-------
OVERALL ASSESSMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT OF MAJOR NOISE SOURCES
The impact of noise has been discussed for each of the major non-occupational
noise source categories. These impact assessments have been developed from various
points of view, which are pertinent to the noise and use characteristics of each source
category. Together with the presentation of the detailed noise characteristics of the
sources and the community, they provide the basic data for an assessment of the total
environmental impact of noise. This assessment is made relative to interference
with speech, community reaction, and noise that may produce potential hearing dam-
age. The impact assessments are based upon criteria specified elsewhere in this re-
port and the data presented earlier in this chapter.
It should be kept in mind that the noise environment is primarily a product of man
and his machines and consists of an all-pervasive and nonspecific residual noise, to
which is added both constant and intermittent intrusive noises. The residual noise
level in urban residential communities is generally the integrated result of the noise.-
from traffic on streets and highways but does vary widely with the type of community.
Interference with Speech
Residual noise levels in suburban and rural areas do not appear to interfere
with speech communication at distances compatible with normal use of patios and
backyards. However, some interference with outdoor speech is found in urban
residential communities, and considerable continuous interference is found in the
very noisy urban and downtown city areas. Thus, the use of outdoor spaces for
relaxed conversation is effectively denied to an estimated 5 to 10 million people
who reside in very noisy urban areas.
The backyards, patios, and balconies facing an urban freeway are similarly
rendered useless on a continuous basis, except when traffic is light in the early
morning hours. Although windows are kept closed in many dwelling units adjacent
2-129
-------
to freeways to keep out the noise, the noise level inside the dwelling may still be
too high for relaxed conversation. An estimated 2.5 to 5 million people living near
freeways are significantly affected by such intrusive noise. Probably, another 7 to
14 million people are affected to a lesser degree by the noise from traffic on the
96, 000 miles of major arterial roads in urban communities.
Construction In urban areas is characterized by a relatively high continuous
intrusive noise level, plus intermittent higher level noise events. It is estimated
that, during daylight and early evening hours, the ability of 21 million people to enjoy
outdoor conversation is severely impaired, particularly during the higher level noise
events. In many of these cases, the ability to converse indoors is also impaired. The
tolerance of people to construction noise appears to be higher than to other intruding
noises because of the expectation that the construction activity will soon cease.
However, in many larger cities where there appears to be almost continuous con-
struction activity near apartment dwellings, intolerance of construction noise may
be expected to be similar to that of other forms of noise intrusion.
Thus, the combination of continuous daytime noise caused by traffic on city
streets, major arterial streets, and freeways impairs the utility of the patios,
porches, and yards of approximately 7 to 15 percent of the total population, while
at any one time the noise from construction similarly affects another 10 percent.
The noise from many home appliances and other equipment makes it difficult
for the operator and others in the home environment to converse or hear a child's
cry. The noisier items in this category include power lawnmowers, home shop
tools, food disposers and blenders, sewing machines, electric shavers, and vacuum
cleaners, and it is estimated that at least 66 million people operate one or more of
these devices. Together with an estimated 115 million dwelling occupants, they
experience a severe reduction in speech intelligibility whenever such devices are used.
2-130
-------
Community Reaction
Community reaction may be expected to begin when the energy equivalent level of
an intruding noise exceeds the residual noise level. The degree of reaction depends,
as discussed elsewhere in this report, primarily on the amount of the intrusion and,
secondarily, on other characteristics of the noise and on additional factors such as
season of the year and attitude of those exposed. The impact of several forms of
noise, events such as noise from aircraft overflights, noise from diesel trucks on the
highway, and industrial noise, is best evaluated in terms of community reaction.
The most significant national problem that can be defined in such terms is air-
craft noise. There are, by conservative estimate, 7.5 million people living in areas
where aircraft noise exceeds the level required to generate widespread complaints.
This estimate assumes that all of the people affected live in residential urban com-
munities. A more realistic estimate, including people who live in quiet and normal
suburban communities and are affected by aircraft noise, is 15 million. Not only
does aircraft noise interfere with TV viewing and speech communication for most of
the people exposed, it also disturbs the sleep of many.
Community reaction can also be expected from the uncounted millions annoyed
by devices such as motorcycles, minicycles, and sportscars operated in a noisy
manner on residential streets; dunebuggies, off-road motorcycles, chainsaws and
snowmobiles operating in the wilderness; power lawnmowers, hedge clippers, and
shop tools operated by a neighbor on weekend mornings. The number of such noise
sources is rapidly growing, and their impact is spreading.
Industrial noise also results in complaints of varying degree in communities
throughout the United States. However, it Is difficult to quantify the number of
people disturbed because the majority of industrial noise problems are resolved at
a local level. The process of accommodation continually occurs in various
2-131
-------
communities when new plants are constructed or new machines or operations are
added to existing plants. These local accommodations are accomplished in many
ways, including direct interaction between the plant management and the community,
lawsuits, enforcement of local noise or zoning ordinances, and other actions by local
officials.
Hearing Damage Risk
There is a long history of occupational noise causing various degrees of hearing
impairment in some of the working population. The legal structure for the protection
of workers now exists through the provisions of the Occupational Health and Safety
Act, and also the Coal Mine Safety and Health Act.
However, there are also many occasions when people may be exposed to po-
tentially hazardous noise in non-occupational environments. The more significant
of these potential hazardous noise exposures are summarized in Table 2-21. These
data include only those people directly affected by the noise sources, that is, oper-
ators and passengers rather than bystanders. Although those who are only occasion-
ally exposed to such noises will not necessarily suffer permanent hearing impairment,
frequent exposure to the noise from any one or several of such sources, or occasional
exposure in combination with industrial noise, will increase the risk of incurring
such damage. In addition, the proliferation and use of such noise sources further
increase the risk of hearing impairment for a substantial percentage of the general
population.
Summary of Assessment
This data shows that approximately 22 to 44 million people have lost part of the
utility of their dwellings and yards to noise from traffic and aircraft on a continu-
ous basis, and another 21 million at any one time are similarly affected by noise
from construction activity. Further, many people are exposed to potentially
2-132
-------
Table 2-21
APPROXIMATE NUMBER OF OPERATORS OR PASSENGERS
IN NON-OCCUPATIONAL SITUATIONS EXPOSED
TO POTENTIALLY* HAZARDOUS NOISE FROM
VARIOUS SIGNIFICANT SOURCES
Source
Snowmobiles
Chain Saws
Motorcycles
Motorboats (over 45 HP)
Light Utility Helicopters
General Aviation Aircraft
Commercial Propeller Aircraft
Internal Combustion Lawnmowers
and other Noisy Lawn Care
Equipment
Trucks (Personal Use)
Home Shop Tools
Highway Buses
Subways
Noise Level in dBA
Average**
108
100
95
95
94
90
88
87
85
85
82
80
Maximum
112
110
110
105
100
103
100
95
100
98
90
93
Approximate Number
of People Exposed
(In Millions)***
1.60
2.50
3.00
8.80
0.05
0.30
5.00
23.00
5.00
13.00
2.00
2.15
*Although average use of any one of these devices by itself may not produce
permanent hearing impairment, exposure to this noise in combination, or
together with occupational noise will increase the risk of incurring perma-
nent hearing impairment.
**Average refers to the average noise level for devices of various manufacture
and model type.
***Single-event exposures. Many individuals may receive multiple exposures.
For example an individual may be exposed during the week to noise from
any or all of the above sources.
2-133
-------
hazardous noise when operating noisy devices. Although the number exposed to po-
tentially hazardous noise cannot be accurately assessed (since the people referred
to in Table 2-21 are not additive), a total of 40 million people might be reasonable.
Thus, not including the contribution of appliances, noise appears to affect at
least 80 million people, or 40 percent of the population. Roughly one-half of the
total impact of noise represents a potential health hazard (in terms of hearing im-
pairment potential alone), and the remaining half represents an infringement on the
ability to converse in the home. Such impact estimates clearly show the need to re-
duce the number of devices that emit potentially hazardous noise levels and to reduce
the outdoor noises that interfere with the quality of life.
2-134
-------
CHAPTER 3
CONTROL TECHNOLOGY AND ESTIMATES FOR THE FUTURE »
This chapter summarizes the noise reduction efforts of industry and the noise re-
duction potential for the various sources discussed in Chapter 2. The past, current,
and planned efforts of industry have been determined for the purpose of this report by
communication with representative companies and industrial associations. This chap-
ter is intended to give insight into the industry situation with respect to noise control
and should not be considered to represent carefully drawn industry positions.** The
noise reduction potential has been estimated for most of the sources based on existing
experimental data, when available, and upon application of known technology to sources
for which no noise control experimental data exists.
The noise of many of the sources has been extrapolated to the year 2000, both
with and without additional noise control. Although such extrapolations are conjec-
tural, they do provide a useful framework for establishing today's noise control
priorities.
* This chapter is based upon material prepared by the Staff EPA Office of Noise
Abatement and Control as a result of testimony received during public hearings
and on data contained in EPA Technical Information Documents NTID300.1,
"Noise from Construction Equipment and Operations, Building Equipment, and
Home Appliances" (EPA contract 68-04-0047, Bolt, Beranek and Newman);
NTTD300.2 "Noise from Industrial Plants" (EPA contract 68-04-0044, L. S,
Goodfriend Associates); NTID300.13, "Transportation Noise and Noise from
Equipment Powered by Internal Combustion Engines" (EPA contract 68-04-0046,
Wyle Laboratories); and NTID 300.14, "The Economic Impact of Noise," pre-
pared under interagency agreement between EPA and the National Bureau of
Standards.
** Such statements, containing detailed technical data, are contained in the trans-
cripts of the various EPA hearings on noise.
3-1
74-249 0-72-16
-------
TRANSPORTATION INDUSTRY PROGRAMS
The significance of noise from the transportation system is recognized in varying
degrees by many segments of the transportation industry. This awareness is reflected
in the degree of effort expended by the industry toward noise reduction. This discus-
sion considers the general nature of each industry as it relates to effecting noise
reduction programs, reviews the results of such programs, and presents estimates
of the noise reduction that couid be achieved through additional effort—both by industry
and the cognizant government agencies.
Commercial Aircraft
The excessive noise resulting from jet aircraft operations is perhaps the most
widely recognized and acted upon noise problem.
The airport noise problem originated in the late 1950's with the introduction of
jet aircraft, which were much noisier than the propeller aircraft they replaced, and
was compounded by the post-war construction of homes on vacant land around airports.
The problem grew to major proportions with the rapid growth of the commercial fleet
and spread to more airports with the introduction of commercial air operations to
smaller cities and towns. Despite concerted efforts in research and development of
quieter engines by the industry, significant progress was slow until spurred by federal
regulation.
The negative public reaction to commercial aircraft noise led to the adoption of
a federal regulation limiting the noise emission of new airplanes. This noise regula-
tion, Federal Aviation Regulation Part (FAR) 36—Noise Standards: Aircraft Type
Certification—became effective in December of 1969. The limits in this regulation
apply primarily to subsonic aircraft of new design having gross takeoff weights ex-
ceeding 75,000 pounds.
3-2
-------
The majority of aircraft in the present fleet exceed the FAR-36 noise limits by 5
to 15 EPNdB. Thus, new aircraft certified under FAR-36, such as the three-engined
widebody and later model four-engined widebody aircraft, will be substantially quieter
than aircraft in the present fleet. The reduction of noise to the FAR-36 limits could
significantly aid in the solution of today's airport noise problem.
However, further noise reduction is required to accomplish an economically
balanced and publicly satisfying solution at the majority of affected airports and to
accommodate the anticipated future growth of the fleet. To develop the technology for
noise reduction, the federal government has supported various research and develop-
ment programs. The current funding level by both government and industry on jet
engine noise alone now exceeds $37 million annually. One result of federal and indus-
try sponsored research and development during the 1960's is demonstrated in the noise
characteristics of the new DC-10 aircraft, which is quieter than the limits imposed by
FAR-36 and much quieter than the other aircraft in the current fleet.
Noise Reduction Programs for Jet Aircraft *
The design features responsible for the noise reduction in new aircraft are asso-
ciated with improvements in engine bypass ratio and fan design with new designs for
inlet and discharging ducts of the new engines. Noise reduction technology has also
been accelerated through several research and development programs aimed at
utilizing existing turbofan engines that are modified with a noise reduction retrofit
package. An example of such an effort is the NASA Acoustically Lined Nacelle
Program, which has demonstrated the feasibility of significantly reducing engine
noise on approach and of moderately reducing takeoff and sideline noise. A current
For details on economics and technological problems associated with jet engine
noise, see the transcript of the EPA hearings held in Washington, B.C.
3-3
-------
FAA sponsored program is expected to produce hardware that can be certificated by
the end of 1972. The existence of such hardware may establish retrofit as a viable
method for reducing airport noise, to be considered as an alternative to aircraft re-
placement.
Another NASA program, due to be completed in 1973, is the Quiet Engine Pro-
gram aimed at demonstrating the feasibility of designing a new turbofan engine with
takeoff and approach levels significantly lower than any achieved to date. This pro-
gram, together with the new FAA Core Engine Noise Reduction Program and others
are the forerunners of the total research and development effort required to reduce
noise of future aircraft to acceptable levels.
A parallel and supplemental approach to engine noise reduction in airport com-
munities is the alteration of flight procedures during takeoff and landing. Significant
noise reductions have been demonstrated with most commercial aircraft currently
in operation by using power cutback procedures (i.e., reducing engine thrust alter
the initial takeoff climb). To reduce noise impact during approach, a two-segment
landing procedure has been proposed. This procedure consists of an initial glide
slope terminated prior to landing in the standard 3-degree glide slope. Noise reduc-
tions comparable to those achieved by the power cutback have been achieved with this
procedure. Although the feasibility of the steep approach method, in terms of opera-
tional safety, has not been verified for all types of aircraft, it is already being used
by at least one major airline, when operating under visual flight conditions.
Noise Reduction Potential for Jet Aircraft
The noise reduction achievable by means of current and potentially available
technology, starting with the technology demonstrated in the DC-10 engines and those
of the federally funded research programs, is summarized in Table 3-1. The noise
3-4
-------
levels are specified in terms of the FAR-36 takeoff measurement locations. The
table indicates, for example, that a noise reduction of 10 to 15 EPNdB below the levels
generated by the DC-10 aircraft should eventually be possible for that size aircraft.
Table 3-1
ESTIMATED AIRCRAFT NOISE REDUCTION POTENTIAL
DC-10 Technology
Quiet Engine Design Goal*
Future Quiet Engine
Noise Reduction
EPNdB re DC-10
0
5
10 to 15
EPNdB
100
95
85 to 90
*Recent test results indicate the engine is quieter than the design
goal.
To place this noise reduction potential in proper perspective, it is constructive to
consider the growth of noise impact during the last decade due to commercial aircraft
operations and to project future trends on the basis of current and potential noise re-
duction technology. Figure 3-1 shows the range of projected impact area depending
on the application of noise reduction technology to the current commercial aircraft
fleet. The following significant factors are illustrated by this figure:
• Maintaining the current aircraft noise levels would result in an increase in
impacted area to 187 percent of the 1970 figure by the year 2000, due to
increases in air traffic.
• Retrofit of existing aircraft necessary to ensure compliance with FAR-36
would result in a significant decrease in impact area in the 1976-1987 time
period. This assumes availability of an effective and economical retrofit
package.
3-5
-------
3000
5% Projected Annual Growth
in Passenger Enplanements
and Air Freight Tonnage
New Aircraft Similar to Curren
Types of Aircraft w/o
FAR-36 Restriction
Retrofit to FAR-36
(1973 to 1977)
All New Aircraft After
1980
FAR-36 minus 4EPNdB
All New Aircraft After
1985
FAR-36 minus 10EPNdB
1970
1980
1990
2000
2010
Year
Figure 3-1. Noise-Impacted Areas (NEF-30 or Higher) as
Function of Jet Engine Noise Reduction Goals
3-6
-------
• A reduction in aircraft noise levels corresponding to FAR-36 and assuming
a further 10-EPNdB noise reduction due to advances in technology would
result, by the year 2000, in an 83-percent reduction in impact area below
the 1970 value.
In summary, significant reductions in the noise impact of commercial aircraft
are technically achievable in spite of projected increases in air traffic. However,
the ultimate reduction goals can be effected only by a continuing commitment of re-
sources by industry and the federal government to achieve the required advance in
technology. This may well include changes in operational procedures that would cost
little or nothing, provided safety is not compromised. It may also involve changes
in land use requirements, zoning regulations, and similar restrictions.
V/STOL Aviation
STOL Aircraft
The anticipated development of large STOL commercial aircraft during the next
decade will create new demands for noise abatement technology. In addition to oper-
ating out of large commercial airports, these aircraft will operate out of short field
general aviation airports that had not previously created an adverse noise impact on
the surrounding communities.
New STOL aircraft are expected to be subject to new noise certification regulations
developed specifically for this type of aircraft. A design objective of 95 EPNdB at 500
feet for STOL aircraft has been tentatively selected. However, no regulatory limits
have been established to date.
Design of vehicles and propulsion systems meeting this goal is being approached
by intensive research and development of suitable propulsion and lift concepts that
may be examined with respect to potential jet noise technology. Although the STOL
industry can take advantage of noise reduction technology previously discussed in
3-7
-------
terms of commercial jet aviation, it must overcome new problems associated with
its unique propulsion requirements.
VTOL Aircraft (Helicopter)
The VTOL industry is primarily geared to military helicopter requirements,
which account for approximately 80 percent of the more than 20,000 vehicles produced
prior to January 1970. The vulnerability to enemy action of military helicopters has
been closely correlated to their excessive noise signature, which allows early detection
and consequent retaliatory enemy reaction. The industry has therefore been engaged
in research and development programs specifically aimed at reducing helicopter noise.
However, there are no regulations limiting the noise of helicopters for civil use; thus,
there is little motivation for transferring this helicopter noise abatement technology
into the civil sector. The major sources of helicopter noise that have been, or can be,
reduced are summarized in Figure 3-2.
With the increasing use of helicopters within the urban service system, community
reaction to the noise intrusion will continue to increase. It has been demonstrated that
substantial noise suppression can be provided for current helicopter designs and, there-
fore , it is practical to consider that the helicopter can eventually become compatible
with community usage. In the long run, this result can be achieved only by incorpor-
ating adequate noise reduction methodology into vehicles produced for the urban user.
However, application of available noise control technology to currently marketed light
piston-powered helicopters can be fostered by regulatory action. In addition, consumer
groups (such as large city governments and leagues of cities) might precipitate the
availability of quieter civil helicopters by exercising their purchasing power. The
potential for future helicopter noise reduction is summarized in Table 3-2.
3-8
-------
(7) Lower revolutions per second
® More blades
(5) Large blade area
(4) Modified blade tip shapes
(5) Reduced blade interaction
@ Engine inlet suppression
© Engine exhaust muffling
(§) Cabin insulation improvements
Current Design Approaches to Helicopter Noise Reduction
120
110
100
90
Rn
1
_>
11)
1
| Modified"
—
| Early Model
»
1
*1
1
1
i— |
| Early Model
—
| Later Model
n
|
60 kt 120 kt
*Rotor Blade Modifications
Demonstrated Noise Reduction of a Heavy-Helicopter
Twin-Rotor System
Figure 3-2. Noise Reduction for Helicopters
3-9
-------
Table 3-2
ESTIMATED NOISE REDUCTION POTENTIAL FOR HELICOPTERS
Time Period
Potential by 1975
Utilizing Available
Production Methods
Potential by 1985
Utilizing Current
Industry Trends
Potential by 1980 to 1985
Utilizing Demonstrated
or Advanced Technology
Noise Reduction, dB*
Heavy
Transport
Helicopters
0
10
10
Light and
Medium
Turbine -Powered
Helicopters
5
15
17
Light Piston -
Powered
Helicopters
10
10
20
*Noise reduction relative to typical current noise levels in dBA at 1000 feet.
General Aviation Aircraft
The majority of general aviation aircraft are owned by private individuals and are
used for personal and recreational flying. Therefore, the general aviation aircraft
industry deals predominantly with a consumer market similar to that for automobiles
or motorcycles. Consequently, the exploitation of technologies that bear only indi-
rectly on product desirability, such as exterior noise reduction, is relegated to a
secondary level of importance. However, the attitude of a vast majority of those
affected by general aviation noise is such that this approach is not considered accept-
able.
At present, general aviation aircraft are not a major source of community noise,
although internal noise in many types is of importance with respect to hearing damage.
3-10
-------
Approximately one-half of the aircraft operate near hub airports, where their noise
characteristics, except for the executive jets, are masked by the much noisier com-
mercial aircraft. The remainder of the aircraft are distributed over more than 11,000
airports within the U.S. Thus, the general aviation industry has not, until recently,
considered aircraft noise in terms of the nonparticipant environment. Furthermore,
there are no noise regulations for the majority of these aircraft, which are below the
75,000-pound minimum gross weight considered by FAR-36.
The general aviation fleet has grown rapidly during the last 15 years and will con-
tinue to grow at an accelerated rate until at least 1985. More important, from a noise
standpoint, is the growing proportion of larger and more powerful multiengined piston,
turboprop, and turbojet aircraft in the projected fleet. Because of this changing mix,
the typical general aviation aircraft could become noisier in the future. This factor,
in addition to the increase in the number of aircraft operations, will lead to an increas-
ing potential for the production of community noise intrusions.
Noise Reduction Programs
Reduction of interior cabin noise levels is presently a much higher priority item
for the general aviation industry than is reducing exterior levels. Some improvement
has been achieved by reducing noise from the engine and propeller and by increasing
transmission loss through the cabin walls. The general aviation industry's plans for
further reduction indicate that interior noise levels of about 75 dBA are possible
within the next 10 years. Such an accomplishment would essentially eliminate any
potential hazard of hearing loss and would result in cabin noise levels comparable to
the interior noise levels of an average automobile at highway speeds. The general
aviation industry has recently begun to use quieter turbofan engines for business jet
aircraft instead of the noisier pure turbojets. This quieter engine can provide a
3-11
-------
substantial reduction in external noise, with equal or improved aircraft performance.
However, an equivalent noise reduction throughout the business jet fleet is required
to significantly reduce the noise impact of these aircraft.
Propeller and engine manufacturers have been engaged in the development of quiet
concepts for military and V/STOL commercial applications, and some of the results
have fed back to the general aviation Industry. For example, current aircraft models
generally have three-blade propellers rather than the old two-blade propellers, with
a resulting noise reduction of 3 to 5 dBA. However, in the absence of definite goals
(such as could be established by regulation), much of the noise reduction technology
will not be systematically applied.
Noise Reduction Potential
A significant reduction in engine/exhaust noise for propeller aircraft is achievable
with current technology, and a 10-dB reduction of propeller noise is feasible in the
next 5 years. It appears that a maximum noise level objective in the range of 68 to
73 dBA at 1000 feet for new general aviation propeller aircraft is achievable in the
1980 time period. Similarly, noise levels of business jet aircraft could be reduced to
nearly these levels if the technology developed for commercial jets were applied to
the smaller business jet engines.
The achievement of these reduced exterior noise levels in general aviation air-
craft will undoubtedly require regulatory action by the government, since the operator
of this category of transportation cannot be expected to apply pressure on the manu-
facturer. Similarly, regulation would ensure the achievement of internal noise levels
that are not potentially hazardous to hearing.
Highway Vehicles
The highway vehicle industry is strongly committed to the development of vehicles
intended for specific segments of the consumer public. Each vehicle model is
3-12
-------
manufactured with a particular performance goal or overall image in mind. This
image ranges from a luxury vehicle, wherein a quiet car is desired by the consumer,
to a competition type vehicle that generally exhibits the highest legal noise level.
In its infancy, the automotive industry found it necessary to equip its engines with
mufflers because the noise of the horseless carriage frightened horses on the road.
Cities and towns began to require mufflers on cars in the 1920's, and the automobile
muffler has improved significantly since then.
Trucks, utility and maintenance vehicles, and buses are generally manufactured
to individual customer specifications that place major emphasis on performance,
operating economy, and initial cost. Truck noise is often mistakenly associated with
better economy and more power. Thus, there has been little purchaser pressure to
reduce truck noise, although individual cities and towns have begun to demand quieter
maintenance vehicles and buses. However, in the late 1950's realization of potential
legislation to curtail truck noise led the industry to adopt a voluntary maximum ex-
terior noise level standard.
The manufacturer's commitment to noise reduction is twofold: (1) a program of
research and development to satisfy consumer requirements for a quiet car, for the
passengers, and (2) an attempt to meet existing legislation on exterior noise levels.
This legislation essentially takes the form of a short term noise requirement. These
commitments are greatly complicated because the vehicle manufacturers face a
number of differing noise laws, measurement standards, and time deadlines through-
out the country for various noise limits on highway vehicles. Because of the time
constraints contained in some of the laws, industry has frequently been required to
exploit the so called "band-aid" type of problem solution, without having adequate
time to incorporate the new requirements into a basic redesign.
3-13
-------
Incorporation of appropriate noise reduction techniques into the design of highway
vehicles proceeds slowly for a number of reasons, foremost of which is that the manu-
facturers are dealing with production units having a lead time of 3 to 5 years. Any
refinement going into new vehicles requires modification that must be proven compatible
with all design and production constraints.
There is potential for the reduction of noise associated with highway transportation
through consideration of noise impact in route selection and by the use in certain in-
stances of various types of noise barriers. Such barriers can cost from $50, 000
to well over $100, 000 per mile, depending on type of construction, and whether or
not they were included in the original highway design. Similarly, engineering
controls, such as use of depressed roadways and provision of sound insulation
on buildings adjacent to heavy traffic offer possibilities of minimizing noise impact.
Such measures may be even more effective as source control is applied.
Noise Reduction Programs
Passenger Cars. A great deal of noise reduction is currently incorporated into
the majority of passenger vehicles. Much of this noise reduction is directed at re-
ducing interior noise levels, and successful efforts often have been rewarded by
increased sales.
The exterior noise levels of passenger cars, measured under various normal
operating conditions along freeways, city streets, and rural roads, show that the noise
of the newest vehicles is less than that of older vehicles. In statistical studies con-
ducted on highway vehicle noise, the average noise level of vehicles in the category
"1969 and newer" was found to be approximately 2 to 3 dB less than that of older
vehicles.
According to testimony given at the San Francisco, Chicago, and Washington,
D. C. noise hearings, the majority of passenger cars built in the U.S. since 1969
3-14
-------
meet present California noise requirements. According to industry estimates,
meeting future California regulations will increase new car prices by approx-
imately $30 to $50 per vehicle.
Trucks. Adequate silencing treatment on new vehicles under maximum noise out-
put conditions provides a substantial overall exhaust noise reduction, yielding overall
vehicle noise levels in the 85 to 90 dBA range. However, the average heavy diesel
truck will probably run over 500,000 miles in its lifetime. Over this time period,
many of the components will be replaced either due to wear or to modification for
individual operator needs. Consequently, the noise output of many heavy trucks may
increase significantly from their original condition, negating noise reduction features
incorporated into the original vehicle, particularly if muffler and tire replacements
do not provide noise performance equal to that of the original equipment.
Costs associated with reducing truck noise are difficult to estimate, because of
the variety of noise sources associated with each type of vehicle. Engine components,
such as fans, gears, and transmissions and accessories, as well as the engine itself,
are major noise sources. One engine manufacturer has estimated that there would be
an increase in cost of $1,500 in the $5,000 base price of a 250 hp diesel engine to
provide a 10 dBA noise reduction. Several truck manufacturers have estimated that
costs to meet the 1973 California law requirements range from $20 to $125 per vehicle
and to meet later requirements there may be as much as a 15 percent increase in
costs, assuming all technical problems are resolved. It should be noted that in the
absence of national standards, major manufacturers are using the California law as
a design basis.
Buses. The principal emphasis in noise reduction for buses has been to satisfy
the desire for more passenger comfort. Little emphasis has been placed on external
3-15
-------
noise, and presently there are no uniform criteria for external noise for buses other
than recommended levels established by the Society of Automotive Engineers (SAE
J366).
Utility and Maintenance Vehicles. Utility and maintenance vehicles differ from
other similar highway vehicles only in their usage patterns and functions. They are
most often operated at low road speeds and at medium to high engine speeds. There-
fore, these vehicles, particularly the diesel powered units, generally produce high
noise levels, even at low highway speeds. The engine for such vehicles is normally
muffled, but noise associated with the performance of auxiliary functions is seldom
considered. One notable exception is the experimental quiet refuse truck developed
by a major U.S. auto manufacturer for the City of New York.
Noise Reduction Potential
Figure 3-3 illustrates the present ranges of noise levels for highway vehicles
under both maximum noise conditions and highway cruise conditions. Also summa-
rized in this figure are noise reduction goals deemed achievable with current tech-
nology in the near future for existing vehicle concepts and long term goals that could
be met as a result of further research and development efforts. These goals are
based on an extensive analysis of the subsources of vehicle noise and assume continuing
advancement in the applicable noise reduction technology. For most vehicles, reduc-
tion of tire noise is the major technical challenge, except for the simple elimination
of exceedingly noisy truck tire retread patterns. At low speeds, further reduction
may require a change from the conventional reciprocating engine for propulsive power
to new devices such as gas turbines or electric drive.
Recreation Vehicles
The annoyance caused by noise from outboard motors was recognized by industry
long before any legislative bodies began to act to control its effect. Motivated by
3-16
-------
£ -
l-s
33
c=u
II
KV\I
i
Is
eg m
Jr
l^0\
.rvool
£_
5
^i
W> H
I
X
I
!
s
&
VSP ~ II 09 )
3-17
74-249 O - 72 - 17
-------
public pressure, manufacturers began experimenting in the late 1920's with underwater
exhaust systems to reduce the noise output of outboard motors. Their success in the
late 1940's was one of the factors leading to a dramatic growth in the market for motor-
boats. The current outboard probably represents the quietest application of a two-
stroke engine for its power output on the market today.
Snowmobiles are relative newcomers on the leisure vehicle scene. Introduced in
1958 as a low-powered, lightweight utility snow vehicle, the snowmobile has evolved
into a more refined, high performance, all-purpose recreation vehicle. The increased
popularity of this vehicle has been accompanied by an evergrowing number of com-
plaints about its noise. The primary source of this noise is a poorly muffled exhaust
system usually resulting from attempts by the user to gain more engine power by
reducing engine muffling. Newer model snowmobiles generate lower noise levels than
earlier models, with measured noise levels of 1971 models generally ranging from 15
to 23 dB below levels of the early models. This is a significant accomplishment, par-
ticularly since there were no effective snowmobile noise regulations in effect prior to
June 30, 1970.
Motorcycles also have a long history in the leisure field. Due to the design con-
straints of lightweight construction and maximum power output, motorcycles have
continually produced excessive noise. The average motorcycle rider frequently asso-
ciates noise with power and generally feels that high noise levels fit the motorcycle
image. The major manufacturers have only recently taken steps to try to change
these beliefs. All current motorcycles now intended for highway use are built to com-
ply with California state noise regulations. In addition, most major manufacturers,
under the guidance of the Motorcycle Industry Council, have agreed to place mufflers
on all their off-road motorcycles to limit their noise output. The industry is currently
in the process of trying to convince the consumer that noise does not necessarily mean
3-18
-------
power and that a reduction of the noise problem is necessary to the continuing enjoy-
ment of motorcycling as a widespread recreational activity.
Noise Reduction Programs
The gross noise reductions of most current recreation vehicles have been accom-
plished through exhaust system treatment. Engine shielding and isolation have also
been developed to a high degree on outboard motors, and this technology is gradually
being applied to snowmobiles. Excluding motorcycles and some snowmobiles, the
industry, as a whole, has nearly reached the stage in which exhaust treatment has
been fully exploited, leaving further reduction efforts to be aimed toward intake
silencing and engine noise itself. For motorcycles, most of the current noise reduc-
tion has been achieved on the engine exhaust; however, design constraints on pack-
aging exhaust systems of sufficient size have yet to be overcome. Further research
is required in this area.
Potential Noise Reduction
The current range of noise levels and the future noise reduction goals for recre-
ation vehicles are summarized in Figure 3-4. Short term goals are considered
achievable with current technology. The feasibility of long terra goals is based on an
analysis of contributing noise sources and the continuing advancement of the applica-
ble noise reduction technology.
For pleasure boats, motorcycles, and snowmobiles, the exhaust is the principal
noise source. The lightweight design of motorcycles and snowmobiles frequently does
not allow for adequate exhaust treatment or intake silencer placement, and further
development of exhaust mufflers will be necessary to achieve a substantial decrease
beyond the best muffler technology currently available. The practice of deliberately
disabling or completely removing exhaust mufflers must, of course, be totally dis-
couraged.
3-19
-------
E
aS
?fc
-So?
\//\
i _
s s
II
|S>v|
o
I I
£ -o
d£
1 1
P7Z7I2
fo\\\V\\vf s
1 Q.
_,,! o
kvc\\x\\\\; | a
I, „.„ <~^ m
F57773 s
K\\\X\Vtf 2
1 1 &
F77ZI -£
1X\\1 S S
1. , ._„ 1 n !J
'//» 2
K\X\\\\: =
i i §
F7771 s£
K\\\VT 1 s
1 "V A%
'///] s
K>^^N\s |
l^., . i ,_J n
Y////A > ^
KsXVsSXV\\N s S
1 0 S
F3^ raj
1 | (-)
1 ' g -
11. 11
J
•S
CO
5
"*"
1
j
a.
£
S
A
*
O
B
Tf
c
^
a
<3
«
|
(N
1
S
J3
S
00
£
S
£
1
£
5
0
2
*
5
I
o
•a
a
I
o
a
8 8
V8P - I3A3T i
3-20
-------
For boats, a reduction in the transmission of noise through engine enclosures for
inboard engines can be accomplished by application of the advanced state of acoustic
enclosure design. Outboard engines pose a more difficult problem due to design con-
straints that employ high power-to-weight ratios.
Substantial reduction in engine noise for recreation vehicles beyond that available
with current technology must result from internal engine redesign programs and
modification to the intake and exhaust systems. Effort should also be made to reduce
noise exposure levels for the vehicle operator and passenger.
Rail Systems
The incorporation of noise limiting requirements in the specifications for new
rail vehicles has only recently caused industry to initiate noise abatement programs.
Therefore, the majority of vehicles in operation today have not been affected by
such programs.
The development of specifications for rapid transit vehicles is complicated by
the division of responsibilities between the cognizant transit authority and the manu-
facturer. For example, a typical present-day specification does not include the noise
produced by the wheel/rail interaction, which in most cases is the major contribution
to the overall noise level, nor does it take into account the effect of noise reverber-
ation in tunnels upon the interior noise levels in the vehicles. This means that the
transit authority and the manufacturer may be required to pursue separate noise
reduction programs to solve a common problem.
Noise Reduction Programs
Railroads. The impact of wheels on the joints of sectional rails can be reduced
5 dB or greater by the use of continuous welded rail. For intercity passenger sys-
tems , sectional tracks are frequently replaced by welded rails when the older rails
3-21
-------
wear out. Other techniques for reducing wheel/rail noise have included grinding the
rails to eliminate surface irregularities and lubricating the wheels.
Noise abatement programs conducted by the railroad industry have concentrated
mainly on the modern, high speed, intercity trains such as the Metroliner and the
TurboTrain. The noise levels in these multiple-unit trains have been kept fairly low
by carefully considering noise control details in the design. Due to their more sub-
stantial body structure and because they normally travel at lower speeds, locomotive -
hauled passenger cars have similar or lower noise levels.
A small number of programs concerned with wayside noise from railroad equip-
ment are in progress. These programs are concerned with the noise from diesel-
electric locomotives. The introduction of more electric locomotives would reduce
the noise impact from the propulsion system and would eliminate the typical pulsating
sound of the diesel-electric to which many people object.
Noise control has generally not been a consideration, other than in the interior
of the cab, in diesel-electric locomotives. The exhaust system has no muffler, and
since this is the major source of noise, it is possible that mufflers could be designed
to reduce the overall sound level. In addition, more substantial or modified casing
around the diesel engine, together with the acoustically absorbent material, may be
effective in reducing the noise from this source.
Rail Transit Systems. A number of noise abatement programs have been con-
ducted by both equipment manufacturers and transit authorities. The work that has
been done to date in connection with rail transit systems has shown that considerable
noise reduction can be achieved with current technology. Some systems are noisy
because of poor wheel and rail maintenance, lack of air-conditioning equipment in
cars, and lack of acoustic absorption in the subways. Nearly all new cars are now
air conditioned, allowing the windows to be permanently sealed, resulting in a 10-dBA
3-22
-------
reduction from the 90 to 93 dBA levels that exist in the noisier vehicles. It has also
been shown in the Toronto system that a further reduction can be attained by the use
of absorptive material on tunnel walls, and by proper attention to acoustics in the
design of stations.
The most significant reduction in exterior and interior noise levels can be made
in existing systems by careful maintenance of the wheels and rails. A summary
of the noise reduction that is possible using current technology from related indus-
tries is shown in Table 3-3.
Noise Reduction Potential
The railroad and transit authorities, together with the manufacturers of rail
equipment, are becoming increasingly aware of the noise problems associated with
rail systems and are planning a number of programs for noise reduction. In
most cases, however, the programs are not defined in terms of final objectives,
but more to determine what reductions can be achieved using current technology.
The following programs are among those planned.
Railroads
• A study of the noise characteristics of diesel-electric locomotives with a
view toward eventual noise reduction.
• An improved suspension system for the TurboTrain that, it is estimated,
may reduce interior noise levels from 74 dBA to 60 or 65 dBA. Due to the
noise from the air-conditioning system, the noise reduction obtained may
be less than this. The final levels may be in the range of 60 to 70 dBA,
depending on the position in the car, unless the air-conditioning equipment
noise is reduced.
• The replacement of old track by welded track. Only about 3000 miles of
track per year are renewed in this manner.
3-23
-------
Table 3-3
SUMMARY OF THE NOISE REDUCTION POTENTIAL BY APPLYING
CURRENT TECHNOLOGY TO EXISTING TRANSIT VEHICLES
Existing Condition
Standard track, not
regularly maintained
Concrete trackbed
Bare concrete tunnel
surfaces
Bare concrete station
surfaces
Old type vehicles
using open windows
or vents for ventila-
tion
Standard doors and
body
Standard steel
wheels
Standard type
vehicles
Standard, noisy pro-
pulsion unit
Modified Condition
Welded track, ground
Ballast trackbed
Strips of absorbent
material at wheel height
Limited absorbent
material on wall sur-
faces and under plat-
form overhang
New type cars with
air conditioning
Improved door seals ,
body gasket holes
plugged, et cetera
Steel wheels with con-
strained damping
Layer
Installation of a 4 ft.
barrier alongside
track
Installation of a skirt
on side of vehicles
Modified unit with
skewed armature slots,
random blower fan
blade spacing, acous-
ti cally treated fan ducts
Estimated Noise
Reduction, dBA
Car
Interior
5-15
0-5
5-10
-
10-15
0-5
5-15
-
-
0-5
Car
Exterior
5-15
0
-
5-10
-
-
5-15
10-15
6
5
Note: The values of noise reduction are estimated for the particular source
alone, assuming no contributions from other sources. The values
therefore cannot be added to obtain an overall noise reduction.
3-24
-------
Rail Transit Systems
• The application of spray-on acoustic absorption material on the ceilings and
under the platform edges, together with noise barriers between tracks at a
New York subway station.
• The replacement of old transit cars with more modern types incorporating
air-conditioning, door and window seals, rubber suspension mounts, and vi-
bration damping materials on the body.
• The replacement of old track with welded track in many transit systems.
• A study to determine whether improved sound insulation of transit cars can
be achieved without increasing the mass of the car body.
• Design of an integrated heat transfer system for air conditioning equipment
that uses cooling coils or fans that are operated while the train is out of the
station area.
Future Changes in the Noise Environment
The current trend of the transportation industry relative to noise abatement has
been outlined, and independent estimates have been presented for the noise reduction
potential for each category. The net effect of this current trend, and of the changes
that would result if the noise reduction potentials by source control were achieved, is
reviewed in this discussion.
As a basis for projecting noise impact to the year 2000, a conservative model was
chosen for growth of the existing transportation system. Major assumptions for the
model included:
1. Conservative population growth of 1.15 percent per year from 1970 to
1985 and 1.05 percent thereafter.
3-25
-------
2. Conservative estimates for numbers of highway and transit vehicles, with
growth rates approaching urban population growth rates by the year 2000.
3. Conservative estimates for growth in total freeway miles and freeway
traffic.
The change in noise levels generated by transportation system categories has been
estimated for three possible options for future source noise reduction:
Option 1—No change in source noise levels after 1970 (baseline).
Option 2—Estimated noise reduction achieved with current industry trends by the
year 1985 with no further reductions thereafter. This assumes no new noise control
regulations by local, state, or Federal agencies or any change in consumer demand for
quieter vehicles. Historically, these factors have provided the principal motivation for
industry action to reduce noise.
Option 3—Projected noise reduction is achieved by implementation of an incremen-
tal regulatory program for a specified amount of noise reduction by the years 1975,
1980, and 1985. The examples of potential noise reduction utilized for Option 3 are
summarized in Table 3-4 for the major transportation categories.
