EN    EN  
 EUROPEAN COMMISSION 
Brussels, 9.12.2011 
SEC(2011) 1504 final 
  
COMMISSION STAFF WORKING PAPER 
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY OF THE IMPACT ASSESSMENT 
Accompanying the document 
Proposal for a Regulation 
on the sound level of motor vehicles 
{COM(2011) 856 final} 
{SEC(2011) 1505 final}  
 
 
 Disclaimer: This executive summary commits only the Commi ssion's services involved in its preparation and does not 
prejudge the final form of any decision to be taken by the Commission. 
EN 2   EN 1. PROBLEM DEFINITION  
1.1. Policy context 
The Motor Vehicle Noise Directive (D irective 70/157/EEC) and its amendments 
cover the requirements for motor vehicle ex terior pass-by noise under test conditions, 
i.e. they describe the testing procedure and set noise limits. The original Directive and subsequent amendments had two objectiv es. Firstly, they aimed to ensure that 
for certain categories of motor vehicles, noise limits of individual Member States 
would not form barriers to trade. The sec ond goal was to tighten the noise limits to 
reduce environmental noise. The ame nding Directive 92/97/EEC introduced 
mandatory common noise limits applicable to all Member States. 
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 so that EU pr oducers can use the same  production lines for 
these export markets as for the internal market. The test procedure and the limit values of UN-ECE Regulation No. 51 are equi valent to those of the EU Directive. 
Although the 70/157/EEC Directive succeeded in harmonising the type testing 
procedure and noise limits, it failed in reduci ng real traffic noise levels, as especially 
for cars, real conditions differ from the test conditions, tyre noise increased relative to power train noise and the volume of traffic continuously increased and it will 
continue in the future. For this reason noise  from road traffic was also approached in 
the more recent Directive 2001/43/EC a nd Regulation No 661/2009 covering tyre 
noise and in Directive 2002/49/ EC regarding the assessment of environmental noise.  
The exposure of people to traffic noise can  be reduced in di fferent ways: through 
reducing noise limits at the source, i.e. di rectly reducing noise limits emitted by cars 
or through other indirect meas ures such as tax relief schemes for environmentally 
friendly investments (e.g. Vamil and MIA in the Netherlands)
1, standards for 
acquisition of quiet deli very vehicles (e.g. PIEK2 standard), traffic restrictions (e.g. 
the low noise truck sign as required on alpine transit routes in Austria), rerouting and 
speed restrictions or noise abatement solu tions (noise barriers, quiet road surfaces, 
façade insulation). However, those measures  are most effective in technical and 
economical terms if combined with  noise reduction at the source. 
The Communication from the Commission re garding 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 re spective legislation to reduce the noise 
emissions of motor vehicles. 
                                                 
1 http://www.senternovem.nl/vamil_mia/English.asp 
2 http://www.bmwt.nl/f iles_content/Certificatie-%20en% 20toezichtprocedures%20PIEK.pdf 
EN 3   EN  
1.2. Identified problems 
Inadequate methods for meas uring road traffic noise 
The latest amendment to the vehicle noise legislation in 1995 le d 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 initial limit va lues established 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 Regula tion 661/2009 which lays down new noise 
requirements for motor vehicle tyres, the ne xt step to further reduce vehicle noise 
emissions in the future is through improvi ng the type-approval requirements for the 
whole vehicle. This includes the reduction of the overall limit values by looking at all 
noise sources of motor vehicles, from th e air intake over the power train to the 
exhaust with special consideration of th e 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 thro ttle acceleration 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 te st methodology that allows for setting of 
optimal limit values appears as the main  way forward to re duce noise levels. 
In response to the identified proble m, the UN-ECE Working Party on Noise 
developed a new test method which was pub lished in 2007 and monitored in parallel 
with the existing test method for the past  three years. The monitoring allowed for 
collecting a database of parallel test re sults necessary for assessing the new method 
and quantifying the differences between the two methods. 
In comparison to the old method the new one is design independent and corresponds 
better to current ur ban driving conditions . It consists of both acceleration and a 
constant speed test. Further differences are related to applicable allowances and the 
choice of tyres for the test. 
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 ro ad noise levels exceeding 55 dB L DEN3. This 
                                                 
