OOOR77011
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
POLICY AND IMPLEMENTATION QUESTIONS
An Addendum to Toward a National
Strategy for Noise Control"
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
April 1977
ADDENDUM A
April 1977
-------
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
POLICY AND IMPLEMENTATION QUESTIONS
An Addendum to "Toward a National
Strategy for Noise Control"
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
April 1977
ADDENDUM A
April 1977
60604
-------
-------
Summary
On November 10, 1976, a notice was published in the Federal Register
of the availability for public comment of a draft of a national strategy
for noise abatement and control. The October draft of the Strategy
document stated a number of policy and implementation questions on which
public comments and suggestions were invited. The comments received
contributed to some of the revisions contained in the current edition,
"Toward a National Strategy for Noise Control." In addition, there were
other comments received that will assist in improving the national noise
strategy. In the case of some other noise comments received, it was not
possible in the intervening time period to include a satisfactory resolution
of the specific issue in the revised Strategy. These issues are given
attention in this addendum. Further, EPA will give priority consideration
to these comments in its current studies toward improving the current
Strategy in future revisions. The policy and implementation questions
are restated followed by a general summary of comments and EPA's conclusions.
-------
New Product Standards
Question:
1. What additional products are near-term candidates for new
product regulations?
EPA Summary
The response to this question consisted largely of a long list of
mainly transportation and construction and some machinery products that
were believed to be "annoying," obtrusive," "real noise makers,"
"offensive," or just plain "noisy."
The majority of the products cited have already been addressed by
the EPA as either:
A) Products identified as major sources of noise.
B) Products currently under study for possible identification
as major sources.
EPA will review the remaining suggestions during the next few
months to determine whether they should be included in the Agency's
plans.
Question:
2. Many countries are promulgating an increasing number of
regulations applicable to new products sold in international
commerce. What should be the attitude of the U.S. Government
toward harmonizing these standards with U.S. standards?
Should EPA be willing to sacrifice the stringency of its
regulations in the interest of international uniformity?
Al
-------
EPA Summary
There was an overwhelming majority of comments in favor of the
international harmonization of noise standards and a strong response
against reducing the stringency of EPA regulations. ,
The United States is not, of course, alone in developing noise
abatement strategies involving noise standards. Many other countries
are similarly pursuing the goal of providing a satisfactory noise
environment for their citizens. To maintain uniformity in inter-
national commerce and to retain the competitive nature of U.S. in-
dustry, the EPA believes that it is necessary to cooperate with
other nations in the harmonization of noise standards and measurement
procedures for products where it is considered desirable and possible.
EPA has concluded that it should maintain a continuous technical liaison
with these other nations. Acknowledging the necessity of these actions,
however, does not imply that EPA will sacrifice the stringency of its
own noise standards, unless a case-by-case review indicates that the
benefits of such a sacrifice would outweigh the disadvantages.
State and Local Programs
Question:
3. What additional ways should EPA use besides the Quiet
Communities and ECHO Progams to foster productive communication
among State and local noise control programs?
A2
-------
EPA Summary
Responses by State and local officials were almost uniformly
favorable to EPA's current programs. Almost every comment stressed
the need for more workshops or seminars to disseminate information
among local officials. One commenter suggested a "certification"
program for local enforcement officials. Several commented that
localities are more likely to fund staffs and equipment than much
needed training.
Although the ECHO Program sounded good on paper to many
commenters, several suggested that it was probably limited due to
time and money constraints at the local level.
On the basis of these comments the Agency concluded that it should
initiate the ECHO self-help program whereby the EPA, through the Regional
offices will make financial and other assistance available to existing
noise control programs in order for these programs to assist other
communities in the same State and Region in setting up noise programs.
Current planning is that each Region would participate in this program.
EPA will also initiate the Quiet Communities Program which will
focus on development of noise control programs in a few selected
communities, which presently do not have such programs, through direct
EPA assistance. Due to manpower restrictions, only one or two Regions
will participate in the Quiet Communities Program in FY 1978.
