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  COM(2020) 715 final  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            {SWD(2020) 266 final} - {SWD(2020) 267 final}  
 
 
REPORT FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND 
TO 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 

1.  Introduction 

Directive  2000/14/EC  on  outdoor  noise  emission1  (“the  Directive”)  was  adopted  on  8  May 
2000  and  became  applicable  on  3  January  2002.  The  EU  legal  framework  relating  to  noise 
emission by outdoor equipment was introduced by merging seven specific product directives 
and two directives on test procedures2. 

Article  20  of  the  Directive  requires  the  Commission  to  submit  a  report  to  the  European 
Parliament and to the Council concerning the Commission’s experience in the implementation 
and  administration  of  the  Directive.  After  having  held  all  the  necessary  consultations,  in 
particular with the Committee established by Article 18 of the Directive, the Commission is 
required to present its conclusions and, where appropriate, any amendment to this Directive. 

On  this  basis,  the  Commission  has  evaluated  the  Directive  during  its  operational  time.  The 
evaluation  has  assessed the performance of the Directive on the basis of its effectiveness  in 
meeting  its  objectives,  its  efficiency  (with  a  focus  on  examining  the  regulatory  –  including 

1 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 
(OJ L 162, 3.7.2000, p. 1), amended by Directive 2005/88/EC (OJ L 344, 27.12.2005, p. 44), by Regulation (EC) 
No 219/2009 (OJ L 87, 31.3.2009, p. 109), and by Regulation (EU) 2019/1243 (OJ L 198, 25.7.2019); corrected 
by Corrigendum (OJ L 165, 17.6.2006, p. 35 (2005/88/EC)). Original text: https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-
content/EN/TXT/?uri=celex:32005L0088; consolidated text: https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-
content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX:02000L0014-20190726. Commission’s sectoral webpage on Noise Emission by 
Outdoor Equipment: https://ec.europa.eu/growth/sectors/mechanical-engineering/noise-emissions_en . 
2 Council Directive 79/113/EEC of 19 December 1978 on the approximation of the laws of the Member States 

relating to the determination of the noise emission of construction plant and equipment (OJ L 33, 8.2.1979, p. 
15; 
Council Directive 84/532/EEC of 17 September 1984 on the approximation of the laws of the Member States 
relating to common provisions for construction plant and equipment (OJ L 300, 19.11.1984, p. 111); 
Council Directive 84/533/EEC of 17 September 1984 on the approximation of the laws of the Member States 
relating to the permissible sound power level of compressors (OJ L 300, 19.11.1984, p. 123); 
Council Directive 84/534/EEC of 17 September 1984 on the approximation of the laws of the Member States 
relating to the permissible sound power level of tower cranes (OJ L 300, 19.11.1984, p. 130); 
Council Directive 84/535/EEC of 17 September 1984 on the approximation of the laws of the Member States 
relating to the permissible sound power level of welding generators (OJ L 300, 19.11.1984, p. 142); 
Council Directive 84/536/EEC of 17 September 1984 on the approximation of the laws of the Member States 
relating to the permissible sound power level of power generators (OJ L 300, 19.11.1984, p. 149); 
Council Directive 84/537/EEC of 17 September 1984 on the approximation of the laws of the Member States 
relating to the permissible sound power level of powered hand-held concrete-breakers and picks (OJ L 300, 
19.11.1984, p. 156); 
Council Directive 84/538/EEC of 17 September 1984 on the approximation of the laws of the Member States 
relating to the permissible sound power level of lawnmowers (OJ L 300, 19.11.1984, p. 171); 
Council Directive 86/662/EEC of 22 December 1986 on the limitation of noise emitted by hydraulic 
excavators, rope-operated excavators, dozers, loaders and excavator-loaders (OJ L 384, 31.12.1986, p. 1). 

1 

 
                                                           
 
administrative  –  costs  and  benefits)  and  potential  for  simplification  and  improvement,  its 
coherence  with  other  EU  legislation,  its  relevance  versus  stakeholders’  needs  and  its  EU 
added value. 

