The deadline for satisfying Directive 2000/14/EC was 3 January 2002. The DTI has appointed five notified bodies to provide assessments for construction equipment that has to meet noise limits (AVT, BSI, MIRA, Lloyds Register QA and SRL). At the time of writing only five Member States have transposed the Directive and the CEA is pursuing concerns about imports and exports to and from EU countries that have no regulations in place. The Commission has said the Directive applies regardless!

The Commission’s long awaited guide to the Directive is in the final stages of completion and is expected to be published very soon. A few concerns remain in the draft. Net installed engine power, for example, which is essential for calculating a noise limit, is inadequately defined. Different interpretations of this basic characteristic can lead to different limits with obvious confusion and disadvantages all round. In addition to this, the long-running saga on uncertainties shows every sign of continuing in the guide and the Commission, in trying to satisfy everyone, has allowed complex ISO standards on uncertainties to be emphasised ahead of more straightforward methods of determining uncertainties. The CEA will continue to seek solutions acceptable to manufacturers.

The Consultants appointed by the European Commission have just published their Report and the Commission reaction is awaited.

ENGINE EMISSIONS

Proposals for off-road Stage III engine emission levels to amend Directive 97/68/EC have hit a barrage of difficulties. While the need for a Stage III is generally accepted, the construction equipment industry is still getting used to Stage II which does not apply to all engines until the end of 2003. There is wide acceptance of the need for harmonisation of engine emission requirements between Europe and the USA. Test methods, timescales and emission levels are at issue. The Commission is seeking a reduction in particulate levels for Stage III in Europe but in the US, which has a Tier 3 lined up, a decision on particulates will not be taken until the end of 2002. Also, fuel quality in Europe needs to be harmonised. Sulphur levels would have to be lowered (by amending Directive 98/70/EC) to accommodate technology that is available for exhaust traps. Following a meeting with the Commission on the industry position paper, CECE is prepared to reduce the period between Stages II and III from 7 to 5 years. Details of the revised CECE position are being considered by CEA.

MACHINERY DIRECTIVE

The proposed revision is going slowly. The CECE estimate for the Council to reach a Common Position in mid-2002, with an application date of 2006, may be very optimistic. There is concern that some MEPs examining the proposed text on behalf of the European Parliament want to eliminate self-certification, but apparently this is not the majority view and would, in any case, be unlikely to be accepted by Member States. CEA members have succeeded in persuading CECE to recommend that the operator position noise tests required by the Machinery Directive should be with the dynamic method (ISO 6396) that has been used in recent years for the noise limit Directive. This avoids the confusion that would result if the static method (ISO 6394) was used for one Directive and the dynamic method for the other.

ISO 5006 on visibility test methods is being revised and it is expected that a draft will be circulated for public comment by next April. The CEA has been instrumental in helping to determine that the standards will be acceptable to the HSE which has a mandate to reduce workplace accidents and believes that improving operator visibility will help. At present the concept of a clause on job-site organisation, which is acceptable in the US to improve perceived visibility problems but not in the UK, is a difficulty for the ISO Working Group.

PHYSICAL AGENTS DIRECTIVES - VIBRATION

CEA Members will be well aware that the European Parliament (EP) has recommended drastic reductions to the whole-body vibration exposure levels agreed by the Council in its Common Position earlier this year. Huge additional costs to the construction industry are inevitable if the EP gets its way. A showdown will now take place in a Conciliation Committee comprising 15 MEPs and 15 members of COREPER representing the Member States. The crucial value to be decided is the exposure limit value for whole-body vibration that is set at 1.15 m/s2 in the Common Position. This is bad enough but the EP want to reduce it to 0.8 m/s2 which will have the effect of halving operator working time on site. The CEA is working with UK industry and user associations to lobby for the Common Position agreement, or an increase in the limit value. MEPs are being urged to consider the cost increases and delays to projects that would occur and the CEA is to invite MEPs to a presentation of the effects the Directive will have. In December, the CEA hosted a meeting of construction industry associations to ensure that everyone is aware of the obligations that will be placed on employers and the drastic effect on operator working hours. The CEA is also encouraging members and other national associations throughout Europe to lobby MEPs in every member state.

PHYSICAL AGENTS DIRECTIVES - NOISE

The Common Position on this separate Physical Agents Directive was agreed in June and is also being considered by the EP. It appears that the EP will not recommend significant changes to the Common Position but its report is awaited with interest. The Directive requires employers to assess noise exposure in workplaces and although it appears that exposure levels can be controlled by ear protection, there will inevitably be further downward pressure on equipment noise emissions.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION ON TECHNICAL MATTERS CONTACT:

Bill Osborne - CEA Technical Officer - bill@admin.co.uk

OR

Tim Faithfull - CEA Director of Member Services - tim@admin.co.uk