COMMISSION STAFF WORKING PAPER IMPACT ASSESSMENT
Date: 2011-12-09
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: motor vehicle, motor vehicle pollution, noise level, noise protection, public health, road transport

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 European Parliament and of the Council 

on the sound level of motor vehicles 

{COM(2011) 856 final} 
{SEC(2011) 1504 final} 

EN 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
  
 
Disclaimer: This report commits only the Commission'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 

 
 
 
 
 
TABLE OF CONTENTS 

1. 

1.1. 

1.2. 

1.3. 

1.4. 

2. 

2.1. 

2.2. 

2.3. 

Procedural issues and consultation of interested parties .............................................. 6 

Identification ................................................................................................................ 6 

Organisation and timing............................................................................................... 6 

Consultation and expertise ........................................................................................... 6 

Scrutiny by the Impact Assessment Board................................................................... 7 

Problem definition........................................................................................................ 8 

Policy context: purpose and development of the Motor Vehicle Noise Directive....... 8 

Sources of road noise and ways to reduce noise emissions ......................................... 9 

The problem that requires action................................................................................ 11 

2.3.1. 

Inadequate methods for measuring 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 contributors related to the problem ...................................... 15 

2.5.  Who is affected, in what ways and to what extent? ................................................... 16 

2.6. 

2.7. 

3. 

3.1. 

3.2. 

4. 

5. 

5.1. 

5.2. 

5.3. 

5.4. 

5.5. 

5.6. 

5.7. 

6. 

Evolution of the problem ........................................................................................... 17 

EU right to act ............................................................................................................ 18 

Objectives................................................................................................................... 18 

Policy objectives ........................................................................................................ 18 

Consistency with other policies and objectives ......................................................... 21 

Policy options............................................................................................................. 21 

Analysis of impacts .................................................................................................... 29 

Approach .................................................................................................................... 29 

Environmental impact ................................................................................................ 29 

Social and health impacts........................................................................................... 36 

Economic impacts ...................................................................................................... 46 

Comparison of costs and benefits for each policy option .......................................... 54 

Summary of impacts .................................................................................................. 61 

Other impacts of the preferred option ........................................................................ 82 

Monitoring and evaluation ......................................................................................... 82 

EN 

3 

   EN 

 
6.1. 

6.2. 

Indicators of progress towards meeting the objectives .............................................. 82 

Ongoing dialogue with stakeholders.......................................................................... 83 

ANNEXES ............................................................................................................................... 84 

Annex 1:List of European Directives and amendments related to noise from road traffic...... 84 

Annex 2:Determination of the best suitable test method ....................................................... 104 

Annex 3:Evaluation of the new test method (method B) ....................................................... 104 

Annex 4:Calculation of the equivalent sound pressure level at a characteristic distance from 

the road..................................................................................................................... 108 

Annex 5:Overview of road types and lengths with corrections for non-residential stretches, 

roads with restricted access 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 traffic 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 people per road type for each policy option ... 113 

Annex 11:Effect of fleet and mileage growth 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 contribution to future test results ............................ 115 

EN 

4 

   EN 

 
INTRODUCTION 

This  initiative  has  two  kinds  of  background,  firstly  EU  policies  to  reduce  noise  emissions 
from different sources and secondly the type approval legislation for motor vehicles aimed at 
smooth functioning of the internal market. 

Noise  limits  for  four-wheel  motor  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 approval for a vehicle type in one Member State 
if it meets the Community technical requirements and then market it EU-wide with no need 
for  further  tests  or  checks.  Registration  must  be  granted  on  simple  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 technology, driving behaviour and the amount of road 
traffic,  the  measurement  method  does  not  reflect  real  driving  behaviour  anymore1.  The 
UN/ECE noise expert group therefore decided that, before reducing the limits once again, it is 
first necessary to develop a new test cycle and bring the driving conditions 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  harmonized  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  higher  level  of  protection  of  EU 
citizens through further EU-wide measures became more imminent. The Commission's Green 
Paper  on  Noise  from  19963  estimated  that  around  20  percent  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 urban areas is exposed to noise levels 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 

2 

3 

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 National Road and Transport Research 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. Steven, 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, Geluidemissie van personenauto’s in stedelijk verkeer – 
De kwaliteit van de typekeuring en het effect van wijzigingen van grenswaarde 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 Geräuschemissionsmessverfahren für Kraftfahrzeuge – Pkw, Fige-bericht 
84-105 02 410/03, November 1984. 
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 
Green Paper on Future Noise Policy (COM(96) 540) 

EN 

5 

   EN 

 
                                                 
Over  the  years,  considerable  research  effort,  including  large  EU-funded  projects,  has  been 
dedicated to the quantitative assessment of the relationship between environmental noise and 
its  effects.  Although  the  approaches  and  the  scope  of  the  various  studies  differ,  common 
ground can be found in terms of harmful effects and annoyance that noise generates. 

The Communication from the Commission 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 reduce 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 Reference: 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  Assessment  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 incorporated 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  applicable  type  approval  test  method  for  noise 
emissions  from  vehicles  (hereafter  referred  to  as  test  method)  and  a  proposed  new 
test method. The goal of the study was to assess 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  used  for  the  purposes  of  the 
investigation,  of  the  results  that  were  achieved  and  of  the  conclusions  and 
recommendations concerning the necessary or possible changes to the noise emission 
type approval legislation, aiming at a procedure that will be effective and efficient in 
terms  of  environmental,  social  and  economic  impacts.  The  European  Automobile 
Manufacturers'  Association  (ACEA)  and  the  International  Organization  of  Motor 
Vehicle  Manufacturers  (OICA)  were  consulted  throughout  the  elaboration  of  the 
report. The findings of the interim report and the final report have been presented to 
all stakeholders on several occasions. 

A  targeted  consultation  was  organized  for  the  purposes  of  this  initiative  due  to  its 
technical  character.  Sufficient  feedback  was  received  since  1990  through  ongoing 
dialogue  with  all  relevant  stakeholders  through  their  participation  at  the  different 

EN 

6 

   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  Agreement6  (different  ministries  and 
authorities from Member States, suppliers of vehicles, suppliers of parts, consumers, 
type  approval  authorities,  trade  unions,  NGOs),  the  Commission's  advisory  Motor 
Vehicle  Working  Group  (MVWG)7  and  the  Commission's  legislative  Committee 
(TCMV).  During  this  process  the  industry  supported  the  introduction  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 stringency is divided between the different interest groups. 

Industry supports the step wise approach proposed in the impact assessment report. 
Nevertheless  some  manufacturers  claim  that  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  manufacturers  have  expressed  a  divergent 
opinion concerning the necessary cost to develop 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 industry 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  considered.  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  support  for  the  new  measurement  method.  The 
planned reduction of limit values got positive feedback as well, taking into account 
that  in  some  Member  States  the  decision  process  is  not  yet  finalised.  Transport  & 
Environment,  a  European  association  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 European Commission assessed a draft version 
of the present impact assessment and issued its opinion on 04/02/2011. The Impact 

4 
5 

6 

7 

United Nations Economic Commission for Europe 
The Working Party on Noise (GRB) is the subsidiary body of the World Forum for Harmonization of 
Vehicle Regulations (WP.29) within UN/ECE 
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 
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 

7 

   EN 

 
                                                 
Assessment Board made several recommendations 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 levels individually. The legislations often varied from 
one Member State to another and manufacturers producing for several markets were 
obliged to adapt their products for each market and have their vehicles tested in each 
Member  State.  This  was  time-consuming  and  costly.  Different  national  rules 
consequently hindered trade, and had a negative 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  (for  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  describe  the  testing  procedure  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 form barriers to trade. The second goal was 
to  tighten  the  noise  limits  to  reduce  environmental  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. 

]
)

(

A
B
d
[

m
5
.
7

t
a

p
L

95

90

85

80

75

70

EN 

Type approval noise limits

Passenger car
Delivery van < 2t
Small lorry
Heavy lorry

01/10/1982

01/10/1985 01/10/1989

01/10/1996

1970

1975

1980

1985

1990

1995

2000

2005

Year

8 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
 
 
Figure 1:  Development of EU road vehicle type approval 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 emission 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  European  Community  acceded  to  the 
Agreement  of  the  United  Nations  Economic  Commission  for  Europe  (UN/ECE) 
concerning  the  adoption  of  uniform  technical  prescriptions  for  wheeled  vehicles. 
This ensures that the EU vehicle type approval 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 export 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 the type testing procedure 
and noise limits, it failed in reducing real traffic noise levels, as especially for cars 
real driving conditions differ from the test conditions, tyre noise increased relative to 
power  train  noise  and  the  volume  of  traffic  continuously  increased.  For  this  reason 
noise  from  road  traffic  was  also  approached  by  the  more  recent  Directive 
2001/43/EC  and  Regulation  No  661/2009  covering  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 transport 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  which  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 reduced 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.  Vamil  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 

9 

10 
11 

TNO  report:  VENOLIVA  -  Vehicle  Noise  Limit  Values;  Comparison  of  two  noise  emission  test 
methods Specific Contract No SI2.545143 
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 vehicles and all new tyres. As the tyre noise test is 
conducted under different test conditions and in particular with a different speed the results of the tyre 
noise test is not directly comparable to the results of the vehicle noise test. 
http://www.senternovem.nl/vamil_mia/English.asp 
http://www.bmwt.nl/files_content/Certificatie-%20en%20toezichtprocedures%20PIEK.pdf 

EN 

9 

   EN 

 
                                                 
speed  restrictions  or  noise  abatement  solutions  (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 designed to hamper noise propagation.  

The effect of limit changes on vehicle noise levels under real conditions depends on 
whether  tyre  or  power  train  noise  is  dominant,  which  in  turn  depends  on  road 
surface,  vehicle  design,  operating  condition  (see  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. Health effects, social costs and technical and policy 
options to reduce road and rail traffic noise. 

EN 

10 

   EN 

 
 
 
                                                 
Figure 2: 

Illustrative  example  of  the  contribution  of  power  train  and  tyre/road  noise  source  of  an 

average,  moderately  accelerating  passenger  car  with  a  five  speed  gearbox,  as  function  of 

vehicle speed. The green line indicates the approximate speed of the type test.13 

2.3. 

The problem that requires action 

2.3.1. 

Inadequate methods for measuring road traffic noise 

As it has been mentioned earlier, the permissible sound level of road vehicles are laid 
down  in  the  Motor  Vehicle  Noise  Directive  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  initial  limit  values  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 level 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  traffic,  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 General Safety Regulation in 200914 which lays down 
improved noise requirements for motor vehicle 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 all 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  acceleration  of  the  test  vehicle.  However,  this 
does  no  longer  reflect  the  real  life  driving  behaviour.  Due  to  changes  in  vehicle 
technology  and  the  increase  in  traffic,  partial  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 published 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  years15.  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 

14 

15 

TNO  report:  VENOLIVA  -  Vehicle  Noise  Limit  Values;  Comparison  of  two  noise  emission  test 
methods Specific Contract No SI2.545143 
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 
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 

11 

   EN 

 
                                                 
only the results of the current test protocol have been taken into consideration. The 
monitoring  procedure  allowed  collecting  a  database  of  parallel  test  results  which 
provides a solid basis for assessing the new method and quantifying the differences 
between the two methods. 

The differences between the current type approval test method (hereafter referred to 
as  A)  and  the  proposed  new  test  method  (hereafter  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 develop 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  such  a  speed,  that  after  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. 

track,  microphone  positions, 
Although  most  measurement  conditions 
meteorological  conditions,  etc.)  are  equal  to  method  A,  there  are  some  differences 
between the two methods: 

(test 

Method B adds a constant speed component to the acceleration component. 

To  allow  for  measurement  inaccuracies  in  method  A,  all  measured  sound  levels 
(intermediate  results)  have  to  be  reduced  by  1  dB(A),  whereas  in  method  B  all 
intermediate results are rounded to the first decimal and no reduction is applied at all. 

In method A the minimum required tyre tread depth is 1.6mm, whereas in method B 
the tread depth has to be at least 80% of the full depth. This can result in an increase 
of  several  dB  of  the  tyre-road  noise  component,  especially  for  tyres  with  a  rough 
tread pattern. For further information 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 
17 

http:// OJ L 137/68, 30.05.2007 
The noise emission requirements as currently formulated 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 support in the database and shall be maintained. An 
accumulation of allowances shall not be applied. 

EN 

12 

   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 population living in agglomerations with more than 250 000 
18.  This 
inhabitants)  are  exposed  to  daily  road  noise  levels  exceeding  55  dB  LDEN
figure  is  a  commonly  established  'threshold  value'  above  which  there  is  a  higher 
likelihood of adverse health effects. Almost 48 million people are exposed to levels 
19 with road noise being by far the largest source of exposure 
exceeding 50 dB Lnight
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 again is the main source of transport noise 
hot spots in these agglomerations.  

Since  2000  a  number  of  studies  have  investigated  in  more  detail  annoyance  and 
health effects from road traffic noise20 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  disturbance  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 adrenaline), which may lead to a variety of 
intermediate effects, including increased blood pressure. Over a prolonged period of 
exposure  these  effects  may  in  their  turn  increase  the  risk  of  cardiovascular  disease 
and psychiatric disorders. The degree to which noise leads to disturbance, annoyance 
and  stress  depends  partly  on  individual  characteristics,  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 

19 

20 

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 are so much larger than 
other vehicle types that they tend to determine the overall LDEN 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 LDEN. 
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 significant night time freight traffic such as some motorways, lorries and 
heavy goods vehicles can sometimes dominate the Lnight. 
E.g.  Knol,  A.B.,  Staatsen,  B.A.M.,  Trends  in  the  environmental  burden  of  disease  in  the  Netherlands 
2005; 
1980 
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  Directorate-General,  Brussels,  4  December  2003; 
WWW.EC.EUROPA.EU/ENVIRONMENT/NOISE/PDF/VALUATIO_FINAL_12_2003.PDF 
Position  paper  on  dose  response  relationships  between  transportation  noise  and  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, World Health Organization 2008. 

500029001,  Bilthoven, 

The  Netherlands, 

2020,  RIVM 

report 

– 

EN 

13 

   EN 

 
                                                 
Following  the  2008  WHO-report  ‘Economic  valuation  of  transport-related  health 
effects, with a special focus on children’21, societal benefits for noise exposure can 
be  identified  for  various  health  endpoints.  These  health  endpoints  are:  severe 
annoyance, sleep quality, severe sleep disturbance, insomnia, ischemic heart disease 
(such as myocardial heart disease, hypertension), 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  time  road  traffic  noise  can  be  various,  as 
shown  in  Figure  3.  The  relation  is  shown  between  increasing  noise  levels  at  night 
Lnight  and  numbers  of  additional  awakenings  per  year,  percentage  increase  in  heart 
attacks,  percentage  increase  in  average  sleep  motility  and  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 Lnight (outside) 

Health effects observed in the population 

Up to 30 dB 

30-40 dB 

40-55 dB 

Above 55 dB 

No effects observed 

Modest  effects 
arousals,  self-reported  sleep  disturbance.  Children, 
chronically ill and the elderly are more susceptible. 

including  body  movements,  awakening, 
the 

Adverse  health  effects  observed  among  exposed  population. 
Many  people  have  to  adapt.  Vulnerable  groups  are  more 
severely affected. 

Frequent  adverse  health  effects.  A  high  proportion  of  the 
population  is  highly  annoyed  and  sleep-disturbed.  There  is 
evidence that the risk of cardiovascular disease increases. 

Table 1: 

Health effects observed in the population22 

21 
22 

http://ec.europa.eu/health/ph_projects/2003/action3/action3_2003_08_en.htm#3 
Night Noise Guidelines for Europe, WHO report 2009 

EN 

14 

   EN 

 
 
                                                 
Figure 3: 

Effects  of  road  traffic  noise  at  night.  Average  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  test  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 citizens. This could be the introduction of special zones only 
accessible for low noise vehicles or other local measures as described in section 2.2.. 

2.4. 

Underlying drivers and contributors related to the problem 

Since the introduction of the Directive, a series 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, resulting in higher noise emission. 

•  Increased weight of cars due to high power and additional structural 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 friendly and alternatively powered vehicles 
such  as  hybrid,  bio  fuel,  fuel  cell,  hydrogen  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 technology allows the further reduction of noise levels. 

•  Reduction  of  power  train  noise  due  to  improved  engine  design,  including 
techniques  such  as  electronic  engine  control,  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  reduced  to  levels 
comparable with those of petrol engines. 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 environmental 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  Values;  Comparison  of  two  noise  emission  test 
methods Specific Contract No SI2.545143 

EN 

15 

   EN 

 
 
                                                 
•  Extensive  research  including  EU  projects,  resulting  in  detailed  knowledge  on 
noise  reduction,  research  road  mapping  but  also  environmental  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  safety,  exhaust  emissions,  noise  and  others, 

resulting in complex and interacting 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 which they are affected depends 
on  the  noise  levels  considered:  daytime  level  LDEN,  night  level  Lnight  or  individual 
events24. Other stakeholders affected by the Motor Vehicle Noise Directive include: 
road  authorities,  local  and  national  authorities,  health  authorities,  the  automotive 
industry including suppliers and 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  the  test  method,  are  likely  to  affect  the  above  listed 
stakeholders in a different way as outlined below: 

Stakeholder 

1. The public affected by 
road traffic noise 

2. Road authorities, 
national and local 
authorities 

3. Health authorities and 
government 
4. The automotive industry 
(OEMs, tyre and supplier 
industry) 

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 
c) Improved living, work and recreation environment 
a)  Reduced  need  for  noise  abatement  programmes  (barriers,  road 
surfaces, sound insulation) and cost saving: easier planning of new or 
upgraded roads 
b) Less local protest 
c) Less need for regulation and enforcement 
a) Reduced healthcare costs 

a) Increased costs for extra noise control 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, exhaust emissions, cooling and space 
c) Improved environmental image as a sales point 
d) In some cases, conflict with sound perception of SUVs, sports and 

24 

Single  events  with  high  noise  levels  which  do  not  determine  the  LDEN  or  Lnight  may  be  a  significant 
source of annoyance, for example due to faulty or illegal 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  acceleration,  noisy  exhaust)  and  for  vehicles  with  higher  than  average 
noise levels such as sports, SUV and off-road vehicles. Another example of single events is the noise 
experienced  near  bus  stops,  construction  sites  or  freight  access  roads  where  acceleration  and 
deceleration noise is periodically repeated without necessarily dominating the LDEN or Lnight. 

EN 

16 

   EN 

 
                                                 
5. Consumer market 
6. Professional market 

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. 
a) Cars: small price increase 
a) Price increase, mainly for lorries, trucks and buses 
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  umbrella,  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 for 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 so. 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 technology and the inadequate test cycle. In 
order  to  reduce  the  negative  impact  on  citizens  it  would  therefore  be  necessary  to 
introduce an improved noise test method together with new limit values. 

The main factors for the increase of the number 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 increase 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 have 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). The 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  past  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 sleep disturbed people is related to the 
total  population  as  a  function  of  the  sound  exposure,  it  logically  increases  with  an 
increasing  population.  In  addition,  the  already  large  fraction  of  the  total  population 
living in urban areas of around 50 % will increase 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 

17 

   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 kilometres is expected to increase a factor 10 faster than 
the total population in the next 20 years. Although the number of quieter vehicles is 
expected to grow in the future, their annual mileage increases more quickly than their 
percentage.  Traffic  intensity  growth  is  therefore  the  most  decisive  factor  in  the 
evolution  of  vehicle  noise.  As  the  latter  is  proportionate  to  the  number  of  highly 
annoyed  and  highly  sleep  disturbed  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 Article 114 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the 
European Union on the approximation of laws. 
Based on this article, Framework 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  only  prevent  fragmentation  of  the  internal 
market, but also ensures equal health, safety and environmental standards across the 
EU and offers advantages of economies of scale: products can be made for the whole 
European  market  instead  of  being  customised  to  obtain  national  type-approval  for 
every single Member State. Consumers benefit from lower product prices, which are 
constantly under pressure owing 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  despite  increasing  traffic 
levels, a change in limits to remedy this situation is considered 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  market  for  motor  vehicles.  The  specific  objective  is  to 
reduce the negative impact of noise exposure of European citizens caused by motor 
vehicle  traffic.  This  concerns  all  new  types  of  passenger  cars,  trucks,  lorries  and 
buses which would be approved after a possible legislative measure comes into force. 
The  operational  objective  is  to  update  the  test  method  in  a  way  that  reflects  recent 
developments  in  technology,  driving  conditions  and  review  and  further  reduce  if 
necessary noise emission levels for motor vehicles. 

25 

http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:L:2007:263:0001:0160:EN:PDF 

EN 

18 

   EN 

 
                                                 
GENERAL 

SPECIFIC 

OPERATIONAL 

EN 

19 

   EN 

 
1.  To  ensure  a  high  level  of 

1. To reduce the negative impact of 

health 

and 

environmental 

noise 

exposure 

of  European 

To  modify  and 

improve 

the 

protection 

citizens  caused  by  motor  vehicle 

applicable 

test  methods 

and 

traffic 

requirements  within  the  European 

EN 

20 

   EN 

 
 
2.  To 

safeguard 

internal 

2.  To  ensure  the  good  functioning 

market for motor vehicles 

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 Commission's goal to reduce the noise emissions of 
all means of transport (motor vehicles, railways, airplanes) and outdoor machinery in 
order  to  improve  the  living  conditions  for  the  European  citizens.  In  particular  it 
complements  the  previous  initiatives  that  have  addressed  the  issue  of  noise  from 
roads such as Directive 2001/43/EC and Regulation No 661/2009 covering tyre noise 
and the Environmental Noise Directive 2002/49/EC. 

The  planned  measure  takes  into  account  the  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  market,  and  that  stricter  limits  would  not 
jeopardise safety, such as the braking performance 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 CO2 emissions. 

The  Environmental  Noise  Directive  (END)  2002/49/EC,  requires  noise  mapping  of 
major  agglomerations,  roads,  railways  and  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 distribution of noise impact (see 
Noise Observation and Information Service for Europe: www.eea.eionet.europa.eu). 
Earlier figures of seriously annoyed inhabitants are confirmed, but it emerges that by 
far  the  highest  numbers  of  highly  exposed  people  are  in  agglomerations,  i.e.  urban 
areas. Given the busy traffic on local roads and junctions, and the frequent stop-and-
go  driving  during  peak  periods,  the  contribution  from  power  train  noise  from  all 
types of vehicle may be quite significant. 

4. 

POLICY OPTIONS 

Next  to  the  baseline  (Option  1)  four  alternative  options  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  Option  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 

21 

   EN 

 
                                                 
of the transition to the new test method B. It was then assessed which level of limit 
value reduction would be effective and feasible. This assessment took the percentage 
of non-compliant vehicles for different limit value reductions and the impact of the 
allowances for special vehicle categories into 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 rationale 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 unchanged 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  combination  with  limit 
values, such that they do not lead to more severe 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. The 
information used to derive the new limit values incorporates the differences between 
old and new test results, the regression equation of the new test results expressed as a 
function of the old results, the percentage of non-compliant vehicles under the new 
limit values and the evaluation of the allowances for special vehicle categories. 

Option 4: New test method and reduced limit 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  noise  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 period of 1 year for less noisy tyres to 
become  available  for  new  vehicles  types  the  introduction  of  the  reduced  vehicle 
noise limit values might take effect from 1 January 2014. 

In  order  to  avoid  the  necessity  to  change  the  noise  emission  of  existing  types  of 
vehicles,  that  have  already  been  type  approved,  within  a  short  period  of  time,  it  is 
proposed  to  put  the  reduced  limit  values  into  force  according  to  the  following 
schedule.  

EN 

22 

   EN 

 
Light vehicles 

Heavy vehicles 

Implementation date 

EN 

23 

   EN 

 
 
 
1 stage 

Type-approval of 

- 3 dB(A) 

- 2 dB(A) 

1 January 2014 

new types of 

vehicles 

EN 

24 

   EN 

 
From 1 January 2016 the first registration of new vehicles is only possible if they fulfil the proposed 

Table 4: 

Option 4 – Proposed reduction of limit values 

new limit values. 

Option 5: New test method and reduced limit values introduced in two stages 

In comparison to Policy Option 4, in Policy Option 5 a more ambitious final target 
for noise reduction is pursued. For the short term, however, a less ambitious target is 
aimed  for  a  first  step  of  limit  value  reduction.  This  step  would  be  followed  by  a 
second  step  in  a  later  stage  that  would  reach  the  final  goal.  The  considerations 
concerning the justification of allowances apply as well. 

Also  in  option  5  the  proposed  first  reduction  step  of  the  vehicle  noise  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 be 
in force  from 1 November 2012. However, a considerable number of tyres that  are 
currently on the market will be able to fulfil 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 available. 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  vehicles  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 emissions by at least 1 dB(A). 

In  order  to  avoid  the  necessity  to  change  the  noise  emission  of  existing  types  of 
vehicles,  that  have  already  been  type  approved,  within  a  short  period  of  time,  it  is 
proposed  to  put  the  reduced  limit  values  into  force  according  to  the  following 
schedule: 

EN 

25 

   EN 

 
Light vehicles 

Heavy vehicles 

Implementation date 

EN 

26 

   EN 

 
 
 
1st stage 

Type-approval 

- 2 dB(A) 

- 1 dB(A) 

1 January 2013 

of new types of 

vehicles 

EN 

27 

   EN 

 
2nd stage 

Type-approval 

- 2 dB(A) 

- 2 dB(A) 

1 January 2015 

of new types of 

vehicles 

EN 

28 

   EN 

 
From 1 January 2017 on, the first registration of new vehicles is only possible if they fulfil the 

Table 5: 

Option 5 – Proposed reduction of limit values 

proposed new limit values of stage 2. 

More ambitious options have not been explored 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  further  also  took  into  account  the  economic  situation  of  the 
industry and the expected effects of other legislative initiatives that the industry will 
have to comply with in the foreseeable future, such as new vehicle exhaust emission 
limits  and  access  to  repair  and  maintenance  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  combinations  like  reduced  limits  for  some  vehicle 
categories only are therefore considered inappropriate. 

5. 

ANALYSIS OF IMPACTS 

5.1. 

Approach 

The  present  impact  assessment  covers  the  environmental,  social  and  economic 
aspects of the five policy options. 

All  the  impacts  of  the  5  policy  options  have  been  monetized  in  terms  of  their 
economic,  environmental  and  social  impacts  based  on  the  available  data  and  the 
underlying  assumptions  will  be  explained  further  in  the  report.  The  environmental 
impact  is  defined  in  terms  of  reduction  of  LDEN,  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 LDEN and  the  averaged night  time 
noise level Lnight at facades of dwellings, calculated as required by the Environmental 
Noise Directive 2002/49/EC. Noise levels 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  numbers  of  affected  people  (see  section  5.3: 
Social and health impacts). 
The  average  LDEN  and  LNight  for  typical  EU  roads  is  estimated  from  the  following 
parameters: 
road  type:  those  are  grouped  into  residential  roads,  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 lengths in the EU27 please refer to Annex 5). 

27 

28 

EEA NOISE database (Noise Observation and Information Service for Europe) 
http://noise.eionet.europa.eu/  
UK Department for Transport, German road authorities and the Dutch statistical office CBS. 

EN 

29 

   EN 

 
                                                 
in  vehicle  engine  speeds  due 

vehicle type and speed: cars, vans, buses, lorries and heavy goods vehicles. 
traffic type: it can be divided into intermittent or free flowing. The traffic type only 
varies  for  residential  and  main  urban  roads.  Intermittent  traffic  conditions  cause 
frequent  variation 
to  gear  change  and 
acceleration/deceleration. It occurs at junctions, 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  assumption  can  be  supported  by  considering  the 
average distance required for acceleration (from first to third gear) and deceleration 
(often  using  the  engine)  and  the  average  distance  between  stopping  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  vehicles/hour  for  each  vehicle  type  and  for  day/evening/night 
periods: the traffic intensity is estimated based on available noise mapping data but 
also considering the potential variation in European Member States. 
a representative noise emission level for each vehicle type in each road situation is 
based on an existing database of urban traffic measurements29 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 motorways, 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 million in 2010; the numbers of inhabitants 
per dwelling are taken at 2,4, all based on Eurostat data. On that basis the number of 
road km deemed to be relevant for the analysis 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  arterial  roads  and  motorways  with  high  speeds 
and  traffic  intensity,  more  dwellings  are  affected per kilometre than residential and 
main roads. Reflections and attenuation effects are not taken into account here, even 
though in some situations an increase in exposure 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  characteristic  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 traffic

Rural 
road with 
free flow 
traffic 

dLDEN 
Option 1 
Option 2 

54,4
56,2

52,3
54,1

67,3
68,9

65,3
67,0

74,1
75,7

71,5 
73,1 

73,6
75,2

55,0
56,6

29 

30 

Steven,  H.,  Investigations  on  Noise  Emission  of  Motor  Vehicles  in  Road  Traffic,  Final  Report  of 
Research Project 200 54 135, RWTÜV Fahrzeug GmbH, Würselen, February 2005. 
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 

30 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
Option 3 
Option 4 
Option 5 
dLNIGHT 
Option 1 
Option 2 
Option 3 
Option 4 
Option 5 

54,4
51,6
50,4

45,7
47,5
45,7
43,0
41,9

52,3
49,8
49,4

43,1
44,9
43,1
40,7
40,1

67,3
64,4
63,2

57,0
58,4
57,0
54,2
52,9

65,3
62,9
62,7

54,8
56,4
54,8
52,4
52,1

74,1
71,7
71,4

65,0
66,7
65,0
62,7
62,4

71,5 
69,1 
68,9 

63,4 
64,9 
63,4 
61,0 
60,7 

73,6
71,1
70,9

65,3
66,9
65,3
62,9
62,6

55,0
52,7
52,3

46,3
47,8
46,3
43,9
43,5

EN 

31 

   EN 

 
 
Table 6 

Calculated average LDEN and Lnight levels for policy options 1-5. Highlighted figures indicate levels 
above 55/65/70 dB(A) for LDEN and 45/55/60 dB(A) for Lnight which are considered harmful 

The differences between the policy options are set out in Table 7, which shows that 
the effect on LDEN and Lnight is quite similar, due to the fact that Lnight in most cases 
determines  the  LDEN.  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 

dLden 
Option 1 
Option 2 
Option 3 
Option 4 
Option 5 
dLnight 
Option 1 
Option 2 
Option 3 
Option 4 
Option 5 

0,0 
+ 1,8 
0,0 
- 2,8 
- 4,0 

0,0 
+ 1,8 
0,0 
- 2,7 
- 3,8 

0,0
+ 1,8
0,0
- 2,5
- 2,9

0,0
+ 1,8
0,0
- 2,5
- 3,1

0,0
+ 1,5
0,0
- 2,9
- 4,2

0,0
+ 1,4
0,0
- 2,8
- 4,0

0,0
+ 1,7
0,0
- 2,4
- 2,6

0,0
+ 1,6
0,0
- 2,4
- 2,7

0,0
+ 1,6
0,0
- 2,4
- 2,7

0,0
+ 1,6
0,0
- 2,4
- 2,7

0,0 
+ 1,6 
0,0 
- 2,4 
- 2,7 

0,0 
+ 1,5 
0,0 
- 2,4 
- 2,7 

0,0
+ 1,7
0,0
- 2,4
- 2,7

0,0
+ 1,6
0,0
- 2,4
- 2,7

0,0
+ 1,5
0,0
- 2,4
- 2,7

0,0
+ 1,5
0,0
- 2,3
- 2,7

EN 

32 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Table 7 

Differences  in  LDEN  and  Lnight  for  each  policy  option.  Zero  reductions  or  increases  are 

highlighted. 

The 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 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 LDEN = 
72 dB(A) is typical along a busy arterial road. For further information regarding the 

Average traffic noise level without growth

Average traffic noise level including growth

Option 4

Option 5

Option 2

Options 1/3

80
79
78
77
76
75
74
73
72
71
70
69
68
67
66
65

Option 4

Option 5

Option 2

Options 1/3

80
79
78
77
76
75
74
73
72
71
70
69
68
67
66
65

)

(

A
B
d

l

e
v
e

l

e
s

i

o
n

c

i
f
f
a
r
T

)

(

A
B
d

l

e
v
e

l

e
s

i

o
n

c

i
f
f
a
r
T

2010

2015

2020

2025

2030

2010

2015

2020

2025

2030

computation method see Annex 8. 

31 

Figures calculated as simple average of the values in table 7 

EN 

33 

   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 the majority of vehicles have been replaced. 
This  period  will  correspond  to  the  average  lifetime  of  vehicles,  typically  about  12 
years for cars. In addition, due to the increasing amount of road traffic, the benefits 
in  terms  of  noise  reduction  may  result  in  delayed  increase  in  environmental  noise 
instead of a net reduction. Another issue related 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 suburban areas. This effect is illustrated in 
Figure 5 showing the market penetration of quieter cars over time based on vehicle 
numbers (fleet size) and on mileage. The annual mileage of quieter vehicles increases 
more  quickly  than  the  percentage  of  quieter  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  Values;  Comparison  of  two  noise  emission  test 
methods Specific Contract No SI2.545143 

EN 

34 

   EN 

 
                                                 
Market penetration of quieter cars

Fleet fraction

Mileage fraction

n
o
i
t
c
a
r
F

100%

90%

80%

70%

60%

50%

40%

30%

20%

10%

0%

2012

2017

2022

2027

2032

EN 

35 

   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 LDEN ≥ 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  preservation  areas,  where  a  quiet  environment  is 
valued.  Although  high  noise  levels  in  urban  areas  affect  most  people,  increasingly 
effort  is  also  made  to  protect  some  rural  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 including noise exposure. 

The annoyance level has been demonstrated to correlate well with LDEN 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 seriously annoyed and sleep disturbed people in the EU for 
the  different  road  types  can  be  globally  estimated  from  average  LDEN  and  Lnight 
levels, average numbers of exposed people 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  different  noise  emission  data  derived  for  each 
policy option resulting in the LDEN and Lnight 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  LDEN  and  Lnight  levels,  exposed  numbers  of 
people and the dose-effect relationships presented in Annex 7, have been made with 
regard to the number of annoyed, highly annoyed and sleep disturbed 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 

36 

   EN 

 
 
                                                 
Millions of Highly Annoyed, Policy Options 1-5

Option 1

Option 2

Option 3

Option 4

Option 5

20

15

10

5

0

H
s
n
o

i
l
l

Mi

Residential
(urban/
suburban)
intermittent

Residential
(urban/
suburban) free
flow

Main roads
(urban/
suburban)
intermittent

Main roads
(urban/
suburban) free
flow

Arterial roads
(urban/
suburban)

Urban
motorways
(urban/
suburban)

Rural
motorways

Rural roads

Figure 6: 

Millions of highly annoyed people per road type for each policy option34 

Millions of Highly Sleep Disturbed, Policy Options 1-5

S
H
s
n
o

i
l
l

Mi

20

15

10

5

0

Option 1

Option 2

Option 3

Option 4

Option 5

Residential
(urban/
suburban)
intermittent

Residential
(urban/
suburban) free
flow

Main roads
(urban/
suburban)
intermittent

Main roads
(urban/
suburban) free
flow

Arterial roads
(urban/
suburban)

Urban
motorways
(urban/
suburban)

Rural
motorways

Rural roads

34 

TNO  report:  VENOLIVA  -  Vehicle  Noise  Limit  Values;  Comparison  of  two  noise  emission  test 
methods Specific Contract No SI2.545143. The detailed values can be found in the Annex. 

EN 

37 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
Figure 7: 

Millions of highly sleep disturbed people per road type for each policy option 

Millions Annoyed and Sleep Disturbed

o
e
p
f
o
s
n
o

i
l
l

Mi

MHAnnoyed

MHSD

MAnnoyed

MSD

140

120

100

80

60

40

20

0

Option 1

Option 2

Option 3

Option 4

Option 5

Million highly 
annoyed 

Million 
highly sleep 
disturbed 

Million 
annoyed 

Million sleep 
disturbed 

Option 1 

Option 2 

Option 3 

Option 4 

Option 5 

27 

30 

27 

22 

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  demonstrate,  people  living  in  urban  areas,  where  both  traffic 
intensity and population density are high and 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  such  big  net  benefits  in  real  life.  The 
overall number of annoyed and highly annoyed people might still be unsatisfying. If 
the expected increase in traffic density in the near future is taken into account a part 
of the predicted positive effects of the limit value reductions will be reduced. 

EN 

38 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
Option 

Highly annoyed 

Highly sleep disturbed 

EN 

39 

   EN 

 
2010 

2015 

2020 

2025 

2030 

2010 

2015 

2020 

2025 

2030 

EN 

40 

   EN 

 
1 

55 

56 

58 

60 

61 

27 

27 

28 

28 

29 

EN 

41 

   EN 

 
2 

64 

65 

67 

69 

71 

30 

30 

31 

32 

32 

EN 

42 

   EN 

 
3 

55 

56 

58 

60 

61 

27 

27 

28 

28 

29 

EN 

43 

   EN 

 
4 

44 

45 

46 

47 

49 

22 

23 

23 

24 

24 

EN 

44 

   EN 

 
5 

41 

43 

44 

45 

47 

22 

22 

22 

23 

23 

EN 

45 

   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 impact on road safety is expected as the 
technical  measures  and  modifications  necessary  to  comply  with  the  new  test  limit 
values are not likely to affect any of the vehicles' active or passive safety features. 

5.4. 

Economic impacts 

The  main  economic  impacts  of  policy  options  1  to  5  are  the  technical  economic 
impact  which  is  mainly  borne  by  the  automotive  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  costs  incurred  to  achieve  noise  reductions. 
The future noise reduction due to quieter tyres is assumed to be ensured by the tyre 
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 noise35 
are not included in this analysis. 

Additional  costs  for  noise  reduction  consist  of  additional  production  costs  per  unit 
and development-, engineering- and testing-costs, which are relevant for new models 
or model upgrades. Additional costs due to administrative burden are not foreseen as 
the  required  manpower  for  testing  and  administration will not change significantly. 
The costs for exterior noise reduction borne by industry are estimated based partly on 
information  from  industry,  partly  on  expert  estimates  by  the  authors  of  the  study 
performed by TNO, as very little information on this topic is publicly available. The 
European Automobile Manufacturers' Association (ACEA) and independent experts 
(University  of  Duisburg-Essen)  were  consulted  concerning  additional  costs  in 
relation to stricter noise limits. The following elements were suggested: 

(1) 

(2) 

(3) 

(4) 

(5) 

Costs can increase exponentially for each dB extra noise reduction. 

Additional  costs  will  increase  significantly  if  major  design  changes  are 
necessary,  whereas  evolutionary  changes  using  existing  solutions  are  less 
expensive. 

Additional  costs  will  vary  per  vehicle  type  and  may  increase  with  shorter 
development time, but do not depend on the vehicle price. 

Between 1-2 dB(A) reduction is possible with available technology. 

The starting point will determine the costs, i.e. if 1-2 dB(A) is already easily 
achievable for existing vehicles, less extra development effort for these first 
dB(A) noise reduction is required. 

35 

http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:L:2009:200:0001:0024:EN:PDF 

EN 

46 

   EN 

 
                                                 
(6) 

(7) 

Additional production costs may decrease over time due to increased design 
integration,  efficiency  in  the  production  process  and  lower  component  and 
materials costs. 

Additional  production  costs  are  expected  to  be  higher  than  the  additional 
development costs, in particular for large production series. 

ACEA state on their website and in brochures that around 20 billion Euro are spent 
annually  on  R&D,  or  4%  of  total  turnover,  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  that  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 are 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  control,  engine  part  damping,  shielding  and  enclosure 
absorption,  quieter  engine  exhaust  and  inlet.  These  solutions  are  all  feasible  by 
modification  of  existing  components  and  may  occur  within  a  normal  development 
process. They may well produce exterior noise reductions of 1 - 4 dB(A), although 
some recent examples are known of larger reductions up to 8 dB(A), see for example 
the  Dutch  PIEK  program  which  has  encouraged  some  manufacturers  to  produce 
special versions of delivery vehicles 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 may benefit from engine innovations such as was the case 
for diesel engines in recent years. 

The  database  analysis  showed  that  for  most  existing  vehicles,  there  is  1  -  2  dB(A) 
scope  for  noise  reduction,  based  on  the  compliance  rates.  This  means  that  for  new 
vehicle  models  for  which  the  new  directive  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 reduction typically occur within 3 years before 
production  of  a  new  model  that  must  comply  with  new  limits.  The  additional 
production  costs  occur  during  the  production  cycle  of  7  years.  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 the development costs starting before the introduction of each new 
model,  and  the additional production costs  commencing  at  market  introduction  and 
gradually diminishing over the 7 year period. 

EN 

47 

   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  information  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  costs  can  be  calculated  from  an  estimate  for  additional 
materials  and  manufacturing,  assumed  proportional  to  the  noise  reduction,  and 
slowly  decreasing  over  the  lifetime  of  the  production  cycle  to  take  into  account 
gradual efficiency improvements in production. The additional production costs are 
assumed for short term noise reduction solutions, but reducing to zero after 7 years 
due to gradual integration and introduction of longer term and more 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  unit  and  dB(A)  for  other  vehicles.  The 
differences between light and heavy vehicles can be approximately related to vehicle 
mass. These figures are assumed to rise linearly with increasing noise reduction but 
reduce to zero over the production 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 for options 4 and 5. The options 1 to 3 do 
not  require  a  change  in  the  automotive  production  therefore  no  additional 
development  and  production  costs  are  considered.  Those  are  assumed  to  be  0  and 
Option 4 and 5 are only looked at more closely in the tables below. 
Option 4 
Development  Production  Total 

Option 5 
Development Production  Total 

Incl. discount 
4% 

Incl. discount 
4% 

42,3 
42,3 
42,3 
42,3 
42,3 
42,3 
42,3 
0,0 
0,0 
0,0 
0 
0 
0 
0 
0 
0 
0 
0 
0 
0 
0 

0,0 
0,0 
0,0 

42,3 
42,3 
42,3 
1113,2  1155,5 
954,2  996,5 
795,1  837,5 
636,1  678,4 
477,1  477,1 
318,1  318,1 
159,0  159,0 
0 
0 
0 
0 
0 
0 
0 
0 
0 
0 
0 

0 
0 
0 
0 
0 
0 
0 
0 
0 
0 
0 

42,3
40,7
39,1
1027,3
851,8
688,3
536,2
362,5
232,4
111,7
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0

48 

111,1
111,1
111,1
111,1
111,1
111,1
111,1
0,0
0,0
0,0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0

0,0  111,1 
0,0  111,1 
0,0  111,1 
1608,3  1719,4 
1378,5  1489,6 
1148,8  1259,9 
919,0  1030,1 
689,3  689,3 
459,5  459,5 
229,8  229,8 
0 
0 
0 
0 
0 
0 
0 
0 
0 
0 
0 

0 
0 
0 
0 
0 
0 
0 
0 
0 
0 
0 

111,1
106,9
102,7
1528,5
1273,3
1035,5
814,1
523,8
335,8
161,4
0,0
0,0
0,0
0,0
0,0
0,0
0,0
0,0
0,0
0,0
0,0

   EN 

M€ 
Year 

2010 
2011 
2012 
2013 
2014 
2015 
2016 
2017 
2018 
2019 
2020 
2021 
2022 
2023 
2024 
2025 
2026 
2027 
2028 
2029 
2030 

EN 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Total 
M€ 

296 

4453  4749 

3932

778

6433  7211 

5993

EN 

49 

   EN 

 
Table 10 

Additional discounted development and production costs in million Euros for options 4 and 5 

The  impact  on  the  vehicle  industry,  consisting  primarily  of  additional  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 longer 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 consumers 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  consumers  is  very  difficult  to  estimate  as 
very little data is available and the pass on rate largely depends on market conditions 
and the competitive situation of the industry. 

In assessing the benefits it was considered most appropriate to add up all benefits as 
they are seen as largely independent. Revealed preference valuation does not directly 
relate to health cost savings or noise abatement savings, as respondents are likely to 
give  an  opinion  on  the  value  of  noise  reduction  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 overlap to a certain extent, the benefits still 
far outweigh the estimated costs. Taking the 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 discount rate of 4%. 

The  identified  health  problems  linked  to  the  exposure  to  noise  (see  section  2.3.2.) 
lead to the following typical type of costs: 

– 

– 

– 

Costs of medical care (direct costs); 

Economic production losses (direct costs); 

Suffering and grief (intangible costs). 

In most studies the costs are measured by means of costs of illness and willingness to 
pay.  It  reflects  how  much  citizens  are  prepared  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 economic 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 

50 

   EN 

 
                                                 
of noise exposure for the costs of illness the 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 Euro in Switzerland. Two types 
of effect are distinguished, one for people and one for homes. These two effects are 
valuated together with a third type of benefit. Due to reduction in noise exposure of 
road traffic, road operators and local authorities save on abatement measures such as 
noise barriers, quiet road surfaces and dwelling insulation. These benefits also need 
to be taken into account in the social benefits, since these 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  reduction  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 their homes, and variation in house prices 
depending on outdoor traffic noise levels. 

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 LDEN calculation, which is 451 million. Assuming 2.4 persons 
per  household  (from  Eurostat  2008)  the  number  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 VHP 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 benefits 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 average noise reduction of 2.5 dB(A) for option 4 
and for 3.1 dB(A) for Option 5. The benefits during the appraisal period are listed in 
the tables below. 

Year  Acc. noise 
reduction 
dB 

Social 
benefits 
M €* 

Health 
benefits 
M €* 

Benefits 
Abatement 
savings 
M €** 

Costs 

Total 
benefits
M € 

Acc. total 
benefits 
M € 

Industry
costs 
M €* 

Acc. total 
costs 
M € 

Acc. net
Benefits
M €  

2010 
2011 
2012 
2013 
2014 
2015 
2016 
2017 
2018 
2019 
2020 
2021 
2022 

0,0 
0,0 
0,0 
0,0 
0,0 
0,2 
0,3 
0,5 
0,7 
0,9 
1,1 
1,3 
1,5 

0 
0 
0 
0 
0 
744 
1487 
2232 
2979 
3731 
4489 
5255 
6033 

0 
0 
0 
0 
0 
11 
33 
65 
108 
160 
221 
291 
370 

0
0
0
0
0
759
2287
4597
7701
11614
16351
21930
28373

42,3
40,7
39,1
1027,3
851,8
688,3
536,2
362,5
232,4
111,7
0
0
0

42 
83 
122 
1149 
2001 
2690 
3226 
3588 
3821 
3932 
3932 
3932 
3932 

-42
-83
-122
-1149
-2001
-1931
-938
1009
3881
7681
12418
17998
24440

0
0
0
0
0
4
8
13
17
22
27
33
39

0
0
0
0
0
759
1529
2310
3104
3913
4737
5580
6442

51 

   EN 

EN 

 
2023 
2024 
2025 
2026 
2027 
2028 
2029 
2030 

1,7 
2,0 
2,2 
2,5 
2,5 
2,5 
2,5 
2,5 

6824 
7633 
8462 
9318 
9139 
8964 
8793 
8625 
  94707 

458 
554 
659 
771 
880 
984 
1084 
1181 
7831 

7328
8239
9181
10157
10088
10018
9947
9876

35700
43940
53121
63278
73365
83383
93331
103207

46
53
60
68
69
69
70
71
669

0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
3932

3932 
3932 
3932 
3932 
3932 
3932 
3932 
3932 

31768
40007
49188
59345
69433
79451
89398
99274

* 4% discount rate applied ** 1% interest rate applied 

Table 11: 

Societal benefits and industry costs of policy Option 4 in million Euros 

Year  Acc. noise 
reduction 
dB 

Social 
benefits 
M €* 

Health 
benefits 
M €* 

Benefits 
Abatement 
savings 
M€** 

Costs 

Total 
benefits
M € 

Acc. total 
benefits 
M € 

Industry
costs 
M €* 

Acc. total 
costs 
M € 

Acc. net
benefits
M € 

2010 
2011 
2012 
2013 
2014 
2015 
2016 
2017 
2018 
2019 
2020 
2021 
2022 
2023 
2024 
2025 
2026 
2027 
2028 
2029 
2030 

0,0 
0,0 
0,0 
0,0 
0,0 
0,0 
0,0 
0,0 
0,1 
637,5 
0,3 
1270,8 
0,5 
2044,9 
0,6 
2822,0 
0,8 
3604,2 
1,0 
4393,3 
1,2 
5191,8 
1,5 
6002,3 
1,7 
6827,9 
1,9 
7672,2 
2,2 
8539,3 
9434,2 
2,5 
2,8  10362,9 
3,1  11332,7 
3,1  11115,9 
3,1  10903,2 
3,1  10694,5 
  112849,7 
* 4% discount rate applied ** 1% interest rate applied 

0 
0 
0 
0 
10 
29 
59 
100 
151 
212 
283 
363 
453 
551 
659 
776 
901 
1035 
1165 
1289 
1409 
9446 

0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
651
4
1307
7
2116
12
2939
17
3778
23
4634
29
5510
35
6407
42
7330
49
8280
56
65
9263
73 10283
83 11347
94 12462
94 12375
95 12288
96 12200
875

0
0
0
0
651
1958
4074
7014
10792
15426
20936
27343
34673
42953
52216
62499
73846
86308
98683
110970
123170

111,1
106,9
102,7
1528,5
1273,3
1035,5
814,1
523,8
335,8
161,4
0,0
0,0
0,0
0,0
0,0
0,0
0,0
0,0
0,0
0,0
0,0
5993

-111
111 
-218
218 
-321
321 
-1849
1849 
-2472
3123 
-2200
4158 
-898
4972 
1518
5496 
4960
5832 
9433
5993 
14943
5993 
21350
5993 
28680
5993 
36960
5993 
46223
5993 
56506
5993 
67853
5993 
80314
5993 
5993 
92690
5993  104977
5993  117177

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  Euros  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 

52 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
The WHO report on valuation of transport related health effects38 advises to separate 
the  valuation  of  annoyance  and  morbidity  (illness)  effects.  Annoyance  and  sleep 
disturbance are valued according to a hedonic 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 study and scaled up in proportion to the ratio 
of  Swiss  population  (7.6  Million)  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  abatement  due  to  quieter  traffic  are  assessed  by 
estimating  the  reduced  effective  noise  levels  along  roads  where  normally  noise 
barriers,  quiet  road  surfaces  or  façade  insulation  would  be  required.  Noise  barriers 
are  typically  only  applicable  for  motorways  and  arterial  roads  where  large  noise 
reductions  of  10-15  dB(A)  are  necessary.  Quiet  road  surfaces  are  a  solution  for  all 
road  types  where  tyre  noise  is  predominant,  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  reduction  potential  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. 

Other  solutions  such  as  traffic  restrictions,  rerouting  and  speed  restrictions  are  also 
possible, but tend to have relatively low costs and are not always applicable. These 
options are therefore not included in the analysis. 

The savings are calculated here assuming a critical 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  investment  levels  differ  strongly  between 
countries and even within countries there can be large differences between national 
and  local  authority  abatement  programmes  and  available  funding.  There  is  also  a 
difference  in  investment  levels  for  new  roads  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 quiet road surfaces instead of more expensive 
noise barriers or façade insulation. 

The benefits of savings are therefore calculated for avoided noise abatement and for 
reduced noise abatement. This is done separately for situations where barriers may be 
applied and in the urban situation where noise insulation is used. 

38 

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, World Health Organization 2008 

EN 

53 

   EN 

 
                                                 
Noise  barriers  are  the  conventional  means  of  abatement  along  urban  and  rural 
motorways and arterial roads. It is estimated that in the EU27 in 2010, 500 million 
Euros are spent on 290 km of traffic noise barriers. This is considered 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  unnecessary  or  less  expensive  are 
shown for policy options 4 and 5 in Table 13. 

Option 4 
Option 5 

Bu (%) 
3,3% 
4,1% 

Bu (M€) 
16,5 
20,3 

Bs (%) 
10,7% 
16,5% 

Bs (M€) 
22,5 
34,6 

Bu+Bs (M€) 
39,0 
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 analysis is performed 
using the same approach as above regarding the abatement threshold, the quiet road 
surface limit and the LDEN for the current situation. 

Option 4 
Option 5 

Bu (%) 
12,7% 
16,6% 

Bu (M€) 
16 
21 

Bs (%) 
9,8% 
10,2% 

Bs (M€) 
3 
3 

Bu+Bs (M€) 
19 
24 

Table 14: 

Annual savings on façade insulation 

The total annual savings on all abatement measures Bab are estimated for the EU27 in 
2010 at 58 M€ for policy option 4 and 79 million Euros for policy option 5, if the full 
noise  reduction  for  each  option  were  to  take  effect  immediately.  As  the  noise 
reduction only takes effect gradually, initial abatement benefits 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 

54 

   EN 

 
                                                 
Option 

Benefits (million €) 

Cost 

for 

industry 

Benefit/cost ratio 

(million €) 

EN 

55 

   EN 

 
1 

0 

0 

- 

EN 

56 

   EN 

 
2 

0 

0 

- 

EN 

57 

   EN 

 
3 

0 

0 

- 

EN 

58 

   EN 

 
4 

103207 

3932 

26.2 

EN 

59 

   EN 

 
5 

123170 

5993 

20.6 

EN 

60 

   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 industry, 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 

61 

   EN 

 
Impacts 

Environmental impact 

Economic impact 

Social impact 

EN 

62 

EN 

 
  
Costs  for  industry  (development 

Benefits 

for 

society 

(hedonic 

and production costs) 

pricing  benefits,  health  and  noise 

abatement savings benefits) 

EN 

63 

EN 

 
  
Option 1 

Negative 

impact  due 

to 

No cost 

No benefits 

Negative  impact  due  to  traffic 

No policy change: old test method and 

traffic increase 

increase 

EN 

64 

EN 

 
  
(0) 

(0) 

(0) 

(0) 

EN 

65 

EN 

 
  
Option 2 

Average  increase  in  traffic 

No cost 

Negative Impact 

Average 

increase  of  highly 

New test method and the existing limit 

noise of 1,7 dB(A) 

values 

annoyed people by 16% 

Average increase of highly sleep 

disturbed people by 11% 

EN 

66 

EN 

 
  
 
 
(--) 

(0) 

(--) 

(-) 

EN 

67 

EN 

 
  
Option 3 

Negative 

impact  due 

to 

No cost 

No benefits 

Negative  impact  due  to  traffic 

New  test  method  and  limit  values 

traffic increase 

increase 

EN 

68 

EN 

 
  
(0) 

(0) 

(0) 

(0) 

EN 

69 

EN 

 
  
Option 4 

Average  reduction  of  traffic 

EUR 3932 million 

EUR 103207 million  

Average 

reduction  of  highly 

New  test  method  and  reduced  limit 

noise between:  

(94707  million  EUR  of  social 

annoyed people by 20% 

values in one stage 

- 2,5 and - 2,8 dB(A) 

benefits  +  7831  million  EUR  of 

Reduction 

of 

highly 

sleep 

health benefits + 669 million EUR 

disturbed people by 19% 

of abatement savings) 

EN 

70 

EN 

 
  
 
 
 
 
 
cost benefit ratio 26.2 

EN 

71 

EN 

 
  
(+) 

(-) 

(+) 

(+) 

EN 

72 

EN 

 
  
Option 5 

Average  reduction  of  traffic 

EUR 5993 million 

EUR 123170 million  

Reduction of highly annoyed 

New  test  method  and  reduced  limit 

noise between:  

values in two stages 

- 3,1 and -4,0 dB(A) 

(112849  million  EUR  of  social 

people by 25 % 

benefits  +  9446  million  EUR  of 

Reduction of highly sleep 

health benefits + 875 million EUR 

disturbed people by 19 % 

of abatement savings) 

EN 

73 

EN 

 
  
 
 
 
cost benefit ratio 20.6 

EN 

74 

EN 

 
  
(++) 

(--) 

(++) 

(++) 

Table 16: Comparison of Options in terms of their economic, environmental and social impacts 

EN 

75 

EN 

 
  
Criterion 

Effectiveness 

Efficiency 

Coherence 

Option 

EN 

76 

   EN 

 
 
Option 1 

Does  not  fulfil  general 

Option  not  efficient  although 

This option is not coherent 

and  specific  objectives 

it will not generate additional 

with  the  general,  specific 

because  noise  level  is 

cost for industry as it will not 

or 

operational 

policy 

not reduced 

lead  to  a  reduction  of  noise 

objectives  because  noise 

exposure to citizens 

level is not reduced 

EN 

77 

   EN 

 
 
Option 2 

Does  not  fulfil  general 

Option 

very 

inefficient 

This option is not coherent 

and  specific  objectives 

although  it  will  not  generate 

with  the  general,  specific 

because  noise  level  is 

additional  cost  for  industry 

or 

operational 

policy 

increased 

because  it  will  lead  to  an 

objectives  because  noise 

increase of noise exposure to 

level is not reduced 

citizens 

EN 

78 

   EN 

 
 
Option 3 

Does  not  fulfil  general 

Option  not  efficient  although 

This option is not coherent 

and  specific  objectives 

it will not generate additional 

with  the  general,  specific 

because  noise  level  is 

cost for industry as it will not 

or 

operational 

policy 

not reduced 

lead  to  a  reduction  of  noise 

objectives  because  noise 

exposure to citizens 

level is not reduced 

EN 

79 

   EN 

 
 
Option 4 

Good 

effectiveness, 

Excellent 

efficiency, 

cost 

This  option 

is  coherent 

general  and  specific 

benefit ratio is 26.2 

with  the  general,  specific 

objectives are fulfilled, 

acceptable reduction of 

noise levels 

or 

operational 

policy 

objectives 

and  would 

provide  a  good  balance 

between 

environmental 

and economic impacts 

EN 

80 

   EN 

 
 
Option 5 

Very 

good 

Very  good  efficiency,  cost 

This 

option 

is 

very 

effectiveness,  general 

benefit ratio is 20.6 

coherent  with  the  general, 

and  specific  objectives 

are 

fulfilled, 

substantial 

reduction 

of noise levels 

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  for  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 option 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 LDEN and Lnight of 2,5 
dB(A) for roads with free flowing traffic. For roads with intermittent traffic, where 
power train noise is dominant, the noise impact 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).  However,  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 measurement 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 LDEN and Lnight 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  people  by  19%.  Also  for  this  option  the  economic 
consequences for industry are considered manageable. The Benefit-Cost Ratio of this 

EN 

81 

   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 approach in this option is preferred by the majority of 
stakeholders, including industry. As above, the position regarding the stringency and 
the transitional provisions deviates. 

5.7. 

Other impacts of the preferred option 

Administrative burdens 

The  administrative  burden  for  stakeholders  is  negligible.  The  procedure  of  the 
European vehicle type-approval system remains unchanged. Although the noise test 
method is modified, the same test track and 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  not  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 evidence 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  niche  products  of  smaller  companies  are 
manufactured  in  small  series  only  which  are  exempted  from  the  application  of  this 
legislation and treated under national law. 

6. 

MONITORING 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  reduction  of  noise  emission  values  of  motor 
vehicles.  Accordingly,  one  of  the  key  indicators  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 particular in urban areas. 

Though,  these depend also on  traffic intensity, driving behaviour  and other factors. 
Therefore,  an  additional  indicator  is  the  monitoring  of  the  type-approval  values  of 
new models 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. This could best be done by 
continuing the dialogue between the Commission and Member States' authorities, in 
particular the automotive type-approval authorities. 

Findings from monitoring might recommend, taking into account the experience with 
the  first  step  in  noise  reduction,  developing  a  continuous  strategy  of  regular  limit 

EN 

82 

   EN 

 
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.  By  timely  announcing  such  a  long  term  strategy  the  industry 
will be able to anticipate the future requirements 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 within the next few years will be of utmost importance. 
In view of the implementation of the improved noise emission requirements, it will 
be essential to monitor the market and the development of different approaches and 
technologies  towards  a  reduction  of  vehicle  noise.  This  includes  the  automotive 
manufacturers  and  the  suppliers  for  key  products  like  tyres,  exhaust  silencers,  gear 
boxes, engines, etc.. One suitable way of achieving 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  vehicles  are  controlled  and  verified  through  the 
permanent  type-approval  process  and  the  development  of  the  environmental  noise 
situation is monitored by the ongoing noise mapping within the Member States. 

EN 

83 

   EN 

 
ANNEXES 

Annex 1:List of European Directives and amendments related to noise from road traffic 

EN 

84 

   EN 

 
Motor 
vehicles 
exterior 
noise 

Directive / amendment 

EN 

85 

   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 

86 

   EN 

 
  
73/350/EC

Adapting 70/157/EC to technical progress 

EN 

87 

   EN 

 
  
77/212/EC

Amendment of 70/157/EC 

EN 

88 

   EN 

 
  
81/334/EC

Adapting 70/157/EC to technical progress 

EN 

89 

   EN 

 
  
84/372/EC

Adapting 70/157/EC to technical progress 

EN 

90 

   EN 

 
  
84/424/EC  Amendment of 70/157/EC 

EN 

91 

   EN 

 
89/491/EC  Adapting 70/157/EC (e.a.) to technical progress 

EN 

92 

   EN 

 
92/97/EC  Amendment of 70/157/EC 

EN 

93 

   EN 

 
96/20/EG   Adapting 70/157/EC to technical progress 

EN 

94 

   EN 

 
1999/101/
EC  

Adapting 70/157/EC to technical progress 

EN 

95 

   EN 

 
2007/34/E
C 

Amending  70/157/EEC  for  the  purpose  of  technical 
progress;  introducing  test  method  B  for  the  purpose  of 
monitoring from 6 July 2008 until 6 July 2010  

EN 

96 

   EN 

 
2007/46/E
C 

Framework Directive - establishing a framework for the 
approval  of  motor  vehicles  and  their  trailers,  and  of 
systems,  components  and  separate 
technical  units 
intended for such vehicles 

EN 

97 

   EN 

 
Tyres 

EN 

98 

   EN 

 
  
92/23/EC  

Directive  relating  to  tyres  for  motor  vehicles  and  their 
trailers and to their fitting 

EN 

99 

   EN 

 
2001/43/E
C  

Amendment  of  92/23/EC  introducing  noise  limits  for 
tyres 

EN 

100 

   EN 

 
Regulation 
(EC)  No 
661/2009 

Concerning  type  approval  requirements  for  the  general 
safety  of  motor  vehicles  etc.,  including  stricter  limit 
values  for  tyre  rolling  noise,  that  will  become  valid 
from  1  November  2012,  1  November  2013  and  1 
November 2016. 

EN 

101 

   EN 

 
Environme
ntal noise 

EN 

102 

   EN 

 
 
2002/49/E
C 

Directive relating to the assessment and management of 
environmental noise 

EN 

103 

   EN 

 
Annex 2:Determination of the best suitable test method 

The  following  key  problems  were  looked  at  in  order  to  determine  the  best  suitable 
test method 

(a)  What  will  be  the  effectiveness  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  operating  conditions  than  the  test  conditions 
exceeds the test results significantly; 

•  possibilities to prevent adaptation of the vehicle and its engine control unit to the 

test conditions; 

•  control of the selection of test tyres 

(b) 

(c) 

How  should  the  limit  values  for  noise  emission  of  the  different  vehicle 
categories be changed for the different policy options: 

How  should  the  allowances  that  are  currently  in  force  for  special  vehicles 
(sports  cars,  off-road  vehicles  and  vehicles  with  a  direct-injection  Diesel 
engine) be treated under a new test procedure 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) 

(f) 

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? 

Can  the  new  test  method  guarantee  that  the  noise  emission  during  other 
operating  conditions  than  the  test  conditions  does  not  exceed  the  test  results 
significantly? What type  of  off-cycle provisions can be  introduced  to  achieve 
this goal anyhow? 

Annex 3:Evaluation of the new test method (method B) 

The  practicability  and  manageability  of  the  new  test  method  was  investigated  by 
means  of  a  small  enquiry  among  a  number  of  type  approval  authorities  that  had 
submitted  significant  numbers  of  test  report  files  for  the  database.  Based  on  the 
response  from  these  type  approval  authorities  the  following  conclusions  can  be 
drawn: 

EN 

104 

   EN 

 
The  complexity of the new  method B for light 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 errors and to achieve 

the necessary measurement accuracy than method A; 

•  Depending on the type of measuring equipment (fully integrated or separate systems) the 

management of the test process may be rather time consuming; 

•  Method B is more sensitive to environmental parameters, because the test results for light 

vehicles are lower than for method A; 

•  Nevertheless, method B is considered reproducible and manageable; 

•  For light vehicles there is some ambiguity in the instructions for the choice of gear ratio for 
automatic transmissions: if an automatic transmission can be locked in a specific gear it is 
not  clear  whether  the  vehicle  in  question  should  be  tested  with  locked  gears  or  in  the 
automatic (‘Drive”) position of the transmission. 

•  For  buses  (categories  M2  and  M3)  the  complexity  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 better 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  considered  realistic  when  compared  to 
accelerations achieved in normal traffic. As the final result is obtained by weighted 
averaging  of  both  partial  test  results,  the  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, the 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 Standards Internationalization Center that 
test method B would not be suitable or representative for the special sub-categories 
of very small M1 and N1 vehicles that are 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 results 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. Therefore the distributions of method B test 
results  show  a  more  natural  tapering  off  to  higher  noise  emission  values  than  the 

EN 

105 

   EN 

 
results of method A, which cut off rather sharply at the current limit values. It may 
be expected that after a longer period of adaptation to the new method, similar effects 
will develop. For passenger cars this may result in a reduction of the noise emission 
test results with 1 to 7 dB(A) and may concern 10 – 15 % of the vehicles.  

In test method B stricter instructions are give for the mounting of tyres during the test 
than  in  test  method  A.  Especially  for  trucks  this  should  result  in  the  application  of 
representative traction tyres on drive axles during the test instead 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 tyres 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 the 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 modifications of test method B 

In  view  of  the  observations  and  conclusions  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  acceleration  and  during  operation  at  high  engine 
speeds. This observation is primarily relevant for passenger cars, in particular with a 
high  rated  engine  power,  because  these  vehicles  have  a  large  range  of  operating 
conditions that may deviate significantly from the conditions during 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  emission  provisions  are  considered  to  be 
essential.  

The  methodology  for  Additional  Sound  Emission  Provisions  (ASEP),  that  is  being 
developed  in  UNECE  GRB  Informal  Group  ASEP,  was  studied,  as  well  as  some 
alternative  methods  to  limit  off-cycle  emissions.  This  resulted  in  the  following 
conclusions: 

•  For the near future, the approach of the ASEP methodology will be the most effective way 

to limit and control off-cycle emissions of vehicles of category M1 and N1; 

EN 

106 

   EN 

 
•  For other vehicle categories, off-cycle emission provisions do not seem 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 the 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  terms  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 for vehicles with PMR > 150 kW/t; 

•  To include the ASEP performance of replacement exhaust systems on the basis of a back-

to-back test compared to the original system. 

Further recommendations: 

•  To introduce a general requirement that the manufacturer shall guarantee that the vehicle 
shall not under any operating condition produce a noise emission 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 separate requirement that would supplement the basic 
limit value requirements based on test method B; 

•  To  consider  for  the  more  distant  future  the  development  and  introduction  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 

107 

   EN 

 
Annex 4:Calculation of the equivalent sound pressure level at a characteristic distance 

from the road 

(1) 

For  policy  option  1  noise  emission  values  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 subcategories 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) 

(4) 

(5) 

(6) 

For each group the weighted average limit values for each policy option are 
determined with weighting factors based on numbers of vehicles in the Circa 
database. 

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. 

The  changes  of  the  average  noise  emission  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 traffic) and the constant speed test result 
is  attributed  to  free  flowing  traffic.  For  the  larger  vehicles  only  the 
acceleration test results are available, which are used for both intermittent and 
free flowing traffic. 

The  actual  average  noise  emission  values  per  group  in  real  traffic  are 
extracted from the UBA report. In this report the noise emission per vehicle 
as  a  function  of  driving  speed  is  expressed  in  regression  equations  both  for 
accelerating  vehicles  and  for  free  flow  traffic.  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  which  21729  were  passenger  cars.  The 
noise  emission  values  from  this  are  considered  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  reductions  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 

108 

   EN 

 
(8) 

(9) 

situation  and  Option  3  because  it  is  tuned  to  be  equivalent  to  the  current 
situation after introduction of test method B. 

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.  

Options 4 and 5 imply a reduction of limit values which is translated into a 
reduction of average noise emission values in real traffic. For Option 5, which 
represents  a  two  step  reduction,  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  lengths  with  corrections  for  non-residential 

stretches, roads with restricted access and low traffic volume 

Road type

Assumed % 
length

Residential
Main
Arterial
Urban Mwy
Rural Mwy
Rural road
Total

33,0%
5,0%
2,0%
0,1%
1,9%
58,0%
100,0%

Road 
length 
kkm

1661

Adjustment
nonresid., 
restricted or low 
intensity
252 nonresid.
101 nonresid.
5 nonresid.
96 nonresid.
2919 nonresid.
5032

Effective 
length 
kkm

Deduct

%intermittent %freeflow

35%
20%
10%
20%
50%
50%

1079
201
91
4
48
1459
2882

33%
33%
0%
0%
0%
0%

67%
67%
100%
100%
100%
100%

Annex 6:Parameters used for the economic analysis 

In the economic analysis the following parameters were chosen: 

– 

– 

– 

Appraisal  period  –  the  start  year  is  set  at  2010  as  development  of  quieter 
vehicles may already commence then. The end year is set at 2030 (new limits 
from 2013, average vehicle life of 13 years, this way a complete life cycle of 
vehicles is covered); 

A discount rate rd of 4% corresponding to the Impact Assessment Guidelines, 
applied to industry costs C, noise valuation and health benefits B according to 

Bd,j = Bj/(1+rd)j and Cd,j = Cj/(1+rd)j 

 (discounted benefits Bd,j in year j, Benefit Bj in year j and discount rate rd) 

An interest rate ri set at 1% (corresponding to a conservative growth rate of the 
GDP  per  annum)  is  applied  to  the  valuation  of  noise  (as  done  in  previous 
studies), and to abatement savings, according to; 

EN 

109 

   EN 

 
 
Bg,j = Bj*(1+ri)j 

(increased benefits Bg,j in year j, Benefit Bj in year j and interest rate ri) 

Abatement savings are not discounted as they are avoided costs, but a 1 % 
interest rate is applied 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 disturbance as developed by Miedema et al. and 
also described in the EU position paper on dose-response relationships, have been used. 
The percentage of highly annoyed people %HA is given as a function of LDEN : 

%HA = 9,868.10-4(LDEN -42)3 – 1,436.10-2(LDEN -42)2 +0,5118.(LDEN -42) 

The percentage of annoyed people %A is given as a function of LDEN : 

%A = 1,795.10-4(LDEN -37)3 + 2,110.10-2(LDEN -37)2 + 0,5353(LDEN -37) 

The percentage of highly sleep disturbed people %HSD is given as a function of Lnight : 

%HSD = 20,8 – 1,05 Lnight + 0,01486 (Lnight)2  

The percentage of sleep disturbed people %SD is given as a function of Lnight: 

%SD = 13,8 – 0,85 Lnight + 0,01670 (Lnight)2 
Annex 8:Derivation of future traffic 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-weighted 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 other traffic conditions and other policy options 
similar derivations were used, 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 specific vehicle group for future policy option 4 is 
given by: 

L

traf

,
opt

4

,

acc

=

L

traf

,
,UBA

acc

+

L(

,WOT

opt

4

−

L

,WOT

opt

3

)

Where: 

EN 

110 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Ltraf,UBA,acc 

is the average noise emission value calculated with the regression 
equation  from  the  UBA  report  for  accelerating  vehicles  of  the 
relevant vehicle group 

The reduction of the noise emission during acceleration in real traffic for future policy option 
4 is calculated from the difference between the 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: 

L

,WOT

opt

4

=

L(

Urban

,
opt

4

−

L.k
p

.CRS

opt

4

/()

1

−

)k
p

Where: 

L

Urban

,
opt

4

=

L

Urban

,
opt

3

+

L(

lim

,it

opt

4

−

L

lim

,it

opt

3

)

k

p

=

op,

3

L
Urban
L

−
−

L
,WOT
L

,WOT

opt
the database with vehicle test results according to test B: 

,CRS

opt

3

3

opt

3

 is the average partial power factor that can be derived from 

L

L

L

,WOT

opt

=3

L

WOTrep

,
testB

Urban

,
opt

=3

L

Urban

,
testB

,CRS

opt

=3

L

CRSrep

,
testB

Both  limit  values  for  options  3  and  4  (Llimit,opt3  ;  Llimit,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  per  vehicle  (sub)category,  where  the  weighting 
factors are the numbers of each vehicle (sub) category in the database. 

Furthermore the predicted value of the constant speed test result according to method B under 
policy option 4 is obtained with the following equation: 

L

,CRS

opt

4

=

10

.
lg(

10

L(

,Roll

opt

4

/)

10

+

10

L(

Engine

,
,CRS

opt

3

/)

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-road noise due to the reduction of the 
limit values for rolling noise according to EU Regulation 661/2009: 

L

,Roll

opt

4

=

L

,Roll

opt

3

∆+

L

lim

,it

tyre

For the C1 class of tyres the average reduction is estimated at -3,8 dB(A), and for C2 and C3 
class of tyres at -3,0 dB(A). 

EN 

111 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
The  power  train  noise  contribution  to  the  constant  speed  test  result  of  method  B 
(LPowTr,CRS,opt3) is estimated at: 

L

Engine

,
,CRS

opt

3

=

L

,CRS

opt

3

−

4

dB

Annex 9:Millions of highly annoyed people per road type for each policy option 

Millions Highly 
Annoyed

Option 1
Option 2
Option 3
Option 4
Option 5

Residential 
(urban/ 
suburban) 
intermittent
7,2
8,6
7,2
5,5
4,8

Residential 
(urban/ 
suburban) 
free flow

8,7
10,5
8,7
6,5
6,1

Main roads 
(urban/ 
suburban) 
intermittent
8,4
9,6
8,4
6,6
6,0

Main roads 
(urban/ 
suburban) 
free flow

Arterial 
roads 
(urban/ 
suburban)

Urban 
motorways 
(urban/ 
suburban)

Rural 
motorways

Rural roads Total

11,2
13,0
11,2
9,1
8,9

15,5
17,5
15,5
12,8
12,5

1,1
1,3
1,1
0,9
0,9

0,8
0,9
0,8
0,6
0,6

1,9
2,2
1,9
1,5
1,4

54,9
63,5
54,9
43,5
41,3

EN 

112 

   EN 

 
 
Annex 10:Millions of highly sleep 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) 
intermittent

Option 1 
Option 2 
Option 3 
Option 4 
Option 5 

3,4 
4,0 
3,4 
2,8 
2,6 

5,7 
6,5 
5,7 
4,8 
4,7 

3,1 
3,4 
3,1 
2,5 
2,3 

Main 
roads 
(urban/ 
suburban) 
free flow
5,3 
6,0 
5,3 
4,4 
4,3 

Arterial 
roads 
(urban/ 
suburban)

Urban 
motorways 
(urban/ 
suburban) 

Rural 
motorways

Rural 
roads

Total

7,0 
7,6 
7,0 
6,0 
5,9 

0,6 
0,6 
0,6 
0,5 
0,5 

0,4 
0,4 
0,4 
0,3 
0,3 

1,2  26,6
1,3  29,8
1,2  26,6
1,0  22,4
0,9  21,6

Annex 11:Effect of fleet and mileage growth on average car fleet emission 

The reduction in traffic noise levels will be diminished 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

accelerating

free flowing

accelerating accounted for mileage

free flowing accounted for mileage

75

74

73

72

71

70

69

2012

2017

2022

2027

2032

]
)

(

A
B
d
[
n
o
i
s
s
mi
e
t
e
e
l
f
r
a
c
e
g
a
r
e
v
A

EN 

113 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
 
 
Decrease of the average noise emission of the whole car fleet taking fleet size growth and mileage growth into account, for 

option 4. 

Decrease of car fleet emission for option 5

]
)

i

(

A
B
d
[
n
o
s
s
mi
e
t
e
e
l
f
r
a
c
e
g
a
r
e
v
A

75

74

73

72

71

70

69

2012

accelerating

free flowing

accelerating accounted for mileage

free flowing accounted for mileage

2017

2022

2027

2032

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 constant 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 the 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  noise.  As  a  rather  conservative  estimate  it  is  assumed  that  the 
power train noise emission (LPT crs )during the constant speed test is on average 4 dB(A) lower 
than the rolling noise emission: 

LPT crs = Lroll crs – 4 dB(A) 

EN 

114 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
 
 
Based on the summation formula: 

L

crs

rep

=

10

.

lg(

10

L(

PT

crs

/

10

)

L(

roll

crs

/

10

)

+

10

One can derive that: 

L

roll

crs

=

L

crs

rep

−

461
,

dB(A)

≈

L

crs

rep

−

51
,

dB(A)

The second assumption is that the rolling noise during the WOT test at 50 km/h is equal to the 
rolling noise during the constant speed test at 50 km/h: 

Lroll wot = Lroll crs 

In that case is the power train noise during the WOT test: 

L

PT

wot

=

10

.lg(

10

L(

wot

rep

/

10

)

L(

roll

wot

/

10

)

−

10

=

10

.lg(

10

L(

wot

rep

/

10

)

L((

crs

−

51
/),

10

)

−

10

With the two assumptions mentioned above both the rolling noise and the 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 stricter 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. 

Class limit values - Old
Nominal section width

Limit value Tyre class

Class limit values - New
Nominal section width

Tyre class
C1a
C1b
C1c
C1d
C1e

< 145
> 145
< 165
> 185
> 215

< 165
< 185
< 215

Weighted average C1 tyres

Category of use

Tyre class
C2 
C2
C3
C3
Average C2 and C3 tyres

Normal
Snow
Normal
Snow

72
73
74
75
76
76
76

Limit value
75
77
76
78

C1A
C1B
C1C
C1D
C1E

< 185
> 185
> 215
> 245
> 275

< 215
< 245
< 275

Tyre class

Category of use

Normal
Traction
Normal
Traction

Limit value
70
70
70
71
71
72
74

Limit value
72
73
73
75

Reduction
Limit values
-2
-3
-4
-4
-5
-4
-2
-3,8

Limit values
-3
-4
-3
-3
-3,3

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 downward shift of the noise emission values of the 

EN 

115 

   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  tyres  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 new types of tyres that will be introduced on the 
market after 1 November 2012. Vehicles that will be subjected to a noise emission test after 
this  date  can  be  equipped  with  tyres  that  have  a  3  to  4  dB(A)  lower  rolling  noise  emission 
than the current average. This means that the rolling noise contribution during the WOT and 
the constant speed test will be reduced. 

The fourth assumption is that these future rolling noise contributions will be reduced with 3,8 
dB(A) relative to the current rolling noise contributions: 

Lroll crs 2013 = Lroll wot 2013 = Lroll wot – 3,8 

If the power train noise contribution would remain unchanged one can derive the following 
relations: 

LPT wot 2013 = LPT wot 

LPT crs 2013 = LPT crs 

L

wot

rep

2013

=

10

.

lg(

10

L(

PT

wot

2013

/

10

)

L(

roll

wot

2013

/

10

)

+

10

=

10

.

lg(

10

L(

PT

wot

/

10

)

+

10

L((

roll

wot

−

83

/),

10

)

L

crs

rep

2013

=

10

.

lg(

10

L(

PT

crs

2013

/

10

)

L(

roll

crs

2013

/

10

)

+

10

=

10

.

lg(

10

L(

PT

crs

/

10

)

+

10

L((

roll

crs

−

83

/),

10

)

The  last  two  equations  describe  the  results  of  the  two  tests  that  merge  together  into  the 
predicted final test result Lurban 2013 : 

L

urban

2013

=

L

wor

rep

2013

−

L.(k
p

wot

rep

2013

−

L

crs

rep

2013

)

Where kp is supposed to be equal to the value in the current tests, and may be derived from: 

k

p

=

L

wot

rep

−

L

urban

L

wot

rep

−

L

crs

rep

The predicted value of Lurban 2013 would be the test result if only the rolling noise limit values 
would  become  stricter,  without  a  reduction  of  the  vehicle  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. 

EN 

116 

   EN