EN    EN  
 EUROPEAN COMMISSION 
Brussels, 9.12.2011 
SEC(2011) 1505 final 
  
COMMISSION STAFF WORKING PAPER 
IMPACT ASSESSMENT 
Accompanying the document 
Proposal for a Regulation of the Eu ropean Parliament and of the Council 
on the sound level of motor vehicles 
{COM(2011) 856 final} 
{SEC(2011) 1504 final}  
 
EN 2   EN  
  
 
Disclaimer: This report commits only t he Commission's services involved in its preparation and does not prejudge the 
final form of any decision to be taken by the Commission. 
 
EN 3   EN TABLE OF CONTENTS 
1. Procedural issues and consulta tion of interested parties.............................................. 6 
1.1. Identification ............................................................................................................ .... 6 
1.2. Organisation and timing............................................................................................... 6 1.3. Consultation and expertise ........................................................................................... 6 1.4. Scrutiny by the Impact  Assessment Board................................................................... 7 
2. Problem definition........................................................................................................ 8 2.1. Policy context: purpose and development of  the Motor Vehicle Noise Directive....... 8 
2.2. Sources of road noise and ways to reduce noise emissions ......................................... 9 2.3. The problem that requires action................................................................................ 11 2.3.1. Inadequate methods for meas uring road traffic noise................................................ 11 
2.3.2. Negative health effects from road traffic noise.......................................................... 13 2.3.3. Potential risk of fragmentation of the internal market ............................................... 15 2.4. Underlying drivers and contribut ors related to the problem ...................................... 15 
2.5. Who is affected, in what wa ys and to what extent? ................................................... 16 
2.6. Evolution of the problem ........................................................................................... 17 2.7. EU right to act ........................................................................................................... . 18 
3. Objectives.................................................................................................................. . 18 
3.1. Policy objectives ........................................................................................................ 1 8 
3.2. Consistency with other policies and objectives ......................................................... 21 4. Policy options............................................................................................................. 2 1 
5. Analysis of impacts.................................................................................................... 29 5.1. Approach.................................................................................................................. .. 29 
5.2. Environmental impact ................................................................................................ 29 5.3. Social and health impacts........................................................................................... 36 5.4. Economic impacts ...................................................................................................... 46 5.5. Comparison of costs and benefits for each policy option .......................................... 54 5.6. Summary of impacts .................................................................................................. 61 5.7. Other impacts of the preferred option ........................................................................ 82 6. Monitoring and evaluation ......................................................................................... 82 
 
EN 4   EN 6.1. Indicators of progress towards meeting the objectives .............................................. 82 
6.2. Ongoing dialogue with stakeholders.......................................................................... 83 ANNEXES ........................................................................................................................ ....... 84 
Annex 1:List of European Dir ectives and amendments related to noise from road traffic...... 84 
Annex 2:Determination of the best suitable test method ....................................................... 104 
Annex 3:Evaluation of the ne w test method (method B) ....................................................... 104 
Annex 4:Calculation of the equivalent sound pres sure level at a charac teristic distance from 
the road..................................................................................................................... 10 8 
Annex 5:Overview of road types and lengths w ith corrections for non-residential stretches, 
roads with restricted acce ss and low traffic volume ................................................ 109 
Annex 6:Parameters used for the economic analysis ............................................................. 109 Annex 7:Calculation of the percentage of annoyed and sleep disturbed people.................... 110 
Annex 8:Derivation of future tr affic noise emission levels ................................................... 110 
Annex 9:Millions of highly annoyed people per road type for each policy option ............... 112 
Annex 10:Millions of highly sleep disturbed pe ople per road type for each policy option... 113 
Annex 11:Effect of fleet and mileage gr owth on average car fleet emission......................... 113 
Annex 12:Tyre-road noise and power train noise contributions to test results...................... 114 
Annex 13:Prediction of tyre-road noise c ontribution to future test results ............................ 115 
 
EN 5   EN INTRODUCTION 
This initiative has two kinds of background, fi rstly EU policies to reduce noise emissions 
from different sources and secondly the type ap proval legislation for motor vehicles aimed at 
smooth functioning of th e internal market. 
Noise limits for four-wheel mo tor vehicles are addressed in  Directive 70/157/EEC (Motor 
Vehicle Noise Directive) which forms part of  the EC Whole Vehicle Type-Approval system. 
Under this system, manufacturers can obtain appr oval for a vehicle type in one Member State 
if it meets the Community technical requirement s and then market it EU-wide with no need 
for further tests or checks. Registration mu st be granted on simp le presentation of a 
'Certificate of Conformity'. The noise limits have  been reduced several times, the most recent 
being in 1995. This last reduction did not have the expected effects and subsequent studies 
showed that due to changes in vehicle techno logy, driving behaviour and the amount of road 
traffic, the measurement method does not reflect real drivi ng behaviour anymore1. The 
UN/ECE noise expert group therefor e decided that, before reducing the limits once again, it is 
first necessary to develop a new test cycle and bring the driving conditio ns for the noise test 
closer to real driving conditions2. Once a more optimal method is selected, further reductions 
of noise levels can be considered. 
In the early stages EU regulations on noise management were based on internal market 
objectives and focused mainly on setting ha rmonized noise limits for motor vehicles, 
household appliances and other noise-generating products. As more information about the 
health impacts of noise became available, the need for a highe r level of protection of EU 
citizens through further EU-wid e measures became more im minent. The Commission's Green 
Paper on Noise from 19963 estimated that around 20 percen t of the EU’s population at the 
time suffered from noise levels that scientists and health experts consider being unacceptable. 
Based on information from Member States, the European Environment Agency has estimated, 
that half of the population in ur ban areas is exposed to noise le vels above 55 dB(A) as a result 
of ambient road noise. When comparing this  with the figures of the Green Paper, no 
significant progress in reducing people's exposure to noise has yet been made. 
                                                 
1 Noise Emission of Road Vehicles – Effect of Regulations, Final Report 01-1 by the I-INCE Working 
Party on the Effect of Regulations on Road Vehicle Noise, International Institute of Noise Control 
Engineering, U. Sandberg (Convener), Swedish Nationa l Road and Transport Res earch Institute (VTI), 
Linköping, Sweden, July 2001 
Steven, H., Ermittlung der Geräuschemissionsänderung von Kraftfahrzeugen im Strassen-verkehr, 
Report FIGE GmbH, Herzogenrath, Germany, 1994 
Morgan, P.A., P.M. Nelson, H. Stev en, Integrated assessment of noise  measures in the road transport 
sector, Project report PR SE/652/03 prepared for project record ETD/FIF.20020051 commissioned by 
EU Working Group 8 of DG Enterprise, TRL Limited, Wokingham - Berkshire, November 2003. 
Biegstraaten, F.J.W., E. Gerretsen, J.C. Tukker, Gelu idemissie van personenauto’s in stedelijk verkeer – 
De kwaliteit van de typekeuring en het effect van wijzigingen van gr enswaarde of meetmethode (Noise 
emission of passenger cars in urban traffic – The quality of the type approval test method and the effect of changes in limit values or in the test method), in Dutch, Report nr. 623.109, TNO Institute of Applied 
Physics, Delft, 27 February 1989. 
Steven, H., Verbesserung der Geräuschemissionsmessver fahren für Kraftfahrzeuge – Pkw, Fige-bericht 
84-105 02 410/03, November 1984. 
2 Noise of passenger cars 1974-999 –The paradox of a 2 dB(A) increase in traffic noise and a 8 dB(A) 
decrease in type approval limits, D. F. de Graaff, M+P Raadgevende Ingenieurs bv, ‘s Hertogenbosch, 
The Netherlands, 2000 
3 Green Paper on Future Noise Policy (COM(96) 540)  
 
EN 6   EN Over the years, considerable research effo rt, including large EU-funde d projects, has been 
dedicated to the quantitative as sessment of the relationship between environmental noise and 
its effects. Although the appro aches and the scope of the va rious studies differ, common 
ground can be found in terms of harmful eff ects and annoyance that noise generates. 
The Communication from the Comm ission regarding a European strategy on clean and energy 
efficient vehicles of 28.04.2010 announced that the Commission will present a proposal in 
2011 to amend the respective legislation to re duce the noise emissions of motor vehicles. 
1. PROCEDURAL ISSUES AND CONSULTATION OF INTERESTED PARTIES  
1.1. Identification 
Lead DG: DG Enterprise and Industry 
Other involved DGs: ENV, ENER , MOVE, SANCO, RTD, and SG 
Agenda Planning/CWP Re ference: 2011/ENTR/012 
1.2. Organisation and timing 
The present impact assessment was carried out between July 2009 and December 
2010. For its purposes an Impact Assessm ent Steering Group (IASG) was created 
with participation of DG ENV, ENER, SANCO, RTD and SG. The IASG met three 
times with the first meeting in July, the second in November and the last one in 
December 2010. The suggestions of  the IASG have been inco rporated in the present 
report. 
1.3. Consultation and expertise 
The present report builds on the findings of an external study carried out by the 
Dutch Organisation for Applied Scientific  Research (TNO). The study analysed the 
differences between the currently applicab le type approval test method for noise 
emissions from vehicles (hereafter referre d to as test method) and a proposed new 
test method. The goal of the study was to as sess the draft new test  protocol against 
the available noise data and to provide possible new limit values for each category of vehicles, including those types of vehicles which currently  benefit from derogations. 
The report gives an account of the methods that were us ed for the purposes of the 
investigation, of the results that were  achieved and of th e conclusions and 
recommendations concerning the necessary or possible changes to the noise emission type approval legislation, aiming at a proced ure that will be effective and efficient in 
terms of environmental, social and econom ic impacts. The European Automobile 
Manufacturers' Association (ACEA) and th e International Orga nization of Motor 
Vehicle Manufacturers (OICA) were cons ulted throughout the elaboration of the 
report. The findings of the interim report an d the final report have been presented to 
all stakeholders on several occasions. 
A targeted consultation was organized for th e purposes of this initiative due to its 
technical character. Suffic ient feedback was receiv ed since 1990 through ongoing 
dialogue with all relevant stakeholders th rough their participat ion at the different 
 
EN 7   EN meetings of UN/ECE4 (WP.29, GRB5, Informal Working Group on Regulation No. 
51, Informal Working Group on Additional Sound Emission Provisions) representing contracting parties to the 1958 UN/ECE Agreement
6 (different ministries and 
authorities from Member States, suppliers of  vehicles, suppliers of parts, consumers, 
type approval authoritie s, trade unions, NGOs), the Commission's advisory Motor 
Vehicle Working Group (MVWG)7 and the Commission's legislative Committee 
(TCMV). During this process the industr y supported the intr oduction of the new 
measurement method and agreed to the need  of reducing the noise limit values for 
motor vehicles. The position about the timeline for the introduction of new limit values and their stringenc y is divided between the different interest groups. 
Industry supports the step wise approach proposed in the impact assessment report. 
Nevertheless some manufacturers claim th at the proposed time span is too short 
when compared to the average vehicle or tyre line evolution of 5 to 6 years. 
During the consultation the automotive manuf acturers have expressed a divergent 
opinion concerning the necessary cost to de velop less noisy vehicles. They estimate 
that the development cost and the necessary  time frame is higher than expected by 
the Commission's contractor. In addition indus try estimates that more time is needed 
until the public can benefit from the reduced environmental noise limits. Some tyre 
manufacturers question the estimated noise contribution of tyres in the new test 
method and that their capability to comply with the future type approval requirement 
has been appropriately cons idered. Industry has no common position regarding the 
treatment of tyre noise coming from heavy duty vehicles. Some support the 
Commission's position that an important component like the tyres mounted on the drive axles is required during the test procedure. Other parts of the industry claim 
that special low noise test tyres should be  used to avoid a masking effect of the 
power train contribution. According to the automotive and the tyre industry 
additional vehicles subcategories should be  introduced, in particular for heavy duty 
vehicles. 
Member States already expressed suppor t for the new measurement method. The 
planned reduction of limit values got positiv e feedback as well, taking into account 
that in some Member States the decision process is not yet finalised. Transport & 
Environment, a European associati on of NGOs campaigning for sustainable 
transport, is in favour of more stringent limit values in the shortest possible time 
frame. 
1.4. Scrutiny by the Impact Assessment Board 
The Impact Assessment Board of the Eur opean Commission assessed a draft version 
of the present impact assessment and i ssued its opinion on 04/02/2011. The Impact 
                                                
 
4 United Nations Economic Commission for Europe 
5 The Working Party on Noise (GRB) is the subsidiary body of the World Forum for Harmonization of 
Vehicle Regulations (WP.29) within UN/ECE 
6 Agreement Concerning the Adoption of Uniform Conditions of Approval and Reciprocal Recognition 
of Approval for Motor Vehicle Equipment and Parts of the United Nation Economic Commission for 
Europe 
7 The MVWG consists of Member States, industry, consumer organisations and depending on the subject 
other relevant stakeholders. In the TCMV Member States express their opinion within the 'Comitology' 
procedure. 
 
EN 8   EN Assessment Board made several recommendati ons and, in the light of the latter, the 
final impact assessment report contains an  improved presentation of the baseline 
scenario, clarifies the design and choice of options and presents a further enhanced 
const-benefit analysis. 
2. PROBLEM DEFINITION  
2.1. Policy context: purpose and development of the Motor Vehicle Noise Directive 
Before European type-approval for motor vehicles was introduced, Member States 
would regulate noise emission le vels individually. The legisl ations often varied from 
one Member State to another and manufact urers producing for several markets were 
obliged to adapt their products for each market and have th eir vehicles tested in each 
Member State. This was time-consumi ng and costly. Different national rules 
consequently hindered trade, and had a nega tive effect on the internal market. It was 
therefore necessary to harmonize rules at the EU level including the limitation of the noise emissions for motor vehicles.  
This was done through the Motor Vehicle Noise Directive (Directive 70/157/EEC). 
The Directive and its amendments (f or overview see Annex 1) cover the 
requirements for motor vehicle exterior pass -by noise and the noise from the exhaust 
system under test conditions, i.e. they desc ribe the testing pro cedure and set noise 
limits. The original Directive and subsequent amendments had two objectives. Firstly, they aimed to ensure that for certain categories of motor vehicles noise limits of individual Member States would not fo rm barriers to trade. The second goal was 
to tighten the noise limits to reduce e nvironmental noise. The amending Directive 
92/97/EEC introduced mandatory common noise limits applicable to all Member States. Several of the subsequent amendments  specified stricter limits as shown in 
Figure 1. 
1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005707580859095
YearLp at 7.5 m [dB(A)]Type approval noise limits
01/10/1982
01/10/1985 01/10/1989 01/10/1996Passenger car
Delivery van < 2tSmall lorryHeavy lorry
 