3 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 
EN 4   EN 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 night4 with road noise bein g by far the la rgest 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. 
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. Over a prolonged period of exposure these effects may in their turn increase the risk of cardiovascu lar disease and psychiatric disorders. The 
2008 WHO-report ‘Economic valua tion of transport-related health effects, with a 
special focus on children’
5 identified the following health endpoints for noise 
exposure: severe annoyance, reduced sl eep quality, severe sleep disturbance, 
insomnia, ischemic heart disease (e. g. hypertension). Given the known effects on 
health, quality of life and consequential costs,  real reductions in  noise exposure are 
highly desirable. 
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 local measures. 
1.3. 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. Other stakeholders affected by the Motor 
Vehicle Noise Directive include: road authorities, local and national authorities, 
health authorities, the automotive industr y including suppliers, type approval bodies, 
the consumer market for road vehicles, th e professional market for road vehicles 
(lease and rental companies), truck, van a nd taxi fleet owners. Once the legislation 
on noise emissions has been adopted at the EU level and a pproved under the UN-
ECE all parties to the 1958 UN-EC E Agreement would be affected. 
2. A
NALYSIS OF SUBSIDIARITY  
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. 
As noise emission limits and the type-app roval procedure for motor vehicles are 
already harmonised any modifications to th e Motor Vehicle Noise Directive can only 
be done at the EU level. This does not onl y prevent fragmentation of the internal 
                                                                                                                                                         
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 
4 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. 
5 http://ec.europa.eu/health/ph_projects/2003/action3/action3_2003_08_en.htm#3 
EN 5   EN market, but also ensures equa l health, safety and envir onmental standards across the 
EU as well as it offers advantages of econo mies of scale: products can be made for 
the whole European market, instead of be ing customised to obtain national type-
approval for every single Member State. 
Given the current levels of environmental noi se and affected citizens and the fact that 
EU noise limits have not changed in the la st decade despite increasing traffic levels, 
a change in limits to remedy this situation is considered proportional. 
3. OBJECTIVES  
GENERAL SPECIFIC OPERATIONAL 
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 
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 To modify and improve the 
applicable test methods and 
requirements within the European system for the type-approval of 
motor vehicles with regard to their 
noise emissions 
4. POLICY OPTIONS  
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 old measurement method.  
Option 2 : New test method and the existing limit values   
In this option the new measurement method w ill be combined with the current set of 
limit values.  
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  stringency compared to the old system. 
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 vehicl e noise limit values by 3 dB(A) for 
light vehicles and 2 dB(A) for heavy vehicl es might take effect from 1 January 2014.  
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. This would be achieved in two stages. The first step is 
a reduction of 2 dB(A) for light  vehicles and 1 dB(A) for heavy vehicles and can be 
introduced on 1 January 2013. The second step  is a reduction of 2 dB(A) for light 
vehicles and 2 dB(A) for heavy vehicles. It  will require more development effort and 
a more drastic set of technical measures: th is step can be introduced from 1 January 
EN 6   EN 2015. The total reduction would be 4 dB(A) for light vehicl es and 3 dB(A) for heavy 
vehicles. 
5. ASSESSMENT OF IMPACTS  
5.1. Approach 
The present impact assessment covers th e environmental, social and economic 
aspects of the five policy options. 
The environmental impact is defined in terms of reduction of L DEN, Lnight and single 
event levels. The social impact takes into account the in fluence of noise on 
annoyance, sleep disturbance, health e ffects and quality of life. The economic 
impacts include their monetisation, reduced need for traffic noise abatement solutions and costs to industry, followi ng guidelines on cost benefit analysis. 
5.2. Environmental impact 
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 dwellings, calculated as required by the Environmental Noise Directive 
2002/49/EC.  
Analysis  
The differences between the policy options are set out in the table below. Option 2 
shows an increase in impact due  to the fact that effectiv ely higher noise levels would 
be allowed (average increase 1,7 dB(A). Th e average reduction in traffic noise levels 
is 2,5 dB(A) for option 4 and 3,1 dB for option 5. These reductions are higher for 
intermittent traffic, 2,8 dB(A) for option 4 and 4,1 dB(A) for option 56. They take 
effect only gradually, and are only fully in pl ace after all vehicles are replaced, i.e. 13 
years after coming into force of the new limits. Part of the reduction may occur 
earlier due to the changes in tyre noise le vels, especially for free flowing traffic. 
 
