No C 23/36 Official Journal of the European Communities 30. 1.84 
Voting 
For: 45, against: 46, abstentions: 18. 
Point 2.6: 
1. Replace the title and the first paragraph by the following: 
'2.6. Conclusions 
The Section endorses the conclusions of the Commission's annual economic report as sum­
marized at the end of the report in a list of proposed economic policy measures, subject to 
the conditions for their implementation stipulated in the present opinion and in the ESC's 
opinion on the economic situation in the Community (mid-1983) (2). 
O OJ No C 286, 24. 10. 1983.' 
2. Insert the following between the second and third paragraphs: 
'Enormous efforts will have to be made to reduce unemployment and its economic and 
social costs.' 
Reasons 
The Committee's opinion on the Commission's annual economic report should deal with the 
Commission's conclusions as summarized at the end of the report. The present text of the opi­
nion does not do this. 
Result of the vote 
The proposal was rejected by a large majority, with four votes in favour and 13 abstentions. 
Opinion on the proposal for a Council Directive on the protection of workers from the 
risks related to exposure to chemical, physical and biological agents at work: noise 
(84/C 23/14) 
The text referred to the Committee has been published in Official Journal of the Euro­
pean Communities No C 289 of 5 November 1982, page 1. 
A. LEGAL BASIS FOR THE OPINION 
On 28 October 1982 the Council referred the abovementioned proposal to the Econo­
mic and Social Committee in accordance with Article 100 of the Treaty establishing 
the European Economic Community. 
Procedure 
Having been asked to draw up the opinion, the Section appointed Mr Etty rapporteur. 
The Section opinion was adopted by 20 votes to 16 at its meeting held on 13 October 
1983. 
30.1.84 Official Journal of the European Communities No C 23/37 
B. OPINION OF THE ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL COMMITTEE 
The opinion of the Economic and Social Committee was adopted by 70 votes to 42, 
with eight abstentions, at its 212th plenary session held on 23 and 24 November 1983 
(recorded vote). 
The full text of the opinion is as follows: 
I. General comments 
1. The Committee welcomes the Commission's 
determination to ensure adoption of a Directive on 
the exposure of workers to industrial noise. Never­
theless it feels that it must start by pointing out an 
omission in the proposal, namely that it contains no 
assessment of the adverse effects of noise on health, 
and no assessment of the seriousness of the damage 
inflicted on workers by noise before the ultimate 
handicap of deafness, i.e. during the preceding 
phase known as hypoacusia. 
1.1. The Committee notes that despite considera­
ble improvements in the prevention of occupational 
illnesses in some Member States, the problem of 
workers with noise-induced hearing impairments is 
growing all the time. According to Commission 
statistics set out in the explanatory memorandum, 
some 1 200 000 workers suffer hearing damage 
during their working life as a result of exposure to 
noise at work. Hearing impairment due to noise is 
one of the most common occupational illnesses in 
individual Member States today. 
1.2. Hearing impairment is not only a physical but 
also a major social handicap. The inability to com­
municate leads to disorders whose full effects are 
seldom recognized. It also leads to a high risk for 
the worker at the workplace and in the outside 
world (e.g. road traffic). 
1.3. Nor should it be forgotten that hearing impair­
ment and the consequent lessening of the ability to 
work are a substantial drain both on the economies 
and on the social security systems of individual 
Member States. 
2. The Committee would stress that although the 
protection of workers against noise at work is one of 
the central issues, the repercussions of noise-expo­
sure on workers and people outside the workplace will also have to be given more attention and com-
batted by appropriate measures. In this connection 
the Committee would refer to the Commission's 
work on protection of the environment. Attention 
needs to be paid not only to the traffic problem but 
also, for instance, to leisure pursuits. Although legis­
lative action can be taken in these areas, the Com­
mittee feels that it is particularly important that 
people should be more enlightened and better in­
formed about the threat which noise poses to their 
hearing. 
