THE UNITED STVTKS ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Statutes and Legislative History
Executive Orders
Regulations
Guidelines and Reports
5
01
-------
-------
THE UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Statutes and Legislative History
Executive Orders
Regulations
Guidelines and Reports
JJ
\
V
JANUARY 1973
WILLIAM D. RUCKELSHAUS
Administrator
-------
For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office
Washington, B.C. 20402. Price: $2.95, domestic postpaid, or $2.50, GPO Bookstore
Stock No. 5500-0065
-------
FOREWORD
It has been said that America is like a gigantic boiler in that
once the fire is lighted, there are no limits to the power it can
generate. Environmentally, the fire has been lit!
With a mandate from the President and an aroused public con-
cern over the environment, we are experiencing a new American
Revolution, a revolution in our way of life. The era which began
with the industrial revolution is over and things will never be
quite the same again. We are moving slowly, perhaps even grudg-
ingly at times, but inexorably into an age when social, spiritual
and aesthetic values will be prized more than production and con-
sumption. We have reached a point where we must balance civili-
zation and nature through our technology.
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, formed by Reor-
ganization Plan No. 3 of 1970, was a major commitment to this
new ethic. It exists and acts in the public's name to ensure that
due regard is given to the environmental consequences of actions
by public and private institutions.
In a large measure, this is a regulatory role, one that encom-
passes basic, applied, and effects research; setting and enforcing
standards; monitoring; and making delicate risk-benefit decisions
aimed at creating the kind of world the public desires.
The Agency was not created to harass industry or to act as a
shield behind which man could wreak havoc on nature. The great-
est disservice the Environmental Protection Agency could do to
American industry is to be a poor regulator. The environment
would suffer, public trust would diminish, and instead of free enter-
prise, environmental anarchy would result.
It was once sufficient that the regulatory process produce wise
and well-founded courses of action. The public, largely indifferent
to regulatory activities, accepted agency actions as being for the
"public convenience and necessity." Credibility gaps and cynicism
make it essential not only that today's decisions be wise and well-
founded but that the public know this to be true. Certitude, not
faith, is de rigueur.
In order to participate intelligently in regulatory proceedings,
iii
-------
iv FOREWORD
the citizen should have access to the information available to the
agency. EPA's policy is to make the fullest possible disclosure of
information, without unjustifiable expense or delay, to any inter-
ested party. With this in mind, the EPA Compilation of Legal
Authority was produced not only for internal operations of EPA,
but as a service to the public, as we strive together to lead the
way, through the law, to preserving the earth as a place both
habitable by and hospitable to man.
WILLIAM D. RUCKELSHAUS
Administrator
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
-------
PREFACE
Reorganization Plan No. 3 of 1970 transferred 15 governmental
units with their functions and legal authority to create the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency. Since only the major laws
were cited in the Plan, the Administrator, William D. Ruckels-
haus, requested that a compilation of EPA legal authority be
researched and published.
The publication has the primary function of providing a work-
ing document for the Agency itself. Secondarily, it will serve as a
research tool for the public.
A permanent office in the Office of Legislation has been estab-
lished to keep the publication updated by supplements.
It is the hope of EPA that this set will assist in the awesome
task of developing a better environment.
MARY LANE REED WARD GENTRY, J.D.
Assistant Director for Field Operations
Office of Legislation
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
-------
ACKNOWLEDGMENT
The idea of producing a compilation of the legal authority of
EPA was conceived and commissioned by William D. Ruckelshaus,
Administrator of EPA. The production of this compilation in-
volved the cooperation and effort of numerous sources, both within
and outside the Agency. The departmental libraries at Justice
and Interior were used extensively; therefore we express our
appreciation to Marvin P. Hogan, Librarian, Department of Jus-
tice; Arley E. Long, Land & Natural Resources Division Librar-
ian, Department of Justice; Frederic E. Murray, Assistant Direc-
tor, Library Services, Department of the Interior.
For exceptional assistance and cooperation, my gratitude to:
Gary Baise, formerly Assistant to the Administrator, currently
Director, Office of Legislation, who first began with me on this
project; A. James Barnes, Assistant to the Administrator; K.
Kirke Harper, Jr., Special Assistant for Executive Communica-
tions; John Dezzutti, Administrative Assistant, Office of Execu-
tive Communications; Roland O. Sorensen, Chief, Printing Man-
agement Branch, and Jacqueline Gouge and Thomas Green, Print-
ing Management Staff; Ruth Simpkins, Janis Collier, Wm. Lee
Rawls, Peter J. McKenna, James G. Chandler, Jeffrey D. Light,
Randy Mott, Thomas H. Rawls, and John D. Whittaker, a beauti-
ful staff who gave unlimited effort; and to many others behind the
scenes who rendered varied assistance.
MARY LANE REED WARD GENTRY, J.D.
Assistant Director for Field Operations
Office of Legislation
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
vi
-------
INSTRUCTIONS
The goal of this text is to create a useful compilation of the
legal authority under which the U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency operates. These documents are for the general use of
personnel of the EPA in assisting them in attaining the purposes
set out by the President in creating the Agency. This work is not
intended and should not be used for legal citations or any use
other than as reference of a general nature. The author disclaims
all responsibility for liabilities growing out of the use of these
materials contrary to their intended purpose. Moreover, it should
be noted that portions of the Congressional Record from the 92nd
Congress were extracted from the "unofficial" daily version and
are subject to subsequent modification.
EPA Legal Compilation consists of the Statutes with their
legislative history, Executive Orders, Regulations, Guidelines and
Reports. To facilitate the usefulness of this composite, the Legal
Compilation is divided into the eight following chapters :
A. General E. Pesticides
B. Air F. Radiation
C. Water G. Noise
D. Solid Waste H. International
NOISE
The chapter labeled "Noise" and color coded turquoise contains
the legal authority of the Agency as it applies to noise pollution
abatement. It is well to note that any law which is applicable to
more than one chapter of the compilation will appear in each of
the chapters; however, its legislative history will be cross refer-
enced into the "General" chapter where it is printed in full.
SUBCHAPTERS
Statutes and Legislative History
For convenience, the Statutes are listed throughout the Com-
pilation by a one-point system, i.e., 1.1, 1.2, 1.3, etc., and Legis-
lative History begins whenever a letter follows the one-point
vii
-------
viii INSTRUCTIONS
system. Thusly, any l.la, l.lb, 1.2a, etc., denotes the public laws
comprising the 1.1, 1.2 statute. Each public law is followed by its
legislative history. The legislative history in each case consists of
the House Report, Senate Report, Conference Report (where
applicable), the Congressional Record beginning with the time the
bill was reported from committee.
Example: 1.1 The Noise Pollution and Abatement Act of
1970, 42 U.S.C. §1858 et seq. (1970).
l.la Noise Pollution and Abatement Act of
1970, December 30, 1970, P.L. 91-604,
Title IV, 84 Stat. 1709.
(1) House Committee on Interstate
and Foreign Commerce, H.R.
REP. No. 91-1146, 91st Cong., 2d
Sess. (1970).
(2) Senate Committee on Public
Works, S. REP. No. 91-1196, 91st
Cong., 2d Sess. (1970).
(3) Committee of Conference, H.R.
REP. No. 91-1783, 91st Cong., 2d
Sess. (1970).
(4) Congressional Record, Vol. 116
(1970):
(a) June 10: Passed House, p.
19244;*
(b) Sept. 22: Considered and
passed Senate, amended, p.
16258;
(c) Dec. 18: Senate agreed to
conference report, p. 20600;
(d) Dec. 18: House agreed to
conference report, p. 12062.
You will note that the Congressional Record cited pages are only
those pages dealing with the discussion and/or action taken per-
tinent to the section of law applicable to EPA. In the event there
is no discussion of the pertinent section, only action or passage,
then the asterisk (*) is used to so indicate, and no text is re-
printed in the Compilation. In regard to the situation where only
one section of a public law is applicable, then only the parts of
the report dealing with same are printed in the Compilation.
Secondary Statutes
Many statutes make reference to other laws and rather than
-------
INSTRUCTIONS ix
have this manual serve only for major statutes, these secondary
statutes have been included where practical. These secondary
statutes are indicated in the table of contents to each chapter by
a bracketed cite to the particular section of the major act which
made the reference.
Citations
The United States Code, being the official citation, is used
throughout the Statute section of the Compilation.
TABLE OF STATUTORY SOURCE
Statutes Source
1.1 The Noise Pollution and Abate- Reorg. Plan No. 3 of 1970 through
ment Act of 1970, 42 U.S.C. §1858 the Clean Air Act, directly cited in
et seq. (1970). the Plan.
1.2 Airport and Airway Development Direct reference made to noise pollu-
Act of 1970, 49 U.S.C. §§1712 (f), tion at section cited.
1716(c)(4), (e) (1970).
1.3 Federal Air Highway Act, as Direct reference to noise pollution at
amended, 23 U.S.C. §109(h),(i) section cited in Act.
(1970).
Executive Orders
The Executive Orders are listed by a two-point system (2.1,
2.2, etc.). Executive Orders found in General are ones applying
to more than one area of the pollution chapters.
Regulations
The Regulations are noted by a three-point system (3.1, 3.2,
etc.). Included in the Regulations are those not only promulgated
by the Environmental Protection Agency, but those under which
the Agency has direct contact.
Guidelines and Reports
This subchapter is noted by a four-point system (4.1, 4.2, etc.).
In this subchapter is found the statutorily required reports of
EPA, published guidelines of EPA, selected reports other than
EPA's and interdepartmental agreements of note.
UPDATING
Periodically, a supplement will be sent to the interagency dis-
tribution and made available through the U.S. Government Print-
ing Office in order to provide an accurate working set of EPA
Legal Compilation.
-------
-------
CONTENTS
G. NOISE
Page
1. STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 1
1.1 The Noise Pollution and Abatement Act of 1970, 42 U.S.C.
§1858 et seq. (1970). 3
l.la Noise Pollution and Abatement Act of 1970, Decem-
ber 30, 1970, P.L. 91-604, Title IV, 84 Stat. 1709.— 4
(1) House Committee on Interstate and Foreign
Commerce, H.R. REP. No. 91-1146, 91st Cong.,
2d Sess. (1970). 6
(2) Senate Committee on Public Works, S. REP.
No. 91-1196, 91st Cong., 2d Sess. (1970) 7
(3) Committee on Conference, H.R. REP. No.
91-1783, 91st Cong., 2d Sess. (1970). 10
(4) Congressional Record, Vol. 116 (1970) :
(a) June 10: Passed House, p. 19244;* ___ 11
(b) Sept. 22: Considered and passed Sen-
ate, amended, p. 33118; 11
(c) Dec. 18: Senate agreed to conference
report, p. 42384; 11
(d) Dec. 18: House agreed to conference
report, p. 42523. 11
1.2 Airport and Airway Development Act of 1970, 49 U.S.C.
§§1712(f), 1716(c)(4),(e) (1970). 12
(See, "General 1.7a—1.7a(4) (d)" for legislative history)
1.3 Federal Aid Highway Act, as amended, 23 U.S.C. §109 (h)
§109(h),(i) 1970). 15
2. EXECUTIVE ORDERS [reserved] . . . . . 19
3. REGULATIONS [reserved] _ 23
4. GUIDELINES AND REPORTS . 27
4.1 The Report to the President and Congress on Noise, as
required by 42 U.S.C. §1858(b), U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, December 31, 1971 (NRC 500.1) 29
xi
-------
-------
Statutes
and
Legislative
History
-------
-------
1.1 THE NOISE POLLUTION AND ABATEMENT ACT OF 1970
42 U.S.C. §1858 et seq. (1970)
42 § 1858. Office of Noise Abatement and Control; investigation
and study of noise and its effects on the public health and welfare;
report and recommendations by December 31, 1971
(a) The Administrator shall establish within the Environ-
mental Protection Agency an Office of Noise Abatement and Con-
trol, and shall carry out through such Office a full and complete
investigation and study of noise and its effect on the public health
and welfare in order to (1) identify and classify causes and
sources of noise, and (2) determine—
(A) effects at various levels;
(B) projected growth of noise levels in urban areas
through the year 2000;
(C) the psychological and physiological effect on humans;
(D) effects of sporadic extreme noise (such as jet noise
near airports) as compared with constant noise;
(E) effect on wildlife and property (including values) ;
(F) effect of sonic booms on property (including values);
and
(G) such other matters as may be of interest in the public
welfare.
(b) In conducting such investigation, the Administration shall
hold public hearings, conduct research, experiments, demonstra-
tions, and studies. The Administrator shall report the results of
such investigation and study, together with his recommendations
for legislation or other action, to the President and the Congress
no later than one year after December 31, 1970.
(c) In any case where any Federal department or agency is
carrying out or sponsoring any activity resulting in noise which
the Administrator determines amounts to a public nuisance or is
otherwise objectionable, such department or agency shall consult
with the Administrator to determine possible means of abating
such noise.
July 14, 1955, c. 360, Title IV, § 402, as added Dec. 31, 1970,
Pub.L. 91-604, § 14, 84 Stat. 1709.
3
-------
4 LEGAL COMPILATION—NOISE
§ 1858a. Authorization of appropriations
There is authorized to be appropriated such amount, not to
exceed $30,000,000, as may be necessary for the purposes of this
subchapter.
July 14, 1955, c. 360, Title IV, § 403, as added Dec. 31, 1970,
Pub.L. 91-604, § 14, 84 Stat. 1710.
l.la NOISE POLLUTION AND ABATEMENT ACT OF 1970
December 30, 1970, P.L. 91-604, Title IV, Stat. 1709
"TITLE IV—NOISE POLLUTION
"SEC. 401. This title may be cited as the 'Noise Pollution and
Abatement Act of 1970'.
"SEC. 402. (a) The Administrator shall establish within the
Environmental Protection Agency an Office of Noise Abatement
[p. 1709]
and Control, and shall carry out through such Office a full and
complete investigation and study of noise and its effect on the
public health and welfare in order to (1) identify and classify
causes and sources of noise, and (2) determine—
"(A) effects at various levels;
" (B) projected growth of noise levels in urban areas through
the year 2000;
"(C) the psychological and physiological effect on humans;
"(D) effects of sporadic extreme noise (such as jet noise near
airports) as compared with constant noise;
"(E) effect on wildlife and property (including values) ;
"(F) effect of sonic booms on property (including values) ;
and
"(G) such other matters as may be of interest in the public
welfare.
" (b) In conducting such investigation, the Administrator shall
hold public hearings, conduct research, experiments, demonstra-
tions, and studies. The Administrator shall report the results of
such investigation and study, together with his recommendations
for legislation or other action, to the President and the Congress
not later than one year after the date of enactment of this title.
" (c) In any case where any Federal department or agency is
carrying out or sponsoring any activity resulting in noise which
the Administrator determines amounts to a public nuisance or is
otherwise objectionable, such department or agency shall consult
with the Administrator to determine possible means of abating
suc'i noise.
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 5
"SEC. 403. There is authorized to be appropriated such amount,
not to exceed $30,000,000, as may be necessary for the purpose of
this title."
TECHNICAL AND CONFORMING AMENDMENTS
SEC. 15. (a) (1) Section 302 of the Clean Air Act is amended by
striking out subsection (g) and inserting in lieu thereof the fol-
lowing :
"(g) The term 'air pollutant' means an air pollution agent or
combination of such agents.
" (h) All language referring to effects on welfare includes, but
is not limited to, effects on soils, water, crops, vegetation, man-
made materials, animals, wildlife, weather, visibility, and climate,
damage to and deterioration of property, and hazards to transpor-
tation, as well as effects on economic values and on personal com-
fort and well-being."
(2) Section 103 (c) of the Clean Air Act is amended by striking
out "air pollution agents (or combinations of agents)" and insert-
ing in lieu thereof "air pollutants".
(b) (1) Subject to such requirements as the Civil Service Com-
mission may prescribe, any commissioned officer of the Public
Health Service (other than an officer who retires under section
211 of the Public Health Service Act after his election but prior
to his transfer pursuant to this paragraph and paragraph (2)
who, upon the day before the effective date of Reorganization
Plan Numbered 3 of 1970 (hereinafter in this subsection referred
to as the "plan"), is serving as such officer (A) primarily in the
performance of functions transferred by such plan to the Environ-
mental Protection Agency or its Administrator (hereinafter in
this subsection referred to as the "Agency" and the "Adminis-
trator", respectively), may, if such officer so elects, acquire com-
petitive status and be transferred to a competitive position in the
Agency; or (B) primarily in the performance of functions deter-
mined by the Secretary of Health, Education, and Welfare (here-
inafter in this subsection referred to as the "Secretary") to be
materially related to the functions so transferred, may, if auth-
orized by agreement between the Secretary and the Administra-
tor, and if such officer so elects, acquire such status and be so
transferred.
[p. 1710]
-------
LEGAL COMPILATION—NOISE
l.la(l) HOUSE COMMITTEE ON INTERSTATE AND
FOREIGN COMMERCE
H.R. REP. No. 91-1146, 91st Cong., 2d Sess. (1970)
CLEAN AIR ACT AMENDMENTS OF 1970
JUNE 3, 1970.—Committed to the Committee of the Whole House on the State
of the Union and ordered to be printed
Mr. STAGGERS, from the Committee on Interstate and Foreign
Commerce, submitted the following
REPORT
[To accompany H.R. 17255]
The Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce, to whom
was referred the bill (H.R. 17255) to amend the Clean Air Act to
provide for a more effective program to improve the quality of the
Nation's air, having considered the same, report favorably thereon
with an amendment and recommend that the bill as amended do
pass.
The amendment is as follows:
The amendment strikes out all after the enacting clause and
inserts in lieu thereof a substitute which appears in the reported
bill in italic type.
PURPOSE OF LEGISLATION
The purpose of the legislation reported unanimously by your
committee is to speed up, expand, and intensify the war against
air pollution in the United States with a view to assuring that the
air we breathe throughout the Nation is wholesome once again.
The Air Quality Act of 1967 (Public Law 90-148) and its prede-
cessor acts have been instrumental in starting us off in this
direction. A review of achievements to date, however, make
abundantly clear that the strategies which we have pursued in the
war against air pollution have been inadequate in several impor-
tant respects, and the methods employed in implementing those
strategies often have been slow and less effective than they might
have been.
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 7
SUMMARY OF PROVISIONS AND COMPARISON WITH EXISTING LAW
(1) National ambient air quality standards
The Secretary of HEW will be authorized and directed to estab-
lish nationwide ambient air quality standards. The States will be
left free to establish stricter standards for all or part of their
geographic areas.
[P-l]
l.la(2) SENATE COMMITTEE ON PUBLIC WORKS
S. REP. No. 91-1196, 91st Cong., 2d Sess. (1970)
NATIONAL AIR QUALITY STANDARDS ACT OF 1970
SEPTEMBER 17, 1970.—Ordered to be printed
Mr. BYRD of West Virginia for Mr. MUSKIE, from the Committee
on Public Works, submitted the following
REPORT
together with
INDIVIDUAL VIEWS
[To accompany S. 4358]
The Committee on Public Works, to which the bill (S. 4358),
to amend the Clean Air Act as amended, was referred having con-
sidered the same, reports favorably thereon without amendment.
An original bill (S. 4358) is reported in lieu of S. 3229, S. 3466,
and S. 3546 which were considered by the Committee.
GENERAL STATEMENT
The committee bill would restructure the methods available to
attack a critical and growing national problem of air pollution.
The legislation reported by the committee is the result of deep
concern for protection of the health of the American people. Air
pollution is not only an aesthetic nuisance. The Committee's con-
cern with direct adverse effects upon public health has increased
since the publication of air quality criteria documents for five
major pollutants (oxides of sulfur, particulates, carbon monoxide,
-------
8
LEGAL COMPILATION—NOISE
hydrocarbons and oxidants). These documents indicate that the
air pollution problem is more severe, more pervasive, and grow-
ing at a more rapid rate than was generally believed.
The new information that carbon monoxide concentrations at
levels damaging to public health occur in Chicago more than 22
percent of the time, and that other cities have similar problems
with carbon monoxide and other pollutants, intensified the com-
mittee's concern to authorize a massive attack on air pollution.
This bill is designed to provide the basis for such an attack.
[P. i]
ESTIMATE OF RESOURCES NEEDED TO IMPLEMENT PROPOSED AMENDMENTS' TO CLEAN AIR
ACT AS CONTAINED IN SENATE BILL
(Dollars in thousands)
Position Amount
Air quality monitoring
Production car testing-. - - -
Fuels/fuel additives regulation
Control program assistance:
(1) Technical assistance
(2) Control program grants _ - . .
(3) State vehicle inspection grants..
Mobile source standards
Used vehicles. .
Instrumentation
Fuels conversion
Vehicle R/D .
Subtotal1..