In  support  of  the  evaluation,  different  data  sources  were  used,  various  Member  States  and 
stakeholders’ consultations in the relevant working parties were carried out, as well as several 
studies were undertaken, to collect updated information on the performance of equipment in 
the scope and to explore the need and possibility for revision: 

 

 

 

 

 

the  “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” (the “NOMEVAL” study)3 in 2007; 
the  “Impact  assessment  on  possible  policy  options  for  reviewing  the  Outdoor 
Equipment Noise Directive” (the “ARCADIS” study)4 in 2009; 

the  “Study  on  the  merger  of  the  Directive  on  noise  from  outdoor  equipment, 
2000/14/EC,  with  the  Machinery  Directive,  2006/42/EC”  (the  “CEPS  study”)5  in 
2013; 

the  “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” (the “ODELIA” study)6 in 2015-2016; 

the  “Supporting  study  for  an  evaluation7  and  impact  assessment8  of  Directive 
2000/14/EC  on  noise  emission  by  outdoor  equipment”  (the  “VVA  study”)  in  2017-
2018. 

The results  of the evaluation  are drawn up in  a  specific Staff Working  Document (“SWD”) 
that accompanies this Report. 

2.  The Directive’s aim and main provisions 

The  Directive  establishes  the  legal  framework  to  harmonise  rules  and  procedures  related  to 
noise emission in the environment by equipment for use outdoors placed in the EU market. It 
aims to protect human health and well-being of citizens as well as to protect the environment, 
by  reducing noise emission by  equipment  for use outdoors, and to  contribute to  the smooth 

3   http://ec.europa.eu/DocsRoom/documents/1639/attachments/1/translations/en/renditions/pdf. 
4   https://ec.europa.eu/docsroom/documents/1635/attachments/1/translations/en/renditions/pdf. 
5   http://ec.europa.eu/DocsRoom/documents/4985/attachments/1/translations/. 
6   http://ec.europa.eu/DocsRoom/documents/18281/attachments/1/translations/. 
7   https://publications.europa.eu/en/web/eu-law-and-publications/publication-detail/-/publication/90f4d795-

e192-11e8-b690-01aa75ed71a1. 

8   https://publications.europa.eu/en/web/eu-law-and-publications/publication-detail/-/publication/69de2e48-

e17d-11e8-b690-01aa75ed71a1. 

2 

 
 
                                                           
functioning of the internal market, by harmonising requirements for outdoor equipment with 
respect  to  noise  emission  in  order  to  prevent  obstacles  to  the  free  movement  of  such 
equipment. 

The main objectives of the Directive are: 

  ensuring the free movement of outdoor equipment in the scope within the EU internal 

 

market; 
reducing permissible noise levels for such equipment in order to protect the health and 
well-being of citizens as well as to protect the environment; 

  providing information to the public on the noise emitted by such equipment, thereby 

promoting less noisy equipment and improving 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: 

I. Cleaning equipment 

II. Construction equipment 

III. Gardening equipment 

IV. Loading and lifting equipment 

V. Power generators and cooling equipment 

VI. Pumping and suction equipment 

VII. Snowmobiles and snow groomers 

VIII. Waste collection, processing and recycling 

The Directive covers equipment used by both professional and private users. In the cleaning, 
construction,  loading  and  lifting  equipment,  power  generators  and  cooling  equipment,  and 
waste  collection,  processing  and  recycling  categories,  the  majority  of  equipment  is  used  by 
professional users. In gardening and pumping and suction equipment categories all types are 
used by both professional and private users. Typically, larger and more expensive equipment 
is used by professionals. 

3.  Transposition and implementation 

In  order  to  enable  achieving  the  objectives,  the  Directive  harmonised  certain  aspects  of 
Member States’ laws, regulations and administrative provisions relating to noise emissions by 
outdoor equipment. Thus, the provisions of the Directive, after the adoption on 8 May 2000, 
had  to  be  transposed  and  implemented  by  Member  States:  the  necessary  national  legal 
provisions were due on 3 July 2001, to be applied from 3 January 2002. 

3 

 
 
The Directive has been fully and consistently transposed and implemented across the Member 
States. No significant problems have been detected in the transposition of the legal provisions 
of the Directive into national legislations, nor in its implementation. This is in particular the 
case  with  respect  to  the  provisions  on  placing  on  the  market  and  the  related  obligations  for 
manufacturers  and  authorised  representatives;  Member  States’  role  and  responsibilities; 
conformity assessment procedures and bodies; and collection of noise data. 