The Committee would draw attention to the special 
situation of the self-employed, particularly in agri­
culture, and is of the view that this group should 
also be covered by Community noise-protection 
measures. 
2.1. The Committee therefore realizes that a com­
prehensive examination of the subject of hearing 
impairment caused by noise must include the effects 
of non-occupational exposure to noise. The Com­
mittee also realizes that even with uniform, objec­
tive criteria, the degree of impairment can vary from 
one individual to another, e.g. in the case of hearing 
loss among old people. 
2.2. The Committee recognizes that, besides noise, 
workers are also exposed to many other hazards at 
the workplace which, coupled with noise, can be 
highly prejudicial to their well-being and health. 
The Committee regrets that the risk to workers' 
safety through exposure to noise cannot yet be cal­
culated with sufficient precision. It agrees with the 
Commission that numerous factors, including fac­
tors related to the individual worker, have a bearing 
on general safety and have so far precluded the 
issue of general standards. 
2.3. In this context the Committee notes that the 
Commission's draft Directive is a first step covering 
only hearing damage (auditory handicaps). 
No C 23/38 Official Journal of the European Communities 30. 1.84 
Since noise has other harmful physical effects, the 
Committee urges the Commission to step up its 
research into the connections between 'auditory' 
and 'non-auditory' handicaps and in due course to 
put forward proposals to ensure that workers are 
also protected against the non-auditory effects of 
noise. 
3. The Committee would point out that all efforts 
in the context of this Directive should be aimed pri­
marily towards making hearing damage impossible. 
3.1. The Committee is aware that in the long term 
this aim should be achieved by reducing machine 
noise. However, in view of the special difficulties in 
tackling the problem of noise at source, the Com­
mittee considers that the procedure proposed in the 
draft Directive is an acceptable compromise. Under 
this procedure the 'exposure to noise of workers 
must always be reduced as far as reasonably practic­
able by means of technical or organizational mea­
sures'. If this is not done, workers must be given 
individual protection. 
3.2. Despite differing views on individual points, 
the Committee is of the general view that the limit 
values to be set in the Directive cannot be based 
solely on either cost/benefit analyses or medical 
considerations; the Directive has to establish what 
seems realistically attainable, taking into account 
the varying conditions currently prevailing in the 
individual Member States. 
Introducing very low limit values would pose prob­
lems because at the present time there may not be a 
sufficient number of trained people available in all 
Member States for checking that limit values are 
observed or for carrying out medical check-ups and 
health surveillance. 
The Committee makes an immediate call for efforts 
to improve this situation, particularly by encourag­
ing the training of the personnel required for moni­
toring observance of the limit values and for carry­
ing out the medical examinations. 
4. The Committee welcomes the fact that the 
workers and/or their representatives have to be 
informed and consulted about all measures taken in 
pursuance of this Directive. The Committee feels, 
however, that this is not made sufficiently clear in 
the Draft Directive and would like to see the provi­sions of Article 11 et seq. brought together at the 
beginning of the Directive. 
4.1. The Committee also proposes that a passage 
be incorporated in the text stating that the objective 
of the Directive can only be achieved if workers and 
employers apply the protective measures provided 
for. 
II Specific Comments 
Article 2 
The Committee notes that the Commission's term 
'sound exposure level' (daily, weekly) is not found 
in any of the relevant national regulations on the 
protection of workers against exposure to noise. All 
Member States still use the term 'equivalent contin­
uous sound pressure level over eight hours' as a 
reference value. 
Although the terms 'sound exposure level' and 
'equivalent continuous sound pressure level over 
eight hours' seem to be basically equivalent, the 
Committee urges the Commission to retain the con­
cept of 'equivalent continuous sound pressure level 
over eight hours' since the latter has long proved its 
worth in the Member States as a reference value. 
