Noise emission data as a prerequisite for Buy Quiet:
Challenges related to the European Machinery and Outdoor Noise Directive
Fabian HEISTERKAMP(1)(1) Federal Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (BAuA), Germany, heisterkamp.fabian@baua.bund.de

Abstract
The European OSH Directive 2003/10/EC on noise comprises provisions aimed at “avoiding or reducing theexposure” of workers to noise, so that “... the risks arising from exposure to noise shall be eliminated at sourceor reduced to a minimum”(Article 5 1.). The Buy Quiet concept, i.e. the selection of machinery and equipmentwith a special focus on low noise emissions, can represent an effective means to comply with this legal requirement. However, reliable and useful noise emission data are not always available. Especially outdoor equipment
can represent a challenge. This kind of machinery is covered by both the “Outdoor Noise” Directive 2000/14/EC(OND), a Global Approach Directive, and the Machinery Directive 2006/42/EC (MD), a New Approach Directive. The interplay of these two Directives results in noise emission declarations that differ from those of othermachinery and can represent a challenge for manufacturers as well as employers. The arising problems are
discussed and explained by practical observations. Equipment covered by the OND is almost always provided
with emission data. The challenges when trying to select quieter machines based on these data are discussed
and possible strategies to identify quieter machines, but also to improve the OND, are presented.
Keywords: Noise, Regulation, Buy Quiet

1

INTRODUCTION

Despite the knowledge of and regulations aimed at preventing noise-induced hearing loss, the number of recognized cases of this occupational disease (OD No. 2301) remained more or less constant in Germany. The
German Social Accident Insurance (DGUV) recognized 6.216, 6.850 and 6.649 cases in the years 2015, 2016
and 2017, respectively(1). According to the recent BIBB-BAuA survey(2), conducted in 2018, 13,6 % of thequestioned employees claimed to be working frequently under noise and to be bothered by it. Being asked“What is the main cause of noise nuisance?” 57,3 % of these employees replied “machines and other equipment”. Thus, noise emission from machines remains an important issue for occupational health and safety.
Noise as a physical agent and a hazard for the hearing of workers is addressed by the OSH Directive 2003/10/EC
on noise(3). This Directive aims at avoiding or reducing the risks arising from exposure of workers to noise.
However, these measures are connected to the action values of daily noise exposure levels of 80 dB(A) and85 dB(A), so that possible non-auditory effects of noise below 80 dB(A) are not explicitly addressed by thisDirective. The goal is that “... the risks arising from exposure to noise shall be eliminated at source or reduced
to a minimum”(3, Article 5 1.). Employers have the responsibility to protect the workers from hazards resulting
from noise at the workplace. The Buy Quiet concept, i.e. the selection of machinery and equipment with a
special focus on low noise emissions, can represent an effective means to comply with this legal requirement.
Furthermore, employers “shall give particular attention, when carrying out the risk assessment,to ... information
on noise emission provided by manufacturers of work equipment in accordance with the relevant Community
directives”(3, Article 4 6.).
Both the Buy Quiet concept as a means to minimize noise exposure and the risk assessment require the employer to obtain and interpret noise emission data provided with machinery and other work equipment. “Relevant Community directives” obligating manufacturers to provide such information are the “Outdoor Noise”
Directive 2000/14/EC(4), short OND hereinafter, and the Machinery Directive 2006/42/EC(5), short MD hereinafter. However, both Directives have slightly different goals and different approaches to the provision of noise