Change in Noise Energy Output
The approximate total A-weighted noise energy expended per day by the year 2000
for all units of a given transportation category, except aircraft, has been estimated
for each of the three options. The results are summarized in Table 3-5. The esti-
mated value for 1970, given in Chapter 2, is listed in the first column for reference.
The second column, based on Option 1 (no noise reduction), shows the increase in
noise energy per day due solely to the estimated increase in number and usage of
sources. The third and fourth columns show the estimated trend in noise energy by
the year 2000 for Option 2 (current industry trends) or Option 3 (possible noise regu-
lation) .
3-26
-------
Table 3-4
EXAMPLES OF POSSIBLE NOISE REDUCTION GOALS FOR EXTERNALLY
RADIATED NOISE FOR TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM CATEGORIES
Source
HIGHWAY VEHICLE1
Diesel Trucks
Utility Trucks
Light Trucks and Pickups
Highway Buses
City and School Buses
Standard Passenger Cars
Sport, Compact and Import Cars
Motorcycles (Highway)
AIRCRAFT
2
Commercial Aircraft
(with turbofan engines)
0
General Aviation Prop Aircraft
Heavy Transport Helicopters3
Light Turbine -Powered Helicopters3
Light Piston-Powered Helicopters3
RAILWAY1
Locomotives
Existing Rapid Transit
RECREATIONAL VEHICLES1
Snowmobiles
Off-Road Motorcycles and Minicycles
Outboard Motor Boats
Inboard Motor Boats
Effective Date
1975
3
3
2
3
2
2
6
2
4
0
0
5
10
0
5
10
2
2
5
1980
8
8
5
8
5
4
8
7
7
5
5
12
15
5
10
12
7
4
6
1985
10
10
8
10
8
5
9
10
10
10
10
17
20
8
13
14
10
6
7
Relative reduction in average noise levels in dBA at 50 feet.
2Relative reduction in EPNdB at FAR-36 Measurement Position for Takeoff.
3Relative reduction in EPNdB at 1000 feet fromaircraft during takeoff.
3-27
-------
Table 3-5
ESTIMATED FUTURE CHANGE IN NOISE ENERGY FOR TRANSPORTATION
SYSTEM CATEGORIES WITH THREE OPTIONS FOR NOISE REDUCTION
Source
HIGHWAY VEHICLES
Medium and Heavy Trucks
Sports Cars , Import and
Compacts
Passenger Cars (standard)
Light Trucks and Pickups
Motorcycles
City and School Buses
Highway Buses
RECREATION VEHICLES
Motorcycles
Snowmobiles
Outboard Motorboats
Inboard Motorboats
RAIL VEHICLES
Locomotives
Existing R/T Systems
Noise Energy in Kilowatt-Hours/Day
1970
5,000
1,000
800
500
250
20
12
800
120
100
40
1,200
6
1
10,000
2,500
1,200
1,000
800
20
12
2,500
400
160
63
1,200
10
2000
2
4,000
1,600
800
400
320
a
5
NA
NA
NA
NA
1,200
6.3
3
800
250
400
160
80
3
1.2
250
16
40
12
200
0.5
NA-Not available.
*Option 1—No noise reduction.
2—Estimate industry trend in noise reduction.
3—Example of possible incremental program of noise regulation.
3-28
-------
Under Option 3, the noise energy by the year 2000 for all categories is always
less than 1970 values. The reduction for Option 2, relative to Option 1, by the year
2000 reflects the current effort by the various industries to produce a quieter product,
while the additional reduction indicated for Option 3 shows the significant additional
benefit that could be obtained through noise regulation.
These values of noise energy provide a rough indication of changes in the relative
magnitude of potential noise impact of transportation vehicles. By the year 2000, the
noise energy value in Table 3-5 indicates a twofold increase from 1970 if no further
action were taken to reduce noise. Assuming that current industry trends continue,
little significant change in noise energy is indicated by the year 2000. However, by
implementing positive regulatory program, a reduction in noise energy of nearly 4.5-
to-1 over 1970 is indicated for Option 3.
Aircraft have been omitted from Table 3-5 since the overall noise impact of air-
craft is more readily evaluated in terms of land area within a given Noise Exposure
Forecast (NEF) contour or Community Noise Equivalent Level (CNEL)
contour. This information is provided in Table 3-6.
Change in Residual Noise Level
The same model for residual noise levels utilized in Chapter 2 for 1970 has been
applied to forecast trends for 1985 and 2000 as a function of the noise reduction op-
tions for only highway vehicles. The result of this projection, including the estimated
residual levels for 1950 and 1960, is shown in Figure 3-5. The trend for Option 1 is
clearly an upper bound and indicates an additional growth of about 2.5 dB in the re-
sidual level by the year 2000, due solely to the increase in noise sources. The lowest
line for Option 3 represents the cumulative effect of achieving the three-step noise
reduction values summarized in Table 3-5 and shows the net reduction in residual
noise level to be 5 dB relative to today, or about 7 dB below the "no action" Option 1
trend for the year 2000.
3-29
-------
Table 3-6
SUMMARY OF ESTIMATED NOISE IMPACTED LAND (WITHIN CNEL 65 CONTOUR)
NEAR AIRPORTS AND FREEWAYS FROM 1955 TO THE YEAR 2000
WITH FUTURE ESTIMATES BASED ON OPTIONS 3 AND 2
1955
1960
1965
1970
1985
2000
Impacted Land Area— Square Miles
Near Airports
~20
200
760
1450
780 (870)*
240 (1230)
Near Freeways
8
75
285
545
400 (1470)*
0 (2050)
Total
28
275
1045
1995
1180 (2340)*
240 (3260)
*Number in parentheses is the estimated impact area if no further
regulatory action is taken (Option 2). It assumes FAR-36 remains
in force for aircraft, no new limits established for highway vehicle
noise, and no change in existing freeway design concepts to increase
noise reduction. Numbers outside of parentheses assume FAR-36
minus 10 EPNdB for aircraft and additional combined noise reduction
for freeways and highway vehicles of 3 dBA by 1985 and 5 dBA by the
year 2000.
Change in Impacted Areas Near Freeways and Airports
Noise impact for land adjacent to freeways and airports was summarized in
Chapter 2 for 1970 conditions. To indicate past and future trends, the total affected
land area near freeways and airports has been estimated from 1955 to the year 2000.
The resulting values, given in Table 3-6, represent the incompatible land area lying
within a CNEL of 65. As defined in Chapter 1, this is equivalent to an NEF value of 30.
Estimates of noise impacted land areas are given for 1985 and the year 2000 for
both Option 2 (values in parentheses) and Option 3, for which a marked reduction in
3-30
-------
50
48
~ 46
44
.
<
42
40
Option 1
(No Noise Reduction)"
Option 3
Effect of Regulatory Limits Set in
1975, 1980 and 1985
Dates of
Introduction
of Limits
Option 3
rn
1950
1960
1970
1980
1990
2000
Figure 3-5. Estimated Long Term Trend in Daytime Residual Noise
Levels in a Typical Residential Urban Community
3-31
-------
impact is achieved. For Option 3, the estimated noise impacted land near airports
is reduced by 83 percent from the 1970 value, assuming an annual fleet growth of 3
percent and no significant change in day-night operations mix or the ratio of freight
to passenger aircraft operations:. Based on a CNEL 65 boundary, noise impacted
land near freeways is reduced to zero by the year 2000, assuming a net noise reduc-
tion in vehicle and freeway noise of about 5 dB below today's values.
The total noise impacted laud by the year 2000 varies by a factor of over 13, de-
pending on the choice of Option 2 (no further change beyond today's industry trends)
or Option 3 (noise regulation). The striking effect of the decrease in noise impacted
land near freeways due to a small (5 dBA) decrease in freeway noise is clear.
It is particularly important to note that the imposition of noise limits on aircraft
by FAR-36 is resulting in at least a "holding action" regarding airport noise. How-
ever, without national policy concerning highway vehicles, the potential growth in
noise impact near freeways is great.
Estimates have been made of the relative cost-effectiveness of alternate methods
of reducing the noise impacted land. For airports having noise problems reduction
of noise at the source (i.e., quieter engines) is clearly more cost-effective than
reducing noise impact by land acquisition. For airports without noise problems, fu-
ture problems should be prevented by complementary airport and land use planning.
For future airports, environmental limits should be adopted in the planning stage for
use in site selection and for assuring compatible uses of adjacent land.
For freeways, designs to increase barrier noise reduction is more cost-effective
than land acquisition. Vehicle noise reduction is one potential means for reducing
freeway noise and also provides benefits for the total urban population. Thus, a
3-32
-------
balanced approach for reducing highway transportation noise should emphasize vehicle
noise reduction, improved freeway design, and community planning for compatible land
uses.
However, the most effective noise prevention measures will be identified and im-
plemented only by the use of balanced multimodal transportation systems, designed to
move people and cargo economically, while minimizing total environmental impact of
the transportation process. This transport planning process must be accompanied by
planning and implementation of land use designs and building regulations which will
prevent future noise problems and gradually resolve existing ones.
3-33
74-249 O - 72 - 18
-------
DEVICES POWERED BY INTERNAL COMBUSTION ENGINES
Historically, noise abatement has not been a primary consideration of manufac-
turers of small internal combustion engines, although unmuffled equipment has not
been produced for many years because of buyer resistance to excessively noisy
products. Public tolerance, combined with some noise control, has produced a com-
promise situation between the consumers and the manufacturers.
Noise reduction achieved by the engine manufacturers has resulted in reasonably
quiet engines that make somewhat less noise than the equipment they are designed to
power. Equipment manufacturers, however, are not completely convinced of this
condition and tend to attribute noise to the engine. This is particularly characteristic
of the small equipment manufacturer who purchases the engine from an outside source
and has no involvement with engine design. In this category are large numbers of
lawn care equipment units constructed of pressed sheet metal in production shops
around the country.
Many manufacturers of equipment powered by internal combustion engines feel
that they are being placed in the difficult position of being required to meet several
divergent noise ordinances. Such laws are being established by individual cities
and towns and are related to local economic and social conditions.
Noise Reduction Programs
The extent of noise reduction within the industries supplying small internal com-
bustion engines has been directly related to its effect on sales and the existence of
noise ordinances. With the exception of the small generator industry, buyer insis-
tence on quiet equipment has not been sufficient to produce significant noise reduc-
tion efforts. Consequently, noise abatement programs have not been consistent. For
instance, one manufacturer has demonstrated that a small generator, using a 3-
horsepower engine with a vertical shaft within a complete enclosure, may be quieted
3-34
-------
to 70 decibels at an operator position of 6 feet from the engine. If this same treatment
were applied to a lawn mower, it would achieve an improvement of approximately 20
dBA over current production models and would make the engine inaudible in the presence
of a rotating blade. However, no serious plans exist for production of such a mower
because of the high cost of the noise reduction treatment and the resulting small market
potential, as estimated by the manufacturer.
Chain saw manufacturers recognize the existence of a serious noise problem re-
garding their equipment. The high power-to-weight ratio necessary in a hand-carried
device requires a lightweight structure that is incapable of containing most of its own
noise. Further, the noise produced by the chain is on the order of 100 dBA at the
operator position, and reduction of the engine noise below this level would not reduce
total output. Some experimental work is being done to reduce the noise of the chain,
but costs rapidly become prohibitive when exotic materials are used to damp the
response of the blade to the chain. Considerable engineering work has been expended
to make chain saw mufflers more efficient within weight and size limitations, and
some success has been demonstrated. Sound levels have been reduced to as low as
102 dBA by some special mechanical devices, with power losses of no more than 10
to 12 percent.
Noise control within the industry served by small internal combustion engines
will continue to be affected by various local laws and ordinances. However, there
will always be difficulty in encouraging noise abatement until public education advances
to the point at which the charisma of noise is gone. When each person is convinced
that his contribution to noise reduction is meaningful, he will then go to the manufac-
turer of the quietest machine and pay the extra money required and will take pride
in his accomplishment. When this happens, as it has in the small generator field,
manufacturers will probably respond accordingly. Interviews have shown that most
3-35
-------
manufacturers can respond but at present have found little market for quiet products
when the public is asked to pay the price.
Potential Noise Reduction
The combined effort by the public in demanding quieter products powered by intern-
al combustion engines, and successful response to this demand by the manufacturers,
should provide a substantial decrease in annoyance from this equipment. The estimated
potential noise reduction that might be expected for these devices is summarized in
Table 3-7. The noise reduction values are relative to current noise levels and are
specified in terms of potential reductions achievable by the 1975, 1980, and 1985 time
periods.
Full accomplishment of these noise reductions would largely eliminate annoyance
problems associated with use of lawn care equipment. However, the noise reduction
potential for chain saws, using existing technology, is not sufficient to eliminate their
annoyance characteristics or hearing damage risk for their operators. Further noise
reduction research is necessary.
Table 3-7
ESTIMATED NOISE .REDUCTION POTENTIAL FOR DEVICES
POWERED BY INTERNAL COMBUSTION ENGINES
Source
Lawn Care Equipment
Chain Saws
Generator Sets
Noise Reduction, dB*
1975
10
2
5
1980
13
2
7
1985
15
5
17
*Noise reduction relative to typical current noise levels at 50 feet.
3-36
-------
NOISE REDUCTION FOR INDUSTRIAL PLANTS
Industrial noise is a local problem, with each plant possessing individual intrusive
characteristics. The plant location, community residual noise levels, and other noise
sources such as major highways, airports, and construction activities contribute to
the community noise environment. It appears that noise from construction, surface
transportation, and aircraft generally contribute more to community annoyance, than
do industrial plants. The contribution of industrial plant noise to the community re-
sidual levels may increase when the noise from the other sources is reduced. It is
anticipated that, in general, industrial plant noise reaching the community will not
increase in the near future but may, in fact, decrease, as noise abatement efforts
required by the Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970 become effective. However,
it should be pointed out that at specific locations where interior plant noise is reduced
by simply locating the noise sources outdoors, without adequate noise control measures,
the impact upon the nearby community may increase.
Motivation
There are a number of significant factors that motivate industrial plant manage-
ment to institute community noise reduction programs. The primary motivation is
the desire to be good neighbors and to maintain good community relations. Through
discussions with industrial plant management, it was found that the large national
corporations are usually particularly sensitive to public opinion. Funds and personnel
are usually made available to reduce noise that generates community complaints.
Often, plant management anticipates community reaction.
The site selection and industrial plant design processes, together with the local
government control of industrial zoning, provide the motivation and the early oppor-
tunity for noise abatement. During this early phase of industrial plant development,
the most economical application of noise reduction techniques can be made. Local
3-37
-------
municipal pressures in the form of noise nuisance ordinances and, more recently,
realistic zoning regulations have produced legal pressures to prevent plant noise.
An additional motivation to reduce plant noise, alluded to earlier, is the Occupa-
tional Safety and Health Act of 1970. This act forms the legal basis for the initiation
of in-plant noise reduction programs. That these in-plant noise sources may be suffi-
ciently high not only to be hazardous to employee hearing but, in addition, to contribute
to the total industrial plant exterior noise picture, can be seen in Table 2-12.
Consumer pressures, which exist for other sources, are not a motivating factor
for plant noise reduction. The purchaser is interested in the product and not in the
manufacturing process.
Method of Approach
The potential for reducing interior and exterior noise of industrial plants is, in
general, excellent. The engineering and architectural techniques for reducing this
noise along its transmission paths are known. However, reducing the noise at its
source may be difficult and expensive (particularly if not included in the original
design of the equipment) and often results in the degradation of performance of the
equipment, machine, or process.
For new plants, application of noise abatement techniques during site selection
and plant design, together with realistic noise level requirements for new equipment
being purchased, provide an economical and effective means for achieving noise level
goals. Many companies are currently developing purchase specifications that con-
tain noise level requirements. An example of this is the parent corporation of the
automobile assembly plant discussed in Chapter 2. This corporation, one of the
"big three" automobile manufacturers, requires suppliers to perform noise studies
at the manufacturer's location under simulated production conditions prior to ship-
ment, to assure compliance with company standards.
3-38
-------
An existing plant must achieve noise reduction goals by application of noise reduc-
tion techniques to the acoustical transmission path, since it generally proves to be
difficult and expensive to reduce the noise at the source. Noise of ventilation and
blower systems that terminates outside a building may be reduced by application of
mufflers, acoustical louvres, or simple barriers. Often, relocation of the intake or
exhaust, to take advantage of noise directivity, solves the problem. Furnace noise
evident at power plants and oil refineries has been reduced by redesigned burners,
combined with mufflers at the inlet to the fire box.
Noise inside plants can be, and has been in many instances, effectively reduced
by application of mufflers, vibration isolation, acoustical area treatment, or enclo-
sures. A systems approach must be utilized to ensure that all the major noise
sources are treated. If one noise source in a group of sources is left untreated,
the results of the noise reduction program may prove to be insignificant.
Future Commitment
The case studies discussed in Chapter 2, though representing only a small portion
of the total industrial activity in the country, illustrate the range of industrial involve-
ment associated with noise reduction programs.
Projected Impact of Plant Noise
It is anticipated that the noise levels due to industrial plants will not increase in
level or importance relative to the noise from construction activity, surface transpor-
tation, or aircraft. As in-plant noise abatement efforts motivated by the Occupation
Safety and Health Act of 1970 succeed and local nuisance laws and zoning ordinances
are adopted, noise levels will be reduced.
As noise abatement efforts successfully reduce the levels of transportation and
construction activity noise, plant noise will become more important as a source of
community annoyance. When this occurs, community pressures for noise abatement
3-39
-------
can be expected, and the necessary abatement programs may be expected to result
in resolution at a local level.
3-40
-------
CONSTRUCTION INDUSTRY EFFORTS*
The construction industry consists of two major sectors: equipment manufactur-
ing and equipment operation (i.e., building construction). The functions of these two
sectors of the industry are so different as to warrant separate discussion.
Equipment Operation
This sector of the construction inudstry is described in detail in Chapter 2, iden-
tifying types and phases of site activity and describing the areas in which noise abate-
ment can be achieved. The construction industry has, until recently, been relatively
uninvolved in efforts to quiet site operations. Its attitude may be attributed in part to
the fact that quiet equipment has not yet been made generally available on a cost-effec-
tive basis; however, a limited capability does exist for quieting a site by relocating
or rescheduling equipment. This sector has not exercised its influence as a consumer
to bring pressure to bear on the equipment manufacturers, nor has it responded to
public complaints. Thus, regulatory measures may be the only solution to the problem
of construction site noise, and such regulations are imminent.
Equipment Manufacturers
There are approximately 2000 manufacturers** of construction equipment in the
U.S. In total, these companies offer about 200 different products. For the purposes
of assessing the state of noise control in this sector of the construction industry, 48
general types of products that are potentially significant noise sources were cate-
gorized. These product types may be grouped into three orders of classification:
(1) class of noise problem anticipated, (2) relation of equipment to function at the
* See transcripts of EPA hearings held in Atlanta, San Francisco, and Washington,
D. C.
** Defined by counting separately certain divisions of larger firms that have a high-
ly identifiable product line.
3-41
-------
site, and (3) specific equipment names. Manufacturers of construction equipment can
be classified according to size/type of equipment produced as
• Large companies producing large volumes of essentially similar, large items
of machinery.
• Medium-sized companies maintaining customized production runs of more
limited numbers, usually of smaller machinery.
• Manufacturers of power hand tools and pneumatic equipment.
An overview of the equipment manufacturing industry showed that
1. Large companies employ methods closely resembling the Detroit assembly
line manufacturing concept. They tend to have large engineering staffs and
are advanced in their efforts toward developing quieter products. They are
aware of the competitive advantage of quieting equipment but are also sensi-
tive to price competition from smaller companies and foreign manufacturers.
2. Medium-size companies producing customized items tend to feel more
keenly the competitive pressures of the market place. Competition comes
not only from domestic and foreign companies but also from manufacturers
of other types of equipment that can perform the same operation. Engineer-
ing staffs tend to be small and product oriented, interested only in improve-
ments that incorporate new technology (e.g., hydraulic vs mechanical
drive). Little effort has been made toward quieting products. The pressures
of current and planned noise control legislation being passed on to suppliers
of their components. They generally have no plans or see no need for fur-
ther developing noise control technology.
3. Manufacturers of hand power tools and pneumatic equipment fall into two
categories: large multiproduct companies that tend to mount considerable
R&D efforts and smaller companies that are not so innovative but that
3-42
-------
follow trends developed by the larger companies. Noise control has been
pursued vigorously by these larger companies as part of their product
improvement programs, but effective quieting of hand tools is difficult be-
cause of such practical constraints as size and weight.
In-depth interviews and testimony given at various EPA hearings revealed that
in the past the industry's concern with noise problems has been directed primarily
to protection of the equipment operator. The impetus for noise control concern
came also from noise codes imposed by foreign countries, where some U.S. equip-
ment has had to be reworked by foreign distributors. Three of eight large equipment
companies queried during this report effort had previously quieted equipment to enter
European markets. Switzerland and Belgium specify noise emission limits for such
machinery; in addition, foreign manufacturers make quieter machines and set a
competitive pace in foreign markets. American manufacturers seem to have met
this competition by custom-designing equipment for export. There is an implication
here, of course, that many American machines marketed abroad have been quieter
than counterparts marketed domestically; however, this implication has not been
adequately investigated.
Half the companies queried are currently undertaking their initial programs to
quiet their products for the domestic market. Many of the present programs have
been started this past year and are aimed primarily at protecting operators, so as
to conform to impending legislation/regulation regarding occupational health and
safety.* Only one of the companies indicated that purchasers complain about pro-
tection for operators on their own initiative, and only one case emerged in which a
Extensive testimony as to industry plans and current efforts in this regard was
received at the EPA hearings held in Atlanta, Dallas, Chicago, Denver and
Washington, D. C.
3-43
-------
union had lodged a formal complaint. Six of the eight large companies described
pressures on behalf of operators that originated with existing or proposed governmen-
tal action.
Many manufacturers feel that the efforts they are now making on behalf of equip-
ment operators will pay off in meeting future noise limits designed to protect the
public. One of the manufacturers of large equipment has charged design teams with
the responsibility of integrating noise control into the overall design of the next gen-
eration of products and has set up review boards to evaluate new designs from all
standpoints, including noise.
Four of the eight large companies are specifically influenced by the recently
enacted Chicago noise ordinance as a contributor to their future objectives. The in-
dustry generally anticipates EPA-administered federal control; the visits of inter-
viewers reinforced this feeling. The management of two companies believes that
pressures for quieting will increase with time—apparently as a result of an increas-
ing public awareness of noise as an environmental pollutant.
Although the industry has become increasingly aware of the pressures for noise
control and has already made some efforts in this area, manufacturers must cope
with economic pressures that argue against noise abatement.* For some companies,
intensity of competition sets the limits on what price the market will bear. One of
the industry's leaders was concerned that purchasers will continue using old equipment
if prices rise significantly. Other industry leaders point out that foreign-made
machines (some of them already quieted) will enter the American market if prices rise
appreciably. One company predicted that a small rise in the price of truck-mounted
The following comments relative to economic aspects of noise control are in the
main as applicable to other sources of noise as to the specific case of construc-
tion equipment.
3-44
-------
concrete mixers would lead to the introduction of alternative methods for concrete
delivery and production.
Companies who feel that the demand for their products is great enough to plan to
pass quieting costs onto the consumer, although such threats as foreign competition
and alternative methods, put limits on this process. The question involved is how fast
the industry can afford to move. One limit on rapid movement is price competition.
One company may be able to beat its competitors to the market with a quiet machine
but may believe that it cannot raise prices substantially in the face of competition.
Companies approach this problem differently. Most express the intention to meet or
exceed the competition, but they feel that any great competitive advantage gained
f
through an all-out effort to quiet their products would be short lived. One company
sees its competition as being extremely severe and fears that it may not be prepared
for the next round of quieting, while another company has actively launched a program
designed to produce quieter machines at lower costs than the competitor will incur.
There is also the concern that often accompanies any industry leadership; i.e.,
a company may invest large sums to quiet equipment thus increasing the cost of
products, while another company that refuses to quiet products may keep its prices
low and may try to challenge noise regulation in the courts.
While all companies regard cost as an immediate—and perhaps the ultimate—con-
straint, two other constraints become paramount if, and as, costs diminish: time
and technology. Three companies, each in a different fashion, reported that costs
can be traded for development time; i.e., more time for development would reduce
the cost of competition, allowing quieting techniques to be integrated into planned
engineering efforts and to be an integral part of the seasonal progression of models.
The very company that is setting out to achieve the most quieting for the least cost
is the one that feels that technology will eventually supercede cost as the principal
3-45
-------
factor limiting quieter equipment. At another firm, the technical limitations were
spelled out in terms of:
1. Loss of equipment power through increased muffling.
2. Increase in the difficulties and cost of maintenance.
3. Fire hazards through using insulating materials that can become oil-soaked.
4. Unsafe operation by suppressing or distorting the noise signals upon which
operators depend for safety.
5. Ineffective operation, by disturbing these same signals, thus hindering the
ability of the operator to tell how effectively he is operating.*
The industry also voiced concern over the feasibility of noise abatement where
equipment and materials being interact to become prominent sources of noise; e.g.,
concrete mixers (where the structure may be the noise radiator); jack hammers
(where the tool and its driving media may be the offender); riveters (where the struc-
ture of the building may be the primary source); and pile drivers (where both the
structure and the media may be significant sources). This interaction-type noise
source may be difficult to quiet.
No firm visited condemned noise limits out-of-hand, nor did they deny their
inevitability. The management of six of the eight companies expressed the opinion
that unless they quieted their products, their markets would disappear. Feelings
varied from acceptance of the inevitable to enthusiastic approval of the trend.
Regulatory bodies outside the construction industry have begun to exercise some
influence in the area of noise abatement. Within the industry, the Construction In-
dustry Manufacturers Association, the Engine Manufacturers Association, and the
national standards-setting bodies of American Society for Testing Materials and
* See transcripts of EPA hearings held in Atlanta and Washington, D. C.
3-46
-------
the Society of Automotive Engineers are actively addressing the problems of measuring
equipment noise and recommending standards. The equipment manufacturing industry
would like to coordinate its activities with those of its closely related standards -setting
bodies. However, self-regulation via industry-initiated standards is more than some-
what hindered by federal anti-trust provisions.
As yet, no broad controls have been established. Industry tends to assume that
the example set by the City of Chicago equipment noise ordinance will stimulate other
similar action, eventually resulting in a proliferation of standards at the local level.
Projected Impact of Construction
Projecting conditions to the year 2000 involves a number of uncertainties. One
of these is the exponential rate at which technology is evolving and affecting society.
Technological innovation, however, is not the only factor to be considered. One can-
not account for future changes in social attitudes. Although long-term predictions
are fraught with such difficulties, one can still make educated guesses with a reason-
able level of confidence. Rather than merely extrapolating existing conditions to the
indefinite future, the following projections of the impact of noise are based on fore-
casts of population, family size, gross national product, and trends toward urbaniza-
tion. Construction activities will continue to follow such growth patterns, although
the character of construction may change significantly with greater use of prefabri-
cated materials and the introduction of new kinds of equipment. Also, rather than
trying to account for conflicting trends and changing attitudes, the projected extent of
exposure is based on the assumption of no change in noise level for given equipment
and considers only major trends that can be easily identified. (Obviously, by incor-
porating available technology, and with active regulatory participation at the various
levels of government, the projected far-term impact could be avoided.)
3-47
-------
The following U.S. Census Bureau data has been employed in projecting the in-
crease in exposure to noise:
1970 2000 Ratio
GNP (billions of 1958 dollars) 720 2240 3.2
Total Population (millions) 200 293 1.45
Total Number of Households (millions) 63 104 1.65
People per Household 3. 17 2.8 0.9
Given the predicted increase in population and in financial resources, fairly
extensive building activity can be expected. However, the urban areas have limited
space available for new building; thus, the trend is for areas outside those now iden-
tified as central cities to become urbanized. Figure 3-6 illustrates this trend for
single-family, multifamily, and nonresidential construction activities. With available
land becoming more and more scarce within the central city, the building of single-
family and multifamily dwellings will continue to decrease sharply. By the year 2000,
we can expect to find approximately one-third the number of residential construction
sites as were active in 1970. Xonresidential building is expected to increase. In
areas outside the central cities, both residential and nonresidential construction
should increase significantly. Nonresidential building activity is expected to increase
by over 50 percent as the present suburbs become urbanized. With this general trend
in mind, the data given above his been used to project the expected increase in ex-
posure to noise from construction activities.
Nonresidential
The level of nonresidential construction activity in any given year is assumed to
be proportional to the real Gross National Product (GNP) for that year. To find the
nonresidential construction activity for any particular year, the ratio of the GNP for
that year to the 1970 GNP is multiplied by the number of nonresidential sites built in
3-48
-------
1970
(ft
Q
O
O
-------
1970 (Table 3-8). The resulting total construction figures are apportioned between
"central cities" and "other metropolitan areas" in the same proportions as occurred
in 1970. Despite the expected decrease in total construction sites within the central
city, nonresidential sites are expected to increase.
Residential
It is assumed that the population and population density of central cities will re-
main at their present levels until the year 2000 and that most residential construc-
tion in central cities will be for the purpose of replacing decayed units rather than
for housing additional population. The number of construction sites will decrease due
to the established trend toward an increasing number of multifamily dwellings over
single-family dwellings. (Two- to four-family houses, which represent a negligible
fraction of total construction, are included in the total for single-family housing.)
For metropolitan areas other than suburbs, it is assumed that the number of
units constructed in any one year will be proportional to the population increase in the
previous 10 years. To estimate this increase, the total metropolitan population is
projected by multiplying the projected total national population by the estimated pro-
portion of the population living in metropolitan areas. All the increase in metropoli-
tan area population for a particular year is ascribed to noncentral city areas.
Roads
A simple but plausible indication of road construction activity, is the population
level. Clearly)additional people will require additional roads, the capability of rapid
transit being small at present. However, the urban areas have limited space for new
roads, and urban residents are expressing increasing opposition to new road construc-
tion on grounds of aesthetics, pollution, and the community dismemberment concomi-
tant with the installation of limited access highways. Thus, it would seem unlikely
3-50
-------
H
O
§
g
o
I
3
o •&
f£ CD
"•* £
*&~
a to ^-
.-15 §
•^ £H *3
|S-
la W .2
!2 a '"
h 3 .
a ffl o
0 £•
ill
si-
*Q >— J **-!
K 2
a
•§
3
fi
5
81"1
O
J~>
00 O
Oi •*
CO >H
CO
CO O
(M i-H
CM
O1 CO
in o
as o^
CO OO
® s
00 i-H
"S ^
S g
•f 3 -88
^^ '13
^ |-S
a| &1
rt 0) eti o
hJ O Mo
0
o
00
o
0
o
CO
iH
0
CM
i-H
Oi
1M
0
i-H
OT
2
S
I
1
^
cu
§
m o
to m
oo m
CD ,-t
rH CO
O O
0 0
oo t-
iH r-l
in oo
»-t m
as c-
O CO
CO >-*
O Oi
0 b-
CO b-
1M CO
CO iH
(M i-H
1
£ §|
c a c
I I1
D S 3
CO
in
<£>
O
CO
CM
5
OS
cxi
to
1
LO
o
EH
3-51
-------
that road construction will rise as fast as other measures such as the GNP. There-
fore , the future level of road construction has been obtained by multiplying the present
level of activity by the ratio of the projected population, divided by the current popula-
tion.
The number of people affected by construction site noise is computedin the manner
described in Chapter 2. Population densities for all metropolitan areas were assumed
to be constant with time—4500 people/square mile for central cities and 2400 people/
square mile for other metropolitan areas. At any one site, people are apportioned to
specific transmission loss intervals as shown in Figure 3-7.
The resulting exposure to construction noise is given in Figure 3-8 in person-
hours. In this figure, multifamily residential construction is included with nonresi-
dential construction, since these types of building activates are similar. Note
that the number of people exposed to noise from single-family dwelling construction
declines steadily with time. This trend is more than compensated for by the rapid
increase in nonresidential and multifamily sites—for which the duration of construc-
tion is typically six times greater than the duration for single-family houses. Thus,
the number of person-hours of exposure is expected to increase by about 50 percent
in the next 30 years.
3-52
-------
o
o
11
5.
03
o °
W OT
ll
.§>
b.
3-53
-------
3.0
C/3
z
o
Q
O
O
o
cc
O
2
LU
CC
tn
O
to
IT
O
I
Z
O
UJ
cc
NONRESIDENTIALAND
MULTIFAMILY RESIDENTIAL
SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL
1980
1990
2000
YEAR
Figure 3-8. Projected Change in Exposure to Construction Noise,
Assuming No Change in Noise Levels
3-54
-------
APPLIANCE INDUSTRY EFFORTS*
In general, the industry's attitude toward noise control is so direct a function of
market place pressure that noise control technology often exceeds application.
Appliance manufacturers tend to maintain R&D and product engineering staffs that
are capable of delivering more noise reduction than market strategy can justify. In
fact, some companies have tried—unsuccessfully—to market quiet products, such
as vacuum cleaners, blenders, and hair dryers; others have developed a number of
quiet prototypes that were not put into production.
Consumer research shows low noise levels are not highly valued by many cus-
tomers. Several companies keep systematic track of customer correspondence,
while the industry itself maintains a Major Appliance Consumer Action Panel
(MACAP) that acts as a clearinghouse for complaints. These records, all of which
concern major appliances, show relatively little complaint about noise. For example,
only 5 percent of the letters to MACAP in the first 8 months of 1971 concerned
noise.
The objectives for quieting household appliances seem to vary with the market
pressures on particular products. With this observation in mind, a discussion of
noise control efforts is organized around the problem appliances that have been
identified.
Air Conditioners
There is probably more market pressure to quiet air conditioners than to quiet
any other household appliance. Since air conditioners emit noise both indoors and
out, they frequently affect not only the purchaser and his family but also neighbors
and passersby. Both kinds of emissions generate pressure for noise reduction.
* See transcripts of EPA hearings held in Dallas and San Francisco regarding
appliance noise.
3-55
-------
Pressure from neighbors takes the form of local noise ordinances that specify maxi-
mum sound-emission levels at a property line; this pressure is passed on to the
manufacturer, as one company pointed out, by dealers or marketing men who are
aware of the ordinances.
One such company reports spending 3 man-years per year on air conditioner
noise control; 1 man-year per year was a more frequently mentioned level of effort.
While the product policy people generally reported that they were making maximal use
of available quieting technology, the study-project acousticians who initiated the inter-
views felt that current state-of-the-art technology was not being universally applied.
Two estimates were received indicating that quieting room air conditioners
adds 10 to 15 percent to the price. There may also be an inherent tradeoff between
quietness and efficiency (since one way to reduce air noise is to decrease air velocity).
Sometimes, quieting results in increasing the air conditioner's physical dimensions,
thus detracting from appearance as well as from convenience and ease of installation.
There may also be a trend toward model lines differentiated by noise output; i.e.,
and expensive quiet air condition and a cheaper noisier model. One manager pointed
out that there are antitrust constraints against organizing industry consensus on
noise levels.
Dishwashers and Food Disposers
The mechanical differences between dishwashers and disposers do not alter the
fact that noise control pressures are similar and that the manufacturers' approach to
quieting is similar. Quiet is a saleable characteristic in dishwashers and disposers,
although the pressures for quieting are not so great as for air conditioners. While no
advertising campaigns built exclusively on quiet are apparent, it is advertised with the
same prominence given to power and reliability.
3-56
-------
Dishwashers and disposer noise are not currently under public regulation, hence
the incentive for quiet comes almost exclusively from the purchaser. This gives rise
to marked differences between models; if one wishes, one can buy an inexpensive,
noisy dishwasher or disposer. Reports from the industry indicate that landlords
frequently do just that.
Dishwashers present a promising example of industry's response to the purchaser's
desire for lower noise levels. In a 1970 survey by the United States Steel Co. , 48 per-
cent of dishwasher owners had no complaints about their appliance, but of those who
did, more complained about noise than about any other aspect of its operation. Both
survey data and marketing lore indicate that the purchaser who has previously used
these appliances puts a higher value on quietness than does the new user.
The costs of quieting were estimated by one dishwasher manufacturer to be
10 percent and by another to add $1. 00 to $2. 00 to manufacturing costs. A disposer
manufacturer felt that quieting would add 12 percent to a product cost, whereas a
retailer of disposers estimated 18 percent. It was felt that quieting these machines
might deny their availability to those least able to pay.
In the case of dishwashers, one manufacturer indicated the possibility of trade-
offs between noise and maintenance costs and reliability. Another manufacturer
indicated a tradeoff between water velocity and quiet but expressed the opinion that
there are no serious technical restraints to quieting dishwashers.
In the case of disposers, industry claims inherent problems with water and
grinding noise (especially with the noise of grinding bones). Some noise is considered
3-57
-------
necessary to the user's safety, so he will know when the disposer is operating and
when it has finished grinding.
Vacuum Cleaners
The manufacturers of vacuum cleaners believe that the market pressures are for
noisy machines. The three manufacturers and one large retailer interviewed are all
convinced that customers use noise as the basis for judging a machine's power. For
example, after concentrated technical effort, a manufacturer had significantly re-
duced the noise from a canister model without reducing its cleaning capability. House-
wives who participated in a marketing trial wanted to know if the machines were really
cleaning. Neither of the large private label retailers consulted during this report effort
mention quiet as a design goal. One company that carefully analyzes its correspond-
ence from customers finds virtually no noise complaints about vacuum cleaners or
any of its other portable appliances.
A reasonable level of engineering effort has produced feasible solutions to vacuum
cleaner noise; according to all interviewed, however, these solutions are
not being applied to products that are sold, because vacuum cleaner manufacturers
and retailers do not sense a demand for quieter products. In fact, the sale of upright
cleaners, whose beaters make them noisier, is growing at the expense of the
canister models. Apparently, the beater action of upright cleaners can better handle
the new deep-pile weaves that make modern carpets harder to clean. There are tech-
nological limits to the quieting of upright vacuum cleaners, because of the interaction
between the beater and the carpet, but the noise levels of production models seem
to be determined by customer usage demand rather than by technological limitations.
Other Major Appliances
Quieter clothes washers, clothes dryers, and refrigerators tend to be byproducts
of engineering originally undertaken with other objectives in mind. The classic case
3-58
-------
is a washing machine model that was incidentally quieted when two gears were removed
from the power train to save cost. In the context of product improvement, noise is
generally treated as a secondary design goal, although manufacturers are concerned
that engineering changes may produce noisier products. For example, refrigerators
are becoming larger and noisier as manufacturers seek to meet the demand for spe-
cial options such as ice makers; a spinner-type washing machine produced higher
noise levels when spinner speed was increased to 2000 rpm.
Two of four manufacturers interviewed make quiet models of washing machines
that sell at a $10 to $20 premium; sales for both lines are disappointing. None of the
other models of these companies are marketed on the basis of quiet nor do the mail-
order catalogues feature quiet. The single exception is a spinner-type washer in
which "quiet operation" appears in the small-type description. There is, then,
relatively little evidence of pressure for quieting appliances of this type.
Yet, despite the weakness of market pressure, considerable quieting effort has
gone into the design of these appliances, especially washing machines. One manu-
facturer mentioned six different quieting projects that have recently been completed
or are underway. A refrigerator manufacturer mentioned an effort to avoid strange
or unidentifiable noise. No specific efforts to quiet dryers were uncovered.
So far, a number of sophisticated techniques have been applied to dishwashers:
isolation, damping, and part redesign. Manufacturers of both dishwashers and
disposers have tried to improve the quality of installation by providing carefully
drawn instructions and flexible fittings. One company has reduced noise on its top-
line dishwasher from 82 to 76 dB(A) (at an unspecified distance) since 1967 and plans
a further reduction in the next few years. Another manufacturer expressed only the
desire to keep abreast of the competition; this company tests each machine for noise,
rejecting under 1 percent.
3-59
-------
None of the manufacturers interviewed Intends to give up his noisier economy
lines; goals did not seem to be appreciably influenced by the prospects of noise regu-
lation. The company representatives interviewed claimed to have adequate acoustic test
facilities, although the efforts devoted to testing and to development varied widely in
quantity and quality.
Small Appliances
During the interviews, incidental information was gathered from five different
o
companies concerning 11 small appliances: blenders, can openers, coffee mills,
electric knives, fans, hairdryers, h-e crushers, knife sharpeners, mixers, oral
lavages, and electric tooth brushes. Manufacturers feel that there is public pressure
for these appliances to sound as though they are "really doing their jobs." One manu-
facturer offered the generalization that, in the small appliance field, the quality of
the sound is more important than the quantity. An appliance must sound right.
Some must sound powerful, some reliable, and none as though they are malfunction-
ing or undergoing excessive wear. This manufacturer expressed the belief that an
accurate interpretation of the customers' desires in these areas is a condition for
remaining in business.
This market pressure leads to diverse noise-control objectives, both among
companies and between product lines produced by a single company. Customer com-
plaints were reported concerning the noise from fans and hair dryers, and one marketing
executive was quoted as believing that quiet is a saleable aspect of mixers. One
company that does not manufacture the ice crusher sold under its label put
a fairly high value on quietness in selecting the model it sells. Yet, none of these
small appliances were described as quiet in either of the two mail-order catalogues
that we examined. Blenders and electric can openers were specifically described by
3-60
-------
the managers interviewed as being appropriately noisy. A company that was not
interview was cited as having quieted a blender, in so doing, they slowed it down so
that it became less efficient. At least one laboratory is seeking entirely new ways of
comminuting foods that could be both quieter and cheaper than blenders. Another is
designing a screw-type crushing tool that will substitute a growling sound for the
raucous sound of the chipper employed in ice crushers.