On  the  contrary,  some  differences  have  been  found  with  respect  to  market  surveillance, 
particularly  the  extent  of  and  monitoring  of  activities  across  Member  States.  This  situation 
mostly depends on the lack of sufficient resources allocated to this specific area as compared 
to other regulated areas by EU harmonisation legislation in the internal market. 

Yet, no infringement cases against Member States have been opened. The procedure to deal 
with  non-compliance  of  equipment  laid  down  in  Article  9  of  the  Directive  was  not  applied 
either. 

The  implementation  and  management  of  the  Directive  is  supported  by  well-established 
sectorial  working  parties,  involving  representatives  of  all  the  relevant  actors  at  EU  level: 
Member States, notified bodies, standardisers and organisations of stakeholders from industry, 
consumers, environmental associations, etc.: 

 

 

 

 

the Outdoor Noise Directive Committee established in Article 18 of the Directive (the 
“OND Committee”); 
the Outdoor Noise Directive Working Group of the Committee (the “OND WG”), now 
converted into the Commission’s expert group on outdoor noise emission9; 

the Administrative Co-operation Group of market surveillance authorities in the field 
of the Outdoor Noise Directive (the “OND AdCo”); and 

the  European  Co-ordination  Group  of  Notified  Bodies  in  the  field  of  the  Outdoor 
Noise Directive (the “OND NB” or “Noise Body”). 

In  order  to  help  manufacturers  and  other  relevant  actors  to  comply  with  the  obligations  of 
Article 16 of the Directive concerning collection of noise data, the Commission built-up and 
manages  the  “NOISE  Application”,  a  database  with  information  on  the  EC  declarations  of 
conformity of equipment placed on the market. 

4.  Key results of the evaluation 

The  report  reflects  the  main  findings  of  the  evaluation  of  the  Outdoor  Noise  Directive 
2000/14/EC.  The  detail  of  the  evaluation  is  presented  in  the  Staff  Working  Document 
(“SWD”) that accompanies this Report. 

4.1. Effectiveness of the Directive 

9 Commission Expert Group on Outdoor Noise Emission (E03673): 

https://ec.europa.eu/transparency/regexpert/index.cfm?do=groupDetail.groupDetail&groupID=3673. 

4 

 
 
                                                           
In terms of the effectiveness of the Directive to meet its objectives, especially the reduction of 
noise emission levels of outdoor equipment in the scope, the evaluation found that such levels 
have  dropped  over  the  last  20  years.  Nevertheless,  several  concerned  equipment  are  still 
above the sound power level considered dangerous to hearing and general health (estimated at 
90 dB), which indicates that there is room for improvement. 

Consumer behaviour also impacted the effectiveness of the Directive. A proactive attitude and 
more awareness could have led consumers to prefer quieter equipment pushing the market to 
dismiss  more  noisy  versions.  The  legal  provisions  on  their  own  proved  insufficient  to 
motivate  consumers  to  buy  less  noisy  equipment.  Non-professional  purchasers  and  users  of 
the  equipment  under  the  scope  of  the  Directive  still  lack  knowledge  and  awareness  about 
noise emissions, and the noise marking alone is not enough to drive consumer choice. 

Given  the  low  market  demand  for  quieter  equipment,  in  the  absence  of  the  Directive, 
manufacturers  would  direct  R&D  investment  towards  those  product  characteristics  that  are 
more  attractive  to  customers  (e.g.  performance,  safety,  energy  efficiency).  Even  if 
technological developments could have driven improvements in noise emissions in any case 
(as for example for electric engines), the Directive forced manufacturers to invest resources in 
the research and development 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. 

In addition, shortcomings in market surveillance, mostly dependent on the lack of sufficient 
resources  allocated  to  this  specific  area,  also  undermined  the  ability  of  the  Directive  to 
comply  with  its  objectives.  Nevertheless,  although  the  Directive  did  not  reach  its  full 
potential, citizens exposed to noise emission from outdoor equipment are still better protected 
as compared to how they would have been without the Directive. 

