Category: Archive – 2012

MCCAA would like to inform interested
stakeholders of the draft proposal on the sound level of motor vehicles. The objective of the proposal is to
ensure a high level of health and environmental protection and to safeguard the
Internal Market for motor vehicles as regards their sound level.

The proposal aims at reducing
environmental noise by introducing a new test method for measuring noise
emissions, by lowering the noise limit values, by including additional sound
emission provisions in the type-approval procedure. It aims also at ensuring
road and occupational safety by introducing requirements regarding the minimum
noise for electric and electric-hybrid vehicles.

This proposal will introduce a new test
method for measuring the noise emissions and change the limit values for the
type-approval of motor vehicles. It will also address for the first time the
issue of the minimum noise level of electric or hybrid electric vehicles.

The draft proposal will repeal
Directive 70/157/EEC on noise emissions of four-wheel motor vehicles and its
subsequent amendments. Compared to the existing act, the draft proposal will
lay down new requirements: new test protocol, new limit values, additional
sound emission provisions and minimum noise for electric and electric-hybrid
vehicles.

On the basis of the results resulting
from tests and research an impact assessment has been prepared with different
policy options for the noise test method and corresponding limit values.
According to the most preferable option the limit values for light and medium
size vehicles will be lowered in two steps of each 2 dB(A) and for heavy
vehicles in a first step of 1 and a second step of 2 dB(A). This will result in
a reduction of the noise impact of about 3 dB(A) for free flowing traffic and
up to 4 dB(A) for intermittent traffic. The reduction of the number of highly
annoyed people will be 25 %.

The cost-benefit ratio for this measure
is estimated to be around 20 times in favour of the noise reduction compared to
no action taken.

– Additional sound emissions
provisions:

The representativeness of the new test
method for the noise emission during normal traffic conditions is considered
good, but it is less representative for noise emissions under worst case
conditions. Therefore it was necessary to implement Additional Sound Emission
Provisions. They are preventive requirements intended to cover driving conditions
of the vehicle in real traffic outside the type approval driving cycle. These
driving conditions are environmentally relevant and it needs to be ensured that
the sound emission of a vehicle under street driving conditions does not differ
significantly from what can be expected from the type approval test result for
this specific vehicle.

– Minimum noise of electric and
electric-hybrid vehicles:

The increase of hybrid and electric
vehicles on European roads is welcomed because it is serving to significantly
reduce air pollution and traffic noise. But these positive environmental
benefits have produced the unintended consequence of removing a source of
audible signal that is in particular used by blind and low vision people to
inform them of the approach, presence, direction or departure of road vehicles.
A working group on minimum sound levels for silent vehicles has been set up by
UNECE. Taking into account the discussions and the information provided in this
group it is proposed to amend the noise legislation with an Annex harmonising
the performance of 'Approaching Vehicle Audible Systems' if they are fitted to
a vehicle. The fitting of such systems however shall be voluntary and remain an
option under the discretion of the vehicle manufacturers.

There is a general transitory period in
the proposal in order to allow sufficient lead time for vehicle and component
manufacturers and administrations. The proposal provides for simplification of
legislation as Directive 70/157/EEC and its subsequent amendments will be
repealed.

Within three years following
implementation the Commission shall carry out a detailed study to ascertain
whether the noise limits prove to be appropriate. On the basis of the
conclusions of the study, the Commission may, where appropriate, present
proposals for amendment to this Regulation.

Please direct feedback and queries on
by Friday 5th October.

Following a request by MEPA officials
for feedback on proposed update and possible enforcement of regulations for PV
installations on roofs GRTU held a meeting for its members on 6^th
September.

MEPA informed GRTU that they already
met some suppliers and were told that these particular suppliers advise clients
on obligations concerning MEPA but then leave it up to client if they want to
carry on with works or not…

GRTU and its members agreed that
retailers need to be more serious than this for their own good and
sustainability of the sector. The majority of the members present at the
meeting voted in favour that retailers should be responsible for the
installation should MEPA decide something was wrong and enforce.