There is also a search for fan blade configurations that will eliminate certain
predominant frequencies and that will produce a more pleasing sound. In addition to room
fans, this experimentation includes hair dryers, for which quieter designs for air pass-
ages are also being sought.
Rubber feet have been added to electric coffee mills to reduce vibration noise,
but shielding is not being used because of its adverse effects on costs, size, and
aesthetic design. Plastic beaters for mixers promise to reduce both noise and costs.
Many of these appliances are powered by universal-type motors, which are
inexpensive, powerful for their size, but noisy. The size-power ratio is considered
important in such appliances as hand mixers, electric knives, can openers, and
motor-in-the-bonnet hair dryers. Conventional hair dryers also embody a tradeoff
between speed and quiet; one hair dryer model that was marketed as "quiet" took
30 to 75 minutes longer to dry hair than faster, noisier models.
Speed or the potential power that speed permits was cited as important in electric
knives, can openers, and blenders. In the case of blenders, one engineer argued
that, if they were slowed down, the intensity of the noise would simply be traded for
noise duration, with no lessening of resulting impact. There is also reported to be
a tradeoff for electric tooth brushes between noise and cleansing effectiveness.
Cases of limitations on quieting were pointed out for knife sharpeners in which
there is grinder-blade interaction, as well as for blenders in which rotating knives are
3-61
-------
essential and a glass casing is necessary if the housewife is to visually monitor pro-
cess. In the case of blenders, there is hesitation to experiment with consumer
preferences, since the already intense domestic competition is being raised by the
entrance of foreign products into the market.
Small appliance manufacturers make frequent use of subjective noise judgments
in their developmental work. Their product laboratories tend to be less sophisticated
than those for major appliances, although many have access to highly sophisticated
central acoustical laboratories. One small appliance manufacturer tests new products
in his employees' homes. If employees object to the noise the new model makes, they
are asked if they would be willing to pay for a quieter product. The general result of
this approach is to make this manufacturer pessimistic about the economic payoff
from quieter products.
Although specific noise goals are hard to identify in the appliance industry and
although some manufacturers seem discouraged with the return on their efforts to
date, all those interviewed plan to persist in quieting their products. Technological
limits have not yet been reached. One manufacturer believes that the earlier compe-
tition that emphasized compactness has now been replaced with an emphasis on quiet.
Accordingly, industry generally plans to hold the size of future models constant and
to concentrate on producing quieter models, while presumably keeping prices within
competitive limits.
Projected Impact of Appliance Noise
It is assumed that the probability of future appliance ownership as a function of
income level will remain the same and that appliance costs will remain approximately
the same in current dollars. With these assumptions in mind, approximation of appli-
ance use was based on projected population, family income, and income distribution.
3-62
-------
This estimation is probably conservative, since some appliances are continuing; to
increase their acceptance in all income levels, although their growth of acceptance
is low at the higher income levels, in which some appliances have nearly saturated the
market. For those appliances for which insufficient information is available on appli-
ance possession at the various income levels, future possession was estimated from
current marketing information on percentage of replacement sales and on market
penetration.
In projecting future impact, it was estimated that appliance usage will remain
approximately at current levels and that there would be no change in their noise levels.
Supporting the usage assumption is the little deviation shown in average time spent by
homemakers in using appliances over the last 40 years.
Figure 3-9 illustrates the increase in exposure to appliance noise by plotting
hearing-impairment risk and speech and sleep interference in person-hours of ex-
posure. As explained in Chapter 2, these three effects are among the most salient and
tangible consequences of noise exposure and can thus be most readily interpreted in
nontechnical terms. As can be seen on Figure 3-9, the number of person-hours
during which people will be exposed to the risk of hearing damage will more than
double in the next 30 years, as will the number of person-hours during which normal
conversation will be difficult and during which people will be either awakened or pre-
vented from falling asleep. Obviously, by incorporating available technology the
projected impact can be avoided.
3-63
-------
HEARING IMPAIRMENT RISK
SPEECH AND SLEEP
INTERFERENCE
1980
1990
2000
YEAR
Figure 3-9. Projected Change In Exposure to Appliance Noise, Assuming
No Change in Noise Levels
3-64
-------
ECONOMIC ASPECTS OF NOISE ABATEMENT
Information on the adverse effects of noise and the costs associated with various
types of abatement measures is contained in several chapters of this Report. Much
of the information obtained during public hearings held by EPA under PL91-604 also
addressed the economic aspects of noise. However, at this time, the rudimentary
state of knowledge regarding costs, benefits, and the impact of abatement expenditures
upon the national economy makes it extremely difficult to undertake an economic analy-
sis related to this problem.
As background material for this Report, EPA commissioned a study of the economic
impact of noise, NTID300.14 referenced at the beginning of this chapter. This study
provides a general overview of some aspects of the problem, discusses the limitations
of existing data, and indicates the need for additional research and analysis in this
area.
To evaluate alternative noise abatement strategies, there are three major types
of economic considerations to be evaluated:
1. The magnitude of the benefits derived in terms of damages avoided and
positive gains attained.
2, The costs of attaining various levels of control included.
3. The impact of abatement costs on the economy.
With a better understanding of these economic factors, it should be possible in the
future to evaluate alternative control strategies and to identify cost-effective solu-
tions.
3-65
74-249 O - 72 - 20
-------
SUMMARY
Much of the strength of the nation's economy, and the accompanying high standard
of living, result from technical innovation and its utilization by industry in the develop-
ment of new and better machines. Generally, the performance criteria for these
machines are defined in terms of the useful work that they will accomplish and the value
of this work with respect to its cost. The success of any new product is determined in
the market place primarily in terms of the potential economic value of the product to
the customer relative to its total cost, including both initial and operating costs.
In the case of acoustical devices such as musical instruments, hi-fi sets, and
speech communication equipment, sound characteristics are a primary performance
criterion. However, for the other devices, noise is generally an unwanted byproduct
not associated with the primary performance criteria. Only when a need for less noise
is articulated (through customer preference, industry awareness, or public action) does
noise become one of the primary performance criteria. The information feedback
process from the public to industry generally takes many years and often presents a
conflicting set of needs. For example, the purchasers of devices such as motorcycles,
some construction equipment, trucks, and cap pistols consider noise as a positive
indicator of high performance. For the same reasons, the owners of many types of
devices purposely operate them in their noisiest mode. In such cases, in which the
consumer and public interests diverge, industry responds to the consumer until the
offended public articulates its requirements.
One of the best examples of the possible long-term noise accommodation among
industry, public, and the market place is the standard American passenger car. In its
60-year history, it has evolved from a noisy, sputtering, crude, low-powered
vehicle to a relatively quiet efficient high-powered vehicle. Mufflers were
3-6
-------
installed before World War I to prevent scaring horses and thus win a wider acceptance
in the market place. Cities and towns set regulations requiring that all cars be
muffled in the 1920's, primarily to ensure that owners retained the original mufflers
in good working order. Without further action in the public sector, industry has
made continuous progress toward quieting the automobile interior to gain wider
acceptability in the market place; and in so doing has also attained reasonably accept-
able exterior noise levels.
However, in most product areas, there has not been any method ot placing before
the consuming public the necessary data to provide for consumer choices between
alternatives. Thus, industry has not been able to ascertain what purchasing habits
the public might adopt, given factual alternatives. One means of allowing the public
to express its requirements for quiet would be to provide information on product noise
emission, perhaps by direct product labeling.
During the last few years, various governmental bodies have begun to effect the
public concern by developing and implementing noise regulations for various sources.
With the exception of aircraft noise, for which the federal government has begun to act,
many of the remaining sources are being subjected to a series ot separated, uncoord-
inated, and often conflicting regulations. These actions by the public, as well as the
data presented in this report, show clear evidence of the need for noise reduction.
Most of the sources discussed in this chapter have additional noise reduction
potential that can be attained with application of today's technology. In many cases,
these potential improvements will probably be sufficient to control noise in
the public interest. However, in some cases, present control technology is clearly
3-67
-------
insufficent to provide necessary noise control, and research is needed. In any case,
the eventual reduction of noise in the nation requires establishment ol a balanced
set of noise goals that will enable priorities to be set for systematic exploitation of
existing technology and development of new technology.
Together with these goals, source noise standards and implementing regulations
should be promulgated for those products which are capable of causing excessive noise.
Such standards should have time scales for achievement that are consistent with indus-
trial design, prototype test, and production cycles to encourage the most economical
and effective incorporation of noise performance criteria into the total design of the
product.
Priority should be given to the sources that may constitute a potential hazard for
hearing, which include most of the recreational vehicles, internal combustion powered
lawn care equipment, and some transportation vehicles. In addition, priority should
be given to all types of aircraft and large highway vehicles associated with the air-
port and freeway noise. Finally, priority should be given to construction equipment
and the noisier elements of city traffic, so that the people living in major cities will
eventually be able to enjoy relaxed conversation outdoors. Without an effective local,
state, and Federal regulatory program, today's noise problems will affect an ever increas-
ing number of people. The technical components of an effective noise abatement plan must
include both control of noise at its source and preventive intervention in terms of bal-
anced transportation system planning, land use planning and upgrading of building
construction quality. Such a program, to be effective, requires active regulatory part-
nership between the federal government on the one hand and state and local government
on the other, with active participation from industry and the public at large.
3-68
-------
CHAPTER 4
LAWS AND REGULATORY SCHEMES
FOR NOISE ABATEMENT *
Legislative interest and action in the area of environmental noise abatement and
control is increasing as the magnitude of the general problem becomes more obvious.
Despite this increased awareness, regulatory schemes on all levels of government are
not fully successful. Generally, the problem can be attributed to two factors, acting
separately or in combination:
1. Poorly written laws that do not provide the needed authority or incentive io
alleviate the problem and that are technically deficient regarding acoustics
and noise measurements.
2. Poor enforcement of existing laws due to lack of available personnel and lo
the lack of knowledge on the part of enforcement officers as to sound measure-
ment equipment and techniques.
The following discussion provides an overview of the entire legal structure regarding
noise abatement and control.
This report is based on data prepared by the Staff of EPA, Office of Noise Abate-
ment & Control and on EPA Technical Information Document NTID 300.4, "Laws
and Regulatory Schemes for Noise Abatement" (EPA Contract 68-04-0032, George
Washington University). See Appendix A regarding procurement of this source
material, which contains bibliographic information.
4-1
-------
CURRENT GOVERNMENTAL NOISE REGULATION
Noise Abatement Regulation at the Federal Level
General Policy for Federal Noise Abatement and Control
The Noise Pollution and Abatement Act of 1970 was the first legislation to provide
a central focus for overall environmental noise abatement at the Federal level. This
Act required that an Office of Noise Abatement and Control be established in the Environ-
mental Protection Agency (EPA) to carry on research and investigations into environ-
mental noise. The act further directed, in Section 402(c) that, following a determina-
tion by the Administrator of EPA that noise related to a Federal agency's activity or
its sponsored activities is a public nuisance or is otherwise objectionable, the Federal
department or agency sponsoring such activity must consult with the Administrator of
EPA to determine possible ways of abating such noise. Previous Federal legislation
had been directed to noise abatement with respect to specific noise sources (such as
aircraft noise) or in regard to special environmental situations (such as occupational
exposure or transportation planning).
Further, the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 has required, since 1 Jan-
uary 1970, that Federal agencies use an interdisciplinary approach to integrate the
"environmental design arts" into the decision making process (Section 102(2) (A&B)).
Initially, this new approach to decision making has taken the form of environmental
impact statements required pursuant to Section 102(2) (C) on all "Federal actions"
significantly affecting the human environment. Such statements should, therefore,
include consideration of environmental noise. Sections 102(2) (A&B) are intended to
bring about the synthesis of an environmental awareness within Federal agency decision
making processes.
4-2
-------
Noise Abatement and Control of Military and Internal i /era/ Activities:
A Microcosm Example of the General Noise Problems
Preliminary examination of activities of the Federal government to control the
noise produced in the very act of governing and providing protection to the general
society is enlightening. In the military context, many of the noise problems that occur
In the public and private sectors are also experienced. The military services have
been active for a great number of years in noise abatement, and the documents dis-
cussed below are only examples of the many military regulations whose implementation
is described more fully in this report in Chapter 5.
In the nature of a general approach to noise abatement, the Department of Defense
has issued Military Standard (ML-STD)-1472A to set human design criteria for all new
military systems, equipment, and facilities. This standard adopts certain publications
of the various military branches and Is intended to operate concurrently with all other
related military regulations; however, MIL-STD-1472A takes precedence whenever
other regulations conflict with it. Primarily, the standard promulgates objective limits
on noise in areas in which speech communication is necessary.
Under MIL-STD-008806B, 21 September 1970 (applicable to all services but used
herein with respect only to the Air Force); Air Force Manual (AFM) 86-5, 1 October
1964; and Air Force Regulation (AFR) 55-34, 5 February 1971)* the Air Force has
policies to reduce noise impact. The first document establishes sound levels that must
be achieved in aircraft cabin spaces. The latter two documents address airbase noise
and direct Air Force efforts to encourage compatible land uses by communities adja-
cent to military airfields and to promote community noise impact reduction programs,
respectively. MIL-N-83155A, 25 March 1970, covers noise suppressors on engine
* The current version of AFR 55-34 is an updated revision of the directive first
issued in 1962.
4-3
-------
test cells and is a revision of an earlier directive on this subject. AFM 160-25, 1957,
"Engineering Data, Preventive Medicine, and Occupational Health Program," contains
instructions for environmental engineering, evaluation, and control of community noise.
Other noise sources considered by the Federal government in military operations
and in operation of the government itself are occupational and construction noise. In
the area of occupational noise, the Air Force, Navy, and Army have respective hear-
ing conservation programs under AFR 160-3 29 October 1956, as amended through
7 February 1967; BUMEDINST 6260.6B, 5 March 1970; and EM 385-1-1, 1 March 1967.
These programs are primarily designed to protect the hearing of those exposed to the
noise.
In this discussion, construction noise can be broken down into the acoustical char-
acteristic standards that must be achieved in Federal buildings built under contract
with the Federal government and the actual site noise generated during the construction
process. For the first of these noise considerations, the General Services Administra-
tion (GSA), under PBS P3410.5, 12 June 1968; PBS P 3460.1C, 12 June 1968; PBS
4-0950, November 1970; PBS 4-1021, February 1970; and PBS 4-1515-71, April 1971,
has established certain objective standards to be met in various segments of govern-
ment buildings constructed under GSA contract. These standards are designed to re-
duce the impact of noise by providing a buffer between the noise source and the receiver.
While specifications delineate the allowable sound transmission for areas near such
noise sources as mechanical and electrical equipment, there is no attempt to regulate
noise by establishing standards for the equipment itself.
As far as the actual construction site noise is concerned, the Army, in EC 1110-
2-109, 15 June 1970; ETL 1110-3-141, 30 November 1970; and CE-1300, May 1970,
has adopted regulations for noise abatement on both civil and military construction
4-4
-------
projects. The previously cited Air Force Manual 160-25 contained noise criteria to
be considered in design of USAF buildings and structures.
With respect to construction contracts for Federal buildings, the Occupational
Safety and Health Act (OSHA) noise standards have been applied by the Department
of Labor pursuant to the Construction Safety Act of 1969. However, there may be a
question as to whether OSHA standards can be applied to construction noise in view
of fundamental differences in physical environment between an open, multistory
construction site and a closed factory work place. In a closed factory environment,
one can assume that the factory owner has control of the entire noise exposure of
his workers. However, on an open construction site, the contractor cannot control
many of the noises that affect his workers. Thus, the engineering controls open to
him are limited, if not nonexistent. There is no reason that hearing protection
devices could not be used, however, to reduce the noise impact to meet the ex-
posure standards. A pilot project is underway, via a GSA contract, to develop base-
line data to these and other questions concerning the applicability of the regulations.
As pointed out earlier in this discussion, the military and internal Federal noise
control operations provide an excellent overview of the noise problems encountered by
the Federal government, as well as other governmental levels. These external Fed-
eral control measures will now be considered in terms of the general category of the
particular noise source.
Transportation Noise Abatement and Control
Federal efforts to bring about transportation noise abatement are directed at air-
craft and highway noise, with the former receiving the greater attention. But concern
and action in the highway noise area are also significant and increasing.
4-5
-------
Aircraft Noise. The Department of Transportation (DOT) Act of 1966 was the
first statutory authority relevant to aircraft noise. Section 4(a) of the Act directed
the Secretary of Transportation to "promote and undertake research and development
relating to transportation, including noise abatement, with particular attention to
aircraft noise." Although some efforts were undertaken by the Federal Aviation
Administration (FAA) as early as 1960, it was not until the 1968 enactment of Section
611 (PL 90-411), relating to Control of Aircraft Noise and Sonic Boom, as an amend-
ment to the Federal Aviation Act of 1958, that the Federal government undertook an
active program of civil aircraft noise abatement. Considerable impetus to the enact-
ment of this legislation resulted from the Office of Science and Technology study on
jet aircraft noise near airports, completed in 1966. Implementation of this effort to
abate noise at the source began 1 December 1969, with regulations made applicable to
new subsonic aircraft. Regulations with respect to retrofit, sonic boom, SST type
certification, and STOL/VTOL type certification are still in the development stages.
In the Airport and Airways Development Act of 1970, the FAA has a valuable tool
that could be used to abate noise with respect to airports, since the Act declares the
"national policy that airport development projects authorized pursuant to this part shall
provide for the protection and enhancement of the natural resources and the quality of
environment of the Nation." The airport certification provisions of Section 51(b)(l)
direct the Administrator of the FAA to set minimum operational safety standards for
airports served by Civil Aeronautics Board (CAB)-certified air carriers, but do not
apply to the regulation of airport noise levels. The Act is applicable to all projects
involving new airports and runways or extension of existing runways; thus, relatively
few airport developments that might create additional noise escape consideration.
State and local governments gain two leverage mechanisms with respect to such pro-
jects: first, the community acceptance provision of the Act requires that the project
be accepted by communities around the airport before DOT may give its approval;
4-6
-------
second, under the state air and water quality certification section, the governor of the
state in which the airport is located must certify that there is "reasonable assurance
that the project . . . will comply with applicable air and water quality standards"
before Federal approval. Since some states have included noise as an air contami-
nant, the noise standards of these states will figure in the development of airports via
this provision of the Act. Unfortunately, the more sophisticated state noise laws are
not generally under such an air quality framework, but, rather, are given separate
consideration. Thus, these states do not have the input potential provided under the
Act.
Highway Noise. Beginning in 1965, the Secretary of Commerce (duties transferred
to the Secretary of Transportation since 1966) was required to "cooperate with the
States ... In the development of long range highway plans . . . which are formulated
with due consideration to their probable effect on the future development of urban areas
of more than fifty thousand population." The first active consideration of highway noise
at the Federal level was Policy and Procedures Memorandum 20-8 of the Bureau of
Public Roads, issued January 14, 1969. Environmental effects, which must be con-
sidered by the state or local sponsor seeking Federal aid, are defined to include "noise,
air, and water pollution." Pursuant to a 1970 amendment to the Federal-aid Highway
Act (PL 91-605), the Secretary of Transportation is directed "to assure that possible
adverse economic, social, and environmental effects have been considered in develop-
ing . . . /and Federally aided highway/ project ..." Further, he is to "develop and
promulgate standards for highway noise levels compatible with different land uses after
July 1, 1972."
Occupational Noise Abatement and Control
Following the lead provided under Federal supply and construction contracts, dis-
cussed earlier, by the Department of Labor regulations under the Walsh-Healey Public
Contracts Act and the Construction Safety Act, the Secretary of Labor carried over
4-7
-------
these regulations under OSHA. The standards under all three acts are the same.
: While the Walsh-Healey regulations carry only a potential penalty of removal of the
contractor from the eligible bidder list for 3 years, the Occupational Safety and Health
Act provides for both civil and criminal penalties.
An interesting feature of the new Act is that a state may take over regulation of a
particular matter through a program of application and acceptance by the Secretary of
Labor. This may provide a technique deserving broader application in the noise abate-
ment area, to avoid potential preemption problems.
The Atomic Energy Commission (AEC), in AEG Manual 0550-01 OS, 25 February
1970, and the Department of Interior, pursuant to the Coal Mine Health and Safety Act
of 1969, have also adopted the OSHA standards for occupational noise programs.
The AEC program is intended, ". . . for the protection of AEC and AEC contractor
employees, the general public, and the environment. ..." The Department of Interi-
or, through the Bureau of Mines, applies the standards to some 1900 licensed under-
ground coal mines.
Construction Noise Abatement and Control
Construction Site Noise. The only Federal activity directed toward noise abate-
ment at construction sites has been considered under the discussion of the Federal
military and in-house government activities. Construction site noises are covered by
the Occupational Safety and Health Act as being a business affecting interstate com-
merce, and the standards adopted for noise exposure by the Department of Labor
under that Act apply to construction sites. Construction activities are enforced in the
Occupational Safely and Health Administration.
Acoustical Characteristics of Buildings. Regarding acoustical characteristics of
buildings, the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) has issued Policy
Circular 1390.2, 4 August 1971, concerning acoustical acceptability of new sites and
4-8
-------
existing buildings to be aided by HUD monies. This circular applies noise standards
to programs where none existed previously and replaces the standards of the Federal
Housing Administration (FHA), which is under HUD, to the extent that programs,
". . . have less demanding noise exposure requirements. " The existing noise abate-
ment programs of FHA now must be reviewed concerning their continued applicability.
These programs relate to:
1. Mortgage underwriting in noisy areas near airports (FHA Manual, Vol. VII,
Book 1, §71453 — new development not be considered for mortgage under-
writing, if site within NEF-40 contour, pro and con evaluation for NEF-35,
site approved without further consideration for NEF-30 or less.
2. Minimum property standards for multifamily dwellings for which FHA finan-
cial assistance is sought (FHA #2600, reissued February 1971, setting sound
transmission standards and impact noise standards for partitions and floors/
ceilings for developments of multifamily residences supported by FHA money).
Other Noise Sources Controlled at the Federal Level
The Federal Power Commission, acting under the authority of the Natural Gas Act
of 1938 (15 U.S.C. §717), has directed in 18 C.F.R. §2.69, 1971 (first appearing on
16 July 1970 in 35 Fed. Reg. 11389) that compressors, when used above ground in con-
nection with gas pipelines, must be located and treated so as to reduce the noise im-
pact on the environment.
Noise Sources Regulated at the State Level
Many states are entering the noise control field in earnest, as demonstrated by
the large number of recently enacted state laws in this area (nine during the first half
of 1971 alone). It is increasingly common for states to establish environmental depart-
ments to deal with noise and other pollutants, and the number of noise sources being
regulated by any single state is growing. The states are also becoming more sophisti-
cated in the writing of noise laws and are beginning to substitute specific decibel limits
4-9
-------
for subjective standards such as "unnecessary" and "unreasonable," although such
standards have by no means disappeared. A growing number of states are also setting
standards for noise from new vehicles and equipment, forbidding the sale of any that
fail to conform to the standards.
Five states (Florida, Hawaii, Illinois, New York, and North Dakota) have dele-
gated, to departments dealing with environmental affairs, the power to set standards
for the limitation of noise from many sources. All of these states are currently pre-
paring for or conducting hearings on standards, many of which will probably be pro-
mulgated in late 1971 or during 1972. California and Illinois have declared their policy
to be to reduce noise, and both require environmental reports from state agencies.
Illinois has declared it unlawful to create unreasonable and unnecessary noise on one's
property, while Colorado has established decibel limits on noise permitted to emanate
from any premises.
Following development and adoption of standards in late 1971 and early 1972, the
state programs to combat noise will enter a new phase. The success of these programs
will be determined by the ability of the states to enforce their new laws.
Transportation
California has developed a complex regulatory scheme for controlling airport noise.
The law requires airport operators to monitor takeoff and landing noise and to establish
a noise impact boundary around the airport, with noise at this boundary to be reduced
over the next 15 years. Also, the airport operator must set noise limits on single
takeoffs and landings and must report violations to county enforcement officials. Those
airports failing to come within the noise limits may lose their licenses or face other
state sanctions. The legal basis for the law is the state's licensing power over airports
and the asserted proprietary rights of airports vis-a-vis the scheduled airlines and
other users. Discussions of the legality of this law and the problem of Federal pre-
emption are presented elsewhere in this chapter.
4-10
-------
The states have long provided statutory restrictions on noise from motor vehicles,
with 43 states requiring mufflers on vehicles and 15 restricting noise from horns.
Five states set limits on the total vehicle noise, based on subjective standards. Con-
necticut has recently empowered its Commissioner of Motor Vehicles to set noise
limits not to exceed 90 dBA, and New York and Idaho set decibel limits on the operation
of vehicles. California sets standards on noise from the operation of vehicles as well
as noise limits on new vehicles. Colorado and Minnesota have recently enacted legis-
lation patterned closely after the California law. Of these laws, the Idaho law specifies
a limit of 92 dBA measured at 20 feet, while the others provide limits in the range of 88
to 92 dBA measured at 50 feet. California, Colorado, and Minnesota have provisions
for lower limits to take effect in several years.
Five states specifically require mufflers on motorcycles, while California, Colo-
rado, and Minnesota set overall noise limits on these vehicles. As with automobiles
and trucks, the standards will become stricter over time.
Five states require mufflers on boats. Wisconsin delegates to its communities
the power to regulate motorboats.
Snowmobiles have been given increased attention by the states. Maine and Wiscon-
sin require mufflers, while Colorado, Massachusetts, Montana, and New York set
limits on new snowmobiles. Colorado and Massachusetts also regulate noise from the
operation of snowmobiles.
Occupational Noise
Twenty five states have reported existing occupational noise standards of some
kind. These reports were made to the Secretary of Labor pursuant to the Occupational
Safety & Health Act of 1970 and its program for state substitution for the Federal reg-
ulatory framework under the Act. California, as an example of these state frame-
works , has adopted the same standard as that promulgated by the Secretary of Labor
4-11
-------
under the Walsh-Healey Public Contracts Act. Responses have yet to be received by
the Secretary from 12 states (nine of which plan to exercise their takeover option and
three of which have decided not to enter into temporary agreements with the Depart-
ment of Labor to continue enforcement on the state level during the takeover period).
Construction Site Noise
Colorado alone sets decibel limits on noise from construction sites, namely 80
dBA measured at 25 feet from the source from 7:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. and 75 dBA
measured at 25 feet between 7:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m.
Acoustical Treatment of Buildings
The small amount of state regulation in the construction field is directed primar-
ily toward shielding individuals from noise rather than toward restricting noise at its
source. The New York State building code sets standards for sound retardation in new
apartment buildings. Hawaii requires school officials to acoustically treat schools so
as to insulate students from the effects of transportation noise. California forbids new
freeways that increase the noise in existing schools, although state officials may acous-
tically treat the schools so as to prevent an increase in the noise experienced by stu-
dents.
Other Noise Sources
Noise that disturbs the peace is specifically prohibited in 20 states, with 14 dele-
gating this authority to municipalities. The states provide penalties for violations to
a greater degree in this area than any other. A few states regulate commercial noise
in some way. Mississippi, New Jersey, and Nevada delegate this power to localities,
while Delaware and Texas restrict noise from businesses dealing in alcoholic bever-
ages.
4-12
-------
Trends and Gaps in State Legislation
More states are entering the field of noise regulation. The number of sources
restricted by any one state is also expanding. The trend in the area of state regulation
is toward more sophisticated, objective laws enforced by environmental agencies.
States tend to adopt laws that set progressively stricter standards over specified time
periods and often direct their laws at the manufacturers.
Despite these encouraging signs, there are still gaps in state regulation. Aircraft
noise is not restricted except in California.* Colorado has taken the steps only in the
direction of control of railroad and construction site noise, and industrial and commer-
cial noise is hardly regulated on the state level. This is also true of household noise.
With some exceptions, states have not been experimenting with new methods of
regulating noise. In particular, there has been a noticeable failure to employ land use
policies to limit the effects of noise. The single exception to this appears to be the
Minnesota statute, which provides for state control over zoning around new state-
owned airports. This type of implementation technique could be used to a much larger
degree by state governments.
Noise Sources Regulated at the Regional Level
The only significant regional regulation of noise sources is the limit on aircraft
takeoff noise imposed by the Port of New York Authority, which operates Kennedy, La
Guardia, Newark, and Teterboro Airports in the New York City vicinity. Takeoffs are
not permitted if atmospheric conditions and operating procedures would cause a limit
of 112 PNdB to be exceeded at certain measuring points near the airport.**
* But see following discussions regarding division of Federal, state and local
powers.
** The suitability of these rules as effective measures has been challenged by nearby
communities.
4-13
74-249 O - 72 - 21
-------
Noise Sources Regulated on the Local Level
The information in this portion of the report is based on data gathered from 83
local governments. Many large cities are represented, as well as smaller communi-
ties.
General Noise Laws
Better than two-thirds (69 percent) of the 83 cities examined have either no noise
laws whatever (12 cities) or only general laws covering noise from any source. The
most popular type of general law is that patterned after the Model Ordinance Prohibit-
ing Unnecessary Noises, issued by the National Institute of Municipal Law Officers
(NIMLO). Over one-third of the cities examined have laws similar to this model ordi-
nance. The model employs subjective criteria and prohibits loud, unnecessary, and
unusual noise. Three cities have ordinances that differ from the NIMLO model but
that apply similar subjective standards. Two other cities set a limit of 80 dBA at 20
feet, or 20 feet from the property line of the noise source. A number of cities combat
noise through the use of public nuisance laws that label excessive noise as a public
nuisance and provide for its abatement.
One of the most popular methods of noise control on the local level is the zoning
ordinance, which sets limits on noise in designated residential, commercial, or in-
dustrial zones. Cities often include quantitative noise level standards in their zoning
ordinances.
Transportation Noise
Aircraft Noise. Six of the cities in this survey place some restriction on noise
from aircraft. These ordinances are of two types:
1. Those that undertake to limit nonflight activity.
2. Those that purport to limit operating noise from aircraft in flight.
4-14
-------
In the first category, Denver restricts noise not necessary to flight, while Salt
Lake City regulates noise in ground runup areas. In the second category, Santa Bar-
bara, California, limits noise to takeoffs and landings as well as noise from runup
areas and sonic booms. Scottsbluff, Nebraska, forbids any flight below 2000 feet.
Park Ridge, Illinois, prohibits noise over 95 dBC in designated areas extending from
the runways of O'Hare Airport. Portland, Oregon, limits noise from helicopters.
A discussion of the validity of laws in the second category is presented elsewhere in
this chapter.
Motor Vehicle Noise. Thirty-three municipalities examined require mufflers ou
motor vehicles, while 22 restrict horn noise and 12 cities set subjective limits, such as
"unnecessary," on the total noise from vehicles. Three cities set objective limits m
the 90- to 95-dBA range measured at 20 or 25 feet. Chicago and Minneapolis, in re -
cently enacted legislation, set stricter noise limits on vehicle operation, as well as
noise emission standards for new vehicles.
Specific provisions concerning noise from motorcycles were made by four of the
cities examined. Missoula, Montana, and Detroit set subjective limits, while the new
Chicago and Minneapolis laws restrict noise from operation and set a limit on noise
from new motorcycles.
Other Transportation Noise Sources. Chicago regulates noise from boats in its
new law, and Detroit restricts noise from whistles of steamers using its harbor.
Generally cities have been slow to respond to snowmobiles as new noise sources.
Chicago sets objective limits on these vehicles, while Dillon, Colorado, allows them
only on marked trails - of which there are none.
4-15
-------
Commercial Noise
Noise from commercial establishments or individuals acting in business capacities
is widely regulated at the local level. The nonadvertising regulation in this area can
be divided into five categories:
1. Regulation of business establishments (either all business or particular bus-
inesses).
2. Regulation of some particular accessory or device used by the business (such
as noisy air-conditioning equipment) or some noisy aspect of the commercial
operation (such as loading or unloading materials).
3. Regulation of musicians.
4. Regulation of music-producing machines.
5. Regulation of sound equipment.
Noise from advertising, especially the use of sound-producing or sound-amplifying
equipment, is heavily regulated on the local level. Itinerant peddlars calling their
wares, stationary sound equipment, and sound equipment mounted on vehicles and air-
craft are either prohibited or subject to strict controls.
Occupational Noise
Two cities have objective decibel limits on the amount of noise to which workers
may be subjected. The Detroit standards are identical to the Walsh-Healey limits pre-
viously discussed. Philadelphia has adopted standards that are less strict than the old
Walsh-Healey limits, with the exception of the maximum limit placed on impact noise.
Construction Noise
Many cities regulate noise from construction sites, using curfews and zoning re-
strictions. Minneapolis sets a noise limit on the entire construction operation, while
Chicago specifies noise limits on most types of construction equipment.
4-16
-------
Acoustical Treatment of Buildings
Several cities have requirements concerning the acoustical treatment of buildings.
The new New York City law on multifamily residential buildings sets limits on the noise
that can be allowed to travel between two apartments and between apartments and public
areas of the building. These objective limits are based on measurement standards
adopted by various associations, such as the United States of American Standards
Institute. Before a permit is issued approving the opening of the building to occupants,
the Department of Buildings must be satisfied, as a result of either its tests or those
of an independent firm, that the new building conforms to the limits.
Other Noise Sources Controlled at the Local Level
Disturbing the peace is heavily regulated on the local level. Some cities simply
prohibit such behavior, while others impose curfew and 2oning regulations. Domestic
noise is beginning to come under regulation at the local level. The recent Chicago
noise laws cover noise from various home products such as lawnmowers, power tools,
and snowblowers by setting decibel limits for new products. Minneapolis sets a curfew
on this equipment if noise from it causes the noise level at property lines to exceed
specified standards. Sound equipment used for noncommercial activities is also heav-
ily regulated. Some cities ban its use, while others require permits or set curfew
and zoning restrictions. There are also local ordinances pertaining to noisy animals.
As with the states, more cities are developing programs to cope with excessive
noise. Some have established noise abatement offices with special noise monitoring
teams. City noise laws are becoming more sophisticated, substituting decibel limits
for the former subjective standards. These laws also provide for tougher standards
over time. As is true for the states, the success of city antinoise programs will de-
pend upon enforcement of the new laws. Unfortunately, enforcement strains the already
overburdened budgets of many of the nation's cities.
4-17
-------
Trends and Gaps in Local Legislation
Noise has traditionally been regulated more often at the local level. However,
with the increase in the general environmental noise levels of American cities in re-
cent years, local governments have begun to adopt new laws to deal with this phenom-
enon. Like the states, cities have developed more sophisticated laws covering more
noise sources. These laws are tending to include tougher standards over time and are
often directed at manufacturers. Although the major noise sources are regulated at
the local level, any one city does not have laws governing noise from every type of
noise source. More cities must expand the number of regulated noise sources if local
control of noise is to be more effective.
4-18
-------
ANALYSIS OF EXISTING REGULATORY STRUCTURE FOR ENVIRONMENTAL NOISE
ABATEMENT AND CONTROL
Legal Basis for Environmental Noise Abatement and Control Through Private Actions
Private Actions: Private Sector Noise Sources
The more conventional legal theories for abatement and control of noise in the
judicial areas have been nuisance, physical trespass, inverse condemnation, and con-
stitutional damaging. A plaintiff can recover damages on the nuisance theory if noise
generated by the defendant results in a substantial interference with the use and enjoy-
ment of the plaintiff's land, the usual measure of damages being the decrease in the
value of such property. However, such determinations are made in the context of the
particular case wherein the social utility of the noise-maker's activity must be
weighed against the gravity of the harm to the plaintiff. In general, private actions in
nuisance for damages or for injunctive relief have proved to be an inadequate means of
controlling environmental pollution, including excessive and unnecessary noise.
Industrial and commercial noise makers have been permitted, in effect, to treat such
pollution as a social cost to be assumed by the general public, since the number and
amount of court judgments against offending noise sources have not induced a substan-
tial reduction in noise. In brief, such actions have been effective only to the extent
that they have served as incentives for polluting activities to apply new managerial
techniques or technological innovations to the abatement of adverse social impacts.
Private Actions: Government Sector of Government Authorized Noise Sources
In those situations wherein the government is the manager of facilities or the oper-
ator of activities producing noise or has formally sanctioned the operation of facilities
or activities by private participants or entities, resort to the theory of inverse condem-
nation or the allegation of a constitutional taking has been increasingly employed as an
4-19
-------
alternative to a nuisance suit. The defense of legalized nuisance has proved a formid-
ible barrier to recovery on the nuisance theory. The theory of inverse condemnation
is a means of avoiding the obstacle of sovereign immunity. While inverse condemna-
tion suits have been successful in several situations involving aircraft noise, contro-
versy persists as to whether noise alone (as contrasted with physical trespass) is suf-
ficient to justify recovery and, if so, whether noise-violated adjacent landowners can
recover where no overflight takes place. A mild trend is perceptible toward recover-
ies for noise intrusion, especially in states having constitutional "taken or damaged"
provisions, including recovery by adjacent landowners whose property has not been
officially taken. It is necessary, however, to prove that the injury is peculiar to such
adjacent landowner and not simply that he shares such intrusion with the community at-
large.
Formal Authority for Governmental Control Over Noise Sources and
Noise Effects
In view of the limitations of private suits in providing an adequate environmental
noise quality control technique, various municipal and some state regulatory efforts
have been undertaken, as noted previously; and more comprehensive regulatory schemes
are now under consideration at all governmental levels. It is probable that the com-
merce power affords the Federal government sufficient authority to regulate most, if
not all, noise sources at the national level. The traditional police power provides the
basic formal authority for noise abatement and control measures at the state and local
level. States have considerable latitude in the exercise of the police power, the essen-
tial test being whether there is a perceived public need to be satisfied and whether the
means selected is reasonably appropriate to the achievement of this purpose. The ex-
ercise of the police power is subject to the further limitation that private property can-
not be taken for public use without just compensation, a problem that has frequently
4-20
-------
posed difficulties for the courts. However, the development of adequate regulatory
schemes for the control of noise should not raise serious questions with respect to
Constitutional authority.
Distribution of Formal Authority Among Federal, State, and Local Jurisdictions
Illustrative Cases and Materials Relevant to the Commerce Clause and the Police Power
Assuming the basic authority of the commerce power (Federal) and police power
(state/local) to impose effective controls over environmental noise sources, the ques-
tion remains as to which level of government has authority to prescribe and apply
which regulatory measures (ranging from source control to zoning and building codes)
and under what circumstances. Useful guidelines as to appropriate distribution of
authority between the Federal and state/local levels are provided by Supreme Court
decisions following primarily the doctrine of "Cooley vs Wardens of the Port of Phila-
delphia" (1851). In determining whether the power of the Congress to regulate foreign
and interstate commerce was exclusive or might be in part shared with the states, the
Court in "Cooley" adopted a rule that placed a share of the control in the states, the
test being whether a particular subject or activity of commerce requires uniform
national control or whether it is sufficiently local (and unique) in character as to be
more appropriate for state/local regulation. For example, a strong national interest
has been asserted in railway regulation. In "Southern Pacific Co. vs Arizona" (1945),
the Supreme Court, relying on the "Cooley" doctrine, held that the Arizona Train
Limit Law (limiting train length) contravened the Commerce Clause, the majority
opinion stating that "Here examination of all the relevant factors makes it plain that
the state interest is outweighed by the interest of the nation in an adequate, econom-
ical, efficient railway transportation service, which must prevail," But a strong
state/local interest has been recognized in the regulation of the use of interstate as
well as state highways. In "South Carolina State Highway Department vs Barnwell
4-21
-------
Bros." (1938), a state statute limiting the width and weight of motor trucks, which
was more restrictive than those of most other states, was held not be an undue burden
on interstate commerce even though "interstate carriage by motor trucks has become
a national industry." The Court stated: "Few subjects of state regulation are so pecu-
liarly of local concern as is the use of state highways." But compare "Bibb vs Navajo
Freight Lines, Inc." (1959), wherein the Supreme Court found an Illinois contour mud-
guard requirement for motor freight carriers to be in conflict with the Commerce
Clause even though such local safety measures are normally not found to place an un-
constitutional burden on interstate commerce.
The "states and their instrumentalities may act, in many areas of interstate com-
merce, . . . concurrently with the Federal government' and "Evenhanded local regu-
lation to effectuate a legitimate local public interest is valid unless preempted by
Federal action, . . . or unduly burdensome on . . . interstate commerce . . . ."
In general, preemption by Federal legislation is not to be inferred "unless the act of
Congress, fairly interpreted, is in actual conflict with the law of the state."
Illustrative Federal Environmental Quality Control Legislation
Evolving regulatory schemes for the abatement and control of environmental noise
will be shaped not only by the authoritative Constitutional decisions apportioning
Federal-state-local power but also by emerging public attitudes as expressed in for-
mal governmental policies toward environmental quality and the recent legislation de-
signed to institutionalize effective supporting programs. The implementation of the
National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, requiring the submission of environmental
impact statements on all Federal actions significantly affecting the quality of the human
environment, has given strong impetus to the consideration of environmental effects of
public programs. The Airport and Airway Development Act of 1970 will certainly re-
quire consideration of the noise factor when new airports are located or existing facil-
4-22
-------
ities are modified. Provision for citizen suits in Section 304 of the Clean Air Amend-
ments of 1970 establishes a regularized channel for formally asserting complaints.