With respect to ensuring an internal market for outdoor equipment by preventing obstacles to 
the  free  movement  of  such  equipment,  the  Directive  simplified  the  pre-existing  legal 
framework.  This  brought  greater  clarity  and  improved  the  activity  of  all  stakeholders.  In 
addition, the Directive prevented the emergence of different regulations at national level that 
may have hindered the intra-EU circulation of the concerned equipment. 

4.2. Efficiency of the Directive 

As  regards  efficiency  in  the  implementation  of  the  Directive,  different  types  of  costs  and 
benefits have been identified in the evaluation. Among the benefits brought by the Directive, 
the health and environmental benefits are the most obvious and significant. On the contrary, 
while the stakeholders observe the positive impact of ensuring harmonised regulation within 
the EU and express some concern over the effect of stricter noise limits inside than outside the 
EU, they do not perceive significant impact on their business in terms of internal or external 
trade. 

5 

 
Covering many different types of equipment and versions of the same type, the classification 
and  grouping  of  products  currently  applied  might  cause  difficulties  for  manufacturers  in 
understanding whether a product is actually covered by the Directive. 

The  conformity  assessment  procedures  foreseen  by  the  Directive  address  adequately  the 
different needs of the manufacturers, although the lack of a possibility of an internal control 
procedure  for  certification  (“self-assessment”)  for  equipment  under  Article  12  is  seen  as  a 
constraint  by  manufacturers,  and  as  a  guarantee  by  consumers  and  market  surveillance 
authorities.  Notified  bodies  that  are  competent  to  perform  the  requested  procedures  are  not 
established in some countries, which represents a barrier for manufacturers that have to seek 
the needed expertise in the other Member States. 

Conformity  assessment  costs  are  identified  as  one  of  the  most  significant  costs  to  the 
manufacturers.  In  particular,  such  costs  are  increased  for  companies  that  have  to  test 
separately  for  both  the  Directive  and  other  EU  legislation,  more  commonly  the  Machinery 
Directive. Nevertheless, the need to have adequate conformity assessment procedures must be 
related  to  the  still  insufficient  market  surveillance,  in  the  OND  sector  as  in  others  as  a 
horizontal issue, as identified in the “Supporting Study” and other sources. 

The current test codes and measurement methods for the majority of the equipment covered 
by the Directive are not in line with technological development and would need to be revised. 
Moreover,  the  lack  of  a  clear  and  uniform  procedure  to  determine  the  uncertainty  of 
measurements  in  the  Directive  may  cause  inconsistency  between  guaranteed  power  levels 
depending on the subject performing the measurement. 

The  “NOISE  Application”  database,  while  not  particularly  costly  in  terms  of  monetary 
spending, presents significant operational limitations (incorrect or incomplete data registered, 
different types of equipment not clearly defined, missing technical parameters for equipment 
on  the  market,  etc.).  Consequently,  the  majority  of  the  stakeholders  considered  the  tool  as 
burdensome and not entirely reliable in inputs and outputs. 

Research and development is another expensive element of the Directive, with the estimated 
annual  costs  of  approximately  EUR  40  million  to  EUR  120  million.  However,  it  should  be 
noted that while undoubtedly a consequence of the Directive, increased R&D cost should not 
be seen as a purely negative element, for the objective benefits in terms of more performant 
equipment. 

4.3. Relevance of the Directive 

About the relevance of the Directive, the evaluation confirmed that its original objectives are 
as valid today as when it was first proposed. In particular, the objectives of ensuring the free 
movement of outdoor equipment, reducing permissible noise levels to protect the health and 
well-being of citizens as well as to protect the environment, and to provide information to the 
public on such noise emissions, continue to be fully relevant. When the Directive came into 
force, it filled an existing gap concerning the protection of citizens exposed to noise emissions 
produced by outdoor equipment operated by other users, private or professional. 

According to the information collected through different sources during the years of operation 
of  the  Directive  –  including  the  studies  carried  out,  the  stakeholder  consultations  and  the 

6 

 
“NOISE  Application”  database  –  it  is  estimated  that  for  equipment  under  Article  12,  the 
Directive  produced  a  reduction  in  noise  emission  levels  expressed  in  sound  power  level 
between 2 and 3 dB10. 