7049

emission information. Whereas both the OND and the MD are based on Article 95 of the EC Treaty (nowreplaced by Article 114 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union) and thereby aim “at theestablishment and functioning of the internal market”(6) the issues addressed by them differ already(7):On the one hand, the MD harmonizes “the health and safety requirements applicable to machinery on the basisof a high level of protection of health and safety”(6). Thus, noise is only one hazard among many others
addressed by the “essential health and safety requirements” (EHSR) of the MD. The OND, on the other hand,aims at “a high level of environmental protection and consumer protection”(8), whereupon it solely contains
requirements regarding noise.
The MD is a New Approach Directive and thus only defines essential requirements for the products in its
scope, whereas “... the technical specifications for products meeting the essential requirements set out ...”(9) by
the MD “... should be laid down in harmonised standards”. The harmonized standards, which can be used to
document conformity with the essential requirements of the MD within the scope of the specific standard, areupdated periodically following technical progress and adapting to the state of the Art. Note, however, that theapplication of harmonised standards is voluntary, but offers manufacturers the advantage of the presumption ofconformity with those EHSRs, which are within the scope of the specific standard used (MD, Article 7(2)).
The OND is a Global Approach Directive which sets out detailed technical specifications for the products in its
scope. However, it only specifies requirements regarding the noise emissions of 57 different types of equipment
for use outdoors. In contrast to the MD, it contains dated references to standards. As a result, no changes
to the measurement methods or operating conditions are permissible. This shall ensure that the noise emission
data produced according to the OND can always be compared and that the effect of the limit values, imposedon 22 types of equipment by the OND, cannot be undermined by changing the measurement methods and/or
operating conditions.
Problems due to the different approaches of both Directives may arise for the 55 types of equipment coveredby the OND which also fall under the scope of the MD. Here, the sound power level (see Sect. 2) has to be
declared in the EC declaration of conformity and labelled on the machine following the provisions of the OND,
but the other important quantity regarding noise emissions and the regulation of noise at the workplace, theemission sound pressure level at the workstation, has to be declared in the instructions.
The exact requirements regarding noise of the two Directives are described in Sec. 2. Sec. 3 provides guidance
to choose quiet outdoor equipment. Sec. 4 analyses problems that might be encountered following this guidance,
whereas Sec. 6 discusses proposals to improve the current situation and the interplay of the two Directives.

2

THE APPROACH OF THE DIRECTIVES REGARDING NOISE EMISSIONS

2.1 Outdoor Noise Directive
The OND demands the determination and declaration of the A-weighted sound power level LW A of outdoor
equipment within its scope. It shall be declared as a single number, already containing the uncertainty of themeasurement and the uncertainty due to product variations. The resulting quantity is the guaranteed soundpower level LW Ad which must not be exceeded when the noise emissions of the product are checked, e.g. by amarket surveillance authority. To allow consumers an easy comparison of competing products the LW Ad must belabelled on the product (OND, Article 11). Furthermore, this quantity has to be provided in the EC declarationof conformity together with the measured sound power level. The measurement method and the operating
conditions to determine the measured sound power level are specified in the OND. They are either contained
directly in the Directive or provided by dated references to European and/or international standards. Thus, a lotof these references refer to outdated and partly even to withdrawn or superseded standards. Due to the detailed
specification of the measurement method and the operating conditions in the Directive, the guaranteed soundpower level LW Ad should be easily comparable. However, the method to determine the uncertainty added tothe measured sound power level is not specified - neither in the OND itself nor in the standards referenced and the product variations, which are part of the uncertainty, may vary between different manufacturers/different