 
EN 9   EN Figure 1: Development of EU road vehicle type a pproval noise limits: Passenger car, delivery van (2 – 
3.5 tonnes max. weight),  small truck (> 3.5 tonnes and < 75 kW) and a heavy truck (> 3.5 
tonnes and > 150 kW), including important  dates of amendments and adaptations8 
The current formulation of the noise emi ssion requirements within the framework of 
the type-approval is a combination of limit values for vehicle categories and sub-categories and extra allowances for vehicles  within those sub-categories that meet 
specific criteria. 
By Council Decision 97/836/EC, the Eu ropean Community acceded to the 
Agreement of the United Nations Econom ic Commission for Europe (UN/ECE) 
concerning the adoption of uniform techni cal prescriptions for wheeled vehicles. 
This ensures that the EU vehicle type appr oval is harmonised with a broader range of 
countries outside the EU, such as Russia, Australia, and Japan so that EU producers 
can use the same production lines for these e xport markets as for the internal market. 
The test procedure and the limit values of  UN-ECE Regulation No. 51 are equivalent 
to those of the EU Directive. 
Although Directive 70/157/EEC succeeded in harmonising th e type testing procedure 
and noise limits, it failed in reducing real tr affic noise levels, as especially for cars 
real driving conditions differ from the test conditions, ty re noise increa sed relative to 
power train noise and the volume of traffi c continuously increased. For this reason 
noise from road traffic was also a pproached by the more recent Directive 
2001/43/EC and Regulation No 661/2009 cove ring tyre noise and in Directive 
2002/49/EC regarding the assessment of environmental noise (see section 3.2 and Annex 1). 
2.2. Sources of road noise and ways to reduce noise emissions 
Within overall environmental noise the noise generated by transport plays an 
important role. The main sources of transpor t noise are aircrafts, railways and road 
traffic. The noise generated by traffic can have many sources (tyre-road noise, power 
train noise, exhaust noise etc.). The rolling noise emission of tyres is subjected to a 
separate EU Regulation No. 661/2009 whic h implies that from 1 November 2012 
stricter limit values for tyre rolling noise will be in force for new types of tyres and 
from 1 November 2013 for new types of vehicles equipped with these tyres.
9  
The exposure of people to noise can be re duced in different ways: through reducing 
noise limits at the source, i.e. directly reducing noise limits emitted by cars or through other indirect measures such as tax relief schemes for environmentally 
friendly investments (e.g. Vam il and MIA in the Netherlands)
10, standards for 
acquisition of quiet delivery vehicles (e.g. PIEK11 standard), traffic restrictions (e.g. 
the low noise truck sign as required on alpine transit routes in Austria), rerouting and 
                                                 
8 TNO report: VENOLIVA - Vehicle Noise Limit Va lues; Comparison of two noise emission test 
methods Specific Contract No SI2.545143 
9 These new requirements will result in an estimated average reduction of 3,8 dB(A) of the limit values 
for car tyres and of approximately 3,3 dB(A) for the limit values for truck tyres. From 1 November 
2016 the stricter limit values will apply to all new ve hicles and all new tyres. As the tyre noise test is 
conducted under different test conditions and in particul ar with a different speed the results of the tyre 
noise test is not directly comparable to the results of the vehicle noise test. 
10 http://www.senternovem.nl/vamil_mia/English.asp 
11 http://www.bmwt.nl/f iles_content/Certificatie-%20en% 20toezichtprocedures%20PIEK.pdf 
 
EN 10   EN speed restrictions or noise abatement solutio ns (noise barriers, quiet road surfaces, 
façade insulation). However, recent studies12 have shown that noise abatement at the 
source has the biggest potential to reduce exposure and is generally more cost 
efficient than measures designe d to hamper noise propagation.  
The effect of limit changes on vehicle nois e levels under real c onditions depends on 
whether tyre or power train noise is dominant, which in turn depends on road surface, vehicle design, operating condition (s ee Figure 2), driving style and wear. 
More detailed information concerning the tyre-road noise and power train 
contribution can be found in Annexes 12 and 13. 
 
 
                                                 
12 CE Delft (2007) Traffic noise reduction in Europe. H ealth effects, social costs and technical and policy 
options to reduce road and rail traffic noise. 
 
EN 11   EN Figure 2: Illustrative example of the contribution of power train and tyre/road noise source of an 
average, moderately accelera ting passenger car with a five speed gearbox, as function of 
vehicle speed. The green line indicates th e approximate speed of the type test.13 
2.3. The problem that requires action 
2.3.1.  Inadequate methods for meas uring road traffic noise 
As it has been mentioned earlier, the permissi ble sound level of road vehicles are laid 
down in the Motor Vehicle Noise Di rective 70/157/EEC and in the UN-ECE 
Regulation No 51, which specify the test  method for the noise emission test. 
The latest amendment to the vehicle noise legislation in 1995 led to a reduction of 
noise emissions of 85 % for cars (-8 dB(A )) and of over 90% for heavy lorries (-11 
dB(A)) compared to the in itial limit values establis hed in 1970. However studies 
have shown that the reduction in actual road  traffic noise levels has been much less: 
only 1 - 2 dB(A). The reasons for this low le vel of effectiveness can be attributed to: 
relaxed limits in the early years, a slow replacement of older and noisier vehicles 
with newer ones, significant growth in tra ffic, the use of wider tyres with different 
characteristics for higher speeds and to the test procedure that does not reflect 
realistic driving conditions. 
Following the adoption of the Ge neral Safety Regulation in 200914 which lays down 
improved noise requirements for motor vehicl e tyres, the next step to further reduce 
vehicle noise emissions in the future is through improving the type-approval 
requirements for the whole vehicle. This includes the reduction of the overall limit 
values by looking at al l noise sources of motor vehicles , from the air intake over the 
power train to the exhaust with special consideration of the tyre contribution, together with an improved test procedure. 
The current noise test protocol, which has been in force since 1970 with subsequent 
amendments, requires a full throttle acceleratio n of the test vehicle. However, this 
does no longer reflect the real life drivi ng behaviour. Due to changes in vehicle 
technology and the increase in traffic, pa rtial throttle acceleration is nowadays 
mainly applied. Therefore, an updated test methodology that allows for setting of optimal limit values appears as the main  way forward to reduce noise levels. 
In response to the identified problem,  the UN-ECE Working Party on Noise 
developed a new test method which was pub lished in 2007. Before it can be used for 
type-approval purposes it was necessary to monitor its application in parallel with the 
existing test method in order to evaluate its qualities. The new method has been used 
on a provisional basis for the past three years
15. During the monitoring period, the 
type approval authorities were obliged to  apply both noise emission tests and submit 
their results to the European Commission. For the type approval of motor vehicles 
                                                 
13 TNO report: VENOLIVA - Vehicle Noise Limit Va lues; Comparison of two noise emission test 
methods Specific Contract No SI2.545143 
14 REGULATION (EC) No 661/2009 OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL 
of 13 July 2009 concerning type-approval requirements for the general safety of motor vehicles, their 
trailers and systems, components and separate technical units intended therefore (OJ L 200/1 of 
31.07.2009 
15 The monitoring period under UN/ECE Regulation No. 51 lasted from 1 July 2007 until 1 July 2009, 
while the monitoring period under the Motor Vehicle Noise Directive (2007/34/EC; amending Directive 
70/157/EEC) started on 6 July 2008 and expired on 6 July 2010. 
 
EN 12   EN only the results of the current  test protocol have been taken into consideration. The 
monitoring procedure allowed collecting a database of pa rallel test results which 
provides a solid basis for as sessing the new method and quantifying the differences 
between the two methods. 
The differences between the cu rrent type approval test me thod (hereafter referred to 
as A) and the proposed new test method (her eafter referred to as B) are outlined 
below: 
Test method A  
The currently applicable method ‘A’ for vehicle noise measurement procedure and 
accompanying limit values are described in detail in Directive 70/157/EEC and in 
Annex 3 of UN-ECE Regulation No. 5116, from which the measurement method is 
based on ISO 362. It was developed as a test  under worst case urban conditions, i.e. 
full throttle acceleration in urban areas. 
Test method B  
The aim of the new method ‘B’ was to de velop a ‘design independent’ measurement 
method and to correspond better to current urban driving conditions in general. Therefore, this method consists of both acceleration and a constant speed test. The 
vehicle has to enter the test track with su ch a speed, that afte r wide open throttle 
(WOT) acceleration, a speed of 50 km/h is reached at the microphone cross section, 
i.e. halfway along the 20 m long measurement field. 
Although most measurement conditions  (test track, microphone positions, 
meteorological conditions, etc.) are equal to  method A, there are some differences 
between the two methods: 
Method B adds a constant speed com ponent to the acceleration component. 
To allow for measurement inaccuracies in method A, all measured sound levels 
(intermediate results) have to be redu ced by 1 dB(A), whereas in method B all 
intermediate results are rounde d to the first decimal and no reduction is applied at all. 
In method A the minimum required tyre tr ead depth is 1.6mm, whereas in method B 
the tread depth has to be at least 80% of th e full depth. This can result in an increase 
of several dB of the tyre-road noise com ponent, especially for tyres with a rough 
tread pattern. For further info rmation see Annex 2 about the  determination of the best 
suitable test method and Annex 3 with a further evaluation of test method B .
17 
                                                 
16 http:// OJ L 137/68, 30.05.2007 
17 The noise emission requirements as currently formul ated are a combination of limit values for vehicle 
categories and sub-categories and additional allowances  for higher noise emissions from some special 
sub-categories of vehicles. A need to modify the allowances of certain vehicle sub-categories was 
identified in order to reflect the technological developments. The allowance of 1 dB(A) for passenger 
cars and light vans equipped with a direct injection Diesel engine is  no longer justified because the 
average test results of vehicles with Diesel engines is today slightly lower than the results for petrol 
engines. The allowance of 1 dB(A) for passenger cars with high-powered engines can be sustained. Due 
to the fact that the engine power  of passenger cars steadily increases  it is recommended to revise the 
criterion by introducing a power to mass ratio greater than 150 kW/tonne. The allowance of 1 or 2 
dB(A) for vehicle with off-road capabilities finds supp ort in the database and shall be maintained. An 
accumulation of allowances shall not be applied. 
 
EN 13   EN 2.3.2.  Negative health effects from road traffic noise 
According to the EEA report ‘Transport at a crossroads 2008', almost 67 million 
people (i.e. 55 % of the populat ion living in agglomerations with more than 250 000 
inhabitants) are exposed to daily road noise levels exceeding 55 dB L DEN18. This 
figure is a commonly established 'threshold  value' above which there is a higher 
likelihood of adverse health effects. Almo st 48 million people are exposed to levels 
exceeding 50 dB L night19 with road noise being by far the largest source of exposure 
to night time transport noise. Almost 21 million people (i.e. 17 % of the population 
living in urban agglomerations) live in areas where night-time road noise levels have detrimental effects on health. Road noise agai n is the main source of transport noise 
hot spots in these agglomerations.  
Since 2000 a number of studies have invest igated in more detail annoyance and 
health effects from road traffic noise
20 showing the scale and urgency of the problem. 
In these studies the associated costs and benefits have already been put into perspective, generally resulting in the conclusion that the benefits of noise reduction at source far outweigh the costs. 
Traffic noise in urban areas in  Europe is a major environmental stressor. In the first 
place, noise exposure can lead to distur bance of sleep and daily activities, to 
annoyance and to stress. This stress can in  turn trigger the production of certain 
hormones (e.g. cortisol, noradrenalin and adrena line), which may lead to a variety of 
intermediate effects, incl uding increased blood pressure. Over a prolonged period of 
exposure these effects may in their turn in crease the risk of cardiovascular disease 
and psychiatric disorders. The degree to wh ich noise leads to disturbance, annoyance 
and stress depends partly on individual ch aracteristics, in particular a person’s 
attitude and sensitivity to  noise. Finally, the relation between noise and personal 
health and well-being is also influenced by external factors like physical and social 
environment and lifestyle. 
                                                
 
18 LDEN is a measure of noise exposure at  a specific local spot, e.g. a street . It is defined as the weighted 
energy average of day-evening-night levels and strongly depends on the road type, the location and 
traffic variation during a 24 hour period. In many cases, the numbers of cars ar e so much larger than 
other vehicle types that they tend to determine the overall L DEN level, often dominated by the evening or 
night levels as these have stronger weighting. Along some roads heavily used by freight vehicles, lorries 
and heavy goods vehicles can sometimes dominate the L DEN. 
19 Lnight is mostly dominated by the higher numbers of cars, as most traffic on urban roads runs in the 
daytime. It contains a mix of power train and tyre  noise, but more power train noise for intermittent 
traffic flow. On routes with signifi cant night time freight traffic such as some motorways, lorries and 
heavy goods vehicles can sometimes dominate the L night. 
20 E.g. Knol, A.B., Staatsen, B.A.M., Trends in the environmental burden of disease in the Netherlands 
1980 – 2020, RIVM report 500029001, Bilthoven, The Netherlands, 2005; http://www.rivm.nl/bibliotheek/rapporten/500029001.html 
Valuation of Noise - Position Paper of the Working Group on Health and Socio- Economic Aspects, 
European Commission, Environment Director ate-General, Brussels, 4 December 2003; 
WWW .EC.EUROPA .EU/ENVIRONMENT /NOISE /PDF/VALUATIO _FINAL _12_2003. PDF 
Position paper on dose response relationships betw een transportation noise an d annoyance, European 
Commission, Brussels, February 2002. TNO report | MON-RPT-2010-02103 | v5 | 14 January 2011 
Night Noise Guidelines for Europe, WHO report 2009. 
Definition, Identification and Preservation of Urban & Rural Quiet Areas, final report of EU Service 
contract ENV, C 1/SER/2002/0104R, Symonds Group, East Grinstead, West Sussex, UK, July 2003. 
H.J. Boesch et al: Economic Valuation of Transport-related Health Effects: Review of Methods and 
Development of Guidance, with a Special Focus on Children, Wo rld Health Organization 2008. 
 
EN 14   EN Following the 2008 WHO-report ‘Economic valu ation of transpor t-related health 
effects, with a special focus on children’21, societal benefits for noise exposure can 
be identified for various health endpoint s. These health endpoints are: severe 
annoyance, sleep quality, severe sleep distur bance, insomnia, ischemic heart disease 
(such as myocardial heart disease, hyperten sion), with limited strength of evidence in 
relation to noise exposure. 
The effects that can occur at different levels of night time  noise exposure are listed in 
Table 1. The effects of long term night tim e road traffic noise can be various, as 
shown in Figure 3. The relation is shown be tween increasing noise levels at night 
Lnight and numbers of additional awakenings per year, percentage increase in heart 
attacks, percentage increase in average sleep motility a nd the percentage of highly 
sleep disturbed people. Given the known effects on health, quality of life and 
consequential costs, real reductions in noise exposure are highly desirable. 
Average night noise level over 
a year L night (outside) Health effects observ ed in the population 
Up to 30 dB No effects observed 
30-40 dB Modest effects including body movements, awakening, 
arousals, self-reported sleep disturbance. Children, the chronically ill and the elderly are more susceptible. 
40-55 dB Adverse health effects observed among exposed population. 
Many people have to adapt. Vulnerable groups are more severely affected. 
Above 55 dB Frequent adverse health effects. A high proportion of the 
population is highly annoyed and sleep-disturbed. There is 
evidence that the risk of cardi ovascular disease increases. 
Table 1: Health effects observed in the population22 
 
                                                 
21 http://ec.europa.eu/health/ph_projects/2003/action3/action3_2003_08_en.htm#3 
22 Night Noise Guidelines for Europe, WHO report 2009 
 
EN 15   EN Figure 3: Effects of road traffic noise at night. Av erage motility and infarcts are expressed in percent 
increase; the number of highly sleep disturbed people is expressed as a percentage of the 
population; awakenings are expressed in the number of additional awakenings per year.23 
 