Most of the new environmental quality legislation pays appropriate respect to state
and local prerogatives as does, for example, the Environmental Quality Improvement
Act of 1970, which states that "The primary responsibility for implementing this policy
rests with state and local governments." But a striking characteristic of the new leg-
islation is the emphasis placed on cooperative efforts among agencies at the same
level of government, among the various levels of government, and between public and
private sector entities, as illustrated by the Water Resources Planning Act of 1965.
Whether this intent will mature into effective inter-entity working relationships is, of
course, another matter. Since the Federal government is establishing national stand-
ards in given areas (for example, ambient air quality standards and standards regard-
ing emissions of air pollutants from aircraft), it is to be anticipated that difficult prob-
lems of preemption or of conflict arising from other formal or informal actions may
arise unless there is, in fact, dedicated and knowledgeable cooperation among the
various levels of government.
Distribution of Power Among Federal-State-Local Jurisdictions with Respect to Environmental
Noise Abatement and Control
Regulatory Scheme for Aircraft Noise Abatement
Federal Aircraft Noise Abatement Policy and Regulations. As discussed earlier
in this chapter, the authority to prescribe rules and regulations for the control and
abatement of aircraft noise was granted the Administrator of the FAA by amendment
of Title VI of the Federal Aviation Act of 1958 (Public Law 90-411). One of his first
acts was initiating the noise abatement regulatory program of the FAA by promulgat-
ing Part 36, an amendment to the Federal Aviation Regulations, prescribing noise
standards for the type certification of subsonic aircraft.
4-23
-------
State Aircraft Noise Regulation -Including Transportation Authorities. The gen-
eral policy guidance at the Federal level for distribution of authority among Federal,
state, local, and private entities with respect to the abatement and control of aircraft
noise has not been adequate to decide many practical questions such as: who can con-
trol what by applying which techniques, under what circumstances, and pursuant to
what authority? The situation tends to be further confused by considerable loose lan-
guage in both official reports (policy statements) and in the legal-regulatory commen-
taries concerning "control over aircraft noise." Frequently, little effort is made to
distinguish abatement at the source (noise emitted from the aircraft), abatement
through operational procedures, abatement of the effects of aircraft noise through
specific implementation techniques, abatement of airport noise through multiple tech-
niques , penalties for noncompliance with airport regulations, and remedies for dam-
age caused by aircraft noise.
A few states have undertaken to establish some measure of regulation over the
effects of aircraft noise despite the risks of their eventual negation through a judicial
finding of Federal preemption or of conflict with the Commerce Clause. One tech-
nique has been to establish an authority (intrastate or interstate) that operates an air-
port or airports in a proprietary capacity, as distinguished from governmental opera-
tion, so as to take advantage of the legal concept that a state or municipality can fix
permissible levels of aircraft noise as the proprietor of an airport that it would not
have the authority to fix in its governmental-legislative capacity. The sensitivity of
the states to Federal preemptive legislation regarding air traffic safety (in-flight,
takeoff, and landing operations) and aircraft noise standards (§611) is illustrated by the
comprehensive California regulations on noise standards for airports, which are
"based on two separate legal grounds: (1) the power of airport proprietors to impose
4-24
-------
noise ceilings and other limitations on the use of the airport, and (2) the power of the
state to act to an extent not prohibited by federal law." This effort goes primarily to
the encouragement of compatible land use near airports, so as to preserve the utility
of the airport to the community while achieving environmental compatibility.
Regulation of Aircraft Noise by Private Actions and Local Ordinances. If states
are seriously inhibited from control over aircraft noise sources, it is evident that
local governments and private citizens can expect little success with the legal re-
courses of municipal ordinances and common law remedies. Judicial experience
since the early 1950's tends to confirm this proposition. Several local ordinances
undertaking to regulate the altitude (and thus flight patterns) of scheduled interstate
aircraft have been struck down (commencing with "All American Airways, Inc. vs
Village of Cedarhurst" (1953), wherein the municipality had enacted an ordinance
making it a criminal offense to fly aircraft over the village at altitudes under 1000
feet, on the rationale that the Federal government has preempted the regulation of
such flight in the interest of safety and that such local restrictions place an undue bur-
den on interstate commerce. While a few courts have demonstrated a degree of toler-
ance for local ordinances establishing nighttime curfews under special circumstances
(small airport with no interstate scheduled air carriers, for example), courts that
have considered such ordinances tend to be highly sensitive to the interstate commerce
implications, especially if scheduled interstate air carriers use the airport. Stress
is often given to such propositions as "air traffic is unique and should be controlled on
the national level" or that "solution of problems in air transportation at the local level
just does not work. It has to be done on a national basis because it is a national opera-
tion."
It is of interest to note that in the context of the "Griggs" case of 1962 (wherein
the plaintiff, in a private action based on inverse condemnation, recovered damages
4-25
-------
from the airport owner-operator by alleging that the flights of commercial aircraft
over the plaintiff's home caused excessive noise, fear, and physical damage) the Su-
preme Court majority minimized the Federal regulatory role and emphasized the func-
tion of the airport owner-operator in the design, implementation (including the acqui-
sition of navigational easements), and operations of the airport. But even though there
have been several successful inverse condemnation cases, it is obvious that this rem-
edy is not suitable for coping with the distress suffered by large numbers of people
residing in or near busy airports. As the court concluded in the 1969 New Jersey
case of "Township of Hanover vs The Town of Morristown" (wherein the plaintiffs
sought to enjoin the Town of Morristown from enlarging its airport because of the an-
ticipated increased noise): "private compensatory damage suits do not accomplish the
end objective of noise suppression."
The likely invalidity of control by local ordinance and the general inadequacy of
spasmodic private suits in inverse condemnation to provide adequate noise regulation
has pressed many airport operators into the application of alternative abatement mea-
sures such as the use of preferential runways. This, of course, is also a marginal
means of noise suppression. Thus, certain high density air traffic states such as Cali-
fornia have taken or considered action that will make some small further contribution
to aircraft and airport noise abatement.
Implications of the Grlggs Doctrine: Federal. State. Local and Private. The
"Griggs" decision placed the locus of liability for aircraft noise on the airport operator
and thus relieved the Federal government and the scheduled air carriers from liability.
Thus, there was no pressing incentive for either the Federal government or the air
carriers to take drastic noise abatement action, even though both recognized the grow-
ing seriousness of the problem. A Congressional report conceded in 1962 that the lack
of a "maximum noise" criterion established by the Federal government was a "deter-
4-26
-------
rent to manufacturers to achieve greater noise suppression." Competitive considera-
tions precluded the allocation of substantial research support to noise abatement by the
aircraft engine manufacturers, the objective being to "build engines and aircraft (with)
maximum performance characteristics without regard to noise." In short, the author-
ity of the "Griggs" decision obstructed the coordinated efforts required of all affected
participants called for by the Office of Science and Technology Jet Aircraft Noise Panel
in 1966. Further, Congress has given careful attention to the possibility of the Fed-
eral government's indemnifying all airport operators throughout the U.S. against judg-
ments obtained against them for noise damage alleged under the "Griggs" doctrine and
has found this to be "impracticable." Not until the promulgations of the FAA noise
standard regulations of 1 December 1969, pursuant to §611, did the aircraft engine
manufacturers and the airlines have a compelling incentive to introduce noise reduc-
tion criteria into their planning and operations.
The Relationship of the Proprietorship Doctrine of Control to Alternative Air-
craft Noise Abatement Techniques. Pervasive Federal regulation of air transpor-
tation has essentially precluded effective control over the abatement of aircraft
noise by State and local governments. On the other hand, the Federal government has
not accepted a level of responsibility for aircraft noise abatement (in terms of timely
R&D and regulatory measures to reduce noise at the source) that corresponds to the
magnitude of control it exercises over air transportation. Yet, the "Griggs" doctrine
places liability for aircraft noise on the airport owner-operator, who is, in most sit-
uations, a State or local governmental entity. Furthermore, the threat of massive
damage awards is clearly increasing for the obvious reasons that the aircraft noise
situation is worsening in many areas and that complainants are finding that some
courts share a growing sympathy with their situation. While it may be generally
agreed that air transportation must be regulated at the national level, the lack of a
4-27
-------
corresponding national effort to abate one of its most distressing side-effects encour-
ages resort to the courts as the only means of prodding, indirectly, the Federal sys-
tem into action.
However, since the states and municipalities, as airport owners-operators, must
bear the direct and immediate burden of complaints from the public, they have seized
upon whatever interstitial measures are available (governmental, technical, econ-
omic, etc.) to lessen the impact of community complaints and noise damage judg-
ments. Notable in this connection is the doctrine of proprietary control over airport
operations, which has its source in ownership or operational status as distinguished
from the operation of the airport by a State or local governmental entity in its govern-
mental capacity. While the Port of New York Authority has been able to maintain
noise standards set by itself (less stringent, however, than FAA standards for new
aircraft) and the California regulations on noise standards for airports are
essentially grounded on the "power of airport proprietors," this regulatory technique
is severely limited. This is particularly true for short-term relief, since most major
hub ports are now situated in densely populated areas and proprietor control over noise
reduction at the source is essentially nonexistent. The FAA has clearly preempted
aircraft operations as to safety. As to noise, the airport operator is left with whatever
marginal control he can exercise through such a measure as "planning runway utili-
zation schedules to take into account adjacent residential areas, noise characteristics
of aircraft and noise sensitive time periods," which is provided, among other methods,
in the new California noise regulations for airports. While the proprietary doctrine
may provide the airport operator some small but useful bargaining leverage vis a vis
the Federal government In the present evolutionary phase of aircraft noise regulation,
it is based on an anomalous legal assumption, the future efficacy of which is in doubt;
namely, that an Instrumentality of the state, acting In a private, nongovernmental
4-28
-------
capacity, has a degree of control over the activities prescribed in its state-originated
charter that the state itself is precluded from exercising in particular preemptive sit-
uations; i.e., regulation of aircraft operations.
Regulatory Schemes for Abatement and Control of Environmental Noise Sources and Effects
other than Aircraft Noise
The Analytical Framework. The analysis of existing modes of environmental
noise regulation and the evaluation of the design of new regulatory schemes requires
that a structured set of questions be addressed involving such factors as formal auth-
ority, limitations on authority, and implications of the proposed action. These in-
quiries will differ somewhat, depending upon the governmental level proposing noise
source and effects regulation. Kelevant questions at the State level might include:
1. Authority asserted to justify enactment of the legislation?
2. Limitations of authority likely to be asserted with respect to such statutory
schemes?
a. Preemption by Federal legislation?
(1) Field completely preempted ?
(2) More stringent standards precluded?
b. Due Process limitations?
(1) Not reasonable means to a legitimate end
(2) Discriminatory and violative of equal protection
(3) Vagueness
c. Encroachment on free expression?
d. Encroachment on other individual liberties?
e. Threat to other significant social values such as safety, efficiency of
operation, community economic well-being, etc. ?
f. Technological feasibility?
4-29
74-249 O - 72 - 22
-------
g. Economic reasonableness?
h. Undue burden on Interstate commerce?
3. Implications for local noise regulation with respect to:
a. Criteria and standards?
b. Participants affected?
c. Implementing techniques?
d. Enforcement procedures ?
e. Remedies and penalties?
f. Local ambient noise levels ?
4. Implications of noise level standards on judicial determinations of a Consti-
tutional taking or of a State constitutional "taking or damaging."
Private Actions: Suits Grounded in Nuisance, Trespass, and Compensable
Taking or Damaging. It is clear that private civil actions at best can constitute only
one important means, among many, for effective regulation of noise. Courts have
been wary of extending recognition to noise intrusions. Some courts consider noise
to be an incident of living in a technologically oriented society and that noise is an
inconvenience that is, and must be, shared by all. Other courts are more disposed
to recognize noise abuse but are troubled by the problem of limiting liability, such as
by determining satisfactorily which claimants suffer special damages. Further, noise
disturbances from many of the more serious noise producing sources, such as the
construction and use of highways, cannot be alleged as the basis for damages in cer-
tain states since such states provide that "nothing which is done or maintained under
the express authority of a statute, can be deemed a nuisance. " Nevertheless, over
the years numerous suits have been initiated against a variety of community noise
producing sources that interfere with the use and enjoyment of property.
4-30
-------
There is a more perceptible trend for courts to recognize damages resulting from
noise intrusion in taking or inverse condemnation suits, particularly with reference to
highway construction and use. However, most courts have held that noise from this
source is not compensable where there has been no physical taking of any part of the
complainant's property. Where there has been an actual taking or severance of the
claimant's property, there is a split in court decisions among the various states. The
tendency seems to be, however, to consider noise as a factor in determining conse-
quential damages where there has been a taking. In the 1968 "Dennison" case the New
York Court of Appeals stated that "where there has been a partial taking of property
of the kind taken here, the noise element may be considered as one of several factors
in determining consequential damages. " The type of property taken may be decisive,
noise more likely to be considered as a factor in the overall diminution of the value of
the property if the property's purposes are devoted to seclusion and quietude. What
impact the aircraft noise cases recognizing noise intrusion with respect to adjacent
landowners will have on the recognition of claims of abutting landowners to highway
construction and use is still uncertain. Florida has rewarded the aircraft noise claim-
ant but denied recovery to the highway noise claimant.
Noise Regulation through Municipal Ordinances. Local ordinances directed ex-
plicitly to, or inclusive of, noise pollution include those designed to preserve the public
peace and tranquility, to abate noise as a nuisance, or to control noise levels through
zoning. Where an ordinance is directed to noises or noise sources in general, the
elements of a common law nuisance must ordinarily be shown to justify damages or
injunctive relief. Noise ordinances may face various legal challenges: whether the
4-31
-------
standard is unconstitutionally vague or discriminatory or is administered in a discrim-
inatory manner; whether the ordinance encroaches upon the freedom of expression or
other individual rights; whether the ordinance seriously interferes with the safety of
operations of the noise source or comes in conflict with other priority social values;
whether the requirements of the ordinance are technologically feasible and economi-
cally reasonable; whether the ordinance addresses an area of activity that has been
preempted by the state or Federal government; or whether the ordinance, absent
Federal legislation, imposes such a heavy burden on a national activity or interest,
such as the free flow of commerce, that it constitutes an unreasonable burden.
Ordinances regulating sound trucks raise many of the foregoing questions. How-
ever, the Supreme Court held in the 1949 Sound Truck case, "Kovacs vs. Cooper", that
the standard of "loud and raucous" was not so vague and indefinite as to be properly
enforced, since it conveyed to any interested person a sufficiently accurate concept of
what was forbidden. Quantitative standards (prescribed decibel sound levels in decibels)
avoid the problem of unconstitutional vagueness but do not necessarily facilitate the
enforcement of noise standards. The cases show that verbal (subjective) standards
such as "unusual and excessive" have generally been upheld as applied to both local
ordinances and state statutes requiring mufflers or relating to the operation of motor
vehicles. While the reported cases do not specifically deal with traffic routing within
urban areas in terms of noise, such ordinances have been upheld unless the state, by
terms of its constitution or by legislation, has preempted control over vehicular traf-
fic, even within municipalities.
4-32
-------
Comprehensive city codes, such as that proposed for New York City, attempt to
retain the benefit of common law nuisance precedents by prohibiting unnecessary
noise while at the same time setting specific decibel limits for the principal noise
producing devices or sources. Provision for noise-sensitive zones is an attempt to
assure that future land use planning will be environmentally sound with respect to
noise. Many provisions of such codes, being new, are still to be litigated.
It appears that most of the challenges to local noise ordinances as undue burdens
on interstate commerce have arisen in the air transportation field. Such ordinances
in other areas, if not clearly unreasonable burdens as applied by one community, may
be judged by the test of whether a given ordinance, if adopted by a large number of
municipalities, would impose unlawful burdens.
State Environmental Noise Regulatory Schemes. State regulation of noise has been
relatively minor until recent years, with the exception of vehicle muffler and exhaust
noises. An interesting question is arising, with the shift from verbal to quantitative
standards, as to the efficacy of the older statutes (left undisturbed by new legislation)
prohibiting excessive or unusual noise. The New York Court of Appeals has held that
in such circumstances "the two (statutes) stand side by side. One now sets a limit
beyond which no vehicle noise may go while the other requires each motorist to mini-
mize the noise his particular vehicle makes within that limit. " This interpretation
raises interesting possibilities for more stringent and refined control over noise
sources than set by maximum allowable decibel levels. However, state control over
vehicular noise has raised serious questions (and confusion) in several states as to
preemption of local control, especially in instances where the state standard is clearly
4-33
-------
inadequate for the monitoring and control of urban vehicular noise. Where states do
undertake comprehensive environmental noise regulation, the preemption status should
be clarified. However, some new State legislation completely ignores preemption
implications for local governments.
New State environmental noise legislation should also give careful consideration
to the implications for interstate commerce. Operators of trucks and busses (moving
interstate noise sources) are particularly concerned about the possible lack of unifor-
mity, arguing that they "should not be faced with an increasing problem of having wide
variations in noise limits, test procedures, equipment and interpretation of the
regulations. " Reference to "Bibb v. Navajo Freight Lines, Inc. " suggests that even
though local safety measures (and presumably, environmental quality measures) are
not normally found to place an unconstitutional burden on interstate commerce, unless
the states should enact approximately equivalent vehicular noise standards (as to deci-
bel levels and effective dates), that litigation involving the Commerce Clause is likely
to arise. But in addition to the test of whether a given ordinance or state statute under-
takes to regulate matters "admitting of diversity of treatment, according to the special
requirements of local conditions, " are the factors of delay or inconvenience to inter-
state carriers, safety, technological feasibility, economic reasonableness (including
the availability, cost and effectiveness of alternative protective measures), and ."the
nature of the menace against which (the ordinance or statute) will protect. ". . . "Legis-
lation, and implementing standards-setting administrative procedure, which does not
take these factors into account may well be vulnerable to either Due Process or
Commerce Clause challenge.
4-34
-------
Federal Environmental Noise Regulatory Schemes. In addition to the §611 amend-
ment to the Federal Aviation Act of 1958, the Walsh-Healey requirements the Occu-
pational Safety and Health Act of 1970, and the 1970 amendment to the Federal-aid
Highway Act (PL 91-605), the Federal government has given notice of impending.
comprehensive environmental noise legislation in the Noise Pollution and Abatement
Act of 1970. Of major interest is the present status of the Administration's proposed
legislation (HR-5275, S-1016—The Noise Control Act of 1971), The Administration
proposed to give EPA overview and veto authority regarding aircraft noise. However,
this proposed legislation has been revised by the House Committee on Interstate
Commerce to provide only for a consultative EPA role concerning that agency's
dealings with the FAA regarding the solution of this major noise problem.
4-35
-------
EFFECTIVENESS OF EXISTING NOISE CONTROL REGULATIONS
Effectiveness of Existing Federal Regulations
Aircraft Noise
FAA Type Certification of commercial aircraft delivered after 1 December 1969,
under Part 36 of the FAA Aircraft Regulations, is the most significant Federal action
for control of aircraft noise. The DC-10 and Cessna Citation 500 have been certifi-
cated, and the L-1011 and all subsequent subsonic aircraft will have to comply with
Part 36. The Boeing 747 was granted a type certificate in December 1969, which allowed
noise levels in excess of the requirements of Appendix C of Part 36 of the FAA regula-
tions. However, aircraft produced after December 1, 1971 must comply with Part 36,
Appendix C. Allowable Noise Level Limits.
Projections by the Air Transport Association estimate that by 1975 only 18. 6 per-
cent of the fleet will have been certificated under Part 36. and even this is probably
optimistic given present economic conditions that will retard aircraft replacements.
Thus, to the extent that it depends upon type certification as presently structured, the
noise problem will have been only slightly relieved by 1975 and, indeed, could still
be significant as late as 1990.
Noise has an environmental impact and must be considered in 102(2) (C) Environ-
mental Impact Statements for airport development and modification. * While there are
* The reader is referred to testimony before EPA hearings held in San Francisco
regarding views on the efficacy of the 102(2) (C) statement provisions.
4-36
-------
no Federal noise standards for airports, the Airport and Airways Development Act re-
quires consideration of environmental interest of communities near airports and provides
for public hearings, if requested, on airport projects. But examination of project pro-
posals on file with the FAA reveals that hearings have been held in only 29 percent of
the cases, and in few of these has noise been raised as an issue. This suggests that
whereas public hostility to proposed or expanded airports near already congested avia-
tion hubs is high and growing, communities in other parts of the country are still more
alert to potential economic benefits from airports than to possible noise problems.
This may tend to prevent full utilization of promising planning and zoning techniques
for controlling future noise problems.
Highway Noise
Environmental Impact Statements must also be provided for proposed highways.
The 1970 Amendments to the Federal-Aid Highway Act requires the Secretary of
Transportation to withhold approval of highways until specifications include adequate
implementation of appropriate noise standards. Noise guidelines will not be issued
until 1 July 1972, but early drafts are promising. Only 4 percent of the National In-
terstate and Defense Highway System remains in preliminary stages as of 30 June
1971, but an Urban System (funded for FY 1972 at $100 million) will be built under
the new standards.
Occupational Noise
Regulations of May 20, 1969, pursuant to the Walsh-Healey Public Contracts Act,
set noise limits for employees of Federal Supply Contractors. These apply to 75,000
4-37
-------
plant locations (about 27 million workers). As of 27 August 1971, the Walsh-Healey
noise standards have been extended by the Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970 to
all employees in businesses affecting interstate commerce (55 million additional workers).
Since 7 July 1971, the Bureau of Mines, under the Federal Coal Mine Health and
Safety Act of 1969, has imposed mandatory noise limits (identical to the Walsh-Healey
standards) for approximately 100, 000 miners in 1900 registered underground mines.
Regular monitoring is assigned to mine operators, with the Bureau of Mines providing
their training and providing a check through noise surveys conducted during quarterly
safety and health inspections.
Effectiveness of Existing State Regulations
Airport Noise
California has taken the lead in setting overall noise limits around airports by
legislation (1969) empowering the State Department of Aeronautics to set standards
both for overall airport noise and for single-event noise. These regulations were
to become effective on December 1, 1971 but have been held in abeyance by the
1971 legislature. When put into effect, they will allow large airports 15 years to
shrink noise contours to what has been defined as the acceptable level applicable to
all airports under the statutory standards of "noise acceptable to a reasonable person
living near the airport" and "economically and technologically feasible. " Some
difficulties with enforcement and effectiveness can be foreseen.
Some airport officials allege that, unless the fleet is substantially converted to
quieter planes within this 15 year period, it may be necessary to curtail operations
considerably or else to make major purchases of land. The former measure would
4-38
-------
have major repercussions for national air transportation patterns, while the latter
could lie well beyond the financial capacity of the airport.
The law may be challenged in court by the airlines on the grounds of Federal pre-
emption and unreasonable burden on interstate commerce. California holds that there
is no preemption in the absence of Federal rule making on airport noise levels and
that the standards are firmly grounded on the proprietorship of airport owners and
the right to the state to license airports.
There is a possibility that acceptable noise contours established by the regulations
will be used by courts as evidence for inverse condemnation, although the Act provides
that they shall not be so used. The California Law Revision Committee favors a
three-year moratorium on such use and a bill to establish this moratorium was passed by
the state legislature.
The single-event limit was deliberately set so high as to be effective only in con-
trolling operating procedures of existing aircraft, rather than as a push for technolo-
gical improvement. Enforcement is left to the county in which the airport is located.
In many states, unfortunately, airport noise impacts most detrimentally on counties
adjacent to, but not containing, the airport; and in considering similar legislation
states should take this into account.
A number of other states, in considering similar legislation, appear to be await-
ing the outcome of California's pioneering effort. With the reservations noted above,
this model may be widely adaptable to states with significant airport noise problems.
Twenty-five states own and operate airports, of which some 300 are served by
scheduled air carriers, and can exercise some control over them as proprietor. The
4-39
-------
bistate Port of New York Authority has done the most in this area, by establishing
maximum noise levels. This regulation is effective in terms of compliance, the over-
all rate for which is 99. 5 percent, with 80 percent of takeoffs below 105 dBA. Viola-
tion rates are much higher, however, for heavily loaded transoceanic jets. In terms
of noise reduction, however, it is only marginally effective; the violation rate is low
because the limit is high. * There is also alleged to be systematic cheating by aircraft,
in which they momentarily cut power as they pass the monitoring equipment. Further-
more, airport operators have no authority over landing procedures, since these are
controlled by FAA — and landings, due to long glide paths, subject larger numbers of
people to noise than takeoffs. The Port of New York Authority reports that 80 percent
of complaints are produced by landings.
Restrictions on the number of night flights are effective in reducing complaints
but are seriously restrictive of transportation because of national and international
time differences. Moreover, congestion at some airports has reached, a point at
which safety considerations may dictate more, rather than fewer, night flights.
The fiscal conditions of most state and local governments, the shortage of housing
in large metropolitan areas, and the large land areas that are noise-impacted combine
to limit the effectiveness of land purchase or strict zoning of land around existing
* Testimony received at the EPA hearing in Hempstead, Long Island indicates that
no punitive enforcement actions have ever been taken against any airline.
4-40
-------
airports. In the case of new airports, however, land-use techniques such as indus-
trial buffer zones appear to have considerable promise. *
Vehicle Noise Programs
Most states prohibit modified or defective mufflers, but few or none systematic-
ally enforce this prohibition in spite of quantitative evidence that rigorous enforcement
would significantly reduce vehicle noise levels. California has the most comprehen-
sive operating vehicle noise law, but the level of enforcement even there is low, since
6 two-man teams are responsible for 162,303 miles of highways. During a 12-month
period, 600, 000 vehicles were monitored and violations were charged for 0. 5 percent:
0. 1 percent of passenger cars, 1. 2 percent of trucks, and 2. 0 percent of motorcycles.
(Caliform , had 11,980, 000 registered motor vehicles in 1970.) There is no record of
the number ^f cases taken to court (this is a minor offense carrying a fine of $25 or
less), but the Highway Patrol states that most citations have resulted in convictions.
Through July 1971, some 2,200 citations were issued within California for excessive
vehicle noise. The state population is greater than 20 million. The low percentage of
violations probably does not indicate the effectiveness of the law but indicates the in-
adequacy of the standards set. The Highway Patrol has indicated that it would support
standards that would cause 7 to 8 percent of presently operating vehicles to be in viola-
tion, on the grounds that 93-percent compliance indicates technical feasibility. The
legislature is presently considering these and even stricter standards.
* An extensive discussion of past, present, and future land use planning efforts at
major airports is contained in the transcript of the EPA Noise Hearing,
Washington, D. C.
4-41
-------
A similar law in New York State has a lower level of enforcement. No special
enforcement teams are provided, and one observer puts the number of summons
issued at six in the first 2 years.
California sets noise emission limits for new vehicles, but requires testing only
when an operating violation has been charged to a new or current-year model. Some
vehicles have been recalled for fitting with improved mufflers, but the manufactur-
ers' right to sell has not yet been revoked for excessive noise emissions. Vehicle
laws of two other states are too new for comment on their effectiveness.
Besides the insufficient strictness of standards, existing state controls on noise
from operating motor vehicles appear to be ineffective because of:
1. Technical difficulties in monitoring noise sources. In New York, statutory
limits apply to vehicles traveling at less than 35 mph, rather than to vehicles
in zones with speed limits of 35 mph (as in California). By using zones, the
enforcing officer can presume rather than prove the speed of the vehicle
being cited for violation. A more serious constraint is the California require-
ment of 100 feet of free space around both the monitoring microphone and the
monitored vehicle; and (in California and New York) the requirement that noise
be measured at a distance of 50 feet from the center line of the highway. Both
requirements are for the purpose of separating and identifying specific noise
sources and avoiding reflected sound from nearby buildings or other objects.
but both make it difficult or impossible to monitor vehicles on city streets where
the worst problem exists. Idaho has tried to make its muffler law more effec-
tive by specifying that mufflers must prevent noise over 92 dBA at a specified
4-42
-------
distance, but the law is not enforced because vehicle inspection is done in state-
licensed commercial garages where there is no sound measuring equipment.
2. Assignment of enforcement responsibility to regular police officers. State
and local police universally give higher priority to safety and criminal in-
vestigation and apprehension than to noise control; observers also report
that police rapidly lose proficiency with sound measuring equipment when it is
seldom used, and then become even more reluctant to use it. *
3. Disregard of noise sources other than that from engines and exhaust systems.
There is substantial evidence that much of vehicle noise comes from tires and
running gear, but California police (contrary to statutory provisions) do not
cite where noise is attributable to such causes; this is probably true in other
jurisdictions also.
4. Low probability of monitoring and apprehension and relatively insignificant
penalties. This is probably the most important cause of ineffectiveness.
Other Ant/noise Regulation by States
State laws defining noise as a nuisance are generally enforced infrequently, and
seldom or never against major sources of noise such as factories, transportation equip-
ment, and construction sites. Statutory noise limits on leisure vehicles such as
* The reader is referred to testimony given at EPA hearings in Dallas, Atlanta,
San Francisco, and New York regarding police officer attitudes on assignment
of noise responsibilities.
4-43
-------
snowmobiles are most often enforced by game inspectors and conservation officials,
and there is no data available on levels of enforcement. Some snowmobile clubs are
enforcing noise limits on their members to moderate or avoid public reaction to these
noisy vehicles.
Effectiveness of Existing Local Noise Control Regulation
In dealing with noise problems, local governments frequently express a need for
technical assistance in the form of advice, guidelines, model ordinances, and financial
aid from states or the Federal government. However, they are also jealous of their
prerogatives in setting stricter standards than the larger jurisdictions may choose.
Aircraft Noise
Except for a few curfew laws, attempts by local governments to prohibit or re-
strict aircraft noise have generally been struck down. A few remain on the books but
are not enforced. There are over 1, 000 pending noise suits against airports; usually
a local government is the defendant in such a suit, and in some cases the plaintiff is
another (neighboring) local government.
Vehicle Noise
In Hawaii and (it is generally assumed) in California and New York, local govern-
ments are preempted by the state from control of vehicle noise, although state laws in
the latter two states are poorly enforced for reasons given previously. In Colorado,
local governments may now adopt noise standards provided in State law.
The relatively few municipalities that have quantified noise standards for vehicles
report the following problems with enforcement:
4-44
-------
1. Difficulty in setting standards that are both technically feasible and yet strict
enough to be effective, particularly because cities have limited budgets and
a great scarcity of technically trained personnel. City officials frequently
express a need for Federal or state guidelines and technical assistance in
setting standards, as well as in establishing enforcement procedures.
2. Technical difficulties in separating and identifying individual noise sources
on crowded city streets with a generally high ambient noise level. These
difficulties also prevent enforcement of State noise laws on city streets.
3. Lack of personnel and equipment for systematic monitoring and enforcement.
Again, as has been pointed out, police place higher priority on other duties.
Some local governments are experimenting with new vehicle noise standards. But
here they face a particular difficulty in that a large fraction of the vehicles using the
city streets are probably purchased elsewhere: within metropolitan areas there are
generally many local governments, many contain several counties, and some straddle
state boundaries.
Levels of enforcement of muffler or horn-blowing laws and general nuisance laws
(as used against vehicles) vary widely. Few cities can provide data on enforcement
actions, since there is generally no index of general citations and usually no compila-
tion of city court cases. Where a high level of enforcement and effectiveness is re-
ported (as in Memphis and Boulder), city officials attribute this to a high level of
priority on the part of city officials and police, and an educational campaign to sensi-
tize the public to vehicle noise. Such educational programs are reported to have lasting
effects on driving habits.
4-45
74-249 O - 72 - 23
-------
Mass Transit Noise
This is a major factor in large cities. Mass transit facilities often represent a
large capital investment in aging and deteriorating stock and equipment, for which the
cost of acoustical treatment would be very high. For example, in New York City, an
effective method has been developed for reducing subway noise by replacement of
track—but only four miles are replaced each year out of a total of 750 miles of track. *
General Nuisance Laws
Few statistics are kept by cities on enforcement of nuisance laws. Police control
noise on the basis of complaints, and frequently depend on persuasion and warning
rather than official action. Where enforcement against unnecessary noise or exces-
sive noise depends on discretion (in the absence of quantitative standards) statutes are
sometimes struck down. Decibel limits, where tried, suffer from the difficulties out-
lined above for vehicle noise standards. And it is even more difficult to establish
reasonable limits for the variety of sources covered in general noise laws. Educa-
tional programs can greatly enhance the effectiveness of noise laws by sensitizing
citizens both to their duties and to their rights to a quiet community.
Comprehensive Noise Ordinances and Offices of Noise Abatement
These represent a new and small, but growing, trend for municipalities as small
as Inglewood, California (population 90,000) or as large as New York City. They offer
the following advantages:
* Details are contained in testimony given at EPA hearings held in New York City.
4-46
-------
1. A directorate whose primary responsibility is noise abatement.
2. Investigators specifically responsible for responding to noise complaints.
3. A staff with initiative to seek out noise violations and proficiency in using
sound measuring equipment.
4. A focal point for mounting a public education campaign.
Costs of such operations are not necessarily large ($60,000 annually in Inglewood
and $300,000 currently in New York City) but may nevertheless be a strain on limited
municipal budgets. Both New York City and Chicago plan to use about 40 to 50 in-
vestigators for noise enforcement.
Zoning and Building Codes *
Inclusion of noise standards in zoning codes is generally recent, and most are not
well enforced. Many cities with quantitative noise limits in zoning codes have no measur-
ing equipment for enforcement purposes, and there is again a need for guidelines in for-
mulating workable standards. Standards are useful for planning and zoning commis-
sions in screening applicants for industrial locations. Few cities have noise standards
in building codes. New York City has them, but no buildings completed under the new
code have yet been occupied.
Construction Noise
Experience with local control of construction noise is largely restricted to curfew
laws, which are often relaxed on a plea of convenience, particularly where daytime
traffic is a problem. This is one of the biggest gaps in local noise control.
* The reader is referred to detailed testimony on this subject given at EPA hearings
held in Dallas, San Francisco, and New York City.
4-47
-------
SUMMARY
There are some general observations that can be made regarding the laws and
regulatory schemes for noise abatement and control:
• With regard to aircraft noise, there is a jurisdictional problem.
• State statutes exhibit increased technical proficiency in understanding the
evolving technologies for noise control as compared with city ordinances.
However, states are constrained in many instances by Federal preemption
of the regulatory field (an example being aircraft) or conflicts with interstate
commerce matters or other Federal constitutional powers.
• City ordinances are, in general, vague and technically deficient. However, as
the awareness of the noise problem increases, some city ordinances are be-
coming more sophisticated through the use of objective standards with decibel
levels.
• The courts are becoming increasingly involved in the controversies over
noise control. In general, however, private suits for money damages have
not accomplished a great deal regarding noise suppression.
One of the major problems on the state and local levels of government is that of
enforcement. In general, noise statutes, no matter how well written, are rendered
ineffective because most state and local programs are insufficiently funded and staffed.
4-48
-------
CHAPTER 5
GOVERNMENT, INDUSTRY, PROFESSIONAL AND VOLUNTARY
ASSOCIATION PROGRAMS •
FEDERAL GOVERNMENT PROGRAMS
To discover the present extent of Federal activity in noise abatement and control
and to accurately assess that activity, the Environmental Protection Agency's Office
of Noise Abatement and Control conducted a survey of Federal agencies and depart-
ments. On the basis of program size and authority, the 17 agencies and departments
were grouped into three general categories according to relative magnitude of programs
significant, moderate or minor. It was found that in addition to the Environmental
Protection Agency, departments with significant involvement in noise included:
1. Department of Defense
2. Health, Education and Welfare
3. Housing and Urban Department
4. Department of Labor
5. The National Aeronautics and Space Administration
6. Department of Transportation
This Chapter is based on data contained in EPA Technical Information Documents
NTID300.8, "State and Municipal Non-Occupational Noise Programs;" NTID300.9,
"Noise Programs of Professional/Industrial Organizations, Universities, and
Colleges;" and NTID300.10, "Summary of Noise Programs in the Federal Govern-
ment." See Appendix A regarding procurement of this source material.
5-1
-------
Agencies having more moderate programs are:
1. Department of Agriculture
2. Department of Commerce
3. General Services Administration
4. Department of the Interio r
5. National Science Foundation
6. The Postal Service Commission
Finally, agencies reporting relatively minor programs were:
1. Atomic Energy Commission
2. Federal Power Commission
3. State Department
4. Tennessee Valley Authority
5. Treasury Department
Significant Federal Involvement
Table 5-1 illustrates the extent of Federal research and development activity in
the noise field. Responsibility (authority) and funding for fiscal year 1972 is in thou-
sands of dollars. The scope of federal activities includes the areas of hearing conser-
vation, non-auditory effects, aircraft noise suppression, community noise problems,
and standardization of sound measuring equipment.
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
EPA established its Office of Noise Abatement and Control in April, 1971, just
4 months after the Agency's format on. Under Title IV of PL 91-604, the EPA
Administrator was authorized and directed to establish an Office of Noise Abatement
and Control (ONAC) to deal with problems of excessive noise. The statute further
required the office to prepare a report on environmental noise for submission to Con-
gress no later than 31 December 1971. This document fulfills that requirement.
5-2
-------
X
U
PS
w
o
>-
K
<
Q
Z
i
o
1
1
! APPROX
|
§
5
fc
5
|
2
s
TYPE OF R 4 D
RAL AGENCY
S
z
:n«rgy Commission
.a
5
S
I1.J
N--S-
5 -5 |
t? 1 1 S
•f « |."-_
1 1^1
S^IY
•g z -^ *
DS^ ie O •-
1 < '* 1
8.Z z<
3 3 1
i
u
13 £
o" •-
"1 - I
§ £ J ?
•5 f-l C
"5 o S? -S
W CO ,2 7
a §4 o
E S-a S
< iS o Z
"5-0
'g> | ' a
t~ c.l f-J °
i ° • 1 -|
- i i 1 * «
|8,8 2 I 5
?.« tie I
l!j t| 1
3li- l|i i,
lit III II
1 i5
°
§
3
/
gi
>
.2
>~
*
1 _
s of noise on public hn
re (report to Congress]
i~"
11
nentol Protection A
:e of Noise Abaterr
rol
I-M
;O«J
c
LU
S
1
1
1 <
i ;
5 5
! 1
i
3 3
O c2
r
I -
o ^
1 1
If 1
° O) ^-
111 1
5 .£
J~ -
C ' =
iS c «- cj O
i ° 5s
1
-------
a
H
EH
P
O
<
S3
w
PS
w
CO
S
K
W
Q
W
S
s
Q
Z
|
LL.
X
o
£
>;
O
X
<
eo
O
a
a
«
FYPE OF
u
Z
FEDERAL AGEi
P
8
6
3
C
o
D
X
•E i- S
in
III
s J =
O ' '*•
wi
Jin
III!
i
?
i_
ii
»°
2
•£ c u-
•% « y
o« S "
•£ ^5 £
IIS I
5 O- U- D£
U °* •-"
"5 - 52
-S 4'y o
"<'5
| f
1 i
1 !
.s -8
» s.
1 1
i !
s
1 1
Z S S
I 'I 1
Q
1
1
•s
°
1
i
°
i
0-*
^ £
"° fc
< °
2l|
a. — *^
5 1 ?
5"S><
Q I u.
Jt
1
[ \
y. 1
' 1
3, ! S
S I ?
? 5 •?
41 1 &
.1
S S
is- 1 3
- e 'p '
|| 5 |
|j| j j
1|| | |
&
1
O"
£
•S >—
I i
e =
x z
t ~
partment of Treas
Secret Service
Bureau of the Mi
S
1
c
1
1
u
s
1
~c
il
1
*
It
~ S
£ >_
y 5 F
III
6
1
1
^
"u
1
o
5-4
-------
I*
H
i
H
y. w
V 5
« g;
5 J
-°
-------
In the preparation of this report, contracts with universities and acoustical engineer-
ing firms were let for assistance in assembling data on different aspects of the noise
problem. Public hearings were conducted in major cities during the summer and au-
tumn of 1971 in an effort to gather testimony from industrialists, local and state gov-
ernment officials, scientific experts, conservationists, public and private organiza-
tions , and private citizens. *
Title IV of Public Law 91-604 (Section 402c) requires Federal agencies to consult
with the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency on their current noise
generating activities that may constitute a nuisance or be otherwise objectionable.
The Environmental Protection Agency is in the process of issuing the appropriate
guidelines to implement these requirements. The Agency has held consultations with
these agencies on preliminary guidelines, and has obtained information from the agen-
cies on their operations which engender public complaints.
Section 102(C) of the National Environmental Policy Act (PL 91-190) requires all
agencies of the Federal government to provide statements specifying the environmental
impact of all proposed projects, legislation or comments on legislation. The Environ-
mental Protection Agency is required by law to comment on all such statements.
Environmental impact statements involving potential noise problems are currently
being reviewed by the Agency. The proposed guidelines, mentioned above, will pro-
vide for an integration of approach between the two laws.
Under Title IV, EPA also is undertaking other actions including demonstrations,
exhibits and follow-on actions indicated by the report to Congress and the testimony
received at the public hearings.