7050

designs of equipment of the same type, so that differences in the uncertainty can limit the comparability of theguaranteed sound power level LW Ad .
The 57 types of equipment, covered by the OND, can be divided into two groups: 22 types of equipment are
subject to limit values, which restrict their guaranteed sound power level to a certain maximum, whereas theremaining 35 types of equipment only have to be labelled with a guaranteed sound power.
In contrast to the MD (see Sec. 2.2), the approach of the OND solely consists of noise limits and noise labelling,so that a reduction of the sound power level below the limit value (equipment subject to noise limits) or of
equipment subject to noise labeling only is dependent on market forces, i.e. employers or consumers demanding
and buying quiet equipment. However, most outdoor equipment (55 of 57 types) is also covered by the MD(see Sec. 2.2), so its noise requirements apply to these types of equipment, too.
A further difference to the MD is the collection of noise data in a database, set up and updated periodically by
the European Commission (OND, Article 20). To that end the Member States (MS) shall ensure that manufacturers (or their authorised representatives) send a copy of the EC declaration of conformity to the responsible
authority of the MS, where the equipment is placed on the market, put into service or where the manufacturer
resides, and to the European Commission (OND, Article 16).
However, the data is provided with a disclaimer (“... whilst every effort was taken to ensure the accuracy ofthe data provided, errors may still exist.”(10)) and several problems with the database have been identified(11):Obsolete machines, repeated records (for each received declaration of conformity an entry is made), wrong typeof equipment chosen, a fixed name (“Net installed power”) for the noise related quantity regardless of the typeof equipment and false or missing entries (e.g. a declared sound power level exceeding the permissible soundpower level). According to Pedrielli et al.(11) errors result in part from the absence of a reliability check of the
input data.
2.1.1 Article 12: Equipment subject to noise limits
Article 12 of the OND lists 22 types of outdoor equipment, which are subject to limit values for the guaranteed sound power level LW Ad - “Art. 12 equipment” hereinafter. These limits are specified within the Directive(Global Approach Directive). They were supposed to be reassessed and eventually lowered regularly (every
four years). The first stage of limit values came into force on January 3, 2002. However, the amendment
2005/88/EC(12) to the OND prevented a lowering of the limit values for many types of equipment, since theWorking Group on Outdoor Equipment “... concluded that a number of the stage II limits due to be mandatorily applied as from 3 January 2006 were not technically feasible.”(12) As a result, stricter limit values wereintroduced only for 11 of the 22 types of Art. 12 equipment. Since 3 January 2006 no stricter limit values on
any of the 22 types of this equipment have been introduced.
Note that in order to place Art. 12 equipment on the market the manufacturer has to involve a Notified Body
(NB) for the conformity assessment. To that end the manufacturer can choose between three different procedures: internal control of production with assessment of technical documentation and periodical checking (Annex
VI, OND), unit verification (Annex VII, OND) and full quality assurance (Annex VIII, OND).
2.1.2 Article 13: Equipment subject to noise labeling only
Article 13 of the OND lists 35 types of outdoor equipment, which have to be labelled with the LW Ad - “Art. 13
equipment” hereinafter. Since no limit applies to the LW Ad of this equipment, a possible noise reduction ofthis equipment with technical progress depends on market forces. In contrast to Art. 12 equipment, a “selfcertification” of the product by the manufacturer is possible. The “internal control of production” (Annex V,
OND) does not involve a NB.
2.2 Machinery Directive
If more than one Directive applies to a product, the EC declaration of conformity shall list all applicable
Directives and the product must be compliant with all of the listed Directives. However, ESHR 1.7.4.2(u) of7051

the MD, demanding a noise emission declaration in the instructions, allows for an exception of this approach:“Where specific Community Directives lay down other requirements for the measurement of sound pressurelevels or sound power levels, those Directives must be applied and the corresponding provisions of this section
shall not apply”(MD, Annex I Sec. 1.7.4.2(u)). Thus, regarding the sound power level, manufacturers of outdoor
equipment within the scope of the OND must follow the approach, described in Sec. 2.1. However, the OND
does not lay down any requirements for the measurement of the emission sound pressure level L pA , so it has
to be measured and declared following the requirements of the MD.
It has to be provided as a dual-number declaration: the emission sound pressure level L pA and its uncertainty
K pA . Furthermore, the measurement method and the operating conditions have to be specified. This can either
be achieved by a complete documentation of the measurement method and the operating conditions, by reference
to a B-standard (e.g. EN ISO 11202) and a specification of the operating conditions or by reference to a Cstandard (machine specific safety standard or noise test code). The voluntary application of standards under the
MD can decrease comparability of noise emission data of different machines. These data can only be compared
if they were measured using the same standard.
In contrast to the OND, the noise requirements of the MD are not limited solely to noise information. Sec. 1.5.8
in Annex I of the MD obligates manufacturers to design their machines “... in such a way that risks resulting
from the emission of airborne noise are reduced to the lowest level, taking account of technical progress andthe availability of means of reducing noise, in particular at source.” However, it is difficult, if not nearly
impossible, for market surveillance authorities to check, whether a machine meets this requirement. As a result,
the reduction of noise emissions of machines under the MD depends mainly on market forces despite thisrequirement. The latter, in turn, depend on reliable and comparable noise emission data.