A3
-------
Question:
4. What should be the division of responsibility between the
State and local governments? What functions in the noise control area
is each level of government particularly well qualified to undertake?
EPA Summary
There was no apparent consensus among State and local responders
to Question 4. One commenter suggested that local jurisdictions should
regulate noise where both the source and receiver are residential and
States should regulate all nonresidential, mobile, or temporary noise
sources.
EPA has concluded that it should work with appropriate State
programs in the area of noise control where they exist and should
encourage their creation where they do not presently exist. Such
State agencies are usually the most effective in coordinating State-
wide noise abatement planning related to land use and highway con-
struction and can help greatly in assisting local communities develop
effective noise control programs.
The local units of government are generally most effective in
controlling noise levels from urban traffic, and urban building con-
struction, by such measures as in-use restrictions on noise emissions
from machinery and equipment, and the use of police powers to control
excessive noise nuisances. EPA will continue to work with individual
communities especially in those states which do not have a state noise
control program.
A4
-------
Question:
5. Other environmental laws, such as the Clean Water and Clean
Air Acts, mandate very specific duties for State and local governments
and provide grants for some of them. Is this a desirable approach for
the national noise program to evolve toward, or should the respective
roles of the various levels of government remain flexible as they are
under the Noise Control Act of 1972?
EPA Summary
State and local communities indicated their need for funding.
However, they favored funding aimed at functional areas such as training
or monitoring rather than grants in aid. There was some concern about
Federal "strings" attached to any grant program.
There are no immediate prospects for provision of grants for State
and local noise control programs.
Labeling
Question:
6. Since Federal regulations requiring the labeling of products
cannot be developed and promulgated for all products at the same time,
what are the priority candidates for labeling action? What should be
the criteria for making these choices? EPA Summary
In response to the question, "What are the priority candidates for
labeling action," the most often mentioned product category was Household
appliances. Items in this category included food blenders, dishwashers,
A5
-------
vacuum cleaners, air conditioners, garbage disposals, ice crushers, can
openers, refrigerators, washing machines and hood fans. The second most
mentioned category was consumer products in general. Specific items in
this category were lawn mowers, handpower tools, chain saws and electrical
hair grooming devices. Other product categories received relatively equal
attention and include construction equipment, industrial machinery, tires,
mufflers and firearms.
The second part of this question was, "what should be the criteria
for choosing which products to label." The responses fell generally into
one of two general approaches. The approach recommended most often is to
select products for labeling in the order in which they produce the greatest
noise exposure to the population. This would involve a consideration of
number of products in use, product noise emission level, number of people
exposed and duration of noise emission. Although the candidate selection
process using this approach would be considerably involved, it has the
benefit of potentially effecting the greatest number of people. The
second general approach recommended for the selection criteria involved
choosing products for labeling on the basis of their overall noise
emission in dBA regardless of the number of people exposed. By concentrating
on the noisier sources first this approach would emphasize the hearing
conservation aspects of the national noise strategy.
These alternatives will be carefully considered as EPA developes
and implements its labeling strategy during the coming year.
A6
-------
Relative Priority Among Functions
Question:
7. EPA has determined that in the allocation of its own resources,
new product regulations should be given first priority, development of
State and local programs second, and labeling of products third. Is
this the correct order or priority? If not, what alternative is desirable
and why?
EPA Summary
There was not a consensus among commenters on what the relative
priority among programs should be. State and local government commenters
generally thought State and local programs should be in first priority
rather than regulation. Others generally favored the present priorities
with regulation first. EPA's present plan is to keep the present order
of priorities but increase the relative emphasis on State and local
programs over previous years.
Monitoring
Question:
8. What should be EPA's monitoring strategy for the purpose of
determining progress toward the noise abatement goals?
A) What should EPA monitor in order to determine trends?