* See Appendix C for information as to scope of hearings, locations, and subject
matter. Testimony received will be published as verbatim transcripts.
5-6
-------
Congress is now considering noise legislation as a major environmental concern.
The Administration's proposed Noise Control Act of 1971 provides for the following
(See also Appendix B):
1. A comprehensive Federal noise control and research program, with the
Environmental Protection Agency serving as the coordinator of Federal ac-
tivity.
2. Federal standards, promulgated by the Environmental Protection Agency for
transportation and construction equipment, electric motors, internal combus-
tion engines.
3. A labelling system to identify products as to noise producing characteristics
for the benefit of the prospective consumer.
4. A provision prohibiting states and their political subdivisions from establish-
ing noise emission standards where Federal standards have been established;
states would be permitted (and would be encouraged to establish) use, opera-
tion and movement regulations of noise-producing machines.
5. A broad, EPA-sponsored research and development program to fill the gap
in other Federal agencies' research activities.
6. A comprehensive technical assistance program, including provisions for as-
sistance on noise enforcement.
7. A vigorous and effective enforcement scheme.
8. Finally, the Environmental Protection Agency would have authority to review
existing Federal Aviation Administration regulations and be authorized to re-
quest the Administrator of the FAA to make changes. EPA approval would
also be required for any new regulations on aircraft noise.
5-7
-------
At the present writing, this la.st revision on aircraft noise has been modified in
committee to provide only for consultation between the Administrators of the FAA and
EPA.
The Department of Defense (DODI
Noise abatement efforts by DOD have been both considerable and longstanding.
The armed services particularly are involved in research on noise and noise abate-
ment procedures. The primary DOD thrusts are concentrated in four main areas:
1. Occupational noise control and hearing conservation.
2. Operational aircraft noise abatement.
3. Noise signature elimination in weapons system.
4. Construction specifications for noise control.
At present, noise programs are conducted within each of the three military branches
to meet specific operational requirements. An enumeration of the separate efforts is
contained in the following paragraphs.
Army Noise Efforts. Army noise programs are executed through the following
agencies:
• Office of the Chief of Engineers. U.S. Army. This office is conducting a
study ($82,000) on noise induced hearing loss and the effects of noise on the
efficiency of soldiers' performance.
• Office of Corps of Engineers. U.S. Army. The Corps Office conducts re-
search on the control of noise generation and the application of measures to
eliminate noise levels that may have adverse effects upon human beings.
Current investigations include work in establishing criteria for the location
of certain military activities relative to residential areas and the identifica-
tion of causes of noise pollution and control criteria during construction
-------
activities. Fiscal support for noise-related work within the Corps cannot be
determined. No personnel are specifically assigned to noise control programs.
• Army Medical Research and Development Command. This command conducts
programs and research concerned with biomedical effects of noise, noise re-
ductions, noise exposure, and the physiological and psychological effects of
noise. Current programs include traumatic origins of hearing losses, audi-
tory perception and psychophysics, and the aviation audlometry program.
The operating budget for fiscal 1972 is $464,300.
• Army Environmental Hygiene Agency and Environmental Health Engineering;
Services. Both agencies conduct programs to assure the health of personnel.
Current programs include the Hearing Conservation Program ior the surveil-
lance of occupational hearing loss and studies of effects of noise on indhdduals
at military installations. The operating expenditures for the noise program
cannot be determined.
• Army Materiel Command. Under this Command, programs and research are
carried out under contract for noise reduction of equipment, rotary wing air-
craft noise reduction, and human capabilities. Expenditures for fiscal 1972
are approximately $650,000.
Air Force Noise Programs. The Air Force conducts research under authority of
Section 8011, Title 10, U.S. Code. Program activities related to noise include the con-
servation of hearing program (AFR 160-3; Hazardous Noise Exposure), with an operational
expenditure of $509,300 for fiscal 1972. Research programs are conducted at the Aero
Propulsion Laboratory, the Flight Dynamics Laboratory, the 6570th Aerospace Medical
Research Laboratory, and the Weapons Laboratory, all laboratories of the Air Force
Systems Command. Contracted research is maintained by the Air Force Office
5-9
-------
of Scientific Research. There are no laboratories presently devoting full resources to
noise research. Less than 3 percent of the total resources of laboratories having
noise research programs is allocated to that end. The Office of Scientific Research
conducts research on aircraft noise generation processes. Estimated funding for the
project is $80,000. The Flight D;imamics Laboratory is conducting development work
on aircraft acoustics, including noise control within vehicle interiors and sonic fatigue,
with current expenditures of $290,000 per year. The Aerospace Medical Research
Laboratory conducts research on the effects of noise on Air Force personnel. Special-
izing in bioacoustical research, this Laboratory is unique among Federal noise re-
search programs. Expenditures lor such research are $410,000 per year. The Aero
Propulsion Laboratory, with expenditures of $475,000, is concerned with noise abate-
ment in aircraft propulsion systems. The Air Force Weapons Laboratory is research-
ing computerized noise exposure forecasting and has expenditures of $80,000. Total
expenditures for research are $1,255,000. Additionally, the Air Force has a program
for the development and acquisition of sound suppressors for ground runup of jet air-
craft engines. This work is done entirely by contract at an expenditure of $4,810,000.
Navy Noise Program. The Navy noise abatement program concerns aircraft and
related ground facilities and equipment and is divided into the areas of:
• Noise reduction of operating aircraft.
• Noise suppression for ground runup of engines.
• Noise suppression for overhaul and maintenance testing.
In addition, an exploratory development program concerning a semi-portable noise
suppressor for gas turbine engines is underway. A contract for $187,000 has been
awarded for the exploratory development program in fiscal 1972.
5-10
-------
Department of Health, Education and Welfare (HEWj
The Occupational Safety and Health Act provides authority for the National Institute
for Occupational Safety and Health to undertake research with the objectives of: (a)
defining occupational noise limits for conserving hearing, (b) assessing industrial noise
effects on overall health, safety and performance capability, (c) considering differen-
tial diagnoses of noise-induced hearing loss cases and (d) training and demonstration
projects bearing on industrial noise control and hearing conservation. Funding for
these assorted activities in FY 1972 will be in excess of $400,000.
Likewise, the National Institute of Health (NIH) is vested with authority to conduct
research in noise as part of its broad mission in health. NIH sponsored studies are
being conducted largely on the physiological mechanisms underlying noise-induced
hearing loss and aspects of speech perception in noise through grants totaling nearly
$1,000,000 awarded to various universities and laboratories.
HEW conducts a hearing conservation program for its own employees as part of
its occupational health activities. Program objectives are to assess and remove
hazardous noise sources and otherwise protect employees from adverse noise effects.
Other concerns include the isolation and evaluation of noise-producing equipment.
Occupational medical guidelines described in PL 658 (79th Congress) and DOD circular
A-71 govern the administration of the program.
Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD)
Noise control and abatement is not a separate program within HUD; however, the
Secretary has established noise control requirements for HUD programs (HUD Circu-
lar 1390.2). Noise problems arising in housing site selection, structural characteris-
tics of buildings, and land use planning, are included. Development of comprehensive
urban noise survey methodologies, metropolitan aircraft noise abatement policy
5-11
-------
studies, and technical support for operational noise abatement programs are major
activities of the department.* Plans for future consideration include extension of the
Comprehensive Urban Noise Survey Program, measurement instrumentation for deter-
mining site noise exposure, site noise exposure techniques, development of model
ordinances and building code sections, and noise emission ratings for appliances and
equipment. Approximately $500,000 has been programmed for noise research and
development activities in HUD for FY 1972.
Department of Labor (DOLI
The main DOL emphasis on noise is in two areas: The Walsh Healey Contracts
Act, which covered health standards for employees engaged in Federal contract work
exceeding $10,000, and The 1970 Occupational Safety and Health Act, extending cover-
age to all businesses engaged in interstate commerce. Worker exposure standards
under the two acts are identical. There are approximately 80 million Americans com-
posing the work force; the overwhelming bulk of these is somehow engaged in interstate
commerce. Hearing loss due to noise is, of course, one of the health considerations
covered under the 1970 legislation. Regulations limiting noise exposure of workers were
adopted by DOL under authority of the Act; these limffs were published in the Federal
Register.
National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASAI
The NASA (as well as its predecessor, NACA) has been deeply involved in aircraft
noise research for many years. The Fiscal Year 1972 program includes contract and
in-house research totaling $25 million in the areas of reduction of aircraft noise at the
source, noise propagation, effects on receptors, sonic boom, and approach trajectory
modification. Of this total, $12.6 million is contracted research, $5.4 million covers
A notable example of the Department's activities is the issuance in 1971 of its "Noise
Assessment Guidelines" to be used by nontechnical persons to assess present and
future noise exposures of housing sites.
5-12
-------
test equipment and instrumentation for the in-house research, and $7 million is bud-
geted for research and program management (chiefly in-house research manpower
costs). Construction of a new aircraft noise reduction laboratory is underway at the
NASA Langley Research Center, and the laboratory, costing about $5.8 million and
scheduled for completion late in 1972, will provide a major expansion of the nation;:I
capability.
In addition to research activities, NASA provides noise protection for its employ -
ees through work site surveillance and audiometric testing, supplemented by general
medical protection.
Department of Transportation (DOT)
In accordance with the Department of Transportation Act of 1966 (P. L. 89-t>70),
Section 4, DOT is engaged in research and development relating to transportation
noise, particularly aircraft noise. Additionally, PL 90-411 provided tor noise cer-
tification of aircraft by the Federal Aviation Administration. A separate office of
Noise Abatement administers the noise program within DOT. Its programs are con-
cerned with: 1. evaluating community response to aircraft and transportation noise,
2. developing transport noise measurement criteria, 3. evaluating transportation
noise sources, 4. developing mathematical models for estimating noise and evaluating
the impact of transportation noise. The office's many technical research programs in-
clude investigation of truck engine noise and jet noise as well as the development of
measurement equipment and procedures. Twenty percent of the office's budget is
spent in the utilization of the technical capabilities of the Transportation Systems
Center at Cambridge, Massachusetts as well as those of outside contractors. The
Center investigations, amounting to $900,000, include measurement and simulation
modeling of community noise levels caused by transportation related sources and re-
search of mechanisms of noise generation in jet engine exhaust V/STOL aircra.it, and
internal combustion engines.
5-13
74-249 O - 72 - 24
-------
Included within the DOT research and development effort is 'hat of the Federal
Aviation Administration in which aircraft noise suppression and adverse effects of
sonic boom are heavily emphasized. Expenditures for this program total $3,150,000.
Finally, the Federal Highway Administration conducts a noise research program
whose scope includes traffic noise measurements, evaluation and abatement. Expendi-
tures for this effort total $149,000.
Moderate Federal Involvement
Department of Agriculture IUSDA)
The USDA is engaged in eight specific noise reduction programs. The overall
objective of these programs is to determine noise levels emanating from agricultural
sources. As a part of this effort, USDA conducts research on noise propagation and
attenuation from vegetative screens 'through grants totaling $250,000 to state agricul-
tural experiment stations. Authority for this research is located in the Clark-McNary
Act of 1942; the McSweeney-McNary Forest Research Act of 1928, and the Agricultural
Experimental Station (Smith-Lever) Act of 1955. Moreover, USDA and the U.S. Air
Force participated in a mutual research effort on the effects of noise on chickens,
cows, and swine.
Department of Commerce {DOC)
Within DOC, research and measurement programs in acoustics are conducted by
both the National Bureau of Standards; (NBS) and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration (NOAA). Only programs of the former division, however, are specif-
ically directed toward noise abatement.
Within NBS, the Institute for Basic Standards (IBS) is currently involved in two
noise-related projects:
5-14
-------
1. An investigation of reverberant sound fields with an aim of developing new,
improved methods for measurement of sound absorption and sound power in
reverberation chambers.
2. A study of current methods for measuring the subjective factors of loudness,
noisiness and annoyance and the development of new methods for subject mea-
surement.
In addition to these two programs, IBS is also engaged in basic research including
the development and standardization of calibration procedures for various sound mea-
suring equipments. Additionally, the National Bureau of Standards in a joint effort
with the DOT has undertaken research on truck tire noise. It has also joined with HUD
on a project called "Operation Breakthrough" to measure noise levels at building
sites.
The Bureau is also concerned with passenger car tire noise and has made investi-
gations into the subjective assessment of this unwanted sound. It also tests noise
characteristics of toys and of postal mail sorting machines.
Also under NBS, the Institute for Applied Technology is conducting a variety of
research programs concerning noise abatement in buildings. The development of im-
proved test methods is emphasized both for measuring sound transmission and for
rating and testing the overall acoustical performance of entire buildings.
In addition to these direct research projects, NBS presently has a working budget
of about $465,000 for programs sponsored by eight other agencies (including EPA).
The current operating budget is $500,000 of which approximately $200,000 is
applied directly toward noise abatement research. A $200,000 increase in funding is
requested lor fiscal 1973, which would allow NBS to expand its efforts in noise control.
Contracts totalling $41,000 have been negotiated with two private organizations to ob-
tain data relating to noise in European environments and to gather information
5-15
-------
concerning the acoustical properties of doors and windows. This latter data is expected
to provide architects with valuable information in practical design. DOC has no author-
ity in the area of noise regulation or certification.
General Services Administration (GSA)
The magnitude of GSA operations requires its inclusion in this discussion. Although
it has no formal noise abatement program, GSA is developing noise abatement proce-
dures for construction and demolition activities.
Maximum sound level criteria for mechanical building equipment were established
in 1970, and are included in specifications for major construction projects. These
levels are more stringent than those established by the Department of Labor under the
Occupational Safety and Health Act. Constructional noise currently is being monitored
at the site of the building now under construction in Philadelphia, Pa., to determine
possible criteria for future development of noise abatement standards. As for space
already occupied, GSA is continuously developing sound level criteria to improve the
acoustical environments of buildings. Finally, GSA is amending procurement specifi-
cations to require quieter products. This agency will have a profound impression in
noise reduction through its vast purchasing power. Data on funds for support of these
activities was unavailable at the time this report was prepared (GSA's noise abatement
program is not budgeted separately.)
Department of the Interior (DOI)
This agency is currently involved in conducting three specific noise programs:
1. An FAA funded project for monitoring the frequency and characteristics of
sonic booms in certain national parks.
2. A Bureau of Mines instituted training program for inspectors who will survey
noise conditions in mines.
5-16
-------
3. A research program Instituted by the Bureau of Mines and HEW to study noise
problems in mines and related hearing loss suffered by miners. Only the
Bureau of Mines program has been specifically budgeted for noise abatement
and control. Estimates Include $45,000 for research and $19,000 for an
acoustical research inventory. Future DOI program plans in the noise field
are almost entirely limited to this program.
DOI legislative authority for noise research together with regulations for the fur-
ther definition of that authority are contained in: The Federal Coal Mine Health and
Safety Act of 1969 and the Act of May 28, 1936, and regulations found in 41 CFR 14;
50 CFR 4; 36 CFR 1; 30 CFR 1; 43 CFR 2 and 30 CFR 1(F) (70).
National Science Foundation
From 1968 through 1971, the Foundation funded equipment purchases for noise re-
search amounting to $99,200. The Special Engineering Program director and his staff
spend about 15 percent of their time on acoustics and noise control. Time is also com-
mitted to the noise area in the psychobiology and neurobiology programs. Similarly,
a number of projects on noise research are funded through contracts or grants. Total
research expenditures for noise projects in fiscal 1971 were $17S,000. While no pro-
jections for future noise research have been made, the Foundation has stated that it
expects to fund additional projects in noise problems and acoustics.
The Postal Service Commission (PSO
The newly formed PSC is currently involved in three specific programs designed
to reduce noise in the workroom area. Two research projects aimed at identifying
existing noise sources, determining noise abatement procedures, and implementing
prototype modifications have been initiated. On a trial basis, special Postal Service
Specifications have been issued on the development of new equipment to ensure that
5-17
-------
operator noise levels do not exceed a given level. Expenditures for personnel and con-
tracts amounted to $250,000.
PSC has no individual assigned to noise abatement programs on a full time basis.
Moreover, it reports no legislative requirements and states that future noise control
plans will depend largely on the results of current projects.
Minor Involvement
Atomic Energy Commission (AEC)
In the process of obtaining licensing for a nuclear power plants, the AEC, under
procedures issued by the Director of Regulations, provides assurance that noise is
considered, as required by Section ]02(2)(c) of the National Environmental Act of 1969.
Other than this, the AEC has no activities related directly to noise control.
Federal Power Commission IF PC)
The FPC, in the exercise of its authority for licensing hydroelectric projects and
other power-generating sources, considers noise as an environmental factor.
Department of State
The State Department, in its general mission as the institutional representative
of this nation to foreign countries, has widespread contacts with foreign governments
on environmental matters, including noise. Additionally, State intends to work closely
with the GSA in determining and enforcing noise level tolerances for facilities it uses.
Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA)
The TVA is planning to undertake a study on the effects of gas turbine generating
plants on community noise levels, to be funded from the General Industrial Hygiene
budget. TVA intends to develop stan<3ards and criteria for use by design and operating
organizations in community noise control. An expenditure of $45,000 for fiscal 1971
was reported for community noise efforts and noise measuring instrumentation.
5-18
-------
Treasury Department
The Bureau of the Mint reports three sources of external noise generation causing
public complaint:
1. Melting furnace exhausts at the Philadelphia mint.
2. Rolling mills at the Denver mint.
3. Presses at the San Francisco Assay Office, where coins are currently minted.
The Bureau reports a continuing, independent effort to solve these problems.
Research Activities*
Of some $34 million expended by the Federal agencies in fiscal 1970, approxi-
mately 78 percent, or $26 million, went for research and development. Most of this
research has been on aircraft noise.
The following list of major Federal laboratories involved in noise and noise-
related problem research should serve to indicate the nature and extent of Federal
agency research involved.
• Department of Agriculture
1. Agriculture Engineering Research Division, Bethesda, Maryland
2. Forest Products Laboratory, Madison, Wisconsin
• Department of Commerce
1. Environmental Research Laboratories, Boulder, Colorado
2. Institute of Applied Technology, NBS, Gaithersburg, Maryland
3. Institute of Basic Standards, NBS, Gaithersburg, Maryland
4. National Bureau of Standards, Boulder, Colorado
5. Wave Propagation Laboratory, Boulder, Colorado
* A detailed listing of principal research activities at these labs is contained in
NTID300.10.
5-19
-------
Department of Defense
1. Air Force
(a) Flight Dynamics Laboratory, Wright-Patterson AFB, Dayton, Ohio
(b) Aero Propulsion Laboratory, Wright-Patterson AFB, Dayton, Ohio
(c) Aerospace Medical Research Laboratory, Wright-Patters on AFB,
Dayton, Ohio
(d) School of Aerospace Medicine, Brooks AFB, Texas
(e) Weapons Laboratory, Kirtland AFB, Albuquerque, New Mexico
2. Army
(a) Environmental Health Engineering Services
(b) Environmental Hygiene Agency, Edgewood Arsenal, Maryland
(c) Human Engineering Laboratories, Aberdeen Proving Grounds,
Maryland
(d) Medical Research Laboratory, Fort Knox, Kentucky
(e) Natick Laboratories, Natick, Massachusetts
3. Navy
(a) Missile Center, Pt. Mugu, California
(b) Naval Aerospace Medical Research Laboratory, Pennsecola, Florida
(c) Naval Air Engineering Center, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania
(d) Naval Air Propulsion Test Center
(e) Naval Medical Submarine Research Center, Groton, Connecticut
(f) Naval Undersea Research and Development Center, San Diego,
California
(g) Naval Undersea Warfare Laboratory, Pasadena, California
(h) Ship Research and Development Center, Washington, D. C.
5-20
-------
• National Aeronautics and Space Administration
1. Ames Research Center, Moffettl'ield, California
2. Flight Research Center, Edwards, California
3. Jet Propulsion Laboratory, Pasadena, California
4. Langley Research Center, Hampton, Virginia
5. Lewis Research Center, Cleveland, Ohio
6. Marshall Space Flight Center, Huntsville, Alabama
• Public Health Service
1. Occupational Health Research and Training Facility (PHS), Cincinnati,
Ohio
• Department of Transportation
1. Civil Aeromedical Institute, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma
2. Transportation Systems Center, Cambridge, Massachusetts
Aircraft Research
The reduction of aircraft noise and its suppression at the source were investigated
in FY 1971 by NASA and the Departments of Defense and Transportation. NASA fund-
ing in FY 1971 totaled nearly $21 million, of which about $11.1 million was for contract
research, $3.3 million was for test equipment and instrumentation ior the in-house
research, and $6.4 million was for research and program management. This program
included research in source noise, noise propagation, receptor noise, sonic boom,
and approach trajectory modifications.
Other Noise Research Activities
The remaining extent of Federal program activity in noise cozitrol can be briefly
summarized. The DOD, HUD, and DOT, as well as NASA, conduct research in areas
such as land use planning, high speed equipment noise reduction, metropolitan noise
5-21
-------
abatement, and noise in building structures. Work is also being carried out in subway
noise, urban vehicular noise, and tire acoustics.
In 1971, DOD spent $600,000 for research on the effects of noise on human beings.
DOT and HEW spent $40,000 and $200,000, respectively, on this general problem, in-
cluding a study of the psychological effects of continuous noise exposure, impulsive
noise, noise and performance, acceptability of aircraft noise, and other related sub-
jects.
Interagency Committees and Studies
Early attempts to achieve some measure of coordination on a Federal level among
the many noise abatement programs came in two forms: studies and interagency com-
mittees. In the former area, five reports were of particular significance. The reports
were:
1. Noise - Sound Without Value, Committee on Environmental Quality of the
Federal Council for Science and Technology (September, 1968).
2. The Noise Around Us. Panel on Noise Abatement, Commerce Technical Ad-
visory Board, U.S. Department of Commerce (September, 1970). This report
recommended the establishment of an Office of Noise Abatement within EPA.
3. Transportation Noise Pollution: Control and Abatement, NASA Langley Re-
search Center and Old Dominion University (1970); NASA contract NOT 47-
003-028.
4. Report to the Council on Environmental Quality by an Ad Hoc Committee on
Noise, 1969. This Committee issued recommendations that resulted in the
Administration's proposed legislation on noise now pending in Congress.
5. A Study of the Magnitude of Transportation Noise Generation and Potential
Abatement, Department of Transportation (1970); Report No. DOT-ONA-71-1.
5-22
-------
There are important interagency groups concerned with noise. These include:
1. CHABA (the NAS-NRC Committee on Hearing, Bioacoustics and Biomechan-
ics). Sponsored by the National Academy of Sciences, it includes represent-
atives from academia, industry, and government. The government organiza-
tions represented are: The Army, Navy, Air Force, NASA, FAA, EPA,
HEW, NIH, DOT (Highway Safety Council). Services and activities of CHABA
include: literature reviews, reports on special problem areas, evaluations
of research proposals, on going research projects and the opportunity for mu-
tual interaction between the several agencies.
2. The Federal Council for Science and Technology's ad hoc committee on En-
vironmental Quality Research and Development. It is in its last phase and
will probably be terminated before the end of the year. This interagency com-
mittee investigated the Federal government's involvement (Research and
Development and demonstration programs) in all areas of environmental
quality. Noise was, of course, included in the investigation.
3. Under the U.S. Public Health Service, the Occupational Health Research and
Training Facility has interagency activities, primarily with DOL, DOI's
Bureau of Mines and recently, the Department of Standards. Most of its
activity centers upon the evaluation of hearing losses produced by occupa-
tional noise exposures and the evaluation of new equipment according to pres-
ent acoustical standards. In the past, the facility was involved with FAA in
studies of the physiological and psychological effects of noise, and of non-
occupational hearing loss from airport noise. Presently a study is being
conducted with the Bureau of Mines to survey prevalence of hearing loss
among miners exposed to mining equipment of assorted types.
5-23
-------
4. Interagency Aircraft Noise Abatement Program: This committee is one of the
few programs which has successfully incorporated a wide variety of agency
interests and authorities. Perhaps, it has been the most active of the various
interagency groups. Not only the aircraft oriented groups are represented
(DOT, DOD, FAA, NASA) but also such groups as the Department of Com-
merce, Department of Health, Education and Welfare, the National Academy
of Sciences, HUD and DOT. IANAP was organized just after the office of Noise
Abatement in the Department of Transportation was created (about 1968).
The program includes an executive group (from DOT) and eight panels (from
a wide variety of departments). Under lANAP's auspices, much information
on aircraft noise has been compiled and published; recently, it was proposed
that its scope be extended to include all areas of transportation noise.
5-24
-------
STATE AND MUNICIPAL NON-OCCUPATIONAL NOISE ABATEMENT AND
CONTROL PROGRAMS
This discussion of state and municipal programs in non-occupational noise abate-
ment and control is based on information received, up to the time this report was pre-
pared, from 114 of a possible 153 cities having a population of over 100, 000 and from
41 of a possible 53 states and territories.
Responsible Agencies
Noise abatement and control has received only recently broad national attention;
and therefore, it is not surprising that approximately one halt of the states and cities
do not have an agency responsible for noise abatement programs as shown in Tables
5-2 and 5-3.
Of those cities and states that do have some type of program, responsibility for
these programs is fragmented throughout several agencies. With a few exceptions,
these programs are staffed by on demand, part-time personnel, often having no
acoustical background and drawn from several agencies. Perhaps as a function of the
local nature of many of the noise problems, a greater percentage of the cities, as
compared to the states, have specific noise programs and personnel assigned to them
on a continuous basis.
Current Programs
Most programs now functioning are devoted to:
• Increased enforcement of existing nuisance ordinances.
• Establishment of governmental channels to respond to individual complaints.
• Studies and surveys of noise-related issues in order to develop enforceable
laws, regulations, and ordinances that will include specific criteria and noise
level standards for facility and community requirements.
5-25
-------
Table 5-2
RESPONSIBLE CITY AGENCIES AND PROGRAM CLASSIFICATION
Population
(in 1,000)
100-200
200-300
300-400
400-500
500-600
600-700
700-800
800-900
more 1,000
Total
Total
Number
of Cities
90
15
17
5
8
5
5
2
6
153
Responsible
Agency
c
o
o
CO
d
C <$ Tl
o
-------
Table 5-3
RESPONSIBLE STATE AGENCIES & PROGRAM CLASSIFICATION
Population
(in 1,000)
300-900
900-1 000
1,000-2,000
2,000-3,000
3,000-4,000
4,000-6,000
6,000-11,000
Total
Number
of States
11
2
6
7
8
7
4
11,000-19,000 !5
Total
50
Responsible
Agency
1
6
2
3
3
2
4
2
1
23
c
a *
f &
s
•5 &i>
S 2
S3 PO
3
-
- -
4
3
- -
1
11 0
e
Environmental
Noise Abateim
- -
2
1
2
- -
1
2
8 0
"c
D
State Governm
-
-
1
-
-
-
-
1
Nature of
0)
Complaint Ans
-
1
-
-
-
-
1
2
e
Survey/ Monito
-
1
-
-
1
-
1
3
m
g
•p ;
ri
Sn
Developing Re
2
-
2
-
1
2
1
8
Program
M
C!
O
3
Enforcing Regl
-
-
-
-
2
-
1
3
'bC
'a
Research (Tra
1
_
2
1
-
1
1
6
1
-
!
3
1
-
-
-
5
5-27
-------
The few exceptional situations in which specific noise standards and regulations
(as opposed to general nuisance ordinances) have been promulgated and enforced, in-
clude:
• Control of highway vehicular noise according to noise level standards.
• Restriction of the time of day when scheduled airlines may use airport facili-
ties.
• Prohibition, in terms of both sales and use, of specific recreational vehicles
in wilderness areas.
Research and Testing Facilities
Those agencies carrying out noise related activities have equipment ranging from
a single sound level meter to several sets of equipment including a spectrum analyzer
and several cars. As an exceptional example, the California Highway Patrol is exten-
sively equipped to monitor noise. During one 12-month period (1970-1971), the noise
levels of 1 million highway vehicles were measured. However, most local govern-
ments have not reported any testing facilities or inspection stations.
Current Funding
In most cases, funding for non-occupational noise abatement is part of the opera-
tional budget of several agencies and not specifically allocated to a program of noise
abatement. However, for five cities allocating funds specifically for noise abatement
programs, the cost of current programs varies from approximately $.02 to $.04 per
resident per year as shown by Table 5-4.
California and Illinois have allocated respectively $.01 and $.025 per resident.
5-28
-------
Table 5-4
BUDGET OF CURRENT (1971) NOISE ABATEMENT
PROGRAMS IN 5 CITIES
City
New York, N. Y.
Boston, Mass.
Columbia, S. C.
Fremont, Calif.
Philadelphia, Pa.
Approx. Pop.
(1,000,000)
8.0
0.6
0. 1
0. 1
1.9
Program Cost
Per Resident
(cents)
4
4
O
2
1.6
Although a few city governments have estimated future budgetary requirements
(New York City has $1 million budgeted for 1973 . . . $. 12 to $. 15 per resident),
most did not have an available estimate of cost for noise abatement programs.
Estimation of Potential Nationwide Budget of State and City
Non-Occupational Noise Control Programs
Through extrapolation of information based on the existing budgets of state and
local governments already actively addressing the noise problem, a rough estimate of
the possible state and local government budget that could be devoted to the initial
stages of noise abatement and control is $3 to $13 million per year. It would appear,
however, that this estimate of potential expenditure by state and local governments
would probably still be less than the lower bound for a comprehensive and effective
noise abatement program. This viewpoint is somewhat verified by the responses
from state and local government officials, which indicate that they are unable to evalu-
ate the effectiveness of their respective noise abatement programs. State and local
governments could greatly benefit if a set of national noise and abatement objectives
and goals were established to which they could relate their programming.
5-29
74-249 O - 72 - 25
-------
Potential Use of Federal Funds
Because of the difficulty of enforcing nuisance laws, most city and state govern-
ments would prefer to see Federal funds used to develop noise criteria. This would
allow the local governments to develop and implement meaningful programs in 3 to 5
years.
Summary of State and Local Efforts
• Over half of the states and cities have no agency responsible for noise abate-
ment.
• Of those local governments that do have some type of program, responsibility
for such programs is fragmented throughout several agencies.
• Reflecting the local nature of many of the noise problems, a greater percent-
age of the cities, as compared to the states, have specific noise programs
and personnel assigned to them on a continuous basis.
• The broad power given to the courts under the general category of nuisance
laws concerning noise has had limited success in reducing noise. However,
most local governments feel that if noise criteria, involving such issues as
land use and human reaction to noise, were available in measurable terms,
they could develop and implement more meaningful programs appropriate to
their local requirements within 3 to 5 years.
• Those governments having active programs have noted that Federal funds
could be used to improve their staffs and facilities and to enlarge their pro-
gram scopes.
• Reflecting the recent concern for noise, local programs have been initiated
within the last 1 to 2 years but their success or failure has not as yet been
evaluated. It should be noted that in a 12-month period during 1970 and 1971,
5-30
-------
California, having promulgated noise standards for road vehicles, measured
the sound level of 1 million highway vehicles and cited 1.5 percent of these
vehicles for violations.
5-31
-------
INDUSTRIAL, PROFESSIONAL AND VOLUNTARY ASSOCIATIONS
Introduction
The importance of the effects of noise abatement and control is reflected by the
concerted efforts of many industrial, professional and voluntary associations through-
out the country. Their noise abatement research and development programs, their
programs in hearing conservation for the protection and well-being of personnel, and
their initiative in establishing criteria and standards reflect not only an aware-
ness of a significant problem, but a willingness and ability to attack the prob-
lem so it may be resolved or controlled. The efforts of these organizations reflect the
absence of governmental influence. Furthermore, their efforts have not been a mere
reflex reaction to overtures and public dissatisfaction with noise problems that have
been projected in recent years. Instead, the efforts of many of the organizations re-
flect active engagement during the past 15 to 20 years.
Activities
Interest in noise and noise related problems is demonstrated by the activities of
over 100 professional/industrial organizations. Some of these organizations, of
course, have a direct interest while others may have a tangential one. The Acous-
tical Society of America is perhaps one of the larger professional societies that is
directly engaged in a broad spectrum of noise and acoustical problems. It is currently
developing a program for its Coordinating Committee on Environmental Acoustics.
This program will establish means for defining environmental problems in societal
and technical terms and for disseminating information to the problem-solving
community. The Society of Automotive Engineers and the American Society of
Mechanical Engineers are two societies that have directed efforts over the years to
preparing suggested standards for the safety and protection of the public. The Depart-
ment of Labor has adopted for its use certain of the proposed standards recommended
5-32
-------
by the American Society of Mechanical Engineers. The Society of Automotive Engineers
publishes relative material in the form of information reports (e.g., methods of compar-
ing aircraft takeoff and approach noise; jet noise prediction) and recommended prac-
tices (e.g., procedures for computing the perceived noise level of aircraft noise) for
advice and voluntary use of others. They have published approximately twenty of these
types of reports related to noise and acoustics.
Hearing conservation, since 1947, has received the primary emphasis from the
Subcommittee on Noise in Industry of the American Academy of Ophthalmology and
Otolaryngology. This group has prepared and distributed guides and manuals, and
participated in symposia concerned with industrial hearing loss.
Two industrial hygiene organizations, the American Industrial Hygiene Associa-
tion and the American Conference of Governmental Industrial Hygienists, have sub-
stantial involvements in noise related problems. The first named of these
associations has an inter-industry noise subcommittee which directs its efforts toward
industrial hearing loss, and is presently revising the Industrial Noise Manual published
by the American Industrial Hygiene Association.
The American National Standards Institute is the national organization, represent-
ing industry, the individual consumer and the government, which meets demands for
voluntary national standards. Through its committees on acoustics, bioacoustics, ana
shock and vibration, the Institute coordinates the work of standards development in the
private sector in the areas of noise and noise related problems. The Institute has pub-
lished approximately forty standards in acoustics and vibration which relate to noise
problems.
Activities of professional and industrial organizations are also extended to testing
procedures, certification, and rating of various noise producing products. For exam-
ple, the American Society for Testing and Materials has proposed a standard method
5-33
-------
to test sound absorption and acoustical materials in reverberation rooms. Another
example is the Air Conditioning and Refrigeration Institute which has developed a
sound certification program and sound-rating procedures for outdoor air conditioning
units.
Publications
The dissemination of relevant information on noise and noise related problems
through the medium of publications of books, periodicals and technical reports, has
been a major source of contribution toward the understanding of problems related to
noise control. One of the several professional societies, the Acoustical Society of
America, publishes monthly scientific research reports relating specifically to noise
and related problems in the Journal of the Acoustical Society of America. Sound and
Vibration, a controlled circulation publication to the professional community, publish-
es articles covering a wide spectrum of acoustic and vibration subjects. Noise
Measurement, is a quarterly publication produced by an electronics instrument manu-
facturing and sound and electronics laboratory (General Radio Corporation). This
company has also published a widely used book, Handbook of Noise Measurement.
Recent books include Effects of Noise on Man, by Karl D. Kryter, Noise and Vibra-
tion Control by Leo L. Beranek, and Handbook of Noise Control by C. Harris.
5-34
-------
CHAPTER 6
AN ASSESSMENT OF NOISE CONCERN
IN OTHER NATIONS *
This section presents an overview of noise abatement and control problems and
activities of foreign nations. It is given here in support of the premises that noise
has attracted worldwide attention, that many nations have taken positive action and
are supporting extensive noise abatement research and, finally, that all such work
is nonpolitical and should be of universal benefit.
This material is presented in an integrated topical manner, rather than on a
country-by-country basis, so that the reader may more easily compare international
noise abatement and control problems and measures with those of the United States.
The discussion on laws and regulations, however, is one exception to the integrated
presentation, since it was necessary to review each country separately due to funda-
mental differences in the legal foundations and cultural backgrounds among nations.
This chapter is based on material prepared by the staff EPA Office of Noise Abate-
ment and Control and on data contained in EPA Technical Information Document
NTTD300.6, "An Assessment of Noise Concern in Other Nations," (EPA contract
68-01-0157, Informatics, Inc.). See Appendix A regarding procurement of this
material, which contains bibliographic information.
6-1
-------
SUMMARY OF IMPRESSIONS
In May of 1971, the U.N. Economic Commission for Europe sponsored a confer-
ence on environmental problems. The papers submitted at this conference indicate
that noise is of serious concern in Europe and has been the object of specific attention
for at least the past 10 years. Although the invitation to the conference suggested an
outline for the subjects to be discussed and mentioned only transportation and build-
ing noise, 18 of the 26 countries represented specifically mentioned noise. Twelve
of those countries treated noise as a major environmental topic along with water pollu-
tion, air pollution, and soil degradation.
Of the nations surveyed, it appears that Japan has some of the most severe pollu-
tion problems, including noise pollution, and is vigorously attacking them. Further,
it can be concluded that European nations have become more noise conscious and
have been more active in noise abatement than has the United States. There are, of
course, a number of obvious reasons.
1. Since World War II, most European countries have been engaged in recon-
struction and subsequent economic expansion. In England, construction
noise has been intensive, with approximately 600,000 new residences being
erected per year from 1966 to 1972. Similarly, aircraft flights there have
increased at the rate of from 15 to 20 percent each year in recent years.
In the European Common Market nations, the number of automobiles has
been increasing about 11 percent each year.
2. European demographic characteristics and social traditions differ greatly
from those of the U. S. Many European town dwellers own their own houses,
and even farmers tend to live in densely populated towns. Further, proxim-
ity to one's neighbor and narrow, crowded streets are historical character-
istics of European cities.
6-2
-------
3. In most European governments there is a trend toward establishing unified
ministries of the environment. However, most of these ministries are
too new for their effectiveness to be measured. This is not to be interpreted,
however, as meaning that these governments have not been active in pollution
control, especially with respect to noise. Rather, the extensive activities of
various ministries such as health, transport, and housing have led to major
programs that required consolidation into single ministries.
The Scandinavian countries have been highly active in noise abatement and control.
Recently, a technical body under the name of Scandinavian Building Council was estab-
lished by the Nordic countries in order to exchange notes, to collect new ideas, to find
common approaches, and to arrive at solutions in combating all aspects of environ-
mental pollution. The Council's headquarters is located in Helsinki, with other de-
partments in Stockholm. Lately, the Council has been notably preoccupied with traffic
and aviation noise, resulting in recommendations that have been drafted for regulations
prescribing minimum distances between buildings and different types of roads. Studies
for providing safer and quieter road systems in new building developments are also
conducted. The Council also plans to establish Scandinavian Standards and common
regulations.
In England, the new Minister of Environment appears to have autonomy in his posi-
tion; however, like his colleagues, he must plead his cases before the Prime Minis-
ter or before the full cabinet in instances, for example, in which conflicts might exist
between environmental protection and industrial development. France's Ministry of
Environment is barely 5 months old, and its scope is not yet well defined. However,
it is noteworthy that jurisdiction for traffic and construction noise has been removed
from local governments and assigned to the new Ministry.
6-3
-------
In West Germany, Chancellor Brandt is developing a new environmental policy.
It is already known, however, that his "sofort" priority program includes a new
law on noise pollution. And it is expected that it will cover construction noise
and emission/immission standards as well as a general monitoring program and
a central clearinghouse for air and noise information. Structurally, Germany's
Ministry of the Environment is an element of the Ministry of the Interior.
The Soviet Union and Eastern European countries do not seem to follow the same
pattern of centralization of environmental affairs. While noise and abatement control
has been an active issue, it has been pursued by such ministries as those of health
and building technology. In the USSR, noise norms have the form of administrative
laws and, in general, are not strictly enforced.
6-4
-------
LEGISLATION AND REGULATIONS
Great Britain
The only Act of Parliament specifically designed to control noise is the "Act to
make new provisions in respect of the control of noise and vibration with a view to
their abatement" of November 28, 1960, which can be considered an extension of
public health legislation. The first subsection of Section 1 of this noise abatement
act states: "noise or vibration which is a nuisance shall be a statutory nuisance for
the purposes of Part III of the Public Health Act, 1936, and the provisions of that Act
shall have effect accordingly as if sub-sections (1) to (4) of this section were provi-
sions of the said Part in." This part of the Public Health Act specifically states that
action against "noise or vibration alleged to be a statutory nuisance can be instituted
either by the local authority in which the nuisance is being committed or by any three
or more persons, each of whom is an occupier of land or premises, who are affected
by the nuisance." The stipulation limiting institution of proceedings to at least three
aggrieved persons is intended to discourage unnecessary complaints within the statu-
tory systems and does not restrict the right of individuals to take civil action. Before
the passage of this act, noise control was vested in local authorities under the provi-
sions set out in local acts and in bylaws instituted under the Local Government Act oi
1933. It is estimated that before 1960 there were 400 authorities having noise control
powers, although prosecutions may have numbered as little as 20.
Aircraft noise is specifically exempted from proceedings under the 1960 Act.
Section 2 of the Act lays down detailed rules stating when and for what purposes loud-
speakers may be used in streets and creates offenses punishable by small fines and
enforceable by local authorities. The police themselves have various statutory powers
to prosecute and may also prosecute under local bylaws in cases in which noise can be
broadly described as resulting from disorderly behavior.