Article 3 
The Committee calls on the Commission to make 
Article 3 clearer in order to remove the ambiguities 
surrounding the scope of the Directive. The Article 
should, in particular, make it clear that: 
— the Directive is applicable to employed persons 
whose exposure to noise levels at work may 
exceed 80 dB(A), 
— the noise level to which workers are exposed 
must be measured when they are not wearing 
hearing protectors, 
— the initiative to take measurements of noise 
level may come from the employer, the worker 
or the appropriate authority. 
Article 4 
The Committee generally accepts the values pro­
posed by the Commission in Article 4. As far as the 
terms used are concerned, the Committee refers to 
its comments on Article 2. 
30. 1.84 Official Journal of the European Communities No C 23/39 
Article 4 (1) Article 6 (2) 
The Committee accepts the Commission's proposal 
for a peak sound pressure of 200 Pascal (140 dB) 
and considers that this limit value must not be 
exceeded under any circumstances. 
Article 4 (2) 
The Committee considers that a limit value of 
85 dB(A) may, in certain cases, be too low for the 
immediate future. Nevertheless, 85 dB(A) must be 
the ultimate goal if the aim is genuinely to protect 
workers' health. 
In such cases 90 dB(A) might be a more realistic 
limit value for a certain period of time. 
The Committee considers that the transitional 
periods laid down by the Commission are too short 
— at any rate if the limit value is below 90 dB(A). 
Should transitional arrangements prove necessary, 
account would have to be taken of the service life of 
machinery and whether the writing off of such 
machinery would be economically feasible for firms. 
In cases where derogations would seem to be appro­
priate, they should be subject to a time limit and be 
conditional on the agreement of the workers con­
cerned, in order to avoid distortions of competition 
and ensure that all workers receive fair protection. 
The Committee accordingly asks the Commission to 
reexamine the date on which the Directive is due to 
come into force. 
Article 4 (3) 
The Committee considers that this paragraph could 
be deleted. The relationship between paragraphs 1 and 2 of 
Article 6 is not clear and gives rise to considerable 
misunderstanding. It should be made clear that indi­
vidual hearing protectors must be used if measures 
taken in accordance with Article 6(1) fail to ensure 
that exposure levels are kept within the limit values 
laid down in Article 4, noise levels being measures 
when workers are not wearing hearing protectors. 
However, being an additional nuisance factor, hear­
ing protectors should be worn only for a limited 
period of time. 
Article 7 
The Committee feels that it would be logical for 
both relevant information and appropriate signs to 
be prescribed in this Article. 
Article 8 
The Committee agrees with the Commission's pro­
posal. The Commission should nevertheless give 
consideration to whether a recommended procedure 
for the selection and/or testing of appropriate hear­
ing protectors should not be given in an Annex. 
The Committee likewise agrees that workers should 
be closely involved in choosing suitable models. 
The only obligation that should be placed on 
employers, however, is that of allowing workers the 
freedom to choose protectors from within a range of 
models conforming to the relevant standards. 
Hearing protectors must be made available to work­
ers as soon as noise levels exceed 80 dB(A). 
Article 6 (1) 
The Committee agrees that, as far as is reasonably 
practicable, exposure the noise should be limited 
primarily by technical or organizational measures at 
the workplace. This priority should be made abso­
lutely clear. Reasonable practicability should be 
assessed jointly be employers and workers, with 
workers having the right to call in independent 
experts. Article 9(1) and (2) 
The Committee accepts the principle of health sur­
veillance. The Commission should nevertheless con­
fine itself to laying down general principles, leaving 
the necessary detailed provisions to the Member 
States. Workers exposed to noise levels exceeding 
the action level of 80 dB(A) should be given 
periodic audiometric tests, such tests being differen­
tiated as follows according to the particular level of 
exposure: 
No C 23/40 Official Journal of the European Communities 30. 1.84 
— from 80 to 85 dB(A): every five years, 
— from 86 to 90 dB(A): every three years, 
— more than 90 dB(A): every year. 