2.3.3.  Potential risk of fragmentation of the internal market 
If the technical requirements regarding the noise emissions of motor vehicles are not 
updated to technical progress by using an adequate te st methodology and applying 
acceptable limit values there is a risk of  fragmentation of the internal market. 
Member States might see a need to introduce other measures to eliminate negative health effects for their citi zens. This could be the intr oduction of special zones only 
accessible for low noise vehicles or other lo cal measures as described in section 2.2.. 
2.4. Underlying drivers and contributors related to the problem 
Since the introduction of the Directive, a seri es of trends have taken effect which are 
the drivers of the identified problem. 
• Increased use of vans and light commercial  vehicles with diesel engines which are 
noisier than cars as they are not  designed under comfort aspects. 
• Use of wider tyres, resul ting in higher noise emission. 
• Increased weight of cars due to high pow er and additional stru ctural components, 
contributing to more noise. 
• Continuous growth in traffic volume on all road types, and thereby an increase in 
numbers of noise exposed citizens. 
Further contributors are: 
• Market shift towards environmentally frie ndly and alternativel y powered vehicles 
such as hybrid, bio fuel, fuel cell, hydroge n and electric vehicles, especially for 
buses and municipal vehicles but also  for cars. Following the reduction of 
pollutant emissions it is now  necessary and feasible to reduce the noise emissions 
adequately. Modern technol ogy allows the further redu ction of noise levels. 
• Reduction of power train noise due to  improved engine design, including 
techniques such as electronic engine cont rol, direct fuel injection for diesels, 
improved balancing, structure optimisation, improved exhaust, intake and shielding design. These improvements in technology can be used for a further 
reduction of motor vehicle noise levels. 
• The noise emission from diesel engines of cars has been re duced to levels 
comparable with those of petrol engine s. These improvements in technology can 
be used for a further reduction of traffic noise. 
The following political trends are of relevance: 
• Increased awareness of health effects and costs of environmenta l noise, especially 
for road traffic noise which is considered one of the main sources. 
• Recently, availability of European noise mapping data and exposure statistics of 
the population (2009). 
                                                
 
23 TNO report: VENOLIVA - Vehicle Noise Limit Va lues; Comparison of two noise emission test 
methods Specific Contract No SI2.545143 
 
EN 16   EN • Extensive research including EU proj ects, resulting in detailed knowledge on 
noise reduction, research road mapping but also en vironmental impacts and 
external costs. 
• Environmental legislation, both from the EU and at local level, resulting in noise 
abatement programs such as noise barrier  programmes, quieter road surfaces, 
traffic flow control and rerouting, access limitations and incentives for quieter 
vehicles and tyres. 
• Increasing regulation in relation to safe ty, exhaust emissions, noise and others, 
resulting in complex and inte racting design requirements. 
2.5. Who is affected, in what ways and to what extent? 
Current noise emissions from motor vehicles affect all citizens, in particular urban 
inhabitants of areas with high traffic. The extent to whic h they are affected depends 
on the noise levels considered: daytime level L DEN, night level L night or individual 
events24. Other stakeholders affected by the Motor Vehicle Noise Directive include: 
road authorities, local and national author ities, health authorities, the automotive 
industry including suppliers a nd type approval bodies, the consumer market for road 
vehicles, the professional market for road  vehicles (lease and rental companies), 
truck, van and taxi fleet owners. 
Any amendments made to the Directive, be it a reduction of  noise from motor 
vehicles or changes to th e test method, are likely to affect the above listed 
stakeholders in a different way as outlined below: 
Stakeholder Effect 
a) Improved sleep, reduced stress, improved health and quality of life; 
indirectly: savings on health and effectiveness at work and school 
b) Increased property value 1. The public affected by 
road traffic noise 
c) Improved living, work and recreation environment 
a) Reduced need for noise abatem ent programmes (barriers, road 
surfaces, sound insulation) and cost saving: easier planning of new or 
upgraded roads 
b) Less local protest 2. Road authorities, 
national and local 
authorities 
c) Less need for regulation and enforcement 
3. Health authorities and 
governmen t a) Reduced healthcare costs 
a) Increased costs for extra noise co ntrol including design, testing and 
materials; in particular for lorries, buses and trucks 
b) Balancing of noise requirements with other design constraints such as weight, fuel consumption, e xhaust emissions, cooling and space 
c) Improved environmental image as a sales point 4. The automotive industry 
(OEMs, tyre and supplier 
industry) 
d) In some cases, conflict with sound perception of SUVs, sports and 
                                                 
24 Single events  with high noise levels which do not determine the L DEN or L night may be a significant 
source of annoyance, for example due to faulty or illega l exhausts or aggressive driving. Single events 
causing annoyance are mainly due to engine noise, often at high and intermittent engine speeds (for 
example revving engine, fast acceler ation, noisy exhaust) and for vehicles with higher than average 
noise levels such as sports, SUV and off-road vehi cles. Another example of single events is the noise 
experienced near bus stops, construction site s or freight access roads where acceleration and 
deceleration noise is periodically repeat ed without necessarily dominating the L DEN or L night. 
 
EN 17   EN luxury cars (industry claims that drivers of such vehicle types want 
noisy vehicles) 
e) Technical manipulation or cycle beating may occur to avoid noise reduction cost/effort. 
5. Consumer market a) Cars: small price increase 
a) Price increase, mainly for lorries, trucks and buses 6. Professional marke t 
b) Some market advantage for new fleets, for example rental cars and 
vans, taxis, buses, delivery or municipal vehicles in urban environment or quiet areas. Benefits from tax incentive programmes or privileged 
access to sensitive areas. 
Table 2: Stakeholders and general effects of reducing vehicle noise levels 
Once the legislation on noise emissions has been adopted at the EU level and 
subsequently approved under the UN-ECE um brella, all Member States and all 
parties to the 1958 UN-ECE Agreement and to the associated Regulations No. 51 
and 59 would be affected.  
As the Directive is closely linked to UN/ ECE Regulations, it also has a worldwide 
impact. Countries outside the EU will also benefit from reduced traffic noise levels if the same standards are applied fo r vehicles imported from the EU. 
2.6. Evolution of the problem 
The environmental impact of road traffic noise has increased fairly continuously over 
the past 20 years and is, without a change of policy or major technical or economical developments, expected to continue doing s o. The last reduction of the noise limits 
for motor vehicles did not lead to the expected positive effects for citizens. Reasons for this are mainly the changes in vehicle t echnology and the inadequate test cycle. In 
order to reduce the negative impact on citiz ens it would therefore be necessary to 
introduce an improved noise test met hod together with new limit values. 
The main factors for the increase of the num ber of people that are highly annoyed or 
highly disturbed in their sleep by traffic noise are the increase of traffic intensities, 
the construction of new roads, the increase  of the total population in general and 
particularly the relative in crease of the urban population. 
Over the past two decades annual passenger car mileage has increased by 1.6 % per 
year on average. Buses and coaches have an annual mileage increasing by 0.6 % per 
year and road freight transport mileages ha ve increased by 1.2 %.  These growth rates 
are assumed constant in the calculation of the future impact of road traffic noise (see 
the Commission's Green Paper on Noise). Th e development of average traffic noise 
levels up to 2030 under the baseline scenario (Option 1) is presented in Figure 4. If 
current average traffic volume continues to  grow as in the pa st 20 years at 1.6% 
annually, this would result in a 1.4 dB  increase in traffic noise levels. 
As the number of highly annoyed and highly sl eep disturbed people is related to the 
total population as a function of the sound exposure, it logi cally increases with an 
increasing population. In addition, the alr eady large fraction of the total population 
living in urban areas of around 50 % will incr ease faster than the population in rural 
areas. As the population in urban areas is  exposed to higher noise levels, the 
environmental impact is expected to increase  slightly faster there than for the total 
population. 
 
EN 18   EN The construction of new roads will expose new areas and thereby new people to road 
traffic noise. The environmental impact of new road construction is however deemed 
to be small in comparison to the two aforementioned effects. 
The total amount of vehicle kilo metres is expected to increa se a factor 10 faster than 
the total population in the next 20 years. A lthough the number of quieter vehicles is 
expected to grow in the futu re, their annual mileage increas es more quickly than their 
percentage. Traffic intensity growth is th erefore the most decisive factor in the 
evolution of vehicle noise. As the latter is proportiona te to the number of highly 
annoyed and highly sleep dist urbed people, the negative  impact of road noise on 
population is expected to grow if no action is taken. 
2.7. EU right to act 
The legal basis of this  initiative is Ar ticle 114 of the Treaty on  the Functioning of the 
European Union on the approximation of laws. 
Based on this article, Fr amework Directive 2007/46/EC25, which replaced Directive 
70/156/EEC, established an internal market for motor vehicles while ensuring a high 
level of protection of health, safety and the environment. As it already harmonises 
the laws of the Member States relating to the noise emission limits and the type-
approval procedure for motor vehicles, any modifications to the Directive can only 
be done at the EU level. This does not onl y prevent fragmentation of the internal 
market, but also ensures equa l health, safety and envir onmental standards across the 
EU and offers advantages of economies of scale: products can be made for the whole 
European market instead of being custom ised to obtain national type-approval for 
every single Member State. Consumers bene fit from lower product prices, which are 
constantly under pressure ow ing to EU-wide competition. 
Given the current levels of environmental noise and affected citizens, and the fact 
that EU noise limits have not changed in the last decade desp ite increasing traffic 
levels, a change in limits to remedy th is situation is cons idered proportional. 
3. OBJECTIVES  
3.1. Policy objectives 
The general objective of the present initiative aims to ensure a high level of health 
and environmental protection for European citizens while ensuring the good functioning of the internal ma rket for motor vehicles. The specific objective is to 
reduce the negative impact of noise expos ure of European citizens caused by motor 
vehicle traffic. This concerns all new t ypes of passenger cars, trucks, lorries and 
buses which would be approved after a possibl e legislative measure comes into force. 
The operational objective is to  update the test method in a way that reflects recent 
developments in technology, driving condi tions and review and further reduce if 
necessary noise emission levels for motor vehicles. 
                                                
 
25 http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriSe rv.do?uri=OJ:L:2007:263:0001:0160:EN:PDF 
 
EN 19   EN GENERAL SPECIFIC OPERATIONAL 
 
EN 20   EN 1. To ensure a high level of 
health and environmental protection 1. To reduce the negative impact of 
noise exposure of European citizens caused by motor vehicle 
traffic  
To modify and improve the applicable test methods and 
requirements within the European 
 
EN 21   EN 2. To safeguard internal 
market for motor vehicles 2. To ensure the good functioning 
of the internal market for motor vehicles with regard to their noise 
emissions 
Table 3: Policy Objectives 
3.2. Consistency with other policies and objectives 
This initiative is in line with the Commissi on's goal to reduce the noise emissions of 
all means of transport (motor vehicles, ra ilways, airplanes) and outdoor machinery in 
order to improve the living c onditions for the European ci tizens. In particular it 
complements the previous initiatives that have addressed the i ssue of noise from 
roads such as Directive 2001/43/EC and Re gulation No 661/2009 covering tyre noise 
and the Environmental Noise Directive 2002/49/EC. 
The planned measure takes into account th e new mandatory noise limits for tyres, 
which are expected to be stricter from 2012 onwards. The initial limits were so 
lenient that most tyres fulfilled the requirements resulting in no reduction in environmental noise in the short term. An extensive study was performed by the 
Forum of European National Highway  Research Laboratories (FEHRL)
26, illustrating 
that quieter tyres are already on the mark et, and that stricter limits would not 
jeopardise safety, such as the braking perf ormance on wet surfaces (wet grip) or the 
rolling resistance of a tyre on the road which is has a great influence on fuel 
consumption and CO 2 emissions. 
The Environmental Noise Directive (E ND) 2002/49/EC, requires noise mapping of 
major agglomerations, roads, railways a nd airports, and action planning. A first 
round of noise mapping has been completed in 2008 and the END has recently been evaluated. Numbers of seriously affected  inhabitants near roads have been 
quantified, resulting in a more detailed picture of the distri bution of noise impact (see 
Noise Observation and Information Serv ice for Europe: www.eea.eionet.europa.eu). 
Earlier figures of seriously annoyed inhabita nts are confirmed, but it emerges that by 
far the highest numbers of highly exposed pe ople are in agglomer ations, i.e. urban 
areas. Given the busy traffic on local roads and junctions, and the frequent stop-and-
go driving during peak periods, the contri bution from power train noise from all 
types of vehicle may be quite significant. 
4. P
OLICY OPTIONS  
Next to the baseline (Opti on 1) four alternative optio ns were considered. All 
alternative options foresee a transition to the new test method as the old method has 
proven inadequate. The differences between the alternative options are the proposed 
limit values and, as concerns Option 4 and 5, the phasing of the limit values.  
Although it was clear at the outset that Option 2 and Op tion 3 were unsuitable for 
reaching the objectives, the full analysis of their effects was considered necessary to 
demonstrate the consequences of too little ambition to industry stakeholders. For the 
elaboration of the limit values in Options 4 and 5 the equivalent limit values derived 
in Option 3 were taken as a starting point, as these values  represent the consequences 
                                                 
26 http://ec.europa.eu/enterprise/sectors/automotive/ files/projects/report_tyre_road_noise1_en.pdf 
 
EN 22   EN of the transition to the new test method B. It was then assessed which level of limit 
value reduction would be effective and feas ible. This assessment took the percentage 
of non-compliant vehicles for different lim it value reductions a nd the impact of the 
allowances for special vehicle categories in to account. The effects of the lowering of 
tyre noise limit values were also taken into  account. Modifications with regard to the 
allowances are as proposed in Footnote 14 under section 2.3.1 for all the options but 
Option 1.  
An overview of all options and the rationa le behind their design is provided below. 
Option 1: No policy change: old test method and the existing limit values 
In this option the current limit values together with the allowances will remain valid, 
as well as the measurement method A.  
Option 2 : New test method and the existing limit values   
In this option the new measurement method B will be combined with the current set 
of limit values. The limit values stay unc hanged and are the same as in Option 1.  
Option 3 : New test method and limit values equivalent to old ones  
This option aims at the use of the new test method in co mbination with limit 
values , such that they do not lead to more se vere requirements than incorporated in 
the current test method and applicable limit values. This option foresees new limit 
values that will not modify the level of st ringency compared to the old system. The 
information used to derive the new limit va lues incorporates the differences between 
old and new test results, the regression equa tion of the new test results expressed as a 
function of the old results, th e percentage of non-compliant vehicles under the new 
limit values and the evaluation of the allo wances for special vehicle categories. 
Option 4:  New test method and reduced lim it values introduced in one stage  
Option 4 proposes new limit values in combination with the new test method in such 
a way that a reduction of the authorised noise emissions per motor vehicle may be 
expected .  
The proposed reduction of the vehicle no ise limit values aims to build on the 
reduction of tyre road noise, resulting from  the introduction of stricter limit values 
for tyre rolling noise. The reduction of these limit values will come into force on 1 November 2012. Assuming an implementation peri od of 1 year for le ss noisy tyres to 
become available for new vehicles type s the introduction of the reduced vehicle 
noise limit values might take effect from 1 January 2014. 
In order to avoid the necessi ty to change the noise em ission of existing types of 
vehicles, that have already been type appr oved, within a short period of time, it is 
proposed to put the reduced limit values into force according to the following 
schedule.  
 