On the proposed side and back screening
for all PV structures MEPA should inform GRTU what the screening is to be made
of and other specifications. A scientific study must be performed to ensure
that proposed screening does not impinge a huge cost, effects viability of installations, become noisy in winds
(rattle, whistle etc.) and allows sufficient ventilation for PV's and inverter
to function efficiently.

GRTU expressed also its opinion that
the max height should be raised to 1.9m for both swh and pv.

If there is no wall in front of the
installation the space from the façade of the washroom or other similar
structure should be reduced to 1m, but if there is a wall 2m should be kept to
avoid shading.

GRTU Members recommended that an
electrical engineer would certify complete systems, including the structure. It
would then be up to him to decide if a mechanical engineer is required to
certify the structure or not. GRTU will also be encouraging holistic yearly
inspections (electrical and mechanical) to reduce dangers.

The ERDF
halting of the scheme, are there any new developments?

There were unfortunately no development as we did not hear
anything. GRTU will be making a find out in this regard.

Noel Gauci, GRTU Renewable Energy
Section President, informed members that according to the information we have,
there were many companies involved in the issue, mainly with dubious
quotations. These will suffer a small percentage reduction/recovery of their
grant. Attendees (which comprised of retailers and beneficiaries) unanimously
accepted this reduction/recovery solution, and no one raised any objections.

Those beneficiaries that have more than
just dubious quotes and for which police found evidence of serious wrong doing
shall receive a much larger percentage reduction from the grant. Probably those
found guilty will also be denied access to future funding.

It will be up to the police to decide
who they shall prosecute and up to the beneficiary and retailer to settle who
should bear the reduction. It is understood that involved
suppliers/beneficiaries are to be taken to court by police.

Noel Gauci informed members that GRTU
cannot and will not be getting into such cases as there is the police involved,
and the latter should be allowed to carry their investigations freely even for
the benefit of the sector. Malta Enterprise took GRTU's recommendations to
inform those found completely clean and to allow them to move ahead with their
installations without delay. Our request for an extension of installation
deadline has also been accepted and the new deadline is around mid-December,
beneficiaries shall be informed accordingly. If anyone needs a longer extension
they should contact GRTU.

Noel Gauci warned that inspections will
be carried out by Malta Enterprise to ensure PV systems were according to the
grant agreement, and once again strongly recommended that everything should be
done by the book, according to standards and regulations and good working
practices.

Other matters discussed during the
section meeting:

Net metering: Noel Gauci said he is already raising this
point with MRA and MFEI every now and then, and it is a very important issue
for the high end consumers

Funding for domestic scheme: should be lowered from €3k to
€2.5k

Grid Connection: Members suggested that the current minimum
limit which is 0.5 Kw should be abolished

Dan kien tal GRTU matul l-ahhar 20 sena u jiraprezenta hafna
proposti li il GRTU ghamlet matul dan iz zmien u li gew inwettqa bi ftehiem bejn GRTU u l-Gvern u li bis sahha taghom is-self employed u sidien ta negozji zghar u medji setghu jahdmu u jikbru u
jgawdu min skemi li bhalhom Malta qatt qabel ma kellha.

GRTU congratulates all true Maltese on Malta's  48th Independence anniversary. 21^st
September is Malta's most important day. On 21^st September 1964
Malta became Independent for the first time in its history. Malta's destiny
since 21^st September 1964 has been determined by the Maltese people
themselves.

Whatever happened after is relevant and important precisely because
on 21^st September 1964 Malta became a sovereign state. Malta became
a member of the United Nations. Malta's Independence was an irreversible
status.

The second great achievement for Malta is Malta's accession
to the European Union. Today Malta is politically secure and economically
participant in a single European market, which is the largest single market in
the world beside China and India. For the self-employed and owners of small
business whose livelihood depends pretty much on the successful operation of
the internal Maltese market, Malta's Independence and adhesion to the EU
provides the greatest safeguard for present and future economic well being.
Malta's earning capacity depends on Malta's successful achievements as
effective economic participant in this tremendous single market. Without the
large European single market Malta was permanently locked in an economic
cul-de-sac. Malta's independence gave us the right as a sovereign state to be
part of this tremendous market and to sit at the highest decision making
structures of this largest and most successful union of independent nations.