Forward planning estimate, implement
current legislation - - - -
Subtotal cost to implement new
legislation
Effects research, sec. 107
Grand total
85
30
107
20
254
26
2
7
12
4
1
3
15
570
1,141
1,711
30
1,741
$3,700
1,070
2,210
980
6,100
12,900
2,500
655
1,275
1,200
500
750
500
34,340
112,018
146,358
3,000
$149,350
Position Amount
205
80
130
30
402
12
29
11
16
20
2
3
35
975
1,450
2,425
110
2,535
$3,750
3,330
3,300
1,100
11,170
6,300
32,500
660
1,800
5,800
1,000
750
1,200
72,660
160,500
233,160
5,000
$238,160
Position Amount
205
100
130
30
410
16
50
12
19
20
10
3
50
1,055
1,755
2,810
120
2,930
$3,750
3,900
3,300
1,100
11,415
8,000
75,000
240
1,800
5,800
10,000
1,000
1,700
127,005
186,100
313,105
7,000
$320,105
1 Excludes sec. 107 effects research.
The Committee bill includes a provision amending section 301 of
existing law to provide the Secretary with authority to procure
personal services through contract without reference to the Civil
Service laws and the Classification Act of 1949. This provision
alone would not, without full funding of the authorizations con-
tained in section 317, provide for adequate manpower. However, it
would remove one serious obstacle.
In 1967 it was indicated that to fully implement the 1967 Act
the National Air Pollution Control Administration would need
1,900 employees in fiscal year 1970. Actual employment at the
beginning of fiscal year 1970 was 1,024, or 876 less than the
stated need. By mid-fiscal year 1970 the National Air Pollution
Control Administration's employment had fallen to 971, or 929
below the stated need.
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 9
In fiscal year 1968 NAPCA's employment was 1,070; in fiscal
year 1969 employment was 1,065 (a decrease of 5), at the begin-
ning of fiscal year 1970 the employment was 1,024 (a decrease of
46 from the 1968 level), and by mid-1970 employment had
dropped to 971 employees (a decrease of 99 from the 1968 level).
The availability of manpower, with adequate funding, can pro-
vide effective implementation of this act. The committee expects
that past trends will be reversed and that required manpower will
be made available to implement the program.
TITLE IV—NOISE POLLUTION
The growing public awareness over the quality of the environ-
ment has spotlighted another form of pollution. Noise may prove
to be the most difficult of all pollutants to control. Evidence re-
garding the effects of noise has been accumulating at a rapid
pace, and Federal action has become appropriate. No citizen
[P. 2]
doubts the unpleasantness, stress, and strain produced upon expo-
sure to noise. However, it is increasingly clear that noise pollution
goes well beyond mere unpleasantness, stress, strain and other
psychic effects, and in fact causes serious physiological effects on
the human body ranging from deafness and changes in blood
pressure to alteration of fetuses.
Noise is a pervasive pollutant and is omnipresent in our tech-
nological society in urban areas. Even in rural environments our
citizens are not free from the adverse effects of noise resulting
from overflying aircraft, nearby superhighways, and other types
of equipment and machinery. With few exceptions, machines have
not been designed or developed with any view to reducing noise
emissions. There have been minimal efforts to reduce intense
levels of occupational noise.
Although there have been sporadic efforts to control the noise
problem, it is now clear that the Congress must consider noise as
a general pollution problem and initiate efforts to develop a
regulatory framework which will achieve effective control of this
form of pollution.
The Committee is aware that the Executive Branch has been
pursuing interagency studies to determine the most effective ad-
ministrative organization to deal with noise. These studies have
generally concluded that noise should be regulated by the agency
responsible for public health and welfare and environmental con-
trol. The Committee bill would propose to establish under the
Secretary of Health, Education, and Welfare an Office of Noise
Pollution Control and Abatement which would have the authority
-------
10 LEGAL COMPILATION—NOISE
and responsibility to make a thorough and comprehensive study
of noise, including its causes and effects, and to make recommen-
dations to the Congress for appropriate legislation.
It is the intent of the Committee that in the event Reorganiza-
tion Plan Number Three should become law, the Office of Noise
Pollution Control and Abatement be transferred to the Environ-
mental Protection Agency.
[p. 3]
l.la(3) COMMITTEE OF CONFERENCE
H.R. REP. No. 91-1783, 91st Cong., 2d Sess. (1970)
CLEAN AIR AMENDMENTS OF 1970
DECEMBER 17, 1970.—Ordered to be printed
Mr. STAGGERS, from the committee of conference,
submitted the following
CONFERENCE REPORT
[To accompany H.R. 17255]
The committee of conference on the disagreeing votes of the two
Houses on the amendment of the Senate to the bill (H.R. 17255) to
amend the Clean Air Act to provide for a more effective program
to improve the quality of the Nation's air, having met, after full
and free conference, have agreed to recommend and do recom-
mend to their respective Houses as follows:
That the House recede from its disagreement to the amendment
of the Senate and agree to the same with an amendment as
follows:
In lieu of the matter proposed to be inserted by the Senate
amendment insert the following: That this Act may be cited as the
"Clean Air Amendments of 1970".
*******
[p. 1]
SECTION 401. NOISE POLLUTION
The Senate bill added a new Title IV to the Act, which directed
the Secretary of Health, Education, and Welfare to establish an
Office of Noise Abatement and Control for the purpose of investi-
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
11
gating and identifying the sources of noises and effects on public
health and welfare, and to report to the President and Congress
within one year of enactment the results of the investigation and
study. The Senate amendment also provided a specific authoriza-
tion of $30 million to carry out Title IV. The House bill made no
provision respecting noise.
The conference substitute follows the provisions of the Senate
amendment.
[p. 57]
l.la(4) CONGRESSIONAL RECORD, VOL. 116 (1970)
l.la(4) (a) June 10: Passed House, p. 19244
[No Relevant Discussion of Pertinent Section]
Sept. 22: Considered and passed Senate, amended,
p. 33118
MR. McINTYRE.
* * * * *
Fourteenth, Establishing an Office
of Noise Abatement and Control with-
in the Department of Health, Educa-
tion, and Welfare.
I repeat, this is a strong bill. It
attacks in forceful manner such prob-
lems as ambient air standards and in-
terjurisdictional problems. The result
is worthy of full support and strong,
timely enforcement. It is my hope that
Americans will familiarize themselves
with the terms and far-reaching phi-
losophy of this legislation. The task
now is to transform the language into
reality and into air that we can all
share in good health and common
gratitude.
[p. 33118]
l.la(4)(c) Dec. 18: Senate agreed to conference report, p. 42384
Noise pollution: The bill establishes
an Office of Noise Abatement and Con-
trol in the Environmental Protection
Agency and authorizes $30 million to
carry out functions.
[p. 42384]
l.la(4)(d) Dec. 18: House agreed to conference report, p. 42523
MR. RYAN.
I do want to discuss in some length
title IV of the bill, because this deals
with an aspect of our environment
which only recently has begun to re-
ceive widespread attention—that is,
noise pollution. Title IV of the bill is
entitled "Noise Pollution and Abate-
ment Act of 1970." It directs the Ad-
ministrator of the Environmental Pro-
tection Agency to establish an Office of
j Noise Abatement and Control for the
purpose of investigating and identify-
ing the sources of noise and its effects
on public health and welfare, and to
report to the President and Congress
within 1 year of enactment the results
-------
12
LEGAL COMPILATION—NOISE
of the investigation and study. Thirty
million dollars is authorized to carry
out title IV.
I am particularly concerned about
this title because, in the House, I have
introduced the Noise Control Act of
1970—H.R. 15473. Subsequent to my
initial introduction of it on January
20, 1970, 22 of my colleagues joined
me when I reintroduced this bill as
H.R. 16520 and H.R. 16708.
My bill would have established an
Office of Noise Control within the Of-
fice of the Surgeon General of the
United States. A chief function of the
office would be to act as a clearing
house for all information on noise—
its causes and effects, its prevention,
its control, and its abatement. On re-
quest, the office would make this ma-
terial available to States, local gov-
ernments, and private groups inter-
ested in the problem of noise and its
abatement.
In addition, the bill would provide
for grants to States, local govern-
ments, commissions, and councils for
programs of noise control research
into the effects of noise, the investiga-
tion of existing causes of excessive
noise in our society, and research into
new ways of controlling, preventing,
and abating noise.
The bill also would provide the re-
search grants to public or nonprofit
private agencies, organizations, and
institutions. Grants would also be pro-
vided for training of professional and
technical personnel in methods to ef-
fect proper control, prevention, and
abatement of noise.
The Noise Control Act of 1970
would also provide for a Noise Control
Advisory Council, which would advise
the Director of the Office of Noise
Control of his responsibilities, and
would review all proposed project
grants. This Council would be made
up of nine individuals interested in
the problems of noise and its control,
who are skilled in the fields of medi-
cine, psychology, government, law or
law enforcement, social work, public
health, or education.
Since I introduced the Noise Con-
trol Act of 1970, Reorganization Plan
No. 3 of 1970, creating the Environ-
mental Protection Agency, went into
effect. Therefore, it is appropriate
that the Office of Noise Abatement
and Control created by title IV of the
Clean Air Act amendments be placed
in that agency. I do recommend that
grants for research, for professional
and technical training, and for demon-
stration projects be made as outlined
in my original bill.
The problem of noise pollution de-
mands attention. It is an increasing
factor in even the simple amenities of
urban living; the intrusiveness of
noise pervades virtually every urban
home. But inconvenience aside, noise
pollution poses a peril to human
health. Consequently, the inclusion of
title IV in the Clean Air Act amend-
ments, as reported out of the confer-
ence committee, is particularly wel-
come, [p. 42523]
1.2 AIRPORT AND AIRWAY DEVELOPMENT ACT OF 1970
49 U.S.C. §§I712(f), I716(c)(4),(e) (1970)
(See "General 1.7a—1.7a(4)(d)" for legislative history)
Sec. 1712. National airport systems plan—Formulation
Consultation concerning environmental changes
(f) In carrying out this section, the Secretary shall consult
with and consider the views and recommendations of the Secre-
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 13
tary of the Interior, the Secretary of Health, Education, and
Welfare, the Secretary of Agriculture, and the National Council
on Environmental Quality. The recommendations of the Secretary
of the Interior, the Secretary of Health, Education, and Welfare,
the Secretary of Agriculture, and the National Council on Envi-
ronmental Quality, with regard to the preservation of environ-
mental quality, shall, to the extent that the Secretary of Transpor-
tation determines to be feasible, be incorporated in the national
airport system plan.
*******
Pub.L. 91-258, Title I, § 13, May 21, 1970, 84 Stat. 224.
Sec. 1716. Project applications for airport development—
Submission
*******
Approval
(c) (1) All airport development projects shall be subject to the
approval of the Secretary, which approval may be given only if he
is satisfied that—
(A) the project is reasonably consistent with plans (exist-
ing at the time of approval of the project) of planning agen-
cies for the development of the area in which the airport is
located and will contribute to the accomplishment of the pur-
poses of this subchapter;
(B) sufficient funds are available for that portion of the
project costs which are not to be paid by the United States
under this subchapter;
(C) the project will be completed without undue delay;
(D) the public agency or public agencies which submitted
the project application have legal authority to engage in the
airport development as proposed; and
(E) all project sponsorship requirements prescribed by or
under the authority of this subchapter have been or will be
met.
No airport development project may be approved by the Secretary
with respect to any airport unless a public agency holds good title,
satisfactory to the Secretary, to the landing area of the airport or
the site therefor, or gives assurance satisfactory to the Secretary
that good title will be acquired.
(2) No airport development project may be approved by the
Secretary which does not include provision for installation of the
landing aids specified in subsection (d) of section 1717 of this title
and determined by him to be required for the safe and efficient use
of the airport by aircraft taking into account the category of the
airport and the type and volume of traffic utilizing the airport.
-------
14 LEGAL COMPILATION—NOISE
(3) No airport development project may be approved by the
Secretary unless he is satisfied that fair consideration has been
given to the interest of communities in or near which the project
may be located.
(4) It is declared to be national policy that airport development
projects authorized pursuant to this subchapter shall provide for
the protection and enhancement of the natural resources and the
quality of environment of the Nation. In implementing this policy,
the Secretary shall consult with the Secretaries of the Interior and
Health, Education, and Welfare with regard to the effect that any
project involving airport location, a major runway extension, or
runway location may have on natural resources including, but not
limited to, fish and wildlife, natural, scenic, and recreation assets,
water and air quality, and other factors affecting the environment,
and shall authorize no such project found to have adverse effect
unless the Secretary shall render a finding, in writing, following a
full and complete review, which shall be a matter of public record,
that no feasible and prudent alternative exists and that all possi-
ble steps have been taken to minimize such adverse effect.
Hearings
(d) (1) No airport development project involving the location
of an airport, an airport runway, or a runway extension may be
approved by the Secretary unless the public agency sponsoring the
project certifies to the Secretary that there has been afforded the
opportunity for public hearings for the purpose of considering the
economic, social, and environmental effects of the airport location
and its consistency with the goals and objectives of such urban
planning as has been carried out by the community.
(2) When hearings are held under paragraph (1) of this
subsection, the project sponsor shall, when requested by the Secre-
tary, submit a copy of the transcript to the Secretary.
Air and water quality
(e) (1) The Secretary shall not approve any project application
for a project involving airport location, a major runway exten-
sion, or runway location unless the Governor of the State in which
such project may be located certifies in writing to the Secretary
that there is reasonable assurance that the project will be located,
designed, constructed, and operated so as to comply with applica-
ble air and water quality standards. In any case where such stand-
ards have not been approved or where such standards have been
promulgated by the Secretary of the Interior or the Secretary of
Health, Education, and Welfare, certification shall be obtained
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 15
from the appropriate Secretary. Notice of certification or of re-
fusal to certify shall be provided within sixty days after the proj-
ect application is received by the Secretary.
(2) The Secretary shall condition approval of any such project
application on compliance during construction and operation with
applicable air and water quality standards.
*******
Pub.L. 91-258, Title I, § 16, May 21, 1970, 84 Stat. 226.
1.3 FEDERAL AID HIGHWAY ACT, AS AMENDED
23 U.S.C. §109(h),(i) (1970)
(See "General 1.6a—1.6d(3)(f)" for legislative history)
Sec. 109. Standards
(a) The Secretary shall not approve plans and specifications for
proposed projects on any Federal-aid system if they fail to provide
for a facility (1) that will adequately meet the existing and proba-
ble future traffic needs and conditions in a manner conducive to
safety, durability, and economy of maintenance; (2) that will be
designed and constructed in accordance with standards best suited
to accomplish the foregoing objectives and to conform to the par-
ticular needs of each locality.
(b) The geometric and construction standards to be adopted for
the Interstate System shall be those approved by the Secretary in
cooperation with the State highway departments. Such standards,
as applied to each actual construction project, shall be adequate to
enable such project to accommodate the types and volumes of
traffic anticipated for such project for the twenty-year period
commencing on the date of approval by the Secretary, under sec-
tion 106 of this title, of the plans, specifications, and estimates for
actual construction of such project. Such standards shall in all
cases provide for at least four lanes of traffic. The right-of-way
width of the Interstate System shall be adequate to permit con-
struction of projects on the Interstate System to such standards.
The Secretary shall apply such standards uniformly throughout all
the States.
(c) Projects on the Federal-aid secondary system in which Fed-
eral funds participate shall be constructed according to specifica-
tions that will provide all-weather service and permit maintenance
at a reasonable cost.
(d) On any highway project in which Federal funds hereafter
participate, or on any such project constructed since December 20,
1944, the location, form and character of informational, regula-
tory and warning signs, curb and pavement or other markings,
-------
16 LEGAL COMPILATION—NOISE
and traffic signals installed or placed by any public authority or
other agency, shall be subject to the approval of the State highway
department with the concurrence of the Secretary, who is directed
to concur only in such installations as will promote the safe and
efficient utilization of the highways.
(e) No funds shall be approved for expenditure on any Federal-
aid highway, or highway affected under chapter 2 of this title,
unless proper safety protective devices complying with safety
standards determined by the Secretary at that time as being ade-
quate shall be installed or be in operation at any highway and
railroad grade crossing or drawbridge on that portion of the high-
way with respect to which such expenditures are to be made.
(f) The Secretary shall not, as a condition precedent to his
approval under section 106 of this title, require any State to ac-
quire title to, or control of, any marginal land along the proposed
highway in addition to that reasonably necessary for road sur-
faces, median strips, gutters, ditches, and side slopes, and of suffi-
cient width to provide service roads for adjacent property to per-
mit safe access at controlled locations in order to expedite traffic,
promote safety, and minimize roadside parking. Pub.L. 85-767,
Aug. 27, 1958, 72 Stat. 894; Pub.L. 88-157, § 4, Oct. 24, 1963, 77
Stat. 277.
(g) The Secretary shall issue within 30 days after the day of
enactment of the Federal-Aid Highway Act of 1970 guidelines
for minimizing possible soil erosion from highway construction.
Such guidelines shall apply to all proposed projects with respect to
which plans, specifications, and estimates are approved by the
Secretary after the issuance of such guidelines.
(h) Not later than July 1, 1972, the Secretary, after consulta-
tion with appropriate Federal and State officials, shall submit to
Congress, and not later than 90 days after such submission, pro-
mulgate guidelines designed to assure that possible adverse eco-
nomic, social, and environmental effects relating to any proposed
project on any Federal-aid system have been fully considered in
developing such project, and that the final decisions on the project
are made in the best overall public interest, taking into considera-
tion the need for fast, safe and efficient transportation, public
services, and the costs of eliminating or minimizing such adverse
effects and the following:
(1) air, noise, and water pollution;
(2) destruction or disruption of man-made and natural
resources, aesthetic values, community cohesion and the avail-
ability of public facilities and services;
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 17
(3) adverse employment effects, and tax and property
value losses;
(4) injurious displacement of people, businesses and
farms; and
(5) disruption of desirable community and regional
growth.
Such guidelines shall apply to all proposed projects with respect to
which plans, specifications, and estimates are approved by the
Secretary after the issuance of such guidelines.
(i) The Secretary, after consultation with appropriate Federal,
State, and local officials, shall develop and promulgate standards
for highway noise levels compatible with different land uses and
after July 1, 1972, shall not approve plans and specifications for
any proposed project on any Federal-aid system for which location
approval has not yet been secured unless he determines that such
plans and specifications include adequate measures to implement
the appropriate noise level standards.
(j) The Secretary, after consultation wtih the Administrator of
the Environmental Protection Agency, shall develop and promul-
gate guidelines to assure that highways constructed pursuant to
this title are consistent with any approved plan for the implemen-
tation of any ambient air quality standard for any air quality
control designated pursuant to the Clean Air Act, as amended.
Pub.L. 85-767, Aug. 27, 1958, 72 Stat. 894; Pub.L. 88-157, § 4,
Oct. 24, 1963, 77 Stat. 277; Pub.L. 89-574, §§ 5(a), 14, Sept. 13,
1966, 80 Stat. 767, 771; Pub.L. 91-605, Title I, § 136(a), (b), Dec.
31, 1970, 84 Stat.
-------
-------
Executive
Orders
-------
-------
[Reserved]
-------
-------
Regulations
-------
-------
[Reserved]
-------
-------
Guidelines
and
Reports
-------
-------
GUIDELINES AND REPORTS
29
4.1 THE REPORT OF THE PRESIDENT AND CONGRESS
ON NOISE, AS REQUIRED BY 42 U.S.C. §1858(b),
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY,
DECEMBER 31,1971 (NRC 500.1).