(Choices include attitudes, ambient levels, source
levels, complaints, etc.)
A7
-------
B) How should EPA carry out this monitoring?
(1) Should state and local governments do the
actual monitoring with EPA providing technical
assistance and methodologies? or
(2) Should EPA itself conduct the monitoring?
EPA Summary
Support is given for monitoring of all the items mentioned in the
question, with most comments favoring the monitoring of ambient and
source noise levels. A summary of the comments is as follows:
A) Ambient noise levels should be monitored to identify long-term
trends and source levels for short-term trends.
B) The comments relating to the monitoring of community complaints
and attitudes were mixed, but mainly favorable. Some stated
that this was the only measure of interest, others that
community attitudes were too varied and localized to be of
much use in identifying trends.
C) Additional parameters that are suggested for inclusion in a
monitoring program are daily personal exposure, and land use
trends.
D) It was noted that monitoring is essential to the overall
program by establishing a base for future comparisons. It
also provides a means of evaluating whether or not the
approach taken to noise abatement is correct, and indicates
other more effective approaches.
A8
-------
E) The comments against monitoring are mainly centered around a
disagreement with the premise that it can assist in achieving
the goals.
F) Overwhelming support is given to the suggestion that state
and/or local governments perform the monitoring with EPA
providing technical and financial assistance. It is thought
that such a policy would educate local officials, cost less,
and allow local sensitivities to prevail at the same time.
Occasionally, comments include preferences as to which type
of monitoring should be performed by a particular level of
government. For example, some think that EPA should be
responsible for monitoring source levels. It is recognized
by many that state and local personnel often do not have the
necessary experience and equipment. For this reason it was
rcommended that EPA develop guidelines for monitoring and
perhaps should conduct the measurement in conjunction with
local personnel in the initial stages of the program.
EPA has concluded that in order to identify trends in community and
source noise levels, and to assess the effectiveness of regulations, EPA
should prepare guidelines for monitoring suitable for use by State and
local government personnel. Where considered desirable, it is eventually
intended for state and local governments to assume major responsibility
for monitoring.
A9
-------
Data For Decision-Making
Question:
9. EPA spends a considerable amount of its resources determining
health and welfare benefits, the economic impact, and the technical
feasibility of proposed standards. Since other levels of government
often do not have the resources to conduct similar studies when making
similar decisions, what steps should EPA take to assist these other
governmental bodies in their decision-making?
EPA Summary
Several State and local government commenters suggested extensive
help from EPA such as technical assistance, noise monitoring, planning
and informational materials. Some help of this kind will be supplied
under the Quiet Communities Program, but widespread assistance of this
type is beyond the EPA's Office of Noise Abatement and Control's funding
at the present time.
Question:
10. EPA believes it is appropriate to stimulate the development of
noise control technology (where such is needed) by requiring in its new
product regulations the application of available technological concepts
that have not been incorporated in every case in products produced on an
assembly line. In rare instances, this approach can be supplemented by
direct government research. Is this the correct policy position for the
Agency to take? Should the government require the use of "current"
technology only, do more technology research itself, or depend on labeling
of products or government procurement to stimulate development of new
technology?
A10
-------
EPA Summary
There was no clear consensus on the subject of research and technology
development. EPA believes that private industry must assume responsibility
for new technology and that new product standards are a good way to give
industry the incentive. A description of the role of technology research
and demonstration in the national strategy is given in the main body of
the document on page 29.
Health and Welfare Effects at Lower Levels
Question:
11. What emphasis should noise exposures of Ldn 55 to Ldn 65
receive in EPA's new product regulations and other program activities?
Should noise exposures of this level be left primarily to the control of
State and local governments?
EPA Summary
Many of the comments were concerned with the statement of goals in
Section IV. These have been rewritten to make the intent clearer.