EN 23   EN   Light vehicles Heavy vehicles Implementation date 
 
EN 24   EN 1 stage Type-approval of 
new types of 
vehicles - 3 dB(A) - 2 dB(A) 1 January 2014 
 
EN 25   EN From 1 January 2016 the first registration of new vehicles is only possible if they fulfil the proposed 
new limit values. 
Table 4: Option 4 – Proposed reduction of limit values 
Option 5: New test method and reduced limit values introduced in two stages 
In comparison to Policy Option 4, in Polic y Option 5 a more ambitious final target 
for noise reduction is pursued. For the shor t term, however, a less ambitious target is 
aimed for a first step of limit value re duction. This step would be followed by a 
second step in a later stag e that would reach the fina l goal. The considerations 
concerning the justification of allowances apply as well. 
Also in option 5 the proposed first reducti on step of the vehicle noise limit values 
aims to build on the reduction of tyre ro ad noise resulting from the introduction of 
stricter limit values for tyre rolling noise. The reduction of these limit values will be in force from 1 November 2012. However, a considerable number of tyres that are 
currently on the market will be able to fulf il the future limit values for rolling noise. 
As the first step of option 5 constitutes a smaller limit value reduction than the 
proposals of option 4 it is possible to carry  out the necessary development work with 
tyres that are already availa ble. Therefore the first step  reduction can be introduced 
on 1 January 2013. The second step will require  more development effort and a more 
drastic set of technical measures: this step can be introduced from 1 January 2015. 
The total reduction would be 4 dB(A) for light vehicles and 3 dB(A) for heavy 
vehicles. The proposed reduction for heavy ve hicles in policy options 4 and 5 is 
lower due to the strong influence of tyre noise for these vehicles in the new test 
method. Heavy vehicles will be required to use traction tyres on the drive axle which 
increases the overall noise emi ssions by at least 1 dB(A). 
In order to avoid the necessi ty to change the noise em ission of existing types of 
vehicles, that have already been type appr oved, within a short period of time, it is 
proposed to put the reduced limit values into force according to the following 
schedule: 
 
EN 26   EN   Light vehicles Heavy vehicles Implementation date 
 
EN 27   EN 1st stage Type-approval 
of new types of 
vehicles - 2 dB(A) - 1 dB(A) 1 January 2013 
 
EN 28   EN 2nd stage Type-approval 
of new types of 
vehicles - 2 dB(A) - 2 dB(A) 1 January 2015 
 
EN 29   EN From 1 January 2017 on, the first registration of ne w vehicles is only possible if they fulfil the 
proposed new limit values of stage 2. 
Table 5: Option 5 – Proposed reduction of limit values 
More ambitious options have not been explor ed as stricter limit values than the ones 
in Options 4 and 5 were considered to be  unrealistic under the time limits foreseen. 
The decision not to go furt her also took into account th e economic situation of the 
industry and the expected effect s of other legislative initia tives that the industry will 
have to comply with in the foreseeable future, such as new vehicle exhaust emission limits and access to repair and maintenan ce information. In order to achieve the 
maximum environmental benefit and taking into account the technical possibilities 
and the conclusions from the cost benefit analysis a noise reduction for all types of vehicles is proposed. Sectoral combinati ons like reduced limits for some vehicle 
categories only are therefore considered inappropriate. 
5. A
NALYSIS OF IMPACTS  
5.1. Approach 
The present impact assessment covers th e environmental, social and economic 
aspects of the five policy options. 
All the impacts of the 5 policy options ha ve been monetized in terms of their 
economic, environmental and social impacts based on the available data and the underlying assumptions will be explained fu rther in the report. The environmental 
impact is defined in terms of reduction of L
DEN, Lnight and single event levels. The 
social impact takes into account the influence of noise on annoyance, sleep 
disturbance, health effects and quality of  life. The economic impacts include their 
monetisation, reduced need for traffic noise abatement solutions and costs to 
industry, following guidelines on cost benefit analysis. 
5.2. Environmental impact 
Methodology 
Lowering vehicle noise limits is intended to reduce the impact of environmental 
noise on the population. In terms of current  legislation the impact of environmental 
noise is the time averaged equivalent noise level L DEN and the averaged night time 
noise level L night at facades of dwelli ngs, calculated as requi red by the Environmental 
Noise Directive 2002/49/EC. Noise le vels are presented in noise maps27 on the basis 
of statutory noise prediction models. Data from noise maps of agglomerations and 
major roads is further used to assess num bers of affected pe ople (see section 5.3: 
Social and health impacts). 
The average L DEN and L Night for typical EU roads is estimated from the following 
parameters: 
road type : those are grouped into residential road s, main roads, arterial roads and 
motorways, rural roads and motorways. The total road length for each road type in 
the EU is based on available data from Eurostat and some national authorities28. (for 
detailed overview of road types and lengt hs in the EU27 please refer to Annex 5). 
                                                 
27 EEA NOISE database (Noise Observation and Information Service for Europe) 
http://noise.eionet.europa.eu/  
28 UK Department for Transport,  German road authorities and the Dutch statistical office CBS. 
 
EN 30   EN vehicle type and speed: cars, vans, buse s, lorries and hea vy goods vehicles. 
traffic type: it can be divided into intermittent or  free flowing. The traffic type only 
varies for residential and main urban ro ads. Intermittent traffic conditions cause 
frequent variation in ve hicle engine speeds due to gear change and 
acceleration/deceleration. It occurs at juncti ons, crossings and traffic lights, but also 
in residential areas with traffic humps and obstacles, and is  known to be more 
annoying than continuous noise from a free traffic flow of similar noise level. A 
general estimate of the percentage of urban/suburban roads with intermittent traffic made for the purpose of this analysis is one third, 33 % of the total urban length of 
residential and main roads. This assu mption can be supported by considering the 
average distance required for acceleration (f rom first to third gear) and deceleration 
(often using the engine) and the average distance between stoppi ng points such as 
junctions, crossings and traffic lights. The distance affected near any junction is in 
the order of 100 meters on either side. For an urban road length of 1 km, then at least 
200 m has accelerating or decelerating traffic. 
traffic intensity in vehicle s/hour for each vehicle type  and for day/evening/night 
periods: the traffic intensity is estimated base d on available noise mapping data but 
also considering the potential variat ion in European Member States.  
a representative noise emission level fo r each vehicle type in each road situation is 
based on an existing database of urban traffic measurements
29 which can be related 
to type test results. 
total road length in the EU27: the total road length in the EU27 is 5 million (see 
Annex 5). For each road type a correction is made for the part without dwellings, for 
example farmland along rural roads and mo torways, commercial or public buildings 
on urban roads and parks and open areas along residential roads. Some roads also have traffic restrictions or  very low traffic volume. As  a consequence an estimated 
49 million, about 10%
30 of the population, is hardly exposed to traffic noise. The 
population for the EU27 is taken at 500 milli on in 2010; the numbers of inhabitants 
per dwelling are taken at 2,4, all based on Euro stat data. On that basis the number of 
road km deemed to be relevant for the anal ysis is reduced to less than 3 million km. 
average distance of dwelling facades to the road  based on the road type and its 
typical speeds and traffic flow. For arte rial roads and motorways with high speeds 
and traffic intensity, more dwellings are a ffected per kilometre than residential and 
main roads. Reflections and attenuation e ffects are not taken into account here, even 
though in some situations an increase in e xposure levels can occur such as in narrow 
streets or street canyons. For more detailed  information regarding the calculation of 
the equivalent sound pressure level at a ch aracteristic distance from the road see  
Annex 4. 
 Residential 
road with 
intermittent 
traffic Residential 
road with free 
flow traffic Main road 
with 
intermittent 
traffic Main 
road with 
free flow 
traffic Arterial 
road with 
free flow 
traffic Urban 
motor way 
with free 
flow traffic Rural 
motor way
with free 
flow trafficRural 
road with 
free flow 
traffic 
dL DEN         
Option 1  54,4 52,3 67,3 65,3 74,1 71,5 73,6 55,0
Option 2  56,2 54,1 68,9 67,0 75,7 73,1 75,2 56,6
                                                 
29 Steven, H., Investigations on Noise Emission of Mo tor Vehicles in Road Traffic, Final Report of 
Research Project 200 54 135, RWTÜV Fahrzeug GmbH, Würselen, February 2005. 
30 The population for EU27 is taken at 500 million in 2010; the numbers of inhabitants per dwelling are 
taken at 2,4 all based on Eurostat data. 
 
EN 31   EN Option 3  54,4 52,3 67,3 65,3 74,1 71,5 73,6 55,0
Option 4  51,6 49,8 64,4 62,9 71,7 69,1 71,1 52,7
Option 5  50,4 49,4 63,2 62,7 71,4 68,9 70,9 52,3
dL NIGHT   
Option 1  45,7 43,1 57,0 54,8 65,0 63,4 65,3 46,3
Option 2  47,5 44,9 58,4 56,4 66,7 64,9 66,9 47,8
Option 3  45,7 43,1 57,0 54,8 65,0 63,4 65,3 46,3
Option 4  43,0 40,7 54,2 52,4 62,7 61,0 62,9 43,9
Option 5  41,9 40,1 52,9 52,1 62,4 60,7 62,6 43,5
 
EN 32   EN Table 6 Calculated average L DEN and L night levels for policy options 1-5. Highlighted figures indicate levels 
above 55/65/70 dB(A) for L DEN and 45/55/60 dB(A) for L night which are considered harmful 
The differences between the policy options are set out in Table 7, which shows that 
the effect on L DEN and L night is quite similar, due to the fact that L night in most cases 
determines the L DEN. Option 2 shows an increase in impact due to the fact that 
effectively, higher noise levels would be  allowed (average increase 1,7 dB(A). 
 Residential 
road with 
intermittent 
traffic Residential 
road with free 
flow traffic Main road 
with 
intermittent 
traffic Main 
road with 
free flow 
traffic Arterial 
road with 
free flow 
traffic Urban 
motor way 
with free 
flow traffic Rural 
motor way
with free 
flow 
traffic Rural 
road with 
free flow 
traffic 
dL den   
Option 1  0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0
Option 2  + 1,8 + 1,8 + 1,5 + 1,7 + 1,6 + 1,6 + 1,7 + 1,5
Option 3  0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0
Option 4  - 2,8 - 2,5 - 2,9 - 2,4 - 2,4 - 2,4 - 2,4 - 2,4
Option 5  - 4,0 - 2,9 - 4,2 - 2,6 - 2,7 - 2,7 - 2,7 - 2,7
dL night         
Option 1  0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0
Option 2  + 1,8 + 1,8 + 1,4 + 1,6 + 1,6 + 1,5 + 1,6 + 1,5
Option 3  0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0
Option 4  - 2,7 - 2,5 - 2,8 - 2,4 - 2,4 - 2,4 - 2,4 - 2,3
Option 5  - 3,8 - 3,1 - 4,0 - 2,7 - 2,7 - 2,7 - 2,7 - 2,7
 
EN 33   EN Table 7 Differences in L DEN and L night for each policy option. Zero reductions or increases are 
highlighted. 
The average reduction in traffic noise levels  is 2,5 dB(A) for op tion 4 and 3,1 dB for 
option 5. These reductions are higher for in termittent traffic, 2,8 dB(A) for option 4 
and 4,1 dB(A) for option 531. They take effect only gradually, and only are fully in 
place after all vehicles are replaced, i.e. 13 years after coming into force of the new 
limits as illustrated in Figure 4. Part of the reduction may occur earlier due to the changes in tyre noise levels, especially for free flowing traffic. The level of L
DEN = 
72 dB(A) is typical along a bus y arterial road. For furthe r information regarding the 
Average traffic noise level without growth
65666768697071727374757677787980
2010 2015 2020 2025 2030Traffic noise level dB(A)Option 4
Option 5
Option 2
Options 1/3Average traffic noise level including growth
65666768697071727374757677787980
2010 2015 2020 2025 2030Traffic noise level dB(A)Option 4
Option 5
Option 2
Options 1/3
computation method see Annex 8. 
                                                 
31 Figures calculated as simple average of the values in table 7 
 
EN 34   EN Figure 4: The effect of options 1 to 5 on average traffic noise levels during 20 years without (left) 
and with (right) annual growth of traffic volume of 1.6%.32 
Time delays in environmental impact 
If the reduced noise limits actually do affect real vehicle noise levels, they will not 
fully take effect on the traffic noise until th e majority of vehicles have been replaced. 
This period will correspond to the average li fetime of vehicles, typically about 12 
years for cars. In addition, due to the increas ing amount of road tr affic, the benefits 
in terms of noise reduction may result in delayed increase in environmental noise 
instead of a net reduction. Another issue re lated to the timescale of the environmental 
impact is the mileage of cars depending on car age. New cars run the highest mileages, especially on motorways, whereas  for older cars the mileages reduce by 
more than half but run more in urban and s uburban areas. This effect is illustrated in 
Figure 5 showing the market pe netration of quiete r cars over time based on vehicle 
numbers (fleet size) and on mileage. The a nnual mileage of quieter vehicles increases 
more quickly than the percentage of quiet er vehicles. The implication is that the 
impact of reduced noise limits does not benefit urban roads as soon as might be 
expected. 
Negative environmental impacts of the measures under consideration are not 
expected, as the technical modifications required to comply with stricter limit values are unlikely to lead to an increase in  fuel consumption and/or emissions.  
                                                
 
32 TNO report: VENOLIVA - Vehicle Noise Limit Va lues; Comparison of two noise emission test 
methods Specific Contract No SI2.545143 
 
EN 35   EN Market penetration of quieter cars
0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%100%
2012 2017 2022 2027 2032Fraction Fleet fraction
Mileage fraction
 
 
EN 36   EN Figure 5: Market penetration for the percentage of quieter cars in the fleet and the percentage of 
mileage driven by quieter cars.  
5.3. Social and health impacts 
Methodology 
The social impact of road traffic noise is  commonly measured as the percentage of 
seriously annoyed people with L DEN ≥ 55 dB at the dwelling facade. The annoyance 
levels may affect quality of life and health in general. 
Quality of life covers a range of factors including concentration and speech 
intelligibility at work, home and school, which are difficult to quantify, and quality of residential, recreational and preserva tion areas, where a quiet environment is 
valued. Although high noise levels in urban areas affect most pe ople, increasingly 
effort is also made to protect some rura l areas from traffic noise, which is often 
present. 
In terms of health, links have been made  to the occurrence of  myocardial heart 
disease, hypertension and stress and sleep disturbance. Also estimates have been made of the number of Disability Adjusted Life Years (DALYs)
33 due to 
environmental factors in cluding noise exposure. 
The annoyance level has been demonstr ated to correlate well with L DEN for different 
types of traffic noise source. In a similar way, sleep disturbance is correlated with 
Lnight. For further information regarding the calculation method see Annex 7. 
The overall numbers of serious ly annoyed and sleep distur bed people in the EU for 
the different road types can be globally estimated from average L DEN and L night 
levels, average numbers of exposed peopl e along each type of road and known dose-
effect relationships. As intermittent traffic is separately quantified, the part of the 
population seriously annoyed mainly by power train noise can also be assessed. This 
procedure can then be repeated for differe nt noise emission data derived for each 
policy option resulting in the L DEN and L night levels as shown in Table 6. For single 
events such as individual excessively noisy  vehicles, less is known about their impact 
even though such events are well recognized to cause incidental annoyance. If such 
events are reoccurring, then they can be included in average noise level assessments, 
otherwise not. 
Analysis Building on the previously calculated L
DEN and L night levels, exposed numbers of 
people and the dose-effect relationships pres ented in Annex 7, have been made with 
regard to the number of annoyed, highly a nnoyed and sleep disturbe d people for each 
policy option. The results are shown in figures 6 and 7. 
                                                 
33 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Disability-adjusted_life_year 
 
EN 37   EN Millions of Highly A nnoyed, Policy Options 1-5
05101520
Residential
(urban/
suburban)
intermittentResidential
(urban/
suburban) free
flowMain roads
(urban/
suburban)
intermittentMain roads
(urban/
suburban) free
flowArterial roads
(urban/
suburban)Urban
motorways
(urban/
suburban)Rural
motorwaysRural roadsMillions HOption 1
Option 2
Option 3
Option 4
Option 5
 
Figure 6: Millions of high ly annoyed people per road type for each policy option34 
Millions of Highly Sleep Disturbed, Policy Options 1-5
05101520
Residential
(urban/
suburban)
intermittentResidential
(urban/
suburban) free
flowMain roads
(urban/
suburban)
intermittentMain roads
(urban/
suburban) free
flowArterial roads
(urban/
suburban)Urban
motorways
(urban/
suburban)Rural
motorwaysRural roadsMillions H SOption 1
Option 2
Option 3
Option 4
Option 5
 
                                                 
34 TNO report: VENOLIVA - Vehicle Noise Limit Va lues; Comparison of two noise emission test 
methods Specific Contract No SI2.545143. The de tailed values can be found in the Annex. 
 