Article 9 (5) 
The Committee considers that the worker as well as 
the employer should be informed of the 'risks to 
hearing'. combined and brought forward to the beginning of 
the Directive so as to make it clear that they are 
valid for all Articles of the Directive. Workers 
should likewise be apprised of their duties. See here 
the comments made in point 3.2 of the general com­
ments. 
Article 12 (1) 
The Committee accepts this proposal of the Com­
mission. 
Article 9 (6) 
In carrying out the provisions provided for in this 
paragraph, there should be cooperation between the 
physician, employer and worker. 
Article 9 (7) 
The words 'in the Member State concerned' should 
be added after the phrase 'a competent body'. 
Article 11 
This Article deals with the rights of workers to infor­
mation and consultation. The Committee considers 
that these rights are so important that they should be Article 12 (2) 
As a first step, it should be prescribed that machi­
nery and equipment should carry comprehensive 
labelling showing the level of noise which they emit. 
However, this outline Directive should be followed 
up by specific Directives limiting the emission of 
noise by individual types of machines and equip­
ment. 
Article 13 
(See the comments on Article 11.) 
The two sets of provisions should be amalgamated 
and placed at the beginning of the Draft Directive. 
Done at Brussels, 23 November 1983. 
The Chairmann 
of the Economic and Social Committee 
Francois CEYRAC 
APPENDICES 
to the opinion of the Economic and Social Commmittee 
APPENDIX I 
Voting 
A roll-call vote was taken on the opinion as a whole. The following members, present or repre­
sented, voted for the opinion: 
Mr Amato, Mr Bazianas, Mr Beretta, Mr Boddy, Mr Bonety, Mr Bordes-Pages, Mr Bornard, 
Mr Brassier, Mr Briganti, Mr Carroll, Mr Cavazzuti, Mr Chalioris, Mr Cremer, Mr Dassis, 
30. 1.84 Official Journal of the European Communities No C 23/41 
Mr Dassoulas, Mr De Grave, Mr d' Elia, Mr DellaCroce, Mr Delourme, Mr Drain, Mr Dunet, Mr Eelsen, 
Mr Emo Capodilista, Mrs Engelen-Kefer, Mr Etty, Mr Flum, Mr Glesener, Mr van Greunsven, 
Mr Hadjivassiliou, Mrs Heuser, Mr Houthuys, Mr Jaschick, Mr Jenkins, Mr Kamizolas, Mr 
Kirschen, Mr Kitsios, Mr Kolble, Mr Laur, Mr Lojewski, Mr Masucci, Mr Meraviglia, Mr Milne, 
Mr Mols Sorensen, Mr Morselli, Mr Mourgues, Mr Muhr, Mr Murphy, Mr Nielsen B., Mr Niel­
sen P., Mr Nierhaus, Mrs Patterson, Mr Pfeiffer, Mr Querleux, Mr Raftopoulos, Mr Rainero, Mr 
van Rens, Mr Roseingrave, Mr Schneider, Mr Schoepges, Mr Smith A., Mr Smith L., Mr Soulat, 
Mr Spachos, Mrs Strobel, Mr Tixier, Mr Vassilaras, Mr Vercellino, Mr Wagenmans, Mrs Weber, 
Mr Zoli. 
The following members, present or represented, voted against the opinion: 
Mr Antonsen, Mr Arena, Mr Bagliano, Mr Binnenbruck, Mrs Bredima, Mr Breitenstein, Mr 
Broicher, Mr Cammann, Mr De Bievre, Mr Dracos, Mr Fortuyn, Mr Fuller, Mr Goris, Mr Kenna, 
Mr Lauga, Mr Law, Mr Loughrey, Mr Low, Mr Marvier, Mr Masprone, Mr Noordwal, Mr de 
Normann, Mr Paggi, Mr Pearson, Mr Pelletier, Mr Poeton, Mr Regaldo, Mr Romoli, Mr Roy-
croft, Mr Schnieders, Sir George Sharp, Mr Stahlmann, Mr Storm Hansen, Mr Swift, Mr Tamlin, 
Mr Van der Mensbrugghe, Mr Van Melckenbeke, Mr Vasseur, Mr Wagner, Mr Wick, Mr de Wit, 
Mr Zinkin. 