6-5
-------
The only British statutory provisions, utilizing sound levels to directly decide
whether a noise should be controlled are the Motor Vehicles (Construction and Use)
Regulations of 1969. In addition, Section 60 of the Road Traffic Act of 1960 gives the
Ministry of Transport extensive powers of regulation. Motor vehicle limits more strict
than ECE requirements were issued for 1972. Domestic aircraft regulations were
amended to consider aircraft noise subsequent to International Civil Aviation Organiza-
tion Activity in 1969.
Switzerland
Switzerland does not have any federal legislation dealing exclusively with noise.
When the Swiss Government deals with problems concerning noise, the Police Division
of the Ministry of Justice and Police is consulted. The Federal Division of Police is
presently responsible for coordinating all Federal anti-noise measures.
There are a number of administrative and legislative practices regarding air-
craft and motor vehicle noise. They include mandatory vehicle certification, specify-
ing maximum emissions for five different classes of motor vehicle. And motor ve-
hicles are subject to inspection at intervals not to exceed three years. Public trans-
portation is subject to special regulation that is enforced, essentially, by government/
industry cooperation. On the local level, the Lausanne Anti-Noise Police Brigade is
noteworthy. This organization is concerned with reducing noise from all sources:
traffic, aircraft, construction sites, industry, and night clubs or bars. Similar
brigades exist in other Swiss cities.
The Swiss campaign against noise is frequently viewed as a model. It has been
effective in soliciting public and industrial cooperation.
France
Recently, France established a Ministry for the Environment; however, as of
early 1971, no specific French law on noise had been enacted. Nevertheless, the
legal tools for comprehensive noise control do exist and are enforced through various
applicable ministries. For example:
6-6
-------
• The Ministry of Equipment is responsible for laying down noise level
standards for vehicles and for defining the conditions of sale of vehicles
and new exhaust systems.
• The Ministry of Health is responsible—in particular through the agency of
the Noise Commission—for assisting in the definition of desirable noise
levels.
• The Ministry of the Interior and the Ministry of the Armed Forces are
responsible, by means of the police force and gendarmerie, for the
enforcement of approved legislation and regulations.
It is interesting to note that the French Anti-Noise League was declared to be "in the
public interest" in 1963, and from that time its activities have been subsidized.
New motor vehicles must be certified, with limits of 76 dBA for scooters to 90
dBA for trucks over 3.5 tons, and the noise from agricultural tractors to be measured
at a fixed distance. Motor vehicles may be stopped, and fines of up to 360 Francs
can be imposed for violations. Numerous local ordinances exist that regulate traffic,
especially truck traffic. Since March 1960, the operation of portable ratio receivers
in the streets of Paris has been prohibited, and the use of rubber or plastic trash cans-
is mandatory, to reduce the noise associated with refuse collection.
Japan
In June of 1971, a new ministerial level agency for the environment was estab-
lished. Within that organization, noise abatement and control falls under the purview
of the Special Pollution Section and the Motor Vehicle Pollution Section. Japan is
probably unique, with its national Law on Noise Abatement, drafted 25 May 1971.
This law established national standards for maximum noise levels in the following
zoning areas:
6-7
-------
• Hospital and other quiet areas
• Residential areas
• Industrial and commercial areas.
The Japanese policy for implementing noise abatement measures includes some
interesting features. For example, the Government is empowered to grant loans to
local public institutions to cover the costs of special noise abatement activities. In
addition, the law provides for tax incentives to those industries that have voluntarily
modified their plants for quiet operations. Table 6-1 presents the major Japanese
laws dealing with noise abatement and control.
Table 6-1
MAJOR JAPANESE NOISE LAWS
Classification
Law
Jurisdiction
1. Environmental
standards
2. Industrial
Basic pollution measure
(Law 132, 1967)
Noise abatement law
(Law 98, 1968)
Environmental Agency
1. Environment Sanitation
Division, Ministry ol
Health and Welfare.
2. Enterprise Bureau,
Ministry of International
Trade and Industry
6-8
-------
Table 6-1 (cont.)
Classification
Law
Jurisdiction
3. Construction
4. Aviation
5. Aviation (Military
Bases)
Noise Abatement Law
(Law 98, 1968)
Public or Private Ai rports
and Vicinities (Law 110,
1966)
Special Loss and Indem-
nity (Law 246, 1953) and
Defense Force (Law 135,
1967)
3. Forest Division, Agen-
cy for Forests and
Fields.
4. Processing Food
Division, Food Agency
5. Minister's Secretariat,
Ministry of Transpor-
tation
1. Environment Sanitation
Division, Ministry of
Health and Welfare
2. Planning Bureau,
Ministry of Construction
Aviation Bureau, Ministry
of Transportation
1. Account Division, Agency
Defense Equipment
-------
Soviet Union
The Soviet Union may have the world's first comprehensive noise control legisla-
tion, dating from 1956. However, it is not embodied in one single law but, rather, is
represented in a series of standards and norms that assume the role of administrative
law. Sanitary Norm 785-69 covers industrial noise that is inside the factory emitted
to the surrounding community. The maximum noise levels permitted by this norm
inside Soviet work places is approximately 85 dBA; however, the norms for labora-
tories and offices are considerably lower.
In populated areas, the maximum noise an industry may legally emit into its
neighborhood (measured just outside the buildings to be protected) is as specified:
Time Approximate dBA
8 a.m. - 11 p.m. 55
11 p.m. - 8 a.m. 45
However, certain situations are allowed in which the noise levels may be increased by
approximately 5 dBA.
The underlying principles of Soviet noise norms are the protection of man's central
nervous system, the prevention of hearing loss or speech interference, and the con-
cern for labor productivity. The Soviet norms appear to be a guide to equivalent laws
of many Eastern European nations.
6-10
-------
NOISE SOURCES
Community Noise
The noise to which workers are subjected in factories has been a matter of con-
tinuing concern in many countries. Only during the past 10 or 15 years, however,
has significant attention been paid to noise exposure elsewhere. Although residents
of rural areas and small towns are exposed to noise disturbances, it is often in the
larger metropolitan centers that noise levels arouse social and civic awareness.
Thus, it is not surprising that certain foreign cities have already become involved in
practical noise research.
A typical approach to noise research usually begins with a city-wide survey
aimed at assessing the extent of the local noise problem. Such a survey may be
based on either or both of the two fundamental approaches; i.e., physical measure-
ments of existing noise levels at a number of locations and sociological surveys of
disturbance/annoyance reactions.
Some authorities consider Dortmund, Germany to be the leading city in this kind
of noise research. Others group Dortmund with London and Tokyo. Each of these
cities has conducted extensive surveys, and each is well known for one or more
aspects of its noise research. Dortmund, for example, measured noise levels in
over 1400 different places and developed an intricate noise map, with streets shown
in different colors according to 5-dB noise level increments. Tokyo has taken a
number of surveys, each concentrating on a different target, such as automobile
noise, construction noise, industrial noise, noise levels at schools, and noise levels
by zone. London chose to cover an area of 36 square miles with 540 measuring
points systematically located 500 yards apart on a grid layout. These three cities
are by no means the only ones that have made noise surveys.
6-11
74-249 O - 72 - 26
-------
Similar surveys have been made elsewhere, notably in Dusseldorf, Munich,
Vienna, Berlin, Cologne, Toulouse, Paris, Athens, "Madrid, Warsaw and Brno, as
well as in several populated areas and towns in Romania and the Netherlands.
The findings of the various surveys tend to support each other, and thus, suggest
that urban noise phenomena are much the same from city to city. For example, Lon-
don, Tokyo, Dusseldorf, Madrid, and other cities all report that the average noise from
heavy vehicles is higher than the noise from ordinary cars. The London report shows
that the noise level next to a road increased by 4dBA(from a base varying between (58 to
80 dBA) if the traffic flow increases from 1000 to 3000 vehicles per hour. Dusseldorf,
though reporting in different measuring units, shows results of much the same magni-
tude. However, the Dusseldorf investigators carried this one step further, finding
that a given increase in traffic density had less effect on the noise level 20 or 40
meters away than it did next to the roadway itself.
One of the most frequently cited results of the London survey indicates that over
80 percent of London's noise is caused by vehicular traffic. It should be pointed out,
however, that this particular survey covered 36 square miles of the inner city, where
vehicles were the most numerous noise sources. In the survey report, it was shown
that the contribution of industrial and other noise emission grew as one proceeded
toward the outlying areas. More specifically, traffic noise predominated in 84 per-
cent of the locations chosen for the survey, while in the remaining 16 percent of the
locations the predominant noise came from industrial plants, river boats, docks,
railways, building operations, etc. While it is evidently true that surface traffic
makes the largest contribution to urban noise, the fact that it is dominated by other
noise sources in certain city locations is significant.
6-12
-------
The relatively great impact of vehicular noise is supported by the sociological
surveys made in several cities, but the results vary widely. Brno, Paris, and Lon-
don ofler typical examples. In Brno, 90 percent of the people interrogated ranked
traffic noise as the most annoying, while 80 percent of the respondents in Paris
ranked it in first place. In London, where the responses were classified according
to location, the results showed 36 percent of the people at home, 20 percent of those
outdoors, and 7 percent of those at work rated traffic noise as the most annoying.
Interestingly enough, 39 percent of the Londoners at home gave higher priorities
to home-generated noise from appliances, voices, television, pets, etc., while the
rest complained about either aircraft or industry.
So far, researchers have been unable to find many meaningful correlations be-
tween technological and sociological noise surveys. Admittedly this can be attributed
to the fact that the characteristics of a noise source as measured by an instrument are
not necessarily consistent with the complaints about it by a human being. Moreover,
neither sound level meters nor human ears can provide accurate identification of all
the sounds that may have harmful effects. It becomes clear only that community
noise is a cacophony of disturbances that require much research and analysis.
Air Traffic Noise
Virtually every country is concerned in some way with noise produced by air
traffic. The disturbance caused by aircraft noise in residential areas around the
world's major airports is generally regarded as a serious problem.
Protests from aroused citizens have prompted planning agencies in most coun-
tries to move cautiously in establishing new airports. London, for example, has
spent several years debating the location of its third airport, and Tokyo its second.
The problem has reached the stage where public reaction is influencing the develop-
ment of future aircraft. Not the least of the impediments is the publicity given to
6-13
-------
the prospect of sonic boom carpets to be laid across the world during flights of
supersonic transports.
Awareness of aviation noise problems has kept pace with both the increase in air
traffic and the advancement of aircraft technology. According to the Airlines Research
Bureau, for example, the volume of international traffic in Europe during the period
of 1960 to 1969, exclusive of intercontinental flights not originating or terminating
in Europe, increased from 10.4 to 24. 9 million passengers. An even sharper rise
was registered by freight and mail cargo. In view of increases in the power and size
of jet aircraft during this same period, the expressions of alarm over aircraft noise
are not surprising.
Typical of airport problems over this period of time is the experience of Heath-
row Airport in London. Reacting to over 1200 complaints received in 1960, Heath-
row authorities found that 23 percent of the daytime flights and 35 percent of the
nighttime flights were exceeding the airport's own maximum permissible noise
levels. After campaigning to bring noise levels to the established limits, airport
authorities reduced noise levels to within 1 percent of standards for both day and
night flights by 1963, and the number complaints dropped to 500. However, the in-
creased traffic and the increase in the number of jet aircraft brought the number of
complaints up to 2200 in 1969. Meanwhile, a survey of persons living in the two
boroughs most seriously affected by Heathrow noise showed that inhabitants, who
in 1965 or 1966 were able to tolerate the noise, had begun to resent it bitterly by as
early as 1968.
Heathrow's concern for the reactions of residents, is by no means unique. Al-
most every country considers it necessary to not only know the aircraft noise levels
produced on the ground and in the vicinity of an airport but also to assess the noise
disturbance in terms of public reaction. Consequently, the concept of the Perceived
6-14
-------
Noise Level (PNdB), with various modifications and interpretations, is commonly
accepted, This concept is reflected in the International Standards Organization pro-
cedure for the measurement and assessment of aircraft noise. Although most coun-
tries agree with the principles behind this procedure, some object to its methodology.
Notable among these is South Africa, which has been working on the development of
a measure that involves more factors and fewer measurements. South Africa was
also among the countries to follow the recent trend toward the measurement of noise
levels in dBA rather than in PNdB units, as originally specified in ISO recommenda-
tions.
One airport that has met reasonable success in the controlling noise is the ZUrich
Kloten Airport. More than five years ago, the government of the Canton Zurich es-
tablished regulations to limit excessive noise in the airport vicinity. The regulations
themselves are of less interest, however, than the techniques used to achieve com-
pliance. The airport employs a permanent monitoring system involving strategically
placed microphones connected by cables to a central evaluation unit, where A-weighted
sound levels are continuously recorded. If a tripping level is exceeded, then the date,
time, and duration of the event are printed out so that the offending pilot can be iden-
tified. The results of the monitoring activity are published in a bulletin distributed
to all airlines every month. In this bulletin a rank order is given, showing the rela-
tive proportions of infringements for the various airlines. No airline likes to be at
the top of the list, and no pilot likes to be cited too often. These factors alone have
served to make the procedure effective; but they are reinforced on rare occasions
by the practice of asking a pilot with an excessive number of citations to report to the
traffic control office before each departure and receive a detailed briefing on the
exact contents of the regulations. Even attempts to circumvent the system have pro-
vided unexpected benefits. For example, because knowledge of the system's details
6-15
-------
is common, some aircraft have been avoiding the known locations of monitoring micro-
phones. Since these locations are at the outskirts of densely populated villages, the
evasive actions of the pilots have proved to be advantageous.
In other countries the techniques for enforcement of airport noise standards tend
to be more formal. Moreover, emphasis elsewhere seems to be placed on the estab-
lishment of acceptable criteria or on the selection of suitable sites. In common with
nations from other continents, the rest of the European countries are interested in
problems such as: noise certification, satisfactory methods for specifying noise
levels, location of airports where land usage in their vicinity is reasonably compatible
with the degree of noise disturbance likely to be experienced, and production or oper-
ation of aircraft to achieve noise abatement without sacrificing safety or economy.
A few countries have experimented with other approaches for protection from
aircraft noise, both flyover disturbances and airport effects, fa 1963, Tokyo tried
a ban against jet flights between 11:00 p.m. and 6:00 a.m. fa later years Japan,
Norway, and Great Britain experimented with such physical measures as the construc-
tion of acoustic baffles and greenbelts, the installation of double windows, the use of
sound insulation in the walls and ceilings of buildings, and the erection of concrete
walls around schools. While all these measures were at least partially successful,
circumstances often negated their effects, to some cases, for instance, the absence
of air conditioning in such protected buildings prompted the occupants to open the win-
dows in the summer.
The worldwide concern over aircraft noise comes at a time when the present
generation of jet aircraft will probably be in use for at least another eight to 10 years.
Accordingly, attention has been directed to retrofitting existing jet engines to make
them quieter. Although the International Civil Aviation Organization sponsored a
6-16
-------
retrofit meeting in November 1971, little hope is held for general agreement on its
recommendation, because the estimated cost per engine is beyond the means of many
foreign nations. Air traffic noise thus promises to be a challenging problem for the
decade of the seventies, a problem with technical, economic, and political overtones
of considerable magnitude.
Surface Traffic Noise
Of all the irritant noise sources in both urban and rural settings, traffic noise has
been isolated as the most significant. Many countries have undertaken sociological
surveys that support this thesis. For example, Table 6-2 presents data gathered from
a British survey in 1968.
Table 6-2
BRITISH TRAFFIC SURVEY
Description of Noise
Road traffic
Aircraft
Trains
Industry/ construction work
Domestic/Light appliances
Neighbors' Impact noise
(knocking, walking, etc.)
Children
Adult voices
Radio/TV
Bells/alarms
Pets
Number of People Disturbed
Per 100 Questioned
When at Home
36
9
5
7
4
6
9
10
7
3
3
When Outdoors
20
4
1
3
-
-
3
2
1
1
-
When at Work
7
1
-
10
4
-
-
2
1
1
-
6-17
-------
The absolute percentages may vary from country to country, but the relative
position of traffic noise versus that from other sources is constant. In Norway, a
relatively thinly populated country, a poll of 1600 people yielded the date presented
in Table 6-3.
Table 6-3
NORWEGIAN NOISE SURVEY
Tvoe of Noise
A. Noise from motor vehicles
B. Noise from aircraft
C. Noise from railroads
0. Noise from neighbors
Number of People Annoyed per 100
Questioned
All Questioned
17
3
4
5
Area
Urban
20
4
5
6
Rural
11
1
1
3
A Swedish study shows that cultural differences are significant in assessing the
social impact of traffic noise. This comparative study, with a sample population
(matched in terms of age, social, and occupational status) of 200 in Stockholm and
166 in Ferrara, Italy, came up with a statistically significant difference—92 per-
cent in Stockholm versus 63 percent in Ferrara spontaneously mentioned traffic
noise, and 61 percent in Stockholm versus 43 percent in Ferrara were disturbed by
traffic noise. The conclusion was drawn that results concerning annoyance reactions
to traffic noise in one country cannot be directly extrapolated to another.
Road Traffic Noise Levels
In 1970 a report on urban traffic noise by the Organization for Economic Cooper-
ation and Development the observation is made that effective enforcement of traffic
6-18
-------
noise regulations requires the availability of simple, reliable noise monitoring instru-
ments. Experience attests to the ineffectiveness of legal enforcement of noise legis-
lation without adequate equipment (or manpower). It implies that even though not all
governments experience equal deficiencies, a universal need for improvement does
exist. For research purposes, however, modern equipment satisfies all current
requirements.
Between 1963 and 1965, in roadside surveys made in Great Britain traffic noise
was isolated from all other sources. The measurements were made in a wide range
of situations, to learn how to relate the variables of traffic flow and road gradient to
noise levels. The procedures followed were those specified in British Standard 3425.
A useful method of displaying the time-varying nature of traffic noise is a sta-
tistical distribution. Figure 6-1 shows such distributions measured by Lamure and
Auzou, in France, for light and heavy urban highway traffic. A straight line on the
figure represents a Gaussian distribution. In this case, the heavy traffic situation
is described well by such a distribution, while the distribution of the light traffic
situation is skewed by the occasional noise peaks.
The data is essentially self-explanatory. It shows, for example, that in light
traffic 80 dBA is exceeded 5 percent of the time, 70 dBA 20 percent of the time and
that in heavy traffic 80 dBA is exceeded 60 percent of the time and 70 dBA 97 per-
cent of the time. These noise levels far exceed those recommended by the Organi-
zation of Economic Cooperation and Development as acceptable.
A noise map plotted for Toulouse, France, showed that in the center of the city
the noise level rarely falls below 80 to 90 dBA and sometimes even exceeds 100 dBA
at peak periods.
Becordings made uninterrupted for 24-hour periods inside a number of buildings
in Paris showed that inside a building particularly exposed to urban traffic noise,
6-19
-------
99.99
99.5
95
o
z
<
T
I
80
60
1.0
0.1
001
\
\
V
\
y
' r
\
X
\
"\
•
\
\
\
VERY LIGHT TRAP
\
\
v .HEAVV
\S
O
\
X
\
f ">^.
FIC/
TRAFFIC
\
V
\
\
\
0 \
\ \
"• "V
s. c
X
x^
N.
\
\
N
60
70 80
A-Weighted Sound Pressure Level dBIA)
90
Figure 6-1. Typical Statistical Distributions of Urban Traffic Noise
the average total noise during the day (from 6:00 a.m. to 11:00 p. m.) varies between
50 and 60 dBA and that during the night (from 11:00 p. m. to 6:00 a. m.) is varied be-
tween 40 and 50 dBA, with frequent peaks of 60 dBA. During the day, the minimum
noise never falls below 45 dBA and falls below 30 dBA only between 1:00 a.m. and
3:00 a.m.
Control of Traffic Noise
Traffic noise abatement can be achieved by attacking either the source, the trans-
mission path, the receiver (buildings), or any combination of these elements. There
appears to be no consistency among the countries surveyed in their approach to the
6-20
-------
control of traffic noise. In Sweden as well as Great Britain, busses have been
modified with special acoustic liners around the engines and exhausts. While an 8-
to 10- dBA reduction is being claimed, the Organization for Economic Cooperation
and Development cautions that such measures may be temporary unless relatively
expensive maintenance procedures are observed.
Soviet experiments have shown positive results through dynamic balancing of the
engine, gear box, wheels, and tires as well as through extensive use of soundproof-
ing materials. A British study by the National Physics Laboratory achieved noise
level reductions of 5 dBA for diesel engines and 9 dBA for gasoline engines by vary-
ing the compression ratios and timing patterns.
Regarding transmission path noise reduction, all countries surveyed agreed that
depressed highways with either slanted or vertical walls offered best results. Simi-
larly, noise shielding structures appear to be a popular approach, at least in Sweden,
Great Britain, and the West German Republic. In a London noise study employing
a protective barrier three meters from the edge of a road 30 meters wide, it was
found that 30 meters from the screen the total noise reduction varied from 9 to 15
dBA for a 1.5-meter barrier, from 17 to 22 dBA for a 5-meter barrier, and 22 to
25 dBA for a 10-meter barrier. Noise reduction due solely to distance was about
9 dBA.
Many countries have introduced strips of grass and trees along highways. While
such measures are aesthetically pleasing, Swiss and Scandinavian data show typical
attentuation of 5 dBA per 100 meters for dense plantings of trees. The Swiss study
states that such a measure may be worthwhile from a psychological point of view:
when the source of the noise is not visible, it is less irritating.
Many large urban governments are redesigning entire sections of their cities
to provide more pleasant environments that include reduced traffic noise levels
6-21
-------
outside and inside residences and other buildings. For example, an Amsterdam pro-
ject calls for wide spaces, planted with grass and trees, between highways and resi-
dences. Only low nonresidential buildings are allowed along the highway.
Enforcement
Nearly all countries surveyed have explicit national or local legislation regulating
noise emissions by motor vehicles. The Organization for Economic Cooperation and
Development Urban Traffic Noise Survey of 1970 observes:
"In order to be realistic these standards should reflect a compromise
between social considerations, what the public is willing to pay, and what
industry can manage to produce in the light of available technology. Some
reductions in noise emission could be achieved in the fairly short run sim-
ply by adding acoustical absorbers and by detailed attention to silencers,
air intakes and cooler fans. More significant noise reductions would, in
many cases, require alterations in the design of the engine, and could
therefore become effective only after a longer period. The important
point is that standards should be set, and set on a sliding scale, so as to
continue to reflect the current state of noise reduction technology."
A number of countries actively enforce noise emission standards by various
methods. Denmark, for example, has compulsory noise inspection whenever cars
over five years old are sold. In Switzerland, cities such as Lausanne, Zurich,
Berne, engage regular police noise patrols empowered to fine the driver or to
temporarily confiscate vehicles that have been altered to increase exhaust noise.
Tokyo elicits public cooperation and consciousness regarding street noise by using
illuminated signs that continually flash the noise level readings at busy intersec-
tions.
6-22
-------
NOISE ENVIRONMENTS
The Residential Environment
Much has been said about the effects on residential areas of noise from aircraft,
surface vehicles, industrial plants, and other external sources. However, a close
review of foreign literature shows that other countries devote significant attention to
the identification and control of disturbances that originate iti and around residential
buildings. Some of the annoyances already mentioned in connection with the London
noise survey have been cited by representatives of other countries as well. Much of
their discussion revolves around the transmission of sounds through poorly insulated
walls and floors. These sounds include human voices, footsteps, radios, musical
instruments, and many others generated either by neighbors or by members of the
same household.
At least 15 major countries have insulation specifications for dwellings, especi-
ally for apartment buildings. A common characteristic of these countries is that
apartment buildings predominate in a new residential construction. A typical ex-
ample is Sweden, where, as early as 1961, 73 percent of all new dwellings were
apartments. This country was one of the first to introduce insulation requirements
that cover wall and floor insulation between living rooms and that set limits for noise
produced by the turning on or off of faucets in bathrooms and kitchens.
In some countries, specifications are presented as requirements, while in others
they are merely recommendations. Although most of the specifications center around
International Standard Organization recommendations, particularly with respect to
the measurement of airborne and impact sound transmissions, each country has
introduced special features of its own. For example, in Poland as well as in other
East European countries, all apartments must be separated longitudinally by double
walls. Several countries recommend floating floors for control of impact noises and
6-23
-------
lead-based foundations for the attenuation of ground-transmitted vibrations. Most
European countries specify insulation of water pipes from the structural members of
buildings to avoid transmission of water hammer vibrations and faucet noise.
Not all domestic noise sources are directly related to insulation. Elevators,
heating or air conditioning equipment, doorbells, household appliances, and other de-
vices have been cited as offenders. Sweden and the USSR have conducted notable
studies of such items, particularly of individual household appliances.
The Swedish Institute of Building Research has analyzed 68 noise sources such as
vacuum cleaners, refrigerators, kitchen exhaust fans, freezers, heating fans, and
hair driers. The highest noise levels in the Swedish study (70 to 80 dB at one meter)
came from vacuum cleaners. A Soviet study of home appliances ranked an electric
floor polisher as the noisiest, followed by a vacuum cleaner, a shaver, and a sewing
machine. This study also included some appliances that had been designed specifi-
cally for quiet operation. Notable among these were a vacuum cleaner with the motor
insulated from the housing, a centrifuge-type laundry extractor with a rubber pillow
in the base, some noiseless melodic doorbells, and a washing machine that used high-
pressure steam and had no moving parts.
An interesting viewpoint on household appliances was offered in the Hungarian
monograph submitted for this year's environmental conference sponsored by the
Economic Commission for Europe. The writer expressed the opinion that appliances
made in Hungary had little value for export purposes because they were noisier than
appliances manufactured in other countries. The Hungarian report introduces a rarely
expressed evaluation of noise as an economic factor. In general, studies of domestic
noise center around the same effects as do studies of other noises. Although home-
generated noises are surpassed by disturbances from traffic and industry, they are
by no means disregarded in other countries.
6-24
-------
Public Institutions
Many countries have conducted special studies and surveys of public Institutions.
Most commonly studied have been schools and hospitals; but other institutions for which
some foreign noise control efforts can be observed include museums, concert halls,
libraries, and public administration buildings.
The USSR has developed a standard Vibronoise-I measurement laboratory for
measuring noise and vibration in certain buildings for inspection and control purposes.
Much of the equipment is portable, so field measurements can be made in schools,
hospitals, health stations, juvenile institutions, etc. Over 350 Vibronoise-I units
were produced and distributed between 1967 and 1970.
Studies conducted in Austria, Czechoslovakia, and Germany explore noise as a
negative factor in the educational environment. These studies conclude that excessive
noise not only distracts the attention of students but affects them physically and psy-
chologically. Observations show that excess noise levels in classrooms produce
fatigue, reduce concentration span, raise blood pressure, and sometimes cause
neurosis. These observations concur with the maximum classroom level of 45 dBA
recommended by Great Britain's Wilson Committee. A Swedish recommendation
placed the maximum classroom level at 35 dBA.
Great Britain, Germany, Austria, Italy, Poland, Sweden, the USSR, and South
Africa are among the countries in which studies have been undertaken to determine
the noise levels in hospitals and to analyze the effects of noise on patients. Most of
the surveys showed excessive noise levels ranging from 50 to 90 dBA within the rooms
as compared to the recommended maximum levels of 55 dBA during the day and 25
dBA at night. Ail investigators agreed that noise levels considered tolerable for
healthy individuals could be unbearable or damaging to hospital patients.
6-25
-------
Effects of Industrial Noise on the Community
Although industrial noise receives some attention in general studies and surveys,
much of the information about it is generated in special studies. Often, such studies
are limited to isolated instances in single plants. For example, a cyclone extractor
in Australia was studied after residents complained about it. As a result of this study,
the unit was modified and shielded so that the emission was reduced to a level that was
not objectionable. In another Australian case, the loud hissing noise of the oil burn-
ers in an industrial kiln was the subject of complaints and a subsequent investigation.
A specially designed muffler system eliminated this problem.
The practice in London precludes the appearance in print of many reports on in-
vestigations of this nature. There, the control of industrial noise is the responsi-
bility of the local boroughs, and investigations of complaints are made by the public
health inspectors. In most cases the investigations consist of informal discussions
with the offending firms.
A more extensive approach to industrial noise problems was taken by the Federal
Republic of Germany in a study of noise in the metal industry. This study identified
noise sources and measured their noise levels at various points in the surrounding
communities. The worst sources identified included high speed blowers, drop ham-
mers, and material handling equipment. In most instances, the residents had failed
to register complaints, except when unusual events occurred.
Unlike the residents near fixed industrial plants, citizens exposed to temporary
construction activities usually find the attendant disturbances objectionable. Con-
sideration of this has caused some countries to shorten the work shifts for construc-
tion activities. Switzerland has developed a formula that determines the allowable
work time on the basis of the average noise level of the operation.
6-26
-------
to the Communist countries, allowance for industrial noise is often included in
town planning. Plant screens, greenbelts, and distance standards are customarily
employed.
6-27
74-249 O - 72 - 27
-------
SUMMARY
Most countries surveyed have viewed noise abatement and control as a major
environmental issue for more than a decade. Research efforts have been and are be-
ing supported largely by national governments. On the basis of research results, a
large number of countries have enacted comprehensive laws and regulations, and,
in many instances, national laws are stricter than the corresponding International
Standards Organization recommendations.
It is difficult to attribute these national concerns to a common basis, since there
are varying levels of emphasis. For example, economic effects of noise have been
frequently expressed, such as the impact of noise on labor productivity, the lack of
foreign acceptability of domestic (noisy) industrial products, or the impact of a noisy
community environment on a tourist-oriented economy. Similarly, the concern for
social welfare brought about the enforcement of numerous specific regulations.
There are several international organizations that have promoted noise control
to member nations. The World Health Organization has made a number of sweeping
recommendations. Similarly, the Organization of Economic Cooperation and Develop-
ment has pressed the issue of traffic noise, has issued a report, "Urban Traffic Noise"
(Paris, 1971), a.'id is presently sponsoring a comprehensive stud', on the environmen-
tal impact of the automobile, including air pollution and noise. The U. N. Economic
Commission for Europe (ECE), issued in 1968, recommended "Maximum Limits of
Sound Level - New Vehicles" (Rule No. 9, Uniform Provisions Concerning Approval
of Noise - ECE Geneva; and the Council of European Communities (CEC) has issued
a directive to the Common Market nations to provide for uniform noise limits for new
vehicles. This rule is to become effective by the end of August 1972.
6-28
-------
In general, all countries surveyed recognized the following sources as noise
polluters (listed in order of impact):
1. Surface traffic
2. Aviation
3. Industry (as a community noise source)
4. Community activities.
Depending upon the political structure of each country, enforcement is guided
nationally but implemented regionally. Many countries have been successful in their
noise abatement efforts, but uniformity of approach is not evident.
6-29
-------
-------
Appendix A
SOURCE DOCUMENT INFORMATION
The Technical Information Documents used as the basis for the preparation of this
report are:
NTID300.1 - Noise From Construction Equipment and Operations. Building
Equipment, and Home Appliances, prepared by Bolt, Beranek and Newman under
EPA contract 68-04-0047.
NTID300. 2 - Noise From Industrial Plants, prepared by L.S. Goodfrtend Associ-
ates under contract EPA 68-04-0044.
NTID300. 3 - Community Noise, prepared by Wyle Laboratories under EPA con-
tract 68-04-0046.
NTID300. 4 - Laws and Regulatory Schemes for Noise Abatement, prepared by the
George Washington University under EPA contract 68-04-0032.
NTID300. 5 - Effects of Noise on Wildlife and other Animals, prepared by Memphis
State University under EPA contract 68-04-0024.
NTID300. 6 - An Assessment of Noise Concern in Other Nations, prepared by
Informatics, Inc. under EPA contract 68-01-0157.
NTID300. 7 - Effects of Noise on People, prepared by the Central Institute for the
Deaf under EPA contract 68-01-0500.
NTID300. 8 - State and Municipal Non-Occupational Noise Abatement Programs,
prepared by the staff of the EPA Office of Noise Abatement and Control.
A-l
-------
NTID300. 9 - Noise Programs of Professional/Industrial Organizations, Unlversi-
ties and Colleges, prepared by the staff of the EPA Office of Noise Abatement and
Control.
NTID300. 10 - Summary of Noise Programs In the Federal Government, prepared
by the staff of the EPA Office of Noise Abatement and Control.
NTID300. 11 - Social Impact of Noise, prepared by the National Bureau of Standards
under interagency agreement with the Department of Commerce.
NTID300. 12 - Effects of Sonic Boom and Other Impulsive Noise on Structures, pre-
pared by the National Bureau of Standards under interagency agreement with the
Department of Commerce.
NTID300. 13 - Transportation Noise and Noise From Equipment Powered by Inter-
nal Combustion Engines, prepared by Wyle Laboratories under EPA contract
68-04-0046.
NTID300.14 - Economic Impact of Noise, prepared by the National Bureau of Stan-
dards under interagency agreement with the Department of Commerce.
NTID300. 15 - Fundamentals of Noise: Measurement, Rating Schemes, and Stan-
dards, prepared by The National Bureau of Standards under interagency agreement
with the Department of Commerce.
To obtain these documents contact the Environmental Protection Agency,
Office of Noise Abatement and Control, Washington, D. C. 20460.
Also used in the preparation of this report was testimony obtained at public hear-
ings held by the Office of Noise Abatement and Control under authority of the Noise
A-2
-------
Pollution and Abatement Act of 1970 - Title IV to the Clean Air Amendments of 1970
(PL 91-604). The cities in which those hearings were held and their subjects covered
are as follows;
Noise in Construction
Atlanta
Chicago
Dallas
San Francisco
Denver
New York
Boston
Washington, D. C.
Manufacturing and Transportation
Noise (Highway and Air)
Urban Planning, Architectural Design;
and Noise in the Home
Standards and Measurement Methods,
Legislation and Enforcement Problems
Agriculture and Recreational use Noise
Transportation (Rail and Other), Urban Noise
Problems and Social Behavior
Physiological and Psychological Effects
Technology and Economics of Noise Control;
National Programs and their Relations
With State and Local Programs.
The transcripts of these hearings may be obtained through the United States Govern-
ment Printing Office, Superintendant of Documents, after announcement of their avail-
ability in the Federal Register.
A-3
-------
-------
Appendix B
PROPOSED BILL TO CONTROL THE GENERATION
AND TRANSMISSION OF NOISE
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
WASHINGTON, D. C 20460
Dear Mr. [President/Speaker]:
Enclosed is a draft of a proposed bill "to
control the generation and transmission of noise
detrimental to the human environment, and for
other purposes."
The proposed legislation would expand and
coordinate Federal efforts to control noise, which
presents a growing threat to the health and welfare
of the American people. Particularly in congested
urban areas, the noise produced by the products of
our advancing technology, and in the manufacture
of those products, causes continual annoyance and
in some cases serious physical harm. While the
States and localities have the responsibility to
deal with many aspects of noise, effective Federal
action is essential with respect to major noise
problems requiring national uniformity of treatment.
The proposed bill would achieve three primary
functions. First, it would establish, in the
Environmental Protection Agency, authority to
coordinate existing Federal noise research and
control programs, and authority to publish criteria
and control-technology documents relating to noise.
Second, it would supplement existing Federal
authority to regulate the noise characteristics
of articles that are major sources of noise, and
authorize Federal noise labeling requirements for
such articles. Third, it would direct all Federal
agencies to administer their programs, consistent
with existing authority, in such a manner as to
minimize noise.
A detailed section-by-section analysis of the
bill is enclosed. A similar letter is being sent
B-l
-------
to the [President of the Senate/Speaker of the House].
The bill is part of the President's environmental
program as announced in his Environmental Message of
February 8, 1971. It will be administered by the
Environmental Protection Agency and was developed
in coordination with the Council on Environmental
Quality.
The Office of Management and Budget advises
that enactment of this bill would be in accord with
the program of the President.
Sincerely yours.
/s/ William D. Ruckelshaus
Honorable Spiro T. Agnew
President of the Senate
Washington, D.C. 20510
Honorable Carl B. Albert
Speaker of the House of Representatives
Washington, D.C. 20515
B-2
-------
A BILL
To control the generation and transmission of
noise detrimental to the human environment, and for
other purposes.
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Rep-
resentatives of the United States of America in Con-
gress assembled. That: This Act may be cited as the
"Noise Control Act of 1971".
SECTION 2. FINDINGS AND POLICY
(a) The Congress finds —
(1) that inadequately controlled noise
presents a growing danger to the health and welfare of
the Nation's population, particularly in urban areas;
(2) that the major sources of noise
include transportation vehicles and equipment, machin-
ery, appliances, and other manufactured articles that
move in commerce; and
(3) that, while primary responsibility
for control of noise rests in many respects with the
States and local governments. Federal action is essen-
tial to deal with major noise problems requiring
national uniformity of treatment.
(b) The Congress declares that it is the
policy of the United States to promote an environment
for all Americans free from noise that jeopardizes
their health or welfare. To that end, it is the pur-
pose of this Act to establish a means for effective
coordination of Federal research and activities in
noise control, to supplement existing Federal authority
for regulation of the noise characteristics of arti-
cles moving in commerce, and to authorize Federal noise
labeling requirements for such articles. Nothing in
this Act is intended to diminish the responsibilities
of State and local governments to regulate other as-
pects of noise within their jurisdictions.
SECTION 3. DEFINITIONS
As used in this Act the term --
(a) "Administrator" means the Admini-
strator of the Environmental Protection Agency;
(b) "person" means any private person
or entity, any officer, department, agency, or instru-
mentality of any State or local unit of government,
and, except with respect to the provisions of section
B-3
-------
12 (a), any officer, department, agency, or instrumen-
tality of the Federal Government;
(c) "product" means any article or good
manufactured for sale in, or introduction into,
commerce, including but not limited to transportation
vehicles and equipment, machinery, and appliances,
provided, that it does not include (i) aircraft, air-
craft engines, propellers, or appliances that are
covered by Title VI of the Federal Aviation Act of
1958 (49 U.S.C. Sees. 1421-32), (ii) those military
aircraft, weapons, or equipment that are designed for
combat use; or (iii) those aircraft, rockets, or equip-
ment that are designed for research or experimental or
developmental work to be performed by the National
Aeronautics and Space Administration, or other machin-
ery or equipment designed for use in experimental work
done by or for the Federal Government;
(d) "ultimate purchaser" means the first
person who in good faith purchases a new product for
purposes other than resale;
(e) "new product" means a product the
equitable of legal title to which has never been trans-
ferred to an ultimate purchaser;
(f) "manufacturer" means any person en-
gaged in the manufacturing or assembling of new prod-
ucts or who acts for, and is controlled by, any such
person in connection with the distribution of such
products;
(g) "commerce" means trade, traffic,
commerce, transportation, or communication among the
several States, or between a place in a State and any
place outside thereof, or within the District of
Columbia or a possession of the United States, or be-
tween points in the same State but through a point out-
side thereof.
SECTION 4. COORDINATION AMD EVALUATION OF FEDERAL
PROGRAMS
(a) The Administrator shall promote coordi-
nation of the programs of all Federal departments and
agencies relating to noise research and noise control.
Each Federal department or agency shall, upon request,
furnish to the Administrator such information as he
may reasonably require to determine the nature, scope,
and results of the noise-research and noise-control
B-4
-------
programs of the department or agency.
(b) On the basis of regular consultation with
appropriate Federal departments and agencies, the
Administrator shall compile and publish, from time to
time, a report on the status and progress of Federal
activities relating to noise research and noise con-
trol. This report shall describe the noise programs of
each Federal department or agency and assess the con-
tributions of those programs to the Government's over-
all efforts to control noise.
SECTION 5. NOISE CRITERIA AND CONTROL TECHNOLOGY
(a) The Administrator shall, after consulta-
tion with appropriate Federal departments and agencies,
develop and publish such criteria for noise as in his
judgment may be requisite for the protection of the
public health and welfare. Such criteria shall reflect
the scientific knowledge most useful in indicating the
kind and extent of all identifiable effects on the
public health or welfare which may be expected from
differing quantities and qualities of noise. The
Administrator shall confer with the Secretaries of
Health, Education, and Welfare, and of Labor to assure
consistency between the criteria published under this
subsection and the criteria and standards for occupa-
tional noise exposure produced under the Occupational
Safety and Health Act of 1970.
(b) The Administrator shall, after publication
of the initial criteria pursuant to subsection (a) of
this section and after consultation with appropriate
Federal departments and agencies, compile and publish
a report or series of reports identifying major sources
of noise and giving information on techniques for con-
trol of noise from such sources. This information
shall include such data as are available on the tech-
nology, costs, and alternative methods of noise
control.
(c) The Administrator shall from time to time
review and, as appropriate, revise or supplement any
criteria or information on control techniques published
pursuant to this section.
(d) The publication or revision of any cri-
teria or information on control techniques pursuant to
this section shall be announced in the Federal
Register, and copies shall be made available to the
B-5
-------
general public.