EN 38   EN Figure 7: Millions of highly sleep disturbed people per road type for each policy option 
Millions A nnoyed and Sleep Disturbed
020406080100120140
Option 1 Option 2 Option 3 Option 4 Option 5Millions of pe oMHAn n o ye d
MHSD
M Annoyed
MSD
 
Million highly 
annoyed Million 
highly sleep 
disturbed Million 
annoyed Million sleep 
disturbed 
Option 1 27 
Option 2 30 
Option 3 27 
Option 4 22 
Option 5 22 
Figure 8 and Table 8: Calculated total millions of highly annoyed/annoyed and highly 
sleep disturbed/sleep disturbed people for each policy option 
As the above graphs demons trate, people living in urba n areas, where both traffic 
intensity and population density are high a nd much of the population lives close to 
roads, are mostly affected by road noise. 
Table 9 shows the impact of traffic growth  over time on numbers of affected people. 
The average increase in highly annoyed people is approximately 300.000 people per 
year (0,55%/year) and 100.000 people per year (0,41%/year) for highly sleep 
disturbed people. Although the effect of the reduction of limit values proposed under 
policy option 5 will be significant, the impact assessment shows that due to external factors the preferred option may not have su ch big net benefits in real life. The 
overall number of annoyed and highly annoye d people might still be unsatisfying. If 
the expected increase in traffic density in th e near future is taken into account a part 
of the predicted positive effects of th e limit value reductions will be reduced. 
 
EN 39   EN Option Highly annoyed Highly sleep disturbed 
 
EN 40   EN 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 
 
EN 41   EN 1 55 56 58 60 61 27 27 28 28 29 
 
EN 42   EN 2 64 65 67 69 71 30 30 31 32 32 
 
EN 43   EN 3 55 56 58 60 61 27 27 28 28 29 
 
EN 44   EN 4 44 45 46 47 49 22 23 23 24 24 
 
EN 45   EN 5 41 43 44 45 47 22 22 22 23 23 
 
EN 46   EN Figure 9: The predicted number of highly annoyed (HA) and highly sleep disturbed (HSD) 
people in millions for the different policy options until 2030 (Options 4, 5 with immediate effect from 2010) 
The measures under considerations are not  expected to affect employment and 
working conditions. Furthermore, no adverse im pact on road safety is expected as the 
technical measures and modifications necessa ry to comply with the new test limit 
values are not likely to affect any of the vehicles' active or passi ve safety features. 
5.4. Economic impacts 
The main economic impacts of policy opti ons 1 to 5 are the technical economic 
impact which is mainly borne by the au tomotive industry and the social-economic 
impact which is borne by society. 
Economic impact for industry 
The technical-economic impact of changing the directive is mainly for the car 
industry (manufacturers, suppliers and tyre industry) and consists  of changes to the 
test method and the limits, resulting in co sts incurred to achie ve noise reductions. 
The future noise reduction due to quieter ty res is assumed to be ensured by the tyre 
noise directive, and although some costs ma y be borne by the tyre  industry, quieter 
tyres are already available on the market for no or little additional cost and will be 
compulsory after 2016. The costs for complying with the Regulation on tyre noise35 
are not included in this analysis. 
Additional costs for noise reduction consis t of additional produc tion costs per unit 
and development-, engineering- and testing- costs, which are relevant for new models 
or model upgrades. Additional costs due to ad ministrative burden are not foreseen as 
the required manpower for testing and admi nistration will not change significantly. 
The costs for exterior noise reduction borne by industry are estimated based partly on 
information from industry, partly on expe rt estimates by the authors of the study 
performed by TNO, as very little informa tion on this topic is publicly available. The 
European Automobile Manufacturers' Asso ciation (ACEA) and independent experts 
(University of Duisburg-Essen) were c onsulted concerning additional costs in 
relation to stricter noise limits. Th e following elements were suggested: 
(1) Costs can increase exponentially for each dB extra noise reduction. 
(2) Additional costs will increase signif icantly if major design changes are 
necessary, whereas evolutionary change s using existing solutions are less 
expensive. 
(3) Additional costs will vary per vehicle type and may increase with shorter 
development time, but do not depend on the vehicle price. 
(4) Between 1-2 dB(A) reduction is pos sible with available technology. 
(5) The starting point will determine the cost s, i.e. if 1-2 dB(A ) is already easily 
achievable for existing vehicles, less ex tra development effort for these first 
dB(A) noise reduction is required. 
                                                 
35 http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriSe rv.do?uri=OJ:L:2009:200:0001:0024:EN:PDF 
 
EN 47   EN (6) Additional production costs may decrease over time due to increased design 
integration, efficiency in the produc tion process and lower component and 
materials costs. 
(7) Additional production costs are expected  to be higher than the additional 
development costs, in particul ar for large production series. 
ACEA state on their website and in brochur es that around 20 billion Euro are spent 
annually on R&D, or 4% of total tur nover, implying a total annual turnover of 
around 500 billion Euro. It is not known what  part of this R&D funding is dedicated 
to noise control, but given the unchanged limits over the past decade and the many other design priorities it can be assumed th at only a small part is spent on exterior 
noise reduction. For more information on the parameters used for the economic analysis see Annex 6. 
Scope for reduction, lead time, short and long term solutions 
According to the ACEA website, lead times  for vehicle development can be up to 5 
years, and the product cycle or time they ar e kept in production is up to 7 years. This 
implies that fundamental design changes may only come into production after 5 
years, and that all existing vehicle models will be fully  replaced after 7 years. 
Short term solutions for noise reduction for up to 3 - 5 years ahead may include 
engine tuning and speed cont rol, engine part dampi ng, shielding and enclosure 
absorption, quieter engine exhaust and inle t. These solutions ar e all feasible by 
modification of existing components and may occur within a normal development 
process. They may well produce exterior noi se reductions of 1 - 4 dB(A), although 
some recent examples are known of larger re ductions up to 8 dB(A), see for example 
the Dutch PIEK program which has encour aged some manufacturers to produce 
special versions of delivery vehicl es with very low powertrain noise. 
Longer term solutions for further than 5 years ahead may include new engine design 
or powertrain types, which generally are sought also for improvement of other 
criteria such as fuel efficiency, exhaust emissions and engine performance. As in the past, the powertrain noise ma y benefit from engine innovations such as was the case 
for diesel engines in recent years. 
The database analysis showed that for mo st existing vehicles, there is 1 - 2 dB(A) 
scope for noise reduction, based on the comp liance rates. This means that for new 
vehicle models for which the new directiv e would be applicable, larger reductions 
should be feasible, as in practice no more  noise reduction is applied than strictly 
required by the limits. 
Analysis 
For the purpose of this analysis it is assumed that for all manufacturers all the 
development costs for exterior noise reductio n typically occur within 3 years before 
production of a new model th at must comply with new limits. The additional 
production costs occur during the production cycle of 7 y ears. As all the current 
models on the market will gradually be replaced over a period of 7 years, both the development costs and production costs of all models will be distributed over this 7 
year period, with th e development costs starting befo re the introduction of each new 
model, and the additional production cost s commencing at market introduction and 
gradually diminishing over the 7 year period. 
 
EN 48   EN Additional development costs are expected  over a 7 year period during which new 
models are developed that must comply  with the new limits. The noise reduction 
must be achieved on power trains, as tyre noise automatically will be reduced due to 
the Regulation on tyre noise. Estimation formulas for both costs are deemed to be 
consistent with the available informati on from consultation. The average additional 
development cost for 1 dB(A) noise reduction is estimated at 1 man year + facility 
costs, approximately € 150000. Such costs are considered to be comparable independent of vehicle group (cars, vans , buses, lorries, heavy goods vehicles). 
The additional production cost s can be calculated from an estimate for additional 
materials and manufacturing, assumed pr oportional to the noise reduction, and 
slowly decreasing over the lifetime of th e production cycle to take into account 
gradual efficiency improvements in production. The additional production costs are assumed for short term noise reduction so lutions, but reducing to  zero after 7 years 
due to gradual integration and introduction of longer term and mo re effective design 
solutions. 
The value of additional production costs is estimated at 20 Euro per unit and dB(A) 
for cars and vans and 120 Euro per uni t and dB(A) for other vehicles. The 
differences between light and heavy vehicles can be approx imately related to vehicle 
mass. These figures are assumed to rise li nearly with increasing noise reduction but 
reduce to zero over the producti on cycle of the vehicle (7 years). All additional costs 
are deemed negligible after 2020. 
The combined costs due to development and production show that the production 
costs are generally much higher than the development costs when taken over a 7 year period. The following table shows the costs fo r options 4 and 5. The options 1 to 3 do 
not require a change in the automo tive production therefore no additional 
development and production costs are cons idered. Those are assumed to be 0 and 
Option 4 and 5 are only looked at more  closely in the tables below. 
M€ Option 4    Option 5    
Year Development Production Total Incl. discount 
4% Development Production Total Incl. discount 
4% 
2010 42,3 0,0 42,3 42,3 111,1 0,0 111,1 111,1
2011 42,3 0,0 42,3 40,7 111,1 0,0 111,1 106,9
2012 42,3 0,0 42,3 39,1 111,1 0,0 111,1 102,7
2013 42,3 1113,2 1155,5 1027,3 111,1 1608,3 1719,4 1528,5
2014 42,3 954,2 996,5 851,8 111,1 1378,5 1489,6 1273,3
2015 42,3 795,1 837,5 688,3 111,1 1148,8 1259,9 1035,5
2016 42,3 636,1 678,4 536,2 111,1 919,0 1030,1 814,1
2017 0,0 477,1 477,1 362,5 0,0 689,3 689,3 523,8
2018 0,0 318,1 318,1 232,4 0,0 459,5 459,5 335,8
2019 0,0 159,0 159,0 111,7 0,0 229,8 229,8 161,4
2020 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0,0
2021 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0,0
2022 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0,0
2023 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0,0
2024 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0,0
2025 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0,0
2026 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0,0
2027 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0,0
2028 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0,0
2029 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0,0
2030 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0,0
 
EN 49   EN Total 
M€ 296 4453 4749 3932 778 6433 7211 5993
 
EN 50   EN Table 10 Additional discounted development and production costs in million Euros for options 4 and 5 
The impact on the vehicle industry, consis ting primarily of a dditional development 
and production costs due to extra noise reduction on vehicles, amounts to 4 billion Euros for Option 4 and 6 billion Euros for Option 5. These costs are incurred over a development and production cycle of 3 + 7 years and consist mainly of additional 
production costs which are no longe r incurred after 10 years. 
A negative impact on the EU budget is not expected. 
Economic impact for society 
The main elements of the social-economic impact are perceived monetised benefits 
of noise reduction, benefits from savings on health costs and benefits from savings 
on noise abatement. Additional costs for c onsumers are already implicitly covered by 
production costs, which are then passed on  to consumers to a certain degree. 
However, the actual change in costs for c onsumers is very difficult to estimate as 
very little data is availa ble and the pass on rate largel y depends on market conditions 
and the competitive situ ation of the industry. 
In assessing the benefits it was considered most appropriate to add up all benefits as 
they are seen as largely independent. Rev ealed preference valuation does not directly 
relate to health cost savings or noise ab atement savings, as respondents are likely to 
give an opinion on the value of noise reduc tion without being aware of any health 
effects. Vice versa, health costs savings  may be made for people who place no value 
on noise reduction, but are exposed. Savings  by road authorities on noise abatement 
are also to a certain degree independent from revealed preference. Even if the 
different types of benefits are assumed to ov erlap to a certain extent, the benefits still 
far outweigh the estimated costs. Taking th e above considerations into account, the 
overall annual benefits are the sum of each  of the hedonic pricing benefits, health 
savings benefits and noise abatement savings  benefits. All of these benefits occur 
annually as a function of the noise reduction,  which takes effect gradually over a 20 
year period, with a di scount rate of 4%. 
The identified health problems linked to  the exposure to noise (see section 2.3.2.) 
lead to the following ty pical type of costs: 
– Costs of medical care (direct costs); 
– Economic production losse s (direct costs); 
– Suffering and grief (intangible costs). 
In most studies the costs are measured by means of costs of ill ness and willingness to 
pay.
 It reflects how much citizens are prep ared to pay for noise reduction around 
their homes, and variation in house prices depending on outdoor traffic noise 
levels.36 
Furthermore the studies used the net econom ic production losses, in other words the 
loss of consumption due to life lost is not taken into account. To calculate the effects 
                                                 
36 Position Paper of the Working Group on Health and Socio-Economic Aspects, European Commission, 
Environment Directorate-General; 
www.ec.europa.eu/environment/noise/pdf/valuatio_final_12_2003.pdf 
 
EN 51   EN of noise exposure for the costs of illness th e value of life years lost has been used, 
instead of the statistical life expectancy. A first hint of the potential benefits that 
could be derived if road transport noise  is reduced comes from a study calculating 
the total health costs to be in the order of 500 million Eu ro in Switzerland. Two types 
of effect are distinguishe d, one for people and one for homes. These two effects are 
valuated together with a third type of be nefit. Due to reduction in noise exposure of 
road traffic, road operators and local aut horities save on abatement measures such as 
noise barriers, quiet road surfaces and dwel ling insulation. These benefits also need 
to be taken into account in the social benefits, since th ese resources can be spent on 
other public needs. 
Valuation of noise reduction by hedonic pricing 
A recommended method to value the benefits  of traffic noise re duction is given in 
the EU position paper on valuation of noise (2003). It reflects how  much citizens are 
prepared to pay for noise reduction around th eir homes, and variation in house prices 
depending on outdoor traffic noise levels. 
The perceived benefit of noise reduc tion per household per year, based on 
willingness-to-pay and hedonic pricing calculation methods, is a figure of 
25 €/dB/household/year (2002). The benef its are calculated for the number of 
exposed persons in the L DEN calculation, which is 451 million. Assuming 2.4 persons 
per household (from Eurostat 2008) the nu mber of households affected is 188 
million. Around 10 % are assumed not to be significantly exposed due to a housing location free of traffic. 
For a noise reduction of 1 dB(A ) in 2010, when the valuation V
HP is 27 € per dB(A) 
per household per annum, for the exposed EU27 population of 451 million and an average household occupancy of 2.4 persons, the benefits would amount to 27*451/2,4 = 5074 million €/dB(A). In 2020 for an exposed population of 498.2 million and valuation of 29.80 € the benef its amount to 6186 million €/dB(A). These 
figures differ only slightly from the 2006 FEHRL report, due to differences in 
exposed population (10% less), population growth (1% instead of 1.7%) and 
household size (2.4 person/household instead of 2.45). 
The calculation is made for a final averag e noise reduction of 2.5 dB(A) for option 4 
and for 3.1 dB(A) for Option 5. The benefits during the appraisal pe riod are listed in 
the tables below. 
Benefits Costs Year Acc. noise 
reduction 
dB Social 
benefits 
M €* Health 
benefits 
M €* Abatement 
savings 
M €** Total 
benefits
M € Acc. total 
benefits 
M € Industry
costs 
M €* Acc. total 
costs 
M € Acc. net
Benefits
M €  
2010 0,0 0 0 0 0 0 42,3 42 -42
2011 0,0 0 0 0 0 0 40,7 83 -83
2012 0,0 0 0 0 0 0 39,1 122 -122
2013 0,0 0 0 0 0 01027,3 1149 -1149
2014 0,0 0 0 0 0 0 851,8 2001 -2001
2015 0,2 744 11 4 759 759 688,3 2690 -1931
2016 0,3 1487 33 8 1529 2287 536,2 3226 -938
2017 0,5 2232 65 13 2310 4597 362,5 3588 1009
2018 0,7 2979 108 17 3104 7701 232,4 3821 3881
2019 0,9 3731 160 22 3913 11614 111,7 3932 7681
2020 1,1 4489 221 27 4737 16351 0 3932 12418
2021 1,3 5255 291 33 5580 21930 0 3932 17998
2022 1,5 6033 370 39 6442 28373 0 3932 24440
 