The following members, present or represented abstained: 
Mr Bernasconi, Mr Berns, Mr de Caffarelli, Mr De Tavernier, Mr Germozzi, Mr Hemmer, Mrs 
Williams, Mr Yverneau. 
APPENDIX 2 
A. Rejected amendments 
The following amendments to the Section opinion, tabled in accordance with the Rules of Proce­
dure, were rejected during the Committee's debate: 
the second paragraph should read as follows: 
'The Commission is urged to use the term "sound pressure dose level" rather than the term 
"equivalent continuous sound pressure level over eight hours".' 
Reasons 
On the one hand this provides the best protection for workers. On the other hand it ensures that 
noise-abatement measures are not out of proportion to the actual risks of hearing impairment. 
One advantage of this approach is that due consideration can be given to (a) actual working 
hours (which may be more or less than eight hours), (b) flexible working hours (variable work 
schedules, overtime), and (c) the switching from one workplace to another. 
A further advantage of this approach is that noise created by the worker himself in the course of 
doing his job can also be taken into consideration. 
Voting 
For: 12, against: majority, abstentions: 18. 
Article 3: 
In the first indent, replace '80 dB(A)' by '85 dB(A)'. 
No C 23/42 Official Journal of the European Communities 30. 1.84 
Reasons 
In order to retain the competitive basis of Community industry it is vital that it is not encum­
bered by more and more costly regulations. There is no conclusive evidence that noise under 
90 dB(A) is detrimental to the health of employees and thus nothing is to be gained by setting 
85 dB(A) as the ultimate goal. 
Voting 
For: 31, against: 70, abstentions: 9. 
Article 4 (2): 
Delete the five paragraphs, replacing them by the following: 
'The Committee considers that the daily sound exposure levels reaching the ear of the 
worker must be set as follows: 
— 90 dB(A) as the ambient limit value, 
— 80 dB(A) as the action level. 
If the action level is exceeded, the provisions of Article 9 (2) shall be implemented. In cases 
where it is not reasonably practicable to keep within the ambient limit value, all the other 
preventive measures provided for in the present Directive must be applied.' 
Reason 
The 85 dB(A) limit value proposed by the Commission stems from an attempt to arrive at a com­
promise between the two sides of industry and their varying needs. This compromise is not 
acceptable from the ethical point of view since workers' health is at stake and the hearing of all 
concerned can be adequately protected, without seriously jeopardizing the work process, by 
adopting differentiated threshold limits. This method, which offers maximum guarantees (see the 
proposed amendment to Article 9 (2)), should be chosen. 
US Federal Law has also opted for this solution. 
Voting 
For: 39, against: 67, abstentions: 7. 
Article 4 (2): 
Delete the second sentence of the first paragraph. 
Reasons 
In order to retain the competitive basis of Community industry it is vital that it is not encumbered 
by more and more costly regulations. There is no conclusive evidence that noise under 90 dB(A) 
is detrimental to the health of employees and thus nothing is to be gained by setting 85 dB(A) as 
the ultimate goal. 
Voting 
For: 19, against: 63, abstentions: 22. 
30. 1.84 Official Journal of the European Communities No C 23/43 
B. The following passages of the section opinion were deleted by the Committee 
Point 1, last sentence: 
'Efforts should therefore be made to ensure that scientific research in this area is brought to a 
rapid conclusion.' 
There was unanimous approval for the deletion of this paragraph. 
Article 9 (1) and (2), last sentence: 
'However, workers exposed to noise levels exceeding 80 dB(A) should be given periodic 
audiometric tests, such tests being differentiated according to the level of exposure.' 
Voting 
For: majority, against: 3, abstentions: 10. 
