NoC304/32 OfficialJournaloftheEuropean Communities 10.11.93
nationalandCommunity manualsshouldbedrawn
uptoserveasareferenceframework forexecutive
tasks,tomaintain andextendtheparticipation of
workersinthepublicsector,jointcommittees must
besetup,
withinthefutureEuropean authorities ,European
servicecommittees shouldbesetuponthelinesof
theEuropeanWorksCouncil,questions suchasthosementioned inpoint9.10
abovemustbeinvestigated .
DoneatBrussels,22September 1993.
TheChairman
oftheEconomicandSocialCommittee
SusanneTIEMANN
OpinionontheproposalforaCouncilDirectivetoamendCouncilDirective86/662/EEC
onthelimitationofnoiseemittedbyearthmoving machinery (!)
(93/C304/09
On11June1993theCouncildecidedtoconsulttheEconomic andSocialCommittee ,under
Article100AoftheTreatyestablishing theEuropean Economic Community ,onthe
abovementioned proposal .
TheSectionforIndustry ,Commerce ,CraftsandServices,whichwasresponsible forpreparing
theCommittee 'sworkonthesubject,adopteditsOpinionon15September 1993.The
Rapporteur wasMrPearson .
Atits308thPlenarySession (meetingof22September 1993)theEconomic andSocial
Committee unanimously adoptedthefollowingOpinion .
1.Generalcomments feelsthattheCommission intheExplanatory Memor­
andumoverstated theproblem .Theoverallnoiselevel
onanurbansiteassumesmoreimportance thanona
ruralsite,nevertheless effectiveCommunity standards
areessentialifthenoiselevelistomeetgeneral
acceptability .1.1.TheCommittee welcomes theCommission 's
proposalthatthereshouldbefurtheramendment to
Directive 86/662/EECagreeingthatfurtherreduction
innoiselevelsofearthmoving machinery isnecessary .
TheCommission 'sconcernthatthepresentDirective
shouldnotlapseisvalid:itwouldbearetrograde
backward stepweretherenoeffectiveCommunity stan­
dardduetothelackofanamendingDirectiveproviding
foranextension ofcurrentlimits.TheCommittee
howeverwouldpointtothefollowingpointsarisingin
thedetailsoftheCommission 'sproposalwhichneed
attention .1.3.Themathematical (logarithmic )element
involvedinarrivingatadecibellevelisnotalways
understood .TheproposedlevelsinthedraftDirective
aresignificantly lowerandwillrequireconsiderable
application tobeattained .Abalancebetweenviable
production ofsuchmachinesandthesocialimpacton
societyhastobestruck.
1.2.TheCommittee iswellawareofthenuisance
causedbymachinery onbuildingandothersitesbut
1.4.Itisacceptedthattheproposal'ssimulatedtest­
ingprocedures doattempttoenvisagetheworking
conditions ofthemachines . (!)OJNoC157,9.6.1993,p.7.

10.11.93 OfficialJournaloftheEuropean Communities NoC304/33
1.5.TheDirective 86/662/EECprovidedforatwo­
and-a-half yearperiodbetweentheCouncilDecision
andtheoperativedate.TheCommittee believesthatit
isveryimportant thatthistimescalebemaintained .
TheCommission 'sproposedoperational datesarecon­
sideredtobepracticalprovidedtheCouncilDecision
ismadeatanearlydate,asuntilthepreciselevels,as
decideduponbyCouncil,areknown,noredesignand
manufacture cancommence .Thevalidityofexisting
typeapprovalsmustbeextendedinlinewiththeintro­
ductionpointofthenewtestmethodandnoiselimits.EEC.TheCommittee recognizesthatfurtherreductions
innoiselevelswillbenecessary butfeelsthatthe
proposedlevelsshouldbeseenasindicativeratherthan
definitiveaIthistime.
1.11.TheCommittee believesthattheConsultation
process,assetoutintheCommission ImpactAssess­
ment,hasnotbeentrulyreflectedinthetext.Itisnot
fairtodescribethe'attitudeoftherepresentatives of
industryasambivalent 'asthemanufacturers agreethat
anamendment toDirective 86/662/EECisurgently
necessary .
