OOOR77020
5689
Toward
a National
Strategy
for Noise
Control
^s)
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Noise Abatement and Control
Washington, D.C. 20460
-------
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
TOWARD A NATIONAL STRATEGY FOR NOISE CONTROL
April 1977
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Preface v
Summary vii
SECTION I - INTRODUCTION 1
Background Data 1
Purpose of Publishing this Document 2
Nature of This Document 3
SECTION II - NATURE AND SCOPE OF THE NOISE PROBLEM 5
Effects of Noise 5
The Pervasiveness of Noise Exposure 6
SECTION III - TOOLS AVAILABLE FOR THE CONTROL OF NOISE 9
Regulatory Measures to Control Noise 9
SECTION IV - GOALS FOR THE NATIONAL EFFORT 13
General and Specific Goals 13
SECTION V - RELATIVE EMPHASIS AMONG ALTERNATIVE APPROACHES .... 21
Interrelationship of Specific Program Components 21
National Source Regulations and State and Local Programs ... 22
Labeling 25
SECTION VI - NATIONAL PROGRAMS 27
Recommended National Programs 27
The Role of Technology Research and Development 29
Development of Cost and Economic Impact Data 33
National Source Regulations 33
State and Local Control Programs 38
Labeling and Consumer Decision Making 41
Community Awareness and Public Information 43
Aircraft/Airport Noise 43
Enforcement 46
Other Federal Programs 51
111
-------
PREFACE
This document is a revision of the October 1976 draft of Toward
a National Strategy for Noise Abatement and Control. The draft was
made available to the public for comment through a notice published
in the Federal Register on November 10, 1976. The comment period closed
on January 10, 1977. The Agency found that there was substantial
agreement demonstrated by the comments with the general direction of
the draft. For this reason fewer changes were necessary in this edition
than expected, based on the volume of responses. Nevertheless, many
comments were detailed, extensive, and challenging. EPA has endeavored
in this revision to review and give recognition to those comments which
could be answered or incorporated without considerable further study and
research. There were, of course, complicated questions which were not
feasible to resolve in a short period time. The more complex questions
are addressed in an Addendum to this document which is entitled, Policy
and Implementation Questions. These issues will be dealt with more
substantively in the future. It is the Agency's intention to use this
document as a stepping stone to the completion of a comprehensive noise
strategy. The Agency will continue to seek public participation and
involvement as the strategy is shaped.
-------
SUMMARY
This document has been developed to continue the dialogue on the
overall goals of the noise program, the role of government, the role of
consumers, and the role of industry in noise control, along with the
selection of specific abatement and enforcement activities for EPA. It
establishes a general framework for making decisions on the best strategy
that EPA can employ to combat noise pollution. The primary goal of the
Agency in the noise pollution area is to promote an environment for all
Americans, free from noise that jeopardizes their health or welfare. In
order to reach this legislatively mandated objective five specific
operational goals have been formulated. These are:
A. To take all practical steps to eliminate hearing loss resulting
from noise exposure;
B. To reduce environmental noise exposure to an Ldn value of no
more than 75 dB immediately;
C. To reduce noise exposure levels to Ldn 65 dB by vigorous
regulatory and planning actions;
D. To strive for an eventual reduction of noise levels to an
Ldn of 55 dB; and
E. To encourage and assist other Federal, State and local agencies
in the adoption and implementation of long range noise control
policies.
VII
-------
The complexity of the noise problem, combined with the large array
of complementary control authorities, make possible a considerable number
of alternative approaches to a national program. Numerous regulatory
measures are available to control noise, although many of them have
not yet been utilized to their full potential. The ultimate shape of
the national noise control effort will be greatly influenced by the
programatic emphasis among three specific components of the program:
(A) Federal noise emission regulations for new products; (B) State and
local controls; and (C) Federal regulations requiring labeling of
products. EPA's strategy for the implementation of the Noise Control
Act in the first few years after its passage was to attack the most
serious noise sources first and to meet the mandatory requirements for
which the Act established specific deadlines. Specifically, top priority
for the short term was placed on developing source standards for major
sources of noise in the surface transportation and construction areas;
producing the other documents with mandatory deadlines, such as the
Airport/Aircraft Report, and the criteria and environmental noise level
documents; and publishing the two interstate carrier regulations.
Technical assistance, Federal program coordination, and labeling were
given lower priority. EPA has now promulgated all standards and published
all reports for which there were specific deadlines. Consequently, it
has been possible for EPA to become more flexible and to broaden its
approach to national noise control.
On the basis of the directives of the Noise Control Act of 1972,
EPA's experience in the implementation of that Act, and the goals and
policy considerations discussed in this document, EPA has designed a
Vlll
-------
program intended to maximize the effectiveness of the authority given
to the agency, as well as to encourage other parties to use their
authority effectively.
This strategy recognizes the essentiality of State and local
programs, other Federal programs, and informed consumer choice through
labeling for the national noise control effort. Increased efforts
in these areas are therefore planned for FY 1977 and 1978. Starting
in FY 1977, EPA began to shift resources and attention to other areas
of the Noise Control Act which had not been emphasized previously. One
major area of emphasis will be expanded assistance to State and local
agencies, which is essential to provide more immediate relief from
noise, to provide control of "nuisance" and other non-federally regulated
sources of noise, and to assist in the enforcement of EPA standards.
Another area of increased activity is the coordination of Federal
noise control and research programs. Emphasis will also be placed on
the implementation of a labeling program. Labeling offers an alter-
native, or at least a desirable supplement, to Federal noise emission
limits. Product labeling will offer consumers an opportunity to deal
directly with noise pollution by enabling them to make informed choices.
Development of noise emission limits for appropriate sources will
continue in the construction area and the surface transportation area.
Additionally, EPA is examining other categories including household
products and consumer products for possible emission regulations or
labeling requirements.
IX
-------
SECTION I
INTRODUCTION
BACKGROUND DATA
During the last several years, the abatement and control of noise
has become a major area of activity in many sectors of American society
as indicated by the following:
A) During the late 1960's several agencies of the Federal Government
spearheaded an effort to increase the country's activities in
the area of noise control;
B) In 1972, the Congress passed the Noise Control Act directing the
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency to set national noise
source standards and otherwise promote "an environment for all
Americans, free from noise that jeopardizes their health or welfare;"
C) Loss of hearing caused by occupational exposure to noise has become
a major ground for workmen's compensation claims today. The
prevalence of such noise-induced hearing loss has resulted in
examination by the U.S. Occupational Safety and Health Administration
of more stringent noise standards for the workplace, and in
additional pressures on American industry to protect workers
from noise;
D) The number of State and local noise control programs have increased
from 288 in 1973 to 665 in 1976;
E) Noise control has become an increasingly important component
of other Federal agencies' programs (e.g., the building of noise
barriers has become a significant element of the Department of
Transportation's National Highway Program);.
F) In some cases, American industry is increasingly producing quieter
products and is advertising "quiet" as a positive feature of its
products;
-------
G) In October 1976, President Ford approved a Federal Aviation
Administration (FAA) proposal for retrofit or replacement of
existing jet aircraft which do not meet the 1969 standards.
All this activity stems from a growing awareness of the adverse
effects of noise on public health and welfare and from the realization
that no single organization or group can alone provide the necessary
relief. The abatement and control of noise is an extremely complex task
that will require the coordinated efforts of all segments of society,
and a national strategy must be designed and implemented to achieve this
goal.
PURPOSE OF PUBLISHING THIS DOCUMENT
This document represents the continuation of the effort to define a
unified national noise abatement and control strategy. It is hoped the
details of the strategy will be improved and that the activities of all
participating groups will begin to coalesce into a common effort.
The Environmental Protection Agency has only a portion of the
authority necessary to carry out the national noise abatement effort.
The Noise Control Act of 1972, however, directs EPA to serve as the
coordinator of all the Federal Government's noise abatement activities
and to give technical assistance to State and local agencies and to the
general public. Therefore, it seems appropriate for EPA to take the
lead in coordinating the preparation of a strategy and then to ask the
other organizations and individuals concerned with noise control to
assist in refining this strategy. This procedure is designed to develop
a national dialogue, leading to an agreed-upon unified national strategy
that will serve as a general guide for the major noise control activities
in this country.