Article 10: 
'The Section approves the aims of this Article but regards the various requirements — espe­
cially the keeping of different files — as excessive. 
The Commission should therefore make the wording of this Article more general. The data 
protection angle should also be taken into consideration.' 
Voting 
For: 53, against: 45, abstentions: 10. 
Third paragraph of Article 14 (2): 
'The Section is of the opinion that such a wide-ranging obligation to provide information — 
and particularly the obligation to submit to the Commission a summary of the information 
contained in the records — is not appropriate and does not justify the administrative 
expenditure involved.' 
Voting 
For: 62, against: 45, abstentions: 3. 
APPENDIX 3 
Minority Statement 
Following the recorded vote on the opinion as a whole, the following members of the employers' 
group who voted against the opinion made the following declaration: 
'The Committee recognizes that noise-induced hearing loss can be a serious social handicap 
and supports the aim of the European Commission's proposal to protect workers against 
risks to their hearing. Nevertheless, these members of the Committee cannot support the 
No C 23/44 Official Journal of the European Communities 30. 1. 84 
limit values — particularly the 85 dB(A) limit value — proposed by the European Com­
mission and advocated in the Committee's own opinion. 
The Commission's proposal is based on criteria which are not fully scientific. Moreover, the 
risk of hearing loss below 90 dB(A) is probably less than has been suggested by the Euro­
pean Commission. These members do not believe that the great technical and particularly 
financial burden of meeting an 80 dB(A) limit, or introducing an 85 dB(A) limit can be justi­
fied in view of the size of the risk at such levels. 
These members therefore believe that the exposure limit in the Directive should be set at 90 
dB(A). 
Mr Antonsen, Mr Arena, Mr Bagliano, Mr Binnenbruck, Mrs Bredima, Mr Breitenstein, Mr 
Broicher, Mr Cammann, Mr De Bievre, Mr Dracos, Mr Fortuyn, Mr Fuller, Mr Kenna, Mr Law, 
Mr Loughrey, Mr Low, Mr Masprone, Mr Noordwal, Mr de Normann, Mr Paggi, Mr Pearson, Mr 
Pelletier, Mr Poeton, Mr Regaldo, Mr Romoli, Mr Schnieders, Mr Stahlmann, Mr Storm-Hansen, 
Mr Swift, Mr Tamlin, Mr Van der Mensbrugghe, Mr Van Melckenbeke, Mr Wagner, Mr Wick, 
Mr de Wit, Mr Zinkin. 
Opinion on the communication from the Commission to the Council entitled 'Energy and 
energy research in the Community: a five-year programme of action and its financing' 
(84/C 23/15) 
A. LEGAL BASIS FOR THE OPINION 
On 23 June 1983 the Commission referred the abovementioned communication to the 
Economic and Social Committee in accordance with Article 198 of the Treaty estab­
lishing the European Economic Community. 
B. OPINION OF THE ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL COMMITTEE 
The Economic and Social Committee prepared its opinion on the above matter at its 
212th plenary session held in Brussels on 23 and 24 November 1983. 
The full text of the opinion is as follows: 
THE ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL COMMITTEE, 
Having regard to the Treaty establishing the Euro­
pean Economic Community, and in particular 
Article 198 thereof, 
Having regard to the request made by the Commis­
sion on 23 June 1983 for an opinion on the com­
munication from the Commission to the Council 
entitled energy and energy research in the Com­
munity: a five-year programme of action and its 
financing, 
Having regard to the decision taken by its Bureau 
on 5 July 1983, instructing the Section for Energy and Nuclear Questions to prepare an opinion on the 
matter, 
Having regard to the opinion adopted by that Sec­
tion at its 84th meeting, held on 4 November 1983, 
Having regard to the oral report made by the rap­
porteur, Mr Fortuyn, 
Having regard to the discussions at its meeting of 
23 November 1983 (212th plenary session of 23 and 
24 November 1983), 
HAS ADOPTED THE FOLLOWING OPINION 
unanimously: