COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT EXECUTIVE SUMMARY OF THE EVALUATION OF THE OUTDOOR NOISE DIRECTIVE 2000/14/EC Accompanying the document Report from the Commission to the European Parliament and the Council on the implementation and administration of Directive 2000/14/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 8 May 2000 on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to the noise emission in the environment by equipment for use outdoors
Date: 2020-11-16
Institutions: Directorate-General for Internal Market, Industry, Entrepreneurship and SMEs, European Commission
Subjects: EU Member State, application of EU law, approximation of laws, construction equipment, electric machinery, harmonisation of standards, machinery, noise level, noise pollution, noise protection

EN 

  EN 

   EUROPEAN COMMISSION  Brussels, 16.11.2020  SWD(2020) 267 final  COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT  EXECUTIVE SUMMARY OF THE EVALUATION  OF THE OUTDOOR NOISE DIRECTIVE 2000/14/EC Accompanying the document Report from the Commission to the European Parliament and the Council on the implementation and administration of Directive 2000/14/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 8 May 2000 on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to the noise emission in the environment by equipment for use outdoors {COM(2020) 715 final} - {SWD(2020) 266 final}  
 
 
Executive Summary 

Directive  2000/14/EC  on  outdoor  noise  emission  (“the  Directive”)  was  adopted  on  8  May 
2000 and became applicable on 3 January 2002. It merged seven specific product directives 
and  two  directives  on  test  procedures.  The  Directive  aims  to  ensure  the  free  movement  of 
outdoor equipment; reduce permissible noise levels for such equipment in order to protect the 
health and well-being of citizens as well as the environment; and provide information to the 
public on the noise emitted by such equipment in order to promote less noisy equipment and 
improve customer choice.  

The  Directive  sets  out  detailed  noise  measurement  methods  and  test  codes  (by  referring  to 
European  and  international  standards);  harmonised  noise  limits  for  a  definite  list  of 
equipment; conformity assessment procedures; and marking requirements. 

The Directive covers 57 types of equipment used outdoors defined in Annex I, out of which it 
establishes noise limits for 22 types (Article 12) and requires a specific noise marking for all 
equipment  types (Article 13). Such equipment  can be  grouped into eight  clusters: cleaning, 
construction,  gardening,  loading  and  lifting,  power  generators  and  cooling,  pumping  and 
suction,  snowmobiles  and  snow  groomers,  and  waste  collection,  processing  and  recycling. 
The majority of equipment is used by professional users.  

The evaluation  covers the performance of the Directive in  the period from  2002 to 2018 in 
the  EU  Members  States,  EFTA  and  Turkey.  It  assesses  the  Directive’s  effectiveness, 
efficiency,  relevance,  coherence  and  EU  added  value.  It  takes  into  consideration  the 
responses  and  feedback  received  from  sectoral  stakeholders  and  interested  parties,  in 
particular  from  economic  operators  (manufacturers  of  outdoor  equipment,  importers, 
distributors  and  others),  users  (workers  and  consumers)  and  citizens  exposed  to  noise 
emission. 

The key findings and conclusions can be summarised as follows. 

In  terms  of  effectiveness,  the  Directive  has  succeeded  in  meeting  its  objectives.  The 
evaluation found that the Directive has helped to reduce the noise emission levels of outdoor 
equipment  over  the  last  20  years;  it  has  simplified  the  pre-existing  legal  framework  and 
prevented  the  emergence  of  different  regulations  at  national  level  that  could  have  been  an 
obstacle for the free movement of goods in the internal market; citizens are better protected 
as compared to how they would have been without the Directive. 

However, the legal provisions in the Directive proved insufficient to motivate consumers to 
buy  less  noisy  equipment.  There  is  still  a  lack  of  knowledge  and  awareness  about  noise 
emissions, and the noise marking alone is not enough to drive consumer choice. 

Despite the low market demand for quieter equipment, the Directive forced manufacturers to 
invest  resources  in  the  R&D  of  special  designs,  mechanisms  and  strategies  to  reduce  noise 
emissions  of  outdoor  equipment.  This  is  in  particular  the  case  of  equipment  subject  to 
mandatory  noise  limits  (Article  12),  while  for  equipment  subject  to  noise  marking  only 
(Article  13),  the  Directive  was  not  sufficient  to  encourage  manufacturers  to  develop  less 
noisy products to the same degree. 

As regards efficiency, the Directive produced significant health and environmental benefits. 
Stakeholders also  observe the positive impact  of ensuring harmonised regulation  within the 

1 

 
 
EU, while expressing some concern over the effect of stricter noise limits inside than outside 
the EU. Overall, they do not perceive significant impact on their business in terms of internal 
or external trade. 

Conformity assessment costs are the most significant ones, in particular, for companies that 
have to test separately for both the Directive and other EU legislation, more commonly the 
Machinery  Directive.  Research  and  development  costs  are  also  outlined,  but  they  are 
compensated  by  the  benefits  resulting  from  more  performant  equipment.  The  “NOISE 
Application” database, while not particularly costly in terms of monetary spending, presents 
significant operational limitations. 

