CAETS Noise Control Technology Committee (NCTC) Report to the Council 2012 August 31 Tor Kihlman, Chair CAETS Noise Control Technology Committee Chalmers University of Technology Gothenburg, Sweden

History CAETS 2007 Tokyo – first discussion of noise issue by Council CAETS 2010 Copenhagen – Council establishes Noise Control Technology Committee (NCTC) CAETS 2012 Zürich – appropriate time for a review

NCTC activities 2010 – 2012 [1] 2010 September: NAE publishes “Technology for a Quieter America” report (NAE) 2010 October: Presented at the European Commission workshop in Brussels on outdoor equipment noise (IVA) 2010 December: Participated in 6th national conference on “The Quality of the Sound Environment” in Paris (NATF) 2011 February: Responded to Australian Senate Committee Inquiry on Wind Turbine Noise (ATSE) 2011 March: Participated in experts’ support for stricter EU vehicle noise emission standards (IVA) 2011 May: Recommended stricter noise limit values on vehicles for European roads (IVA) 3

NCTC activities 2010 – 2012 [2] 2011 May: Presented at Federal Agency Workshop on “Technology for a Quieter America” in Washington (NAE) 2011 June: Again recommended stricter noise limit values on vehicles for European roads (IVA) 2011 July: Presented at symposium on “Inducing ‘Buy-Quiet’ Purchasing Attitudes” in Paris (NATF) 2011 September: Opening plenary presentation at INTER-NOISE 2011 Congress in Osaka (NAE/IVA) 2011 September: Presented to the Japanese Ministry of Environment in Tokyo (EAJ) 2011 November: Presented at European Parliament workshop on “Paving the Way for a Quieter Europe” (IVA) 4

NCTC activities 2010 – 2012 [3] 2011 November: Sent letter to EC recommending stricter noise limit values on vehicles for European roads (IVA) 2012 February: Submitted comments to MEP on draft directive on recreational craft and personal watercraft (IVA) 2012 March: Sent letter to MEP on “Experts Support for Stricter Vehicle Noise Emissions Standards” (IVA) 2012 March:  Presented NCTC position that proposed directive is weak at European Parliament Brussels meeting (IVA) 2012 June: Application accepted by UN for Consultative Status in UNECE WP-29 and GRB (CAETS) 5

Key finding Influencing noise policy can only be accomplished through direct interactions with policy-making governmental officials. The issue must be of contemporary political interest. This is well-known, but how do we accomplish this on the environmental noise issue? 6

Challenges Each country/government is different. Finding an effective official at any level takes effort and luck. Special-interest groups abound (e.g. manufacturers). There is limited public understanding of the technology available to alleviate the noise problem. This slide 7

Noise affects health & wellbeing Recent WHO reports, based on the best scientific evidence, estimate the number of premature deaths per year caused by road traffic noise at 50,000 in Europe, approximately equal to the number killed in traffic accidents. Technology is available and/or achievable to reduce the toll of health effects substantially. Irrespective of the high death toll, the political interest to reduce road traffic noise is still much less than that for traffic accidents. 8

Incentive to implement the technology The incentive to implement the technology to reduce traffic noise demands an understanding of the severe health effects by top politicians. Currently there is insufficient interest, and generating more is not easily accomplished. Because of the long lead times required to implement the technology to reduce traffic noise, this interest must be maintained over decades. 9

The EU road traffic noise problem There is a gap of at least 10 dB between the allowed emissions from road vehicles and future building and traffic planning to assure healthy environments for residents of European cities. Closing the gap demands concerted actions on vehicles, tyres, and road surfaces, and intervention by traffic management. These are challenging tasks for engineers. 10

Regulations on road vehicle noise emissions Worldwide responsibility rests with UNECE Working Party 29. Technical work is performed by its GRB working group. Substantial changes in methods and limits are needed to achieve substantially lower noise emissions in the future. This opinion is shared by some specialists within industry. CAETS has applied, through the UN, for a seat at the GRB table that is important for future NCTC work on road vehicle noise. 11

Conclusions [1] NCTC is well-established and well-organized, but it depends on only a few academicians. CAETS member academies are well-respected and listened to by the governments of their countries. Continuous support from CAETS is essential for the NCTC to be effective. Considering the volume of work and long lead times, an increase in the number of involved and actively-participating academicians is needed. 12

Conclusions [2] The complex issue of noise is important for the wellbeing of our civilisation. Our technological academies can make a real improvement on this issue. The Council is asked for support on this issue and identification of additional national academies which could contribute interested members to this committee. 13