3

STRATEGIES TO SELECT QUIETER OUTDOOR EQUIPMENT

3.1 Compare the guaranteed sound power levels
The first and easiest step is to compare the guaranteed sound power levels LW Ad of the equipment, suitable foryour application. They have to be labelled on the product following the provisions of the OND. However, beaware of the problems, discussed in Sec. 4.
3.2 Discover the limit value
Buyers should check the limit values listed under Article 12 of the consolidated version of the OND. If a limit
value applies to the equipment to be purchased, it is likely that many products will be labelled with this limit
value. A first hint at a quieter choice would be a product labelled at least 3 to 5 dB(A) below the limit value.
If all possible choices are labelled with the limit value, it might be the case that there is no quieter choice orthat the manufacturers or the NBs, respectively, add a different uncertainty to the measured sound power level,
e.g. due to different product variations resulting from production. Check the EC declaration of conformity forthe measured sound power level. The lowest measured sound power level might hint at the quietest productavailable. However, only the labelled sound power level is guaranteed, so be sure to compare the emission
sound pressure level in the instructions as well (see Sec. 3.3).
3.3 Compare the emission sound pressure levels
The L pA has to be declared in the instructions and sales literature containing performance data. The advantage
is that, in contrast to the guaranteed sound power level LW Ad , which may contain different uncertainties, themeasured quantity (L pA ) and its uncertainty (K pA ) are given. Due to the voluntary nature of standards under
the MD and revisions of standards, it is important to make sure that the emission sound pressure levels to becompared were measured using the same standards and operating conditions.

7052

3.4 Compare equipment with different power sources
If available, it is worth to compare combustion engine powered, mains powered and battery powered equipment.
The performance of battery powered equipment becomes more and more comparable to mains or combustion
engine powered equipment, whereupon combustion engine powered equipment is usually the noisiest option.