Aspects of the Directive that could be improved in terms of efficiency are: the classification 
and grouping of products; the alignment of the measurement methods with the technological 
development;  the  addition  of  a  clear  and  uniform  procedure  to  determine  the  uncertainty 
value of the noise measurements which is required to calculate the guaranteed sound power 
level;  the  consideration  of  the  possibility  of  an  internal  control  procedure  for  certification 
(“self-assessment”) for equipment  under  Article  12;  and the appointment of notified bodies 
that  are  competent  to  perform  the  requested  conformity  assessment  procedures  in  some 
countries  where  they  do  not  exist,  in  order  to  avoid  to  seek  the  needed  expertise  in  other 
Member States. 

Concerning  the  relevance  of  the  Directive,  the  evaluation  confirmed  that  its  original 
objectives are as valid today as when it was first proposed.  

Thanks  to  the  Directive,  noise  emission  levels  expressed  in  sound  power  level  decreased 
between 2 and 3 dB. Nevertheless, the increase in the number of outdoor equipment on the 
market and in use has had a counterbalancing impact on the positive effect of the Directive, 
renewing the need for pressure on the manufacturers to produce less noisy equipment. In the 
absence of market demand for quieter equipment, it is still up to the legislator to set limits to 
noise emissions for the outdoor equipment safeguarding wellbeing and health of citizens. 

With  regard  to  the  industry,  while  the  Directive  addressed  the  need  for  harmonisation  and 
legal  certainty  across  the  EU,  from  an  international  trade  perspective,  the  stricter  limits 
imposed  by  the  Directive  did  not  bring  any  significant  advantage  nor  helped  industry  to 
comply with foreign legislation.  

In terms of coherence and complementarity of the Directive with other EU legislation, some 
problems were identified for manufacturers. In particular, the fact that equipment in scope of 
the Directive is also subject to requirements under the Machinery Directive 2006/42/EC mean 
that some equipment must be tested twice. In addition, it is difficult for some equipment to 
comply  with  both  the  Directive  and  the  requirements  of  the  Non-Road  Mobile  Machinery 
Regulation (EU) 2016/1628 on emissions.  

Nonetheless,  the  evaluation  recognised  that  the  Directive  is  a  coherent  part  of  a  wider, 
comprehensive  network  of  environmental  noise  legislation  in  the  EU.  No  major  difficulties 
were identified in regard to the relationship between the Directive and extra-EU legislation. 

Finally, concerning the  EU added value of the Directive, the evaluation concludes that the 
Directive achieved a number of key objectives, which would not have been achieved without 
it.  

2 

 
 
In  particular,  the  Directive  prevented  the  proliferation  of  different  national  regulations,  and 
noise levels decreased in the past twenty years, despite the lack of market demand. Without 
the Directive, given the absence of market pressure by consumers, it is likely that producers 
of outdoor equipment  would  have neglected the  research on higher performance  equipment 
regarding noise emissions in favour of other features. 

Taking  into  account  all  the  above,  the  outcome  of  the  evaluation  is  positive:  the  overall 
conclusion  is  that  the  Directive  is  generally  considered  as  effective,  efficient,  relevant  and 
coherent,  and  has  EU  added  value.  In  fact,  the  Directive  simplified  the  existing  legislative 
framework,  thus  bringing  more  clarity  for  all  stakeholders.  The  Directive  effectively 
contributed to reduce noise emission by outdoor equipment, and ensured that manufacturers 
invest  resources  in  the  research  and  development  of  special  designs,  mechanisms  and 
strategies to reduce noise emissions of outdoor equipment. Given the lack of market demand 
for quieter equipment and the scarcity of national incentives, the Directive was and still is the 
primary force driving noise reduction for this type of equipment. In addition, given that the 
desired objectives can be best met at EU level, an EU approach remains the most appropriate 
response as opposed to national approaches. 

Nevertheless,  there  are  a  number  of  critical  aspects  that  affected  the  operation  of  the 
Directive. This concerns in particular the lack of adaptation to the technical progress of core 
elements  of  the  Directive:  scope,  noise  limits,  noise  measurement  methods,  conformity 
assessment  procedures,  collection  of  noise  data  and  the  alignment  to  the  New  Legislative 
Framework.  

The  Commission  is  empowered  to  adopt  delegated  acts  amending  Annex  III  to  adapt  the 
methods of measurement of airborne noise to technical progress. The Commission has not yet 
exercised its right to amend Annex III.    

Also,  insufficient  market  surveillance  is  a  factor  undermining  the  effectiveness  of  the 
Directive, as it can lead to non-compliant equipment reaching the market and puts compliant 
manufacturers at a competitive disadvantage compared with those who ignore the legislation. 

The results of the evaluation are intended to be used in view of a possible enactment of the 
empowerments  foreseen  in  the  Directive  or  future  revision  of  the  sectorial  legislation  on 
noise emission by outdoor equipment, within the EU strategy to reduce noise at source. 

3