In a turbulent world where even the
largest economies are finding it difficult to cope, Malta would have definitely
been washed away if it had not belonged to a regional economic union while at
the same time remained a sovereign state. Many Maltese independent private
business owners do not sufficiently appreciate this, but Malta's economy is so
dependent on the rest of the world that it would not have been possible for the
managers of the Maltese economy to make the Island fend for itself during these
last very difficult years when all economic circumstances were adverse. Malta's
participation in the EU and in the European Monitory Union has ensured that
while we could make maximum benefit of our sovereign Independent state we could
simultaneously belong to a Union that provides us with the necessary guarantees
that economic and political security are no longer at a threat. Malta today has
a great and successful story to tell. It is all due to Malta's achievements on
21^st September 1964.

GRTU strongly supported Malta's call for Independence. Over
the last 48 years GRTU has steadfastly supported all genuine efforts to make
Malta's independence a great economic, social and political success.

Tackling Cross Border Inheritance Tax obstacles – Last Tuesday (18th September) another
report presented by Vincent Farrugia, EESC Employers Representative and GRTU
Director General, as appointed rapporteur was formally adopted as EESC Opinion
with 135 votes in favour, 1 against and 11 abstentions.

The Farrugia report is now the official
EESC Opinion to the Commission Communication on Tackling cross-border
inheritance tax obstacles within the EU and the Commission recommendation
regarding relief for double taxation of inheritances.

EU citizens who inherit assets across
national Member State borders are frequently faced with taxation in two or more
different Member States (i.e. double or multiple taxation) and tax
discrimination. These problems often impose undue hardship on citizens and
hamper the achievement of the EU-2020 objectives. In an attempt to address
these problems, the Commission presented a Communication in 2011 and an
accompanying Recommendation.

In his report Mr Farrugia stated that
the EESC is in favour of removing double/multiple and discriminatory taxation,
and welcomes the approach adopted by the Commission which respects the tax
sovereignty of individual Member States while calling for better interfacing of
national tax systems.

It is however the opinion of the EESC
that the Commission can be more effective in achieving the final aims of this
exercise by:

 

 

 

 

 The EU Taxation Observatory, whose
creation under the auspices of the Commission has been suggested in EESC
opinions  dealing with multiple and
discriminatory taxation, could serve as the instrument through which the above
recommendations are implemented.

This is the fifth successful Farrugia
report being adopted as EESC Opinion.

ATTN:  Operators in the Renewable Sector &
Beneficiaries of the ERDF Fund related to photovoltaic installations

A
meeting shall be on Monday 17th September – 13.00hrs at GRTU

Registration
is obligatory and can be done by email on or by calling 21232881

Members
are urged to attend this meeting. Non-members are also invited to attend
subject they either join GRTU or pay a €25 fee to attend the meeting.

In September, Neelie Kroes, the European commissioner for the
digital agenda, will publish her long-awaited strategy for cloud computing,
amid fears that Europe could already be falling behind as technology takes
another leap forward. Internet firms have been hailing cloud computing as
the next big thing for several years, promoting its cost-saving benefits for
customers as they try to win a share of the emerging business.

The stakes are high. Cloud computing could
revolutionise the way businesses work and could expand significantly the extent
to which the internet shapes people's lives. Cloud computing means that data –
such as email, text files, music and photographs – is not stored on a personal
computer or server owned by the individual or organisation, but is instead sent
to the ‘cloud' – or, more precisely, huge data centres owned by different
companies around the world.

The benefits are huge, both in terms of cost and
convenience. Firms – especially SMEs – would save money because they would be
outsourcing IT maintenance, and because the amount of ‘cloud space' they could
buy would be flexible; they could increase or cut the capacity of their data
storage as they needed it.