Twenty  years  after  the  introduction  of  the  Directive,  the  growing  urbanisation  and  the 
subsequent increase in construction of road and building infrastructures has led to the use of 
more outdoor equipment and therefore also increased noise production. Especially consumer 
equipment  has  undergone  a  massive  increase  in  numbers  thanks  to  low-cost  products 
available on the internet and in supermarkets. 

This  increase  in  the  number  of  equipment  on  the  market  and  in  use  has  had  a 
counterbalancing  impact  on  the  positive  effect  of  the  Directive  in  reducing  noise  emission 
levels, renewing the need for pressure on the manufacturers to produce less noisy equipment. 
Such pressure could come from two sources: the market or the legislation. 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  Directive  and  the 
stricter limits imposed did not bring significant advantages nor helped to comply with foreign 
legislation.  However,  almost  none  of  the  stakeholders  would  be  in  favour  of  repealing  the 
Directive, given the potential risk of the development of multiple national standards. 

An  aspect  that  some  stakeholders  considered  not  fully  in  line  with  the  current  needs  of  the 
industry is the third-party conformity assessment. They argue that, when the Directive came 
into  force  companies  were  missing  the  specific  knowledge  required  to  measure  noise 
emissions,  and  the  task  of  performing  the  conformity  assessment  was  entrusted  to  notified 
bodies. Today, many manufacturers have the skills to perform the measurements themselves 
and could rely on a self-assessment instead of the third-party conformity assessment. 

4.4. Coherence of the Directive 

In terms of coherence and complementarity of the Directive with other EU legislation, some 
problems were identified for manufacturers, stemming from differing requirements with other 
legislative  acts  applying  to  the  same  machinery.  In  particular,  differences  in  requirements 
with  the  Machinery  Directive  2006/42/EC  mean that  some  equipment  must  be  tested  twice, 
while  the  requirements  of  the  Non-Road  Mobile  Machinery  Regulation  (EU)  2016/1628  on 
emissions make it difficult for some equipment to comply with both. The lack of uncertainty 
measurement in  the Directive leaves a variability of  guaranteed power levels,  depending on 
the subject performing the measurement. 

Nonetheless,  the  evaluation  recognised  that  the  Directive  is  a  coherent  part  of  a  wider, 
comprehensive network of environmental noise legislation in the EU. 

10 The “decibel” (dB) is a unit of measurement that expresses the logarithmic (to  base 10) ratio of two physical 
quantities  of  the  same  dimensions,  in  this  case  sound  powers.  Being  the  decibel  scale  logarithmic  and  not 
linear,  a  reduction  of  1  dB  of  sound  power  level  corresponds  to  a  reduction  of  about  21%  of  the  noise 
emission, and a reduction of 3 dB corresponds to a reduction of about 50% of the noise emission. 

7 

 
                                                           
In certain Member States, the Directive is supported by voluntary national incentive schemes 
addressed to increase awareness of noise levels and the value of producing and buying quieter 
equipment. 

In terms of external coherence and complementarity of the Directive with non-EU national or 
international  legislation,  no  major  difficulties  were  identified  in  regard  to  the  relationship 
between the OND and extra-EU legislation. 

4.5. EU added value of the Directive 

Concerning  the  EU  added  value  of  the  Directive  and  the  results  achieved  in  relation  to  the 
strategic objectives, despite its limitations, the Directive achieved a number of key results that 
would not have happened without it. Therefore, an EU approach remains the most appropriate 
response  and  is  more  likely  to  achieve  the  objectives  set  by  the  Directive  than  the  national 
approaches. 

In fact, the Directive prevented the proliferation of different national regulations, and there is 
the  perception  that  without  it,  new  national  regulations  might  have  emerged.  Due  to  the 
Directive’s requirements, noise levels  decreased in  the past  twenty  years  despite the lack of 
market demand. 

Even though current noise limits and measuring methods may not be in line with state of the 
art,  the  Directive  still  obliges  manufacturers  to  balance  the  research  on  higher  performance 
equipment with the Directive’s requirement regarding noise emissions. Without the Directive, 
given  the  absence  of  market  pressure  by  consumers,  it  is  likely  that  producers  of  outdoor 
equipment would neglect this aspect in favour of other features. For all these reasons, none of 
the stakeholders consulted was in favour of repealing the Directive. 