CONTENTS
Page
FOREWORD xix
INTRODUCTION xxi
Organization of this Report xxiv
General Observations and Conclusions xxvi
Specifics of a Program for the Future xxx
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT xxxv
Chapter I EFFECTS OF NOISE ON LIVING THINGS AND PROPERTY 1-1
AUDITORY EFFECTS 1-5
Ear Damage 1-5
Hearing Loss 1-6
Masking and Interference with Speech Communication 1-11
GENERAL PSYCHOLOGICAL AND SOCIOLOGICAL EFFECTS 1-15
Interference with Sleep 1-15
Annoyance and Community Response 1-18
Othe.- Possible Psychological and Sociological Effects 1-21
GENERAL PHYSIOLOGICAL EFFECTS 1-25
Transient Physiological Response to Noise 1-25
Possible Persistent Physiological Responses to Noise 1-20
Stress Theory 1-30
IMPLICATIONS OF GENERAL PHYSIOLOGICAL RESPONSES
TO SOUND 1-32
SUMMARY OF PSYCHOLOGICAL AND PHYSIOLOGICAL
EFFECTS 1-33
SOCIOLOGICAL IMPACT OF NOISE 1-35
THE EFFECTS OF NOISE ON WILDLIFE AND OTHER ANIMALS 1-53
Effects of Noise on Wildlife 1-54
Effects of Noise on Laboratory Animals 1-55
Effects of Noise on Farm Animals 1-55
Summary of Effects on Wildlife and Other Animals 1-57
-------
30 LEGAL COMPILATION—NOISE
CONTENTS (Continued)
EFFECTS OF SONIC BOOM AND SIMILAR IMPULSIVE
NOISES ON PROPERTY 1-59
Nature of Sonic Booms and Other Impulsive Noises 1-59
Response of Structures to Sonic Booms 1-60
Cost of Damage to Buildings 1-64
Effect of Sonic Booms on Natural Structures and Terrain 1-65
Summary of Effects of Sonic Boom 1-68
PHYSICAL EFFECTS OF NOISE ON STRUCTURES AND
PROPERTY 1-70
Chapter 2 SOURCES OF NOISE AND THEIR CURRENT ENVIRONMENTAL
IMPACT 2-1
COMMUNITY NOISE 2-5
Description of the Outdoor Noise Environment 2-5
Range of Outdoor Noise Environments 2-12
Intruding Noises and Community Reaction 2-16
Community Reaction to Noise 2-22
The Growth of Noise 2-35
Summary 2-41
TRANSPORTATION SYSTEMS 2-45
Commercial Aircraft 2-47
General Aviation Aircraft 2-55
Highway Vehicles 2-57
Recreation Vehicles 2-62
Rail Systems 2-67
Ships 2-71
Environmental Impact 2-71
DEVICES POWERED BY INTERNAL COMBUSTION ENGINES 2-83
Lawn Care Equipment 2-83
Generators 2-86
Chain Saws 2-86
Model Airplane Engines 2-86
Environmental Impact 2-86
NOISE FROM INDUSTRIAL PLANTS 2-88
Plant Noise Sources 2-89
Glass Manufacturing Plants 2-91
Oil Refineries 2-91
Public Utility Electric Power Plants 2-91
Automobile Assembly Plants 2-91
Can Manufacturing Plants 2-92
Community Noise Climate 2-92
Community Impact 2-99
viii
-------
GUIDELINES AND REPORTS 31
CONTENTS (Continued)
CONSTRUCTION EQUIPMENT AND OPERATIONS
Construction Site Noise 2 -W>
Construction Equipment Noise 2 - l'.irj
Environmental Impact -'-ill
HOUSEHOLD AND BUILDING NOISE 2 - 1 15
Characteristics of Noise Sources 2-U:>
Characteristics of Environmental and Noise Levels 2-116
Impact of Household Appliances and Building Equipment 2-119
Summary of Effects of Appliance Noise on People 2- 127
OVERALL ASSESSMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT
OF MAJOR NOISE SOURCES 2-129
Interference with Speech 2-129
Community Reaction 2 - 13 1
Hearing Damage Risk 2-132
Summary of Assessment 2-132
Chapters CONTROL TECHNOLOGY AND ESTIMATES FOR THE FUTURE
TRANSPORTATION INDUSTRY PROGRAMS
Commercial Aircraft G-?
V/STOL Aviation .'i-7
General Aviation Aircraft 3-10
Highway Vehicles 3-12
Recreation Vehicles 3-16
Rail Systems 3-21
DEVICES POWERED BY INTERNAL COMBUSTION ENGINES ,1-34
Noise Reduction Programs ;;-:!4
Potential Noise Reduction :5-3G
NOISE REDUCTION FOR INDUSTRIAL PLANTS ;!-37
Motivation 3-37
Method of Approach H-as
Future Commitment 3-39
Projected Impact of Plant Noise 3-30
CONSTRUCTION INDUSTRY EFFORTS 3 -4 1
Equipment Operation 3-11
Equipment Manufacturers :l-ll
Projected Impact of Construction 3-47
-------
32 LEGAL COMPILATION—NOISE
CONTENTS (Continued)
Page
APPLIANCE INDUSTRY EFFORTS 3-55
Air Conditioners 3-55
Dishwashers and Food Disposers 3-56
Vacuum Cleaners 3-58
Other Major Appliances 3-58
Small Appliances 3-60
Projected Impact of Appliance Noise 3-62
ECONOMIC ASPECTS OF NOISE ABATEMENT 3-65
SUMMARY 3-66
Chapter 4 LAWS AND REGULATORY SCHEMES FOR NOISE ABATEMENT 4-1
CURRENT GOVERNMENTAL NOISE REGULATION 4-2
Noise Abatement Regulation at the Federal Level 4-2
Noise Sources Regulated at the State Level 4-9
Noise Sources Regulated at the Regional Level 4-13
Noise Sources Regulated on the Local Level 4-14
ANALYSIS OF EXISTING REGULATORY STRUCTURE FOR
ENVIRONMENTAL NOISE ABATEMENT AND CONTROL 4-19
Legal Basis for Environmental Noise Abatement and
Control Through Private Actions 4-19
Formal Authority for Governmental Control Over Noise
Sources and Noise Effects 4-20
Distribution of Formal Authority Among Federal, State,
and Local Jurisdictions 4-21
Distribution of Power Among Federal-State-Local
Jurisdictions with Respect to Environmental Noise
Abatement and Control 4-23
EFFECTIVENESS OF EXISTING NOISE CONTROL
REGULATIONS 4-36
Effectiveness of Existing Federal Regulations 4-36
Effectiveness of Existing State Regulations 4-38
Effectiveness of Existing Local Noise Control Regulation 4-44
SUMMARY 4-48
-------
GUIDELINES AND REPORTS
33
CONTENTS (Continued)
Chapters GOVERNMENT, INDUSTRY, PROFESSIONAL AND VOLUNTARY
ASSOCIATION PROGRAMS
FEDERAL GOVERNMENT PROGRAMS,
Significant Federal Involvement
Moderate Federal Involvement
Minor Involvement
Research Activities
Interagency Committees and Studies
STATE AND MUNICIPAL NON-OCCUPATIONAL NOISE
ABATEMENT AND CONTROL PROGRAMS
Responsible Agencies
Current Programs
Research and Testing Facilities
Current Funding
Estimation of Potential Nationwide Budget of State and City
Non-Occupational Noise Control Programs
Potential Use of Federal Funds
Summary of State and Local Efforts
INDUSTRIAL, PROFESSIONAL AND VOLUNTARY
ASSOCIATIONS
Introduction
Activities
Publications
5-1
5-1.
5-2
5-14
5 -18
5-19
3 -22
5-25
5-25
5 --5
5-28
5-28
5-29
5-30
5-30
5-32
5-32
5-32
5-34
Chapter 6 AN ASSESSMENT OF NOISE CONCERN IN OTHER NATIONS
SUMMARY OF IMPRESSIONS
LEGISLATION AND REGULATIONS
Great Britain
Switzerland
France
Japan
Soviet Union
NOISE SOURCES
Community Noise
Air Traffic Noise
Surface Traffic Noise
6-1
C-2
6-5
6-5
6-6
C-6
6-7
6-1U
6-11
6-J1
6-13
6-17
-------
34 LEGAL COMPILATION—NOISE
CONTENTS (Continued)
Page
NOISE ENVIRONMENTS 6-23
The Residential Environment 6-23
Public Institutions 6-25
Effects of Industrial Noise on the Community 6-26
SUMMARY 6-28
Appendix A SOURCE DOCUMENT INFORMATION A-l
Appendix B PROPOSED BILL TO CONTROL THE GENERATION AND
TRANSMISSION OF NOISE B-l
Appendix C PUBLIC HEARINGS ON NOISE - TITLE IV PL 91-604 C-l
GLOSSARY G-l
-------
GUIDELINES AND REPORTS 35
LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS
Figure Page
1-1 Sensory Organ of the Inner Ear 1-7
1-2 Speech Interference Levels 1-13
2-1 A Typical Octave Band Spectrum of the Outdoor Residual Noise
Level in Late Evening in a Normal Suburban Neighborhood 2-6
2-2 Two Samples of Outdoor Noise in a Normal Suburban Neigh-
borhood with the Microphone Located 20 Feet From the
Street Curb 2-8
2-3 Various Measures of the Outdoor Noise Level 2-11
2-4 Histograms of the Percentage of Time Noise was in Each
5-dB Interval for Three Time Periods 2-11
2-5 Daytime Outdoor Noise Levels 2-13
2-6 Estimated Maximum Distances Between Talker and Listener
That Permit Intelligible Conversation and Those That Enable
Relaxed Conversation When the Outdoor Noise Level Equals
the Daytime Median Noise Level 2-18
2-7 Average Mean Subjective Rating as a Function of Maximum
Noise Level in dBA for the British Experiment at the Motor
Industry Research Association Proving Grounds 2-20
2-8 Difference Between A-Weighted Outdoor Noise Levels and the
Residual Noise Level, Lgo, in dB 2-21
2-9 Community Reaction to Intrusive Noises of Many Types as a
Function of the Normalized Community Noise Equivalent Level 2-28
2-10 Relationship Between Average Expression of Annoyance to
Aircraft Noise and the Composite Noise Rating 2-32
2-11 Percentage of People Expressing "Very Much Annoyed" as a
Function of Composite Noise Rating 2-33
2-12 Percentage of People Expressing "Not At All" or "A Little"
Annoyed as a Function of Composite Noise Rating 2-34
2-13 Approximate Growth In Aircraft and Freeway Noise Impacted
Land Area, Enclosed by CNEL 65 2-36
2-14 Comparison of Five Surveys of Outdoor Noise Levels in
Residential Areas In the United States Between 1937 and 1971 2-39
2-15 General Characteristics of the Transportation Industry In 1970 2-46
xiii
-------
36 LEGAL COMPILATION—NOISE
LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS (Continued)
Figure Page
2-16 Characteristics of Commercial Aircraft 2-49
2-17 Characteristics of V/STOL Aircraft 2-50
2-18 NEF 30 Contours for Representative (Single Runway) Airport 2-54
2-19 Characteristics of General Aviation Aircraft 2-56
2-20 Characteristics of Highway Vehicles 2-58
2-21 Noise Sources for Highway Vehicles 2-60
2-22 Characteristics of Recreation Vehicles 2-63
2-23 Motorcycle Noise Sources 2-65
2-24 Snowmobile Noise Sources 2-66
2-25 Characteristics of Rail Systems 2-68
2-26 Rail Vehicle Noise Sources 2-72
2-27 Approximate Growth of a Few Types of Noisy Recreational
Vehicles and Outdoor Home Equipment 2-78
2-28 Potential Hearing Damage from Transportation System
Components in Terms of Equivalent 8-Hour Exposure
Levels, for Passengers or Operators 2-81
2-29 Characteristics of Devices Powered by Internal Combustion
Engines 2-84
2-30 Noise Source Characteristics of Internal Combustion Engine
Devices 2-85
2-31 Glass Manufacturing Plant Community 2-94
2-32 Oil Refinery Community 2-95
2-33 Power Plant Community 2-97
2-34 Automobile Assembly Plant Community 2-98
2-35 Can Manufacturing Plant Community 2-100
2-36 Construction Equipment Noise Ranges 2-108
2-37 Cross-Section of a Typical Multistory Building Showing
Building Equipment 2-117
2-38 A Summary of Noise Levels for Appliance Measured at a
Distance of 3 Feet 2-118
2-39 Range of Noise In dBA Typical for Building Equipment at 3 Feet 2-121
2-40 Range of Building Equipment Noise Levels to Which People
Are Exposed 2-122
-------
GUIDELINES AND REPORTS 37
LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS (Continued)
Figure Page
3-1 Noise-Impacted Areas (NEF 30 or Higher) as Function of Jet
Engine Noise Reduction Goals 3-6
3-2 Noise Reduction for Helicopters 3-9
3-3 Potential Noise Reduction for Highway Vehicles 3-17
3-4 Potential Noise Reduction for Recreational Vehicles 3-20
3-5 Estimated Long Term Trend in Daytime Residual Noise
Levels in a Typical Residential Urban Community 3-31
3-6 Number of Building Construction Sites Projected to the Year 2000 3-49
3-7 Construction Site Geometry and Transmission Loss Contours
for Stationary Population 3-53
3-8 Projected Change in Exposure to Construction Noise,
Assuming No Change in Noise Levels 3-54
3-9 Projected Change in Exposure to Appliance Noise, Assuming
No Change in Noise Levels 3-64
6-1 Typical Statistical Distributions of Urban Traffic Noise 6-20
-------
-------
GUIDELINES AND REPORTS 39
LIST OF TABLES
Table Page
1-1 Hearing Handicap Guideline 1-9
1-2 Lifetime Exposure to Noise (Illustration) 1-39
1-3 Studies and Surveys on Sonic Boom 1-62
1-4 Percent of Valid Claims for Category of Damaged Element 1-63
1-5 Sonic Boom Damage Data 1-66
2-1 Comparison of Average Daytime and Nighttime Outdoor
Noise Levels 2-15
2-2 Qualitative Descriptions of Urban and Suburban Detached
Housing Residential Areas and Approximate Daytime
Residual Noise Level (Lgo) 2-l§
2-3 Factors Considered in Each of Three Methods Used for
Describing the Intrusion of Aircraft Noise Into the Community 2-24
2-4 Corrections to be Added to the Measured Community Noise
Equivalent Level (CNEL) to Obtain Normalized CNEL 2-26
2-5 Two Examples of Calculation of Normalized Community
Noise Equivalent Level 2-27
2-6 Number of Community Noise Reaction Cases as a Function
of Noise Source Type and Reaction Category 2-29
2-7 Summary of Expected Community Reaction and Approximate
Annoyance as a Function of Normalized Community Noise
Equivalent Level 2-44
2-8 Growth in the Transportation System, 1960-1970 2-47
2-9 Noise Energy for Elements of the Transportation System 2-74
2-10 Predicted Contributions to Daytime Residual Noise Levels by
Highway Vehicles for a Typical Urban Community in 1970 2-75
2-11 Rank Ordering of Surface Transportation System According
to A-Weighted Noise Level 2-77
2-12 Typical Passenger Separation Distances and Speech Inter-
ference Criteria 2-82
2-13 Summary of Noise Impact Characteristics of Internal
Combustion Engines 2-87
2-14 Range of Industrial Machinery Equipment, and Process
Noise Levels 2-90
-------
40 LEGAL COMPILATION—NOISE
LIST OF TABLES (Continued)
Table Page
2-15 Typical Ranges of Energy Equivalent Noise Levels, Leq in
dBA. at Construction Sites 2-104
2-16 Expected Community Reaction to Three Typical Examples
of Construction Noise 2-106
2-17 Order-of-Magnitude Estimates of Exposure to Construction
Noise Expressed in Millions of Person-Hours Per Week 2-J12
2-18 Exposure of Building Occupants to the Noise of Building
Equipment 2-120
2-19 Noise Levels of Home Appliances and Building Equipment
Adjusted for Location of Exposure (in dBA) 2-124
2-20 Order-of-Magnitude Estimates of Exposure to Home Appliance
and Building Equipment Noise Expressed in Millions of Person-
Hours Per Week ?-128
2-21 Approximate Number of Operators or Passengers in Non-
Occupational Situations Exposed to Potentially Hazardous
Noise from Various Significant Sources 2-133
3-1 Estimated Aircraft Noise Reduction Potential 3-5
3-2 Estimated Noise Reduction Potential for Helicopters 3-10
3-3 Summary of the Noise Reduction Potential by Applying
Current Technology to Existing Transit Vehicles 3-24
3-4 Examples of Possible Noise Reduction Goals for Externally
Radiated Noise for Transportation System Categories 3-27
3-5 Estimated Future Change in Noise Energy for Transportation
System Categories with Three Options for Noise Reduction 3-28
3-6 Summary of Estimated Noise Impacted Land (Within CNEL 65
Contour) Near Airports and Freeways From 1955 lo the Year
2000 With Future Estimates Based on Options 3 and 2 3-30
3-7 Estimated Noise Reduction Potential for Devices Powered by
Internal Combustion Engines 3-36
3-8 Annual Construction Activity —1970 3-51
5-1 Summary of Federal Noise Research Activity 5-3
5-2 Responsible City Agencies and Program Classification 5-26
5-3 Responsible State Agencies & Program Classification 5-27
5-4 Budget of Current (1971) Noise Abatement Programs In 5 Cities 5-29
6-1 Major Japanese Noise Laws 6-8
6-2 British Traffic Survey 6-17
6-3 Norwegian Noise Survey 6-18
xviii
-------
GUIDELINES AND REPORTS 41
FOREWORD
Title IV of PL 91-604, signed Into law on December 31, 1970 by the President,
directed that the Environmental Protection Agency conduct "a full and complete inves-
tigation and study of noise and its effect on public health and welfare" and to report,
within 1 year, the findings to the Congress. To those ends, authorization was given
to the Administrator to hold public hearings and to conduct research, experiments,
demonstrations, and studies. The public hearings were held in eight major cities
throughout the country, where some 225 witnesses representing the scientific com-
munity, industry, and the public gave testimony on all aspects of the noise problem.
In addition, the Agency, through its Office of Noise Abatement and Control, developed
contracts and otherwise worked closely with a variety of noise experts, both within
the Government and from the private sector, to review all aspects of current knowl-
edge about the effects of noise and methods of control.
The result of these extensive efforts is this report to the President and the
Congress of the United States. Hopefully, this document will be helpful in the current
deliberations on Federal noise control legislation. It should also be useful to state and
local governments and the general public in making decisions that will more rapidly
solve a problem that affects more Americans than is generally realized.
xix
-------
-------
GUIDELINES AND REPORTS 43
INTRODUCTION
NOISE, commonly defined as unwanted sound, Is an environmental phenomenon to
which man Is exposed before birth and throughout life. Noise can also be considered
an environmental pollutant, a waste product generated in conjunction with various activ-
ities of man. Under the latter definition, noise is any sound — Independent of loudness —
that may produce an undesired physiological or psychological effect in an individual and
that may Interfere with the social ends of an individual or group. Those ends include
all of man's activities—communication, work, rest, recreation, and sleep.
As waste products of his way of life, man produces two general types of pollutants.
The general public has become well aware of the first type, the mass residuals (such
as associated with air and water pollution) that, to a greater or leaser degree, remain
In the environment for extended periods of time. However, only recently has attention
focused on the second general type of pollution, the energy residuals such as the waste
heat from manufacturing processes that creates thermal pollution of our streams.
Energy in the form of sound waves constitutes yet another kind of energy residual, but,
fortunately, one that does not remain in the environment for extended periods of time.
The total amount of energy dissipated as sound throughout the earth Is not large when
compared to other forms of energy, it Is only the extraordinary sensitivity of the ear
that permits such a relatively small amount of energy to adversely affect man and
other biological species.
It has long been known that noise of sufficient Intensity and duration can Induce
temporary or permanent hearing loss, ranging from sljght impairment to nearly total
xxi
-------
44 LEGAL COMPILATION—NOISE
deafness. In general, any source of sound producing noise levels of 70 to 80 dBA
at the ear can contribute to a pattern of exposure that may produce temporary
hearing threshold shifts if exposure is long enough, and this in turn could lead to per-
manent hearing impairment. In addition, noise can interfere with speech communica-
tion and the perception of other auditory signals, disturb sleep and relaxation, be a
source of annoyance, interfere with an individual's ability to perform complicated tasks,
influence mood, and otherwise detract from the quality of life.
Society has, since antiquity, made attempts to abate and control noise. The Romans
enacted perhaps the first prohibitory noise law when, by popular decree, chariot move-
ments were prohibited in the streets of Rome during the night. In England, the first
reported court decision concerning noise abatement is dated in the thirteenth century.
Today, many communities in the United States have antinoise ordinances, although
these statutes vary widely in standards, scope, and degree of enforcement.
With the technological expansion that began during the Industrial Revolution and
that has accelerated since World War n, environmental noise in the United States and
other industrialized nations has been gradually and steadily increasing, with more geo-
graphic areas becoming exposed to significant levels of noise. Whereas noise levels
sufficient to Induce some degree of hearing loss were once confined mainly to factories
and occupational situations, noise levels approaching such intensity and duration are
today being recorded on city streets and, in some cases, in and around the home.
There are valid reasons why widespread recognition of noise as a significant en-
vironmental pollutant and potential hazard or, as a minimum, a detractor from the
quality of life has been slow in coming. In the tirst place, noise, if defined as unwanted
sound, is a subjective experience. What is considered as noise by one listener may be
considered desirable by another. Even in the same individual, wanted sound on one
occasion may be considered as noise on another.
xxii
-------
GUIDELINES AND REPORTS 45
Secpndly, noise has a rapid decay time and thus does not remain in man's unviron-
ment for extended periods of time, as do air and water pollution. By the time the
average individual is spurred to action to abate, control, or, at least, complain about
sporadic environmental noise, the noise in many situations may no longer exist.
Thirdly, the physiological and psychological effects of noise on man are often
subtle and insidious, appearing so gradually and slowly that it becomes difficult to
associate cause and effect. Indeed, to those persons whose hearing may already have
been affected by noise, it may not be considered a problem at all.
Further, the typical citizen is proud of this nation's technological progress and
is generally happy with the things such progress has given him in the way of rapid
transportation, labor-saving devices, and new recreational devices. Unfortunately,
many technological advances have been associated with increased environmental noise-,
and there has been a tendency in large segments of the population to accept the addi-
tional noise as part of the price of progress.
The scientific community has already accumulated considerable knowledge con-
cerning noise, its effects, and its abatement and control. In that regard, noit>e differs
from most other environmental pollutants. Generally, the technology exists to con-
trol most indoor and outdoor noise. As a matter of fact, this is one instance in
which knowledge of control techniques exceeds the knowledge of biological and
physical effects of the pollutant. These facts have been brought out in previous
Federal reports on this problem such as "Noise: Sound Without Value" (Office of
Science and Technology) and "The Noise Around Us" (Commerce Technical Advisory
Board, Department of Commerce).