SECTION 6. NOISE-GENERATION STANDARDS
(a) If the Administrator, in a report pub-
lished pursuant to section 5, identifies as a major
source of noise any product or class of products of
one or more of the following types:
(1) construction equipment,
(2) transportation equipment (including
recreational vehicles and related equipment), or
(3) equipment powered by internal com-
bustion engines,
he may, after consultation to the extent desirable with
appropriate Federal departments and agencies, by regu-
lation prescribe and amend standards limiting the
noise-generation characteristics (including reasonable
durability over the life of the product) of such prod-
uct or class of products. The standards so prescribed
shall be the standards that the Administrator deter-
mines, consistent with criteria published pursuant to
section 5, to be requisite to protect the public
health and welfare. In prescribing and amending such
standards the Administrator shall consider whether any
proposed standard is economically reasonable, tech-
nologically practicable, and appropriate for the par-
ticular products to which it will apply, and whether
the particular products can more effectively be con-
trolled through Federal regulation of interstate com-
merce or through State or local regulations. Pro-
vided, that no standards prescribed under this section
shall apply to products manufactured on or before the
effective date of such standards.
(b) The Administrator shall publish any
standards proposed under subsection (a) in the Fed-
eral Register at least 60 days prior to the time when
such standards will take effect. In addition to sub-
missions of written views, any person who will be ad-
versely affected by such proposed regulation may,
within 45 days of the date of publication of the pro-
posed regulation, or within such other time period as
the Administrator may prescribe, file objections with
the Administrator and request a public hearing.
Requests for a public hearing made by a manufacturer
of a product covered by the proposed standards shall be
granted. Requests for a public hearing by other
B-6
-------
persons may be granted at the discretion of the Admini-
strator. If a public hearing is held, final regula-
tions will not be promulgated by the Administrator
until after the conclusion of such hearing.
(c) Section 611 of the Federal Aviation Act
of 1958 (49 U.S.C. Sec. 1431) is amended as follows:
(1) In subsection (a), after "with the
Secretary of Transportation" insert "and subject to
the approval of the Administrator of the Environmental
Protection Agency".
(2) At the end of subsection (a), insert
"Standards, rules, and regulations prescribed and
amended under this section shall become effective only
upon approval by the Administrator of the Environmental
Protection Agency; provided, that, all standards,
rules, and regulations prescribed pursuant to this
section prior to the effective date of the Noise Con-
trol Act of 1971 shall remain in effect until amended
or revoked by subsequent standards, rules, or regula-
tions prescribed and approved pursuant to this
section. "
(3) After subsection (a), insert the
following new subsections:
"(b) The Administrator o£ the
Federal Aviation Administration shall not issue a
type certificate under section 603 of this act for
any aircraft, or for any aircraft engine, propeller,
or appliance that affects siqnificantlv the noise or
sonic boom characteristics of any aircraft, unless he
shall have prescribed standards, rules, and regulations
under this section that apply to such aircraft, air-
craft engine, propeller, or appliance.
"(c) If at any time the Admini-
strator of the Environmental Protection Agency has
reason to believe that an existing standard, rule, or
regulation under this section does not protect the
public from aircraft noise or sonic boom to the maxi-
mum extent that is consistent with the consideration
listed in subsection (d) of this section, he may re-
quest the Administrator of the Federal Aviation Admini-
stration to review and report to him on the advisa-
bility of revising such standard, rule, or regulation.
Any such request shall be accompanied by a detailed
B-7
-------
statement of the information on which it is based."
(4) Subsections (b) and (c) are redesig-
nated as (d) and (e).
(d) No State or subdivision thereof shall
adopt or enforce, with respect to any product for which
noise-generation standards have been prescribed by the
Administrator under subsection (a) of this section, any
standard limiting noise-generation characteristics
different from the standards prescribed by the Admini-
strator. Nothing in this section shall diminish or
enhance the rights of any State or subdivision thereof
otherwise to control, regulate, or restrict the use,
operation, or movement of such products.
SECTION 7. LABELING
(a) The Administrator may by regulation desig-
nate products or classes thereof:
(1) that produce noise capable of
adversely affecting the public health or welfare; or
(2) that are sold wholly or in part on
the basis of their effectiveness in reducing noise.
(b) For each of such products or classes the
Administrator may, after consultation to the extent
desirable with appropriate Federal departments and
agencies, by regulation require that a notice of the
actual level of noise generation, or notice of the
actual effectiveness in reducing noise, be affixed to
the product and to the outside of its container at the
time of its sale to the ultimate purchaser. He shall
prescribe the form of the notice and the methods and
units of measurement to be used for this purpose.
(c) Nothing in this section shall preclude or
deny to any State or subdivision thereof the right to
regulate product labeling in any way not in conflict
with regulations promulgated by the Administrator under
this section.
SECTION 8. PROHIBITED ACTS
(a) The following acts or the causing thereof
are prohibited:
(1) in the case of a manufacturer of new
products, the sale, the offering for sale, or the
introduction or delivery for introduction into commerce
of any product manufactured after the effective date of
regulations promulgated under section 6(a) (respecting
noise-generation characteristics) that are applicable
B-8
-------
to such product, unless it is in conformity with such
regulations (except as provided in subsection (b) of
this section);
(2) in the case of an owner or operator
of a product, the use in commerce of such product after
the effective date of regulations promulgated under
section 6(a) that are applicable to such product, un-
less it is in conformity with such regulations (ex-
cept as provided in subsection (b) of this section);
(3) the removal or rendering inoperative
by any person, other than for purposes of maintenence,
repair, or replacement, of any device or element of
design incorporated into any product in compliance with
regulations promulgated under section 6(a), prior to
its sale or delivery to the. ultimate purchaser or
during its term of use.
(4) in the case of a manufacturer of new
products, the sale, the offering for sale, or the
introduction or delivery for introduction into com-
merce of any product manufactured after the effective
date of regulations promulgated under section 7 (re-
specting noise labeling) that are applicable to such
product, unless it is in conformity with such regula-
tions (except as provided in subsection (b) of this
section);
(5) the removal by any person of any
notice affixed to a product or container pursuant to
regulations promulgated under section 7, prior to sale
of the product to the ultimate purchaser;
(6) the importation into the United
States by any person of any product in violation of
regulations promulgated under section 13 that are
applicable to such product; and
(7) the failure or refusal by any person
to permit access to, or copying of, records or to make
reports or provide information required under section
9.
(b)(1) The Administrator may exempt any prod-
uct, or class thereof, from paragraphs (1) , (2) , (4) ,
and (6) of subsection (a), upon such terms and con-
ditions as he may find necessary to protect the public
health or welfare, for the purpose of research, inves-
tigations, studies, demonstrations, or training, or
for reasons of national security.
B-9
74-249 O - 72 - 28
-------
(2) A product intended solely for export,
and so labeled or tagged on the outside of the con-
tainer and on the product itself, shall not be subject
to paragraph (1), (2), or (4) of subsection (a).
SECTION 9. RECORDS. REPORTS. AND INFORMATION
(a) Every manufacturer of a product for which
applicable regulations have been promulgated under
section 6(a) or section 7 shall establish and maintain
such records, make such reports, and provide such
information (which may include the availability of
products coming off the assembly line for testing by
the Administrator) as the Administrator may reasonably
require to enable him to determine whether such manu-
facturer has acted or is acting in compliance with this
Act and shall, upon request of an officer or employee
duly designated by the Administrator, permit such
officer or employee at reasonable times to have access
to such information and to copy such records.
(b) All information obtained by the Admini-
strator or his representatives pursuant to subsection
(a) of this section, which information contains or
relates to a trade secret or other matter referred to
in section 1905 of title 18 of the United States Code,
shall be considered confidential for the purpose of
that section, except that such information may be dis-
closed to other Federal officers or employees, in
whose possession it shall remain confidential, or when
relevent in any proceeding under this Act.
(c) This section shall apply only to manu-
facturers in the United States.
SECTION 10. FEDERAL PROGRAMS
The Congress authorizes and directs that all
agencies of the Federal Government shall, to the
fullest extent consistent with existing authority,
administer the programs within their control in such
a manner as to further the policy declared in section
2(b) .
SECTION 11. RESEARCH. TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE, AND PUBLIC
INFORMATION
In furtherance of his responsibilities under
this Act and to complement, as necessary, the noise-
research programs of other Federal departments and
agencies, the Administrator is authorized to:
(a) Conduct research, and finance
B-10
-------
research by contract with other public and private
bodies, on the effects, measurement, and control of
noise, including but not limited to:
(1) Investigation of the psychological
and physiological effects of noise on humans and the
effects of noise on domestic animals, wildlife, and
property, and determination of acceptable levels of
noise on the basis of such effects;
(2) Development of improved methods and
standards for measurement and monitoring of noise, in
cooperation with the National Bureau of Standards,
Department of Commerce; and
(3) Determination of the most effective
and practicable means of controlling noise generation,
transmission, and reception;
(b) Provide technical assistance to State and
local governments to facilitate their development and
enforcement of ambient noise standards, including but
not limited to:
(1) Advice on training of noise-control
personnel and on selection and operation of noise-
abatement equipment; and
(2) Preparation of model State or local
legislation for noise control; and
(c) Disseminate to the public information on
the effects of noise, acceptable noise levels, and
techniques for noise measurement and control.
SECTION 12. ENFORCEMENT
(a)(1) Any person who violates section 8(a) of
this Act shall be subject to a civil penalty of not
more than $25,000 for each violation, which may be
assessed by the Administrator or by a court in any
action authorized by subsection (b) or (c) of this
section.
(2) In any proceeding by the Administra-
tor to assess a civil penalty under this subsection,
no penalty shall be assessed until the person charged
shall have been given notice and an opportunity for a
hearing on such charge. In determining the amount of
the penalty, or the amount agreed upon in compromise,
the Administrator shall consider the gravity of the
violation and the demonstrated good faith of the person
charged in attempting to achieve rapid compliance after
notification by the Administrator of a violation. Upon
B-ll
-------
failure of the offending party to pay any penalty
assessed, the Administrator may request the Attorney
General to commence an action in the appropriate
district court for appropriate relief.
(3) For the purpose of this subsection,
the commission of any act prohibited byparagraph (1) ,
(2), (3). (4), (5), or (6) of section 8 (a) shall
constitute a separate violation for each day or prod-
uct involved.
(b) The district courts of the United States
shall have jurisdiction of actions brought by and in
the name of the United States to restrain violations
of this Act or to enforce civil penalties authorized
by this Act. Any civil action authorized to be brought
by the United States under this Act shall be referred
to the Attorney General for appropriate action.
(c) By agreement with any State, with or with-
out reimbursement, the Administrator may authorize law
enforcement officers or other personnel of such State
to enforce the prohibitions of section 8 (a) by bringing
actions in the appropriate State courts. When autho-
rized by State law, the courts of such State may enter-
tain actions brought by such officers or personnel to
restrain violations of this Act or to' enforce civil
penalties authorized by this Act. In any action under
this subsection, any civil penalty imposed shall be
payable one-half to the State and one-half to the
United States Treasury.
SECTION 13. IMPORTS
(a) Products offered for importation shall be
subject to the same general standards and labeling
requirements that are applied to like domestic prod-
ucts. The Administrator shall by regulation prescribe
the procedures by which this will be accomplished with
a minimum detrimental effect on domestic and inter-
national trade.
(b) The Secretary of the Treasury shall, in
consultation with the Administrator, issue regulations
to carry out the provisions of this Act with respect to
products offered for importation.
SECTION 14. APPROPRIATIONS
There are authorized to be appropriated to
carry out this Act for Fiscal Year 1972 and for each
fiscal year thereafter such sums as are necessary.
B-12
-------
SECTION 15. REPORT OF NOISE STUDY
Section 402(a) of the Clean Air Act is amended
by deleting everything before "a full and complete
investigation" and inserting in lieu thereof "The
Administrator shall carry out".
B-13
-------
SECTION-BY-SECTION ANALYSIS
The title of the proposed act is designated as
"The Noise Control Act of 1971."
Section 2 contains a statement of congressional
findings and policy. Subsection 2(a) states findings
that noise, particularly in urban areas, presents a
growing danger to the public health and welfare; that
the major sources of noise include a. variety of manu-
factured articles that move in commerce; and that the
Federal Government bears a responsibility to deal with
major noise problems requiring national uniformity of
treatment. Subsection 2(b) declares a Federal policy
to promote an environment for all Americans free from
noise that jeopardizes their health or welfare. This
subsection further states that the purpose of the pro-
posed act is to establish a means for effective
coordination of Federal noise programs, to supplement
existing Federal authority for regulation of the noise
characteristics of articles moving in commerce, and
to authorize Federal noise labeling requirements for
such articles. The Act is not intended to relieve
States and localities of their responsibilities to
control other aspects of noise within their ;juris-
dictions.
Section 3 defines certain terms used in the
proposal. Subsection 3(a) defines the official
primarily responsible for implementing the legislation
as the Administrator of the Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA). Subsection 3(b) defines "person" in
such a way that all Federal, State, or local govern-
mental organizations, employees, and agents, along with
private persons or entities, are included within the
enforcement provisions of section 12. However, Federal
organizations, employees, and agents are excepted from
the definition of "person" insofar as subsection 12 (a),
providing for civil penalties, is concerned. Thus,
Federal organizations, employees, and agents must
comply with the prohibitions of section 8, but they are
not liable for or subject to the civil penalties
authorized in subsection 12 (a).
Subsection 3(c) defines "product" to include
any article or good manufactured for sale in, or
introduction into, commerce with three general
B-14
-------
exclusions. "Product" does not include aircraft or
aircraft components that are covered by Title VI of
the Federal Aviation Act of 1958. The noise
characteristics of these aircraft and aircraft
components are already subject to regulation under
that Act, which will continue in effect subject to
the amendments made by section 6 of the proposed
legislation, discussed below.
"Product" also excludes any article that,
although otherwise within the broad definition, is
designed for military combat use. National security
requires that the responsible authorities be free to
determine to what extent noise control objectives must
be subordinated to military necessities in the use of
such articles. Therefore, they are excluded from the
definition of "product" to exempt them entirely from
the standard-setting and labeling provisions of sections
6 and 7 without regard to the exercise by the Admin-
istrator of his power under section 8(b)(1), discussed
below, to grant specific exemptions for national
security reasons. The policy of the proposed legis-
lation will, however, dictate that all feasible steps
be taken to improve the noise characteristics of even
these articles. "Product" also excludes equipment
designed for use in experimental work done by or for
the National Aeronautics and Space Administration or
other agencies of the Federal Government.
Subsection 3(d) defines "ultimate purchaser"
to be the first person who purchases a new product for
a use other than resale. This excludes both those
intermediaries who may handle the product before sale
to the first user, and subsequent users who may obtain
the product second-hand. Subsection 3(e) defines "new
product" to mean a product the title to which has not
yet been transferred to an ultimate purchaser.
Subsection 3(f) defines "manufacturer" to
include any person who manufactures or assembles new
products or who acts on behalf of such a person in the
distribution of new products. "Commerce" is defined
in subsection 3(g) to include all forms of interchange
involving two or more States, or a State and a place
outside thereof or the District of Columbia or a
possession of the United States.
Section 4 entrusts to the Administrator of EPA
B-15
-------
the primary responsibility for promoting coordination
of Federal programs relating to noise. To assist him
in exercising this responsibility, subsection 4(a)
directs each other Federal agency to furnish him with
any information he may reasonably request about the
agency's noise programs. Subsection 4(b) directs the
Administrator, on the basis of consultation with
appropriate Federal agencies, to publish a periodic
report covering the noise-related activities of all
Federal agencies. It is intended that this report
will provide a means for assessing the overall progress
of Federal noise control efforts.
Section 5 gives the Administrator of EPA
responsibility to develop and publish basic documents
on noise and its control. Subsection 5(a) directs
him to develop criteria for noise, taking into account
up-to-date scientific knowledge on noise effects.
These criteria should make clear what quantities and
qualities of noise are consistent with protection of
the public health and welfare under differing circum-
stances. The Administrator is directed to seek con-
sistency between these criteria and the criteria and
standards for occupational noise exposure produced by
the Secretaries of Health, Education, and Welfare and
Labor under the Occupational Safety and Health Act of
1970.
Subsection 5(b) directs the Administrator,
after initial publication of criteria under subsection
5(a), to publish one or more reports identifying major
sources of noise and discussing techniques for con-
trolling noise from such sources. It is not intended
that any single report published under subsection 5(b)
must cover all or most major noise sources. Rather,
as information becomes available, the Administrator
may publish individual reports identifying one or more
major sources and outlining the noise control technology
applicable to each identified source. Subsection 5(c)
directs the Administrator to review and, when appropriate,
revise both the criteria and the control technology
documents published under section 5, to ensure that
these reflect changes in available knowledge. Sub-
section 5(d) requires announcement of each publication
or revision of criteria or control technology documents
in the Federal Register and release of copies to the
B-16
-------
public. This provision is intended to ensure adequate
public knowledge of the content of these publications.
Subsection 6(a) authorizes the Administrator
of EPA to prescribe noise standards for construction
equipment, transportation equipment, and equipment
powered by internal combustion engines that he has
identified as a major source of noise and for which he
has discussed control technology in a report published
pursuant to section 5. When the Administrator determines
to impose standards, subsection 6 (a) requires that
they be set at the level required, in light of the
published criteria, to protect health and welfare,
taking into account the feasibility of such a level
of control and the appropriateness of Federal regulation.
Standards under subsection 6(a) shall not apply to
products manufactured on or before the effective date
of the standards. Subsection 6(b) alters the procedures
under the Administrative Procedure Act by granting a
manufacturer the right to a public hearing on proposed
standards that would cover his products.
Subsection 6(c) amends section 611 of the
Federal Aviation Act, which authorizes regulation of the
noise characteristics of civil aircraft and aircraft
components. Subsection 6(c) provides that standards,
rules, and regulations prescribed by the Federal
Aviation Administration under section 611 must be
approved by the Administrator of EPA, and that such
standards, rules, and regulations become effective
only upon such approval. However, subsection 6(c)
contains a saving clause which allows all standards,
rules, and regulations prescribed under section 611
prior to the effective date of the proposed legislation
to continue in effect until superseded by new standards,
rules, or regulations prescribed in accordance with
the proposed legislation.
Subsection 6(c) further provides that after the
effective date of the proposed act the Federal Aviation
Administrator shall not issue a type certificate for any
aircraft unless he has already prescribed standards,
rules, and regulations governing the noise character-
istics of that aircraft. This requirement also applies
to any aircraft engine, propeller, or appliance that
affects significantly the noise characteristics of any
aircraft in which it is to be used. This provision will
B-17
-------
ensure that in the future the noise characteristics of
any new aircraft or aircraft component will be
ascertained and controlled prior to its introduction
into air commerce or air transportation.
Subsection 6(c) further provides that if the
Administrator of EPA has reason to believe that an
existing standard, rule, or regulation prescribed under
611 of the Federal Aviation Act inadequately protects
the public from noise, he may request the Federal
Aviation Administrator to review the standard, rule,
or regulation and report to him on the advisability
of revising it. Any such request must be accompanied
by a detailed statement of the reasons therefor. The
Administrator of EPA may invoke this provision with
respect to a standard, rule, or regulation prescribed
before or after the effective date of the proposed act.
Subsection 6(d) provides that when the Admin-
istrator of EPA has prescribed standards for any product
under subsection 6(a), no State or subdivision thereof
shall adopt or enforce noise standards for that product
different from the standards set by him. Nothing in
section 6 preempts any existing powers of the States
or localities to set noise standards for products for
which the Administrator has not yet set standards under
the proposed act, to set State standards identical to
standards set by the Administrator for the same product,
or to regulate the use, operation, or movement of
products.
Section 7 authorizes Federal noise labeling
requirements for products in commerce. Subsection 7(a)
authorizes the Administrator of EPA to designate classes
of products that either produce noise capable of
adversely affecting the public health or welfare, or
are sold at least in part on the basis of their effec-
tiveness in reducing noise. These products need not
be limited to those for which noise standards have been
set under section 6 or which have been discussed in
a control technology document under section 5. Sub-
section 7(b) authorizes the Administrator to prescribe
a noise-generation or noise-reduction labeling require-
ment for any product designated under subsection 7(a).
To assure that such notices are informative and useful
in facilitating choices by buyers in the marketplace,
the Administrator is directed to prescribe the form of
B-18
-------
the notice and the methods and units of measurement
used in its preparation. Subsection 7(c) leaves intact
any existing powers of the States to regulate product
labeling, except that such regulation may not conflict
with regulations promulgated by the Administrator under
section 7.
Subsection 8(a) prohibits a number of acts in
violation of the proposed legislation. Paragraph 8(a)
(1) forbids any manufacturer to sell a product manu-
factured after the effective date of noise-generation
standards prescribed under subsection 6(a) that apply
to the product, unless the product conforms with such
standards. Paragraph 8(a)(2) forbids any person who
owns or operates a product to use it in commerce after
the effective date of noise-generation standards
prescribed under subsection 6(a) that apply to it,
unless the product conforms with such standards.
Paragraph 8(a)(3) forbids any person to remove or
render inoperative, other than for maintenance, repair,
or replacement, any device or element of design
incorporated into a product to make the product comply
with noise-generation standards prescribed under sub-
section 6(a). This prescription applies both prior
to sale of the product to the ultimate purchaser and
during its term of use.
Paragraph 8(a)(4) forbids any manufacturer to
sell a product manufactured after the effective date of
labeling regulations promulgated under section 7 that
apply to the product, unless the product conforms to
such regulations. Paragraph 8 (a)(5) forbids any person,
prior to sale of a product to the ultimate purchaser,
to remove a notice affixed to the product or its con-
tainer pursuant to regulations promulgated under
section 7. Paragraph 8(a)(6) forbids the importation
into the United States of any products in violation of
regulations under section 13, discussed below, relating
to imports. Paragraph 8(a)(7) forbids any person to
fail to comply with the provisions of section 9, discussed
below, respecting access to required records and reports.
Subsection 8(b) creates two exceptions to the
prohibitions in paragraphs 8(a)(l), (2), (4), and (6).
First, the Administrator is authorized to exempt any
new product from those prohibitions, upon such terms
and conditions as he may find necessary to protect the
B-19
-------
public health or welfare, for the purpose of research,
investigations, studies, demonstrations, or training, or
for reasons of national security. Second, subsection
8(b) provides that a product produced solely for export,
and visibly labeled or tagged to that effect, is exempted
from the prohibitions of paragraphs 8(a)(l), (2)
and (4).
Section 9 requires every manufacturer of a
product covered by noise regulation or labeling
regulations under subsection 6(a) or section 7 to
maintain such records, make such reports, and provide
such information as the Administrator may reasonably
require to enable him to determine whether the manu-
facturer has acted or is acting in compliance with the
proposed act. This may include the availability of
products coming off the assembly line for testing by
the Administrator. The manufacturer shall, on request,
permit a representative of the Administrator to view
and copy such records. Any information obtained by
the Administrator or his representatives pursuant to
section 9, if it contains or relates to a matter
referred to as confidential in section 1905 of title
18 of the United States Code, shall be protected from
disclosure as provided in that section, except that
it may be disclosed to other Federal employees or when
relevant in any proceeding under the proposed act.
Disclosure to other Federal employees or in a pro-
ceeding under the proposed act will not terminate the
confidential status of the information.
Section 10 authorizes and directs all Federal
agencies to administer the programs within their control
in such a manner as to further the policy of the proposed
Act, to the fullest extent consistent with the agencies'
existing authority.
Section 11 authorizes the Administrator of EPA,
in furtherance of his responsibilities under the proposed
act, to conduct and assist noise research, to provide
technical assistance to State and local governments, and
to disseminate to the public information on noise. The
enumeration in section 11 of particular activities within
these categories is not intended to exclude other
activities but only to stress the importance of those
enumerated. However, it is not intended that the
activities of the Administrator under section 11 will
B-20
-------
duplicate activities carried on in other agencies.
Section 12 provides for enforcement of the pro-
hibitions in subsection 8(a) of the proposed act. Sub-
section 12(a) establishes a civil penalty of not more
than $25,000 for each violation of subsection 8(a), and
provides for imposition of this fine either by the
Administrator or by a court in a proceeding authorized
by subsection 12(b) or (c), discussed below. Sub-
section 12(a) further provides that in any administra-
tive proceeding for imposition of such a civil penalty
by the Administrator the person charged must be given
notice and an opportunity for a hearing, and the
Administrator must, in determining the penalty or the
amount accepted in compromise, consider the gravity of
the violation and the efforts of the person charged to
achieve rapid compliance after notice of the violation.
If the offending party fails to pay any penalty
assessed, the Administrator may request the Attorney
General to sue in the appropriate district court for
appropriate relief. For the purpose of imposing
cumulative penalties, the commission of any act
prohibited by paragraph 8(a)(1), (2), (3), (4), (5),
or (6) will be a separate violation for each day or
product involved. For example, sale of 10 identical
products in violation of noise-generation or labeling
regulations would constitute 10 violations, punishable
by a maximum cumulative fine of $250,000.
Subsection 12(b) gives jurisdiction to the
Federal district courts to entertain actions brought
by and in the name of the United States to restrain
violations of the proposed act or to enforce civil
penalties authorized by it. This provision will allow
the Administrator of EPA, by recommending that the
Attorney General bring suit, to seek equitable relief
or judicial imposition of a civil penalty, or both,
as an alternative to the administratively imposed fine
also authorized by section 12.
Section 12 (c) enables the Administrator to enlist
the aid of State or local governments in the enforcement
of the proposed act. While neither the executive nor the
judicial bodies of any State will be required to
participate, they may do so where this is authorized
by State law and also by the Administrator of EPA in
an agreement with the appropriate State authorities.
B-21
-------
Under this provision the Administrator may authorize
State personnel to sue in State court both to restrain
violations and to impose civil penalties; he may not
authorize State personnel to impose fines admin-
istratively. Any civil penalty imposed under the
proposed act by a State court in a suit under sub-
section 12(c) will be payable one-half to the
appropriate State authorities and one-half to the
United States Treasury.
Section 13 directs the Administrator and the
Secretary of the Treasury to issue regulations to
apply to imports the same general standards and
labeling requirements that are applied to like domestic
products.
Section 14 authorizes the appropriation for
Fiscal Year 1972 and for each fiscal year thereafter
such sums as are necessary to carry out the proposed
act.
Section 15 amends the Clean Air Act by deleting
the requirement that there by an Office of Noise Abate-
ment and Control in the Environmental Protection Agency.
B-22
-------
Appendix C
PUBLIC HEARINGS ON NOISE — TITLE IV PL 91-604
Noise in Construction
Atlanta, Ga., July 8-9, 1971
PANEL:
Dr. Alvin F. Meyer, Jr., Office of Noise Abatement and Control, EPA,
Washington, D.C.
Dr. Erich Bender, Bolt, Beranek & Newman
Dr. D. Lyons, Clemson University
Mr. R.A. Baron, Citizens for a Quieter City
Mr. Gerald P. McCarthy, Governor's Council on the Environment, State
of Virginia
Dr. Daniel A. Okun, University of-North Carolina
ATTENDEES:
K.S. Kronoveter, National Institute for Occupational Safety & Health
George Allgood, FAA (Atlanta Airport)
James Rickard, FAA
Lutz Kohnagel, Engineer
Dr. Alvin F. Meyer, Jr.
Alice Suter, National Association of Hearing and Speech Agencies
Earl Ellwood, United States Gypsum Company
Frank H. Walk, Professional Engineer, Walk, Haydel & Associates, Inc.,
New Orleans, Louisiana
George Diehl, Ingersoll-Rand Research, Inc.
Captain David H. Riley, Training Division, Atlanta Police Department
Edwin Jackson, Executive Vice President, Delta P Incorporated
Roger D. Wellington, Staff Engineer, Testing and Development, Detroit
Diesel Allison Division, General Motors Corporation
Charles L. Skinner, Managing Director, Georgia Motor Trucking Associa-
tion, Inc.
John Palazzi, The Associated General Contractors of America
Lyle G. Munson, Director of Engineering, Colt Industries, Quincy Com-
pressor Division
R.F. Ringham, Vice President, Engineering, Chassis Test Construction
Equipment Division, Internal Harvester Company
J.R. Prosek, Chief Engineer, Chassis Test Construction Equipment Division,
International Harvester Company
Jack Hasten, Manager, Products Control Department, Caterpillar Tractor
Company
Lester Bergsten, Staff Research Engineer, Caterpillar Tractor Company
J.B. Codlin, Manager, Special Engineering Assignments, Construction
Machinery Division, Allis-Chalmers Corporation
William Hansell, Director of Environmental Health, Georgia Public Health
Department
C-l
-------
ATTENDEES (Cont'd.):
R.L. Smelley, Southeast Regional Director, N.O.I.S.E.
Mrs. Wirt Jones, Sierra Club
George H. Grindley, Audiologist, Administrator of Doctors Memorial Hospital
Hearing and Speech Center, Atlanta, Georgia, on behalf of S.A.V.E.
Thomas Muehlenbeck, City Manager, College Park, Georgia
William J. Doughorty, North Georgia Chapter, American Institute of
Architects
J.M. Benson, College Park, Georgia
James Rickard, Air Traffic Division, Southern Region, Federal Aviation
Administration
Glenn E. Bennett, Executive Director, Atlanta Region Metropolitan Planning
Commission
Mrs. Adele G. Northrup, Morningside-Lenox Park Community, Atlanta,
Georgia
John Glenn, Citizens for Clean Air
Peter Chanin and George Upton, LCL Corporation, Atlanta, Georgia
L.E. Abernathy, Atlanta Area Association of Senior Citizens Clubs
Ruby Ballard Zumbrook, Decatur Civic Association
W.E. Joyner, Decatur Civic Association
Stephanie Coffin, Great Speckled Bird, Newspaper
Maura Enright, Crisis Center, Atlanta, Georgia
Mrs. Charles Holman, Private Citizen
Edwin Eckles, Mingledorff's, Inc.
Corwin Robertson, Carrier Air Conditioning
William Hansell, Georgia Public Health Department Director
Wilson Smith, City of Atlanta Department of Planning
B.J. Dasher, Georgia Institute of Technology
W.E. Blount, Georgia Power Company
Dan Shepherd, Shepherd Construction Company
C-2
-------
Manufacturing and Transportation Noise
Chicago, 111., July 28-29, 1971
PANEL:
Dr. Alvin F. Meyer, Jr., Director, Office of Noise Abatement and Control,
Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, D.C.
Dr. Mel Whitcomb, Executive Director, Committee on Hearing, Bioacoustics,
and Biodynamics, National Research Council-National Academy of
Sciences, Washington, D.C.
Professor Sheldon J. Plager, University of Illinois, School of Law,
Champaign-Urbana, Illinois
Mr. Henry Martin, Manager, Resource Development, Society of Automotive
Engineers, New York City, New York
Mr. Lloyd Hinton, Executive Director, Metropolitan Aircraft Noise Abate-
ment Council, Minneapolis, Minn.
Professor John Kerrebrock, Professor of Aerospace, Massachusetts Insti-
tute of Technology, Cambridge, Mass.
ATTENDEES:
Hon. Roman Pucinski, Member of Congress, llth District, Illinois
Dr. Edward Herman
Commissioner Herbert W. Poston, Department of Environmental Control,
Chicago, 111.
Mr. Franklin Kolk, Vice President, American Airlines, New York City,
New York
Mr. William Becker, Vice President, Air Transport Association of America,
Washington, D.C.
Mr. A.M. McPike, McDonnell-Douglas Corp., Long Beach, Calif.
Mr. John Cornell, General Electric Co., Lockland, Ohio
Mr. J.J. Corbett, U.S. Airport Operators Council International, Washington,
D.C.
Congressman Abner Mikva, 2nd Congressional District of Illinois
Captain Richard Heller, Airline Pilots Association, Chicago, Illinois
Mr. Lewis Goodfriend, Goodfriend-Ostergaard Associates, Cedar Knolls,
New Jersey
Mr. Harter Rupert, Federal Highway Administration, Washington, D.C.
Mr. William Carey, Executive Director, Highway Research Board, National
Research Council, Washington, D.C.
Dr. Ernest Starkman, Vice President for Engineering, General Motors Corp.,
Warren, Mich.
C-3
74-249 O - 72 - :
-------
ATTENDEES (Cont'd.)
John Damlan, Ford Motor Co., Detroit, Mich.
Ted Shreves, Ford Motor Co., Detroit, Mich.
Mr. Lee Hench, Chrysler Corp., Detroit, Mich.
Richard Kolb, Heavy Truck Manufacturer's Association, Washington, D.C.
Mr. Roger Ringham, International Harvester, Chicago, Illinois
Mr. Jack Hasten, Caterpillar Tractor, Inc., Peoria, 111.
Mr. Joseph Kigin, Rubber Manufacturer's Association, Washington, D.C.
S.J. Lippmann, Rubber Manufacturer's Association, Washington, D.C.
Mr. Sheldon Samuels, AFL-CIO, Washington, D.C.
Laura Fermi, American Association of University Women
Jo Ann Horowitz, American Association of University Women
Omar Marcus
Ted Decca
Richard Blomberg
Warren Edwards
John Kerrigan
Wendell P. Berwick
Dr. Richard Marcus
Noah Roberts
Al Romeo, Jr.
Alfred Etter
John D. Harper
Herbert G. Poertner
Henry Karplus
Samuel Peskin
Carl Carlson
Richard Young
George J. Franks
William Singer
Fred H. Tabak
John Watts
Cleveland Walcutt
Glenna Alevizos
Janice Del Calzo
John Desmond
John Varble, Representative, National Organization to Insure a Sound-
Controlled Environment
Herman Spahr
George Dayiantis
Elizabeth Lewis
C-4
-------
Urban Planning and Noise; Architectural Design and Noise;
Noise in the Home
Dallas, Texas, August 18-19, 1971
PANEL:
Dr. Alvin F. Meyer, Jr., Director, Office of Noise Abatement and Control,
Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, B.C.
Theodore Berland, President, Citizens Against Noise (Author: The Fight
for Quiet), Chicago, Illinois
Professor Leon Cole, Department of Urban Planning, University of Texas,
Austin, Texas
Dr. Aram Glorig, Director, Callier Hearing and Speech Institute, Dallas,
Texas
Dr. Robert Newman, Bolt, Beranek, and Newman, Cambridge, Mass.
Dr. W. Dixon Ward, Hearing Research Institute, University of Minnesota,
Minneapolis, Minnesota
Dr. Jack Westman, Department of Psychiatry, University of Wisconsin,
Madison, Wisconsin
ATTENDEES:
Wes Wise, Mayor, Dallas, Texas
Mr. Edward C. Fritz, Air Quality Coalition of North Texas, Dallas, Texas
Dr. Hal Watson, Jr., Southern Methodist University, Dallas, Texas
Mrs. Roger C. Fletcher, Arlington Conservation Council, Arlington, Texas
Mrs. Franklyn Wright, Conservationist, Dallas, Texas
Mrs. Robert Sapp, American Association of University Women, Dallas, Tex.
Mrs. Richardson, Private Citizen, Dallas, Texas
Dr. Robert Finch, University of Houston, Houston, Texas
Mr. J.W. Joiner, Joiner. Pelton, and Rose, Inc., Dallas, Texas
Mr. J.A. Shirley, Private Citizen, Dallas, Texas
Mr. Rod Rylander, Texoma Outdoor Club, Sherman, Texas
Mrs. Sharon Stewart, Citizen::' Survival Committee, Lake Jackson, Texas
Mr. Tom Maddocks, Chairman, North Texas Group of the Lone Star Chapter,
Sierra Club, Dallas, Texas
Mr. Dan DeGrassi, Conservationist, Dallas, Texas
Mr. Joe Allen, Texas House of Representatives, Baytown, Texas
Mr. Bob Johnston, Environmental Action Center, Dallas, Texas
Cecil Sparks, Southwest Research Institute, San Antonio, Texas
Bart Spano, Polysonics, Inc., Washington, D.C.
C-5
-------
ATTENDEES (Cont'd.):
Charles Parrott, Director, Redevelopment Authority, La Crosse, Wisconsin
Bailus Walker, Department of Environmental Services, Cleveland, Ohio
Robert Wegner, American Institute o{ Planners, Arlington, Texas
Gene Schrickel, American Society of Landscape Architects, Arlington, Texas
John Burdis, Environistics Division, Instrument Systems Corp., Jerico,
New York
David McCandless, McCandless Associates, Visiting Professor of Architecture,
University of Texas, Austin, Texas
Dr. Elmer Hixon, Department of Electrical Engineering, University of Texas,
Austin, Texas
Herbert Phillips, Association of Home Appliance Manufacturers, Chicago, 111.
JohnDorn, Frigidaire Division, General Motors Corp., Dayton, Ohio
J.E. Duff, Hoover Corp. Research Laboratory, North Canton, Ohio
E.B. Thompson, W.G. Martin, in, Home Ventilating Institute, Chicago, [11.
Arthur Meling, Scott Bayless, Air Conditioning and Refrigeration Institute,
Arlington, Virginia
C-6
-------
Standards,Measurement Methods, Legislation and Enforcement Problems
San Francisco, Calif., September 27-29, 1971
PANEL:
Dr. Alvin F. Meyer, Jr., Director, Office of Noise Abatement and Control,
Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, D.C.
Robert Alexander Baron, Citizens For A Quieter City, New York, N.Y.
Dr. Charles Dietrich, Bolt, Beranek & Newman, Cambridge, Mass.
James L. Hildebrand (Editor: Noise Pollution and the Law), Tokyo, Japan
Prof. Sheldon Plager, Univ. of Illinois Law School, Urbana, Illinois
Henry Martin, American Society of Automotive Engineers, New York, N.Y.
ATTENDEES:
Ellen Stern Harris, Council for Planning & Conservation, Los Angeles, Calif.
Robert Watkins, California Division of Highways, Sacramento, Calif.
Glendon Craig, Inspector, California State Highway Patrol, Sacremento,
Calif.
Raymond Lucia, Motorcycle Industry Council, Washington, D.C.
Stephen Mayne, Dinkelspeil, Stefel, Levitt, Weiss, & Donovan, San Francisco,
Calif.
James Taylor, Research Development Associates, Los Angeles, Calif.
John Parnell, Environmental Acoustics, Palos Verdes, Calif.
Thomas Young, Executive Director, Engine Manufacturer's Association,
Chicago, 111.
Jonathan Howe, Legal Council, Engine Manufacturer's Association
Arthur Snyder, City Council, Los Angeles, Calif.
Louis Beliczky, AFL-CIO, Akron, Ohio
Erin Fenton, Automotive Parts and Accessories Association, Gardena, Calif.
H.T. Larmore, Construction Industry Manufacturer's Association, Milwaukee,
Wisconsin
John J. Bucholtz, Plaster Information Center, San Jose, Calif.
G. F. Hohn and Associate, American National Standards Institute, New York,
N.Y.
Bruce Jett, Acoustical Sciences Instrumentation Data Systems, Arlington, Va.
Carol Tanner, Hydrospace Research, San Diego, Calif.
William Burtis, Dr. Marjorie Evans, California Society of Professional En-
gineers, Los Altos Hills, Calif.
Roger Ringham, International Harvester, Inc., Chicago, 111.
Richard Staadt, Truck Division, International Harvester, Inc., Chicago, 111.
Dr. George Steinbruegge, University of Nebraska, Lincoln, Neb.
Ralph Hillquist, General Motors, Detroit, Mich.
C-7
-------
ATTENDEES (Cont'd.):
Ralph Van Demark, Motor and Equipment Manufacturer's Association, New
York, N.Y.
Seymour Lippmann, Rubber Manufacturer's Association, Washington, D.C.
Arthur Meling, Air Conditioning and Refrigeration Institute, Arlington, Va.
G.B. Ribnick, Institute of Heating and Air Conditioning Industries, Los
Angeles, Calif.
Pat Russell, City Council, Los Angeles, Calif.
Dr. Hayes, President, Save Our Valley, Santa Clara, Calif.
Nicholas Yost, Deputy Attorney General, California, Sacramento, Calif.
Albert Cooper, California Highway Patrol, Sacramento, Calif.
Randall L. Hurlburt, City of Inglewood, California
Dale Hoge, Director of Standards in the R & D Department Automotive Parts
and Accessories Association
William Scott, Chairman, Vehicle Sound Level Committee, Society of Auto-
motive Engineers
Bobby J. Greer, Computer Sciences Corporation
Meyer S. Bogost, Environmental Engineer, Hawaii State Office of Environ-
mental Quality Control
Richard Dyer, State of California Business and Transportation Agency,
Department of Aeronautics
Inspector Glendon Craig, California Highway Patrol, Sacramento, Calif.
Bob Smith (representing himself)
John Sutter, Oakland City Council and Bay Anti-Noise Group
Donald A. Belt, Audiologist
Gary Compton, Northern California Auto Dismantlers Association, et al
David S. Lawyer, Walnut Creek, Calif.
Steven R. Skale, San Mateo, Calif.
Bradley Collins, Seattle, Wash.
Douglas T. Corbin, Richmond, Calif.
Donald W. Baldra, Walnut Creek, Calif.
T. D. Harriman, Fairfax, Calif.
Joseph J. Hillner, Walnut Creek, Calif.
Peter B. Jansen, Berkeley, Calif.
Mrs. Mitchell Madison, Los Altos, Calif.
Joseph Heizer, San Francisco, Calif.
W. C. Reynolds, Stanford, Calif.
Antionette Riley, Redwood City, Calif.
David Parker
Mrs. Dennis G. Drake, San Rafael, Calif.
Joseph E. Cornish, Redwood City, Calif.
John L. Burton, California State Assemblyman, San Francisco, Calif.
Milan Dostal, City Councilman, Newport Beach, Calif.