They are still very controversial both in terms of the supporting
scientific evidence and their economic impact. This subject will receive
continuing review during the next years as further scientific evidence
is collected and analyzed and as the specific program strategies are
developed.
With regard to the exposures of Ldn 55 to Ldn 65 the majority of
the responses favored little or no Federal emphasis on these levels
although some were strongly in favor of a major Federal effort in this
area. In those responses in which a rationale was given, for minimum
Federal emphasis, comments such as the following were given:
All
-------
A) More research should be done before addressing these levels
at all.
B) The higher levels should be controlled before considering
lower levels.
C) Achievement of these lower levels is best left to local
government.
D) State and local governments can achieve reductions more
economically.
E) Environmental noise requirements at these levels are a local
matter. Noise requirements will vary with land use.
F) The cited levels are arbitrary.
G) The cost of the lower levels has not been determined.
The minority of responses favored Federal control of exposures
between Ldn 55 and Ldn 65. Reasons cited for this opinion included:
A) It is unfair to burden State and local governments with
achieving the more difficult noise reductions required to
proceed from Ldn 65 to Ldn 55.
B) EPA has the most expertise in reducing noise while State and
local governments do not possess the capabilities to assure
the ultimate reduction of environmental noise.
Similar comments were received in relation to the goals stated in Section
IV of the October 1976 draft of the Strategy Document. The Levels
Document clearly established Ldn 55 as a legitimate level to address in
terms of public health and welfare. How and by which level of government
A12
-------
this identified level should be addressed has not, in general, been
decided. This decision will be part of the specific program strategies
addressing major sources individually. Also, as part of such program
strategies, costs, benefits, and technical feasibility of achieving the
lower levels can be considered.
A minority of the responses to the question indicated that strong
emphasis should be placed on reaching Ldn 55. The rationale of these
responses included:
A) The Levels Document cites Ldn 55 as that level which protects
public health and welfare and hence, higher levels would not
afford this protection.
B) Product regulation should be based on achieving the most noise
reduction possible.
C) Ldn 55 should be firmly established so that there will be no
doubt that it is the long range goal.
D) Emphasis on the lower levels would further support and
encourage state and local governments in developing regulations.
Although the Levels Document identifies Ldn 55 as the outdoor environ-
mental noise level required to protect public health and welfare, it
does seem feasible that interim, less stringent, goals can be pursued
without sacrificing the ultimate goal of Ldn 55. As stated previously,
how this ultimate goal will be addressed will be developed in the specific
program strategies.
A13
-------
This question of goals and the respective roles of various levels
of government is clearly a controversial one. EPA will continue to
assess the reasonableness of the goals from a technical point of view,
and from a practical point of view as further noise effects studies are
completed, and as the specific program strategies for surface transportation
and construction are developed. It seems premature to make a final
decision concerning the relative roles question until the specific
program strategies are developed and until the Agency has a clearer
picture concerning the future extensiveness of State and local regulation
for the future. In the meantime, EPA will continue to assess the benefits
achievable by its proposed regulations taking into account exposures of
the public down to Ldn 55 using the equivalent noise impact methodology
described in the background documents for each of the regulations.
EPA will give its greatest emphasis to the abatement of noise
sources which result in the most serious impact on the public and these
usually create significant exposures above Ldn 65.
A large number of commenters recommended that EPA increase its
effort to develop, utilize, and encourage other agencies as well to use
more uniform noise level descriptors. In this respect, EPA has urged
Federal agencies to adopt a uniform environmental noise descriptor
(Ldn/Leq). The Department of Defense has officially adopted the
descriptor and is presently integrating it into its programs. The
Federal Highway Administration has adopted Leq as an alternate descriptor
A14
-------
to L10. Disposition of the issue with HUD awaits completion of a
major study, although, in the interim, HUD will accept Ldn as a descriptor
for aircraft noise. A modification to Ldn has been proposed by EPA to
other agencies as an interim solution for measuring blast noise pending
further refinement.
A15
-------
------- |