-------
46 LEGAL COMPILATION—NOISE
ORGANIZATION OF THIS REPORT
This report first addresses the effects of noise on living things and property.
Reviewed are: human auditory, psychological, physiological, and sociological effects;
effects on wildlife and other animals; effects of sonic boom and similar impulsive
noises; and physical effects of noise on structures and property.
Chapter 2 deals with the sources of noise and their current environmental impact.
Included in this chapter are discussions on community noise; transportation systems;
devices such as lawn mowers and chain saws powered by internal combustion engines;
noise from industrial plants; construction equipment and operations; household appli-
ance and building equipment noise; and an assessment of the environmental impact
of major noise sources.
Chapter 3 discusses present and future control technology for the noise sources
discussed in Chapter 2.
Laws and regulatory schemes are dealt with in Chapter 4. Considered are cur-
rent governmental noise regulations and regulatory schemes and their effectiveness.
Chapter 5 is concerned with government, industry, professional, and voluntary
noise control activities.
Chapter 6 presents an assessment of noise concern in other nations. Among items
reviewed are legislation and regulations relating to noise sources and noise environments.
Finally, for those unfamiliar with the terminology of acoustics and noise, a glossary
is provided.
The emphasis in this report on noise source control technology should not obscure
the importance of other noise abatement procedures. A comprehensive, systematic
approach to noise abatement should include, in addition to source control, such features
as land use planning and zoning, requirements for noise control in building codes,
and standards for enforcement of regulations.
xxiv
-------
GUIDELINES AND REPORTS 47
The reader of this report is cautioned that the material presented herein is a
condensation of the extensive technical and detailed material contained in the
appropriate EPA Technical Information Documents and in the transcripts of the public
hearings held by the Agency. As a condensation, generalities may occur, although
every effort has been made to qualify statements when required for clarity. Those
interested in more detail or verification of information sources should consult the
appropriate EPA documents, and the specific references cited therein.
-------
48 LEGAL COMPILATION—NOISE
GENERAL OBSERVATIONS AND CONCLUSIONS
The Character of Noise as an Environmental Problem
That sound and hearing play an Important role in human life is a proposition so
self-evident it requires no further comment. However, some effects of noise on
man, such as interference with sleep and communication or noise-produced irritation
and annoyance, are difficult to define and evaluate with objective precision.
Sparse information is available on typical cumulative exposures to noise associ-
ated with a variety of sources normally present in most of society's current environ-
ment. Much of the information contained in this report is concerned with specific
sources, although first efforts have been made to estimate the magnitude of cumula-
tive exposures of typical segments of the U. S. population.
Furthermore, there is a general lack of information on the effects of noise on various
living nonhuman organisms. It is evident that under certain conditions there may be
some ecological effects, particularly when new noises intrude into wildlife habitats.
At the same time, certain species seem to show some adaptation to noise. The pres-
ent state of knowledge in this area is incomplete.
Reasonable evidence exists of the damaging effects of high intensity noise on
inert objects. Physical damage to property from sonic booms generated by aircraft
has been repeatedly confirmed. As the scale of intensity decreases, there is insuffi-
cient valid data regarding direct structural effects on property. Insofar as the effects
of noise on property values are concerned, the evidence remains inconclusive.
The data developed in this report and its supporting documents indicates that
noise has an impact on the people in the United States. This impact manifests itself
by interfering with speech communication, disturbing sleep, and creating other dis-
turbances of life that lead to annoyances. In addition, some noise levels encountered
xx vi
-------
GUIDELINES AND REPORTS 49
in non-occupational situations may also contribute to the risk of incurring hearing
impairment. Since the subject of occupational noise has been extensively covered in
connection with the Occupational Safety and Health Act, it is dealt with only by refer-
ence in this report.
Noise Control Technology and Possible Changes in the Noise Problem
to the Year 2000
Current technology and that expected to be available in the next 5 to 10 years in-
dicate that a substantial reduction in the noise from various sources is feasible.
Application of available technology is lagging because of inadequate social, eco-
nomic, or governmental pressures for noise abatement. Further, there must be a
balance between application of technology to noise sources and the other measures re-
quired in controlling the total noise environment, such as land use planning and regu-
lation of source use. In this connection the requirements of the National Environmental
Policy Act relative to Environmental Impact Statements (Sec. 102(2)C, PL 91-190) and
of the Noise Pollution and Abatement Act of 1970 (Title IV, PL 91-604, Sec. 402(c))
provide a basis for noise control associated with both planned and existing Federal
activities. Procedures to accomplish these requirements are now being implemented.
The projections of noise impact conducted for this report clearly indicate the need
for aggressive efforts at all levels of government. Without such efforts, residual
noise levels in typical urban communities can be expected to rise from the 1970 level
of slightly over 46 dBA to just under 50 dBA by the year 2000 (the residual level as
used in this report is the lower noise level boundary that is exceeded approximately
90 percent of the time). Of more concern is the estimate that the noise energy from
highway vehicles would double by the year 2000. On the other hand, the early and
vigorous institution of available technology and comprehensive planning, in conjunc-
tion with effective enforcement and regulatory schemes, could reduce the residual to
xxvii
-------
50 LEGAL COMPILATION—NOISE
42 dBA and the noise energy from highway vehicles by a ratio of nearly 4.5 to 1. This
latter figure takes into account the estimated growth in the number of noise sources.
An additional significant measure of the situation may be obtained by considering
the size of noise-impacted land areas near airports and freeways. The
total noise impact area in 1970 is estimated at approximately 2000
square miles, and this area could increase to approximately 3300 square miles by the
year 2000. The projected increase in the impact of aircraft noise could be reduced
through a combination of actions such as the development and use of quieter aircraft
engines, changes in aircraft operating procedures, and tighter regulation and enforce-
ment. More work is needed to clearly identify the relationships among the various
actions required, their cost, their effect on impacted areas and the benefits that
would result. Comparable actions regarding highway vehicles could also reduce the
impact of vehicular noise. As with aircraft noise, the relationships among the various
actions required and their costs and benefits need additional investigation.
Methodologies for Noise Measurement and Evaluation
A considerable variety of methodologies and terminologies are presently used to
describe, measure, and evaluate noise. Some of these are complex and confusing
even to those well versed in acoustics. This bewildering array of terminology, such
as PNdB, EPNdB, NEF and CNEL (see the Glossary for description of these terms)
represents efforts on the part of voluntary institutions, members of the professions,
and segments of governmental authorities to deal with specific situations, problems of
measurement, and needs for evaluation techniques. Many terms have some degree of
commonality, if not interchangeability, while others simply are not comparable.
Similarly, few, if any, were developed with the idea that they might be incorporated in
a statutory procedure for noise abatement and attendant legal and enforcement
provisions. Even with existing statutory requirements at Federal, state, and local
levels, widely different and sometimes conflicting procedures exist.
xxvili
-------
GUIDELINES AND REPORTS 51
This problem is further compounded by differences in scientific semantics asso-
ciated with noise control and evaluation in the private and quasi-governmental usage.
The terms criteria and standards have come to have specific meanings regarding the
environment as pertains to air and water pollution and other environmental stresses.
These terms are loosely used interchangeably in relation to noise. In most texts and
nongovernmental standards documents, they often have the same meaning. There is
a clear cut need to develop a uniformly understood, adequate scheme for measure-
ment and evaluation of noise.
Economic Implications of Noise and Noise Abatement
Information on the adverse effects of noise and the costs associated with various
types of abatement measures are contained in several chapters of this report. In nildi
tion, a significant portion of the data developed in the eight public hearings held by
the Agency under PL 91-604 relates to economic aspects of the noise problem.
As background material for this report, EPA commissioned a study ot the
economic impact of noise, which is referenced in the body of the document. However,
at this time, the rudimentary state of knowledge regarding costs, benefits, and the
impact of abatement expenditures upon the nation's economy make it extremely dilh-
cult to perform meaningful economic analysis related to the problem of environment:! 1
noise.
In order to evaluate alternative noise abatement strategies, there are three m.i-
jor types of economic factors to be considered. It is desirable to know the magnitude
of the benefits derived from proposed actions in terms of damages avoided and posi-
tive gains attained. A second factor is the cost of attaining each of the levels of con-
trol under study. Finally, an analysis of the impact of these costs upon the economy
is needed. With such information, economic analyses can be undertaken to facilitate
rational decision-making.
-------
52 LEGAL COMPILATION—NOISE
Unfortunately, in the noise area, the currently available data is often imprecise
and relates to some limited problem such as the effects of highway noise on property
values in selected locations. In general, the data does not exist that would permit
good aggregate estimates of the magnitude of noise damage and the cost and impacts
of abatement measures.
There is a need for additional research on and analysis of the economic aspects of
noise as an environmental problem. More needs to be known about the adverse effects
on such factors as health, the quality of life, productivity, and property values; the
cost of attaining various levels of control; and the impact of abatement costs on the
economy. With a better understanding of these economic considerations, it should be
possible in the future to evaluate alternative control strategies and identify cost-
effective solutions.
SPECIFICS OF A PROGRAM FOR THE FUTURE
The material developed in preparing this report, and discussed in detail in sup-
porting documents, is supported in the EPA public hearings on noise and leads to
one over-riding conclusion: there is a need for improved and comprehensive efforts
at all levels of government for environmental noise control. The local and state
governments have the primary responsibilities, in most respects, for the actions
necessary to provide a quieter environment. This includes land-use planning and
zoning, building codes, use regulations and the necessary enforcement programs.
However, there are some functions that are best carried out by the Federal gov-
ernment. The Administration's legislative proposals now being considered by the
Congress provide the basis for these needed functions. Specific recommendations
to achieve the needed objective of a significant reduction of noise over the next 5 to
10 years are embodied in the following recommendations.
XXX
-------
GUIDELINES AND REPORTS 53
1. Federal Leadership in Noise Abatement and Control
Federal governmental programs relating directly to noise research and control
are among the activities of several Federal departments and agencies. There
is a need for improved coordination of this effort. To that end, it is rec-
ommended that:
a. The Environmental Protection Agency should provide the leadership and
should promote coordination of efforts of the various agencies that would
be responsible for their respective activities.
b. The Federal government should provide leadership in controlling noise
associated with its activities.
c. Programs of technical assistance to states and their political subdivisions
for regulations and enforcement should be developed.
2. Standards and Regulations
A regulatory scheme should be established, and accelerated noise abatement
efforts should be made by local, state, and Federal governments as follows:
a. Federal noise emission standards should be established for the principal
sources of environmental noise including:
(1) Transportation equipment - including aircraft, ior which EPA should
have authority to approve FAA standards for regulation of aircraft
noise.
(2) Construction equipment.
(3) Internal combustion powered devices.
b. Product labeling authority requested in legislative proposals presently
being considered is a necessary element in an overall noise abatement
and control program.
-------
54 LEGAL COMPILATION—NOISE
c. Uniform noise codes, regulations, and standards should be developed
by EPA and other Federal agencies, in accordance with the above-
mentioned plan, and should be enacted into law by states and localities.
Technical assistance should be provided by EPA-on enforcement and other
related activities.
3. Research and Analysis Needs
Some investment of effort and funds In noise research has already been made
at the Federal level (and to a lesser degree in the private sector as brought
out in this report). There remain, however, numerous gaps in knowledge
and extensive areas of technical and scientific disagreement that require a
continuing research effort. To meet these needs, the following steps are
recommended:
a. Present Federal research and development on specific noise source
control should be continued and expanded, but with a more direct focus
on environmental aspects. Such a program should directly involve the
considerable expertise already existing in the professional and academic
community and in industry.
b. Federally planned, directed, and supported research for improved
methodologies of measurement and evaluation are needed. In particular,
a critical assessment of a large number of the varying measuring sys-
tems and methodologies now in use is required. Simplification, stan-
dardization, and interchangeability of data should be the goal of this
project.
c. Continuing efforts to determine the noise exposure of the American
public should receive early attention.
xxxii
-------
GUIDELINES AND REPORTS 55
d. Research on physiological and psychological effects of noise should he
continued. Such research provides the basis for the necessary criteria
doci'iiients to be used in setting standards and in formulating state and
local regulations.
e. Analysis of the economic implications and economic impact of noise con-
trol is essential in the decision-making process and for the development
of realistic standards and should be undertaken as part of the existing EPA
investigation of the broader issue of environmental economics.
4. Education and Public Awareness
Although there is awareness of some aspects of the noise problem and control
techniques, the typical citizen, while vexed by the intrusion of environmental
noise into his life, is generally unaware that methods to alleviate (he problem
are already at hand. The efforts called for in the above recommendations will
lead to the improved information needed to move ahead with effective measures
to lessen the impact of noise.
5. Legislative Recommendation
Legislation proposed by the Administration in February 1971 would provide the
authority that is needed to meet the problems revealed in the studies leading
to this report.
xxxiii
-------
-------
GUIDELINES AND REPORTS 57
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
The Environmental Protection Agency gratefully acknowledges the assistance of
the many people who contributed to the preparation of this report. Their unselfish
contributions have helped make it possible to produce a useful document. Those
deserving specific mention are:
Dr. E. K. Bender
Deputy Manager of Applied Physics Dept.
Mechanical Engineer
Bolt, Beranek & Newman
Dr. Alexander Cohen
Acting Director, Behavioral & Motivational Factors Branch
National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health
Dept. of Health, Education and Welfare
Dr. R. K. Cook
Special Asst. for Acoustics
National Bureau of Standards
Kenneth McK. Eldred
Vice President for Engineering
Wyle Laboratories
Dr. John Fletcher
Professor of Psychology
Memphis State University
Division of Research and Services
Louis S. Gcodfriend
President
L. S. Goodf riend Associates
Klaus Liebhold
Associate Director
Informatics Inc.
Col. Dale Lindall, USAFMC
-------
58 LEGAL COMPILATION—NOISE
Dr. Louis Mayo
Vice President for Policy Studies and Special Projects
The George Washington University
Dr. James D. Miller
Head of Psychology Lab.
Central Institute of the Deaf
Dr. Peter Siegel
Federal Air Surgeon
Federal Aviation Administration
Dr. Henning von Gierke
Director Biodynamica ft Bionics Div.
Aerospace Medical Laboratory
Wright-Patterson AFB
Dr. Milton A. Whitcomb
Executive Secretary
Committee on Hearing, Biomechantcs & Bioacoustics
National Academy of Science
-------
GUIDELINES AND REPORTS 59
CHAPTER 1
EFFECTS OF NOISE ON LIVING
THINGS AND PROPERTY •
The definition of noise as unwanted sound implies that it has an adverse effect
on human beings and their environment, including land, structures, and domestic
animals. Noise also affects natural wildlife and ecological systems. Cause and
effect relationships between noise and its adverse effects are not always readily
demonstrable. Conversely, certain effects of noise on people are clear cut, such
as with noise-induced hearing loss.
Physiological and psychological changes in people exposed to noise are less well
established than the hearing loss response, since for the most part they are subtle
and cannot be distinguished from similar changes produced by other environmental
stresses that are byproducts of our advanced technological society. Regarding
This chapter is based on material prepared by the Staff EPA Office of Noise
Abatement and Control as result of testimony received during public hearings
and on data contained In EPA reports NTID300. 7, "Effects of Noise on People"
(EPA contract 68-01-05000, Central Institute for the Deaf); NTED300.11, "Social
Impact of Noise" (Interagency agreement with National Bureau of Standards), and
NTID300. 5, "Effects of Noise on Wildlife" (KPA contract 68-04-0024, Memphis
State University). See Appendix A regarding procurement of these source materials,
which contain bibliographic references.) The material on the effects of noise on
humans in pages 1-5 to 1-32 was reviewed by a special committee composed of
members of CHABA of the National Academy of Sciences, National Research
Council.
1-1
-------
60 LEGAL COMPILATION—NOISE
domestic animals, only sparse research data on noise effects is available; and virtually
no research data is available regarding wildlife. There also appears to be little infor-
mation available regarding effects of noise on plant life.
Extrapolation of human data as to effects of noise on domestic animals (or vice
versa) cannot be accomplished with any degree of validity, and similar cautions must
be applied concerning effects on wildlife. Conclusions derived from such extrapolated
data must therefore be labeled tentative, possible, or probable.
The effects of noise, particularly sonic boom and other high intensity intermittent
sources, on man-made or natural structures are reasonably well understood. It is
possible to conduct well controlled and verifiable damage studies on inanimate material,
and such studies have been undertaken, as cited briefly in this chapter. For ethical and
other reasons, it is impossible to conduct such studies on people and animals. This is
not to say, however, that the entire subject area has not been extensively investigated
by a wide variety of researchers and reported in the literature. This chapter summa-
rizes available knowledge on the effect of audible noise on living things and property.
It does not consider the effects of nonaudible, high or low frequency sounds (ultra- or
infrasound).
As brought out by many expert witnesses appearing at public hearings on noise held
under Title IV to PL 91-604, sound and hearing play a subtle and not well understood
role in human life. Whether it be the hum of a mosquito or the ringing of a church bell,
the hearing process conveys many communications resulting in varying responses:
pleasure, annoyance, and, in some instances, intense emotional reactions. Unlike sight
1-2
-------
GUIDELINES AND REPORTS 61
with a directional limitation of coverage*, the hearing response allows the comprehen-
of signals from diverse sources (such as simultaneous receipt of signals from a cry-
ing baby, a ringing telephone, and the audible signalling of the completion of the work
cycle of a home appliance — situations familiar to many housewives).
From the foregoing, it is evident that one of the major values of hearing, in addi-
tion to verbal communication, is the detection of objects and events. This phenomenon
is evidence of close ties between hearing on the one hand and psychological and physio-
logical activation on the other. Humans can be aroused and alerted by sound (as is
true of many animals). Sound often triggers muscular and emotional responses that
appropriately prepare people to cope with possible events signalled by the sound.
Of even greater importance is the role of sound and hearing in human speech com-
munication. Perhaps more than any other attribute, this ability sets human beings
apart from lower animals. The combination of human vocal capabilities for trans-
mission of sound, the human response in hearing, and the operation of the large com-
plex human brain is fundamental to effective speech communication and the progress
of civilization. Much of human social and intellectual life is dependent on the pheno-
mena of speech communication and language. The aesthetic quality of life as reflected
in moods and experience are vastly influenced by what is heard. The importance of
this consideration is not a newly discovered matter of environmental concern. As
quoted by James L. HiIdebrand in his article "Noise Pollution: An Introduction to the
Problem and an Outline for Future Legal Research, "Schopenhauer in 1844 said, 'I
* The central field of vision for the human eye is approximately 21°, whereas the
ear perceives omnidirectionally.
1-3
-------
62 LEGAL COMPILATION—NOISE
have long held the opinion that the amount of noise which anyone can bear undisturbed
stands in inverse proportion to his mental capacity and may therefore be regarded as
a pretty fair measure of it. . . Noise is a torture to all intellectual people. ' "
When unwanted sounds intrude into an environment so as to affect the ability of
people to receive aural communications, noise exists. Sounds that have value in one
location may travel to other locations where they may disrupt useful and desired activ-
ities, thus changing their character as an element of the environment and becoming
noise.
The effects of noise on people have been extensively studied, classified, and, to
some degree, quantified. In the main, the effect of audible-acoustical energy on people
falls into four general overlapping categories:
1. Demonstrable hearing loss, accompanied by any social ramifications of that
loss.
2. Interference with the ability to communicate or to hear desired sounds or
acoustical signals.
3. Annoyance and irritation effects of varying degrees, such as interference with
sleep, distraction from desired avocations, or other responses associated
with the receipt of an audible signal.
4. Other physiological reactions.
These, at least in view of present knowledge, are characteristic of human responses to
other stress stimuli and are not peculiar to noise or acoustical energy. The four cate-
gories of effects are discussed In the following subsections of this chapter, after which
material on effects of noise on wildlife and other animals and upon property will be found.
1-4
-------
GUIDELINES AND REPORTS 63
AUDITORY EFFECTS
The most obvious effects of noise on people are auditory. One set of auditory
effects is noticeable after a noise has disappeared; this consists of temporary hearing
loss, permanent hearing loss, and permanent injury to the inner ear. Another set of
auditory effects is noticeable while a noise is present; this consists of masking and
interference with speech communication. Both sets of auditory effects are adverse
in terms of human response.
Exposure to noise of sufficient intensity for long enough periods of time can pro-
duce detrimental changes in the inner ear and can seriously decrease the ability to
hear. Some of these changes are temporary and last for minutes, hours, or days after
the termination of the noise. After recovery from the temporary effects, there may
be residual permanent effects on the ear and hearing that persist throughout the re-
mainder of life. Frequent exposures to noise of sufficient intensity and duration can
produce temporary changes that are chronic, although recoverable when the series of
exposures finally ceases. Sometimes, however, chronically maintained post-exposure
changes lose their temporary quality and become permanent.