Dobie Jenkins, Northern California Field Representative for U. S. Senator
Alan Cranston of California
Wes Uhlman, Mayor, City of Seattle, Wash.
Diane Feinstein, President, San Francisco Board of Supervisors
Warren Boggess, Supervisor, Contra Costa County, Representing Regional
Airport Systems Study of the Association of Bay Area Governments
-------
ATTENDEES (Cont'd.):
Richard Nagel, City Councilman, El Segundo, California, Representing the
League of California Cities
Alba Ely, City Councilwoman, Palmdale, Calif.
A. M. Man, Barrio Planners, Los Angeles, Calif.
Mrs. Thomas Souza, Walnut Creek, Calif.
Donald Miller, Los Altos Noise Abatement Committee
Pat Russell, Councilwoman, Los Angeles, Calif.
James K. Carr, Director of Airports, City and County of San Francisco
Thomas L. Geers, Chairman, Portola Valley Noise Abatement Committee,
Coordinator of the Peninsula Noise Abatement League
Kenneth Scheidig, Assistant City Attorney, Walnut Creek, Calif.
Michael Berger, Attorney for Fadem & Tanner, Los Angeles, Calif.
lone Maxwell, Point Richmond, Calif.
Dr. C. Michael Hogan, Environmental Systems Laboratory, Sunnyvale, Calif.
Dor Hesselgrave, Palo Alto, Calif.
Ann Fibish, San Francisco, Calif.
Charles Christman, San Francisco, Calif.
Robert Shaw, Sunnyvale, Calif.
Raymond Carrington, Vacaville, Calif.
MarkTarses, Berkeley, Calif.
Lloyd Krause, Stanford Research Institute
Jay Beckerman
Ronald Pelosi, Supervisor, San Francisco, Calif.
Jim Knott, President, San Francisco Tomorrow
Storm Goranson, Oakland, Calif.
Col. John Reagan, Foster City, Calif.
Dr. R. W. Procunier, Stanford Committee for Environmental Information
Michael Moriarty, Oakland, Calif.
Mrs. Fallie Davison, Airport Cities Action Committee, Playa Del Hey, Calif.
Loretta Fontechio, North Runway Residents, Los Angeles, Calif.
Janice Cruikshank, Watchful Eye Women's Council for Community Preserva-
tion, Los Angeles, Calif.
Marian Rubin, San Francisco, Calif.
C-9
-------
Agricultural and Recreational Noise
Denver, Colo., Sept. 30-Oct. 1, 1971
PANEL:
Alvin F. Meyer, Jr., Director, Office of Noise Abatement and Control,
Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, D.C.
Dr. Clyde Berry, University of Iowa, Iowa City, Iowa
James Botsford, Bethlehem Steel Corp., Bethlehem, Penn.
Dr. John Fletcher, Memphis State University, Memphis, Tenn.
Boyd Norton, Friends of the Earth, Denver, Colorado
Sheldon Plager, University of Illinois Law School, Urbana, Illinois
Richard Strunk, Bolt, Beranek & Newman, Chicago, 111.
ATTENDEES:
John A. Green, Regional Administrator, Environmental Protection Agency,
Rocky Mountain-Prairie Region, Denver, Colo.
Dr. Steven Williams, Planned Boulder Commission, Boulder, Colo.
Prof. Olwin Olpin, University of Utah, Salt Lake City, Utah
Hal Weber, Colorado Dept. Public Health, Denver, Colo.
Jim Monaghan, CSU Environmental Corps, Fort Collins, Colo.
John Green, Boulder, Colo.
Bob Michener, Denver, Colo.
Dr. James Wright & Representatives, Balarat Center for Environmental
Studies, Denver, Colo.
Donald Ahrenholtz, Colorado Farm Bureau, Denver, Colo.
Tom Logan, Bureau of Reclamation, Denver, Colo.
Robert Million, Environmental Control Group — Technical Service Co.,
Denver, Colo.
Howard McGregor, Engineering Dynamics, Denver, Colo.
Nicholas Pohlit, National Environmental Health Association, Denver, Colo.
Ralph Hill, Colorado Wildlife Federation, Denver, Colo.
Bernie Goetze, Wildlife Conservation Office, Colorado Division Game, Fish,
& Parks, Denver, Colo.
Mrs. W.H. McAnally, Lakewood, Colo.
Al Hine and Representatives, Colorado Motorcycle Dealers Association,
Denver, Colo.
Bernie Bovee, Denver Colo.
Tom Martin, Noise Control Officer, Boulder, Colo.
Dr. Donald Billings, Director, Astro-Physics, University of Colorado,
Boulder, Colo.
C-10
-------
ATTENDEES (Cont'd.):
Dr. Robert Chanaud, Civil Engineering, University of Colorado, Boulder, Colo.
John Cooper, Rooky Mountain Cycle Shop, Boulder, Colo.
Donald V. Glenn, Boulder, Colo.
Cecil Sparks, Southwest Research Institute, San Antonio, Tex.
Leo Lechtenberg, Briggs-Stratton Co., Milwaukee, Wis.
Jack Williford, Colorado State University, Fort Collins, Colo.
Roger Fooger, University of Illinois, Urbana, 111.
Dr. Glen Peterson, Memphis State University, Memphis, Tenn.
Anthony Wayne Smith, National Parks and Conservation Association, Wash-
ington, D.C.
Robin Harrison, Sierra Club, San Dimas, Calif.
David Beach, Boating Industry Association, Chicago, 111.
Dick Lincoln, Outboard Marine Corp., Milwaukee, Wis.
Hans Von Barby, National Wildlife Federation, Evergreen, Colo.
John Nesbitt, International Snowmobile Industry Association, Minneapolis, Minn.
Robert Turner, Audubon Society, Boulder, Colo.
Newton Sacks, Deere and Co., Moline, 111.
R.W. Randt, Farm and Industrial Equipment Institute, Chicago, 111.
Arnold Skarjune, White Farm Equipment Co., Hopkins, Minn.
Roger Ringham, International Harvester, Chicago, 111.
R.T. Bennett, Farm Equipment Division, International Harvester
Dr. Ed Simpson, University of Nebraska, Lincoln, Neb.
Professor David Cook, University of Nebraska, Lincoln, Neb.
Dr. William Gatley, Society of Professional Engineers, University of Missouri
Holla, Mo.
Dr. William Splinter, University of Nebraska, Lincoln, Neb.
Dr. Irwin Deshayes, University of Nebraska, Lincoln, Neb.
C-ll
-------
Transportation, Urban Noise and Social Behavior
New York, N.Y., October 21-22, 1971
PANEL:
Dr. Alvin F. Meyer, Jr., Director, Office of Noise Abatement and Control,
Environmental Protection Agency
John Burdis, Environistics, Inc., Jericho, New York
Cyril Harris, Columbia University
Albert Rosenthal, Columbia University School of Law
Lloyd Hinton, Metropolitan Aircraft, Sound Abatement Council
George Wilson, Wilson, Ihrig Acoustical Consultants
Dr. Phyllis Gildston, Chairman, Subcommittee on Noise, New York Scientists'
for Public Information
ATTENDEES:
Robert Rickles, Commissioner, New York City Department of Air Resources,
New York City Environmental Protection Administration
William Bentley, New York State Department of Environmental Conservation
Honorable William F. Ryan, U.S. House of Representatives
Miss Anne MacNaughton, New York State Department of Highways
Richard Rosenthal, Lincoln Square Community Council
Mrs. Betty Little, Coordinator, Citizens for Conservation of Bernard's
Township, N.J.
Councilman Theodore Weiss, New York City Council
Arlene Weltman, Consumer Action Now
Paul Housberg, Environmental Control Class, Roslyn High School
Thomas E. Carroll, Asst. Administrator for Planning and Management,
Environmental Protection Agency
Mr. Stanley Welgman, Brooklyn School o£ Pharmacy
Edward T. Hall, Northwestern University
Robert Alex Baron, Citizens for a Quieter City, New York, N.Y.
Abraham Cohen, Environistics Division, Instrument Systems Data Corp.
Dr. Ernest Zelnick, Noise Pollution Consultants, Inc.
William Harris, Association of American Railroads, Washington, D.C.
Kenneth Knight, Chairman, Institute for Rapid Transit Noise Control,
Washington, D.C.
George Wilson, Wilson, Ihrig & Associates, Berkeley, Calif.
Anthony Paolillo, Engineer, New York City Transit Authority, Division of
Noise and Vibration Control
Honorable John W. Wydler, U.S. House of Representatives
Francis Purcell, Presiding Supervisor, Town oi Hempstead, New York
Honorable Norman F. Lent, U.S. House of Representatives
C-12
-------
ATTENDEES (Cont'd.):
Herbert McCollum, Hearing Conservation Center, Lancaster, Penn.
Robert Cusumano, Chief of Air Pollution Control, Nassau County Health
Department
Honorable Lester L. Wolff, U.S. House of Representatives
Ernest Litschauer, Town of Greenwich, Northwest Greenwich Association
Lewis Rotendo, Conney Hill Associates, Armonck, New York
Clifford Deeds, Town Village Aircraft, Safety and Noise Abatement Com-
mission , Lawrence, New York
Richard Carlson, President, CRASH (Citizens Reaction Against Sudden
Holocausts), Halbrook, N.Y.
Robert Check, President, Metro-Suburban Air-Noise Association, Inc.,
Inwood, N.J.
William Webster, New York State Department of Environmental Conserva-
tion
Jack Marshall, Port of New York Authority
Arthur Podwall, M.D., Director, Syossett Hearing and Speech Center,
Syossett, New York
James Rogers, Jet Sonics, Inc., Hauppage, New York
Clifford Bragdon, Associate Professor of City Planning, Georgia Institute
of Technology, Atlanta, Ga.
Pred Roberts, Sierra Club, Princeton, New Jersey
David London, Citizen
C-13
-------
Physiological and Psychological Effects
Boston, Mass., October 27-28, 1971
PANEL:
Dr. Alvin Meyer, Jr., Director, Office of Noise Abatement and Control,
EPA, Washington, D.C.
Dr. James Botsford, Senior Noise Control Engineer, Bethlehem Steel Cor-
poration, Bethlehem, Pa.
Dr. Donald Elderedge, Central Institute of the Deaf, Washington, D.C.
Dr. Sanford Fidell, Bolt, Beranek & Newman, Cambridge, Mass.
Dr. Henning vonGierke, Aerospace Medical Laboratory, Wright-Patterson
Air Force Base, Dayton, Ohio
Dr. Milton Whitcomb, National Academy of Science, Washington, D.C.
ATTENDEES:
Fred Salvucci, Representative, Mayor's Office, Boston, Mass.
Guy D. Rosmarin, Assistant Transportation Secretary, Boston, Mass.
The Honorable Ralph E. Sirianni, Jr., Massachusetts State Representative,
Boston, Mass.
Statement of The Honorable Edward M. Kennedy, U. S. Senator, State of
Massachusetts, Washington, D. C.
Dr. Robert J. Cunitz, Psychologist, National Bureau of Standards, Gaithers-
burg, Md.
T. Jack Kelley, Commission Member, City of Pittsfield Noise Control
Commission, Pittsfield, Mass.
Mr. David Standley, Executive Director, City of Boston Air Pollution Control
Commission
Dr. Aram Glorig, Collier Hearing and Speech Institute, Dallas, Tex.
Dr. Bruce Welsh, Friends Medical Science Research Institute, Baltimore, Md.
Mr. Tom Callahan, Assistant to the Executive Director, Massachusetts Port
Authority
Monsignor Mimie Pitaro, State Senator, East Boston
Mr. Charles Schmid, Private Citizen discussing noise on Cape Cod
Mr. Desmond McCarthy, representing Sierra Club and Friends of the Earth
Mr. Jerry Falbo, Massachusetts Air Pollution Noise Abatement Committee
(MAPNAC)
Mr. Allen Morgan, Executive Secretary, Massachusetts Audubon Society
Mr. John Reagan, Chairman, Faculty Senate, Barnes Junior High School,
East Boston
Dr, John Dougherty, School of Public Health, Harvard University, Cambridge,
Mass.
Dr. Jerome Carr, Environmental Specialist, Pollution Control Division,
Lowell Technological Institute Research Foundation, Lowell, Mass.
C-14
-------
ATTENDEES (Cont'd.):
Dr. Arthur Saclder, M.D., and Dr. Stanley Waltman, M.D., Laboratory for
Therapeutic Research, Brooklyn College of Pharmacy, Long Island
University, Brooklyn, N.Y.
Dr. Michael Baron, Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Dr. Edwin Newman, Psychological Lab, Harvard University
Dr. Robert Grinell, Institute of Psychiatry and Human Behavior, University
of Maryland, Baltimore, Maryland
Dr. W. Dixon Ward, Hearing Research Laboratory, University of Minnesota,
Minneapolis, Minn.
Dr. Glen Jones, Bolt, Beranek & Newman, Cambridge, Mass.
Dr. Paul Borsky, Department of Environmental Hygiene, Columbia University,
New York, N.Y.
Stanley Weltman, Ph. D.
Dr. John Dougherty
Michaels. Baram, Ph.D.
C-15
-------
Technology and Economics of Noise Control; National Programs
and the Relations with State and Local Programs
Washington, D.C., November 9-12, 1971
PANEL:
Dr. Alvin F. Meyer, Jr., Director, Office of Noise Abatement and Control
John Johnson, Acoustical Society of America, State College, Pennsylvania
Theodore Berland, President, Citizens Against Noise (Author: The Fight
for Quiet), Chicago, 111.
Leo Beranek, Bolt, Beranek & Newman, Cambridge, Mass.
Henry Martin, Society of Automotive Engineers, New York, N.Y.
Wes Wise, Mayor, Dallas, Tex.
Ken Eldred, Wyle Labs, Los Angeles, Calif.
Charles Dietrich, Bolt, Beranek & Newman, Cambridge, Mass.
ATTENDEES:
Prof. Richard Bolt, Acoustical Society of America
Dr. Keith.Lumsden, Dept. of Business Administration, Stanford University
Emerson Rhyner, California State Dept. of Public Works, Sacramento, Calif.
Dr. C. Kenneth Orski, Head, Division of Urban Affairs Environmental
Directorate, OECD, Paris
Terry Trumbull, Institute of Public Administration, Washington, D.C.
Robert Smith, Council of Economic Priorities, New York, N.Y.
Ray Leonard, U.S. Forest Service, Syracuse, New York
C.A. Wold, Corporative Noise Control Consultant, Boise Cascade Corp.,
Boise, Idaho
Dorn McGrath, American Institute of Planners
Dan Hanson and Ray Crowe, American Society of Road Builders, Washington,
D.C.
Representative of the Homebuilders of America, Washington, D.C.
Representative from the International Association lor Pollution Control
Allan Surosky, General Testing Labs, Arlington, Va.
Roger Ringham, International Harvester, Chicago, 111.
David Wulfhorst, Cummins Engine, Co., Columbus, Indiana
Franklyn Kreml, Automobile Manufacturers Association, Washington, D.C.
Representative of the Transportation Association of America, Washington, D.C.
C-16
-------
ATTENDEES (Cont'd.):
Jerbis Kester, Pratt and Whitney Aircraft, Hartford, Conn.
Representative of Boeing Aircraft, Washington, D.C.
G.F. Dilabio, Northrop Aircraft, Los Angeles, Calif.
Franklin Kolk, American Airlines, New York, N.Y.
Dr. Louis Mayo, George Washington University, Washington, D.C.
Thomas Young and Jonathan Howe, Engine Manufacturers of America,
Chicago, 111.
John Lentz, Washington Metropolitan Council of Governors, Washington, D.C.
Representative of the Conference of States, Washington, D.C.
Wes Gilbertson, Conference of State Sanitary Engineers, Harrisburg, Pa.
John Moore, Bureau of Noise Pollution Control, Illinois State EPA
Don Scheisswohl and David Scott, Florida State Department of Air & Water
Pollution Control, Tallahassee, Florida
Representative of the Texas State Dept. of Health
Dwight Metzler, New York State Dept. of Environmental Conservation,
Albany, N.Y.
Representative of the Conference of Mayors, Washington, D.C.
Robert Benin, New York City Environmental Protection Administration,
New York, N.Y.
Representative of Los Angeles Mayor's Council on Environmental Management
Mrs. Betty Little, Citizens for Conservation of Bernard's Township, Basking
Ridge, N.J.
Robert Cusamano, Nassau County Bureau of Air Pollution, Nassau County,
Long Island, New York
Joseph Kigin, Rubber Manufacturers Association, Washington, D.C.
N. Larmore, Construction Industry Manufacturers Association, Chicago, 111.
George Washnis, Center for Governmental Studies, Washington, D.C.
Herschel Griffin, Dean of the University of Pittsburgh School of Public Health
Mrs. Ann Sutton, Burgundy Hill Farm School, Alexandria, Va.
John Winder, President, Metropolitan Washington Air Quality Coalition,
Washington, D.C.
George Coling, Executive Director, Ecology Center Communications Council,
Washington, D.C.
C-17
-------
GLOSSARY
The following explanations of terms are provided to assist the reader in under-
standing terms commonly encountered in the literature of "noise pollution" as well as
terms commonly employed in this report.
ABSORPTION — Absorption is a property of materials that reduces the amount of
sound energy reflected. Thus, the introduction of an "absorbent" into the surfaces
of a room will reduce the sound pressure level in that room by virtue of the fact
that sound energy striking the room surfaces will not be totally reflected. It
should be mentioned that this is an entirely different process from that of trans-
mission loss through a material, which determines how much sound gets into the
room via the walls, ceiling, and floor. The effect of absorption merely reduces
the resultant sound level in the room produced by energy which has already entered
the room.
ABSORPTION COEFFICIENT — The sound-absorbing ability of a surface is given in
terms of a sound-absorption coefficient. This coefficient is defined as the frac-
tion of incident sound energy absorbed or otherwise not reflected by the surface.
Unless otherwise specified, a diffuse sound field is assumed. The values of
sound-absorption coefficient usually range from about 0. 01 for marble slate to
about 1. 0 for long absorbing wedges such as are used in anechoic chambers.
ACCELEROMETER (ACCELERATION PICKUP) — An electroacoustic transducer that
responds to the acceleration of the surface to which the transducer is attached,
and delivers essentially equivalent electric waves.
ACOUSTICAL POWER — See sound power.
ACOUSTICS — (1) The science of sound, including the generation, transmission, and
effects of sound waves, both audible and inaudible. (2) The acoustics of an audi-
torium or of a room, the totality of those physical qualities (such as size, shape,
amount of sound absorption, and amount of noise) which determine the audibility
and perception of speech and music.
, AIRBORNE SOUND — Sound that reaches the point of interest by propagation through
air.
G-l
-------
AMBIENT NOISE LEVEL — The ambient noise level, for purposes of this report,
follows the usage of the word "ambient" throughout the environmental sciences
(except acoustics). That is, the ambient noise level is that level which exists at
any instant, regardless of source.
ANALYSIS — The analysis of a noise generally refers to the composition of the noise
into various frequency bands, such as octaves, third-octaves, etc.
ANECHOIC ROOM — An anechoic room is one whose boundaries have been designed
(with acoustically absorbent materials) to absorb nearly all the sound incident on
its boundaries, thereby affording a test room essentially free from reflected
sound.
ARTICULATION INDEX (AI) — A numerically calculated measure of the intelligibility
of transmitted or processed speech. It takes into account the limitations of the
transmission path and the background noise. The articulation index can range in
magnitude between 0 and 1. 0. If the AI is less than 0. 1, speech intelligibility is
generally low. If it is above 0. 6, speech intelligibility is generally high.
AUDIO FREQUENCY — The frequency of oscillation of an audible sine-wave of sound;
any frequency between 20 and 20,000 hertz. See also frequency.
AURAL — Of or pertaining to the ear or hearing.
AUDIOGRAM — A graph showing hearing loss as a function of frequency.
AUDIOMETER — An instrument for measuring hearing sensitivity or hearing loss.
A-WEIGHTED SOUND LEVEL — The ear does not respond equally to sounds of all
frequencies, but is less efficient at low and high frequencies than it is at medium
or speech range frequencies. Thus, to obtain a single number representing the
sound level of a noise containing a. wide range of frequencies in a manner repre-
sentative of the ear's response, it is necessary to reduce, or weight, the effects
of the low and high frequencies with respect to the medium frequencies. The re-
sultant sound level is said to be A-weighted, and the units are dB. A popular
method of indicating the units, dBA, is frequently used in this report. The A-
weighted sound level is also called the noise level. Sound level meters have an
A-weighting network for measuring A-weighted sound level.
BACKGROUND NOISE — The total of all noise in a system or situation, independent
of the presence of the desired signal. In acoustical measurements, strictly
speaking, the term "background noise" means electrical noise in the measure-
ment system. However, in popular usage the term "background noise" is also
used with the same meaning as "residual noise. "
BAFFLE — A baffle is a shielding structure or series of partitions used to increase
the effective length of the external transmission path between two points in an
acoustic system. For example, baffles may be used in sound traps (as in air
conditioning ducts) or in automotive mufflers to decrease the sound transmitted
while affording a path for air flow.
G-2
74-249 O - 72 - 30
-------
BAND CENTEH FREQUENCY — The designated (geometric) mean frequency of a band
of noise or other signal. For example, 1000 Hz is the band center frequency for
the octave band that extends from 707 Hz to 1414 Hz, or for the third-octave band
that extends from 891 Hz to 1123 Hz.
BAND PRESSURE (OR POWER) LEVEL - The pressure (or power) level for the
sound contained within a specified frequency band. The band may be specified
either by its lower and upper cut-off frequencies, or by its geometric center
frequency. The width of the band is often indicated by a prefatory modifier; e.g. ,
octave band, third-octave band, 10-Hz band.
COMMUNITY NOISE EQUIVALENT LEVEL - Community Noise Equivalent Level
(CNEL) is a scale which takes account of all the A-weighted acoustic energy re-
ceived at a point, from all noise events causing noise levels above some pre-
scribed value. Weighting factors are included which place greater importance
upon noise events occurring during the evening hours (7:00 p. m. to 10:00 p. m.)
and even greater importance upon noise events at night (10:00 p. m. to 6'00 a. m.).
COMPOSITE NOISE RATING — Composite noise rating (CNR) is a scale which takes
account of the totality of all aircraft operations at an airport in quantifying the
total aircraft noise environment. It was the earliest method for evaluating com-
patible land use around airports and is still in wide use by the Department of
Defense in predicting noise environments around military airfields.
Basically, to calculate a CNR value one begins with a measure of the maxi-
mum noise magnitude from each aircraft flyby and adds weighting factors which
sum the cumulative effect of all flights. The scale used to describe individual
noise events is perceived noise level (in PNdB), the term accounting for number
of flights is 10 log10N (where N is the number of flight operations), and each
night operation counts as much as 10 daytime operations. Very approximately,
the noise exposure level at a point expressed in the CNR scale will be numerically
35-37 dB higher than if expressed in the CNEL scale.
CONTINUOUS SOUND SPECTRUM — A continuous sound spectrum is comprised of
components which are continuously distributed over a frequency region.
C-WEIGHTED SOUND LEVEL (dBC) — A quantity, in decibels, read from a standard
sound-level meter that is switched to the weighting network labeled "C". The C-
weighting network weights the frequencies between 70 Hz and 4000 Hz uniformly,
but below and above these limits frequencies are slightly discriminated against.
Generally, C-weighted measurements are essentially the same as overall sound-
pressure levels, which require no discrimination at any frequency.
CYCLES PER SECOND - See frequency.
DAMAGE-RISK CRITERIA (HEARING-CONSERVATION CRITERIA) - Recommended
maximum noise levels that for a given pattern of exposure times should, if not
exceeded, minimize the risk of damage to the ears of persons exposed to the
noise.
G-3
-------
DAMPING — The dissipation of energy with time or distance. The term is generally
applied to the attenuation of sound in a structure owing to the internal sound-dis-
sipative properties of the structure or owing to the addition of sound-dissipative
materials.
DECIBEL — The decibel (abbreviated "dB") is a measure, on a logarithmic scale, of
the magnitude of a particular quantity (such as sound pressure, sound power,
intensity, etc.) with respect to a standard reference value.
DIFFUSE SOUND FIELD — The presence of many reflected waves (echoes) in a room
(or auditorium) having a very small amount of sound absorption, arising from re-
peated reflections of sound in various directions.
DIRECTIVITY INDEX — In a given direction from a sound source, the difference in
decibels between (a) the sound-pressure level produced by the source in that di-
rection, and (b) the space-average sound-pressure level of that source, measured
at the same distance.
DUCT LINING OR WRAPPING — Usually a sheet of porous material placed on the inner
or outer wall(s) of a duct to introduce sound attenuation and heat insulation. It is
often used in air conditioning systems. Linings are more effective in attenuating
sound that travels inside along the length of a duct, while wrappings are more
effective in preventing sound from being radiated from the duct sidewalls into sur-
rounding spaces.
EFFECTIVE PERCEIVED NOISE LEVEL (EPNL) - A physical measure designed to
estimate the effective "noisiness" of a single noise event, usually an aircraft fly-
over; it is derived from instantaneous Perceived Noise Level (PNL) values by
applying corrections for pure tones and for the duration of the noise.
ELECTROACOUSTICS — The science and technology of transforming sound waves into
currents in electrical circuits (and vice versa), by means of microphones, loud-
speakers, and electronic amplifiers and filters.
FAR FIELD — Consider any sound source in free space. At a sufficient distance from
the source, the sound pressure level obeys the inverse-square law, and the sound
particle velocity is in phase with the sound pressure. This region is called the
far field of the sound source. Regions closer to the source, where these two con-
ditions do not hold, constitute the near field. Now consider a sound source within
an enclosure. It is also sometimes possible to satisfy the far-field conditions
over a. limited region between the near field and the reverberant field, if the ab-
sorption within the enclosure is not too small so that the near field and the rever-
berant field merge.
FILTER — A device that transmits certain frequency components of the signal (sound
or electrical) incident upon it, and rejects other frequency components of the inci-
dent signal.
FREE SOUND FIELD (FREE FIELD) - A sound field in which the effects of obstacles
or boundaries on sound propagated in that field are negligible.
G-4
-------
FREQUENCY — The number of oscillations per second (a) of a sine-wave of sound,
and (b) of a vibrating solid object; now expressed in hertz (abbreviation Hz),
formerly in cycles per second (abbreviation cpa).
HEARING DISABILITY — An actual or presumed inability, due to hearing impairment,
to remain employed at full wages.
HEARING HANDICAP — The disadvantage imposed by a hearing impairment sufficient
to affect one's efficiency in the situation of everyday living.
HEARING IMPAIRMENT — A deviation or change for the worse in either hearing
structure or function, usually outside the normal range; see hearing loss.
HEARING LOSS — At a specified frequency, an amount, in decibels, by which the
threshold of audibility for that ear exceeds a certain specified audiometric thresh-
old, that is to say, the amount by which a person's hearing is worse than some
selected norm. The norm may be the threshold established at some earlier time
for that ear, or the average threshold for some large population, or the threshold
selected by some standards body for audiometric measurements.
HEARING LOSS FOR SPEECH — The difference in decibels between the speech levels
at which the "average normal" ear and a defective ear, respectively, reach the
same intelligibility, often arbitrarily set at 50%.
HERTZ — See frequency.
IMPACT — (1) An impact is a single collision of one mass in motion with a second
mass which may be either in motion or at rest. (2) Impact is a word used to ex-
press the extent or severity of an environmental problem; e. g. , the number of
persons exposed to a given noise environment.
IMPACT INSULATION CLASS (IIC) — A single-figure rating which is intended to per-
mit the comparison of the impact sound insulating merits of floor-ceiling assem-
blies in terms of a reference contour.
IMPACT SOUND — The sound arising from the impact of a solid object on an interior
surface (wall, floor, or ceiling) of a building. Typical sources are footsteps,
dropped objects, etc.
INVERSE-SQUARE LAW — The inverse-square law describes that acoustic situation
where the mean-square sound pressure changes in inverse proportion to the
square of the distance from the source. Under this condition the sound-pressure
level decreases 6 decibels with each doubling of distance from the source. See
also spherical divergence.
ISOLATION - See vibration isolator.
LEVEL — The level of an acoustical quantity (e. g. , sound power), in decibels, is 10
times the logarithm (base 10) of the ratio of the quantity to a reference quantity
of the same physical kind.
G-5
-------
LINE SPECTRUM — The spectrum of a sound whose components occur at a number of
discrete frequencies.
LOUDNESS — Loudness is the intensive attribute of an auditory sensation, in terms
of which sounds may be ordered on a scale extending from soft to loud. Loudness
depends primarily upon the sound pressure of the stimulus, but is also depends
upon the frequency and wave form of the stimulus.
LOUDNESS LEVEL — The loudness level of a sound, in phons, is numerically equal
to the median sound pressure level, in decibels, relative to 0. 0002 microbar, of
a free progressive wave of frequency 1000 Hz presented to listeners facing the
source, which in a number of trials is judged by the listeners to be equally loud.
MACH NUMBER — The ratio of a speed of a moving element to the speed of sound in
the surrounding medium.
MASKING — The action of bringing one sound (audible when heard alone) to inaudibility
or to unintelligibility by the introduction of another, usually louder, sound. See
masking noise.
MASKING NOISE — A noise which is intense enough to render inaudible or unintellibi-
ble another sound which is simultaneously present.
MICROPHONE — An electroacoustic transducer that responds to sound waves and
delivers essentially equivalent electric waves.
NEAR FIELD - See far field.
NOISE — Any sound which is undesirable because it interferes with speech and hearing,
or is intense enough to damage hearing, or is otherwise annoying.
NOISE CRITERION (NC) CURVES - Any of several versions (SC, NC, NCA, PNC) of
criteria used for rating the acceptability of continuous indoor noise levels, such
as produced by air-handling systems.
NOISE EXPOSURE FORECAST — Noise exposure forecast (NEF) is a scale (analogous
to CNEL and CNR) which has been used by the federal government in land use
planning guides for use in connection with airports.
In the NEF scale, the basic measure of magnitude for individual noise events
is the effective perceived noise level (EPNL), in units of EPNdB. This magnitude
measure includes the effect of duration per event. The terms accounting for num-
ber of flights and for weighting by time period are the same as in the CNR scale.
Very approximately, the noise exposure level at a point expressed in the NEF
scale will be numerically about 33 dB lower than if expressed in the CNEL scale.
NOISE INSULATION — See sound insulation.
NOISE ISOLATION CLASS (NIC) — A single number rating derived in a prescribed
manner from the measured values of noise reduction. It provides an evaluation
of the sound isolation between two enclosed spaces that are acoustically connected
by one or more paths.
G-6
-------
NOISE LEVEL - See sound level.
NOISE AND NUMBER INDEX (NNI) — A measure based on Perceived Noise Level,
and with weighting factors added to account for the number of noise events, and
used (in some European countries) for rating the noise environment near airports.
NOISE POLLUTION LEVEL (LNp or NPL) — A measure of the total community noise,
postulated to be applicable to both traffic noise and aircraft noise. It is computed
from the "energy average" of the noise level and the standard deviation of the
time-varying noise level.
NOISE REDUCTION (NR) — The noise reduction between two areas or rooms is the
numerical difference, in decibels, of the average sound pressure levels in those
areas or rooms. A measurement of "noise reduction" combines the effect of the
transmission loss performance of structures separating the two areas or rooms,
plus the effect of acoustic absorption present in the receiving room.
NOISE REDUCTION COEFFICIENT (NRC) — A measure of the acoustical absorption
performance of a material, calculated by the averaging its sound absorption coef-
ficients at 250, 500, 1000, and 2000 Hz, expressed to the nearest integral multi-
ple of 0. 05.
NOYS — A unit used in the calculation of perceived noise level.
OCTAVE — An octave is the interval between two sounds having a basic frequency ratio
of two. For example, there are 8 octaves on the keyboard of a standard piano.
OCTAVE BAND — All of the components, in a sound spectrum, whose frequencies are
between two sine wave components separated by an octave.
OCTAVE-BAND SOUND PRESSURE LEVEL — The integrated sound pressure level of
only those sine-wave components in a specified octave band, for a noise or sound
having a wide spectrum.
OSCILLATION — The variation with time, alternately increasing and decreasing, (a) of
some feature of an audible sound, such as the sound pressure, or (b) of some fea-
ture of a vibrating solid object, such as the displacement of its surface.
PEAK SOUND PRESSURE — The maximum instantaneous sound pressure (a) for a tran-
sient or impulsive sound of short duration, or (b) in a specified time interval for
a sound of long duration.
PERCEIVED NOISE LEVEL (PNL) — A quantity expressed in decibels that provides a
subjective assessment of the perceived "noisiness" of aircraft noise. The units
of Perceived Noise Level are Perceived Noise Decibels, PNdB.
PHASE — For a particular value of the independent variable, the fractional part of a
period through which the independent variable has advanced, measured from an
arbitrary reference.
G-7
-------
PHON — The unit of measurement for loudness level.
PITCH — A listener's perception of the frequency of a pure tone; the higher the fre-
quency, the higher the pitch.
PRESBYCUSIS — The decline in hearing acuity that normally occurs as a person grows
older.
PURE TONE — A sound wave whose waveform is that of a sine-wave.
RANDOM INCIDENCE — If an object is in a diffuse sound field, the sound waves that
comprise the sound field are said to strike the object from all angles of incidence
at random.
RAVDOM NOISE — An oscillation whose instantaneous magnitude is not specified for
any given instant of time. It can be described in a statistical sense by probability
Distribution functions giving the fraction of the total time that the magnitude of the
noise lies within a specified range.
RESIDUAL NOISE LEVEL — For purposes of this report, the term "residual noise"
has been adopted to mean the noise wh'ch exists at a point as a result of the com-
bination of many distant sources, individually indistinguishable. In statistical
terms, it is the level exceeded 90 percent of the time. (Acousticians should
note it means the same level to which they have customarily applied the term
"ambient. ")
RESONANCE — The relatively large effects produced, e.g. , amplitude of vibration,
when repetitive sound pressure or force is in approximate synchronism with a free
(unforced) vibration of a component or a system.
RETROFIT — The retroactive modification of an existing building or machine. In
current usage, the most common application of the word "retrofit" is to the
question of modification of existing jet aircraft engines for noise abatement
purposes.
REVERBERATION — The persistence of sound in an enclosed space, as a result of
multiple reflections, after the sound source has stopped.
REVERBERATION ROOM — A room having a long reverberation time, especially de-
signed to make the sound field inside it as diffuse (homogeneous) as possible.
REVERBERATION TIME (RT) — The reverberation time of a. room is the time taken
for the sound pressure level (or sound intensity) to decrease to one-millionth
(60 dB) of its steady state value when the source of sound energy is suddenly
interrupted. It is a measure of the persistence of an impulsive sound in a room
and of the amount of acoustical absorption present inside the room.
ROOT-MEAN-SQUARE (RMS) — The root-mean-square value of a quantity that is
varying as a function of time is obtained by squaring the function at each instant,
obtaining the average of the squared values over the interval of interest, and
taking the square root of this average.
-------
SINE-WAVE — A sound wave, audible as a pure tone, in which the sound pressure is
a sinusoidal function of time; sound pressure ~sine of (2" x frequency x time).
SONE — The unit of measurement for loudness.
SONIC BOOM — The pressure transient produced at an observing point by a vehicle
that is moving past (or over) it faster than the speed of sound.
SOUND — See acoustics (1).
SOUND INSULATION — (1) The use of structures and materials designed to reduce the
transmission of sound from one room or area to another or from the exterior to
the interior of a building. (2) The degree by which sound transmission is reduced
by means of sound insulating structures and materials.
SOUND LEVEL (NOISE LEVEL) — The weighted sound pressure level obtained by use
of a sound level meter having a standard frequency-filter for attenuating part of
the sound spectrum.
SOUND LEVEL METER — An instrument, comprising a microphone, an amplifier, an
output meter, and frequency-weighting networks, that is used for the measurement
of noise and sound levels in a specified manner.
SOUND POWER — Of a source of sound, the total amount of acoustical energy radiated
into the atmospheric air per unit time.
SOUND POWER LEVEL — The level of sound power, averaged over a period of time,
the reference being 10~1% watts.
SOUND PRESSURE — (1) The minute fluctuations in atmospheric pressure which ac-
company the passage of a sound wave; the pressure fluctuations on the tympanic
membrane are transmitted to the inner ear and give rise to the sensation of
audible sound. (2) For a steady sound, the value of the sound pressure averaged
over a period of time. (3) Sound pressure is usually measured (a) in dynes per
square centimeter (dyn/cm2), or (b) in newtons per square meter (N/m2).
1 N/m2 = 10 dyn/cm2 = iQ-5 times the atmospheric pressure.
SOUND PRESSURE LEVEL — The level of sound pressure; squared and averaged over
a period of time, the reference being the square of 2 x 10~5 newtons per square
meter.
SOUND TRANSMISSION CLASS (STC) — The preferred single figure rating system
designed to give an estimate of the sound insulation properties of a partition or a
rank ordering of a series of partitions. It is intended for use primarily when
speech and office noise constitute the principal noise problem.
SOUND TRANSMISSION COEFFICIENT — The fraction of incident sound energy trans-
mitted through a structural configuration.
G-9
-------
SOUND TRANSMISSION LOSS (TRANSMISSION LOSS) (TL) - A measure of sound insu-
lation provided by a structural configuration. Expressed in decibels, it is 10
times the logarithm to the base 10 of the reciprocal of the sound transmission
coefficient of the configuration.
SPECTRUM — Of a sound wave, the description of its resolution into components,
each of different frequency and (usually) different amplitude and phase.
SPEECH-INTERFERENCE LEVEL (SIL) - A calculated quantity providing a guide to
the interfering effect of a noise on reception of speech communication. The speech-
interference level is the arithmetic average of the octave-band sound-pressure
levels of the interfering noise in the most important part of the speech frequency
range. The levels in the three octave-frequency bands centered at 500, 1000, and
2000 Hz are commonly averaged to determine the speech-interference level.
Numerically, the magnitudes of aircraft sounds in the Speech-Interference Level
scale are approximately 18 to 22 dB less than the same sounds in the Perceived
Noise Level scale in PNdB, depending on the spectrum of the sound.
SPEED (VELOCITY) OF SOUND IN AIR - The speed of sound in air is 344 m/sec or
1128 ft/sec at 78°F.
SPHERICAL DIVERGENCE — Spherical divergence is the condition of propagation of
spherical waves that relates to the regular decrease in intensity of a spherical
sound wave at progressively greater distances from the source. Under this con-
dition the sound-pressure level decreases 6 decibels with each doubling of dis-
tance from the source.
SPHERICAL WAVE — A sound wave in which the surfaces of constant phase are con-
centric spheres. A small (point) source radiating into an open space produces a
free sound field of spherical waves.
STANDING WAVE — A periodic sound wave having a fixed distribution in space, the
result of interference of traveling sound waves of the same frequency and kind.
Such sound waves are characterized by the existence of nodes, or partial nodes,
and antinodes that are fixed in space.
STEADY-STATE SOUNDS — Sounds whose average characteristics remain constant
in time. Examples of steady-state sounds are a stationary siren, an air-condi-
tioning unit, and an aircraft running up on the ground.
STRUCTUREBORNE SOUND — Sound that reaches the point of interest, over at least
part of its path, by vibrations of a solid structure.
THIRD-OCTAVE BAND — A frequency band whose cut-off frequencies have a ratio of
2 to the one-third power, which is approximately 1. 26. The cut-off frequencies
of 891 Hz and 1123 Hz define a third-octave band in common use. See also band
center frequency.
THRESHOLD OF AUDIBILITY (THRESHOLD OF DETECTABILITY) - For a specified
signal, the minimum sound-pressure level of the signal that is capable of evoking
an auditory sensation in a specified fraction of the trials.
G-10
-------
THRESHOLD SHIFT — An increase in a hearing threshold level that results from ex-
posure to noise.
TRAFFIC NOISE INDEX (TNI) — A measure of the noise environment created by ve-
hicular traffic on highways; it is computed from measured values of the noise
levels exceeded 10 percent and 90 percent of the time.
TRANSDUCER — A device capable of being actuated by waves from one or more trans-
mission systems or media and supplying related waves to one or more other trans-
mission systems or media. Examples are microphones, accelerometers, and
loudspeakers.
TRANSIENT SOUNDS — Sounds whose average properties do not remain constant in
time. Examples are an aircraft flyover, a passing truck, a sonic boom.
TRANSMISSION LOSS (TL) — See sound transmission loss.
VIBRATION ISOLATOR — A resilient support for machinery and other equipment that
might be a source of vibration, designed to reduce the amount of vibration trans-
mitted to the building structure.
WAVEFORM — A presentation of some feature of a sound wave, e.g. , the sound pres-
sure, as a graph showing the moment-by-moment variation of sound pressure
with time.
WAVEFRONT — The front surface of a sound wave on its way through the atmosphere.
WAVELENGTH — For a periodic wave (such as sound in air), the perpendicular dis-
tance between analogous points on any two successive waves. The wavelength of
sound in air or in water is inversely proportional to the frequency of the sound.
Thus the lower the frequency, the longer the wavelength.
o
G-ll
-------
-------
-------
-------
-------
-------
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Region 5, Library (PL-12J)
77 West Jackson Boulevard, 12th Float
Chicago, IL 60604-3590
-------
-------