Convenience could be an even stronger attraction. No
longer will people have to be at the computer where a file is stored. They will
be able to gain access to data from anywhere there is an internet connection.
Files such as medical records and professional qualification certificates will
be available anywhere internationally, which could give new impetus to the EU's
single market. Cloud computing also challenges copyright legislation: listening
to music and watching films stored in the ‘cloud' at the touch of a button is
already commonplace.

However, the European Commission knows that it has to
proceed with caution. It wants to promote cloud computing because it realizes
the economic benefits, but it also realizes that the development raises important
questions about data protection and security. The prospect of huge amounts of
sensitive data being transferred to centres across the world could encounter
resistance. Winning public trust may be the biggest hurdle to overcome.

Crucial steps

Commissioner Kroes is aware that, faced with these
significant technological changes, the Commission needs to have a plan. She
told the European Internet Foundation in March that policymakers have to come
up with a coherent strategy for cloud computing to ensure that this crucial
step in internet use "happens not to Europe, but with Europe".

A swathe of new legislation should not be expected,
however. Kroes is a liberal by nature, and she has already warned of the
dangers of over-regulation in this area. She is likely to take heed of industry
warnings that too many obstacles placed in the way would threaten the EU's
ability to take advantage of these technological advances.

The strategy is not expected to propose any specific
legislation at this stage, but rather set out a plan of action for a legal
framework that promotes cloud-computing development. This includes the measures
needed to complement the data protection regulation proposed by the Commission
in January, and calls for the EU to explore agreements with countries such as
Japan and the United States over the treatment of data.

The strategy will also set out the action needed to
ensure inter-operability and standardisation of cloud services – to ensure that
users are able to choose to move their data away from one cloud service to
another without being locked in' to one company.

The headache for regulators is that data stored ‘in the
cloud' is often spread out across more than one data centre, often in different
countries. The Commission wants users to have the same level of protection no
matter where the data is kept. It will seek to develop ‘model contracts' for
cloud providers to give more legal certainty to users over how their data is
used. This is aimed at giving some assurance that, no matter where the data is
held, it will have the same level of protection as where the user is based –
and that cloud companies will be made accountable if there is a problem.

The risks were set out earlier this month when Europe's
national data protection supervisory authorities issued a report on the issue
of cloud computing. The ‘Article 29 Working Party', made up of the national
authorities, the Commission and Peter Hustinx, the EU's data protection
supervisor, acknowledged that "the rise of cloud computing services can trigger
a number of risks, such as the lack of control over personal data and
insufficient information regarding how, where and by whom data is being
processed".

In the report, published on 1 July, the group said: "By
submitting personal data to the systems managed by the cloud provider, cloud
clients may no longer be in exclusive control of this data."

There is a long way to go. Many details set out in the
cloud-computing strategy will raise questions about cross-border data security.
However, there is a growing belief that the cloud-computing tide cannot be held
back, and, as Kroes said, Europe has to move with it rather than be pushed
along by it.

At the plenary session of this week, the European Parliament
adopted in first reading the Energy Efficiency Directive with 632 votes in
favour, 25 against and 19 abstentions.

You can view the latest version of the directive in
the following link:

The next steps:

• The directive will enter into force 20 days after its publication in
  EU's Official Journal and member states will have 18 months to transpose it
  into their national laws, by Spring 2014.

• In April 2013,
  member states are due to present their national efficiency programmes. The
  European Commission will then evaluate them.

• If the
  Commission considers that the national energy saving plans are not enough to
  meet the 20% energy savings target, it will add to the directive more binding
  measures to reach the 20% target.

• The energy
  savings achieved will be calculated as of 2014.

• A review of the
  Directive will take place in 2016.

 

 

The challenges ahead lie now in the implementation of the
legislative text as the Directive leaves a lot of room for manoeuvre to the
Member States. The Commission will try to tighten the text of the Directive
through guidance notes in order to provide some clarity to the text's
ambiguities. UEAPME will provide its input to DG Energy as of this Autumn. 

www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?type=REPORT&mode=XML&reference=A7-2012-265&language=EN