The hearing changes that follow sufficiently severe exposures to noise include dis-
tortions of the clarity and quality of auditory experience and partial loss of the ability
to detect sound. These changes can vary in degree, from only slight impairment to
nearly total deafness.
Ear Damage
The primary site of auditory injury produced by excessive exposure to noise is the
receptor organ of the inner ear, the organ of Corti. Cross-sections of this organ are
1-6
-------
64 LEGAL COMPILATION—NOISE
shown on Figure 1-1 in normal and injured states. Such injuries result from excessive
exposure to noise.
The sensory cells of hearing are the hair cells in the organ of Corti and the fibers
of the auditory nerve. The integrity of the sensory cells and the organ of Corti is im-
portant for normal hearing. The injuries shown on Figure 1-1 are in single locations.
For proper prespective, it is important to realize that the human organ of Corti is
about 34 millimeters long and contains about 17, 000 hair cells. The degree of hearing
loss depends not only on the severity of the injury at any one location but also on the
spread of injury.
Intense sound can produce vibrations of such severity in the organ of Corti that
some of it is simply torn apart. Or, severe exposures to noise can cause structural
damages that lead to rapid breakdown of the processes necessary for maintaining the
life of the cells. Such an injury is termed an acoustic trauma. Another kind of injury
results from prolonged exposure to noise of lower levels. Such an injury is a noise-
induced cochlear injury and is probably the result of requiring the cells to work at too
high a metabolic rate for too long a. period of time. In a sense, the cells of the organ
of Corti can die from overwork.
The results of both kinds of injuries are indistinguishable. Once the cells are
destroyed, they are lost forever. They do not regenerate and cannot be stimulated to
regenerate.
Hearing Loss
The primary measure of hearing loss is depicted by the hearing threshold level.
The hearing threshold level is the lowest level of a tone that can be detected. The
1-6
-------
GUIDELINES AND REPORTS
65
O
U)
O
h
a
W
(H
8
(9
s
i §
-------
66 LEGAL COMPILATION—NOISE
greater the hearing threshold level, the greater the degree of hearing loss or partial
deafness. In 1965, the Committee on Hearing of the American Academy of Ophthal-
mology and Otolaryngology offered the following definitions regarding hearing loss:
1. Hearing Impairment. A deviation or change for the worse in either structure
or function, usually outside the normal range.
2. Hearing Handicap. The disadvantage imposed by an impairment sufficient to
affect one's efficiency in the situation of everyday living.
3. Hearing Disability. Actual or presumed inability to remain employed at full
wages.
By these definitions, any injury to the ear or any change in a hearing threshold
level that places it outside of the normal range constitutes a hearing impairment.
Whether a particular impairment constitutes a hearing handicap or a hearing disability
can be judged only in relation to an individual's life pattern and occupation.
A guideline for the evaluation of hearing handicap is presented on Table 1-1. The
guideline uses only the thresholds for tones in the region most important for the recep-
tion of speech, and judgments of handicap are based on the associated ability to under-
stand connected speech in quiet surroundings. While most authorities agree that a
person in Category B or higher has a hearing handicap, there is debate over whether
handicap exists when a person in Category A also has large hearing threshold levels
above 2000 Hz.
An increase in a hearing threshold level that results from exposure to noise is a
threshold shift. A threshold shift that puts the hearing threshold level outside of the
normal range constitutes a hearing impairment.
1-8
-------
GUIDELINES AND REPORTS
67
TaMe 1-i
HEARING HANDICAP GUIDELINE
Class
A
B
C
D
E
F
Degree of
Handicap
Not significant
Slight Handicap
Mild Handicap
Marked Handicap
Severe Handicap
Extreme Handicap
Average Hearing
Threshold Level for
500, 1000, and 2000 Hz
in the Better Ear*
More Than
25 dB
40 dB
55 dB
70 dB
90 dB
Not
More Than
25 dB
40 dB
55 dB
70 dB
90 dB
Ability to
Understand Speech
No significant difficulty
with faint speech
Difficulty only with
faint speech
Frequent difficulty with
normal speech
Frequent difficulty with
loud speech
Can understand only
shouted or amplified speech
Usually cannot understand
even amplified speech
•Measured in a properly designed audiometrlc examination facility using
an audiometer calibrated to meet ANSI standards.
1-9
-------
68 LEGAL COMPILATION—NOISE
Some threshold shifts are temporary and diminish as the ear recovers after the
termination of the noise. Frequently repeated exposures can produce temporary
threshold shifts that are chronic, though recoverable, when the exposures cease. After
recovery from temporary threshold shifts, there may be residual threshold shifts that
are permanent.
The amount of threshold shift produced by an exposure to noise depends on many
factors. The intensity level and the frequency content of the noise, the temporal char-
acteristics of the noise, and the susceptibility of the individual ear are all im-
portant.
Sometimes permanent threshold shifts result from a single exposure (or a small
number of exposures) to noise. These permanent threshold shifts have their anatomi-
cal base in acoustic trauma. Intense impulsive sounds such as those produced by gun-
fire, firecrackers, and hammering on metal can be especially hazardous in this regard.
The high amplitudes and frequency content of these sounds may produce acoustic trau-
ma of the organ of Corti.
However, people rarely encounter a single noise exposure so severe as to produce
a permanent threshold shift. More often, such shifts develop as one is repeatedly
exposed to noises over a period of many years. Permanent threshold shifts result
from noise-induced cochlear injuries.
Whether a person will suffer permanent threshold shifts from exposure to noise
often depends on the pattern of exposure from all sources of noise that he encounters.
Some of these exposures from particular sources of noise may be innocuous in
1-10
-------
GUIDELINES AND REPORTS 69
isolation. But these same exposures, which are innocuous by themselves, may combine
with other exposures from other sources to produce permanent threshold shifts.
In general, the higher the noise levels and the more years of exposure, the greater
the risk of developing a hearing handicap. For example, it is estimated that the per-
centage of people who may develop a hearing handicap as a result of exposure for 20
years to a noise level of 95 dBA would be approximately twice the number of those ex-
posed to 90 dBA for 15 years. From studies of hearing loss from occupational expo-
sures to noise, one can identify patterns of noise exposure that in and of themselves
increase the incidence of hearing handicap. *
Masking and Interference with Speech Communication
Noise can interfere with the perception of audible signals. This is called masking.
By masking, an auditory signal can be made inaudible or the signal can be changed in
quality and apparent location. Important auditory signals, the sound of an approaching
vehicle for example, can be lost in noise. The facts of auditory masking are well
* Hearing loss due to exposure to noise can be eliminated if exposures to noise are:
(1) held to sufficiently low levels; (2) held to sufficiently short durations; or (3) al-
lowed to occur only rarely. Another approach is the use. of earplugs or earmuffs
when hazardous exposures to noise are encountered. Effective devices are avail-
able for this purpose, but they must be carefully selected and used. In spite of the
effectiveness of earplugs or earmuffs, people will often refuse or neglect to use
them for reasons of appearance, comfort, and convenience. A hearing aid can
be somewhat useful to a person with noise-induced hearing loss, although the re-
sult is not always satisfactory. While the modern hearing aid can amplify sound
and make it audible, it cannot correct for the distortions that often accompany
injury to the organ of Corti.
1-11
-------
70 LEGAL COMPILATION—NOISE
established, and the masking effects of noise can often be calculated from measurements
of the signal and the noise.
An important instance of masking is the interference with speech communication
that results from noise. Figure 1-2 summarizes the relations between interfering
noise and the possibilities for speech communication. The vertical axis is the A-
weighted sound level of the interfering noise, while the horizontal axis is the distance
between the talker and listener in feet. The area near the bottom of the graph (the
lightly hatched region below the heavy curved line) represents the combinations of
distances and levels of interfering noise for which speech communication can be nearly
normal. Speech communication situations involving family groups or pairs of individ-
uals often involve speaker-listener distances of 5 to 12 feet, corresponding to levels
(for interfering noises) of 66 to 55 dBA.
The relationships shown in Figure 1-2 are for young adults with normal hearing,
speaking the same dialect. Children under about 13 years of age, people beyond retire-
ment age, hard-of-hearing patients, and communicating pairs with dialect differences
are likely to require even quieter conditions than those indicated on the figure if they
are to enjoy near-normal speech communication.
In a highly intellectual, technical society, speech communication plays an extremely
important role. Noise can reduce the accuracy, frequency, and quality of verbal ex-
change. In excessive noise, formal education in schools, occupational efficiency,
family life styles, the quality of relaxation, and the enjoyment of life can all be ad-
versely affected. Speech reception by elderly persons seems to be especially affected
by noise.
1-12
-------
GUIDELINES AND REPORTS
71
COMMUNICATION
IMPOSSIBLE
COMMUNICATION
DIFFICULT
A.............«i
$$$$g$ COMMUNICATION
^, ssssss/s/ ,-s, '/]///
^SPEECH COMMUNICATION^
5 10 15 20 25 30
TALKER TO LISTENER DISTANCE IN FEET
Figure 1-2. Speech Interference Levels
1-13
-------
72 LEGAL COMPILATION—NOISE
Interference with speech communication by noise is among the most significant
adverse effects of noise on people. Free and easy speech communication is probably
essential for full development of individuals and social relations, and freedom of speech
is but an empty phrase if one cannot be heard or understood because of noise.
1-14
-------
GUIDELINES AND REPORTS 73
GENERAL PSYCHOLOGICAL AND SOCIOLOGICAL EFFECTS
Noise not only has direct auditory effects but also produces behavioral effects of
a more general nature. Noise can interfere with sleep. Further, it can be a source
of annoyance and can lead to community actions against those producing noise or those
responsible for its regulation. * Noise may interfere with the performance of tasks,
plays a role in privacy, and is sometimes associated with psychological distress. All
of these topics are briefly treated in this discussion.
Interference with Sleep
Sleep is not a single state but consists of a series of stages that can be graded from
light to deep. Physiological measurements allow one to identify the stage of sleep.
Everyday observations suggest that noise can and does interfere with sleep, and
research, both in the laboratory and the field, confirms these observations. Messages
from the sense organs reach the highest centers of the brain even during the deepest
sleep. Whether a sleeping person is aroused by a stimulus depends on a variety of
factors. Arousal can be recognized by brief changes in physiological functions, by
shifts from deeper to lighter stages of sleep, or by behavioral evidence of awakening.
During normal sleep, arousal by noise depends upon the following factors: the
intensity level of the noise, the fluctuation of the intensity level of the noise, the moti-
vation of the person to be aroused by particular sounds as established while awake, the
depth of sleep, the amount of accumulated sleep, previous sleep deprivation, and the
See also discussion in this chapter entitled, "Sociological Impact of Noise.
1-15
-------
74 LEGAL COMPILATION—NOISE
person's age and sex. Other factors such as drugs and psychological disorders can
also affect the ability of a person to sleep through noise.
The greater the intensity of a brief noise, the greater are the chances that noise
will arouse a sleeping person. In a quiet bedroom, noise levels below 30 dBA do not
ordinarily have any arousal effect. As the noise level increases from 30 to 100 dBA,
the chances of awakening increase. Brief noises with levels of 100 to 120 dBA awaken
nearly everyone.
The chances that a particular noise will arouse a particular individual depend upon
numerous personal characteristics of that individual. For example, the stronger the
motivation to awake, the more easily one can be aroused by noise. The lighter the
stage of sleep and the greater the amount of accumulated sleep, the more easily one
can be aroused. Elderly people are much more easily awakened by noises than are
middle-aged people and children; and once awakened, elderly people have more diffi-
culty returning to sleep than do younger people. These differences with age are large
and dramatic. While the difference between the sexes is not nearly as large in this
respect, it does appear that middle-aged women are more easily aroused from sleep
by noise than are middle-aged men; and there is also evidence that male patients suf-
fering from depression are more easily aroused from sleep by noise than are normal
men or women.
Much less is known about the effects of steady noise on sleep. One investigation of
complaints about noise produced by air conditioning and heating equipment has shown
that, in bedrooms, steady noise levels of 33 to 38 dBA resulted in occassional com-
plaints, while those with levels greater than 48 dBA resulted in numerous complaints.
1-16
-------
GUIDELINES AND REPORTS 75
It is not known whether these complaints were due to interference with sleep or to other
factors. It is known that steady noises produce less sleep disturbance than do fluctuat-
ing noises. Some products are, in fact, currently being sold for the purpose of produc-
ing a steady noise to mask out existing unsteady noises so that sleep may be enhanced.
While everyday observation suggests that some people adapt to noise and can learn
to sleep through anything, this observation has not been confirmed by laboratory or
field studies, although a few relevant experiments have been done. However, there is
clear evidence of adaptation to the total sleeping environment. It may be that loud
noises continue to awaken or arouse a sleeping person, but as he becomes familiar
with the sounds he returns to sleep more rapidly. Also, since one cannot often remem-
ber awakening, just as one often cannot remember dreams,- it is possible that he may
erroneously believe that noises lose their power to awaken.
Whether sleep disturbance by noise constitutes a health hazard is debatable. The
changes in sleep patterns produced by noise are away from the patterns of good sleep
and toward the patterns of poor sleep. But, normal persons deprived of sleep com-
pensate by spending more time in deep sleep, by becoming less responsive to external
stimuli, and by napping. Thus, it may be difficult to deprive a normal person of sleep
to the extent of adversely affecting his health.
In light of present knowledge, it seems reasonable that sleep disturbance by exces-
sive noise will reduce an individual's feelings of well being. Furthermore, when noise
conditions are so severe as to disturb sleep on a regular, unrelenting basis, then such
sleep disturbance may constitute a hazard to physical and mental health.
1-17
-------
76 LEGAL COMPILATION—NOISE
Annoyance and Community Response
Annoyance by noise is a response to auditory experience. Annoyance has its base
in the unpleasant nature of particular sounds, in the particular activities that are dis-
turbed or disrupted by a particular noise, in the physiological reactions to a particu-
lar noise, and in the responses to the meaning or messages carried by a particular
noise. The degree of annoyance is also related to other factors:
1. Differences among individuals in their sensitivity to annoyance by sound.
2. Attitudes of exposed persons toward the noise source, e. g., whether they
consider the noise-producing activity to be important for their social and
economic well being and whether they believe that the noise is a necessary
by product of the activity producing it.
3. Whether they believe that those responsible for the creation of the noise-
producing activity and its regulation are concerned about their (the exposed
population's) welfare.
4. Factors specific to particular sound sources, such as neighborhood disagree-
ments over barking dogs and fear of aircraft crashes, or the belief that sonic
booms cause property damage.
That individuals can make fairly accurate and unbiased direct estimates of their own
degree of annoyance from noise is confirmed by subtle and sophisticated questionnaire
and interview techniques. *
* But see cautions regarding indiscriminate extrapolation of such data in the fol-
discussion of sociological impact of noise.
1-18
-------
GUIDELINES AND REPORTS 77
The degree of annoyance averaged over a large number of individuals near a noise
monitoring station can be predicted, in a statistical sense, from the physical charac-
teristics of the noise. Each individual's degree of annoyance cannot be as accurately
predicted as can the average annoyange. This is true because individuals differ con-
siderably in the exact noise exposure they receive (due to variations in environmental
acoustics), because individuals differ in their sensitivity to disturbance by noise and
because individuals differ in other relevant psychological and social attitudes.
Community noise exposure can be measured and summarized by several compet-
ing methods, as discussed elsewhere in this report. There are also many similari-
ties in these various techniques. Each takes into account several of the following, not
necessarily independent, variables:
1. The levels and durations of identifiable noise events.
2. The number of occurrences of noise events.
3. The residual noise level.
4. The variability of noise levels.
5. The time of day.
6. One or more special factors related to perceived noisiness or loudness of
sounds.
As previously stated, such acoustical measurements allow fairly accurate pre-
diction of the level of annoyance averaged over a large number of individuals exposed
to the noise as it might be measured at a monitoring station. Whether citizens will
take action against those producing the noise or those responsible for its regulation
is more difficult to predict.
1-19
-------
78 LEGAL COMPILATION—NOISE
Individual action against noise sources has been studied, and action may be a com-
plaint in the form of a letter or telephone call to someone responsible for the operation
of a noise-making activity or its regulation. Persons who complain, as defined, in
general do not appear to be unusual. Neither are they unusually sensitive to noise.
In fact, they may represent only 2 to 20 percent of the highly annoyed people in a com-
munity. Organized community action against noise includes more than mere complaint
and depends not only on the intensity level of the noise but also on the leadership within
the community and on the various psychological and attitudinal factors previously men-
tioned.
Although the likelihood of individual complaints and group action against noise
sources can be estimated from acoustical measurement of the noise, as discussed
above, such procedures are fallible, and numerous exceptions can be cited. New and
different schemes of noise evaluation may allow more accurate prediction of complaints
and community response than has been achieved in the past.
Two speculations about possible future community actions in response to noise
may be worthy of note. Right or wrong, '3»ese speculations serve to illustrate how
attitudes and beliefs might combine with actual exposure to noise to influence anti-
noise actions.
In a recent survey, members of a sample of about 8,200 people who live near the
approach and departure paths and within 12 miles of airports in seven major cities of
the United States were asked whether they would be able to accept increases in noise
exposure from aircraft operations. Fifty-four percent replied that they could not.
1-20
-------
GUIDELINES AND REPORTS 79
This, coupled with the fact that fear of aircraft crashes strongly enhances the annoy-
ance produced by aircraft noise, leads to the speculation that substantial increases in
aircraft traffic, along with a few crashes in populated areas, could result in vigorous
community action against aircraft operations and those responsible for its regulation. *
It can also be speculated that if members of a community believe noise is neces-
sary to an approved activity and if they believe people are free to move away from the
noise, then they will be less likely to institute or support action against the source of
noise than if they disapprove of the activity or believe there is no freedom to move to
escape the noise. If this speculation is correct, then perhaps an increase in the total
area or number of persons exposed to annoying noise levels in such an area would not
necessarily result in an increase in support for antinoise actions.
There is one final point to be made. Complaints and group actions are difficult
to predict from the physical characteristics of noise; loudness, perceived noisiness,
annoyance, and disturbance of activities are more closely tied to the physical
characteristics of the noise itself. However, whether or not one complains, the quality
of one's life can be disturbed by noise.
Other Possible Psychological and Sociological Effects
Human Performance
K a task requires the use of auditory signals, either speech or nonspeech, then
noise at any level sufficient to mask or interfere with the perception of those signals
* Testimony from numerous witnesses at EPA public hearings indicates widespread
dissatisfaction with the noise associated with aircraft operations around airports.
This is also commented upon in Chapter 2.
1-21
-------
80 LEGAL COMPILATION—NOISE
will interfere with the performance of the task. When mental or motor tasks do not
involve auditory signals, steady noises without special meaning do not seem to inter-
fere with the performance of skilled mental or motor tasks unless noise level exceeds
about 90 dBA. Even above these levels, performance is sometimes unaffected. On
the other hand, irregular, unpredictable bursts of noise may influence performance
when their noise levels are less than 90 dBA. *
The effects of noise on performance are often conceptualized in terms of arousal,
distraction, and specific effects. Arousal of bodily systems can result in either bene-
ficial or detrimental effects on performance. Distraction can be thought of as lapses
of attention or diversion of attention from the task at hand; it can be the result of re-
sponses to the sound itself or of responses to the messages carried by the sound.
Specific effects include auditory masking and certain patterns of muscular activation.
Many physiological and psychological responses to sound diminish or disappear
when the noises are regular or predictable. Also, strategies can sometimes be learned
so that detrimental effects of particular noises on specific tasks can be avoided. For
these reasons, people sometimes achieve excellent performance or even temporarily
exceed their normal performance in spite of the presence of noise.
Noises, however, are often not regular and predictable, adaptation is not always
complete, and appropriate strategies to eliminate the effects of noise are sometimes
not learned. Furthermore, the fact that distraction or disturbance may be the result
An increase of 5 to 10 dBA above the existing noise level appears to cause atten-
tion and reaction by most exposed persons.
1-22
-------
GUIDELINES AND REPORTS 81
of the message carried by the noise rather than the result of the noise per se may be
of little interest to the citizen. An ideal acoustical environment is one that does not
disturb human performance either because of fundamental properties of noise that may
be present or because of irrelevant messages carried by the noise. The trick, of
course, is to eliminate disturbing noises while maximizing the chances that relevant
messages carried by sound reach the appropriate listener.
Acoustical Privacy
Without opportunity for privacy, either everyone must strictly conform to an elab-
orate social code or everyone must adopt highly permissive attitudes. Opportunity for
privacy avoids the necessity for either extreme. In particular, without opportunity
for acoustical privacy one may experience all of the effects of noise previously de-
scribed and, in addition, one is constrained because his own activities may disturb
others. Without acoustical privacy, sound, like a faulty telephone exchange, often
reaches the wrong number.
It would be helpful for both owner and renter and for both seller and buyer if stand-
ardized acoustical ratings were developed for dwellings. These ratings might include
measures of acoustical privacy as well as other measures of acoustical quality. Such
ratings would be particularly useful since the acoustical properties of a dwelling are
not immediately obvious to the nonspecialist. If such ratings were available, the par-
ties involved could balance the acoustical value of a dwelling in relation to such values
as appearance, size, convenience, and cost.
1-23
-------
82 LEGAL COMPILATION—NOISE
Intersensory Effects
Background noise levels can Influence the judgment of time. Very intense noise
can also influence other sensory functions such as balance and vision. Fortunately,
intensity levels sufficient to produce these effects are not normally encountered.
Mental Disorder, Anxiety, and Psychological Distress
There is some evidence that admissions to psychiatric hospitals are higher in
areas with high noise levels than in quieter areas, but such evidence is not entirely
convincing. There is no evidence that exposure to noise can result in mental illness.
However, all of the facts clearly support the contention that noise can be a source of
psychological distress through annoyance, disturbance of activities such as sleep and
speech communications, and so on. Psychological distress, in turn, can contribute
to a list of symptoms such as nausea, irritability, general anxiety, and changes in
mood.
1-24
-------
GUIDELINES AND REPORTS 83
GENERAL PHYSIOLOGICAL EFFECTS •
There are general physiological responses to transient noise, and it has been
proposed that there may be general physiological responses to persistent noise. It
has also been proposed that noise can be a significant source of stress and can in this
way increase the incidence of health problems. Each of these topics is discussed
below.
Transient Physiological Response to Noise
There are three classes of transient general physiological responses to sound:
1. Fast responses of the voluntary musculature that are mediated by the somatic
nervous system.
2. The slightly slower responses of the smooth muscles and glands that are
mediated by the visceral nervous system.
3. The even slower responses of the neuro-endocrine system.
Responses of the Voluntary Musculature
Muscular responses to sound can be studied by visual observation of bodily move-
ments or by electrical measurements of muscular activity. By these techniques it has
been shown that people are equipped with an elaborate set of auditory-muscular reflexes
that serve the basic functions of orienting the head and eyes toward a source of sound
and of preparing for action appropriate to an object or event signalled by sound. These
* For a comprehensive review of current professional opinion on this subject, see
the transcript of the EPA Public Hearing on Noise held in Boston.
1-25
-------
84 LEGAL COMPILATION—NOISE
reflexes operate at low levels of sound, where they can be detected by sophisticated
electrical measurements, as well as at high levels of sound. Such auditory-muscular
reflexes underlie muscular responses to sound that range from rhythmic movements
and dance to the body's startle response to impulsive sounds such as gunshots or sonic
booms.
The body's startle response to impulsive sounds can interfere with human perform-
ance and is one of the factors that underlie the annoyance produced by sudden noises.
The startle response has been studied in detail and includes an eyeblink, a typical fa-
cial grimace, bending of the knees, and, in general, flexion (inward and forward) as
opposed to extension of bodily parts. The startle response to a nearby gunshot, even
when expected, may undergo various degrees of diminution with repetition, depending
upon the individual, the rate of repetition, and the predictability of the impulse sound.
Some individuals show little diminution of the response with repetition, others show
marked reduction. The eyeblink and head movement persist even in experienced
marksmen when shooting their own guns.
Auditory-muscular reflexes can have more subtle effects on human activity than
those of the startle response. Interestingly, the greater the tension in a muscle, the
greater its reflex response to sound. Therefore, the influence of auditory-muscular
reflexes on the performance of a given task depends on posture and the pattern of mus-
cular tension as well as on the movements required by the given task. For example,
when a given task requires a movement of flexion and the resting posture heightens
tension in the flexor muscles, then a burst of sound at an appropriate time can speed
1-26
-------
GUIDELINES AND REPORTS 85
the required movement. Under other conditions, the burst of sound can greatly in-
terfere with 'this movement.
fa summary, the ebb and flow of muscular activity is closely linked to and influ-
enced by the rise and fall of sound. The obvious effects of the startle response and
other auditory-muscular reflexes often diminish with repetition of the sound stimulus.
However, even after many repetitions these reflexes may continue to operate in a
subtle manner, and their effects will depend on the details of posture and resting mus-
cular tension, on the details of the task at hand, and on the physical properties of the
sound stimulus.
Responses of the Smooth Muscles and Glands
In response to brief sounds, there is general constriction in the peripheral blood
vessels, with a reduction in peripheral blood flow. There may be acceleration or de-
celeration of heart rate, changes in resistance of the skin to electrical current (an
indication of activation of the peripheral visceral nervous system), changes in breath-
ing pattern, changes in the motility of the gastrointestinal tract, and changes in the
secretion of saliva and gastric juice. These responses are obvious when the noise
level exceeds 70 dBA. For sounds below this intensity level, it is doubtful that the
recording techniques have been sufficiently sensitive to decide whether or not these
responses occur. In any case, they are either small or nonexistent. Some aspects
of these responses diminish and seem to disappear with predictable repetition of the
sounds, while others may not.
Some of these responses to sound are part of a pattern of response known as the
orienting reflex or "what is it?" response. The orienting reflex disappears rapidly
1-27
-------
86 LEGAL COMPILATION—NOISE
as the stimulus becomes known or predictab'.e. Others of these responses to sound
are probably part of a response known as the defense reflex, which prepares an or-
ganism to escape or accept injury or discomfort. Defense reflexes occur in response
to warnings of painful stimuli, to painful stimuli themselves, or in response to very
intense stimulation of any sense organ. Responses that are part of the defense reflex
disappear more slowly with stimulus repetition than do those of the orienting reflex.
Sometimes they may never completely disappear.
Neuro-endocrine Responses
Loud sounds as well as other intense stimuli, such as forced immobilization, forced
exercise, cold, pain, and injuries, can activate a complicated series of changes in the
endocrine system. These changes, in turn, can cause changes in hormone levels,
blood composition, and a whole complex of other biochemical and physiological changes.
Possible Persistent Physiological Responses to Noise
It has been proposed that frequent repetition of the transient physiological re-
sponses to noise can lead to persistent, pathological changes in nonauditory bodily
functions. Also, it has been proposed that such repetition of these transient responses
might aggravate existing disease conditions. However, it is true that the transient
physiological responses to sounds are often useful because they help to protect people
from potentially harmful events. It is also appropriate that these responses diminish
when repetition of the noise signifies that particular noises do not represent a threat-
ening condition. The crux of the question is whether man is so designed as to adapt
to nonthreatening noises that are also quite intense or whether the modern environment
1-28
-------
GUIDELINES AND REPORTS 87
presents such ever changing noises that the transient physiological responses are
chronically maintained.
At least some of the transient physiological responses to noise do appear to be
chronically maintained. Furthermore, there is some evidence that workers exposed
to high levels of noise have a higher incidence of cardiovascular disease, ear-nose-
and-throat disorders, and equilibrium disorders than do workers exposed to lower
levels of noise. However, it is also possible to explain these observations in terms
of non-noise factors such as age, dust levels, occupational danger, or life habits.
Also, there is evidence from animal research that high sound levels can interfere
with sexual-reproductive functions, can interfere with resistance to viral disease, and
can also produce other pathological effects. These experiments, however, have often
not been well controlled; i. e., fear, animal handling conditions, and so on have not
been equated between noise-exposed and non-noise-exposed groups. * Further, rodents
were used as experimental subjects, and these animals are known to have special sus-
ceptibility to the effects of certain sounds. Finally, the sound levels were well above
those encountered by most people.
The evidence taken as a whole hints that chronic exposure to sufficiently variable
or intense noise may contribute to nonauditory physiological and anatomical pathology.
However, the case is far from proven and merits further research and investigation.
* In addition to the EPA Hearing in Boston, see the transcript of the hearing held in
New York City.
1-29
-------
88 LEGAL COMPILATION—NOISE
Stress Theory
The neuro-endocrine responses previously mentioned seem similar to the responses
to stress. Responses to stress have general characteristics that appear in response to
all stressors and special characteristics that are linked to specific stressors.
The response to stress, called the general adaptation syndrome, consists of three
stages: an alarm reaction, a stage of resistance, and a stage of exhaustion. If a stres-
sor is severe and is maintained for prolonged periods of time, an organism passes in
succession through the stages of the alarm reaction, of resistance, and of exhaustion.
In the extreme case, the end result is a breakdown of bodily function and death. Even
in the less severe case, a price may be paid for continued stress during a prolonged
stage of resistance. This price may include increased susceptibility to infection and,
perhaps, specific diseases known as the diseases of adaptation. Such diseases may
include, among others, some types of gastrointestinal ulcers, some types of high
blood pressure, and some types of arthritis. Many medical authorities do not accept
the theory that there are diseases of adaptation. Rather, they theorize that each disease
has its own special set of causes.
Stress theory, even as presented by its strongest advocates, is complicated.
These advocates speak of interactions between conditioning factors that set the scene
for disease, specific reactions to particular stressors, and general reactions to non-
specific stressors.
While it is plausible that frequent exposure to intense noise can act as a stressor,
the details of its action as a stressor have not yet been identified, and its implications
1-30
-------
GUIDELINES AND REPORTS 89
are unknown. There is evidence that suggests a certain amount of stress can even be
beneficial.
1-31
-------
90 LEGAL COMPILATION—NOISE
IMPLICATIONS OF GENERAL PHYSIOLOGICAL RESPONSES TO SOUND
While physiological arousal in response to sound can be of great benefit when cop-
ing with possibly dangerous events, unnecessary arousal to irrelevant noises can pro-
vide a basis for annoyance and can interfere with performance of tasks. Noises that
are of high level or are sufficiently varied may maintain chronic arousal -and in this
way may contribute to the incidence of nonauditory disease. However, if noise control
sufficient to protect persons from ear damage and hearing loss were instituted, then it
is highly unlikely that the noises of lower levels and duration resulting from this effort
could directly induce nonauditory disease.
Of course, general psychological distress produced by noise can add to the over-
all stress of life and, in this way, may increase the incidence of nonauditory disease.
However, at this time it is not possible to evaluate the contribution of noise in relation
to all of the other sources of stress encountered in normal activities.
1-32
-------
GUIDELINES AND REPORTS 91
SUMMARY OF PSYCHOLOGICAL AND PHYSIOLOGICAL EFFECTS
It has not been demonstrated that people are having their lives shortened by ex-
posure to audible noise. Perhaps the stress of continued exposure to high levels of
noise can produce disease or make one more susceptible to disease, but, overall, the
evidence is not convincing. The effects of noise on people have not been successfully
measured in terms of excess deaths, shortened lifespan, or days of incapacitating
illness. There are only hints that such effects might exist. Of course, there may be
accidental deaths or injuries because warning signals were not heard or were misun-
derstood due to noise.
There is clear evidence that exposure to noise of sufficient intensity and duration
can:
1. Permanently damage the inner ear with resulting permanent hearing losses
that can range from slight impairment to nearly total deafness.
2. Result in temporary hearing losses, and repeated exposures to noise can
result in chronic hearing losses.
It is also apparent that noise can:
1. Interfere with speech communication and the perception of other auditory
signals.
2. Disturb sleep.
3. Be a source of annoyance.
4. Interfere with the ability to perform complicated tasks and, of course, can
especially disturb those tasks that demand speech communication or response
to auditory signals.
1-33
-------
92 LEGAL COMPILATION—NOISE
5. Adversely influence mood and disturb relaxation.
These latter effects are difficult to quantify, since they affect the essential nature
of human life—its quality. But alone they are sufficient to require more efforts to-
ward controlling the problem.
1-34
-------
GUIDELINES AND REPORTS 93
SOCIOLOGICAL IMPACT OF NOISE
The reactions of groups and communities of individuals arise, in part, from the
aggregation of the varying individuals and personalized responses and from the
interaction therewith of a wide variety of sociological influences. For example, due
to ethnic background, one group of families may accept a noisy environment in their
home that would be considered unacceptable by those of different cultural orientation.
They may in fact create conditions that, while acceptable to themselves, are con-
sidered noisy by others.
This phenomenon must be taken into account in assessing the attributes of noise as
a sociological problem. It also must be given careful attention in translating results
of various studies on noise as related to a particular source and affecting a specific
population (such as the variously cited studies on transportation noise mentioned else-
where in this chapter and in other portions of this report) to other sources, situations,
or populations. This caution was cited in Karl Kryter's recent work The Effects of
Noise on Man (Academic Press, New York, 1970) in relation to possible national dif-
ferences in tolerance to road noise. He further discusses the many factors in this
regard that must be taken into account in assessing the validity of various studies and
study techniques. *
The following discussion provides an overview of additional sociological factors
that are important in the consideration of noise effects on community environmental
quality. Roughly 130 million people live in metropolitan areas subject to the noises
from transportation or construction projects, crowding and congestion, and widespread
* See especially his chapter devoted to Environmental Noise and Its Evaluation.
1-35
-------
94 LEGAL COMPILATION—NOISE
manufacturing activities. * Social surveys registering the public reactions to a variety
of these noises have found people disturbed by such exposures to have increased from
23 percent in 1948 to 50 percent in 1961. Such annoyance is typically due to disruption
of privacy, rest, relaxation, and sleep.
A close relationship exists between expressed annoyance and level of noise inten-
sity. In community surveys based on 3500 people in widely separated areas, it has
been found that the number of people expressing annoyance increased steadily as the
noise level increased and that the number of complaints were a good indicator of the
degree of annoyance. An English study of noise around Heathrow Airport indicated
that 22 percent of the respondents said they were sometimes kept from going to sleep
due to aircraft noise. This figure rose to 50 percent with an increase in noise levels. **
A still greater proportion, also increasing with a corresponding increase in noise
level, complained of being awakened by noise. A traffic noise survey in Sweden noted
that the proportion of people annoyed increased linearly with increasing noise levels
from 50 dBA on, based on a 24-hour energy average; it was also reported that symp-
toms such as headache, insomnia, and nervousness are associated with noise exposure.
* Compared with the approximately 80 million possibly seriously affected by noise.
** For more details on later studies in London, see the transcript of the EPA Hear-
ings on Noise held in Boston.
1-36
-------
GUIDELINES AND REPORTS 95
These studies and others have demonstrated that sounds at night are more an-
noying than those occurring during daytime. As discussed earlier in this chapter,
noise interferes with rest and relaxation and especially with sleep. Complete with-
drawal from the world around us, through sleep, is an obvious necessity for physical
and emotional health, less complete withdrawal into the quiet of our homes may also
be necessary.
As demonstrated throughout this Report, the assessment of the effects of noise on
the population at large has been based on data from many sources and is presented in
a variety of forms. The result has been a compilation of information (some highly
quantitative and precise, some primarily descriptive in nature) on such things as com-
munity responses, physiological and annoyance measures, numbers of people "deaf-
ened", etc., all used to indicate the nature and scope of noise problems. In dealing
with this vast array of data it is easy to lose sight of the fact that they all deal with
basically the same problem and therefore should not be treated independently. Rather,
it is extremely important to integrate these diverse findings by means of one or more
unifying concepts. Perhaps one method of accomplishing this objective is to focus on
its cumulative aspect.
Scientists concerned with hearing loss are in general agreement that the effects
of noise are additive. The major source of disagreement is the specification of the
minimum level (s) at which these effects become important. Any overall evaluation
of the hearing loss problem in the nation must take into account exposures on the basis
of lifetime experience rather than industrial, transportation, or household exposures.
1-37
-------
96 LEGAL COMPILATION—NOISE
Table 1-2 provides a sample of the conditions of noise exposure experienced by
many members of typical U. S. urban communities. Since this information is included
only for illustrative purposes, there is no attempt to specify age ranges or exposure
data.
In a sense, the noise problem of today is both qualitatively and quantitatively dif-
ferent from what it was yesterday. Noise can be thought of as a localized and confined
problem. For example, large cities have always been associated with noise since,
by definition, they were the centers of activities involving industries, transportation,
power facilities, large populations, etc. Certain industrial operations have long been
associated with noise, as have large airports. Many persons living within cities have
often considered noise as being a necessary evil that must be tolerated in exchange for
the convenience of living either near places of work or in proximity to public transpor-
tation routes. The accelerated growth of suburban areas outside of most center cities
and the mobility of our population have radically altered the scope of the noise problem.
Population increase and greater mobility have combined in converting areas that were
previously quiet into smaller versions of the inner city. Land usage has been changed
to accommodate industry and transportation requirements associated with decentrali-
zation. The labor-saving devices that were possible only in industry several decades
ago have been moved to the home environment. Because of new highways and small
airports, motorized vehicles can now penetrate into regions that were only a short while
ago considered remote.
With areas of the continental United States obviously remaining constant, the
rise in the totals of noise sources, as well as in their power, has resulted in a
1-38
-------
GUIDELINES AND REPORTS
97
Table 1-2
LIFETIME EXPOSURE TO NOBE (ILLUSTRATION)
Cap Pistols
Firearms
Rock & Roll Music
Transportation
School Bus
Automobile
Train (subway, elevated)
Aircraft
Household Appliances
Construction Equipment
Community (roadside, flight path)
Recreational Vehicles
Childhood
X
X
X
X
X
X
Youth
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Maturity
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
' X
x = Exposure to noise source
considerable increase in the average sound levels produced throughout the nation. This
factor, combined with an increased availability of major transportation activities and
facilities, has made noise a much more pervasive problem than it was even a short
while ago.
Many scientists and members of the professions concerned with noise are con-
vinced that noise levels not intense enough to cause permanent damage cannot simply
be disregarded as a nuisance that is a necessary waste product of technological
1-39
-------
98 LEGAL COMPILATION—NOISE
progress. That view is shared by many members of the public at large, who see noise
as adversely affecting the quality of life. The reasons for this widespread interpreta-
tion are partially rooted in the characteristics of sound and the types of effects asso-
ciated with noise. Experimental findings have consistently demonstrated that when
visual and auditory signals are concurrently presented, subjects tend to respond to the
auditory signals first, presumably because of some attention-demanding quality. Re-
searchers designing warning devices have made use of this characteristic for years.
Another characteristic of noise causing annoyance is that it affects people who are
in the position of innocent bystanders. That is, in many instances those people respon-
sible for producing noise are not the same as those severely affected by the noise; also,
the receivers of the noise in these instances have no control over the noise source. It
has been stated that noise annoyance is closely associated with the degree to which the
noise producer is concerned with and doing something about the effect of noise on its
receivers. Studies have substantiated this in that subjects showed significantly lower
tolerance or greater attitudes of frustration after exposure to unpredictable noise than
when the noise source was under the control of the subjects. This aspect of the problem
is important because it has been repeatedly demonstrated that when there is no benefit
to a person associated with an activity and yet there are adverse consequences to be
suffered, there is little tolerance for those consequences. For example, if two people
live near a highway and one uses it for commuting while the other walks to work, the
1-40
-------
GUIDELINES AND REPORTS 99
walker is much more likely to complain about noise, air pollution, etc. , due to auto-
mobiles than is the person who drives, all other things being equal. *
The problem is not new or unique to noise, as the following quote from James L.
Hildebrand's Noise Pollution and the Law (Law Book Publishers, Buffalo, N. Y., 1970)
says, "For hundreds of years, indeed throughout most of the history of the common
law as we know it, courts have been struggling to reconcile the conflicting interests
of two property owners—one who believes that his ownership entitles him to use his
property as he wills and the neighbor who believes that his ownership entitles him to
enjoy his property without annoyance. . . two major principles have evolved:
"First, each person must put up with a certain amount of annoyance.
"Second,. . . the gravity of the harm to the complainant should be weighed against
the utility of the conduct of his troublesome neighbor.
"The first of these tells us what every city dweller experiences every day of his
life. . . . The second is less easy to understand. . . in determining the utility of the
defendant's conduct one must consider in addition to the social value of his conduct,
its suitability and the impracticability of preventing or avoiding the annoyance. "
The pervasiveness of noise, combined with the characteristics already noted,
makes it a problem of special concern when psychological well-being is considered.
Most competent medical practitioners, as well as those engaged in health research,
* Based on testimony of witnesses at several of the EPA Hearings.
1-41
-------
100 LEGAL COMPILATION—NOISE
agree that there is an absolute requirement for rest and recreational- activities at
regular intervals in order to maintain adequate mental and physical health, ft is
evident when we consider the quality of life that the need becomes of major importance
to human welfare. Since the home environment is considered to be the principal haven
for most persons to obtain such needed rest, the impact of noise thereon is a major
consideration.
In considering noise within the home, it is useful to make the distinction between
single-family dwellings and other houses. In multiple family buildings, the lack of
acoustical provacy is a major source of difficulty. Acoustical privacy can be defined
as the expectation that sounds generated within one household will not be broadcast to
other households throughout the building. This particular problem deserves attention
because of the changes in construction techniques that have been slowly evolving. There
is a trend toward using lightweight construction having relatively poor sound insulating
properties. If this trend continues (without modification of the sound insulating proper-
ties), the homes of the future will have far less acoustical privacy than did the homes
of the past. Privacy, as well as annoyance, are difficult concepts for scientific investi-
gators to objectively contend with. The two have been somewhat equated by indicating
that annoyance due to noise may be thought of essentially as the resentment one feels
toward an intrusion into his physical privacy. The existence of the problem, though,
has been documented in a variety of community studies conducted in this country and
abroad.
Noises in the home can be generally categorized into three sources: those gen-
erated by family members, building noises (fans, blowers), and those originating
1-42
-------
GUIDELINES AND REPORTS 101
outside of but penetrating into the home. The mechanical helpers within the home are
a major source of complaint by householders (see Chapter 2). Although washers,
dryers, garbage disposer units, etc., have made household tasks easier to perform
physically, they have exacted a psychological cost. The relatively long cycle time of
many of these devices has resulted in not-merely a noise nuisance but in a persistent
one as well. Despite the fact that the family benefits from the primary noise sources
within the home, such noises are often a source of conflict among family members en-
gaging in incompatible activities; e. g. , the housewife vacuuming the rug and her chil-
dren who are studying.
The community noise studies cited already and discussed in Chapter 2 are in sub-
stantial agreement that noise serously affects many of the activities engaged in at
home. It has been shown that noises in the home outnumbered all other disturbances.
Rest and relaxation are difficult, and there is interference with TV viewing, listening
to music, reading, conversation, and many other social and recreational activities.
These and other investigations indicate that the home appears to be the recipient of
noise from a great number of sources in the community. Among the major causes of
complaint, the following have been cited most frequently: traffic, aircraft, industrial
plants, construction, and neighborhood related sources such as dogs and powered
lawn mowers.
When rest and recreation cannot be successfully accomplished at home, there is
a tendency for people to seek these diversions elsewhere. This, along with other fac-
tors beyond the scope of this report, has led to an intensive use of the outdoors and
has resulted in large recreational industries based activities such as camping, fishing,
1-43
-------
102 LEGAL COMPILATION—NOISE
boating, and skiing. The function performed by recreation is primarily that of unwind-
ing and relaxing as a necessary counterpoint to the often hectic day-to-day work and
homemaking activities. Since the goal is identified basically with getting away from
the usual annoyance, any interference with the achievement of this objective is, in the
main, not well tolerated. Disturbances that are normally considered relatively minor
thereby result in a sense of frustration well beyond that normally occurring.
Interference by noise with outdoor recreational activities is almost a universal
phenomenon in that it occurs regardless of the time of day and in all seasons of the
year. Winter vacations are now being disrupted by the advent of the snowmobile in
the same way that motorboats have upset the tranquility of many of our lakes and
rivers. The simple enjoyment of nature by hikers and families enjoying picnics is
often interrupted by transportation noises generated by nearby roadways or aircraft.
There is a growing trend of noise seriously disrupting the serenity of many formerly
secluded retreat areas such as national park and forest areas.
Outdoor spectator events are also seriously affected by noise, especially that
produced by aircraft. The Watergate concerts in the Washington, D. C. , area have
for years undergone regular interruptions as a result of overflights associated with
National airport, with the enjoyment of the music being made extremely difficult by
the almost continuous pattern of takeoffs and landings. As a result, there are plans
to abandon Watergate as a concert stte. These problems were repeatedly cited by
witnesses at the various public hearings held by EPA during 1971 and are documented
in the transcripts.
1-44
-------
GUIDELINES AND REPORTS 103
Among the activities most seriously affected by noise are those centered in public
buildings. Recent studies concerned with aircraft noise in the community of Inglewood,
California, provide an example. In the local churches, it was indicated that the con-
duct services was virtually impossible. The effects on several schools were so severe
that new schools had to be built to serve the community. Other surveys have indicated
that serious disruption of classroom activities has been a major effect of noise. Is it
not reasonable to assume that the quality of education is going to suffer even when noise
levels are not so great that they cause the closing of schools ? Conditions suitable for
adequate speech communication are necessary for classroom activities in which disrup-
tion by noise can readily lead to the necessity for repeating material, misunderstand-
ing of assignments, and difficulty in concentrating on complex subject matter (which is
especially vulnerable to noise interference). Activities in public libraries, theatres,
and hospitals are also vulnerable to the disruptive attributes of noise. While acousti-
cal treatment can be designed and applied to provide for satisfactory interior environ-
ments in such situations, they are extremely costly if added to existing buildings. *
Although the occupational noise exposure regulations promulgated under the Occu-
pational Safety and Health Act are designed to control noise exposure within the work
environment, this continues to be a major problem area, to be taken into account as
part of the total dally noise exposure of a significant part of the total U. S. population.
* Regarding problems of schools, see also the transcript of EPA Hearings in Noise
held in Boston.
1-45
-------
104 LEGAL COMPILATION—NOISE
It is estimated that the number of workers in the U. S. exposed to noise potentially
hazardous to hearing are in excess of 6 million and may be as high as 16 million. It
is now becoming evident that many occupations should be considered among those in
which noise is a hazard. In addition to the workers involved in the heavy industries
traditionally associated with noise problems, construction workers, textile mill em-
ployees, truck drivers, and pilots of both fixed and rotary wing aircraft are exposed
to excessive noise. The new computer-based organizations are not immune to this
hazard either. Keypunch and paper tape devices and equipment such as the optical
character readers and letter-sorting machines used in post offices produce noise that
may ultimately affect the hearing of their operators.
It is important to note that workers exposed on the job to levels of noise considered
hazardous do not spend the remainder of their time in a noise-free environment (as was
assumed in the occupational noise limits established under the Occupational Safety and
Health Act). Instead, after leaving work they may be exposed to the same noise levels
at home and in the community as everyone else. Since there is fairly general agree-
ment that total noise exposure is an important determinant of hearing loss, it might be
conjectured that the aforementioned figures give a rather conservative estimate of the
scope of the occupational hearing loss problem.
Based on testimony presented during EPA public hearings held in Chicago
on July 29,1971 the extent of hearing loss in the population is estimated as follows:
1-46
-------
GUIDELINES AND REPORTS
105
Hearing Loss (Moderate to Profound)
Age Range
0-5
5-10
10-18
18-65
Over 65
TOTALS
Population Totals
(in thousands)
17,000
20,000
32,500
113,000
20,000
202,500
Loss of
Hearing Totals
(thousands)
850
1,000- 1,400
650- 975
2,260
4,000
8,700-11,135
Noise-Associated
Hearing Loss
(thousands)
7
*200
**150
2,000 (Approx)
400-600
2,750-2,950
* Most common cause is explosions from toy caps (20% sensory-neural hearing loss).
** Firearms and toy caps (based on approximately 20% sensory-neural hearing loss).
For several years, many investigators have expressed concern about the possible
adverse consequences of music heard at greatly amplified sound levels. Entering
freshmen college students have been found to have hearing disorders that were attri-
buted to exposure to music played at intense levels. In a series of audiometric examina-
tions given to more than 7,000 students ranging from sixth graders to college freshmen,
the findings Indicate a. steady increase In hearing loss at high frequencies, as measured
by a screening examination. While only 3. 8 percent of the sixth graders failed this test,
approximately 10 percent of the 9th and 10th graders and more than 30 percent of in-
coming college freshmen failed. A test of the next freshman class (Fall, 1969) yielded
the most disturbing findings of all: 61 percent of them failed the audiometric screening
test. There is evidence that the hearing acuity of young persons 21 years of age and
under is becoming prematurely reduced possibly because of voluntary exposure to
sounds that are at a damage-risk level. These implications lead to the speculation that
1-47
-------
106 LEGAL COMPILATION—NOISE
the current population of young people will encounter much more serious hearing prob-
lems in their middle years than the present group of 50 to 60 years olds. *
One other direct consequence of noise is a possible increase in the occupational
rate. A British study indicates, and it seems reasonable to suppose, that if high noise
levels increase, the number of errors during work will increase. The increased levels
will also cause errors in safety measures and, consequently, may cause a higher rate
of accidents than would occur in quieter conditions. Another possible cause of acci-
dent is the masking of an auditory alarm. Since danger-signals often take this form,
it can be reasonably expected that some such signals will be masked in environments
typical of heavy industry operations, construction activities, and mid-city traffic dur-
ing shopping and commuting hours.
While examining the effects of noise on people and groups, it is easy to lose sight
of an evident but important fact. The "average" person or "typical" group simply does
not exist. H should be noted that responses to noise by individuals, as well as by
classes of people, differ markedly from one another. A segment of the population
(estimated from 2 to 10 percent depending upon the source) is considered to be highly
susceptible to noise at almost any level, while some individuals (possibly 20 percent
of the population) barely respond to noises considered intense by others. The
* By way of contrast, testimony received at the EPA Hearing on Noise Associated
with Agriculture, Denver, indicated that children from farms, who were exposed
to farm machinery noise, had a higher percentage of hearing impairment than any
other children from urban communities.
1-48
-------
GUIDELINES AND REPORTS 107
following factors have been found to be the most important, from a sociological view,
in enhancing or decreasing noise acceptability:
1. Feeling about the necessity or preventability of the noise.
2. Feeling of the importance of the noise source and the value of its primary
functions.
3. Types of living activities affected.
4. Extent to which there are other things disliked in the residential environment.
H. O. Parrack, in the Handbook of Noise Control, 1957, provided data on the
characteristics of people more likely to complain about noise. He noted that they were
generally of higher socioeconomic status, were highly educated, and were likely to
have political affiliations. He also found that those people engaging in mental as con-
trasted to physical occupational pursuits were more likely to complain about noise.
This latter finding is consistent with that of the London noise survey and many others.
The recently issued study by TRACOR, Inc. (a NASA report entitled Community Re-
action to Airport Noise, 1971) indicated that, on the average, complainants are older
and more affluent and have a higher education level than noncomplainers. *
* There are indications, however, that the lack of complaint is not a true measure
of response, as brought out in testimony regarding Logan Airport, at the EPA
Hearing in Boston, Mass.; and further that those of lower socio-economic status,
while not "complaining" are personally disturbed or have adverse social reactions
to the noise source.
1-49
-------
108 LEGAL COMPILATION—NOISE
Prof. A. C. McKennell (of the University of Southampton, England) in a recent
article entitled "Complaints and Community Action", which appeared in Transporta-
tion Noises—A Symposium on Acceptability Criteria, evaluated the results of many
community surveys in the following terms: "We know a certain amount about the char-
acteristics of the reactions of communities to events which deeply affect them. A
small, middle class group actively protesting in the presence of an apparently indif-
ferent majority is a common occurrence. B is when these activists groups gain the
support of the larger, normally acquiescent majority, that serious community conflict
can result. Under these conditions, what starts as a specific issue often sparks off a
more generalized local conflict. "
The day when planners could concern themselves solely with technical and economic
considerations is paat. In a paper entitled "Predicting the Future", which also
appears in the previously cited symposium volume on transportation noises, Prof. R.
A. Bauer of the Harvard Graduate School of Business notes: "If we are moving into a
period in which individual citizens increasingly expect to be freed from various forms
of environmental nuisance and if all citizens groups are tending more and more to take
an active role in the decision making process, then it is probable that complaints and
effective organized protests will occur at lower levels and frequency rates of noise ex-
posure than in the past." He further stated that, "For a variety of convergent reasons,
1-50
-------
GUIDELINES AND REPORTS 109
we appear to be entering a period in which people will be more disposed to organize
for direct participation in policy decisions affecting them. "*
As a counterforce to this pressure exercised by the community, associations
and organizations representing the noise producers can be expected to act concertedly.
fii this manner, large and politically powerful groups with differing beliefs and objec-
tives can be expected to press for their interests. This type of situation requires
that all the facts relevant to the issues at hand be brought into the arena of public dis-
course and be used in the decision making process, in an orderly manner.
There is an upsurge of activity regarding enactment by states and cities of new
regulatory provisions on noise. Many states are currently considering legislation
relating to control of noise. This activity is clear indication of the increasing im-
portance of noise as a sociological and environmental quality consideration. Vigorous
statements at EPA public hearings concerning the lack of corrective action on the part
of the Federal government were received from mayors and other elected local officials
and from numerous congressmen. Such statements reflect the awareness of the respec-
tive constituencies of the general noise problem and the widely held view that there is
little or no recourse, short of court action or acts of Congress, to the solution of this
major problem. This, in spite of the extensive investment of the Federal government
There are clear implications in this as to the importance of the Environmental
Impact Statement provisions of PL-91-190 (Sec. 102(2)c) and the noise nusiance
control features of PL-91-604 (Sec. 402(c) ).
1-51
-------
110 LEGAL COMPILATION—NOISE
and industry in aircraft noise control research (as brought out in EPA hearings in
Chicago and Washington) indicates the need for more rapid action to control noise.
1-52
-------
GUIDELINES AND REPORTS 111
THE EFFECTS OF NOISE ON WILDLIFE AND OTHER ANIMALS
Acoustic signals play a major role in animal species survival in terms of main-
taining viable population dynamics and an individual animal's growth behavior. For
example, a single startle event may stop the brooding cycle of wild game birds for
an entire season. Continuous noise may mask the detection and avoidance relation-
ship between prey and predator causing huddling or panic-behavior or may indt'ce
population dissipation and migration. Unfortunately, a thorough search of the scien-
tific literature from 1950 to the present reveals an almost complete lack of informa-
tion concerning the effects of noise on wildlife. Scientific literature dealing with the
effects of noise on laboratory and farm animals is sparse but can provide some clues
regarding the possible effects on wild animals.
Extreme caution should be used in interpolating from experimental data obtained
on animals receiving acute high level sound exposures when estimating probable re-
sults to be expected from animals experiencing lower sound levels for longer terms
or variable durations. Also, it should be recognized that experimental animal data
may not always be relevant to humans.
It is important to note that audible frequency ranges vary widely from organism
to organism. This might be expected to be a significant factor in studies to determine
the effects of sound on the organism. However, little or no mention of this is found
in the available scientific literature nor is there any evidence of concern about this
factor.
The sound pressure levels that have been used to study laboratory animals were
mostly high or intense, and the duration of exposure in most cases was typically acute
1-53
-------
112 LEGAL COMPILATION—NOISE
rather than chronic. A danger in generalizing from acute high or relatively high in-
tensity level studies to chronic low levels of stimulation is that there may be no re-
lationship at all. The longest exposure duration in studies reviewed was 150 days.
This should probably be considered a chronic exposure; however, the next longest
exposure was 42 days, which would hardly qualify as a chronic exposure except per-
haps for organisms with relatively short lifespans. The levels of stimulation were as
high as 160 dB, with most in excess of 100 dB and with few below 90 dB. These are
higher levels than those animals would normally be exposed to around most airfields,
industries, highways, or other man-made sources that may invade their habitats.
Studies using laboratory animals have demonstrated loss of hearing after exposures
to sound pressure levels of 90 dB or less, depending upon the animals studied and up-
on the frequency characteristics of the sound. Spectra varying from pure tones to
narrow and broad band noise have been used. Most of the studies conducted have uti-
lized high intensities of sound, usually of narrow- or broadband noise.
Effects of Noise on Wildlife
A thorough search of the scientific literature from 1950 to the present reveals an
almost complete lack of information regarding the effects of noise on wildlife. How-
ever, there have been a number of selective studies to determine the effects of noise
on particular fish and insects. These studies have established that intrusive sounds
can affect the locomotor patterns of fish and, if sufficiently intense, can also result in
their death. Studies of insects indicate that their life span and reproductive capacity
may be affected by exposure to certain sounds.
1-54
-------
GUIDELINES AND REPORTS 113
Effects of Noise on Laboratory Animals
The best documented effect of noise on laboratory animals, as on man, it, the
production of loss of hearing or damage to the auditory system. Brief exposures to
intense sound or prolonged exposures to moderate levels of noi&e can cause hearing
•loss. Impulse sounds are sounds in which the pressure from the sound wave rises to
its maximum intensity quickly (within a few millionth.? of second). If sufficiently in-
tense, such sounds can damage the ear before protective mechanisms (the aural re-
flex) can help compensate for the pressure increase.
Loss of hearing due to noise exposure has been demonstrated in a variety of ani-
mals such as guinea pigs, rats, chinchillas, dogs, and cats. HIstologic studies have
revealed damage to the inner ear, such as destruction of hair cells and, in some cases,
disruption of supporting cells and damage to the basilar and tectorial membranes.
Nonauditory effects of exposure to noise have been demonstrated in guinea pigs,
mice, rats, and rabbits. There is evidence that noise influences stress responses
in an animal, producing neural and hormonal changes affecting urinary, adrenal, and
reproductive functions.
In summary, high levels of noise stimulation of laboratory animals for t'airly
short durations have produced results suggestive of significant effects on such things
as sexual function, blood chemistry, auditory function, and seizure susceptibility.
Effects of Noise on Farm Animals
There has been a considerable amount of speculation concerning detrimental
effects of noise on domestic animals of economic importance such as horses, cattle,
swine, poultry, and especially mink. However, controlled studies typically reveal
1-55
-------
114 LEGAL COMPILATION—NOISE
little or no effect other than startle response to sudden loud sounds. Sound in itself
apparently produces responses ranging from momentary alerting and searching re-
actions to (rarely) signs of panic or fright. In general, panic reactions occur when
a visual stimulus, such as a low-flying airplane, occurs alone or in conjunction with
the loud sound. The larger farm animals (horses, cattle, and swine) appear to adapt
readily to high levels of noise. Several-studies have revealed that sonic booms and
simulated sonic booms have little effect on mink, despite many large claims against
the government for noise-related losses.
Poultry may not adapt as well as do the large farm mammals. Loud noises have
been demonstrated to disrupt broodiness (cessation of egg laying and initiation of in-
cubation) in turkeys, producing a rapid return to egg production. Little effect on the
hatchability of chicken eggs as a result of sonic boom exposure has been shown, fa
general, insufficient research on effects of noise on farm animals precludes drawing
any firm conclusions. However, sounds that are meaningful to a particular animal
seem to communicate specific information that results in changes in behavior and
internal physiological states.
Possible consequences of some of the behavioral changes effected by noise are
difficult to evaluate. Decreased exploratory behavior, immobility, and things of like
nature could have significant consequences if they occur under conditions of chronic
stimulation and the exposed animals do not adapt out over time. Any panic type behavior,
such as piling up or huddling, could well lead to problems of survival of an animal. Also,
avoidance behavior could restrict access to food or shelter and could therefore adversely
affect an animal's, or even a specie's, chances for survival.
1-56
-------
GUIDELINES AND REPORTS 115
The prey-predator situation could be drastically changed. The animal that depends
on its ears to locate prey could starve If auditory sensitivity acuity decreased, or the
animal that depends on hearing to detect and avoid its predators could be killed. Re-
ception of auditory mating signals could be diminished, therefore affecting reproduc-
tion. Masking of these signals by noise in an area could also produce the same effect.
Detection of sounds of the young by the mother could be hindered, leading to increased
rates of infant mortality or decreased survival rates. Distress or warning calls may
not be received, again significantly affecting survival.
In view of the potential economic impact of noise effects on farm animals, it
would appear worthwhile to study in more detail the effects of noise on such things as
fertility, egg laying, weight gain, and health, under precisely controlled conditions and
in realistic, chronic exposures. In any such investigations, the frequency character-
istics of stimuli to be used should be carefully selected to correspond to the audible
range of hearing of the animal to be studied, in order to enhance the likelihood of
valid and realistic results.
Summary of Effects on Wildlife and Other Animals
With the exception of the extensive and systematic body of literature exploring the
effects of noise upon auditory structures and hearing, well controlled and well designed
experiments substantiating nonauditory effects of noise on animals are rare. In the
case of wildlife, such studies are virtually nonexistent.
The uncertainties, ambiguities, and even conflicts in reports of nonauditory phys-
iological, metabolic, sexual, and other physical effects of noise suggest the need for
1-57
-------
116 LEGAL COMPILATION—NOISE
a thorough and clearly defined research program to systematically study the effects
of long-term, low level chronic noise exposure in animals. Concurrently, and with
careful examination of possible physiological and psychological effects of noise on ani-
mals, the effects of noise on true wildlife in its native habitat requires detailed in-
vestigation.
1-58
-------
GUIDELINES AND REPORTS 117
EFFECTS OF SONIC BOOM AND SIMILAR IMPULSIVE NOISES ON PROPERTY
The effects of impulsive noise will be discussed here mainly in terms of the effects
produced by sonic booms. However, the discussion is applicable to the sounds of
chemical explosions and to other impulsive noises if the appropriate physical param-
eters are known.
The Federal government has carried out a comprehensive series of observations
on the effects of sonic booms produced by supersonic aircraft flights. Three of the
series were observations at cities in the Midwest. The cities, dates, and total num-
ber of overflights producing booms were as follows: St. Louis (1961-62), 150;
Oklahoma City (1964), 1253; Chicago (1965), 49. Another series of experiments was
carried out at Edwards Air Force Base in California (1966). Most of the results sum-
marized in the following discussion are drawn directly from the report of the Sonic
Boom Panel of the International Civil Aviation Organization, which included data from
the four series of tests.
Nature of Sonic Booms and Other Impulsive Noises
Impulsive noise has its origin in transient events that generate sound pressure
waves jumping abruptly to some peak value, then decaying slowly with time and,
finally, (for a sonic boom) abruptly jumping a^ain. The pressure jumps of sonic booms
are shock waves and are audible as two sharp bangs separated by a short time interval.