EN 52   EN 2023 1,7 6824 458 46 7328 35700 0 3932 31768
2024 2,0 7633 554 53 8239 43940 0 3932 40007
2025 2,2 8462 659 60 9181 53121 0 3932 49188
2026 2,5 9318 771 68 10157 63278 0 3932 59345
2027 2,5 9139 880 69 10088 73365 0 3932 69433
2028 2,5 8964 984 69 10018 83383 0 3932 79451
2029 2,5 8793 1084 70 9947 93331 0 3932 89398
2030 2,5 8625 1181 71 9876 103207 0 3932 99274
  94707 7831 669 3932  
* 4% discount rate applied ** 1% interest rate applied 
Table 11: Societal benefits and industry costs of policy Option 4 in million Euros 
Benefits Costs Year Acc. noise 
reduction 
dB Social 
benefits 
M €* Health 
benefits 
M €* Abatement 
savings 
M€** Total 
benefits
M € Acc. total 
benefits 
M € Industry
costs 
M €* Acc. total 
costs 
M € Acc. net
benefits
M € 
2010 0,0 0,0 0 0 0 0 111,1 111 -111
2011 0,0 0,0 0 0 0 0 106,9 218 -218
2012 0,0 0,0 0 0 0 0 102,7 321 -321
2013 0,0 0,0 0 0 0 0 1528,5 1849 -1849
2014 0,1 637,5 10 4 651 651 1273,3 3123 -2472
2015 0,3 1270,8 29 71307 1958 1035,5 4158 -2200
2016 0,5 2044,9 59 12 2116 4074 814,1 4972 -898
2017 0,6 2822,0 100 17 2939 7014 523,8 5496 1518
2018 0,8 3604,2 151 23 3778 10792 335,8 5832 4960
2019 1,0 4393,3 212 29 4634 15426 161,4 5993 9433
2020 1,2 5191,8 283 35 5510 20936 0,0 5993 14943
2021 1,5 6002,3 363 42 6407 27343 0,0 5993 21350
2022 1,7 6827,9 453 49 7330 34673 0,0 5993 28680
2023 1,9 7672,2 551 56 8280 42953 0,0 5993 36960
2024 2,2 8539,3 659 65 9263 52216 0,0 5993 46223
2025 2,5 9434,2 776 7310283 62499 0,0 5993 56506
2026 2,8 10362,9 901 8311347 73846 0,0 5993 67853
2027 3,1 11332,7 1035 9412462 86308 0,0 5993 80314
2028 3,1 11115,9 1165 9412375 98683 0,0 5993 92690
2029 3,1 10903,2 1289 9512288 110970 0,0 5993 104977
2030 3,1 10694,5 1409 9612200 123170 0,0 5993 117177
  112849,7 9446 875 5993  
* 4% discount rate applied ** 1% interest rate applied  
Table 12: Societal benefits and industry costs of policy Option 5 
The comparison between overall costs and benefits clearly shows that the societal 
benefits far outweigh the costs to industry37. For Option 4 the accumulated total 
benefits are 103207 million Euros against 3932  million Euros accumulated costs. For 
Option 5 the benefits are 123170 million Eu ros compared to costs of 5993 million 
Euros. In 2030 the net benefits amount to  99 billion Euros for Option 4 and 117 
billion Euros for Option 5. The benefits  outweigh the costs by a factor 26.2 for 
Option 4 and 20.6 for Option 5.  
Valuation of health effects 
                                                 
37 Although industry will try to pass on these costs to the customers they have to be borne by industry in 
the first place. 
 
EN 53   EN The WHO report on valuation of tr ansport related health effects38 advises to separate 
the valuation of annoyance and morbidity (illness) effects. Annoyance and sleep 
disturbance are valued according to a hedoni c pricing principle based on the revealed 
preference method as discussed above. These do not include health costs. The health 
benefits are defined in terms of savings on costs due to illness and life years lost. 
These are valued on the basis of the Value of Life Years Lost (VLYL) and the Cost of Illness (COI). 
The estimates are derived from a Swiss st udy and scaled up in proportion to the ratio 
of Swiss population (7.6 Mill ion) relative to that of  the EU27 (500 Million). The 
annual health benefits for the EU27 then amount to 84.5 million Euros per dB(A) noise reduction, which is equivalent to 5.92 € per person per dB(A) per year. 
Benefits from abatement savings 
Benefits from savings on noise abatemen t due to quieter traffic are assessed by 
estimating the reduced effective noise levels along roads where normally noise 
barriers, quiet road surfaces or façade in sulation would be required. Noise barriers 
are typically only applicable for motorway s and arterial roads where large noise 
reductions of 10-15 dB(A) are necessary. Quie t road surfaces are a solution for all 
road types where tyre noise is predom inant, although the reduction potential is 
limited to around 5 dB for motorways and 2,3 dB(A) for urban situations. Façade 
insulation, with potentially large reduc tion potential up to around 30 dB(A) is 
applicable in all situations but is cons idered here as one of the few available 
solutions for main and arterial roads in urban areas. 
Other solutions such as traffic restrictions , rerouting and speed restrictions are also 
possible, but tend to have re latively low costs and are not  always applicable. These 
options are therefore not included in the analysis. 
The savings are calculated here assuming a cr itical noise level that requires action to 
be taken to reduce noise levels. Figures  on overall noise abatement spending are 
difficult to obtain for the whole EU as i nvestment levels differ strongly between 
countries and even within c ountries there can be large di fferences between national 
and local authority abatement programmes and available funding. There is also a difference in investment levels for new ro ads and existing ones, as it is easier to 
factor in costs for noise barriers on new roads. 
In situations where the traffic noise is a up to 3 dB(A) above the threshold for noise 
abatement, a reduction in traffic noise due to policy options 4 and 5 can enable the 
road authority to avoid some investments. In other situations it may be possible, due 
to reduced traffic noise levels, to apply qui et road surfaces instead of more expensive 
noise barriers or façade insulation. 
The benefits of savings are therefore calcu lated for avoided noise abatement and for 
reduced noise abatement. This is done separa tely for situations where barriers may be 
applied and in the urban situati on where noise insulation is used. 
                                                
 
38 H.J. Boesch et al: Economic Valuation of Transpor t-related Health Effects: Review of Methods and 
Development of Guidance, with a Special Focus on Children, Wo rld Health Organization 2008 
 
EN 54   EN Noise barriers are the conventional m eans of abatement along urban and rural 
motorways and arterial roads. It is es timated that in the EU27 in 2010, 500 million 
Euros are spent on 290 km of traffic noise barr iers. This is consid ered a conservative 
estimate  and is based on data from Germany39, also taking into account lower 
expenditure levels in other Member States. The annual benefits in terms of savings in 
situations where spending on noise barriers are unnecess ary or less expensive are 
shown for policy options 4 and 5 in Table 13. 
Bu (%) Bu (M€) Bs (%) Bs (M€) Bu+Bs (M€) 
Option 4 3,3% 16,5 10,7% 22,5 39,0 
Option 5 4,1% 20,3 16,5% 34,6 54,9 
Table 13: Annual savings on noise barriers 
Bu = benefits from avoided abatement measures, 
Bs= benefits from reduced or substitute measures. In urban situations, abatement of traffic noise on main roads is achieved with the 
application of quiet road surfaces and/or façade insulation. The an alysis is performed 
using the same approach as above regardi ng the abatement threshold, the quiet road 
surface limit and the L
DEN for the current situation. 
Bu (%) Bu (M€) Bs (%) Bs (M€) Bu+Bs (M€) 
Option 4 12,7% 16 9,8% 3 19 
Option 5 16,6% 21 10,2% 3 24 
Table 14: Annual savings on façade insulation 
The total annual savings on all abatement measures B ab are estimated for the EU27 in 
2010 at 58 M€ for policy option 4 and 79 millio n Euros for policy option 5, if the full 
noise reduction for each option were to ta ke effect immediately. As the noise 
reduction only takes effect gr adually, initial abatement be nefits are zero, growing to 
a maximum at the end of the appraisal period. 
5.5. Comparison of costs and benefits for each policy option 
The social, health and abatement benefits  are now compared to the industry costs 
based on the annual rates determined in the previous sections and taking into account 
growth effects and discounting. 
                                                 
39 Statistik des Lärmschutzes an Bundesfernstraßen 2008, Bundesministerium für Verkehr, Bau und 
Stadtentwicklung 
 
EN 55   EN Option Benefits (million €) Cost for industry 
(million €) Benefit/cost ratio 
 
EN 56   EN 1 0 0 - 
 
EN 57   EN 2 0 0 - 
 
EN 58   EN 3 0 0 - 
 
EN 59   EN 4 103207 3932 26.2 
 
EN 60   EN 5 123170 5993 20.6 
 
EN 61   EN Table 15 Accumulated societal economic benefits and industry costs of policy options 4 and 5 for 2010 
to 2030 
The comparison between overall costs and benefits clearly shows that the societal 
benefits far outweigh the costs to industr y, which are passed on to the customer. The 
benefits outweigh the costs by a factor 26.2 for Option 4 and factor 20.6 for Option 
5. 
5.6. Summary of impacts 
Five different policy options for the future  test method for vehicle noise emission and 
corresponding limit values were studied on the basis of recent vehicle test data. The 
conclusions on these 5 options for the period 2010 – 2030 are presented in the table below:
 
EN 62   EN Impacts Environmental impact Econom ic impact Social impact 
 
EN 63   EN Costs for industry (development 
and production costs) Benefits for society (hedonic 
pricing benefits, health and noise abatement savings benefits) 
 
EN 64   EN Option 1 
No policy change: old test method and Negative impact due to 
traffic increase No cost No benefits Negative impact due to traffic 
increase 
 
EN 65   EN (0) (0) (0) (0) 
 
EN 66   EN Option 2 
New test method and the existing limit values Average increase in traffic 
noise of 1,7 dB(A) No cost 
 Negative Impact 
 Average increase of highly 
annoyed people by 16% Average increase of highly sleep 
disturbed people by 11% 
 
EN 67   EN (--) (0) (--) (-) 
 
EN 68   EN Option 3 
New test method and limit values Negative impact due to 
traffic increase No cost No benefits Negative impact due to traffic 
increase 
 
EN 69   EN (0) (0) (0) (0) 
 
EN 70   EN Option 4 
New test method and reduced limit values in one stage Average reduction of traffic 
noise between:  - 2,5 and - 2,8 dB(A) 
 EUR 3932 million 
  
 EUR 103207 million  
(94707 million EUR of social benefits + 7831 million EUR of 
health benefits + 669 million EUR 
of abatement savings) Average reduction of highly 
annoyed people by 20% Reduction of highly sleep 
disturbed people by 19% 
 
 
EN 71   EN cost benefit ratio 26.2 
 
EN 72   EN (+) (-) (+) (+) 
 
EN 73   EN Option 5 
New test method and reduced limit values in two stages Average reduction of traffic 
noise between:  - 3,1 and -4,0 dB(A) 
 EUR 5993 million 
  EUR 123170 million  
(112849 million EUR of social benefits + 9446 million EUR of 
health benefits + 875 million EUR 
of abatement savings) Reduction of highly annoyed 
people by 25 % 
Reduction of highly sleep 
disturbed people by 19 % 
 
EN 74   EN cost benefit ratio 20.6 
 
EN 75   EN Table 16: Comparison of Options in terms of th eir economic, environmen tal and social impacts (++) (--) (++) (++) 
 
EN 76   EN Criterion 
 Option Effectiveness Efficiency Coherence 
 
EN 77   EN Option 1 
 Does not fulfil general 
and specific objectives because noise level is 
not reduced Option not efficient although 
it will not generate additional cost for industry as it will not 
lead to a reduction of noise 
exposure to citizens This option is not coherent 
with the general, specific or operational policy 
objectives because noise 
level is not reduced 
 
EN 78   EN Option 2 
 Does not fulfil general 
and specific objectives because noise level is 
increased Option very inefficient 
although it will not generate additional cost for industry 
because it will lead to an 
increase of noise exposure to citizens This option is not coherent 
with the general, specific or operational policy 
objectives because noise 
level is not reduced 
 
EN 79   EN Option 3 
 Does not fulfil general 
and specific objectives because noise level is 
not reduced Option not efficient although 
it will not generate additional cost for industry as it will not 
lead to a reduction of noise 
exposure to citizens This option is not coherent 
with the general, specific or operational policy 
objectives because noise 
level is not reduced 
 
EN 80   EN Option 4 
 Good effectiveness, 
general and specific objectives are fulfilled, 
acceptable reduction of 
noise levels Excellent efficiency, cost 
benefit ratio is 26.2 This option is coherent 
with the general, specific or operational policy 
objectives and would 
provide a good balance between environmental 
and economic impacts 
 
EN 81   EN Option 5 
 Very good 
effectiveness, general and specific objectives 
are fulfilled, 
substantial reduction of noise levels Very good efficiency, cost 
benefit ratio is 20.6 This option is very 
coherent with the general, specific or operational 
policy objectives and 
would achieve best the environmental goal to 
reduce the number of 
highly annoyed or sleep disturbed people 
Table 17: Comparison of options in relation to the objectives 
Option 1 does not offer any benefit fo r the reduction of environmental noise. 
Furthermore the current test method does not  have significant advantages above the 
new test method, so this option is not  recommended as it does not fulfil the 
objectives. This option is not supported by any stakeholder. 
Option 2 in fact increases the limit values, because new test method B produces 
lower test results than  the current test method. This opt ion may lead to an increase of 
road traffic noise impact of around 1,7 dB (A) and will correspond to an increase of 
the number of highly noise annoyed people by 16 % and the number of highly sleep 
disturbed people by 11% and is therefore not advisable. It would be in contradiction 
to the objectives. This option is not supported by any stakeholder. 
Option 3 may be introduced without negative consequences for the current vehicle 
fleet, but it does not produce any positive effect  for the road traffic noise impact. It is 
therefore not recommended. It  does not fulfil the objectives  and is not supported by 
any stakeholder. 
Option 4 is likely to result in a reduction of the noise impact L DEN and L night of 2,5 
dB(A) for roads with free flowing traffic. For roads with intermittent traffic, where 
power train noise is dominant, the noise im pact reduction is estimated at 2,8 dB(A). 
The noise impact reduction will correspond to  a decrease of the number of highly 
noise annoyed people by 20 % and the number  of highly sleep disturbed people by 
19%. As the economic consequences of this policy change for industry are 
considered manageable, this option can be recommended. This option will yield the 
highest Benefit-Cost Ratio (26.2). Howeve r, the positive environmental and social 
impact of Option 4 will be lower than the impacts of Option 5. All stakeholders 
support the introduction of a new measur ement method with new limit values. The 
opinion regarding the stringency of the limits  and timeframe for their application is 
differing. As can be expected industry prefers lenient limit values which are 
introduced following a long transitional period while some Member States and NGOs prefer tighter limits with a short transition. 
Option 5 is likely to result in a reduction of the noise impact L
DEN and L night of 3,1 
dB(A) for free flowing traffic and up to 4 dB(A) for intermittent traffic. The 
reduction of the number of highly annoyed people will be 25 % and the number of 
highly sleep disturbed pe ople by 19%. Also for this option the economic 
consequences for industry are considered ma nageable. The Benefit-Cost Ratio of this 
 