4

PROBLEMS FACED IN PRACTICE

4.1 Limit values hindering competition
Of the 14 lawn mowers (limit value 96 dB(A)) studied in Ref. (13), only 4 (28,6%) were declared at least
4 dB(A) lower than the limit value. The measurements revealed that 6 lawn mowers (43,9%) had a soundpower level below 90 dB(A). Among 11 lawn trimmers none was declared more than 2 dB(A) below the limit
value. 10 motor hoes, tested in the same study, were all declared at the limit value of 93 dB(A). Thus, it
seems that limit values do not promote competition towards quieter equipment. They merely represent a legal
requirement, so manufacturers might simply aim at reaching this minimum in terms of low noise emissions.
Furthermore, as described in Sec. 2.1.1 these limits have not been decreased for more than a decade. For those
11 types of equipment, where it was deemed not technically feasible to lower the limit value in January 2006,
they have not been decreased for more than 15 years.
However, there is evidence that even this minimum standard, set more than 10 years ago, is not adhered to by
all manufacturers (see Sec. 4.3 and Ref. (13)).
4.2 Span of uncertainty
Whereas the NBs have suggested a method to determine the uncertainty in a Reference for Use (RfU)(14), thisdoes not seem to be used for all the equipment subject to noise marking only, where a NB does not haveto be involved. In the sample of leaf blowers, investigated in Ref. (13), the maximum difference between thelabelled and the measured A-weighted sound power level was 7 dB. From the studied equipment, one could, at
the worst, compare two leaf blowers, select the one with the lower guaranteed sound power level and end up
with the louder product.
Furthermore, the NBs suggest unrealistically low standard deviations of reproducibility σR , e.g. 0,5 dB for determining the LW A of a dozer driving through a hemispherical measurement surface with a radius of 4 m(14).
Although the RfU can ensure a “level playing field” for manufacturers and prevent unwanted competition between NBs for the most lenient approach regarding uncertainty, the low uncertainties assigned to the measurement method weaken the effect of the noise limits of the OND. These values are “... based on the experienceof European Notified Bodies ...”(14), although it is admitted that “... generally verification by round robin test
is considered to be desirable.”(14) The average suggested σR are 0,55 dB for Art. 12 equipment and 0,65 dB
for Art. 13 equipment, whereas this quantity is 1,5 dB according to EN ISO 3744(15, Table H.1), which mostmeasurements for the OND are based on.
4.3 Non-compliant equipment - market surveillance?
BAuA checked the declared noise emission data of different types of outdoor equipment(13). Whereas allstudied lawn mowers were compliant with the requirements of the OND, three lawn trimmers (about 27%) andsix motor hoes (70%) exceeded the respective limit value(13). The situation was slightly better for the studied
leaf blowers, where only 3 out of 20 machines (15%) exceeded their guaranteed sound power level. Thesefindings suggest that increased efforts by market surveillance authorities are in order.

5

PROBLEMS OF MANUFACTURERS

The lack of market surveillance (see Sec. 4.3) can be a disadvantage for those manufacturers, who obey the law
and produce and sell compliant equipment. Even though in order to place Art. 12 equipment on the market a7053

NB has to be involved, this does not guarantee that all products of a certified model on the market will becompliant (see Sec. 4.3). The situation could probably be worse for Art. 13 equipment, where the involvementof a NB is not required.
5.1 Outdated standards
All of the 14 European and international standards, referred to in the OND, have been withdrawn or amended(8).
However, to ensure conformity with the OND manufacturers have to use exactly the version referenced in the
OND. If that is not the same version or the same standard as the one harmonised under the MD, manufacturers sometimes have to repeat similar, but yet different measurements to comply with the requirements of both
Directives, e.g. the example of chainsaws discussed in Ref. (13).
5.2 Identifying the appropriate standard
Whereas the OND makes clear references to certain standards, the application of standards is voluntary under
the MD. Due to the large number of different types of machines covered by the MD, it can be difficult fora manufacturer to identify the appropriate standard. In order to find a standard in the Official Journal of theEuropean Union one has to know the exact name for the type of the machine used in the title of the standard.

6

PROPOSALS TO IMPROVE THE SITUATION

Although several studies on the implementation(16), the current scope and limit values(17) as well as a possible
merger of the OND with the MD(7) have been conducted, this Directive has yet to be revised. Whereas in
the recent public consultation several manufacturers suggest to allow “self-certification” (Annex V in the current OND) also for Art. 12 equipment, many stakeholders, concerned with environmental noise, oppose such achange. However, there are further proposals on which consensus might be reached:
6.1 Strengthening market surveillance
If the compliance of outdoor equipment is not checked regularly by market surveillance authorities, loud outdoor
equipment, partly even exceeding the limit value or its guaranteed sound power level, will remain on the market.
However, noise emission tests of outdoor equipment are costly and have to be conducted on the Member Statelevel. Due to the large number of importers and the practice of rebranding - selling products from anothermanufacturer under one’s own brand or company - it is difficult to ensure that all outdoor equipment on themarket complies with the requirements of the OND and the MD, respectively. Nevertheless, regular market
surveillance actions targeted at noise should improve the situation.
6.2 Noise emission classes
Assigning a class to the level of noise emissions from a certain type of outdoor equipment, as proposed inRef. (18), might increase the noise awareness of consumers as well as professional users, employers, etc. A
label displaying the noise emissions compared to other noise emission classes would enable consumers to ranka number, otherwise often perceived as “meaningless”, such as the currently labelled guaranteed sound power
level. Furthermore, the success with the EU energy label (see Ref. (19)) suggests that this, in turn, will provide
the right incentive for manufacturers to achieve a better noise emission class.
6.3 Incentives to employ market forces
Programmes on EU level to sponsor and support the purchase of quiet outdoor equipment, especially by cities
and municipalities, might provide an effective incentive for manufacturers to develop and sell such equipment.
However, this will not address consumers and a long-term programme will come with high costs. Anotherincentive might be an EU-label for environmentally friendly, quieter outdoor equipment. Once the public sector
would make such a label mandatory for their suppliers, manufacturers would aim to meet its requirements.