2
-------
THE NATURE OF THIS DOCUMENT
In order to stimulate a national dialogue, EPA believes it is
desirable that this general strategy be concise and non-technical.
This document sets out in summary form the general principles by which
the national effort should be guided, the division of responsibilities,
and the areas of emphasis. It also identifies the major outstanding
policy and implementation questions. The purpose of the document is to
provide an overview rather than to supply the details of how the effort
should be carried out. As a follow-up, EPA is developing for publication,
a surface transportation strategy and will develop specific program
strategies in several other areas (such as construction, household,
and consumer products) in which more detailed activities will be discussed.
-------
SECTION II
NATURE AND SCOPE OF THE NOISE PROBLEM
EFFECTS OF NOISE
Noise, like other pollutants, is, to a very substantial degree a
waste product generated by the activities of a modern industrialized
society. It is defined in the EPA Report to the President and Congress
on Noise (1972) as "any sound ... that may produce an undesired phy-
siological or psychological effect in an individual ... or group."
Noise is an extremely pervasive pollutant. In one form or at one time,
noise adversely affects virtually the entire U.S. population.
Certain noise effects are well documented as follows:
A) Noise can cause damage to the inner ear, resulting in
permanent hearing loss that may range from mild to severe,
depending upon the level and duration of exposure;
B) Noise can interfere with spoken communication and
with the enjoyment of watching television, or listening to the
radio or phonograph;
C) Noise can disturb and prevent sleep;
D) Noise can disrupt learning and teaching activities as well as
other activities that require mental concentration or spoken
communication;
E) Noise can be a source of annoyance;
F) Even the detectability of man-made noise in pristine environments,
such as national forests, may be of significant annoyance to people.
-------
Other effects of noise are less well documented but may become
increasingly important as more information is gathered. They include
the non-auditory health effects (the "stress" diseases), the combined
effects of noise with other pollutants, and adverse social and economic
i-
effects.
Annoyance caused by noise is a particularly complex phenomenon,
governed by a composite of factors that vary from individual to
individual, and from time to time. Although hard to quantify or
predict, community annoyance caused by noise is very prevalent, and in
many instances, it has provided a powerful impetus to the noise abatement
movement. The Bureau of the Census' 1974 Annual Housing Survey found
that although Americans in approximately four out of every five households
felt that they lived in good or excellent neighborhoods, almost half
(49 percent) considered their neighborhoods too noisy. In this survey,
noise ranked first of all the undesirable conditions listed, surpassing
many other factors that are usually considered to be significant
in people's perception of the quality of their lives.
THE PERVASIVENESS OF NOISE EXPOSURE
Noise-induced hearing loss is a recognized problem in the highly
mechanized industries, the military, and other high noise-exposure
occupations. An estimated 14.7 million American workers are exposed
to an Leq(8)* of 75 decibels (dB) or greater, a level above which
there is a risk of hearing damage. An additional 13.5 million Americans
are estimated to be exposed to an Leq (8) of 75 (dB) or greater in
transportation or recreational vehicles.
* Leq, equivalent sound level, is the average energy level of sound
over a given period of time. The period of time is shown in parenthesis,
in this case, 8 hours.
6
-------
Much less is known about the levels of noise associated with non-
auditory health problems, but it is generally assumed (although not
proven) that significant adverse effects do not occur below the noise
level considered safe the the purposes of hearing conservation.
Noise levels above Ldn* 55 dB may interfere with normal activities
such as speech communication, sleep, relaxation, and privacy. An estimated
103 million Americans - virtually half the Nation's population - are
exposed to an Ldn of 55 dB or greater.
Noise levels will increase significantly unless effective and
coordinated Federal, State and local noise control programs are implemented.
For example:
A) Urban noise intensities will increase roughly in proportion to
growth in population density;
B) A three-to-four fold increase is projected in the number of
residents adjacent to freeways and major highways who will be
exposed to noise levels of Ldn 65 dB or greater, by the year
2000;
C) A 50 percent increase will occur in the number of person-hours
of exposure to construction noise by the year 2000;
D) Occupational hearing loss and other adverse effects can be
expected to increase as the number of exposed workers increases.
* Ldn, day-night sound level, is the energy-averaged equivalent level
(Leq) for 20 hours adjusted to include a 10 dB penalty for noise exposures
during night-time hours (10 p.m. to 6 a.m.).
-------
SECTION III
TOOLS AVAILABLE FOR THE CONTROL OF NOISE
REGULATORY MEASURES TO CONTROL NOISE
Numerous regulatory measures are available to control noise, although
many of them have not yet been utilized to their full potential. EPA
already has promulgated regulations for interstate motor and rail carriers
for new medium and heavy duty trucks, and portable air compressors. Pro-
posed regulations will be issued in the spring of 1977 for motorcycles,
buses, truck-mounted refrigeration units and solid waste compactors, and
wheel and crawler tractors used as loaders and dozers. Proposed regulations
for the labeling of hearing protectors will also be published in 1977.
The following are examples of regulatory controls:
A) Federal Government
1) Environmental Protection Agency
o Regulations on the operation of interstate motor
and rail carriers;
o Regulations on new products that are major sources of
noise, including such controls as anti-tampering,
warranty, and useful life provisions;
o Labeling of products that produce noise capable of
adversely affecting public health or welfare, or
products that are marketed for their noise attenuation
characteristics;
-------
o Providing technical assistance to State and Local
units of government desiring to develop and enforce
noise abatement and control programs;
o Public information dissemination to inform citizens
of the hazards of noise to public health and welfare;
and
o Certification of Low Noise Emission Products.
2) Department of Transportation
o Enforcement of EPA's interstate motor carrier and
rail carrier noise emission standards (FHWA/FRA);
o Procedures for abatement of highway noise and highway
construction noise (FHWA);
o Standards limiting in-cab truck and locomotive noise
levels (FHWA/FRA);
o Standards limiting shipboard crew noise levels (USCG);
o Policies for land retention around audible aids to
navigation (fog signals) (USCG);
o Standards for railroad employee sleeping quarters (FRA);
o Noise abatement features in; airport development and
improvement (FAA); regulations controlling aviation
noise; and grants to airports for noise planning; and
o Noise specifications and design standards for bus and
rail rapid transit systems (UMTA).
3) Department of Labor
o Standards for control of occupational noise (OSHA).
10
-------
4) Department of Interior
o Enforcement of noise standards in mines (MESA);
o Research, development and demonstration programs
in mining equipment noise control (Bureau of
Mines).
5) Housing and Urban Development
o Limitation of mortgage guarantees and assistance
to housing and other noise sensitive uses in areas
with high noise levels, such as near airports and
major highways;
o Noise requirements in comprehensive planning.
6) Other Federal Agencies
o Development of noise control methodologies and
requirements by Department of Defense, Department
of the Interior, Department of Health, Education and
Welfare, and the Department of Agriculture.
o Implement the purchase of low-noise emission products
up to 25% premium; and
o Develop methods for abatement of noise at Federal
facilities and from Federal equipment.
B) State and Local Agency Regulatory Measures
1) Permit programs (construction sites, manufacturing plants);
2) Controls on use and operation of noisy products;
3) Economic incentives (e.g., noise-related fees at airports,
for motor vehicles, etc.);
11
-------
4) Zoning;
5) Property line standards;
6) Curfews;
7) Labeling;
8) Enforcement of the above; and
9) Regulation of large stationary sources such as
power plants, cooling towers, etc.
C) Consumers
1) Purchase of low-noise products.
D) Industry
1) Reduction of occupational noise exposure;
2) Production of quieter products; and
3) Provision of noise information to purchasers of
products.
Each of the above regulatory and program tools is exercised to
varying degrees and with little coordination. If the tools were used
together in a unified program, their effectiveness would be greatly
enhanced.
12
-------
SECTION IV
GOALS FOR THE NATIONAL EFFORT
GENERAL AND SPECIFIC GOALS
The complexity of the noise problem combined with the vast
array of complementary control authorities listed in the previous
section, raises the prospect of a large number of alternative
approaches to a national program. In order to give some structure
to the strategy planning process, some tentative goals have been
established for the program. Our purpose is to design the program around
these goals and then to subject them to examination in this general
strategy and in the specific program strategies to decide whether or
not they remain reasonable. If further review and evaluation indicates
they are reasonable, then timetables for their achievement can be
established and the program monitored for progress toward achieving
them.