                                                 
6 Figures calculated as average of the values in table 7 dLDEN 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 
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
dLnight         
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 7   EN 5.3. Social and health impacts 
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 those rural areas from traffic noise where it is often present. In terms of health, links have b een made to the occurrence of myocardial 
heart disease, hypertension and stress and sl eep disturbance. Also estimates have 
been made of the number of Disab ility Adjusted Life Years (DALYs)
7 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. 
Building on the previously calculated L DEN and L night levels, exposed numbers of 
people and the dose-effect relationships th e following calculations have been made 
with regard to the number of annoyed, hi ghly annoyed and sleep disturbed people for 
each policy option. 
                                                 
7 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Disability-adjusted_life_year  Millio
n 
highly 
annoye
d M
ill
io
n 
hi
g
hl
y 
sl
ee
p 
di
st
ur
be
d Mill
ion 
ann
oye
d Mill
ion 
slee
p 
distu
rbed 
Opti
on 1 55 2
7 119 60 
Opti
on 2 64 3
0 133 66 
Opti
on 3 55 2
7 119 60 
Opti 44 2 99 51 
EN 8   EN  
5.4. Economic impacts 
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. 
These costs include production costs per unit and development-, engineering- and 
testing-costs, which are relevant for new models or model upgrades. The future noise 
reduction due to quieter tyres is assumed to be ensured by the ty re noise directive, 
and although some costs may 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 noise
8 are not included in 
this analysis. 
Analysis 
The combined development and production costs show that the production costs are 
generally much higher than the development costs when taken over a 79 year period. 
The following table shows the costs for options 4 and 5. The options 1 to 3 do not require a change in the automotive produc tion therefore no additional development 
and production costs are considered. Those are assumed to be 0 and only options 4 
and 5 are looked at more closely in the tables be low showing the additional 
discounted development and production costs in million Euros. 
The impact on the vehicle industry amount s to 4 billion Euros for option 4 and 6 
billion Euros for option 5
10. These costs are incurred over a development and 
production cycle of 3 + 7 years and consis t mainly of additional production costs 
which are no longer incurred after 10 years. 
                                                 
8 http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriSe rv.do?uri=OJ:L:2009:200:0001:0024:EN:PDF 
9 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. 
10 As required by the Commission Impact Assessment Guidelines, industry costs have been discounted at 
an annual rate of 4% as they  are incurred in the future.  on 4 2
Opti
on 5 41 2
2 95 49 
EN 9   EN 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
Total M€ 296 4453 4749 3932 778 6433 7211 5993
Economic impact for society 
The main elements of the social-econom ic impact are (1) perceived monetised 
benefits of noise reduction, (2) benefits from  savings on health costs and (3) benefits 
from savings on noise abatement. Taking th e above considerati ons into account, the 
overall annual benefits are the sum of each  of the hedonic pricing benefits, health 
savings benefits and noise abatement sa vings benefits. The identified health 
problems linked to the exposure to noise lead to the following typical type of costs: 
(1) Costs of medical care (direct cost s), (2) Economic production losses (direct 
costs), (3) Suffering and gr ief (intangible costs). 
Valuation of noise reduction by hedonic pricing 
In order to value the benefits of traffic noise reduction the method given in the EU 
position paper on valuation of noise (2003) was used. It reflects how much citizens 
are prepared to pay for noise reducti on around their homes, and variation in house 
prices depending on outdoor traffic noise levels11. 
Valuation of health effects 
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.
                                                