7054

6.4 Improve the alignment of the OND and the MD
Updating the references to standards to those currently listed under the MD, e.g. for chainsaws from ISO
9207:1995 to ISO 22868:2011, and introducing a procedure to update these references regularly, while ensuringthat the noise limits are not undermined by changes to the measurement method, will reduce the measurement
efforts for manufacturers and NBs, since the repetition of similar, but yet slightly different measurements will
be avoided. Furthermore, it will ensure that the measurement methods used to determine the guaranteed soundpower level will be state of the art.
6.5 Impose limit values on more types of equipment
The ODELIA study proposes the introduction of noise limits for additional 28 types of equipment(17). Althoughmeasurements(13) suggest that limit values are not always adhered to, they are usually based on some kind ofcomparative emission data (the noise database(10) despite its problems in the case of the ODELIA study) andthus ensure a certain minimum standard regarding the level of noise emissions. If the limit values would
be lowered regularly, as intended already by the current OND, and market surveillance would be strengthened
significantly, limit values could be a viable option to reduce the noise emissions, at least for outdoor equipment.
The tendency to declare products simply with the limit value might be dealt with by introducing a defined andmandatory method to determine the uncertainty in the revised OND.

7

CONCLUSIONSThe noise requirements of the MD and the OND are a reasonable approach to deal with the noise problem andshould ensure that employers can identify quieter choices of outdoor equipment, at least in theory. However, inpractice the interplay of the two Directives sometimes may result in confusion of both users and manufacturers.
Nevertheless, the lack of market surveillance, which ensures compliance with the requirements of the Directives,and of real incentives to buy quiet transpired to be the bigger issue. Noise emission classes, as suggested inRef. (19), might increase the awareness of noise among consumers as well as professional users and thus provide
incentives for manufacturers to develop, produce and sell quieter outdoor equipment. In the end this might prove
more feasible and effective than increased efforts by market surveillance authorities.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
I thank Erik Romanus and Patrick Kurtz for fruitful discussions.

REFERENCES[1] DGUV: Recognized cases of OD: German Social Accident Insurance (DGUV); Available from: https://dguv.de/en/facts-figures/ods/recognized-od/index.jsp [Accessed at 23 April 2019].
[2] Sukowski H.; Hünefeld L. „Unter Lärm arbeiten“: Auswertung der Fragen zu Lärm und Geräuschen bei
der Arbeit im Rahmen der BIBB/BAuA-Erwerbstätigenbefragung 2018. Fortschritte der Akustik - DAGA
2019, 45. Deutsche Jahrestagung für Akustik, Rostock, Germany, March 18-21, 2019, pp 242-245.
[3] Directive 2003/10/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 6 February 2003 on the minimum
health and safety requirements regarding the exposure of workers to the risks arising from physical agents(noise). OJEU L 42/38, 15 February 2003.
[4] Directive 2000/14/EC of the European Parliament and the Council of 8 May 2000 on the approximationof the laws of the Member States relating to the noise emission in the environment of equipment for use
outdoors. OJEC L 162/1, 3 July 2000.