Congress has stated a general goal in the Noise Control Act which
we suggest for the entire noise control effort. Reference this general
goal in the Noise Control Act of 1972, Section 2, as follows:
"To promote an environment for all Americans free from
noise that jeopardizes their health or welfare."
In order to achieve this general goal, specific goals based on
our knowledge of what levels of noise jeopardize health and welfare
are needed. The following tentative specific goals are recommended:
A) Take all practical steps to eliminate hearing loss as a
significant consequence of noise exposure both in the work-
place and in the- general environment.
13
-------
B) Reduce environmental noise exposure of the population
to an Ldn value of no more than 75 dB immediately,
utilizing all available tools, except in those isolated
cases where this would impose severe hardship. This
will essentially eliminate risk of hearing loss due
to environmental noise, and reduce the extreme
annoyance and activity interference for the population
most severely affected.
C) Through vigorous regulatory and planning actions,
reduce environmental noise exposure levels to Ldn
65* dB or lower, and concurrently reduce noise
annoyance and related activity interference caused
by intrusive noises.
D) In planning future programs concerned with or affecting
environmental noise exposure, to the extent possible,
aim for environmental noise levels that do not exceed
an Ldn of 55 dB. This will ensure protection of the
public health and welfare from all adverse effects of
noise based on present knowledge.
E) Encourage and assist Federal, State and local agencies
in the adoption and implementation of a long-range noise
control policy designed to prevent significant degradation
of existing noise levels or exposure in designated
areas. Such a "non-degradation" policy could be
incorporated into land-use and development planning
* Technically, this should be expressed as Ldn=65, however, hereafter
in this document it will be shown as Ldn 65 for purpose of simplification.
14
-------
processes in an effort to reduce potential increases
of noise levels or exposure in areas where quiet is
at a premium, e.g., hospital zones, quiet residential
areas, and wilderness areas.
The choice of these specific goals involves many value judgments,
which should receive critical review. For instance, goal C specifically
focuses on Ldn 65 dB rather than 55 dB. Although activity interference
may occur as low as Ldn 55, the Agency believes the greatest emphasis
of the noise control program should be on levels of noise of Ldn 65 and
above until the problems of the higher levels are solved. Nevertheless,
regulatory action to reduce levels below Ldn 65 will be necessary in
some cases, and Ldn 55 should be the goal of future planning, especially
since noise control is often so much easier to achieve if it is built
in from the beginning.
EPA recognizes that it would take a long time to achieve a national
environmental noise level of Ldn 55. In fact, it may be impossible and
undesirable from the point of view of all our national needs to do so in
all situations.
It must be emphasized that these are goals and are not intended as
regulations, since EPA has no authority to regulate ambient noise levels.
In promulgating specific source regulations, EPA does a thorough study
of both the specific benefits to be achieved and the cost to society of
achieving these benefits. These same costs and benefits will be examined
in the development of specific program strategies in such areas as surface
transportation and construction.
15
-------
All the details of exactly how these goals can and should be achieved
and the associated cost to society for the efforts as a whole remain to
be developed. However, many of the details of the component programs
have been developed. For some types of problems other than noise, the
development of such a total strategy is relatively simple and can be done
quickly. However, in an area as complex as noise, where there are so
many unknowns and where very little in-depth planning has been done up
to now, strategy planning must be an evolving and flexible process.
The strategy questions that should be answered in the noise area
(and the alternatives available) occur on many different levels.
Figure 1 illustrates one way in which these alternatives can be
categorized. The more general choices are shown at the top of the
triangle; the more concrete and specific ones are shown at the bottom.
This strategy document concentrates on the first four levels of
choices shown in Figure 1. The specific program strategies to follow
will deal with the choices shown on Levels V and VI. While the formal
documentation of these specific program strategies is only now beginning
to be developed within EPA, initial descriptions of three such program
strategies—surface transportation, construction, and aviation,—can be
found in other documents already published by the Agency.*
*Surface Transportation: Identification of Major Sources, June 21, 197A,
and May 28, 1975; Preamble and Background Document for New Heavy and
Medium Truck Regulation, March 31, 1976.
Construction: Identification of Major Sources, June 21, 1974 ,
May 28, 1975 and February 3, 1977; Preamble and Background Document for
Portable Air Compressor Regulation.
Aviation: Report to Congress on Aircraft/Airport Noise, July 27, 1973;
Preambles ?.nd Brckground Documents for proposed regulations sent to
FAA under Section 7 of the Noise Control Act (December 6, 1974 through
October 1, 1976). April 5, 1976 Speech of the Administrator to Inter-
Noise '76.
16
-------
II.
SPECIFIC GOALS
Activity
Hearing Interference Other
III.
GENERAL APPROACH
''Source In-Use Consumer Other including
^Standards Control Decisions Public Information
IV.
PRINCIPAL PARTICIPANTS
Federal State Local Consumer
Govt. Govt. Govt. & Local
Organizations
Industry Other
V.
MAJOR SOURCES
Surface Construction Industrial Aviation Other
Transportation (Loaders, Sites
(Truck, Motorcycles Compressors)
etc.)
VI.
SPECIFIC APPROACHES
Inspection EPA New Product Labeling Permits Property Other
Programs Standards Line
Standards
Figure 1.
17
-------
In formulating a strategy for its own activities since the passage
of the Noise Control Act of 1972, EPA has sought to use its finite
noise control resources to achieve the maximum initial progress toward
its goals. Most of its activities resulted frojp program decisions that
flowed directly from the structure of the Noise Control Act and the
legislative discussions that preceded the passage of that Act.
Specifically, EPA has:
A) Published regulations for in-use control of interstate motor
carriers, to reduce further escalation of the noise from these
sources (goals B and C);
B) Formally recommended to OSHA, under Section 4 of the Noise
Control Act, that OSHA establish a stringent workplace
standard to reduce substantially, noise exposure that is damaging
workers' hearing (goal A);
Note: Although the new product regulatory provisions
of the Noise Control Act could be used to some extent
to eliminate hearing loss as a significant consequence
of noise in the workplace, the authority under the
Occupational Safety and Health Act seems the most
effective means for this purpose.
C) Began a process of establishing new product standards for
the most serious contributors of noise to the environment,
concentrating initially on those in surface transportation
and construction (goals A, B, and C).
18
-------
D) Recommended eleven regulatory proposals to the Federal Aviation
Administration (goals B, C, and D).
To achieve its initial goals, EPA had to concentrate its finite
noise control resources on these basic activities. As a consequence,
EPA gave less emphasis to other authorities in the Act, and to important
organizations in the Federal government and to State and local agencies
who can and should play an important role in the total national effort.
Now that these initial actions are completed or well under way, the
Agency has reviewed its program and is attempting, with the resources
available, to foster a more comprehensive and carefully integrated
national program.
19
-------
SECTION V
RELATIVE EMPHASIS AMONG ALTERNATIVE APPROACHES
INTERRELATIONSHIP OF SPECIFIC PROGRAM COMPONENTS
The ultimate shape of the national noise control effort will be
greatly influenced by the programatic emphasis among three specific
components of the program: (A) Federal noise emission regulations for
new products, (B) State and local controls, and (C) Federal regulations
requiring labeling of products. The relative emphasis given to each of
these components of a national effort is an important issue because, to
some extent, each component can substitute for the other two. In other
words, a national strategy could be fashioned that placed almost all
the emphasis on new product regulations and gave very little attention
to State, local and consumer actions. Alternatively, Federal new
product regulations could be given less emphasis, with State, local,
and consumer actions filling at least part of the void.
For instance, if one were concerned with urban traffic noise, one
could attempt to provide most of the needed control through new product
regulations limiting the noise produced by new vehicles (trucks, motor-
cycles, buses, etc.) coming off the assembly line. Or, this approach
could be supplemented and to some -extent replaced by State and local
controls limiting the noise emitted by these vehicles when they were
being operated. As another alternative, consumers could be given information
about the noise emitted by the specified model of vehicle which might result
in market-induced noise control, and would substitute to some degree for
the other two efforts.