5.  Conclusions and way forward 

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. 

Nevertheless,  there  are  a  number  of  critical  aspects  that  affected  the  operation  of  the 
Directive, which may lead to the possible enactement of the empowerments for delegated acts 
foreseen in the Directive or a need for a possible revision. This concerns in particular the lack 
of adaptation to the technical progress of core elements of the Directive: 

- 

the scope and in particular the lists of outdoor equipment covered and their definitions, 
as well as the extent of the requirements for each type of equipment (subject to noise 
limits or to noise marking only). 

8 

 
 
- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

the noise limits for specific types of outdoor equipment, on the basis of the available 
information on their technical and economic feasibility, within the overall objective of 
continued reduction of noise emission at source. 

the  current  test  codes  and  measurement  methods  for  the  majority  of  the  equipment 
covered  by  the  Directive  are  not  in  line  with  technological  development  and  would 
need to be revised. According to Article 18 (a) of the OND (amended by Regulation 
2019/1243) the Commission is empowered to adopt delegated acts in accordance with 
Article  18b  amending  Annex  III  to  adapt  to  technical  progress  the  methods  of 
measurement  of  airborne  noise  that  shall  be  used  for  the  determination  of  the  sound 
power  levels  of  equipment  covered  by  the  Directive.  The  Commission  has  not  yet 
exercised  its  right   to  amend  Annex  III  and  an  adaptation  to  the  technological 
development is needed11.    

the relevant conformity assessment procedures, adapting them to possible changes in 
the  scope  and  in  noise  limits,  considering  also  the  relevance  and  impact  of  different 
solutions based on “self-assessment” (procedures based on internal control) and “third 
party” intervention (procedures requiring the participation of a notified body), as well 
as the relationship with the still current gaps in market surveillance. 

the  obligation  of  collection  of  noise  data  and  the  related  tool  to  manage  such 
obligation,  taking  into  account  the  problems  raised  from  the  operation  and 
effectiveness of the “NOISE Application” database; and 

the  alignment  to  the  New  Legislative  Framework,  with  the  relevant  provisions  from 
Decision  No  768/2008/EC  on  economic  operators,  market  surveillance,  notified 
bodies, conformity assessment etc. 

Also,  insufficient  market  surveillance  is  a  factor  undermining  the  effectiveness  of  the 
Directive  in  its  main  objectives,  especially  in  terms  of  legal  and  technical  compliance  of 
products placed on the EU market, as well as competitiveness of EU economic operators. 

With  respect  to  this  latter  concern,  the  Commission  will  intensify  its  coordination  efforts 
through the different sectorial working parties (Committee and expert group) in support of the 
operation  of  the  Directive,  in  order  to  ensure  agreed  and  harmonised  approaches  in 
implementing and enforcing the legislation, and to provide adequate guidance to stakeholders. 
In  particular,  the  Commission  will  continue  to  carefully  monitor  the  enforcement  of  the 
Directive  across  all  Member  States  and  the  activities  of  the  sectorial  Administrative  Co-
operation  Group,  also  suggesting  and  supporting  concerted  actions  in  the  framework  of 
cooperation of competent market surveillance authorities. The Commission also notes that the 
recently  issued  Regulation  (EU)  2019/1020  on  market  surveillance  and  compliance  of 

11  Regulation  (EU)  2019/1243  of  the  European  Parliament  and  of  the  Council  of  20  June  2019  adapting  a 
number of legal acts providing for the use of the regulatory procedure with scrutiny to Articles 290 and 291 of 
the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (OJ L 198, 25.7.2019, p. 241–344) 

9 

 
                                                           
products12  aims,  among  other  aspects,  to  strengthen  controls  by  national  authorities  and 
customs officers to prevent unsafe products from being placed on the Union market.  

12  Regulation  (EU)  2019/1020  of  the  European  Parliament  and  of  the  Council  of  20  June  2019  on  market 
surveillance  and  compliance  of  products  and  amending  Directive  2004/42/EC  and  Regulations  (EC)  No 
765/2008 and (EU) No 305/2011 (OJ L 169, 25.6.2019, p. 1). 

10