7055

[5] Directive 2006/42/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 May 2006 on machinery, andamending Directive 95/16/EC (recast). Official Journal of the European Union L 157/24, 9 June 2006.
[6] European Commission, DG GROW, Guide to application of the Machinery Directive 2006/42/EC, Edition
2.1 - July 2017.
[7] Pelkmans, J.; et al. Study on the merger of the Directive on Noise From Outdoor Equipment, 2000/14/EC
with the Machinery Directive, 2006/42/EC, Final report Centre for European Policy Studies, Contract no
B4/ENTR/008/006, Brussels, 15 January 2014.
[8] Comission services in charge of Directive 2000/14/EC, DG GROW, and the Noise Committee Working
Group, Guidelines for the application of the Directive 2000/14/EC of the European Parliament and of theCouncil of May 8 2000 on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to the noise
emission in the environment by equipment for use outdoors, Update June 2017.
[9] European Commission, Commission Notice, The ‘Blue Guide’ on the implementation of EU products rules,
OJEU C 272/01 26 July 2016.
[10] European Commission, DG GROW, Noise emissions for outdoor eqipment - Database, Available from:https://ec.europa.eu/growth/tools-databases/noise-emissions-outdoor-equipment_en [Accessed 24 April 2019].
[11] Pedrielli, F.; Carletti, E. THE DIRECTIVE 2000/14/EC ON THE NOISE EMISSION BY EQUIPMENTFOR USE OUTDOORS AND ITS DATABASE FOR THE COLLECTION OF NOISE DATA. 23rd International Congress on Sound and Vibration 2016, Athens, Greece, 10-14 July 2016, pp 4296-4301.
[12] Directive 2005/88/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 14 December 2005 amending
Directive 2000/14/EC on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to the noise emission
in the environment by equipment for use outdoors. OJEU L 344/44, 27 December 2005.
[13] Heisterkamp, F.; Arendt, I.; Büdding, Y. Quality of noise emission data: An experimental verification foroutdoor equipment. Proceedings of the Inter-Noise 2019. Madrid, Spain, June 16-19, 2019. In CD-ROM.
[14] NOISE Body - Work Group of Notified Body’s 2000/14/EC RECOMMENDATIONS FOR USE, 5
Jun 2018. Available from: https://ec.europa.eu/docsroom/documents/30401/attachments/1/
translations/en/renditions/pdf [Accessed 25 April 2019][15] CEN, European Standard EN ISO 3744: Acoustics — Determination of sound power levels and soundenergy levels of noise sources using sound pressure — Engineering methods for an essentially free fieldover a reflecting plane, Belgium, 2010.
[16] Dittrich, M.; et al. NOMEVAL - Study on the experience in the implementation and administration of
Directive 2000/14/EC relating to the noise emission in the environment by equipment for use outdoors,
Final report, TNO/TÜV Nord/LNE/VCA, December 2007.
[17] Dittrich, M.; et al. ODELIA - Study on the suitability of the current scope and limit values of Directive
2000/14/EC relating to the noise emission in the environment by equipment for use outdoors, Final report,
TNO/TÜV Nord/IMAMOTER, Delft, 19 January 2016.
[18] Carletti, E.; Pedrielli, F. OUTDOOR MACHINERY: A RELIABLE STATISTICAL APPROACH FOR A
NEW NOISE LABELLING BASED ON CURRENT NOISE EMISSION MARKING DATA. 23rd International Congress on Sound and Vibration 2016, Athens, Greece, 10-14 July 2016, pp 4302-4309.
[19] ‘Omnibus’ Review Study on Cold Appliances, Washing Machines, Dishwashers, Washer-Driers, Lighting,Set-top Boxes and Pumps, consortium of VHK, VITO, Viegand Maagøe, Wuppertal Institut für Klima,
Umwelt, Energie for the European Commission, DG ENER-C3, Brussels/Delft, April 2014.

7056