 
11 The perceived benefit of noise reduction per household per year, based on willingness-to-pay and 
hedonic pricing calculation methods, is a figure of 25 €/dB/household/year (2002). The benefits are 
calculated for the number of exposed persons in the L DEN calculation, which is 451 million. 
EN 10   EN 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 
barriers12, quiet road surfaces13 or façade insulation14 would be required. The total 
annual savings on all abatement measures are estimated for the EU27 in 2010 at 58 
million Euros for policy option 4 and 79 million 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.. 
6. COMPARISON OF OPTIONS  
Comparison of Options in terms of th eir economic, environmental and social 
impacts. 
Economic impact  
 Impacts  
 
  Option
 Environmental 
impact  
Costs for 
industry 
(deve
lopment 
and 
productio
n 
costs)
 Benefits 
for 
society (hedonic 
pricing 
benefits, health 
and noise 
abatement savings 
benefits)
 Social impact
 
 
Negative 
impact due to 
traffic increase
 No 
cost No benefits
 Negative impact due 
to traffic increase
 Option 1  
No policy 
change: old test method and the existing limit values 
(0) (0) (0) (0) 
                                                 
12 Noise barriers are typically only applicable fo r motorways and arterial roads where large noise 
reductions of 10-15 dB(A) are necessary. 
13 Quiet road surfaces are a solution for all road types where tyre noi se is predominant, although the 
reduction potential is limited to around 5 dB for motorways and 2.3 dB(A) for urban situations. 
14 Façade insulation, with pot entially large reduction pote ntial up to around 30 dB(A) is applicable in all 
situations but is considered here as one of the few available solutions for main and arterial roads in 
urban areas. 
EN 11   EN 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% Option 2  
New test 
method and the existing limit values 
(--) (0) (--) (-) 
Negative 
impact due to traffic 
increase
 No 
cost No benefits
 Negative impact due to traffic 
increase
 Option 3  
New test 
method and limit values equivalent to old ones 
(0) (0) (0) (0) 
EUR 
3932 milli
on
 
 
 EUR 
103207 million 
 
(94707 
million EUR of social benefits + 7831 million EUR of health benefits + 669 million EUR of abatement savings) Average 
reduction of traffic noise 
between: 
 
- 2,5 and - 
2,8 dB(A) 
    
 
cost benefit ratio 26.2  Average 
reduction of highly 
annoyed 
people by 20%
 
Reduction 
of highly sleep disturbed people by 19% 
    Option 4  
New test 
method and reduced limit values in one stage 
(+) (-) (+) (+) 
EN 12   EN EUR 
5993 
milli
on 
 EUR 
123170 
million  
(112849 
million EUR of social benefits + 9446 million EUR of health benefits + 875 million EUR of abatement savings) Average 
reduction of 
traffic noise 
between:  
- 3,1 and -
4,0 dB(A) 
 
 
cost benefit ratio 20.6  Reduction 
of highly 
annoyed 
people by 25 %
 
Reduction 
of highly sleep disturbed people by 19 % 
  Option 5  
New test 
method and reduced limit values in two stages
(++) (--) (++) (++) 
7. MONITORING AND EVALUATION  
One of the key indicators to be taken into account for evaluating the performance of 
the proposed action is the noise mon itoring under the Environmental Noise 
Directive. A noise reduction of motor vehicl es should be reflected in a reduction of 
environmental noise in particular in urban areas. An additional indicator is the monitoring of the type-a pproval values of new mode ls of motor vehicles. A 
substantial reduction in the measured values  is an appropriate indicator whether the 
chosen option has positively contributed to  the environmental objectives related to 
this policy initiative. Findings from monitoring might recommend developing a 
continuous strategy of regular limit value reductions until a considerably lower noise 
emission level is attained, that cannot be further reduced without fundamental 
changes in vehicle technology or in transport modalities. 
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.