia, Sri Lanka and Tunisia, whether declared as originating in Indonesia, Malaysia, Sri Lanka and Tunisia or not (‘the anti-circumvention measures’ or ‘the extended measures’) following an anti-circumvention investigation under Article 13 of the basic Regulation. |
| --- | --- |

(2)

In 2013, by Implementing Regulation (EU) No 501/2013 (3) (‘the contested Regulation’), the Council extended the original measures to imports of bicycles consigned from Indonesia, Malaysia, Sri Lanka and Tunisia, whether declared as originating in Indonesia, Malaysia, Sri Lanka and Tunisia or not (‘the anti-circumvention measures’ or ‘the extended measures’) following an anti-circumvention investigation under Article 13 of the basic Regulation.

3

2.   Judgments of the General Court of the European Union and the Court of Justice of the European Union

Judgments of the General Court of the European Union and the Court of Justice of the European Union

| (3) | On 9 August 2013, a Sri Lankan producer, City Cycle Industries (‘City Cycle’) lodged an application at the General Court of the European Union (‘the General Court’) seeking the annulment of the contested Regulation in so far as it applies to this producer (4). In its judgment of 19 March 2015 (5), the General Court annulled the contested Regulation to the extent that it applies to City Cycle. |
| --- | --- |

(3)

On 9 August 2013, a Sri Lankan producer, City Cycle Industries (‘City Cycle’) lodged an application at the General Court of the European Union (‘the General Court’) seeking the annulment of the contested Regulation in so far as it applies to this producer (4). In its judgment of 19 March 2015 (5), the General Court annulled the contested Regulation to the extent that it applies to City Cycle.

4

5

| (4) | In July 2015 the Council of the European Union (6), European Commission (7) and Maxcom Ltd (8) (a Union manufacturer of bicycle), appealed the General Court's judgment. By its judgment of 26 January 2017 (‘the judgment’), the Court of Justice of the European Union (‘the Court of Justice’) dismissed the appeals submitted by the Union industry, the European Commission and the Council of the European Union. |
| --- | --- |

(4)

In July 2015 the Council of the European Union (6), European Commission (7) and Maxcom Ltd (8) (a Union manufacturer of bicycle), appealed the General Court's judgment. By its judgment of 26 January 2017 (‘the judgment’), the Court of Justice of the European Union (‘the Court of Justice’) dismissed the appeals submitted by the Union industry, the European Commission and the Council of the European Union.

6

7

8

| (5) | In particular, the Court of Justice found, in paragraph 73 of its judgment, that recital (78) of the contested Regulation did not contain an individual analysis of circumvention practices in which City Cycle may have been engaged. The Court of Justice also found in paragraphs 75 and 76, that the conclusion as to the existence of transhipment operations in Sri Lanka could not legally be based only on the two findings expressly made by the Council, that is, first, that there had been a change in the pattern of trade and, second, that some of the producer-exporters had failed to cooperate (9). |
| --- | --- |

(5)

In particular, the Court of Justice found, in paragraph 73 of its judgment, that recital (78) of the contested Regulation did not contain an individual analysis of circumvention practices in which City Cycle may have been engaged. The Court of Justice also found in paragraphs 75 and 76, that the conclusion as to the existence of transhipment operations in Sri Lanka could not legally be based only on the two findings expressly made by the Council, that is, first, that there had been a change in the pattern of trade and, second, that some of the producer-exporters had failed to cooperate (9).

9

3.   Consequences of the judgment

Consequences of the judgment

| (6) | In line with Article 266 of the Treaty of the Functioning of the European Union, the Union institutions need to take the necessary steps to comply with the judgment of 26 January 2017. |
| --- | --- |

(6)

In line with Article 266 of the Treaty of the Functioning of the European Union, the Union institutions need to take the necessary steps to comply with the judgment of 26 January 2017.

| (7) | In cases where a proceeding consists of several administrative steps, the annulment of one of those steps does not annul the complete proceeding (10). The anti-dumping proceeding is an example of such a multi-step proceeding. Consequently, the annulment of the contested Regulation in relation to one party does not imply the annulment of the entire procedure prior to the adoption of that Regulation. The EU institutions have the possibility to remedy the aspects of the contested Regulation which led to its annulment, while leaving unchanged the uncontested parts which are not affected by the Court judgment (11). |
| --- | --- |

(7)

In cases where a proceeding consists of several administrative steps, the annulment of one of those steps does not annul the complete proceeding (10). The anti-dumping proceeding is an example of such a multi-step proceeding. Consequently, the annulment of the contested Regulation in relation to one party does not imply the annulment of the entire procedure prior to the adoption of that Regulation. The EU institutions have the possibility to remedy the aspects of the contested Regulation which led to its annulment, while leaving unchanged the uncontested parts which are not affected by the Court judgment (11).

10

11

B.   PROCEDURE

PROCEDURE

1.   Procedure until the judgment

Procedure until the judgment

| (8) | The Commission confirms recitals (1) to (23) of the contested Regulation. They are not affected by the judgment. |
| --- | --- |

(8)

The Commission confirms recitals (1) to (23) of the contested Regulation. They are not affected by the judgment.

2.   Reopening

Reopening

| (9) | Following the judgment, on 11 April 2017 the Commission published a Notice (12) partially reopening the anti-circumvention investigation concerning imports of bicycles consigned from Sri Lanka, whether declared as originating in Sri Lanka or not that led to the adoption of the contested Regulation (‘the Notice of re-opening’) and resumed it at the point at which the irregularity occurred. The reopening was limited in scope to the implementation of the judgment with regard to City Cycle. |
| --- | --- |

(9)

Following the judgment, on 11 April 2017 the Commission published a Notice (12) partially reopening the anti-circumvention investigation concerning imports of bicycles consigned from Sri Lanka, whether declared as originating in Sri Lanka or not that led to the adoption of the contested Regulation (‘the Notice of re-opening’) and resumed it at the point at which the irregularity occurred. The reopening was limited in scope to the implementation of the judgment with regard to City Cycle.

12

| (10) | The Commission informed City Cycle, the representatives of the exporting country, the Union industry and other interested parties known to be concerned from the original investigation of the partial reopening of the investigation. Interested parties were given the opportunity to make their views known in writing and to request a hearing within the time-limit set out in the notice. |
| --- | --- |

(10)

The Commission informed City Cycle, the representatives of the exporting country, the Union industry and other interested parties known to be concerned from the original investigation of the partial reopening of the investigation. Interested parties were given the opportunity to make their views known in writing and to request a hearing within the time-limit set out in the notice.

| (11) | All interested parties who so requested were granted the opportunity to be heard by the Commission services and/or the Hearing officer in trade proceedings. Nobody requested a hearing either with the Commission services or the Hearing officer in trade proceedings. |
| --- | --- |

(11)

All interested parties who so requested were granted the opportunity to be heard by the Commission services and/or the Hearing officer in trade proceedings. Nobody requested a hearing either with the Commission services or the Hearing officer in trade proceedings.

3.   Registration of imports

Registration of imports

| (12) | Following the judgment, the European Bicycle Manufacturers Association and Maxcom Ltd requested that imports of bicycles in so far as it concerns City Cycle are made subject to registration under Article 14(5) of the basic Regulation so that measures may subsequently be applied on those imports from the date of such registration. |
| --- | --- |

(12)

Following the judgment, the European Bicycle Manufacturers Association and Maxcom Ltd requested that imports of bicycles in so far as it concerns City Cycle are made subject to registration under Article 14(5) of the basic Regulation so that measures may subsequently be applied on those imports from the date of such registration.

| (13) | On 11 April 2017, the Commission made imports of bicycles consigned from Sri Lanka, whether declared as originating in Sri Lanka or not, in so far as it concerns the Sri Lankan company City Cycle Industries subject to registration (‘Registration Regulation’) (13). |
| --- | --- |

(13)

On 11 April 2017, the Commission made imports of bicycles consigned from Sri Lanka, whether declared as originating in Sri Lanka or not, in so far as it concerns the Sri Lankan company City Cycle Industries subject to registration (‘Registration Regulation’) (13).

13

4.   Product under investigation

Product under investigation

| (14) | The product under investigation is the same as in the contested Regulation that is bicycles and other cycles (including delivery tricycles, but excluding unicycles), not motorised, originating in the People's Republic of China (‘China’ or ‘PRC’), currently falling within CN codes ex 8712 00 30 and ex 8712 00 70. The Commission confirms recitals (25) to (27) of the contested Regulation. |
| --- | --- |

(14)

The product under investigation is the same as in the contested Regulation that is bicycles and other cycles (including delivery tricycles, but excluding unicycles), not motorised, originating in the People's Republic of China (‘China’ or ‘PRC’), currently falling within CN codes ex 8712 00 30 and ex 8712 00 70. The Commission confirms recitals (25) to (27) of the contested Regulation.

C.   ASSESSMENT FOLLOWING THE JUDGMENT

ASSESSMENT FOLLOWING THE JUDGMENT

1.   Preliminary remarks

Preliminary remarks

| (15) | First, the Court of Justice held that the contested Regulation did not contain an individual analysis of circumvention practices in which City Cycle may have been engaged. The two findings expressly made by the Council, that that there had been a change in the pattern of trade and that some of the producer-exporters had failed to cooperate were found by the Court of Justice not to be sufficient to entitle the Council to conclude either that City Cycle was involved in transhipment operations or that transhipment operations existed at national level in Sri Lanka. |
| --- | --- |

(15)

First, the Court of Justice held that the contested Regulation did not contain an individual analysis of circumvention practices in which City Cycle may have been engaged. The two findings expressly made by the Council, that that there had been a change in the pattern of trade and that some of the producer-exporters had failed to cooperate were found by the Court of Justice not to be sufficient to entitle the Council to conclude either that City Cycle was involved in transhipment operations or that transhipment operations existed at national level in Sri Lanka.

| (16) | Second, it is recognised in paragraphs 29 and 31 of the judgment that the evidence communicated by City Cycle during the investigation did not show that it was a genuine producer or that its assembly operations did not constitute circumvention practice according to the criteria laid down in Article 13(2) of the basic Regulation. Recitals (124) to (127) of the contested Regulation are therefore confirmed. |
| --- | --- |

(16)

Second, it is recognised in paragraphs 29 and 31 of the judgment that the evidence communicated by City Cycle during the investigation did not show that it was a genuine producer or that its assembly operations did not constitute circumvention practice according to the criteria laid down in Article 13(2) of the basic Regulation. Recitals (124) to (127) of the contested Regulation are therefore confirmed.

| (17) | Third, it follows from the judgment, in conjunction with the judgment of the General Court, that the Council was entitled to consider City Cycle as a non-cooperating party in the investigation and that there was a certain level of non-cooperation at national level in Sri Lanka. Recitals (35) to (42) of the contested Regulation are therefore confirmed. |
| --- | --- |

(17)

Third, it follows from the judgment, in conjunction with the judgment of the General Court, that the Council was entitled to consider City Cycle as a non-cooperating party in the investigation and that there was a certain level of non-cooperation at national level in Sri Lanka. Recitals (35) to (42) of the contested Regulation are therefore confirmed.