EN 82   EN option (20.6) is somewhat lower than for Option 4, but, as this option will give the 
highest positive environmental and social impacts, it is therefore considered as the preferred option. The two step ap proach in this option is pr eferred by the majority of 
stakeholders, including industry. As above, the position regarding the stringency and 
the transitional provisions deviates. 
5.7. Other impacts of th e preferred option 
Administrative burdens 
The administrative burden for stakeholders  is negligible. The procedure of the 
European vehicle type-appr oval system remains unchange d. Although the noise test 
method is modified, the same test track a nd test instruments can  be used. During the 
monitoring period of  the last years industry and approval authorities gathered 
sufficient expertise allowing a smooth transition from one test method to the other. 
The change in limit values as such does no t lead to an increase in administrative 
burden. 
Impacts on third countries 
As it has been assessed in the study (see paragraph 8.4 in the TNO study) the impact 
on third countries is considered to be not  significant. Even certain vehicle types 
which are not used on the European market  like the Japanese KEI cars could fulfil 
the proposed measures and there is no evid ence that the new test method would not 
be suitable or representative for these categories of vehicles. 
Impacts on SMEs 
The impacts on SMEs are negligible. The vast majority of automobile producers are 
multi national companies. Certain nich e products of smaller companies are 
manufactured in small series only which ar e exempted from the application of this 
legislation and treate d under national law. 
6. M
ONITORING AND EVALUATION  
6.1. Indicators of progress towards meeting the objectives 
It is important to monitor over time the technical advancement in the industry, in 
order to track progress towards the reducti on of noise emission values of motor 
vehicles. Accordingly, one of the key in dicators to be taken into account for 
evaluating the performance of the proposed action is the noise monitoring under the 
Environmental Noise Directive. A noise reduction of motor vehicles should be 
reflected in a reduction of environmental noise in part icular in urban areas. 
Though, these depend also on traffic intensit y, driving behaviour and other factors. 
Therefore, an additional indicator is the monitoring of the type-approval values of new models of motor vehicles. A substantia l reduction in the measured values is an 
appropriate indicator whether the chosen option has positively contributed to the 
environmental objectives related to this po licy initiative. This could best be done by 
continuing the dialogue between the Commissi on and Member States' authorities, in 
particular the automotive type-approval authorities. 
Findings from monitoring might recommend, ta king into account th e experience with 
the first step in noise reduction, devel oping a continuous strate gy of regular limit 
 
EN 83   EN value reductions until a considerably lower noise emission level is attained, that 
cannot be further reduced without fundament al changes in vehi cle technology or in 
transport modalities. By timely announcing such a long term st rategy the industry 
will be able to anticipate the future require ments in time and to build its development 
strategy for new vehicle types on this knowledge. 
6.2. Ongoing dialogue with stakeholders 
A constant dialogue with the industry, aimed at monitoring the sector and its ability 
to develop suitable solutions w ithin the next few years will  be of utmost importance. 
In view of the implementation of the impr oved noise emission requirements, it will 
be essential to monitor the market and th e development of different approaches and 
technologies towards a reduction of vehicl e noise. This includes the automotive 
manufacturers and the suppliers  for key products like tyres,  exhaust silencers, gear 
boxes, engines, etc.. One suitable way of ach ieving this constant dialogue is to rely 
on the Working Group for Motor Vehicles (WVWG), where these stakeholders are 
represented. 
The reduced noise levels of motor vehicl es are controlled and verified through the 
permanent type-approval proc ess and the development of the environmental noise 
situation is monitored by the ongoing noi se mapping within the Member States. 
 
EN 84   EN ANNEXES 
Annex 1:List of European Directives and ame ndments related to noise from road traffic 
 
EN 85   EN Motor 
vehicles 
exterior noise Directive / amendment 
 
EN 86   EN 70/157/EC
  Directive on the approximation of the laws of the 
Member States relating to the permissible sound level 
and the exhaust system  of motor vehicles 
 
EN 87   EN 73/350/EC
  Adapting 70/157/EC to technical progress 
 
EN 88   EN 77/212/EC
  Amendment of 70/157/EC 
 
EN 89   EN 81/334/EC
  Adapting 70/157/EC to technical progress 
 
EN 90   EN 84/372/EC
  Adapting 70/157/EC to technical progress 
 
EN 91   EN 84/424/EC Amendment of 70/157/EC 
 
EN 92   EN 89/491/EC Adapting 70/157/EC (e .a.) to technical progress 
 
EN 93   EN 92/97/EC Amendment of 70/157/EC 
 
EN 94   EN 96/20/EG  Adapting 70/157/E C to technical progress 
 
EN 95   EN 1999/101/
EC  Adapting 70/157/EC to technical progress 
 
EN 96   EN 2007/34/E
C Amending 70/157/EEC for th e purpose of technical 
progress; introducing test method B for the purpose of 
monitoring from 6 July 2008 until 6 July 2010  
 
EN 97   EN 2007/46/E
C Framework Directive - estab lishing a framework for the 
approval of motor vehicles and their trailers, and of 
systems, components and separate technical units 
intended for such vehicles 
 
EN 98   EN Tyres   
 
EN 99   EN 92/23/EC  Directive relating to tyres for motor vehicles and their 
trailers and to their fitting 
 
EN 100   EN 2001/43/E
C  Amendment of 92/23/EC introducing noise limits for 
tyres 
 
EN 101   EN Regulation 
(EC) No 
661/2009 Concerning type approval re quirements for the general 
safety of motor vehicles et c., including stricter limit 
values for tyre rolling nois e, that will become valid 
from 1 November 2012, 1 November 2013 and 1 
November 2016. 
 
EN 102   EN Environme
ntal noise  
 
EN 103   EN 2002/49/E
C Directive relating to the a ssessment and management of 
environmental noise 
 
EN 104   EN Annex 2:Determination of the best suitable test method 
The following key problems were looked at in order to determin e the best suitable 
test method 
(a) What will be the effectiv eness of the new method B in comparison to the 
current method A, in terms of: 
• practical applicability; 
• representativeness of the test  results for the noise emission of road vehicles under 
urban driving conditions; 
• significance of the test method: to what  extent can the new test method prevent 
that the noise emission under other operati ng conditions than the test conditions 
exceeds the test results significantly; 
• possibilities to prevent adaptation of the ve hicle and its engine control unit to the 
test conditions; 
• control of the selection of test tyres 
(b) How should the limit values for noise emission of the different vehicle 
categories be changed for the different policy options: 
(c) How should the allowances that are curre ntly in force for special vehicles 
(sports cars, off-road vehicles and ve hicles with a direct-injection Diesel 
engine) be treated under a new test proce dure with the possibility of new limit 
values: should they be maintained, replaced by new sub-categories or cancelled? 
(d) What will be the environmental, social  and economical impact of the revision 
of the test procedure together with  the related administrative changes? 
(e) Is the new test method expected to cause  problems for the efficiency of the 
noise measurements? Could the test method be modified in order to prevent possible problems? 
(f) Can the new test method guarantee th at the noise emission during other 
operating conditions than the test conditi ons does not exceed the test results 
significantly? What type of off-cycle pr ovisions can be introduced to achieve 
this goal anyhow? 
Annex 3:Evaluation of the ne w test method (method B) 
The practicability and manag eability of the new test me thod was investigated by 
means of a small enquiry among a number of  type approval aut horities that had 
submitted significant numbers of test report files for the database. Based on the response from these type approval author ities the following conclusions can be 
drawn: 
 
EN 105   EN The complexity of the new method B for li ght vehicles (M1, N1 and N2 < 3,5t) is 
approximately three times higher than of the current method A; 
• For these vehicles the new method B requires more  attention to avoid er rors and to achieve 
the necessary measurement accuracy than method A; 
• Depending on the type of measuring equipment (f ully integrated or separate systems) the 
management of the test process may be rather time consuming; 
• Method B is more sensitive to environmental pa rameters, because the test results for light 
vehicles are lower than for method A; 
• Nevertheless, method B is consider ed reproducible and manageable; 
• For light vehicles there is some ambiguity in the instructions fo r the choice of gear ratio for 
automatic transmissions: if an automatic transm ission can be locked in a specific gear it is 
not clear whether the vehicle in question shoul d be tested with lock ed gears or in the 
automatic (‘Drive”) position of the transmission. 
• For buses (categories M2 and M3) the comple xity of method B is not greater than of 
method A. 
• For heavy goods vehicles the test procedure of method B is more complex than method A 
due to the requirements for loading of the vehicle; 
• The instructions for loading of heavy goods  vehicles are not completely clear and 
unambiguous. 
The representativeness of method B for the average noise emission of vehicles in 
normal traffic is considered be tter than of method A. This is mainly due to the fact 
that method B is based on a combination of an acceleration test and a constant speed 
test. The required acceleration may be c onsidered realistic when compared to 
accelerations achieved in normal traffic. As the final result is obtained by weighted 
averaging of both partial test results, th e balance between the contributions from 
powertrain noise and tyre rolling noise in this result is approximately 50-50%. 
The consequence is that the test result is less representative for conditions with 
higher noise emissions, e.g. during fast acceleration. Moreover, as the acceleration 
test is mostly carried out at  rather low engine speeds, th e method is not very suitable 
to reveal noise emission effects that occur mainly at high engine speeds, such as exhaust system modifications.  
A concern from the Japanese Automobile St andards Internationaliz ation Center that 
test method B would not be suitable or re presentative for the special sub-categories 
of very small M1 and N1 vehicles that ar e indicated in Japan as Kei-cars, could not 
be confirmed after a comparative analysis of the Kei-car noise emission test results 
and the general test result s of M1 and N1 vehicles. 
In the available data files of the test results  there is no evidence of optimisation of the 
vehicles to comply with test method B. Th erefore the distributions of method B test 
results show a more natural tapering off to higher noise emission values than the 
 
EN 106   EN results of method A, which cut off rather sh arply at the current limit values. It may 
be expected that after a l onger period of adaptation to the new method, similar effects 
will develop. For passenger cars this may re sult in a reduction of the noise emission 
test results with 1 to 7 dB(A) and ma y concern 10 – 15 % of the vehicles.  
In test method B stricter instructions are gi ve for the mounting of tyres during the test 
than in test method A. Especially for truc ks this should result in  the application of 
representative traction tyres on drive axles during the test in stead of steering tyres, as 
is currently rather common. From the data files it appears that traction tyres were 
generally used on the drive axles during test B. A number of trucks was tested with 
several types of tyres, so an analysis could be made of the difference in noise 
emission between traction tyre s and steering tyres mounted on the drive axles. This 
difference appeared to be 0,6 to 1,0 dB(A),  depending on the type of traction tyre. 
The conclusion is that the choice of tyres on th e drive axle of trucks and the effect of 
high torque exerted on traction tyres does not have a major influence on the test 
results of heavy trucks. 
Recommended modificati ons of test method B  
In view of the observations and conc lusions discussed above the following 
recommendations for modifications of test method B can be made: 
• To delete the requirement that the acceleration during the Wide Open Throttle test of light 
vehicles shall not exceed 2 m/s2; 
• To revise the instructions for the choice of gear ratios for automatic transmissions that can 
be locked in a specific gear ratio; 
• To revise the instructions for the loading of heavy vehicles and the distribution of the load 
over the axles of the vehicle. 
Off-cycle emission provisions  
Due to the emphasis of test method B on representativeness for noise emission in 
normal traffic it is less suitable to reveal  and control the noise emission under worst 
case conditions, e.g. during fast accelerat ion and during operation at high engine 
speeds. This observation is primarily releva nt for passenger cars, in particular with a 
high rated engine power, because these ve hicles have a large range of operating 
conditions that may deviate significantly fr om the conditions duri ng the test. In order 
to control the maximum noise emissions of a vehicle in a more effective way than 
test method B is capable of, off-cycle em ission provisions are considered to be 
essential.  
The methodology for Additional Sound Emissi on Provisions (ASEP), that is being 
developed in UNECE GRB Informal Group ASEP, was studied, as well as some 
alternative methods to limit off-cycle emi ssions. This resulted in the following 
conclusions: 
• For the near future, the approach of the AS EP methodology will be the most effective way 
to limit and control off-cycle emissions of vehicles of category M1 and N1; 
 
EN 107   EN • For other vehicle categories, off-cycle emissi on provisions do not s eem necessary, because 
the test result of method B may be considered  as an adequate predictor of the noise 
emission under deviating operating conditions; 
• Both methods developed for the ASEP methodology, method 1 developed in the GRB 
Informal Group ASEP and method 2 submitted by the Netherlands, suffer from serious 
shortcomings, that prevent their immediate implementation; 
• Method 2, submitted by the Netherlands, is recommended for further development, 
because is has the best potential to match th e objectives for an off-cycle provision method; 
The recommendations for modification of ASEP method 2  
• To remove the 2 m/s2 boundary in method B (see also 0); 
• To define the limit curve of method 2 in te rms of noise emission as function of vehicle 
speed, rather than as function of engine speed; 
• To increase the 4 m/s2 boundary from the ASEP control range to 5 m/s2; 
• To expand the ASEP regulation to  partial throttle accelerations; 
• To change the ASEP coefficients from Delta = 8, Margin = 2, Slope below = 3 into Delta = 
9, Margin = 3, Slope below = 3; 
• To increase the Delta to 12 fo r vehicles with PMR > 150 kW/t; 
• To include the ASEP performance of replacem ent exhaust systems on the basis of a back-
to-back test compared to the original system. 
Further recommendations:  
• To introduce a general requireme nt that the manufacturer sha ll guarantee that the vehicle 
shall not under any operating c ondition produce a noise emissi on that cannot be predicted 
from the results of the type approval test according to method B and generally accepted 
physical laws relating noise emission to engine load and engine speed; 
• To designate the ASEP methodology as a method of testing whether the guarantee of the 
manufacturer is fulfilled, but not as a separa te requirement that would supplement the basic 
limit value requirements based on test method B; 
• To consider for the more distant future th e development and intr oduction of an indoor 
noise emission test on a test bench based on a comprehensive test cycle that should 
incorporate many different operating conditions, similar to the test cycles for CO2 and exhaust emissions. 
 