21
-------
The effectiveness of each of these components varies according to
the product and the situation. For instance, the effectiveness of labeling
would be much greater in cases where the buyer is also the person most
adversely affected by the noise. In situations where the principal person
affected is a third party, there is less incentive for the purchase
of quieter products.
In many cases, it would not be beneficial to develop State and local
programs to handle the problems caused by a single product. Consequently,
general policy decisions should be made regarding the relative roles of
Federal new product regulations, State and local controls, and labeling,
in order to lay the groundwork for individual product-by-product decisions.
NATIONAL SOURCE REGULATIONS AND STATE AND LOCAL PROGRAMS
Since the passage of the 1972 Noise Control Act, EPA has focused its
noise control resources on the development, promulgation, and enforcement
of national source regulations, and has not emphasized assistance to
State and local programs and labeling.
This strategy was appropriate during the beginning years because national
source standards were (and still are) clearly needed, and because the Act
places primary emphasis on them. Such standards are capable of producing
significant noise reductions that, to a large degree, are not obtainable
by other means, such as State and local controls and labeling. It now
appears, however, to be time to initiate another phase in the national
effort. National source regulations, specifically new product standards,
must continue to be the major component of the Federal effort, and EPA
has studies under way that will lead to such regulations for a number of
additional products. (See Table I, Pages 36 and 37).
22
-------
However, it is clear that the abatement and control of noise is such
a complex process that new product regulations cannot provide for the
degree of abatement and control necessary to achieve the goals discussed
above. The growth in the quantity of a particular product in use, and
degradation once it leaves the factory, combine to make the Federal new
product regulations a necessary, but not totally sufficient, portion of
a national noise control program. The problem is compounded by the fact
that the EPA's new product standards will not actually produce a benefit
until a substantial number of the old noisy products are replaced by the
quieter new ones. For many products, this replacement cycle will take
eight to ten years and in some cases much longer.
Therefore, EPA has concluded that strong State and local noise
control programs are an essential element of the national noise control
effort, particularly in the following areas:
A) Enforcement of Federal new product regulations as an extension
of the Federal enforcement program: The effectiveness of any
new product standard after the product has left the factory is
dependent on the enforcement of the provisions of the Federal
regulations that cover the product - namely, the anti-tampering,
warranty, and useful life provisions. For example, it is
planned that the Federal standard for motorcycles will specify
noise level requirements and labels for replacement exhaust
systems. Without effective enforcement of these provisions,
23
-------
the full effect of the rest of the regulation may be vitiated.
EPA's enforcement of these provisions would be greatly assisted
by an active field enforcement effort on the part of State and
local governments.
B) Implementation of additional controls on the use and operation
of products for which EPA has promulgated new product regulations.
Given our knowledge of technology today, it is impossible to
set new standards for many products that would fully protect
public health and welfare. These standards must be complemented
by additional use and operational controls administrated by
State and local authorities. A multitude of control alternatives
is available to these authorities, many of them beyond the
normal reach of Federal authority. For instance, the effective
enforcement of local ordinances controlling the time and place
of off-road motorcycle operation would greatly enhance the
effectiveness of any Federal requirements for noise level
reductions at the time of manufacturing.
C) Achievement of immediate control of noise. National new
product regulations are designed to bring relief in the long
term. In-use and operational controls are essential to provide
some immediate relief. Except in the case of air, rail, and
motor interstate carriers, State and local agencies are the
only levels of government with the authority to enforce this
type of immediate control.
24
-------
LABELING
The use of labeling and associated consumer choice in the control of
noise are also critical components of the national control effort. It
is impractical and undesirable to establish Federal new product regulations
for all products which are deemed to be "noisy." When the principal
impact of a product is on the buyer or user rather than on third parties,
labeling may prove to be as effective a regulatory approach as the
promulgation of a new product standard. The consuming public is beginning
to request quieter products as they sense noise intrusion. If easily
understood noise comparison information could be provided to the consuming
public in the form of a simple label, consumers could choose quieter
products when quiet is important to them. Labeling of certain products,
including those with third-party effects, may also enable State and
local agencies to implement simpler control programs related to the
label. For instance, a community could prohibit the use of a product
emitting more than X dB in certain sensitive areas, and this prohibition
could be enforced without the use of a sound level meter by simple
examination of the label.
In the coming years, EPA plans to continue its emphasis on new
product regulations, and also to increase its work on assistance to
State and local noise control programs and, relying to a lesser extent,
on labeling.
In determining the appropriate mix of Federal, State, local, and
consumer tools to use in specific cases, EPA will consider:
A) The relative effectiveness of the various tools in meeting the
goals of the national program;
25
-------
B) The need for national uniformity where products cross
State lines and where differing standards applicable to
manufacturers would be unduly disruptive;
C) The Agency's general preference for the control of problems
at the State or local level rather than the Federal, where it
is feasible;
D) The Agency's general preference for the allocation of national
resources by the marketplace rather than through Federal
regulations, if the marketplace can be sufficiently effective;
and
E) The need to provide immediate relief from some of the more
serious noise problems while working on long-range solutions
to the rest of the problems.
26
-------
SECTION VI
NATIONAL PROGRAMS
RECOMMENDED NATIONAL PROGRAM
On the basis of the directives of the Noise Control Act of 1972,
EPA's experience in the implementation of that Act, and the goals and
policy considerations discussed above, EPA has designed a program
intended to maximize the effectiveness of the authority given to the
agency, as well as to encourage other parties to use their authority
effectively. This section of the document sets forth EPA's program in
summary fashion. The program represents the present thinking of the
Agency, but is subject to modification as the national strategy evolves
or as additional Federal legislation is enacted. This description of the
program is focused primarily on EPA activities. However, on the basis
of comments and contributions submitted during the review period for
this document, EPA has expanded this section somewhat to include more
comprehensive description of noise control activities of other organizations.
It is clear that the roles and contributions of other Federal agencies,
State and local agencies, manufacturers and consumers still needs
considerable delineation.
The national program is discussed below under the following categories:
A) Health and Welfare Investigations
B) The Role of Technology Research and Demonstration
C) Cost and Economic Impact Data
D) National Source Standards
E) State and Local Control Programs
27
-------
F) Labeling and Consumer Decision Making
G) Community Awareness and Public Information
H) Aircraft/Airport Noise
I) Enforcement
J) Other Federal Programs
A) Health and Welfare Investigations
The Noise Control Act places great emphasis on the protection of
public health and welfare as the primary purpose of Federal action to
control noise. One of the first actions under the Noise Control Act,
was two documents EPA developed and published on this subject. First,
the Criteria Document,* set forth a summary of all the information then
known about the effects of noise on public health and welfare. The other,
known as the "Levels Document,"** further refines noise effects criteria
and uses this information to derive levels protective of public health
and welfare with an adequate margin of safety. When combined with data
on technical feasibility and costs, this information forms the framework
for regulatory decision-making. EPA plans to revise and update the
Criteria and Levels documents to reflect the most recent information
concerning the effects of noise. Based on studies and investigations,
currently underway, it is expected that issuances on the following topics
will occur beginning in FY 1978: (A) The effects of noise on the cardio-
vascular system, sleep disturbance, speech disruption, intrusiveness, and
wildlife, (B) community annoyance related to levels of exposure; and (C)
new information on noise induced hearing loss.
* Public Health and Welfare Criteria, July 1973 (#550/9-73-002).
**Information on Levels of Environmental Noise Requisite to Protect
Public Health and Welfare With An Adequate Margin of Safety, March
1974 (#550/0-74-004).
28
-------
EPA is now assessing the most pressing health and welfare information
needs in the context of its present and projected regulatory actions. The
Agency has convened a Federal interagency research panel on health and
welfare effects to assess the research programs and priorities of other
Federal agencies and then to plan a coordinated research program to address
the most pressing needs. When these studies are completed in the Spring of
1977, EPA, in coordination with other agencies, will re-evaluate its role
on health and welfare effects research. In the past, EPA has depended on
other agencies and organizations to carry out the requisite research in
this area because of finite resources. Discussions have also been
held with members of the scientific community on this same subject.
B) The Role of Technology Research and Demonstration
It is generally accepted that the most cost-effective method of
reducing noise is to control it at the source. In other words, noise
reduction should be an intrinsic design criterion in the pre-development
phase of any new product. The apparent lack of technological means of
controlling noise from specific products is proving to be a constraint
in establishing national source standards that can provide the desired
level of protection of the public health and welfare. The noise
reduction benefits to be derived from technological developments are
directly related to the state-of-the-art of the available technology and
the speed in which it can be incorporated into production hardware.
The primary responsibility for developing this technology should
rest with the industry; however, investment by the Federal Government
in technology development, particularly in the demonstration stage, is
29
-------
needed in some cases to help bring new technology into the marketplace,
or to stimulate industry development. In the area of noise technology,
the Federal Government's efforts have been focused primarily on aviation
and secondarily on surface transportation. EPA has recently reconvened
three interagency noise technology research panels (surface transportation,
aviation, and machinery) to review the status of Federal research in
noise abatement and control, assess priorities, and develop a cooperative
research plan for the future. The Federal Agencies represented on these
panels include National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA),
Department of Defense (DOD), Department of Transportation (DOT) (including
the functional administrations within DOT, i.e., Federal Aviation
Administration (FAA), Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), and Urban
Mass Transit Authority (UMTA)), Department of Interior (DOI) (Bureau of
Mines), Department of Commerce (DOC) (National Bureau of Standards),
Department of Health, Education and Welfare (DHEW) (National Institute
of Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH), Department of Housing and
Urban Development (HUD), and the Energy Research and Development
Administration (ERDA).
Even if new technology is developed there is no assurance that it
will be incorporated into new products. The most effective way to ensure
that it will be is through regulatory action. One cannot expect a
manufacturer, operating in a competitive environment, to do more than
that which is minimally required to maintain or increase his market
position. Only when all of the competitors are required to meet comparable
30
-------
standards, can significant environmental progress be made in an equitable
fashion. The guidance provided to the manufacturers in the form of
regulations reflecting the implementation of "enabling" technology will
provide the manufacturers with the necessary leadtime to adjust their
design and production process to meet market and environmental require-
ments.
There are at least two approaches for regulating the noise of
new products:
1) Putting a lid on the allowable noise limits of all
new products, based upon available, demonstrated
technology as it is applied to some products in
production and operational use, in some industries.
The same technology may be equally applicable to other
products in other industries. This, in effect, prevents
an escalation of single-event noise in the environment,
as additional products enter the market place.
2) The establishment of noise targets for products
or equipment to be produced in the future. These
targets would be based upon demonstrations of
components or systems that are not yet in production.
As the technology development programs proceed, the
targets may be modified to be more, or less, strin-
gent as indicated by the "enabling" technology.
31
-------
EPA has adopted both of these approaches in its program.
The objectives of the technology program are to:
1) Illuminate the state-of-the-art of available technology to
provide the basis for Federal, State and local regulatory
actions that limit the allowable noise of products identified
as requiring noise control actions.
2) Ensure the availability of an advanced technology base to
permit the gradual reduction of allowable source noise on
a timely basis.
These short and long range objectives will be implemented by:
1) Establishing and implementing an effective Federal coordination
program to identify on-going noise research, development and
demonstration programs and to assess their contribution to
meeting the National Noise Control Strategy objectives. In
addition to the Federally sponsored noise research activities,
privately funded industry and university noise research will
be included in a comprehensive assessment.
2) Identifying noise research needs that are currently under-
funded or nonexistent in order to expand the required technology base
for future regulatory action. This will include participation
in joint research component or system technology demonstration
programs as required, both domestically and internationally.
One joint project already underway is the EPA/DOT demonstration
program concerned with noise reduction of heavy duty trucks.
3) Encouraging the transfer and use of technology developments
across product and industry lines.
32
-------
C) Development of Cost and Economic Impact Data
The Noise Control Act requires the Administrator to take the cost
of compliance into account when promulgating standards. Data are
collected for each new product regulation on the cost of meeting various
alternative noise control levels and on the impact of these costs on the
affected industry and in the marketplace. The results of these studies
are published in the background document issued with each regulation.
In order to assist in the analysis of these impacts, EPA is developing
improved forecasting techniques, and accounting and finance models.
Assigning dollar values to benefits achieved by noise reduction is
an extremely complex procedure, which EPA has not attempted in its
presentation of noise regulations. Some economic measures which have
been suggested as proxies for noise benefits are land value changes,
settlement values of legal suits on noise, and workman's compensation
benefits. However, each of these dollar figures has an extremely wide
range. Rather than assigning dollar values, EPA has stated its noise
benefits in health and welfare terms.
D) National Source Regulations
Except, in the area of aviation, the Noise Control Act of 1972
leaves to the judgment of the Administrator the identification of the
limits on product noise emissions that are necessary to protect the
public health and welfare, taking into account the extent and conditions
of use of the particular product (alone or in combination with other
noise sources), the degree of noise reduction achievable through the
application of the best available technology, and the cost of compliance.
Potentially, several thousand classes of products come within the
Administrator's authority to prescribe regulations for new products.
33
-------
The essential data required for setting national source standards
for noise control are limited. The setting of a national noise source
standard requires the collection and analysis of data (most of it
never developed or accumulated before) on such factors as; the contri-
bution of the particular product to noise exposure resulting in adverse
health and welfare effects; the technology available to control that
product; the cost of applying that technology to control the noise;
the impact of the regulation on the economy (including effects on
employment and inflation); and the alternative ways of controlling the
noise from the product.
By reviewing groups of products in terms of the health and welfare
goals of the national program, EPA selected nev medium and heavy trucks
(in the surface transportation category) and portable air compressors
(in the construction equipment category) as initial new products to be
regulated. The intent of these regulatory actions was to set limits on
the noisiest items of transportation and construction equipment at the
earliest possible date.*
In a multiple source noise environment, such as that associated
with construction sites, it is necessary to quiet many major sources to
achieve a significant reduction of site noise level. To this end,
present regulation development activities are directed toward such
products as wheel and crawler tractors, to supplement the regulations
already published for portable air compressors and trucks (including
dump trucks, cement mixers and other construction related trucks).
* The specific basis for these and later choices of products to
regulate under EPA's new product standards authority are given in
Identification of Major Sources, June 21, 1974, May 28, 1975,
January 12, 1977, and February 3, 1977.
34
-------
Similarly, in the surface transportation category, regulation
development activities are currently underway for buses, motorcycles,
truck mounted solid waste compactors, and truck mounted refrigeration
units. Concurrent with the above regulation development actions, EPA is
conducting in-depth studies of the contributions that automobiles, light
trucks, and guided mass transit systems make to the total noise environment.
Vehicular replacement components, which are critical for pre-
vention of increased noise emissions, are also possible subjects of
regulation. Two principal replacement components currently under study
are tires and muffler/exhaust systems.
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 international commerce
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 will 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.
Table I shows EPA's present plans in the new product standards area.
35
-------
cn
C
o
•H
4-1
cd
rH
3
M 00
01
cu pi
i— i
43 4-1
cd o
H 3
•a
o
S-i
PH
3
0)
a) 4-1 -K
cn o cn
o 2 r-~
(3. cn
O 13 rH
>H CU
PH 43 >,
CO rH
- -H S-l
13 rH Cd
01 43 W
4-1 3
Cd PH C
•H Cd
4-1 CU 43
•H 43 EH
C
M 13 (-1
rH CU
" 3 4-J
M-I O Cd
cu
43 C
•H 00
O r^
4-J 13 cn
0) rH
rH 43
cd cn oo
cn -H c
O tH -H
O, 43 S-i
o 3 a
S-l PH C/J
PH
0)
43 C *
•H r
O r°~-
4-1 -a cn
0) rH
rH 43
cd cn oo
cn -H c
O rH -H
CX 43 S-l
O 3 P.
P PH C/J
PH
13
Ol
4-1
0)
tH
a
B
0
C_)
X £>H 13 O 13
Pi S-i M S-4
O o eg tH cd
EH 4-1 13 -H T3
<£ O C cd G
i-J S cd pi 03
tD 4-1 4J
O 01 cn cu cn
W 4-1 4-1
pi cd cu m 01
4-1 cn jj cn
J CD 3 cn 3
cd
0)
53
13
G
cd
e
3
•rl
13
0)
2
•K
X
^^
PH
W
2
•^*
cn
o
3
M
H
£*%
[>
cd
cu
M
13
G
6
p
•H
rrj
a)
2
X X
~*^
4-J
G
0)
B
a)
CJ
rH
a.
CU s~^
S-l 00
C
00 -H
C rH
•H CU
13 43
3 cd
tH tH
CJ
C B
•rl CU
^-* 4-1
CD
CO >:
oi cn
rH
CJ 4-1
>, cn
cj 3
s-i cd cn
0 43 0)
4-1 x cn
0 D 3
2 M
X
cn
SH
O
4-J
CJ
cd
a
B
o
o
(U
4-1
cn
cd
3
13
•rH
rH
0
13
CU
4J
C
3
0
2
1
CJ
3
S-i
H
X
cn
4-1
•H
C
G
O
•H
4J
cd
CU
00
•H
S_i
l[ [
cu
Pi
13
OJ
4J
G
3
O
S
1
AS
U
3
S_i
H
0)
43
X X
X XX
cn
13 rH
C rH
cd -H
SH
cn o
cn SH
SH o cn A!
0) 4-1 SJ CJ
13 CJ Ol O
cd 0) N pi
0 4J 0
,-J 0 Q 13
SH C
S-i PH cn S-4 cd
cu c OJ cn
rH OO O rH cn S-l
3 C -H 3 SH CU
cd -H cn cd 0) 3
S-i SJ -H SH A! O
o a) > u cd B
01 O 0) G
13 P3 SH 13 SH 3
G | PL, C PQ cd
cd i cd j
00 rH 4-1
13 C cd 13 C 13
3
43 cd O 43 cfl O
g J 3 PH PH
4-J Ol
MH O
o B
C SH
O O
•H
4-1 S-4
cd cd
cj 01
•H >,
tH
43 cd
3
ft cn
01 3
43 CJ
4-1 U
o
01 >,
4-1 tH
MH rH
cd cd
3
13 cn
Ol 3
4-J
cd 01
00 O
rH G
3 cd
B -H
O t-H
SH a
D- B
0
cu o
43
0 SH
4-1 4J
cn
C 3
O 13
•H G
4-1 -H
cd
rH SH
3 0
00 MH
CU
SH 01
4-1
rH Cd
cd 13
C
•H CU
MH >
•H
0) 4-1
43 CJ
4-1 CU
MH
SH MH
O CU
MH
i — 1
cn cd
43 3
4-1 4-1
G O
o cd
6
cu
CU 43
> H
rH
OJ
3 •
01
p>^ 4-1
rH cn
OJ *H
4-1 00
cd 01
B Pi
•H
X i — i
O cd
SH SH
O, cu
0. 13
cd cu
FH
cn
CU 0)
4*i 43
Cd 4-1
4-1
C
^ *H
rH
tH tH
cd cd
3 cn
cn o
3 a
0
4-1 SH
(H CX
•X
r~^
r^
13 rH
SH
cd -
13 r^
cd
4-1 >,
cn cd
S
rH
Cd SH
C Q)
•H 4-1
MH cn
•H
01 00
43 0)
4J pi
MH rH
O cd
(H
G (U
0 13
•H 01
4-1 fr (
cd
00 CU
rH 43
3 4-1
B
0 C
S-l -H
a
13
0) OJ
43 43
4-1 cn
•H
SH tH
CU 43
4-1 3
MH P-,
cd -K
•K
36
-------
, — s
*
T3
4-1
C
0
O
(H
0)
rH
43
cd
H
rH
CO 4-1 *
en O o\
0 S3 r^
O T3 rH
SH 01
PH 42 >,
en rH
- -H VJ
-d rH CO
CU 43 W
4-1 3
cfl P-i C
•H CO
4-1
PH
cu
43 C *
*H p-*"
O ("**•
4-1 T3 ON
0) rH
rH -C
CO CO 00
Cfl -H C
O rH -H
CX 43 S-i
O 3 G
M P-4 C/2
p t
13
cu
4J
01
tH
ex
E
o
CJ
f 4-1 CU
XXXXXXX X
o
OH en C
fa H ^ 01
H CJ E
P W 3 a
W en Vj -H Oi
Pi 1 H 3 W
W p W a- H
H §j S3 42 C 2 Z
cn p H oo 4-1 cu<|O
SS Z S3 -H -H E O H
O <1 Pn (-J co cx e/>
OH 00 Ccfl-HPiH
cnpi CH"O COM3 OS-*
O -i>j HO
Pi P*i f*^ 3 3 «rH n 3 «r-| CO S^H PT1
PnHpL, g,
rH
43 CO
3
CX CO
CU 3
42 CJ
4-1 CJ
o
}-l
cu >-,
4-1 rH
CO cfl
3
T3 CO
CU 3
cfl 0)
OO CJ
•H C
3 CO
E -H
O rH
s-i a
ex E
o
cu a
Xf
p>-^
O >J
4-1 4J
CD
C 3
o -a
•H C
4-1 -H
CO
t — I S-i
3 0
00 UH
CU
S-i CU
4-1
rH CO
CO T3
C
•H CU
"4-4 £>
•H
Q) 4-1
42 0
4-1 Q)
M-H
1-4 M-t
O 0)
M-H
rH
03 CO T3
42 3 S-i
4-1 4-1 Cfl
C 0 T3
0 cfl C
E cd
0) 4-1
a) 42 en
> H
r I i
CU cfl
S • !2
4-1 )-l T-l
CU U-l
rH Cfl CU
a) -H 42
4-1 OC 4-J
Cfl QJ
E Pi 14-1
•H 0
r^ rH
O Cfl CH
t-l S-I O
CX CU -H
CXT3 4J
cfl CU cfl
fa 00
CO tH
01 CU 3
^ 42 E
Cfl 4-1 0
4-1 SH
c cx
r^ "H
rH CU
rH H 42"
ft) Cfl 4J
3 CO
TO O S-i
3 CL 0)
0 4-1
H a, ca
•K
37
-------
E) State and Local Control Programs
There has been an increase in State and local programs for noise
control over the past several years, although in many communities recent
budget crises have restricted the growth of programs and in some cases
have led to their termination.
These State and local programs are highly varied in their scope
and level of activity, but a large number are focused on the abatement
of noise from surface transportation, the enforcement of laws prohibiting
the intrusion of noise above certain levels across property lines, and
the resolution of general nuisance problems.
Unlike similar Federal environmental legislation, the Noise Control
Act places no specific requirements upon State and local governments.
Except as limited by certain Federal preemption provisions of the Act,
full discretion is left to these governments as to whether to become
involved in noise control, and as to what degree. Moreover, assistance
from the Federal Government is limited to technical assistance; there are
no grants to help fund local programs.
The actual delivery of person-to-person technical assistance by
the Federal Government is a manpower-intensive activity. Because of
limited personnel resources in the noise program, EPA has concentrated its
efforts on producing general guidance documents such as model laws
and ordinances, and on conducting technical workshops for State and
local officials. These approaches have been reasonably effective in
documenting and communicating the combined knowledge of the relatively
few individuals and groups around the country who deal with
38
-------
the noise problem on the local level. However, with the increase in the
number of communities initiating noise programs, and with the need to
solve problems of actual implementation and enforcement, it is necessary
to find new ways to assist communities.
Consequently, EPA has designed a new approach to the delivery of
noise control technical assistance to State and local communities. This
approach will be implemented in a phased manner over the next several years
as resources allow. The new effort is composed of two related programs:
the Quiet Communities Program (QCP) and the ECHO (Each Community Helps
Others) Program. The Quiet Communities Program plans to select a limited
number of test communities around the country and establish an intensive
and close working relationship between EPA's Regional Offices and those
communities in the development of either a comprehensive noise control
program or a program in one of several different alternative functional
areas, such as construction site noise, motor vehicle noise, boundary
line standards, or railroad noise. These test projects would be carefully
evaluated and documented with regard to both success and failure in order
to serve as guides for the future efforts of other communities.
Under the ECHO program, EPA will assist these communities, as
well as other communities, with well-developed and successful noise
control programs, to provide direct, person-to-person technical assistance
to other communities with similar problems. ECHO utilizes the willingness
of some communities to proceed with the establishment of strong noise
control programs without Federal grant assistance and capitalizes on
the strong affinity that exists among local levels of government.
39
-------
The two programs recognize the need to make the maximum use of
personnel experienced in noise control, no matter where they are located,
in order to improve the magnitude and quality of the noise control effort
at the State and local level. They also recognize that the Federal
Government does not have, and may never have, enough personnel resources
to provide extensive person-to-person technical assistance in the noise
control area.
In preparation for this new approach, EPA will produce during FY 1977
a series of technical assistance and public education materials to serve as
the basis for the Quiet Communities and ECHO Programs.
To complement this effort, EPA is also developing methodologies and
guides that will assess environmental noise levels and trends more accurately,
State and local governments will then be in a better position to evaluate
their noise problems and determine the effectiveness of programs designed
to solve these problems. A limited Federal effort to collect assessment
data on a national basis will also be carried out.
40
-------
F) Labeling and Consumer Decision Making
The Noise Control Act directs EPA to label products falling into
two categories:
1) Products that are capable of adversely affecting public
and welfare; and
2) Products sold wholly or in part on the basis of their
effectiveness in reducing noise.
The intent of the Agency's product noise labeling program under
Section 8 of the Noise Control Act, is to provide accurate, uniform, and
readily understandable information concerning the noise generating
and noise reducing qualities of specific products to potential purchasers
and end users in a manner minimizing Federal involvement. The program
will be initiated in as simplified a form as possible and, along with
its effects, be continually evaluated as to the need for revisions to
the various elements of the regulatory approach being taken.
The program will utilize a regulatory structure consisting of both
general and product specific provisions. The Agency has recently completed
the development of the general provisions, which contain basic labeling
requirements, such as minimum label information content, format, graphical
design, and guidelines concerning the acoustic descriptors and rating
schemes to be utilized. These proposed provisions will be made available
to the public for their comment in the Spring of 1977.
Product specific labeling provisions will be promulgated as additional
subparts of the general labeling regulation, and will contain requirements
concerning label size and location, rating scheme specifications, test
methodologies and enforcement procedures.
41
-------
The first product specific regulation will be for hearing
protective devices and will be proposed concurrently with the general
provisions in the spring of 1977. The selection and prioritization
of products for future labeling action is dependent upon the results
of studies currently underway. EPA has recently awarded contracts
for technical support for the assessment of various products and classes
of products to identify principal candidates on the basis of their
acoustical properties, typical use environments, usage cycles, health or
welfare impacts, and their eligibility for regulatory action under
Section 6 of the Act. Also included in these studies are (A) audience
analysis, through surveys of public preference for and the effectiveness
of various approaches to labeling format, content, and graphical design,
(B) analysis of the potential economic impact of proposed labeling
requirements for a representative range of products and industries
likely to be regulated under Section 8, and (C) the analysis of the
appropriateness of various acoustic descriptors and rating schemes for
the same representative range of product and industries.
The products being considered for noise labeling action are:
household appliances (of particular interest are blenders, vacuum
cleaners, air conditioners, and dishwashers), home shop tools, powered
lawn care equipment, and acoustical tiles and building materials.
Studies are also being initiated for tires and mufflers, and it is
planned that the Federal standard for motorcycles will include a re-
quirement for muffler/exhaust system labeling. In addition, studies are
completed and a decision will be made shortly as to the possible
labeling of snowmobiles.
-------
G) Community Awareness and Public Information
Clearly, labels on products will only be as effective as the public's
understanding of the information communicated. It is therefore essential
to a successful labeling program that the public be made aware of the
inherent detrimental effects of noise on their health and welfare.
For this reason product labeling should be preceeded by an effective
educational effort to inform the public of the intent and meaning of
"noise labels."
The Agency is now in the process of planning such a program.
H) Aircraft/Airport Noise
The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) has the authority and
responsibility to control aircraft noise by the regulation of source
emissions, by flight operational procedures, and by management of the
air traffic control system and navigable airspace in ways that minimize
noise impact on residential areas, consistent with the highest standards
of safety. The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) also provides
financial and technical assistance to airport proprietors for noise
reduction planning and abatement activities, and, working with the
private sector, conducts continuing research into noise abatement
technology.
Under the Noise Control Act, EPA has a special role in the area of
aircraft/airport noise. EPA is required to propose to the FAA these
regulations which EPA believes to be requisite to protect the public
43
-------
health and welfare from aviation noise. The FAA must then respond
either by concurring or by explaining its disagreement with the proposal.
EPA has sent eleven such proposals to the FAA.
FAA has prescribed EPA proposals on:
1) Reduced flap setting noise abatement approach for
turbojets;
2) Civil subsonic turbojet engine-powered airplanes noise
retrofit requirements (except for business jets).
FAA has chosen not to promulgate the following EPA proposals:
1) Propeller driven small airplanes (except for several
minor provisions);
2) Minimum altitudes for turbojets;
3) Fleet noise levels requirements;
4) Visual two-segment approach; and
5) Two segment 1LS approach.
FAA has not responded (beyond holding public hearings) to the EPA
proposed regulations on supersonic transports, modifications to FAR Part 36,
and airport planning.
The FAA's retrofit-replacement proposal accepted by President Ford
in November was issued by the Federal Aviation Administration December 23
(41 FR 56046). This rule applies to about 1,600 noisy subsonic aircraft
that do not now meet 1969 FAR Part 36 noise standards.
Under the timetable contained in the rule, airplanes must comply
with FAR Part 36 according to the following schedule:
44
-------
1) By January 1, 1981: At least one quarter of an air carrier's
707's and DC-8's and at least one half of a carrier's 727's,
737's, DC-9's, and early 747's;
2) By January 1, 1983: At least one half of the carrier's 707's •
and DC-8's and all other airplanes; and
3) By January 1, 1985: All airplanes.
Under the new authority granted in the 1976 Amendments to the Airport
and Airway Development Act, the FAA plans to establish a high priority for
the allocation of discretionary Airport and Airway Trust Funds for airport
land acquisition to ensure compatible use of land near airports, the purchase
of noise suppressant equipment, the construction of physical barriers and
other noise reduction activities.
Much of the solution to the problem of aircraft/airport noise is
institutional rather than technological. A substantial portion of the
problem can be solved if the parties involved—aircraft manufacturers,
air carriers, pilots, airports, local communities and various agencies
of the Federal Government would work cooperatively.*
The proposals which EPA has submitted to the FAA are designed to
abate aviation noise on a nationwide basis. However, many of the abate-
ment solutions are to be applied on an airport-by-airport basis because
site-specific solutions are necessary once the Federal Government has
acted on a national basis.
* EPA's assessment of the nature, causes, and remedies of the aviation
noise problem was summarized in an April 5, 1976, speech by Administrator
Russell Train on Aviation Noise which is available upon request.
45
-------
EPA has developed a systematic noise abatement planning process
that can be applied at individual airports. The process reduces complex
technical data into a format that is understandable and usable in its
* end form by persons in the community who are not technically trained in
aviation noise abatement. The process therefore makes possible the much
needed dialogue between the airport operator, the citizens living
immediately around the airport, those who use the airport (both airlines
and local industries), local governments, and land use planners. EPA
is now working with airport proprietors at a number of airports to
demonstrate the implementation of this planning methodology. This
effort should result in several airport noise abatement plans which
will demonstrate significant relief from local aviation noise problems
and the utility of the planning process for airport noise problems.
I) Enforcement
Enforcement is a necessary part of any national program to abate
and control noise. Because noise control may increase the cost of
regulated products, though often by only a small amount, those who
choose not to comply with the standard may gain a competitive economic
advantage over those who comply in good faith. In addition, even a few
noisy non-complying products can undermine the control effort in a
local community, since individual intrusive noise events, even if small
in number, can be a significant source of community annoyance.
As with the other components of the national noise control program,
an effective enforcement effort requires the integration of Federal,
State, and local activities. The success of the noise control program
-------
requires in the first instance some level of visible and effective
Federal enforcement at the new product stage. With an established
level of enforcement at the Federal level directed at the manufacturers
as a starting point, the States will be encouraged to establish their
own enforcement programs to assure that owners of the regulated products
operate and maintain them so as to preserve the noise control
characteristics of the products. State and local agencies may assist EPA in
enforcing the Federal requirements for warranty, maintenance instructions,
labeling and anti-tampering. Without an effective Federal program directed
at the product manufacturers, the likelihood and potential effectiveness of
substantial State participation in enforcement of the in-use program would
be diminished.
EPA has developed an enforcement plan for the first two national
source standards: medium and heavy duty trucks and portable air compressors.
The enforcement plan for future products must be individually tailored
to the special circumstances of the particular industry; nevertheless, the
truck and portable air compressor enforcement plan will serve as a
prototype for future new product enforcement activities. The plan consists
of the following three primary elements: product verification, selective
enforcement auditing, and in-use controls. Product verification (PV) is
the testing by a manufacturer (or by EPA at the option of EPA) of early
production models to verify the manufacturer's ability to comply with
the regulation prior to substantial distribution of the products into
commerce. Manufacturers are required to submit the PV test results to
EPA prior to distribution of the products in commerce.
47
-------
Selective enforcement auditing (SEA) is the testing by a manu-
facturer or by EPA, pursuant to an administrative request, of a statistical
sample of products from a particular category or configuration to determine
whether those products conform to the noise standards, and to provide
the basis for further enforcement actions, such as recall and cease-to-
distribute orders, in the case of nonconformity.
The essential feature of this enforcement strategy is that it
requires no action by EPA (e.g., no issuance of a certificate or permit)
before a manufacturer may proceed to market his product,s if his products
conform to the noise emission standards. The plan requires a manufacturer
to do a minimal amount of testing and provides mechanisms by which EPA
can monitor or remedy non-compliance with standards. The strategy
seeks to maximize deterrence to the production of non-complying
products while minimizing Federal involvement. Moreover, the level
of EPA enforcement resource commitment can change in response to
perceived levels of compliance/non-compliance without restructuring
or reissuing regulations.
A very important feature of the Federal enforcement program is the
EPA Noise Enforcement Facility (which is located outside of Sandusky, Ohio).
The ability of EPA to perform tests using the regulatory measurement
methodology is an indispensable part of the enforcement strategy. Without
that ability, the Agency is left in the position of depending on the efforts
of others to interpret the performance standard. It is not essential for
the Agency to conduct all emission testing. However, some Federal testing by
the Noise Enforcement Facility will permit EPA to monitor and reassess
48
-------
baseline technology and enforcement measurement methodology. The product
manufacturer should be required to perform the bulk of the compliance testing.
However, testing upon which the ultimate determination of compliance will be
based must be conducted by the Agency.
EPA's authority to control products in use includes the respon-
sibility to promulgate regulations regarding manufacturers' warranties,
anti-tampering provisions, maintenance instructions, and labeling
requirements. The Act requires that the manufacturer of each new
product regulated by EPA shall warrant to the consumer that, at the time
of sale, the product conforms to the noise regulations. The Act also
prohibits the removal of any noise-attenuating device from a new
product and the use of a new product after such removal or tampering.
The EPA truck and portable air compressor regulations require that
the manufacturer affix a label to each product, indicating, among
other things, that the product conforms to the EPA noise emission
regulations. These regulations also require that the manufacturer
provide with each new product a set of instructions for proper main-
tenance, use, and repair in order to minimize the degradation of the
noise emission reduction features of the product. In addition, EPA
plans to promulgate and enforce regulations, which will require labels
for some products. Moreover, EPA will encourage States and localities
to assist the field enforcement of these in-use regulations.
Under the Noise Control Act, States and localities may promulgate
source regulations for any product not regulated by EPA. This will be
unnecessary in most cases since the State and local governments will have
authority to deal effectively with localized problems through use controls.
For new products that EPA has regulated the State and local governments may
49
-------
adopt and enforce regulations identical to EPA's regulations. Existing
State and local new product regulations that are different from the
Federal standards are automatically preempted on the effective date of
the Federal regulations.
In addition, EPA has promulgated noise emission standards for inter-
state motor carriers and railroads. The U.S. Department of Transportation
has the primary responsibility to enforce these two sets of standards.
The Bureau of Motor Carrier Safety is currently enforcing the motor carrier
compliance regulations, which became effective on October 15, 1975. The
Federal Railroad Administration will promulgate compliance regulations to
enforce EPA's railroad noise regulations, which became effective
December 31, 1976. EPA and DOT will continue to cooperate in monitoring
the level of compliance and the effectiveness of the total program.
Moreover, State and local governments may adopt and enforce inter-
state railroad and motor carrier noise emission standards if they are
identical to the Federal standards. In addition, upon application by
a State or local jurisdiction, the Administrator of EPA may grant a
waiver of this Federal preemption and permit additional State and
local controls on noise from these two sources if the Administrator
determines that such controls are necessitated by special local conditions
and are judged to be not in conflict with applicable Federal regulations.
In addition, as discussed above, State and local jurisdictions have
extensive authority to establish and enforce controls on environmental
noise through the licensing, regulation, or restriction of the use,
operation or movement of noise sources.
50
-------
J) Other Federal Programs
The noise-related roles and activities of agencies within the
Federal Government are varied and complex. For example, regulatory
and grant authorities include those that have specific mandates
to control noise, as well as those whose mandates fall under more
general environmental quality control legislation. In both cases,
programs administered under such authorities should, to the extent
feasible, protect the public from noise levels that affect their
health and welfare. In addition, these programs should be mutually
supportive and consistent with the national goals for the abatement
and control of noise.
The Federal Government owns and operates a significant number
of mobile and stationary noise sources that impact communities.
Each agency, therefore, has the authority and responsibility to control
noise emissions of the sources it owns, both through product noise
procurement specifications and in the use restrictions it imposes
on mode or period of operation. In addition, as an employer of a
large segment of the American work force, the Federal Government is
directly responsible for protecting its workers from hazardous
occupational noise environments.
51
-------
During the next year, EPA hopes to increase the dialogue among
Federal agency officials concerning the relationship of their programs
to national noise abatement goals and to discuss ways in which their
programs and those of EPA can be integrated into a more effective and
comprehensive national effort. The following issues are among those
that need to be addressed:
A) Air and Surface Transportation Noise. What might be done to
noise control policies used in the administration of Federally
funded programs and those established for regulating individual
vehicular sources to insure that they are consistent and mutually
reinforcing?
B) Land Use Control. Are all Federal activities influencing land
use appropriately designed to discourage noise sensitive development
in noise-impacted areas around airports and other major noise
generators and are local governments provided with sufficient
incentives and guidance to ensure land use compatibly with noise?
C) Construction Noise. Can the agencies conducting or supporting
construction activities incorporate noise control techniques as
a complement to the regulations established on specific items of
equipment?
D) Occupational Noise. Are all appropriate Federal authorities
administered in a way that adequately protects the Federal and
non-Federal workers from hazardous occupational noise levels?
52
-------
E) Household Noise. Are Federal activities directed at
influencing building construction and operations for
the purpose of energy conservation also providing for
maximum noise abatement as well?
EPA is required under the Noise Control Act to coordinate the
activities of the Federal Government so that a consistent and effective
noise control effort is mounted by the Federal establishment. EPA plans
to increase its efforts in this regard in the coming year and to seek a
common effort on a cooperative basis.
Emphasis will be placed on:
A) Coordination of Federal research, as previously discussed.
B) Obtaining consistency in the noise assessment methodologies
employed by various Federal agencies.
C) The use of joint Federal agency special studies and
demonstration noise control programs that exemplify how
various Federal authorities can be effectively combined
to bring about reductions in specific noise environments.
D) Discussions with individual Federal agencies to seek
improvements in their policies and programs.
E) Workshops and the publication of manuals that will help
guide the noise abatement activities of the Federal Government.
-.US GOVMNMEN1 PRINTING OFFICE lS77-?20-117/l'-)y9
53
-------
------- |