2.   Undermining of the remedial effect of the anti-dumping duty

Undermining of the remedial effect of the anti-dumping duty

| (18) | The Commission had found, in recitals (93) to (96) of the contested Regulation, undermining of the remedial effect of the anti-dumping duty. Those findings are confirmed. |
| --- | --- |

(18)

The Commission had found, in recitals (93) to (96) of the contested Regulation, undermining of the remedial effect of the anti-dumping duty. Those findings are confirmed.

3.   Evidence of dumping

Evidence of dumping

| (19) | The Commission had found, in recitals (97) and (98) as well as (107) to (110) of the contested Regulation, evidence of dumping. Those findings are confirmed. |
| --- | --- |

(19)

The Commission had found, in recitals (97) and (98) as well as (107) to (110) of the contested Regulation, evidence of dumping. Those findings are confirmed.

4.   Existence of circumvention practices

Existence of circumvention practices

| (20) | The contested Regulation has been annulled because the Council failed to provide, in the contested Regulation, sufficient substantiation as to the existence of circumventing practices for City Cycle Industries. It is recalled that the existence of circumvention practices can be established, inter alia, on the basis of transhipment or on the basis of assembly operations. |
| --- | --- |

(20)

The contested Regulation has been annulled because the Council failed to provide, in the contested Regulation, sufficient substantiation as to the existence of circumventing practices for City Cycle Industries. It is recalled that the existence of circumvention practices can be established, inter alia, on the basis of transhipment or on the basis of assembly operations.

| (21) | The reopened investigation revealed that there was no further available evidence at company level which could support the finding of transhipment. Therefore, no further reasoning regarding transhipment could be put forward under recital (78) of the contested Regulation. |
| --- | --- |

(21)

The reopened investigation revealed that there was no further available evidence at company level which could support the finding of transhipment. Therefore, no further reasoning regarding transhipment could be put forward under recital (78) of the contested Regulation.

| (22) | However, available evidence shows that circumvention practices via assembly operations took place. The evidence was based on the data submitted by City Cycle itself during the original investigation. The Council had not assessed that data in detail, because it considered that that was not necessary in order to demonstrate, to the required legal standard, existence of circumvention practices. Now that the Court has clarified the applicable legal standard, the Commission considers it appropriate to reassess all the evidence available in the administrative file in the light of the applicable legal standard. |
| --- | --- |

(22)

However, available evidence shows that circumvention practices via assembly operations took place. The evidence was based on the data submitted by City Cycle itself during the original investigation. The Council had not assessed that data in detail, because it considered that that was not necessary in order to demonstrate, to the required legal standard, existence of circumvention practices. Now that the Court has clarified the applicable legal standard, the Commission considers it appropriate to reassess all the evidence available in the administrative file in the light of the applicable legal standard.

| (23) | During the anti-circumvention investigation City Cycle came forward and requested exemption from the possible anti-circumvention measures. As described in recitals (37), (38) and (144) of the contested Regulation, City Cycle was unable to prove that it merited an exemption. The company afforded insufficient cooperation and Article 18(1) of the basic Regulation was applied. The lack of reliable information as regards the value and volume of parts of Chinese origin purchased by the company made it impossible to positively establish that City Cycle was a genuine producer not involved in circumvention or that its assembly operations were not a form of circumvention. As explained in recitals (16) and (17) above, these findings were not affected by the judgment. |
| --- | --- |

(23)

During the anti-circumvention investigation City Cycle came forward and requested exemption from the possible anti-circumvention measures. As described in recitals (37), (38) and (144) of the contested Regulation, City Cycle was unable to prove that it merited an exemption. The company afforded insufficient cooperation and Article 18(1) of the basic Regulation was applied. The lack of reliable information as regards the value and volume of parts of Chinese origin purchased by the company made it impossible to positively establish that City Cycle was a genuine producer not involved in circumvention or that its assembly operations were not a form of circumvention. As explained in recitals (16) and (17) above, these findings were not affected by the judgment.

| (24) | In any event, however, the data submitted by the company itself demonstrate that:






  (1) | the raw materials (bicycle parts) from China constituted more than 60 % of the total value of the parts of the assembled product (60/40 test), while |
| --- | --- | --- |

(24)

In any event, however, the data submitted by the company itself demonstrate that:

(1)

the raw materials (bicycle parts) from China constituted more than 60 % of the total value of the parts of the assembled product (60/40 test), while

| (2) | the value added to the parts brought in during the assembly operation, was lower than 25 % of the manufacturing cost (25 % value added test). |
| --- | --- |

(2)

the value added to the parts brought in during the assembly operation, was lower than 25 % of the manufacturing cost (25 % value added test).

| (25) | According to the criteria of Article 13(2)(a) and (b) of the basic Regulation, this means that such assembly operations should be considered to constitute circumvention practice given the fulfilment of the other criteria as described in recitals (18) and (19) above. |
| --- | --- |

(25)

According to the criteria of Article 13(2)(a) and (b) of the basic Regulation, this means that such assembly operations should be considered to constitute circumvention practice given the fulfilment of the other criteria as described in recitals (18) and (19) above.

| (26) | Consequently, the existence of circumvention practices via assembly operations should be established at country level in Sri Lanka on the basis of the above evidence available at the company level that tends to show circumvention practices and given the high level of non-cooperation in Sri Lanka. |
| --- | --- |

(26)

Consequently, the existence of circumvention practices via assembly operations should be established at country level in Sri Lanka on the basis of the above evidence available at the company level that tends to show circumvention practices and given the high level of non-cooperation in Sri Lanka.

| (27) | Consequently, the existence of assembly operations within the meaning of Article 13(2) of the basic Regulation was established in Sri Lanka. |
| --- | --- |

(27)

Consequently, the existence of assembly operations within the meaning of Article 13(2) of the basic Regulation was established in Sri Lanka.

| (28) | After disclosure, City Cycle contested the competence of the Commission to adopt findings on the existence of assembly operations within the meaning of Article 13(2) of the basic Regulation. It argued that the Commission could not reassess the finding on the assembly operation because it had not been challenged in the court proceedings and that the Commission was therefore obliged to abandon the pursuit of measures against City Cycle. |
| --- | --- |

(28)

After disclosure, City Cycle contested the competence of the Commission to adopt findings on the existence of assembly operations within the meaning of Article 13(2) of the basic Regulation. It argued that the Commission could not reassess the finding on the assembly operation because it had not been challenged in the court proceedings and that the Commission was therefore obliged to abandon the pursuit of measures against City Cycle.

| (29) | This argument should be rejected. First, it results from the judgments of the Court of Justice cited in recitals (4) and (5) that the condition for imposing anti-circumvention measures relates to the existence of circumventing practices as defined in Article 13(1) of the basic Regulation, and not to a specific subset of these practices. Second, City Cycle interprets incorrectly the obligation imposed on the Commission by Article 266 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (‘TFEU’) in the present case. As made clear in recital (6) of the Notice of re-opening, it is the lack of sufficient reasoning in the contested Regulation concerning the available evidence on the existence of circumventing practices in Sri Lanka that must be corrected in the current procedure. The Commission is therefore competent for readopting a measure with an improved reasoning making clear that City Cycle is engaged in circumventing practices in Sri Lanka, which is fully in line with the case-law of the Court of Justice. In any event, the contested Regulation has been annulled in its totality. Hence, none of its recitals has become definitive. Rather, the Commission needs to assess afresh all aspects of the file. Where no new developments have taken place in the Court proceedings, the Commission may limit itself to confirming the findings of the initial investigation. For the contested part, in the present case circumvention practices, a fresh assessment has to take place. |
| --- | --- |

(29)

This argument should be rejected. First, it results from the judgments of the Court of Justice cited in recitals (4) and (5) that the condition for imposing anti-circumvention measures relates to the existence of circumventing practices as defined in Article 13(1) of the basic Regulation, and not to a specific subset of these practices. Second, City Cycle interprets incorrectly the obligation imposed on the Commission by Article 266 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (‘TFEU’) in the present case. As made clear in recital (6) of the Notice of re-opening, it is the lack of sufficient reasoning in the contested Regulation concerning the available evidence on the existence of circumventing practices in Sri Lanka that must be corrected in the current procedure. The Commission is therefore competent for readopting a measure with an improved reasoning making clear that City Cycle is engaged in circumventing practices in Sri Lanka, which is fully in line with the case-law of the Court of Justice. In any event, the contested Regulation has been annulled in its totality. Hence, none of its recitals has become definitive. Rather, the Commission needs to assess afresh all aspects of the file. Where no new developments have taken place in the Court proceedings, the Commission may limit itself to confirming the findings of the initial investigation. For the contested part, in the present case circumvention practices, a fresh assessment has to take place.

| (30) | After disclosure, City Cycle also contested the competence of the Commission to rely on the evidence that it had submitted in the course of the investigation that lead to the imposition of anti-circumvention measures mentioned in recital (2) and to arrive at a different conclusion. |
| --- | --- |

(30)

After disclosure, City Cycle also contested the competence of the Commission to rely on the evidence that it had submitted in the course of the investigation that lead to the imposition of anti-circumvention measures mentioned in recital (2) and to arrive at a different conclusion.

| (31) | This argument should also be rejected. The Commission is indeed entitled to assess differently the evidence already provided, to the extent that such a new assessment is in line with Article 13 of the basic Regulation as interpreted by the Union Courts, and that City Cycle had full opportunities to comment on this new assessment. As explained in the following recitals, City Cycle has been fully granted its right to submit comments on the Commission's assessment. However, the comments provided by City Cycle did not alter the Commission's finding that it was engaged in circumventing practices. |
| --- | --- |

(31)

This argument should also be rejected. The Commission is indeed entitled to assess differently the evidence already provided, to the extent that such a new assessment is in line with Article 13 of the basic Regulation as interpreted by the Union Courts, and that City Cycle had full opportunities to comment on this new assessment. As explained in the following recitals, City Cycle has been fully granted its right to submit comments on the Commission's assessment. However, the comments provided by City Cycle did not alter the Commission's finding that it was engaged in circumventing practices.

| (32) | After the additional disclosure, City Cycle continued to disagree with the Commission's approach to reassess the evidence available in the administrative file. It claimed that following the court judgment, the Commission was allowed to correct only the findings of transhipment and not on assembly operations. |
| --- | --- |

(32)

After the additional disclosure, City Cycle continued to disagree with the Commission's approach to reassess the evidence available in the administrative file. It claimed that following the court judgment, the Commission was allowed to correct only the findings of transhipment and not on assembly operations.

| (33) | This claim should be rejected. In the present regulation the Commission is correcting the findings of circumvention practices which, as stated in recital (20), can be established, inter alia, on the basis of transhipment or on the basis of assembly operations. In the contested Regulation, the Commission has not assessed whether City Cycle was involved in assembly operations as it concluded that it was involved in the transhipment operations. After the clarifications provided by the court as explained in recital (22), the Commission has reassessed whether City Cycle was involved in circumvention practices. The Commission conclusion was as follows: firstly, as stated in recital (21) no further available evidence at company level which could support the finding of transhipment was identified; secondly, as explained in recitals (23) and (24), City Cycle was conclusively found to be involved in circumvention via assembly operations based on an assessment of its own data provided in the course of the investigation. |
| --- | --- |

(33)

This claim should be rejected. In the present regulation the Commission is correcting the findings of circumvention practices which, as stated in recital (20), can be established, inter alia, on the basis of transhipment or on the basis of assembly operations. In the contested Regulation, the Commission has not assessed whether City Cycle was involved in assembly operations as it concluded that it was involved in the transhipment operations. After the clarifications provided by the court as explained in recital (22), the Commission has reassessed whether City Cycle was involved in circumvention practices. The Commission conclusion was as follows: firstly, as stated in recital (21) no further available evidence at company level which could support the finding of transhipment was identified; secondly, as explained in recitals (23) and (24), City Cycle was conclusively found to be involved in circumvention via assembly operations based on an assessment of its own data provided in the course of the investigation.

| (34) | After disclosure, City Cycle further commented on the calculation methodology used by the Commission in carrying out the 60/40 and 25 % value added tests pursuant to Article 13(2)(b) of the basic Regulation. Firstly, City Cycle argued that the Commission based its calculation on insufficient data, i.e. merely on semi-finished products purchased during the reporting period of the anti-circumvention investigation. Secondly, it argued that the Commission disregarded certain data and therefore wrongly rejected the allocation ratio based on sales, as suggested by City Cycle. Finally, City Cycle submitted that certain invoices dated outside the reporting period and/or invoices that were reported without date or with an incorrect format should be disregarded from the calculations. These claims have been reiterated after the additional disclosure without providing any additional elements in this regard. |
| --- | --- |

(34)

After disclosure, City Cycle further commented on the calculation methodology used by the Commission in carrying out the 60/40 and 25 % value added tests pursuant to Article 13(2)(b) of the basic Regulation. Firstly, City Cycle argued that the Commission based its calculation on insufficient data, i.e. merely on semi-finished products purchased during the reporting period of the anti-circumvention investigation. Secondly, it argued that the Commission disregarded certain data and therefore wrongly rejected the allocation ratio based on sales, as suggested by City Cycle. Finally, City Cycle submitted that certain invoices dated outside the reporting period and/or invoices that were reported without date or with an incorrect format should be disregarded from the calculations. These claims have been reiterated after the additional disclosure without providing any additional elements in this regard.

| (35) | Concerning the methodology, it is clarified that the 60/40 test was carried out not only based on the data provided on semi-finished products in table F.2 of the exemption form but also on the reported manufacturing costs of the bicycle parts claimed to be manufactured by City Cycle. Furthermore, the 25 % value added test was carried out on the cost of processing from semi-finished goods, meaning the assembly cost for bicycles in table F.4.2 of the exemption form. Moreover, since City Cycle did not provide a split of bicycle parts sourced from the PRC and the ones not sourced from the PRC in table F.4.2 as requested, the Commission took this data from table F.2. |
| --- | --- |

(35)

Concerning the methodology, it is clarified that the 60/40 test was carried out not only based on the data provided on semi-finished products in table F.2 of the exemption form but also on the reported manufacturing costs of the bicycle parts claimed to be manufactured by City Cycle. Furthermore, the 25 % value added test was carried out on the cost of processing from semi-finished goods, meaning the assembly cost for bicycles in table F.4.2 of the exemption form. Moreover, since City Cycle did not provide a split of bicycle parts sourced from the PRC and the ones not sourced from the PRC in table F.4.2 as requested, the Commission took this data from table F.2.

| (36) | Concerning the comment regarding the use of the allocation method, the Commission notes that the data obtained based on this methodology could not be reconciled with the audited accounts. During the on-spot verification this inconsistency was highlighted to City Cycle. City Cycle did not use any accounting software, and accounting was made on paper and in excel worksheets. The company had no system in place to monitor the origin of the imported parts, and it could only be identified whether specific parts were sourced locally or imported. In addition, the company acknowledged that it did not keep track in its accounts of the origin of the parts purchased. Therefore, in order to report data according to origin as requested in the exemption form, City Cycle used an allocation key based on sales of bicycles. However, the allocation method applied by City Cycle could not be reconciled with the audited accounts and the company itself admitted that the figures provided in this regard were wrong. Therefore, the arguments with regard to the use of the allocation method were rejected and therefore also the data provided based on this methodology as it was found to contradict the audited accounts and the Commission used instead the necessary data provided in other tables of the exemption form. |
| --- | --- |

(36)

Concerning the comment regarding the use of the allocation method, the Commission notes that the data obtained based on this methodology could not be reconciled with the audited accounts. During the on-spot verification this inconsistency was highlighted to City Cycle. City Cycle did not use any accounting software, and accounting was made on paper and in excel worksheets. The company had no system in place to monitor the origin of the imported parts, and it could only be identified whether specific parts were sourced locally or imported. In addition, the company acknowledged that it did not keep track in its accounts of the origin of the parts purchased. Therefore, in order to report data according to origin as requested in the exemption form, City Cycle used an allocation key based on sales of bicycles. However, the allocation method applied by City Cycle could not be reconciled with the audited accounts and the company itself admitted that the figures provided in this regard were wrong. Therefore, the arguments with regard to the use of the allocation method were rejected and therefore also the data provided based on this methodology as it was found to contradict the audited accounts and the Commission used instead the necessary data provided in other tables of the exemption form.

| (37) | Finally, regarding the invoices mentioned in recital (34), the Commission found the request reasonable and disregard them for the calculation of 60/40 and 25 % value added tests. It was established that this had no impact on the result, i.e. the raw materials (bicycle parts) from China still constituted more than 60 % of the total value of the parts of the assembled product, while the value added to the parts brought in during the assembly operation, was still lower than 25 % of the manufacturing cost. |
| --- | --- |

(37)

Finally, regarding the invoices mentioned in recital (34), the Commission found the request reasonable and disregard them for the calculation of 60/40 and 25 % value added tests. It was established that this had no impact on the result, i.e. the raw materials (bicycle parts) from China still constituted more than 60 % of the total value of the parts of the assembled product, while the value added to the parts brought in during the assembly operation, was still lower than 25 % of the manufacturing cost.

| (38) | After the additional disclosure, City Cycle claim that the Commission did not take into account that fact that City Cycle has historically been a producer of bicycles from Sri Lanka's domestic market and is operating under the control of Sir Lanka's customs administration. This claim is rejected as it is irrelevant for the purpose of this assessment as the analysis is carried out pursuant to Article 13 of the basic Regulation. |
| --- | --- |

(38)

After the additional disclosure, City Cycle claim that the Commission did not take into account that fact that City Cycle has historically been a producer of bicycles from Sri Lanka's domestic market and is operating under the control of Sir Lanka's customs administration. This claim is rejected as it is irrelevant for the purpose of this assessment as the analysis is carried out pursuant to Article 13 of the basic Regulation.

| (39) | Consequently, all the claims related to the methodology used by the Commission in carrying out the 60/40 and 25 % value added tests pursuant to Article 13(2)(b) of the basic Regulation were rejected. |
| --- | --- |

(39)

Consequently, all the claims related to the methodology used by the Commission in carrying out the 60/40 and 25 % value added tests pursuant to Article 13(2)(b) of the basic Regulation were rejected.

5.   Exemption request

Exemption request

| (40) | Due to the company's insufficient cooperation and inability to demonstrate that it did not circumvent the measures on the basis of its own data, the exemption request of City Cycle under Article 13(4) of the basic Regulation could not be considered warranted. |
| --- | --- |

(40)

Due to the company's insufficient cooperation and inability to demonstrate that it did not circumvent the measures on the basis of its own data, the exemption request of City Cycle under Article 13(4) of the basic Regulation could not be considered warranted.

6.   Comments of interested parties

Comments of interested parties

| (41) | The Commission received submissions from City Cycle and the Union industry. |
| --- | --- |

(41)

The Commission received submissions from City Cycle and the Union industry.

| (42) | City Cycle claimed that the Commission could not change its findings regarding assembly operations as the contested Regulation found that the existence of assembly operations was not established in Sri Lanka and this point was not challenged before the courts. This claim was reiterated after disclosure. For the reasons explained above, this claim should be rejected. |
| --- | --- |

(42)

City Cycle claimed that the Commission could not change its findings regarding assembly operations as the contested Regulation found that the existence of assembly operations was not established in Sri Lanka and this point was not challenged before the courts. This claim was reiterated after disclosure. For the reasons explained above, this claim should be rejected.

| (43) | It is noted that the company's own data, communicated by the company itself, and its shortcomings in particular, made it impossible to positively establish that City Cycle was a genuine producer or that its assembly operations did not constitute circumvention practice. As a result, the company could not be exempted from the anti-circumvention duties. The company's own data, however, demonstrated that that the raw materials (bicycle parts) from China constituted more than 60 % of the total value of the parts of the assembled product, while the value added to the parts brought in during the assembly operation, was lower than 25 % of the manufacturing cost. In the context of high level of non-cooperation, this evidence could be taken to show the existence of circumvention practices in the country. |
| --- | --- |

(43)

It is noted that the company's own data, communicated by the company itself, and its shortcomings in particular, made it impossible to positively establish that City Cycle was a genuine producer or that its assembly operations did not constitute circumvention practice. As a result, the company could not be exempted from the anti-circumvention duties. The company's own data, however, demonstrated that that the raw materials (bicycle parts) from China constituted more than 60 % of the total value of the parts of the assembled product, while the value added to the parts brought in during the assembly operation, was lower than 25 % of the manufacturing cost. In the context of high level of non-cooperation, this evidence could be taken to show the existence of circumvention practices in the country.

| (44) | City Cycle also claimed that the Commission could not reopen the investigation with a notice with a view to readopting a final Regulation or amending the contested Regulation as Article 13(3) of the basic Regulation provides that the Commission can only initiate an anti-circumvention investigation through a Commission Regulation. Furthermore, it claimed that the fact that the Commission considers that the complete proceeding has not been annulled by the courts does not dispense it from adopting a formal Regulation. |
| --- | --- |

(44)

City Cycle also claimed that the Commission could not reopen the investigation with a notice with a view to readopting a final Regulation or amending the contested Regulation as Article 13(3) of the basic Regulation provides that the Commission can only initiate an anti-circumvention investigation through a Commission Regulation. Furthermore, it claimed that the fact that the Commission considers that the complete proceeding has not been annulled by the courts does not dispense it from adopting a formal Regulation.

| (45) | This claim was reiterated after disclosure. In particular, City Cycle claimed that the reopening of the anti-circumvention investigation through a Notice would limit its rights to an effective judicial protection. This argument was rejected, as the Notice is simply a preparatory act and City Cycle can exercise its rights to an effective judicial protection against this regulation. |
| --- | --- |

(45)

This claim was reiterated after disclosure. In particular, City Cycle claimed that the reopening of the anti-circumvention investigation through a Notice would limit its rights to an effective judicial protection. This argument was rejected, as the Notice is simply a preparatory act and City Cycle can exercise its rights to an effective judicial protection against this regulation.

| (46) | It should also be noted that the Commission did not initiate a new investigation, but merely re-opened the investigation that led to the adoption of the anti-circumvention measures in order to correct the irregularities identified by the Court of Justice in its judgment in the context of that investigation. |
| --- | --- |

(46)

It should also be noted that the Commission did not initiate a new investigation, but merely re-opened the investigation that led to the adoption of the anti-circumvention measures in order to correct the irregularities identified by the Court of Justice in its judgment in the context of that investigation.

| (47) | Furthermore, City Cycle claimed that the registration of imports of its bicycles is based on an error of fact and flawed reasoning as the assembly practices of City Cycle were not confirmed in the contested Regulation. Therefore, it claimed that the conditions for adopting the Registration Regulation were not met. |
| --- | --- |

(47)

Furthermore, City Cycle claimed that the registration of imports of its bicycles is based on an error of fact and flawed reasoning as the assembly practices of City Cycle were not confirmed in the contested Regulation. Therefore, it claimed that the conditions for adopting the Registration Regulation were not met.

| (48) | However, as explained in recital (24) above, the reopening of the investigation confirmed that evidence at company level relating to the period of the investigation that led to the extension of the measures in 2013 demonstrated the existence of circumvention practices already. In addition, in light of the specific nature of the anti-circumvention instrument, which is designed to protect the effectiveness of the anti-dumping instrument, the registration of imports is a standard means to enhance such effectiveness. Therefore, City Cycle's claim that the conditions for adopting the Registration Regulation were not met was rejected. |
| --- | --- |

(48)

However, as explained in recital (24) above, the reopening of the investigation confirmed that evidence at company level relating to the period of the investigation that led to the extension of the measures in 2013 demonstrated the existence of circumvention practices already. In addition, in light of the specific nature of the anti-circumvention instrument, which is designed to protect the effectiveness of the anti-dumping instrument, the registration of imports is a standard means to enhance such effectiveness. Therefore, City Cycle's claim that the conditions for adopting the Registration Regulation were not met was rejected.

| (49) | Moreover, City Cycle asked the Commission to repeal the anti-circumvention duties imposed on Sri Lankan imports of bicycles, including those of City Cycle. |
| --- | --- |

(49)

Moreover, City Cycle asked the Commission to repeal the anti-circumvention duties imposed on Sri Lankan imports of bicycles, including those of City Cycle.

| (50) | In this regard it should be noted that City Cycle did not specify on which legal basis the Commission should repeal the anti-circumvention measures on Sri Lankan imports of bicycles. As stated in recitals (3) and (4), the judgement did not annul the contested Regulation as a whole, but only as concerns City Cycle. Therefore, this request was rejected. |
| --- | --- |

(50)

In this regard it should be noted that City Cycle did not specify on which legal basis the Commission should repeal the anti-circumvention measures on Sri Lankan imports of bicycles. As stated in recitals (3) and (4), the judgement did not annul the contested Regulation as a whole, but only as concerns City Cycle. Therefore, this request was rejected.

| (51) | After disclosure, City Cycle claimed that the re-extension of the original measures to City Cycle from the date of registration was unwarranted and that the Commission cannot impose duties beyond the duration of the initial measures, which expires five years from the adoption of the contested Regulation that is on May 28, 2018. This claim was reiterated after the additional disclosure. |
| --- | --- |

(51)

After disclosure, City Cycle claimed that the re-extension of the original measures to City Cycle from the date of registration was unwarranted and that the Commission cannot impose duties beyond the duration of the initial measures, which expires five years from the adoption of the contested Regulation that is on May 28, 2018. This claim was reiterated after the additional disclosure.

| (52) | Under the consistent case-law of the Court of Justice, the sole purpose of a regulation extending an anti-dumping duty is to ensure the effectiveness of that duty and to prevent its circumvention. Consequently, a measure extending a definitive anti-dumping duty is merely ancillary to the initial act establishing that duty which protects the effective application of the definitive measures. |
| --- | --- |

(52)

Under the consistent case-law of the Court of Justice, the sole purpose of a regulation extending an anti-dumping duty is to ensure the effectiveness of that duty and to prevent its circumvention. Consequently, a measure extending a definitive anti-dumping duty is merely ancillary to the initial act establishing that duty which protects the effective application of the definitive measures.

| (53) | Anti-dumping measures were extended, inter alia, to City Cycle's exports from Sri Lanka to the Union market following an anti-circumvention investigation of the measures imposed on imports of bicycles originating in the PRC pursuant to Article 13 of the basic Regulation as stated in recital (2) of this Regulation. Consequently, the anti-circumvention measures imposed by the contested Regulation will remain in force as long as the original measures on imports of bicycles from the PRC are in force. Therefore, the claim that the Commission cannot impose measures on City Cycle's export from Sri Lanka to the Union beyond 28 May 2018 is rejected as it is based on a misinterpretation of Article 13 of the basic Regulation. |
| --- | --- |

(53)

Anti-dumping measures were extended, inter alia, to City Cycle's exports from Sri Lanka to the Union market following an anti-circumvention investigation of the measures imposed on imports of bicycles originating in the PRC pursuant to Article 13 of the basic Regulation as stated in recital (2) of this Regulation. Consequently, the anti-circumvention measures imposed by the contested Regulation will remain in force as long as the original measures on imports of bicycles from the PRC are in force. Therefore, the claim that the Commission cannot impose measures on City Cycle's export from Sri Lanka to the Union beyond 28 May 2018 is rejected as it is based on a misinterpretation of Article 13 of the basic Regulation.

| (54) | In addition, after the additional disclosure City Cycle claimed that the Commission cannot indefinitely prolong circumvention duties without a fresh re-examination of the exporters' circumvention practices, while the dumping practices of the Chinese exporters are reassessed every five years. |
| --- | --- |

(54)

In addition, after the additional disclosure City Cycle claimed that the Commission cannot indefinitely prolong circumvention duties without a fresh re-examination of the exporters' circumvention practices, while the dumping practices of the Chinese exporters are reassessed every five years.

| (55) | This claim should be rejected as it is based on a misunderstanding of Articles 11 and 13 of the basic Regulation. The Commission reassess the anti-dumping measures in force following a request lodged by the Union industry. In the absence of such a request, the anti-dumping measures in force expire at the end of the five years term. In addition, as explained in recital (53), the anti-circumvention measures remain in force as long as the original measures are in force. However, the anti-circumvention measures in place can also be re-assessed following a request from the companies subject to anti-circumvention measures. |
| --- | --- |

(55)

This claim should be rejected as it is based on a misunderstanding of Articles 11 and 13 of the basic Regulation. The Commission reassess the anti-dumping measures in force following a request lodged by the Union industry. In the absence of such a request, the anti-dumping measures in force expire at the end of the five years term. In addition, as explained in recital (53), the anti-circumvention measures remain in force as long as the original measures are in force. However, the anti-circumvention measures in place can also be re-assessed following a request from the companies subject to anti-circumvention measures.

D.   DISCLOSURE

DISCLOSURE

| (56) | The parties were informed of the essential facts and considerations on the basis of which it was intended to re-impose definitive anti-dumping duty on imports of bicycles whether declared as originating in Sri Lanka or not from City Cycle. They were also granted a period within which they could make representations subsequent to this disclosure. |
| --- | --- |

(56)

The parties were informed of the essential facts and considerations on the basis of which it was intended to re-impose definitive anti-dumping duty on imports of bicycles whether declared as originating in Sri Lanka or not from City Cycle. They were also granted a period within which they could make representations subsequent to this disclosure.

| (57) | The written arguments submitted by the parties were considered and, where appropriate, were taken into account. |
| --- | --- |

(57)

The written arguments submitted by the parties were considered and, where appropriate, were taken into account.

E.   IMPOSITION OF MEASURES

IMPOSITION OF MEASURES

| (58) | On the basis of the above, it is considered appropriate to re-extend the original measures to imports of bicycles and other cycles (including delivery tricycles, but excluding unicycles), not motorised, consigned from Sri Lanka whether declared as originating in Sri Lanka or not, currently falling within CN codes ex 8712 00 30 and ex 8712 00 70 (TARIC codes 8712003010 and 8712007091) from City Cycle Industries. |
| --- | --- |

(58)

On the basis of the above, it is considered appropriate to re-extend the original measures to imports of bicycles and other cycles (including delivery tricycles, but excluding unicycles), not motorised, consigned from Sri Lanka whether declared as originating in Sri Lanka or not, currently falling within CN codes ex 8712 00 30 and ex 8712 00 70 (TARIC codes 8712003010 and 8712007091) from City Cycle Industries.

| (59) | In light of the specific nature of the anti-circumvention instrument, which is designed to protect the effectiveness of the anti-dumping instrument, and in view of the fact that the investigation has revealed evidence that points to the existence of the circumventing practices based on the company's own reported data, the Commission considers it appropriate to re-impose measures as from the date of the registration. |
| --- | --- |

(59)

In light of the specific nature of the anti-circumvention instrument, which is designed to protect the effectiveness of the anti-dumping instrument, and in view of the fact that the investigation has revealed evidence that points to the existence of the circumventing practices based on the company's own reported data, the Commission considers it appropriate to re-impose measures as from the date of the registration.

| (60) | This Regulation is in accordance with the opinion of the Committee established by Article 15(1) of Regulation (EU) 2016/1036. |
| --- | --- |

(60)

This Regulation is in accordance with the opinion of the Committee established by Article 15(1) of Regulation (EU) 2016/1036.

HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:

Article 1

1.   A definitive anti-dumping duty imposed on imports of bicycles and other cycles (including delivery tricycles, but excluding unicycles), not motorised, originating in the People's Republic of China, is hereby extended to imports of bicycles and other cycles (including delivery tricycles, but excluding unicycles), not motorised, consigned from Sri Lanka whether declared as originating in Sri Lanka or not, currently falling within CN codes ex 8712 00 30 and ex 8712 00 70 (TARIC codes 8712003010 and 8712007091) from City Cycle Industries (TARIC additional code B131).

2.   The duty imposed by paragraph 1 of this Article shall be collected on imports consigned from Sri Lanka, whether declared as originating in Sri Lanka or not, registered in accordance with Article 1 of Implementing Regulation (EU) 2017/678.

Article 2

Customs authorities are hereby directed to discontinue the registration of imports, established in accordance with Article 1 of Implementing Regulation (EU) 2017/678.

Article 3

This Regulation shall enter into force on the day following that of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.

This Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.

Done at Brussels, 9 January 2018.

For the Commission

The President

Jean-Claude JUNCKER

---

(1)  
  OJ L 176, 30.6.2016, p. 21.

1

(2)  Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 990/2011 of 3 October 2011 imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty on imports of bicycles originating in the People's Republic of China following an expiry review pursuant to Article 11(2) of Regulation (EC) No 1225/2009 (OJ L 261, 6.10.2011, p. 2).

2

(3)  Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 501/2013 of 29 May 2013 extending the definitive anti-dumping duty imposed by Implementing Regulation (EU) No 990/2011 on imports of bicycles originating in the People's Republic of China to imports of bicycles consigned from Indonesia, Malaysia, Sri Lanka and Tunisia, whether declared as originating in Indonesia, Malaysia, Sri Lanka and Tunisia or not (OJ L 153, 5.6.2013, p. 1).

3

(4)  Case T-413/13 City Cycle Industries v Council.

4

(5)  
  OJ C 146, 4.5.2015, p. 38.

5

(6)  Case C-260/15 P Council v City Cycle Industries.

6

(7)  Case C-254/15 P Commission v City Cycle Industries.

7

(8)  Case C-248/15 P Maxcom v City Cycle Industries.

8

(9)  In its judgment of the same day in Joined Cases C-247/15 P, C-253/15 P and C-259/15 P, the Court of Justice annulled the judgment of the General Court of 19 March 2015 in Case T-412/13 Chin Haur Indonesia PT v Council of the European (3), and dismissed the action for annulment brought by Chin Haur against Regulation (EU) No 501/2013. In that case, the Court of Justice found, in paragraph 98 of its judgment, that the Council had sufficiently explained its evidence concerning the existence of circumventing practices in Indonesia.

9

(10)  Case T-2/95 Industrie des poudres sphériques (IPS) v Council [1998] ECR II-3939.

10

(11)  Case C-458/98 P Industrie des poudres sphériques (IPS) v Council [2000] ECR I-08147.

11

(12)  Notice concerning the judgment of the General Court of 19 March 2015 in Case T-413/13 City Cycle Industries v Council of the European Union and the judgment of the Court of Justice of 26 January 2017 in Cases C-248/15 P, C-254/15 P and C-260/15 P in relation to Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 501/2013 extending the definitive anti-dumping duty imposed by Implementing Regulation (EU) No 990/2011 on imports of bicycles originating in the People's Republic of China to imports of bicycles consigned from Indonesia, Malaysia, Sri Lanka and Tunisia, whether declared as originating in Indonesia, Malaysia, Sri Lanka and Tunisia or not (2017/C 113/05) (OJ C 113, 11.4.2017, p. 4).

12

(13)  Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2017/678 of 10 April 2017 making imports of bicycles consigned from Sri Lanka, whether declared as originating in Sri Lanka or not, in so far as it concerns the Sri Lankan company City Cycle Industries, subject to registration, (OJ L 98, 11.4.2017, p. 7).

13

---

Corrigenda

| 10.1.2018 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | L 5/35 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

10.1.2018

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 5/35

---

Corrigendum to Commission Directive (EU) 2015/996 of 19 May 2015 establishing common noise assessment methods according to Directive 2002/49/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council

(
  Official Journal of the European Union L 168 of 1 July 2015
  )

On page 4, in the Annex, in point 2.1.1, in the first paragraph:

for:

‘the frequency range from 63 Hz to 8 kHz’,

read:

‘the frequency range from 63 Hz to 8 kHz octave bands’.

On page 8, in the Annex, in point 2.2.1, in the second paragraph under the heading ‘Traffic flow’:

for:

‘each octave band i from 125 Hz to 4 kHz’,

read:

‘each octave band i from 63 Hz to 8 kHz’.

On page 19, in the Annex, in point 2.3.2, in the second paragraph under the heading ‘Definition’:

for:

‘and v is the train speed in km/h’,

v

read:

‘and v is the train speed in m/s’.

v

On page 19, in the Annex, in point 2.3.2, in the fifth paragraph under the heading ‘Definition’:

for:

‘A3(λ)’,

read:

‘A3(λ)’.

3

On page 21, in the Annex, in point 2.3.2, in the third paragraph under the heading ‘Impact noise (crossings, switches and junctions)’:

for:

‘and v is the s-th vehicle speed of the t-th vehicle type in km/h’,

v

s

t

read:

‘and v is the s-th vehicle speed of the t-th vehicle type in m/s’.

v

s

t

On page 35, in the Annex, in point 2.5.6, in the first paragraph under the heading ‘Calculation in favourable conditions’, in (b):

for:

‘

  Image 1

  ’

read:

‘

  Image 2

  ’.

On page 39, in the Annex, in point 2.5.6, in the first paragraph under the heading ‘Favourable conditions’:

for:

‘
  SO, OR, and SR
  ’,

SO

OR

SR

read:

‘

  Image 3
  ,
  Image 4
  and
  Image 5

  ’.

On page 129, Appendix G to the Annex shall read as follows:

‘Appendix G

Database for railway source

This appendix presents the database for most of the existing railway noise sources to be used to calculate railway noise following the method described in 2.3 Railway noise.

Table G-1

Coefficients Lr,TR,i
  and Lr,VEH,i
  for rail and wheel roughness

| Lr,VEH,i |
| --- |
| Wavelength | Brake type |
| c | k | n |
| Cast iron tread brake | Composite brake | Disk brake |
| 1 000  mm | 2,2 | – 4,0 | – 5,9 |
| 800 mm | 2,2 | – 4,0 | – 5,9 |
| 630 mm | 2,2 | – 4,0 | – 5,9 |
| 500 mm | 2,2 | – 4,0 | – 5,9 |
| 400 mm | 2,2 | – 4,0 | – 5,9 |
| 315 mm | 2,2 | – 4,0 | – 5,9 |
| 250 mm | 2,2 | – 4,0 | 2,3 |
| 200 mm | 2,2 | – 4,0 | 2,8 |
| 160 mm | 2,4 | – 4,0 | 2,6 |
| 120 mm | 0,6 | – 4,0 | 1,2 |
| 100 mm | 2,6 | – 4,0 | 2,1 |
| 80 mm | 5,8 | – 4,3 | 0,9 |
| 63 mm | 8,8 | – 4,6 | – 0,3 |
| 50 mm | 11,1 | – 4,9 | – 1,6 |
| 40 mm | 11,0 | – 5,2 | – 2,9 |
| 31,5 mm | 9,8 | – 6,3 | – 4,9 |
| 25 mm | 7,5 | – 6,8 | – 7,0 |
| 20 mm | 5,1 | – 7,2 | – 8,6 |
| 16 mm | 3,0 | – 7,3 | – 9,3 |
| 12 mm | 1,3 | – 7,3 | – 9,5 |
| 10 mm | 0,2 | – 7,1 | – 10,1 |
| 8 mm | – 0,7 | – 6,9 | – 10,3 |
| 6,3 mm | – 1,2 | – 6,7 | – 10,3 |
| 5 mm | – 1,0 | – 6,0 | – 10,8 |
| 4 mm | 0,3 | – 3,7 | – 10,9 |
| 3,2 mm | 0,2 | – 2,4 | – 9,5 |
| 2,5 mm | 1,3 | – 2,6 | – 9,5 |
| 2 mm | 3,1 | – 2,5 | – 9,5 |
| 1,6 mm | 3,1 | – 2,5 | – 9,5 |
| 1,2 mm | 3,1 | – 2,5 | – 9,5 |
| 1 mm | 3,1 | – 2,5 | – 9,5 |
| 0,8 mm | 3,1 | – 2,5 | – 9,5 |

Lr,VEH,i

Wavelength

Brake type

c

k

n

Cast iron tread brake

Composite brake

Disk brake

1 000  mm

2,2

– 4,0

– 5,9

800 mm

2,2

– 4,0

– 5,9

630 mm

2,2

– 4,0

– 5,9

500 mm

2,2

– 4,0

– 5,9

400 mm

2,2

– 4,0

– 5,9

315 mm

2,2

– 4,0

– 5,9

250 mm

2,2

– 4,0

2,3

200 mm

2,2

– 4,0

2,8

160 mm

2,4

– 4,0

2,6

120 mm

0,6

– 4,0

1,2

100 mm

2,6

– 4,0

2,1

80 mm

5,8

– 4,3

0,9

63 mm

8,8

– 4,6

– 0,3

50 mm

11,1

– 4,9

– 1,6

40 mm

11,0

– 5,2

– 2,9

31,5 mm

9,8

– 6,3

– 4,9

25 mm

7,5

– 6,8

– 7,0

20 mm

5,1

– 7,2

– 8,6

16 mm

3,0

– 7,3

– 9,3

12 mm

1,3

– 7,3

– 9,5

10 mm

0,2

– 7,1

– 10,1

8 mm

– 0,7

– 6,9

– 10,3

6,3 mm

– 1,2

– 6,7

– 10,3

5 mm

– 1,0

– 6,0

– 10,8

4 mm

0,3

– 3,7

– 10,9

3,2 mm

0,2

– 2,4

– 9,5

2,5 mm

1,3

– 2,6

– 9,5

2 mm

3,1

– 2,5

– 9,5

1,6 mm

3,1

– 2,5

– 9,5

1,2 mm

3,1

– 2,5

– 9,5

1 mm

3,1

– 2,5

– 9,5

0,8 mm

3,1

– 2,5

– 9,5

| Lr,TR,i |
| --- |
| Wavelength | Rail roughness |
| E | M |
| EN ISO 3095:2013 (Well maintained and very smooth) | Average network (Normally maintained smooth) |
| 1 000  mm | 17,1 | 11,0 |
| 800 mm | 17,1 | 11,0 |
| 630 mm | 17,1 | 11,0 |
| 500 mm | 17,1 | 11,0 |
| 400 mm | 17,1 | 11,0 |
| 315 mm | 15,0 | 10,0 |
| 250 mm | 13,0 | 9,0 |
| 200 mm | 11,0 | 8,0 |
| 160 mm | 9,0 | 7,0 |
| 120 mm | 7,0 | 6,0 |
| 100 mm | 4,9 | 5,0 |
| 80 mm | 2,9 | 4,0 |
| 63 mm | 0,9 | 3,0 |
| 50 mm | – 1,1 | 2,0 |
| 40 mm | – 3,2 | 1,0 |
| 31,5 mm | – 5,0 | 0,0 |
| 25 mm | – 5,6 | – 1,0 |
| 20 mm | – 6,2 | – 2,0 |
| 16 mm | – 6,8 | – 3,0 |
| 12 mm | – 7,4 | – 4,0 |
| 10 mm | – 8,0 | – 5,0 |
| 8 mm | – 8,6 | – 6,0 |
| 6,3 mm | – 9,2 | – 7,0 |
| 5 mm | – 9,8 | – 8,0 |
| 4 mm | – 10,4 | – 9,0 |
| 3,2 mm | – 11,0 | – 10,0 |
| 2,5 mm | – 11,6 | – 11,0 |
| 2 mm | – 12,2 | – 12,0 |
| 1,6 mm | – 12,8 | – 13,0 |
| 1,2 mm | – 13,4 | – 14,0 |
| 1 mm | – 14,0 | – 15,0 |
| 0,8 mm | – 14,0 | – 15,0 |

Lr,TR,i

Wavelength

Rail roughness

E

M

EN ISO 3095:2013 (Well maintained and very smooth)

Average network (Normally maintained smooth)

1 000  mm

17,1

11,0

800 mm

17,1

11,0

630 mm

17,1

11,0

500 mm

17,1

11,0

400 mm

17,1

11,0

315 mm

15,0

10,0

250 mm

13,0

9,0

200 mm

11,0

8,0

160 mm

9,0

7,0

120 mm

7,0

6,0

100 mm

4,9

5,0

80 mm

2,9

4,0

63 mm

0,9

3,0

50 mm

– 1,1

2,0

40 mm

– 3,2

1,0

31,5 mm

– 5,0

0,0

25 mm

– 5,6

– 1,0

20 mm

– 6,2

– 2,0

16 mm

– 6,8

– 3,0

12 mm

– 7,4

– 4,0

10 mm

– 8,0

– 5,0

8 mm

– 8,6

– 6,0

6,3 mm

– 9,2

– 7,0

5 mm

– 9,8

– 8,0

4 mm

– 10,4

– 9,0

3,2 mm

– 11,0

– 10,0

2,5 mm

– 11,6

– 11,0

2 mm

– 12,2

– 12,0

1,6 mm

– 12,8

– 13,0

1,2 mm

– 13,4

– 14,0

1 mm

– 14,0

– 15,0

0,8 mm

– 14,0

– 15,0

Table G-2

Coefficients A3,i
  for the contact filter

| A3,i |
| --- |
| Wavelength | Axle load 50 kN — wheel diameter 360 mm | Axle load 50 kN — wheel diameter 680 mm | Axle load 25 kN — wheel diameter 920 mm | Axle load 50 kN — wheel diameter 920 mm | Axle load 100 kN — wheel diameter 920 mm |
| 1 000  mm | 0,0 | 0,0 | 0,0 | 0,0 | 0,0 |
| 800 mm | 0,0 | 0,0 | 0,0 | 0,0 | 0,0 |
| 630 mm | 0,0 | 0,0 | 0,0 | 0,0 | 0,0 |
| 500 mm | 0,0 | 0,0 | 0,0 | 0,0 | 0,0 |
| 400 mm | 0,0 | 0,0 | 0,0 | 0,0 | 0,0 |
| 315 mm | 0,0 | 0,0 | 0,0 | 0,0 | 0,0 |
| 250 mm | 0,0 | 0,0 | 0,0 | 0,0 | 0,0 |
| 200 mm | 0,0 | 0,0 | 0,0 | 0,0 | 0,0 |
| 160 mm | 0,0 | 0,0 | 0,0 | 0,0 | 0,0 |
| 120 mm | 0,0 | 0,0 | 0,0 | 0,0 | 0,0 |
| 100 mm | 0,0 | 0,0 | 0,0 | 0,0 | 0,0 |
| 80 mm | 0,0 | 0,0 | 0,0 | – 0,2 | – 0,2 |
| 63 mm | 0,0 | – 0,2 | – 0,2 | – 0,5 | – 0,6 |
| 50 mm | – 0,2 | – 0,4 | – 0,5 | – 0,9 | – 1,3 |
| 40 mm | – 0,5 | – 0,7 | – 0,9 | – 1,6 | – 2,2 |
| 31,5 mm | – 1,2 | – 1,5 | – 1,6 | – 2,5 | – 3,7 |
| 25 mm | – 2,0 | – 2,8 | – 2,5 | – 3,8 | – 5,8 |
| 20 mm | – 3,0 | – 4,5 | – 3,8 | – 5,8 | – 9,0 |
| 16 mm | – 4,3 | – 7,0 | – 5,8 | – 8,5 | – 11,5 |
| 12 mm | – 6,0 | – 10,3 | – 8,5 | – 11,4 | – 12,5 |
| 10 mm | – 8,4 | – 12,0 | – 12,0 | – 12,0 | – 12,0 |
| 8 mm | – 12,0 | – 12,5 | – 12,6 | – 13,5 | – 14,0 |
| 6,3 mm | – 11,5 | – 13,5 | – 13,5 | – 14,5 | – 15,0 |
| 5 mm | – 12,5 | – 16,0 | – 14,5 | – 16,0 | – 17,0 |
| 4 mm | – 13,9 | – 16,0 | – 16,0 | – 16,5 | – 18,4 |
| 3,2 mm | – 14,7 | – 16,5 | – 16,5 | – 17,7 | – 19,5 |
| 2,5 mm | – 15,6 | – 17,0 | – 17,7 | – 18,6 | – 20,5 |
| 2 mm | – 16,6 | – 18,0 | – 18,6 | – 19,6 | – 21,5 |
| 1,6 mm | – 17,6 | – 19,0 | – 19,6 | – 20,6 | – 22,4 |
| 1,2 mm | – 18,6 | – 20,2 | – 20,6 | – 21,6 | – 23,5 |
| 1 mm | – 19,6 | – 21,2 | – 21,6 | – 22,6 | – 24,5 |
| 0,8 mm | – 20,6 | – 22,2 | – 22,6 | – 23,6 | – 25,4 |

A3,i

Wavelength

Axle load 50 kN — wheel diameter 360 mm

Axle load 50 kN — wheel diameter 680 mm

Axle load 25 kN — wheel diameter 920 mm

Axle load 50 kN — wheel diameter 920 mm

Axle load 100 kN — wheel diameter 920 mm

1 000  mm

0,0

0,0

0,0

0,0

0,0

800 mm

0,0

0,0

0,0

0,0

0,0

630 mm

0,0

0,0

0,0

0,0

0,0

500 mm

0,0

0,0

0,0

0,0

0,0

400 mm

0,0

0,0

0,0

0,0

0,0

315 mm

0,0

0,0

0,0

0,0

0,0

250 mm

0,0

0,0

0,0

0,0

0,0

200 mm

0,0

0,0

0,0

0,0

0,0

160 mm

0,0

0,0

0,0

0,0

0,0

120 mm

0,0

0,0

0,0

0,0

0,0

100 mm

0,0

0,0

0,0

0,0

0,0

80 mm

0,0

0,0

0,0

– 0,2

– 0,2

63 mm

0,0

– 0,2

– 0,2

– 0,5

– 0,6

50 mm

– 0,2

– 0,4

– 0,5

– 0,9

– 1,3

40 mm

– 0,5

– 0,7

– 0,9

– 1,6

– 2,2

31,5 mm

– 1,2

– 1,5

– 1,6

– 2,5

– 3,7

25 mm

– 2,0

– 2,8

– 2,5

– 3,8

– 5,8

20 mm

– 3,0

– 4,5

– 3,8

– 5,8

– 9,0

16 mm

– 4,3

– 7,0

– 5,8

– 8,5

– 11,5

12 mm

– 6,0

– 10,3

– 8,5

– 11,4

– 12,5

10 mm

– 8,4

– 12,0

– 12,0

– 12,0

– 12,0

8 mm

– 12,0

– 12,5

– 12,6

– 13,5

– 14,0

6,3 mm

– 11,5

– 13,5

– 13,5

– 14,5

– 15,0

5 mm

– 12,5

– 16,0

– 14,5

– 16,0

– 17,0

4 mm

– 13,9

– 16,0

– 16,0

– 16,5

– 18,4

3,2 mm

– 14,7

– 16,5

– 16,5

– 17,7

– 19,5

2,5 mm

– 15,6

– 17,0

– 17,7

– 18,6

– 20,5

2 mm

– 16,6

– 18,0

– 18,6

– 19,6

– 21,5

1,6 mm

– 17,6

– 19,0

– 19,6

– 20,6

– 22,4

1,2 mm

– 18,6

– 20,2

– 20,6

– 21,6

– 23,5

1 mm

– 19,6

– 21,2

– 21,6

– 22,6

– 24,5

0,8 mm

– 20,6

– 22,2

– 22,6

– 23,6

– 25,4

Table G-3

Coefficients LH,TR,i, LH,VEH,i
  and LH,VEH,SUP,i
  for transfer functions

(Values are expressed in Sound Power Level per axle)

| LH,TR,i |
| --- |
| Frequency | Track base/Rail pad type |
| B/S | B/M | B/H | B/S | B/M | B/H | B/H |
| Mono-block sleeper on soft rail pad | Mono-block sleeper on medium stiffness rail pad | Mono-block on hard rail pad | Bi-block sleeper on soft rail pad | Bi-block sleeper on medium stiffness rail pad | Bi-block sleeper on hard rail pad | Wooden sleepers |
| 50 Hz | 53,3 | 50,9 | 50,1 | 50,9 | 50,0 | 49,8 | 44,0 |
| 63 Hz | 59,3 | 57,8 | 57,2 | 56,6 | 56,1 | 55,9 | 51,0 |
| 80 Hz | 67,2 | 66,5 | 66,3 | 64,3 | 64,1 | 64,0 | 59,9 |
| 100 Hz | 75,9 | 76,8 | 77,2 | 72,3 | 72,5 | 72,5 | 70,8 |
| 125 Hz | 79,2 | 80,9 | 81,6 | 75,4 | 75,8 | 75,9 | 75,1 |
| 160 Hz | 81,8 | 83,3 | 84,0 | 78,5 | 79,1 | 79,4 | 76,9 |
| 200 Hz | 84,2 | 85,8 | 86,5 | 81,8 | 83,6 | 84,4 | 77,2 |
| 250 Hz | 88,6 | 90,0 | 90,7 | 86,6 | 88,7 | 89,7 | 80,9 |
| 316 Hz | 91,0 | 91,6 | 92,1 | 89,1 | 89,6 | 90,2 | 85,3 |
| 400 Hz | 94,5 | 93,9 | 94,3 | 91,9 | 89,7 | 90,2 | 92,5 |
| 500 Hz | 97,0 | 95,6 | 95,8 | 94,5 | 90,6 | 90,8 | 97,0 |
| 630 Hz | 99,2 | 97,4 | 97,0 | 97,5 | 93,8 | 93,1 | 98,7 |
| 800 Hz | 104,0 | 101,7 | 100,3 | 104,0 | 100,6 | 97,9 | 102,8 |
| 1 000  Hz | 107,1 | 104,4 | 102,5 | 107,9 | 104,7 | 101,1 | 105,4 |
| 1 250  Hz | 108,3 | 106,0 | 104,2 | 108,9 | 106,3 | 103,4 | 106,5 |
| 1 600  Hz | 108,5 | 106,8 | 105,4 | 108,8 | 107,1 | 105,4 | 106,4 |
| 2 000  Hz | 109,7 | 108,3 | 107,1 | 109,8 | 108,8 | 107,7 | 107,5 |
| 2 500  Hz | 110,0 | 108,9 | 107,9 | 110,2 | 109,3 | 108,5 | 108,1 |
| 3 160  Hz | 110,0 | 109,1 | 108,2 | 110,1 | 109,4 | 108,7 | 108,4 |
| 4 000  Hz | 110,0 | 109,4 | 108,7 | 110,1 | 109,7 | 109,1 | 108,7 |
| 5 000  Hz | 110,3 | 109,9 | 109,4 | 110,3 | 110,0 | 109,6 | 109,1 |
| 6 350  Hz | 110,0 | 109,9 | 109,7 | 109,9 | 109,8 | 109,6 | 109,1 |
| 8 000  Hz | 110,1 | 110,3 | 110,4 | 110,0 | 110,0 | 109,9 | 109,5 |
| 10 000  Hz | 110,6 | 111,0 | 111,4 | 110,4 | 110,5 | 110,6 | 110,2 |

LH,TR,i

Frequency

Track base/Rail pad type

B/S

B/M

B/H

B/S

B/M

B/H

B/H

Mono-block sleeper on soft rail pad

Mono-block sleeper on medium stiffness rail pad

Mono-block on hard rail pad

Bi-block sleeper on soft rail pad

Bi-block sleeper on medium stiffness rail pad

Bi-block sleeper on hard rail pad

Wooden sleepers

50 Hz

53,3

50,9

50,1

50,9

50,0

49,8

44,0

63 Hz

59,3

57,8

57,2

56,6

56,1

55,9

51,0

80 Hz

67,2

66,5

66,3

64,3

64,1

64,0

59,9

100 Hz

75,9

76,8

77,2

72,3

72,5

72,5

70,8

125 Hz

79,2

80,9

81,6

75,4

75,8

75,9

75,1

160 Hz

81,8

83,3

84,0

78,5

79,1

79,4

76,9

200 Hz

84,2

85,8

86,5

81,8

83,6

84,4

77,2

250 Hz

88,6

90,0

90,7

86,6

88,7

89,7

80,9

316 Hz

91,0

91,6

92,1

89,1

89,6

90,2

85,3

400 Hz

94,5

93,9

94,3

91,9

89,7

90,2

92,5

500 Hz

97,0

95,6

95,8

94,5

90,6

90,8

97,0

630 Hz

99,2

97,4

97,0

97,5

93,8

93,1

98,7

800 Hz

104,0

101,7

100,3

104,0

100,6

97,9

102,8

1 000  Hz

107,1

104,4

102,5

107,9

104,7

101,1

105,4

1 250  Hz

108,3

106,0

104,2

108,9

106,3

103,4

106,5

1 600  Hz

108,5

106,8

105,4

108,8

107,1

105,4

106,4

2 000  Hz

109,7

108,3

107,1

109,8

108,8

107,7

107,5

2 500  Hz

110,0

108,9

107,9

110,2

109,3

108,5

108,1

3 160  Hz

110,0

109,1

108,2

110,1

109,4

108,7

108,4

4 000  Hz

110,0

109,4

108,7

110,1

109,7

109,1

108,7

5 000  Hz

110,3

109,9

109,4

110,3

110,0

109,6

109,1

6 350  Hz

110,0

109,9

109,7

109,9

109,8

109,6

109,1

8 000  Hz

110,1

110,3

110,4

110,0

110,0

109,9

109,5

10 000  Hz

110,6

111,0

111,4

110,4

110,5

110,6

110,2

| LH,VEH,i |
| --- |
| Frequency | Wheel with diameter 920 mm, no measure | Wheel with diameter 840 mm, no measure | Wheel with diameter 680 mm, no measure | Wheel with diameter 1 200  mm, no measure |
| 50 Hz | 75,4 | 75,4 | 75,4 | 75,4 |
| 63 Hz | 77,3 | 77,3 | 77,3 | 77,3 |
| 80 Hz | 81,1 | 81,1 | 81,1 | 81,1 |
| 100 Hz | 84,1 | 84,1 | 84,1 | 84,1 |
| 125 Hz | 83,3 | 82,8 | 82,8 | 82,8 |
| 160 Hz | 84,3 | 83,3 | 83,3 | 83,3 |
| 200 Hz | 86,0 | 84,1 | 83,9 | 84,5 |
| 250 Hz | 90,1 | 86,9 | 86,3 | 90,4 |
| 316 Hz | 89,8 | 87,9 | 88,0 | 90,4 |
| 400 Hz | 89,0 | 89,9 | 92,2 | 89,9 |
| 500 Hz | 88,8 | 90,9 | 93,9 | 90,1 |
| 630 Hz | 90,4 | 91,5 | 92,5 | 91,3 |
| 800 Hz | 92,4 | 91,5 | 90,9 | 91,5 |
| 1 000  Hz | 94,9 | 93,0 | 90,4 | 93,6 |
| 1 250  Hz | 100,4 | 98,7 | 93,2 | 100,5 |
| 1 600  Hz | 104,6 | 101,6 | 93,5 | 104,6 |
| 2 000  Hz | 109,6 | 107,6 | 99,6 | 115,6 |
| 2 500  Hz | 114,9 | 111,9 | 104,9 | 115,9 |
| 3 160  Hz | 115,0 | 114,5 | 108,0 | 116,0 |
| 4 000  Hz | 115,0 | 114,5 | 111,0 | 116,0 |
| 5 000  Hz | 115,5 | 115,0 | 111,5 | 116,5 |
| 6 350  Hz | 115,6 | 115,1 | 111,6 | 116,6 |
| 8 000  Hz | 116,0 | 115,5 | 112,0 | 117,0 |
| 10 000  Hz | 116,7 | 116,2 | 112,7 | 117,7 |

LH,VEH,i

Frequency

Wheel with diameter 920 mm, no measure

Wheel with diameter 840 mm, no measure

Wheel with diameter 680 mm, no measure

Wheel with diameter 1 200  mm, no measure

50 Hz

75,4

75,4

75,4

75,4

63 Hz

77,3

77,3

77,3

77,3

80 Hz

81,1

81,1

81,1

81,1

100 Hz

84,1

84,1

84,1

84,1

125 Hz

83,3

82,8

82,8

82,8

160 Hz

84,3

83,3

83,3

83,3

200 Hz

86,0

84,1

83,9

84,5

250 Hz

90,1

86,9

86,3

90,4

316 Hz

89,8

87,9

88,0

90,4

400 Hz

89,0

89,9

92,2

89,9

500 Hz

88,8

90,9

93,9

90,1

630 Hz

90,4

91,5

92,5

91,3

800 Hz

92,4

91,5

90,9

91,5

1 000  Hz

94,9

93,0

90,4

93,6

1 250  Hz

100,4

98,7

93,2

100,5

1 600  Hz

104,6

101,6

93,5

104,6

2 000  Hz

109,6

107,6

99,6

115,6

2 500  Hz

114,9

111,9

104,9

115,9

3 160  Hz

115,0

114,5

108,0

116,0

4 000  Hz

115,0

114,5

111,0

116,0

5 000  Hz

115,5

115,0

111,5

116,5

6 350  Hz

115,6

115,1

111,6

116,6

8 000  Hz

116,0

115,5

112,0

117,0

10 000  Hz

116,7

116,2

112,7

117,7

| LH,VEH,SUP,i |
| --- |
| Frequency | Vehicle type |
| a |
| EU standard |
| 50 Hz | 0,0 |
| 63 Hz | 0,0 |
| 80 Hz | 0,0 |
| 100 Hz | 0,0 |
| 125 Hz | 0,0 |
| 160 Hz | 0,0 |
| 200 Hz | 0,0 |
| 250 Hz | 0,0 |
| 316 Hz | 0,0 |
| 400 Hz | 0,0 |
| 500 Hz | 0,0 |
| 630 Hz | 0,0 |
| 800 Hz | 0,0 |
| 1 000  Hz | 0,0 |
| 1 250  Hz | 0,0 |
| 1 600  Hz | 0,0 |
| 2 000  Hz | 0,0 |
| 2 500  Hz | 0,0 |
| 3 160  Hz | 0,0 |
| 4 000  Hz | 0,0 |
| 5 000  Hz | 0,0 |
| 6 350  Hz | 0,0 |
| 8 000  Hz | 0,0 |
| 10 000  Hz | 0,0 |

LH,VEH,SUP,i

Frequency

Vehicle type

a

EU standard

50 Hz

0,0

63 Hz

0,0

80 Hz

0,0

100 Hz

0,0

125 Hz

0,0

160 Hz

0,0

200 Hz

0,0

250 Hz

0,0

316 Hz

0,0

400 Hz

0,0

500 Hz

0,0

630 Hz

0,0

800 Hz

0,0

1 000  Hz

0,0

1 250  Hz

0,0

1 600  Hz

0,0

2 000  Hz

0,0

2 500  Hz

0,0

3 160  Hz

0,0

4 000  Hz

0,0

5 000  Hz

0,0

6 350  Hz

0,0

8 000  Hz

0,0

10 000  Hz

0,0

Table G-4

Coefficients LR,IMPACT,i
  for impact noise

| LR,IMPACT,i |
| --- |
| Wavelength | Single switch/joint/crossing/100 m |
| 1 000  mm | 22,4 |
| 800 mm | 22,4 |
| 630 mm | 22,4 |
| 500 mm | 23,8 |
| 400 mm | 24,7 |
| 315 mm | 24,7 |
| 250 mm | 23,4 |
| 200 mm | 21,7 |
| 160 mm | 20,2 |
| 120 mm | 20,4 |
| 100 mm | 20,8 |
| 80 mm | 20,9 |
| 63 mm | 19,8 |
| 50 mm | 18 |
| 40 mm | 16 |
| 31,5 mm | 13 |
| 25 mm | 10 |
| 20 mm | 6 |
| 16 mm | 1 |
| 12 mm | – 4 |
| 10 mm | – 11 |
| 8 mm | – 16,5 |
| 6,3 mm | – 18,5 |
| 5 mm | – 21 |
| 4 mm | – 22,5 |
| 3,2 mm | – 24,7 |
| 2,5 mm | – 26,6 |
| 2 mm | – 28,6 |
| 1,6 mm | – 30,6 |
| 1,2 mm | – 32,6 |
| 1 mm | – 34 |
| 0,8 mm | – 34 |

LR,IMPACT,i

Wavelength

Single switch/joint/crossing/100 m

1 000  mm

22,4

800 mm

22,4

630 mm

22,4

500 mm

23,8

400 mm

24,7

315 mm

24,7

250 mm

23,4

200 mm

21,7

160 mm

20,2

120 mm

20,4

100 mm

20,8

80 mm

20,9

63 mm

19,8

50 mm

18

40 mm

16

31,5 mm

13

25 mm

10

20 mm

6

16 mm

1

12 mm

– 4

10 mm

– 11

8 mm

– 16,5

6,3 mm

– 18,5

5 mm

– 21

4 mm

– 22,5

3,2 mm

– 24,7

2,5 mm

– 26,6

2 mm

– 28,6

1,6 mm

– 30,6

1,2 mm

– 32,6

1 mm

– 34

0,8 mm

– 34

Table G-5

Coefficients LW,0,idling
  for traction noise

(Values are expressed in Sound Power Level per vehicle)

| LW,0,idling |
| --- |
| Frequency | Vehicle type |
| d | d | d | e | e |
| Diesel locomotive (c. 800 kW) | Diesel locomotive (c. 2 200  kW) | Diesel multiple unit | Electric locomotive | Electric multiple unit |
| | SourceA | SourceB | SourceA | SourceB | SourceA | SourceB | SourceA | SourceB | SourceA | SourceB |
| 50 Hz | 98,9 | 103,2 | 99,4 | 103,7 | 82,6 | 86,9 | 87,9 | 92,2 | 80,5 | 84,8 |
| 63 Hz | 94,8 | 100,0 | 107,3 | 112,5 | 82,5 | 87,7 | 90,8 | 96,0 | 81,4 | 86,6 |
| 80 Hz | 92,6 | 95,5 | 103,1 | 106,0 | 89,3 | 92,2 | 91,6 | 94,5 | 80,5 | 83,4 |
| 100 Hz | 94,6 | 94,0 | 102,1 | 101,5 | 90,3 | 89,7 | 94,6 | 94,0 | 82,2 | 81,6 |
| 125 Hz | 92,8 | 93,3 | 99,3 | 99,8 | 93,5 | 94,0 | 94,8 | 95,3 | 80,0 | 80,5 |
| 160 Hz | 92,8 | 93,6 | 99,3 | 100,1 | 99,5 | 100,3 | 96,8 | 97,6 | 79,7 | 80,5 |
| 200 Hz | 93,0 | 92,9 | 99,5 | 99,4 | 98,7 | 98,6 | 104,0 | 103,9 | 79,6 | 79,5 |
| 250 Hz | 94,8 | 92,7 | 101,3 | 99,2 | 95,5 | 93,4 | 100,8 | 98,7 | 96,4 | 94,3 |
| 316 Hz | 94,6 | 92,4 | 101,1 | 98,9 | 90,3 | 88,1 | 99,6 | 97,4 | 80,5 | 78,3 |
| 400 Hz | 95,7 | 92,8 | 102,2 | 99,3 | 91,4 | 88,5 | 101,7 | 98,8 | 81,3 | 78,4 |
| 500 Hz | 95,6 | 92,8 | 102,1 | 99,3 | 91,3 | 88,5 | 98,6 | 95,8 | 97,2 | 94,4 |
| 630 Hz | 98,6 | 96,8 | 101,1 | 99,3 | 90,3 | 88,5 | 95,6 | 93,8 | 79,5 | 77,7 |
| 800 Hz | 95,2 | 92,7 | 101,7 | 99,2 | 90,9 | 88,4 | 95,2 | 92,7 | 79,8 | 77,3 |
| 1 000  Hz | 95,1 | 93,0 | 101,6 | 99,5 | 91,8 | 89,7 | 96,1 | 94,0 | 86,7 | 84,6 |
| 1 250  Hz | 95,1 | 92,9 | 99,3 | 97,1 | 92,8 | 90,6 | 92,1 | 89,9 | 81,7 | 79,5 |
| 1 600  Hz | 94,1 | 93,1 | 96,0 | 95,0 | 92,8 | 91,8 | 89,1 | 88,1 | 82,7 | 81,7 |
| 2 000  Hz | 94,1 | 93,2 | 93,7 | 92,8 | 90,8 | 89,9 | 87,1 | 86,2 | 80,7 | 79,8 |
| 2 500  Hz | 99,4 | 98,3 | 101,9 | 100,8 | 88,1 | 87,0 | 85,4 | 84,3 | 78,0 | 76,9 |
| 3 160 Hz | 92,5 | 91,5 | 89,5 | 88,5 | 85,2 | 84,2 | 83,5 | 82,5 | 75,1 | 74,1 |
| 4 000  Hz | 89,5 | 88,7 | 87,1 | 86,3 | 83,2 | 82,4 | 81,5 | 80,7 | 72,1 | 71,3 |
| 5 000  Hz | 87,0 | 86,0 | 90,5 | 89,5 | 81,7 | 80,7 | 80,0 | 79,0 | 69,6 | 68,6 |
| 6 350  Hz | 84,1 | 83,4 | 31,4 | 30,7 | 78,8 | 78,1 | 78,1 | 77,4 | 66,7 | 66,0 |
| 8 000  Hz | 81,5 | 80,9 | 81,2 | 80,6 | 76,2 | 75,6 | 76,5 | 75,9 | 64,1 | 63,5 |
| 10 000  Hz | 79,2 | 78,7 | 79,6 | 79,1 | 73,9 | 73,4 | 75,2 | 74,7 | 61,8 | 61,3 |

LW,0,idling

Frequency

Vehicle type

d

d

d

e

e

Diesel locomotive (c. 800 kW)

Diesel locomotive (c. 2 200  kW)

Diesel multiple unit

Electric locomotive

Electric multiple unit

SourceA

SourceB

SourceA

SourceB

SourceA

SourceB

SourceA

SourceB

SourceA

SourceB

50 Hz

98,9

103,2

99,4

103,7

82,6

86,9

87,9

92,2

80,5

84,8

63 Hz

94,8

100,0

107,3

112,5

82,5

87,7

90,8

96,0

81,4

86,6

80 Hz

92,6

95,5

103,1

106,0

89,3

92,2

91,6

94,5

80,5

83,4

100 Hz

94,6

94,0

102,1

101,5

90,3

89,7

94,6

94,0

82,2

81,6

125 Hz

92,8

93,3

99,3

99,8

93,5

94,0

94,8

95,3

80,0

80,5

160 Hz

92,8

93,6

99,3

100,1

99,5

100,3

96,8

97,6

79,7

80,5

200 Hz

93,0

92,9

99,5

99,4

98,7

98,6

104,0

103,9

79,6

79,5

250 Hz

94,8

92,7

101,3

99,2

95,5

93,4

100,8

98,7

96,4

94,3

316 Hz

94,6

92,4

101,1

98,9

90,3

88,1

99,6

97,4

80,5

78,3

400 Hz

95,7

92,8

102,2

99,3

91,4

88,5

101,7

98,8

81,3

78,4

500 Hz

95,6

92,8

102,1

99,3

91,3

88,5

98,6

95,8

97,2

94,4

630 Hz

98,6

96,8

101,1

99,3

90,3

88,5

95,6

93,8

79,5

77,7

800 Hz

95,2

92,7

101,7

99,2

90,9

88,4

95,2

92,7

79,8

77,3

1 000  Hz

95,1

93,0

101,6

99,5

91,8

89,7

96,1

94,0

86,7

84,6

1 250  Hz

95,1

92,9

99,3

97,1

92,8

90,6

92,1

89,9

81,7

79,5

1 600  Hz

94,1

93,1

96,0

95,0

92,8

91,8

89,1

88,1

82,7

81,7

2 000  Hz

94,1

93,2

93,7

92,8

90,8

89,9

87,1

86,2

80,7

79,8

2 500  Hz

99,4

98,3

101,9

100,8

88,1

87,0

85,4

84,3

78,0

76,9

3 160 Hz

92,5

91,5

89,5

88,5

85,2

84,2

83,5

82,5

75,1

74,1

4 000  Hz

89,5

88,7

87,1

86,3

83,2

82,4

81,5

80,7

72,1

71,3

5 000  Hz

87,0

86,0

90,5

89,5

81,7

80,7

80,0

79,0

69,6

68,6

6 350  Hz

84,1

83,4

31,4

30,7

78,8

78,1

78,1

77,4

66,7

66,0

8 000  Hz

81,5

80,9

81,2

80,6

76,2

75,6

76,5

75,9

64,1

63,5

10 000  Hz

79,2

78,7

79,6

79,1

73,9

73,4

75,2

74,7

61,8

61,3

Table G-6

Coefficients LW,0,1
  , LW,0,2
  , α1
  , α2
  for aerodynamic noise

(Values are expressed in Sound Power Level per vehicle (for a vehicle length of 20 m))

| | Aerodynamic noise given at 300 km/h |
| --- | --- |
| α1 | α2 |
| 50 | 50 |
| Frequency | LW,0,1 | LW,0,2 |
| 50 Hz | 112,6 | 36,7 |
| 63 Hz | 113,2 | 38,5 |
| 80 Hz | 115,7 | 39,0 |
| 100 Hz | 117,4 | 37,5 |
| 125 Hz | 115,3 | 36,8 |
| 160 Hz | 115,0 | 37,1 |
| 200 Hz | 114,9 | 36,4 |
| 250 Hz | 116,4 | 36,2 |
| 316 Hz | 115,9 | 35,9 |
| 400 Hz | 116,3 | 36,3 |
| 500 Hz | 116,2 | 36,3 |
| 630 Hz | 115,2 | 36,3 |
| 800 Hz | 115,8 | 36,2 |
| 1 000  Hz | 115,7 | 36,5 |
| 1 250  Hz | 115,7 | 36,4 |
| 1 600  Hz | 114,7 | 105,2 |
| 2 000  Hz | 114,7 | 110,3 |
| 2 500  Hz | 115,0 | 110,4 |
| 3 160  Hz | 114,5 | 105,6 |
| 4 000  Hz | 113,1 | 37,2 |
| 5 000  Hz | 112,1 | 37,5 |
| 6 350  Hz | 110,6 | 37,9 |
| 8 000  Hz | 109,6 | 38,4 |
| 10 000  Hz | 108,8 | 39,2 |

Aerodynamic noise given at 300 km/h

α1

α2

50

50

Frequency

LW,0,1

LW,0,2

50 Hz

112,6

36,7

63 Hz

113,2

38,5

80 Hz

115,7

39,0

100 Hz

117,4

37,5

125 Hz

115,3

36,8

160 Hz

115,0

37,1

200 Hz

114,9

36,4

250 Hz

116,4

36,2

316 Hz

115,9

35,9

400 Hz

116,3

36,3

500 Hz

116,2

36,3

630 Hz

115,2

36,3

800 Hz

115,8

36,2

1 000  Hz

115,7

36,5

1 250  Hz

115,7

36,4

1 600  Hz

114,7

105,2

2 000  Hz

114,7

110,3

2 500  Hz

115,0

110,4

3 160  Hz

114,5

105,6

4 000  Hz

113,1

37,2

5 000  Hz

112,1

37,5

6 350  Hz

110,6

37,9

8 000  Hz

109,6

38,4

10 000  Hz

108,8

39,2

Table G7

Coefficients Cbridge
  for structural radiation

| Cbridge |
| --- |
| Track base |
| N | L |
| Predominantly concrete or masonry bridges with any trackform | Predominantly steel bridges with ballasted track |
| 1 | 4 |

Cbridge

Track base

N

L

Predominantly concrete or masonry bridges with any trackform

Predominantly steel bridges with ballasted track

1

4

---