EN 108   EN Annex 4:Calculation of the equivalent sound p ressure level at a char acteristic distance 
from the road 
(1) For policy option 1 noise emission va lues are based on method A current 
limit values. For the other policy options , noise emission values are based on 
method B and equivalent limit values according to Option 3. 
(2) All vehicle categories and subcateg ories are clustered into 5 groups: 
Group 1 – Passenger cars = Cat M1 + Cat M1G Group 2 – Busses = Cat M2 > 3,5 t + Cat M3 Group 3 – Vans = Cat N1 + Cat N1G + Cat M2 < 3,5 t Group 4 – Lorries = Cat N2 Group 5 – Heavy Trucks = Cat N3 + Cat N3G 
(3) For each group the weighted average limit values for each policy option are 
determined with weighting factors base d on numbers of vehicles in the Circa 
database. 
(4) For all policy options, the shifts in average noise emission per group in 
normal traffic are assumed to be equal to  the shifts in limit values per group. 
(5) The changes of the average noise em ission per group for the various policy 
options are derived from the test results  for test B in the CIRCA database. For 
the smaller vehicles, the noise emission is split in accelerating and free flowing traffic conditions. The WOT test result of test method B is attributed 
to accelerating vehicles (intermittent traffi c) and the constant speed test result 
is attributed to free flowing traffi c. For the larger vehicles only the 
acceleration test results are available, which are used for both intermittent and 
free flowing traffic. 
(6) The actual average noise emission valu es per group in r eal traffic are 
extracted from the UBA report. In this report the noise emission per vehicle 
as a function of driving speed is ex pressed in regressi on equations both for 
accelerating vehicles and for free flow tr affic. For the determination of the 
noise emission, the speed for the small vehicles (Group 1 and 3) is chosen at 50 km/h; for buses 30 km/h and for lorries and trucks 40 km/h. The measurements on which this report is based were done in 2001/2002. In total 29767 vehicles were measured, of wh ich 21729 were passenger cars. The 
noise emission values from this are cons idered representative of the current 
noise emission of European traffic. Therefore these values are used as 
reference values for the computation of the noise emission effects of the different policy options. 
(7) The predicted increases and reducti ons of the acceleration noise and the 
constant speed noise for the different  policy options were  added to noise 
emissions extracted from the UBA report.  Options 1 and 3 were both set to be 
equal to the UBA report emissions: Option 1 because it represents the current 
 
EN 109   EN situation and Option 3 because it is tune d to be equivalent to the current 
situation after introducti on of test method B. 
(8) Option 2 actually implies an increase of the limit values because it employs 
the current limit values in combination with test method B. As test method B 
gives lower test results than test method A, keeping the current limit values in fact increases the margin for approval of the noise emission.  
(9) Options 4 and 5 imply a reduction of lim it values which is translated into a 
reduction of average noise emission values  in real traffic. For Option 5, which 
represents a two step reduc tion, only the final values have been taken into 
account. For both options the predicted reduction of the free flowing traffic 
noise for the smaller vehicles is based on the expected reductions of tyre-road noise due to the adapted rolling noise requirements that will come into force from 2012 according to EC Regulation 661/2009. For the larger vehicles, the 
reduction of free flowing traffic noise is assumed to be the same as the 
reduction of the acceleration noise. 
Annex 5:Overview of road types and leng ths with corrections for non-residential 
stretches, roads with restricted  access and low traffic volume 
Road typeAssumed % 
lengthRoad 
length 
kkm Adjustment DeductEffective 
length 
kkm %intermittent %freeflow
Residential 33,0% 1661nonresid., 
restricted or low intensity 35% 1079 33% 67%
Main 5,0% 252 nonresid. 20% 201 33% 67%
Arterial 2,0% 101 nonresid. 10% 91 0% 100%
Urban Mw
y 0,1% 5 nonresid. 20% 40 % 100%
Rural Mwy 1,9% 96 nonresid. 50% 48 0% 100%
Rural road 58,0% 2919 nonresid. 50% 1459 0% 100%
Total 100,0% 5032 2882 
Annex 6:Parameters used for the economic analysis 
In the economic analysis the following parameters were chosen: 
– Appraisal period – the start year is se t at 2010 as development of quieter 
vehicles may already commence then. Th e end year is set at 2030 (new limits 
from 2013, average vehicle life of 13 years,  this way a comple te life cycle of 
vehicles is covered); 
– A discount rate r d of 4% corresponding to the Im pact Assessment Guidelines, 
applied to industry costs C, noise valua tion and health benefits B according to 
Bd,j = B j/(1+r d)j and C d,j = C j/(1+r d)j 
 (discounted benefits B d,j in year j, Benefit B j in year j and discount rate r d) 
– An interest rate r i set at 1% (corresponding to a c onservative growth rate of the 
GDP per annum) is applied to the valu ation of noise (as done in previous 
studies), and to abatemen t savings, according to; 
 
EN 110   EN Bg,j = B j*(1+r i)j 
 (increased benefits B
g,j in year j, Benefit B j in year j and interest rate r i) 
 
Abatement savings are not discounted as  they are avoided costs, but a 1 % 
interest rate is appl ied for price indexing. 
– Population growth is estimated to be 1%. 
Annex 7:Calculation of the percentage of  annoyed and sleep disturbed people 
Dose-effect curves for annoyance and sleep dist urbance as developed by Miedema et al. and 
also described in the EU position paper on dos e-response relationships, have been used. 
The percentage of highly annoyed peopl e %HA is given as a function of L DEN : 
 %HA = 9,868.10
-4(LDEN -42)3 – 1,436.10-2(LDEN -42)2 +0,5118.(L DEN -42) 
 The percentage of annoyed people %A  is given as a function of L
DEN : 
 %A = 1,795.10
-4(LDEN -37)3 + 2,110.10-2(LDEN -37)2 + 0,5353(L DEN -37) 
 The percentage of highly sleep disturbed people %HSD is given as a function of L
night : 
 %HSD = 20,8 – 1,05 L
night + 0,01486 (L night)2  
 The percentage of sleep disturbed pe ople %SD is given as a function of L
night: 
 %SD = 13,8 – 0,85 L
night + 0,01670 ( Lnight)2 
Annex 8:Derivation of future tr affic noise emission levels 
In order to explain the computation procedure for the future noise emission levels in real 
traffic the complete derivation of one of the levels, the maximum A-we ighted pass-by sound 
pressure level of accelerating vehicles according to option 4 ( Ltraf,opt4,acc  ) is given as an 
example of this computation procedure. For ot her traffic conditions an d other policy options 
similar derivations were us ed, that may deviate slightly from the given example.  
Example Ltraf,opt4,acc  
The quantity Ltraf,opt4,acc  , the maximum A-weighted pass- by sound pressure level per vehicle 
in real traffic for accelerating vehicles of a sp ecific vehicle group for future policy option 4 is 
given by: 
) L L( L L opt, WOT opt, WOT acc, UBA,traf acc, opt,traf 3 4 4 − + =  
 
Where: 
 
EN 111   EN Ltraf,UBA,acc  is the average noise emission va lue calculated with the regression 
equation from the UBA report for accelerating vehicles of the 
relevant vehicle group 
The reduction of the noise emission during acceler ation in real traffic for future policy option 
4 is calculated from the difference between th e predicted average WOT (Wide Open Throttle) 
test result for policy option 4, LWOT,opt4  , and the average WOT test result for policy Option 3, 
LWOT,opt3 , which is equivalent to the current situation. The predicted value LWOT,opt4  can be 
derived as: 
)k /() L.k L( Lp opt. CRSp opt, Urban opt, WOT − − = 1 4 4 4  
Where: 
) L L( L L opt,itlim opt,itlim opt, Urban opt, Urban 3 4 3 4 − + =  
3 33 3
opt, CRS opt, WOTopt, WOT op, Urban
pL LL Lk−−=  is the average partial power factor that can be derived from 
the database with vehicle test results according to test B: 
testB, WOTrep opt, WOT L L=3  
testB, Urban opt, Urban L L =3  
testB, CRSrep opt, CRS L L=3  
Both limit values for options 3 and 4 ( Llimit,opt3  ; L limit,opt4 ) are taken from the table with 
proposed limit values per policy option. The mean  limit value for a vehicle group is obtained 
by weighted averaging of the limit values pe r vehicle (sub)categor y, where the weighting 
factors are the numbers of each vehi cle (sub) category in the database. 
Furthermore the predicted value of the constant  speed test result acco rding to method B under 
policy option 4 is obtained with the following equation: 
) lg(. L/) L( L(
opt, CRSopt, CRS, Engine /) opt,Roll 10
43 10410 10 10 + =  
In this equation the rolling noise contribution to the test result ( LRoll,opt4 ) is assumed to be 
equal during the acceleration test  and the constant speed test. The average value of this 
quantity in option 4 the value is based on the average value derived from the current test 
results ( LRoll,opt3 ) reduced with average reduction of tyre-ro ad noise due to the reduction of the 
limit values for rolling noise acco rding to EU Regulation 661/2009: 
tyre,itlim opt,Roll opt,Roll L L L ∆+ = 3 4  
For the C1 class of tyres the av erage reduction is estimated at -3,8 dB(A), and for C2 and C3 
class of tyres at -3,0 dB(A). 
 
EN 112   EN The power train noise contri bution to the constant speed  test result of method B 
(LPowTr,CRS,opt3 ) is estimated at: 
dB L L opt, CRS opt, CRS, Engine 4 3 3 − =  
Annex 9:Millions of highly annoyed people per road type for each policy option 
Millions Highly 
AnnoyedResidential 
(urban/ 
suburban) 
intermittentResidential 
(urban/ 
suburban) 
free flowMain roads 
(urban/ 
suburban) 
intermittentMain roads 
(urban/ 
suburban) 
free flowArterial 
roads 
(urban/ 
suburban)Urban 
motorways 
(urban/ 
suburban)Rural 
motorwaysRural roads Total
Option 1 7,2 8,7 8,4 11,2 15,5 1,1 0,8 1,9 54,9
Option 2 8,6 10,5 9,6 13,0 17,5 1,3 0,9 2,2 63,5
Option 3 7,2 8,7 8,4 11,2 15,5 1,1 0,8 1,9 54,9
Option 4 5,5 6,5 6,6 9,1 12,8 0,9 0,6 1,5 43,5
Option 5 4,8 6,1 6,0 8,9 12,5 0,9 0,6 1,4 41,3
 
EN 113   EN Annex 10:Millions of highly sl eep disturbed people per road type for each policy option 
Millions 
Highly 
Sleep 
Disturbed Residential 
(urban/ 
suburban) 
intermittent Residential 
(urban/ 
suburban) 
free flow Main roads 
(urban/ 
suburban) 
intermittentMain 
roads 
(urban/ 
suburban) 
free flowArterial 
roads 
(urban/ 
suburban)Urban 
motorways 
(urban/ 
suburban) Rural 
motorwaysRural 
roadsTotal
Option 1 3,4 5,7 3,1 5,3 7,0 0,6 0,4 1,2 26,6
Option 2 4,0 6,5 3,4 6,0 7,6 0,6 0,4 1,3 29,8
Option 3 3,4 5,7 3,1 5,3 7,0 0,6 0,4 1,2 26,6
Option 4 2,8 4,8 2,5 4,4 6,0 0,5 0,3 1,0 22,4
Option 5 2,6 4,7 2,3 4,3 5,9 0,5 0,3 0,9 21,6
Annex 11:Effect of fleet and mileage gr owth on average car fleet emission 
The reduction in traffic noise levels will be di minished over time if the fleet size and annual 
mileage grows. These affects are illustrated for options 4 and 5 in the figures below. 
Decrease of car fleet emission for option 4
69707172737475
2012 2017 2022 2027 2032accelerating
free flowing
accelerating accounted for m ileage
free flowing accounted for m ileageAverage car fleet emission [dB(A)]
 
 
EN 114   EN Decrease of the average noise emission of the whole car fleet ta king fleet size growth and mil eage growth into account, for 
option 4. 
Decrease of car fleet emission for option 5
69707172737475
2012 2017 2022 2027 2032accelerating
free flowing
accelerating accounted for m ileage
free flowing accounted for m ileageAverage car fleet emission [dB(A)]
 
Decrease of the average noise emission of the whole car fleet taking fleet size growth and 
mileage growth into account, for option 5. 
Annex 12:Tyre-road noise and power train noise contributions to test results 
Tyre road noise (= rolling noise ) contributions can be computed  for those vehicles for which 
test method B prescribes a cons tant speed test in addition to  the WOT (Wide Open Throttle) 
test. This is the case for vehicle categories M1, M1G, M2 (< 3500kg), N1 and N1G. 
For these vehicles the following test  results are reported for method B: 
Lwot rep is the reported test result of the WOT test 
Lcrs rep is the reported test result of th e constant speed (cruise-by) test 
Lurban = Lwot rep  – kp.(Lwot rep  – Lcrs rep) is the final result of test method B 
In which: 
kp = 1 – ( aurban / awot test ) is the partial power factor for urban driving.  
Based on a few assumptions it is possible to estimate the rolling noise contribution and the 
power train noise contribution during the constant speed test and the WOT test. 
The first assumption is that the measured total noise emission Lcrs rep during the constant speed 
test is dominated by rolling noi se. As a rather conservative es timate it is assumed that the 
power train noise emission ( LPT crs )during the constant speed te st is on average 4 dB(A) lower 
than the rolling noise emission: 
LPT crs = L roll crs – 4 dB(A) 
 
EN 115   EN Based on the summation formula: 
)/ L( )/ L(
repcrscrsroll crsPTlg(. L10 1010 10 10 + =  
One can derive that: 
dB(A)51dB(A)461
, L, L L
repcrsrepcrs crsroll
−≈−=
 
The second assumption is that th e rolling noise during the WOT test  at 50 km/h is equal to the 
rolling noise during the consta nt speed test at 50 km/h: 
Lroll wot  = L roll crs 
In that case is the power train noise during the WOT test: 
)/), L(( )/ L()/ L( )/ L(
wotPT
crs repwotwotroll repwot
.lg(.lg( L
1051 1010 10
10 10 1010 10 10
−− =− =
 
With the two assumptions mentioned above both the rolling noise and th e power train noise in 
the WOT test and the constant speed test can be computed. This was done for each vehicle 
and the results were averaged per vehicle category 
Annex 13:Prediction of tyre-road noise contribution to future test results 
After this step a prediction of the effects of the future lowering of limit values for rolling 
noise of tyres can be given. As mentioned in stri cter limit values for rolling noise of tyres will 
be introduced starting from 1 November 2012. The reduction of the limit values is given in 
Table. For the C1 tyres a weighted average of the limit value reductions with emphasis on the mid sized tyres is 3,8 dB(A). 
Table - Current and future limit values for tyre rolling noise. 
Reduction
Tyre class Limit value Tyre class Limit value Limit values
C1a < 145 72 70 -2
C1b > 145 <  165 73 70 -3
C1c < 165 <  185 74 C1A <  185 70 -4
C1d > 185 < 215 75 C1B > 185 < 215 71 -4
C1e > 215 76 C1C > 215 <  245 71 -5
76 C1D > 245 <275 72 -4
76 C1E > 275 74 -2
Weighted average C1 tyres -3,8
Tyre class Limit value Tyre class Limit value Limit values
C2 Normal 75 Normal 72 -3
C2 Snow 77 Traction 73 -4
C3 Normal 76 Normal 73 -3
C3 Snow 78 Traction 75 -3
Average C2 and C3 tyre s -3,3Class limit values - New Class limit values - Old
Category of use Category of useNominal section width Nominal section width
 
A third assumption is that the reduction of the rolling noise limit values will lead after a 
transition period of a couple of years to a downw ard shift of the noise emission values of the 
 
EN 116   EN complete tyre population available on the market. Also it is assumed that this downward shift 
will be equal to the average reduction of the limit values. So, after the transition period the average rolling noise emission value of C1 ty res will be 3,8 dB(A) lower than before the 
introduction of the lower limit values. 
The lower limit values will be in force for ne w types of tyres that will be introduced on the 
market after 1 November 2012. Vehicles that wi ll be subjected to a no ise emission test after 
this date can be equipped with tyres that ha ve a 3 to 4 dB(A) lowe r rolling noise emission 
than the current average. This means that the rolling noise contribu tion during the WOT and 
the constant speed test will be reduced. 
The fourth assumption is that these future rollin g noise contributions will  be reduced with 3,8 
dB(A) relative to the curren t rolling noise contributions: 
Lroll crs 2013 = Lroll wot 2013 = Lroll wot – 3,8 
If the power train noise contribution would re main unchanged one can derive the following 
relations: 
LPT wot 2013  = L PT wot 
LPT crs 2013  = L PT crs 
)/), L(( )/ L()/ L( )/ L(
repwot
wotroll wotPTwotroll wotPT
lg(.lg(. L
1083 1010 10
2013
10 10 1010 10 102013 2013
−+ =+ =
 
)/), L(( )/ L()/ L( )/ L(
repcrs
crsroll crsPTcrsroll crsPT
lg(.lg(. L
1083 1010 10
2013
10 10 1010 10 102013 2013
−+ =+ =
 
The last two equations describe the results of the two tests that merge together into the 
predicted final test result Lurban  2013 : 
) L L.(k L Lrepcrs repwot p repwor urban 2013 2013 2013 2013 − − = 
Where kp is supposed to be equal to the value in  the current tests, and may be derived from: 
repcrs repwoturban repwot
pL LL L
k−−
=
 
The predicted value of Lurban  2013 would be the test result if only the rolling noise limit values 
would become stricter, wit hout a reduction of the vehicl e noise emission limit values. 
Therefore this predicted value indicates to what extent the type approval test results will reduce without any effort for noise emission reduction of the power train, thanks to the 
upcoming stricter tyre noise regulations.