2.Specificcomments1.6.Theremustbeclosecoordination betweenthe
mainmanufacturer /assembler andthesuppliersofthe
'boughtin'parts,thesebeingahighpercentage ofthe
whole.Somesuchcomponents ,suchastheengines,
maybesubjecttorequirements ofotherCommunity
Directives sothatproperliaisonwillbeessentialto
achievetheprogramme schedule .Thenoiselevelof
many'bought-in 'components willneedtobereduced .2.1.NewArticle 1
2.1.1.Thetabledproposal foramendments to
86/662/EEC(asamendedby89/514/EEC)istobesub­
jecttoArticle100A.Heretofore ithasbeenunder
Article100.TheExplanatory Memorandum givesno
reasonforthischangealthoughastatement isincluded
inthe'Whereas'sectionofthedocument .TheCom­
mitteeagreesArticle100Ashouldbeusedinthiscase.1.7.TheexpertgroupreferredtoinnewArticle8(a)
thatadvisestheCommission iscomposedofthosewith
awidermandatethanaspecifically technicalindustrial
expertise .WiththisinmindtheCommittee stressesthe
importance ofthepracticalproduction advisorsandof
theeffectthatchangeswillhaveforthebenefitofthose
workingwith,orinthevicinityof,themachinery .2.1.2.NewArticle 1,paragraph 1,con­
cerningArticle3.1(c)
Thisshouldbedeletedinaccordance withourcomment
in1.10above.1.8.Whilsttheoperators ofthemachinery are
coveredbyotherCommunity Directives concerning
noise,thereshouldbeacloserelationship toallthe
relevantDirectives .2.1.3.NewArticle 1,paragraph 3
ItisagreedthatArticle4ofthe86/662/EECDirective
bedeleted .
2.1.4.NewArticle 1,paragraph 41.9.TheCommission acceptsthattheproposals will
havetheeffectofincreased costs:itislikelytovary
between3%and5%depending onthecategoryof
machinery .Newtechnological andproduction advance
inEuropeissuchthatcommercial advantage canresult
whileatthesametimesocialandenvironmental aspects
alsobenefit,althoughthetotalannualcosttocon­
sumersintheCommunity isseenasbetweenECU126
and210million .TheCommittee believesthatthisamendment isunjusti­
fied:thecurrentArticle5inDirective 86/662/EECis
satisfactory andshouldnotbechanged .
2.1.5.Article 1,paragraph 5
ThisreplacesthepreviousArticle7.WhilsttheCom­
mitteedoesnotdisagreewiththeaimofeconomic
incentives toplaceonthemarketnewmachines in
accordance withtheproposals ,itwouldpointoutthat
fiscalandeconomic measuresaretheprerogatives of
theindividual MemberStates.Thatparagraph should
notberetainedandtheexistingArticle7shouldalsobe
deletedasitbecomesobsoletewiththenewamending
Directive .1.10.TheCommittee isconcerned thatthepro­
visionsbeingproposed inArticle3.1(c)subsequent to
1999mightnotberealistic .Theveryhighpercentage
ofmachines toberedesigned (80%ofwheeled
machinesand50%ofothers)andthelackofexperience
ofthedynamicprocedure fortestingnoiselevelsshould
counselgreatcareandmonitoring beforetheyareenact­
edintheDirective .TheCommittee wonderswhether
itiswiseatthistimetosetlimitsfortheyear2000
withoutassessingtheexperience relativetothe1995
deadlineaslaiddowninstage2ofDirective 86/662/

NoC304/34 OfficialJournaloftheEuropeanCommunities 10.11.93
—Wheeleddozers,loaders,excavator-loaders
Lwa=86+11logP(above106dB)
—Excavators
Lwa=85+11logP(above99dB)
Upperlimitsshouldnotbeincludedasthesewillinhibit
thedevelopment ofverylargemachineswhichdonot
haveabigeffectonnoisenuisanceforthefollowing
reasons :
a)theyarephysically ofconsiderable sizeandbulk
operatingonlargeprojectsawayfromurbanareas
(suchasdamconstruction );
b)forsafetyreasonsno-oneworksclosetosuch
machines ;
c)duetothelogarithmic formulaforevaluating noise
limitsthenoiseleveldoesnotincreasedramatically
withmachinesize—forexamplebetween 1000KW
and2000KWthenoiselevelwillincreasebythe
sameamountonlyasbetween100KWand200KW
(3,3dBA).2.1.6.NewArticle 1,paragraph 7
ThisreplacesthepreviousArticle9.Inlinewithcom­
mentsin1.10.and2.1.1.theexistingArticleissatisfac­
toryandshouldnotbechanged .Theamendment
shouldbedeleted .
2.2.NewArticle2
Thisshouldberedrafted tostatethattheMember
Statesenactthelaws,regulations andadministrative
provisions sothattwoandahalfyearsisretainedfor
theoperativedateasfromtheCouncilDecision .
3.Afterdueconsideration theCommittee believes
thattheminimum noiselevelsinArticle3(1)(b)should
bechangedtobasesat:
—Trackedmachines (exceptexcavators )
Lwa=87+11logP(above107dB)
DoneatBrussels,22September 1993.
TheChairman
oftheEconomicandSocialCommittee
SusanneTIEMANN