A rise in the pressure of the air may always be observed immediately in front
of any solid object, e.g. , an aircraft, that is in motion relative to the surrounding
air. At subsonic speeds, the pressure decreases rapidly with distance away from the
aircraft. However, when the relative velocity between the aircraft and the surrounding
1-59
-------
118 LEGAL COMPILATION—NOISE
air is greater than the local speed of sound, not only is the air ahead of the aircraft
compressed, but a coneshaped shock wave is formed with the aircraft at the vertex.
As the shock spreads out, the shock cone intersects the earth's surface and is heard
by the observer as a sonic boom, ft should be emphasized that sonic booms occur in
the wake of a supersonic aircraft at all times when it is traveling faster than the speed
of sound and not just at the instant when the aircraft passes from a subsonic to a super-
sonic speed.
The intensity of the sonic boom and the region on the ground over which the sonic
boom will be observed (known as the boom carpet) are dependent on atmospheric con-
ditions and airplane characteristics. The volume, weight, length, lift characteristics,,
altitude and Mach number of the aircraft affect both the amplitude and duration of the
boom. The total width of the boom carpet is, typically, 20 to 80 miles. Outside of
the carpet, the passage of the aircraft is heard only as a low-pitched rumble.
When the effects of the sonic boom on structures are being considered, it should
be noted that most of the mechanical energy of the boom is contained in a band of low,
inaudible frequencies. A convenient measure, for discussing the effects of sonic booms
is the number of boom-person exposures—the" experience of one sonic boom by one
person. It is used as a measure of the times a sonic boom is experienced, either on
different occasions by the same recipient or on the same occasion by different recipients.
Response of Structures to Sonic Boom*
Sonic booms can induce transient vibrations in various types of structures. The
manner in which a given structure vibrates is basically the result of the pressure
1-60
-------
GUIDELINES AND REPORTS 119
signature distributed over the entire structure. The structural response will depend
on the structure's location, size, shape, type of construction, manner of assembly,
and state of maintenance and on the specific form of sonic boom pressure signature
and its variation over the structure. The resonance characteristic of the structure
will also have major influence. Seismic transmissions—vibrational energy transmitted
through the earth—may also play a minor role in exciting the vibrations.
It follows, then, that structural response to sonic booms will be highly variable
among structures, and unpredictable for a particular structure. But the response of
a large collection of structures, such as the buildings in a community, will be fairly
predictable in statistical terms.
Physical Effects on Buildings
It appears that the structures most susceptible to sonic boom loads are buildings,
residential, public, commercial, or otherwise. By and large, the damage caused by
sonic booms will be confined to brittle secondary structures, such as window glass
and plaster. There is, however, a small probability of a greatly magnified boom (as
from aircraft turns and accelerations) striking a building with an exceptionally weak
or faulty primary structure.
Studies involving flights of aircraft over instrumented and monitored structures
have been completed for a number of residential and commercial building structures
and for a variety of window configurations. The results of these studies are presented
in Table 1-3.
1-61
-------
120
LEGAL COMPILATION—NOISE
Table 1-3
STUDIES AND SURVEYS ON SONIC BOOM
COMMENT
NOMINAL PEAK PRESSURE
RESULTS
Laboratory Test:
plate glass windows
7'x7'xl/4" and normal
construction mounting
Laboratory Test:
residential sash window
Field Test:
(White Sands) with 20
different type of resi-
dential and commercial
structures and 1200
supersonic overflights
Field Test:
residential and commercial
buildings and pre-test
structural survey monitoring.
(St. Louis, Wallops Station,
Oklahoma City, Edwards AF
Base)
Field Test:
Flights controlled, but no
monitoring of building
structures (St. Louis,
Oklahoma City, Edwards,
Chicago)
960 N/ni
144 - 960 N/nT
158 N/nT
288 N/m
48 - 154 N/m2
No damage
No damage
No damage
No damage
Some dam-
age claimed
1-62
-------
GUIDELINES AND REPORTS 121
Between 1961 and 1965 field studies of sonic boom effects were conducted by
systemmatic supersonic overflights of three cities: St. Louis, Oklahoma City and
Chicago.
As an illustration of the type of damage reported, the information in Table 1-4 is
presented from an analysis of the complaint reports in the St. Louis area.
Table 1-4
PERCENT OF VALID CLAIMS FOR CATEGORY OF DAMAGED ELEMENT
Type Element Damaged
Glass only
Plaster only
Glass and Plaster
Bric-a-brac
Tiles and fixtures
Other structural damage
Percent of Units Damaged
37.0
22.0
11.0
18.5
7.5
4.0
Evaluations were made of a portion of the complaints received, and it was judged
by competent engineers and architects that about one-third of the alleged damage
incidents were valid. The validated complaints included those in which the sonic boom
was interpreted as a possible triggering mechanism in the presence of other factors
affecting structural integrity.
Measured vibrational accelerations and displacements in all monitored structures
indicate that such occurrences as door closing, door slamming, and pedestrian traffic
create accelerations in the structure of the same order of magnitude as those measured
1-63
-------
122 LEGAL COMPILATION—NOISE
due to sonic booms. In addition to the statistical nature of glass breakage, some in-
consistency between laboratory and community data undoubtedly existed due to the will-
ingness of claims adjusters to allow small claims rather than to pursue the investiga-
tion to proof of damage cause.
Cost of Damage to Buildings
In the foregoing discussion, the physical nature of the sonic boom damage problem
has been treated. Another measure of the extent of damage is the number of claims
filed. In this connection, Concorde 001 carried out 43 supersonic flights over France
under conditions different from expected commercial flight operations in that, for
example, a great number of focused booms were generated during supersonic maneu-
vers. Furthermore, during these flights, 27 focused booms due to transonic accel-
eration reached the ground. For 40 million boom-person exposures, 56 claims were
lodged and are presently being processed. The fianancial settlement of claims judged
to be justified is not presently known.
In the last decade, military aircraft have logged over 15,000 hours of supersonic
flight training time over the continental United States. Typical peak overpressures
2 2
under the flight path are 96 N/m (2 Ib/ft ), although overpressures two to four times
greater may arise during maneuvering. Of the paid damage claims • resulting from Air
Force training flights, 65 percent were for glass and 18 percent were for plaster
damage.
The previously mentioned sonic boom tests in three cities —account for the over-
whelming bulk of the systematic study of boom-person exposures in published reports
1-64
-------
GUIDELINES AND REPORTS 123
to date. The data on boom-person exposures, numbers of complaints, claims filed,
and, finally, value of damage awarded are given in Table 1-5. The data is analyzed
and reduced on the basis of boom-person exposures in Table 1-6. Perhaps the most
useful yardstick of structural damage is the amount of money paid out in settlement of
damage claims per million boom-person exposures in these three highly publicized
tests. For these surveys, this averages to about $220 per million boom-person ex-
posures.
Care must be taken in applying the above estimate of damage costs per million
boom-person exposures in other contexts; for example, at other average boom inten-
sities. The samples of costs underlying the estimate vary by more than a factor of
two; thus, no consistent pattern of costs among the cities has emerged. (Errors in
consistency in estimating the population affected in the different cities may be a
factor). Also, structural damage susceptibility, varying building codes, repair costs,
reimbursement policies (whether lenient or strict) probably vary widely among cities
and counties.
Effect of Sonic Booms on Natural Structures and Terrain
Earth Surfaces
Sonic booms apply moving pressure loads to the earth's surface. On land there
are two major effects. The first, and largest, is the static deformation that travels
with the surface load, and the second is a train of Rayleigh surface waves that travel
at a different speed.
The ground response to sonic booms in terms of soil particle movement is com-
parable to that associated with the footsteps of a man. The effective areas covered on
1-65
-------
124
LEGAL COMPILATION—NOISE
Ł
<
0
8
<
0
s
o
i
s
CD 3
1 Ł 1
> O O.
CO
si
rQ lit
g 15 2
r5 "S 0,
CQ
fc.§
P *-2 -W
3 Ł .2
o C!
M '
Q) g ŁQ
151
53 o "3,
M ,—.
I B 0> CQ
C 0 IH C
B CO 3 O
O t< CO -r-
O V O *i
rQ Si O* '2
,
§ o Ł
'S O 3 """*
CD ^ O5 | -
S "cci 2 S \
8.S.^S.
8 . 5
3 S •§>
B g S
^
it!
QQ
•S
g
00 tH CO
SCO CO
0 t-
00 CO ^*
in CQ rH
i-t rH
io Oi cq
CQ 00 rj3
iH
•^ rH -^
o o in
o ^ o
CO CO CO
QO cT So"
^i ^i- ti
CO 00 CO
oo m oo
O CO O5
rH CQ
^
§§§
O O O
o" CQ" i-T
§«H CQ
m CQ
CM CO
*
CM
t-
i
CD
m
«•
en
00
os"
00
CO
in
S
u?
CO*
CO
CO
CO
c-
•
00
(M
m
*"*
o
o
o
CO
oT
Tt<
CQ cS
(O ^
rH »
? - « -a
«. . *^ O
I|| *
55 So
1
3
CO
3
1
10
2
«
g
S
•»
o
1
1
0
5
•o
4)
S
en
^
CO
M
C
<
o
eographi
O
•a
B
U
Z
fi
1
"G
Ł3
09
g
1 •
11
#
I
5"
5
1
*a
pulation s
a
m
|
.
to
Greater
+
oi
CD
1
+
!- W
CO Pi
CO c
S5 °
li s
w
RS
m B
•3 8
co B
•§-§«
.2 " S
S g S
||
ffl
US,*
CM
cq
W5-
CD CO in
i-( W t-
•^ t>" 01
to
o
1-66
-------
GUIDELINES AND REPORTS 125
the ground are, of course, different; the boom-induced motions are correlated over
distances on the order of miles, whereas footstep-induced motions decay within several
feet. Earthquake tremors that are measurable with sensitive instruments but imper-
ceptible to humans are also of this magnitude. Sonic-boom-induced particle velocities
are, on the average, approximately two orders of magnitude (that is, a factor of 100)
less than the damage threshold accepted by the U. S. Bureau of Mines and other agen-
cies for blasting operations.
Further significant findings of the sonic boom tests were that the disturbances
were limited to a thin surface of the earth and that no evidence of focusing of seismic
energy was observed. Although reports have been received concerning cracked con-
crete driveways and broken underground pipes due to sonic booms, investigations
produced no scientific support for such allegations.
Avalanches
Of particular concern is the possibility of avalanches being triggered by sonic
2
booms. A series of 18 flights that generated nominal peak pressures up to 500 N/m
were conducted over a snow covered area exhibiting potential avalanching conditions.
No avalanche or effect on the creep behavior of the snow layers resulted. However,
the snow conditions were such that the U. S. Forest Service rated the possibility of
avalanche to be low. The results, therefore, are inconclusive.
Landslides
There have been reports of landslides and cliff failures attributed to sonic booms.
However, these reports have not been documented at this time.
1-67
-------
126 LEGAL COMPILATION—NOISE
Water Surfacfs
to deep water, a moving underwater pressure field accompanies the boom carpet
over the surface. Theoretically the pressure wave formed just beneath the surface of
calm water is almost identical to that of the wave in air, both in the amount of peak
pressure and in wave form, but it is rapidly attenuated with depth. Furthermore, the
pressure jumps disappear and are replaced by slowly varying pressures. It does not
seem probable that a pressure field in water could cause structural damage.
Summary of Effects of Sonic Boom
• Laboratory and controlled overflight experiments with monitored structures
were generally negative regarding sonic boom damage from peak pressures
2 2
up to 960 N/m (20 Ib/ft ).
• Controlled overflights with unmonitored structures subjected to a range of
2 2
nominal peak pressures from about 48 to 154 N/m (1 to 3.2 Ib/ft ) resulted
in damage claims, predominantly for glass, on the order of one per 100,000
population per flight, i. e. , 100, 000 boom-person exposures, with about one
in three being judged valid,
• Flight test series in Oklahoma City, Chicago, and St. Louis resulted in over
1 billion boom-person exposures. The associated property damage resulted
in paid out claims averaging about $220 per million boom-person exposures.
Numerous small claims were paid without investigation or inspection.
• On the average, frequency of paid claims for glass damage far exceeded
that for plaster damage.
1-68
-------
GUIDELINES AND REPORTS 127
• Ground motion due to sonic boom is small, but measurable (two orders of
magnitude less than U.S. Bureau of Mines damage threshold for blasting
operations.)
• Although no direct evidence exists, sonic booms may trigger avalanches if
unstable snow conditions exist.
• Although no documented evidence exists, unstable terrain features could be
affected by sonic booms.
• A structure may accumulate damage (often not visible) from vibration,
weathering, and aging that eventually terminates its life. The sonic boom
could be another such cumulative contributor.
• An uncertainty concerning the effects of the sonic boom is how it compares
with the structural aging effects due to the existing environment.
• Sonic boom pressures over water are rapidly attenuated and converted to
slowly varying pressures and probably have no effect on structures.
In summary, the effects of sonic boom on ground motion must be further explored.
1-69
-------
128 LEGAL COMPILATION—NOISE
PHYSICAL EFFECTS OF NOISE ON STRUCTURES AND PROPERTY
There Is little data available regarding the effects of acoustical energy on struc-
tures other than aircraft, in which case high frequency, high intensity noise has been
implicated in metal fatigue in certain components. High intensity, low frequency
acoustical energy, such as associated with pulsejets and other high intensity pulsation
sources, has been observed to set structural components such as windows, light
aluminum or other sheet metals into sympathetic vibratory motions. There is little
valid information regarding the transition zone between acoustical energy and vibra-
tory response phenomena and possible effects on structures, machinery, and equip-
ment. Since shock and vibration do play a major role in certain types of mechanical
deterioration and equipment failures or malfunctions (in which noise generation may
be a symptom of the occurrence), it is evident that a complex relationship exists.
The heavy concentration of construction equipment in certain urban areas may
produce a combination of vibratory energy transmission through soil and supporting
structures, which could conceivably affect fragile structures such as glass and certain
particularly susceptible materials including plastics and thin aluminum panels. Fur-
ther investigation is needed on the exact nature of this problem.
1-70
-------
GUIDELINES AND REPORTS 129
CHAPTER 2
SOURCES OF NOISE AND THEIR
CURRENT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT*
A characterization of the sources of environmental noise and an assessment of
their impact on the quality of life ia central to the formulation of a balanced environ-
mental noise abatement program. Clearly, such a program must be predicated on a
quantitative understanding of the contribution of each of the broad array of noise-
producing devices. Most people are aware, at least qualitatively, of the impact of
aircraft noise on airport communities, and many are aware of the numerous diesel
trucks presently on our roads. But noise from other types of vehicles, construction
and industrial operations, and appliances are also recognized as a problem in various
segments of society. People will, however, assess the relative and absolute impact
of these sources differently. Such impressions are generally closely tied to an in-
dividual's life style and experience and cannot be used as the basis for the establish-
ment of national policies. An objective and quantitative description of noise sources
This chapter is based upon material prepared by the staff EPA Office of Noise
Abatement and Control as a result of testimony received during public hearings
and upon data contained in EPA Technical Information Documents NTED300.1,
"Noise From Construction Equipment and Operations, Building Equipment, and
Home Appliances" (EPA contract 68-04-0047, Bolt, Beranek and Newman);
NTID300. 2, "Noise From Industrial Plants" (EPA contract 68-04-044, L. S.
Goodfriend Associates); and NTID300. 3, "Community Noise" (EPA contract 68-
04-0046, Wyle Laboratories); NTID300.13, "Transportation Noise and Noise
From Equipment Powered by Internal Combustion Engines (EPA contract 68-04-
0048, Wyle Laboratories).
2-1
-------
130 LEGAL COMPILATION—NOISE
and effects is needed to establish priorities and to cast the problem of environmental
noise in proper perspective. More important is the need to determine the average
cumulative noise exposure of typical individuals in our complex society.
Sources may be characterized individually and in the aggregate. To assess rela-
tive importance and as a basis for impact evaluation, it is generally adequate to deter-
mine a simple measure of the noise level (e.g., dBA) of a source at a particular dis-
tance. For example, by comparing the A-weigh ted sound levels of appliances at a
3-foot measuring distance, one can tentatively conclude that refrigerators generating
42 dBA are likely to be a far less serious problem than vacuum cleaners generating
72 dBA. Further, noise levels at other distances and in other situations characteris-
tic of personal exposure may be estimated by accounting for changes In level as sound
propagates through the air and structures.
Characterizing noise levels in a more collective sense Is also of use in assessing
impact. People tend to respond differently to the noise characteristics of a distant
highway or construction site than to a readily identifiable single Incident such as a
passing truck. Highways for example, are typically characterized by a nearly con-
tinuous background level, with fluctuations owing to vehicle spacing and the various
source levels of each vehicle. Single events are different In that they may Intrude
excessively In otherwise quiet environments, and annoyance Is strongly related to
both the peak level and duration of exposure.
One step further than aggregating vehicles into highways Is to consider the noise
generating in the community. This means the combination of all sources creating a
total noise environment. The value of considering community noise as a whole,
rather than evaluating each source in isolation. Is twofold. First, human behavior
is not arithmetically additive, reactions to individual acoustic stimuli do not provide
a simple measure of the reaction to concurrent stimuli. Secondly, the myriad
2-2
-------
GUIDELINES AND REPORTS 131
sources around us make the synthesis of a community noise profile difficult. To ac-
quire an indication of realistic community situations it is more useful to have a total
noise picture, established from actual field measurement.
As with noise source levels, the community impact must be treated quantitatively,
and in terms that can be readily interpreted. It is not necessarily of great interest
that a piece of construction equipment may generate as much as 95 dBA at 50 feet.
What is of interest is that this noise level will contribute to the hearing loss of con-
struction workers and other people exposed daily for several hours, will prevent
intelligible conversation, and could affect the sleep of people living nearby. Also of
great significance Is the number of people disturbed in these ways and the extent of
their disturbance. In a sense, the magnitude of the noise problem is proportional to
the number of people whose lives are significantly degraded by noise.
It is neither practical nor desirable to identify and characterize all sources of
environmental noise. Every piece of machinery, from a jet aircraft to an electric
clock, produces sound; but not all of these sounds are of sufficient significance to merit
study. Furthermore, the appropriate depth of treatment varies with the significance
of the source. To ensure that the most significant sources of environmental noise
are treated, the following categories of sources are Identified and analyzed in this
chapter.
1. Transportation systems
2. Devices powered by internal combustion engines
3. Industrial plants
4. Construction equipment
5. Household appliances and building equipment.
Transportation systems include aircraft, road and rail vehicles, ships, and such
recreational vehicles as snowmobiles and all-terrain vehicles. The second category
2-3
-------
132 LEGAL COMPILATION—NOISE
includes such devices as gasoline-powered lawnmowers and chain saws, which are
not treated elsewhere. Although Industrial plants have traditionally received atten-
tion because of occupational noise problems, they may also generate noise that is
propagated to the community. Construction equipment and operations are responsible
for intense levels of noise, though they are not as ubiquitous as certain other sources.
Numerically, probably the most widespread source of noise is household appliances and
building equipment, which includes 1 billion home appliances, as well as electric tools,
and heating, ventilation, and air conditioning machinery. As a prelude to a discussion o
these sources, community noise is treated in general. The chapter is concluded with
an evaluation of the total impact of noise on the environment and a comparison among
the various source categories.
2-4
-------
GUIDELINES AND REPORTS 133
COMMUNITY NOISE
The description of community noise requires inclusion of all of the noises in the
outdoor acoustical environment. The outdoor noise environment varies from the quiet
suburban areas to the din of traffic in the downtown city canyon and it generally varies
with time of day in each location, being relatively quiet at night and noisier in the late
afternoon during the 5 p.m. rush. Its effects may be experienced by people either in
or out of doors. Thus, the task of describing community noise is to determine the
variations in the outdoor noise environment with time and place throughout the com-
munity so that the descriptions are relevant to noise effects on people.
Description of the Outdoor Noise Environment
A physical description of a sound must account for its frequency characteristics,
magnitude, and temporal pattern. A sound level meter, when used with the
A-weighting characteristic, accounts for the frequency characteristics of a noise and
magnitude of outdoor noise by weighting the amplitude of the various frequencies ap-
proximately in accordance with a person's hearing sensitivity as illustrated in the
example in Figure 2-1.
Because the A-weighting is not a perfect solution for the accounting of man's per-
ception of the frequency characteristics of a sound, other scales have been developed
that attempt to better quantify loudness and noisiness. One of these, the tone-
corrected Perceived Noise Level, better accounts for the ear's frequency response
function and certain other characteristics of the noises; that is broadband noises
containing strong high frequency pure tones (e.g., whine in jet noise). Presence of
such tones results in a higher Perceived Noise Level. This scale requires complex
measurement and analysis in its quantification. However, because it is somewhat
more exact than the A-weighting in relating the physical characteristics of a sound
to perceived noisiness, particularly for aircraft noise, it has become a major
2-5
-------
134
LEGAL COMPILATION—NOISE
8
evel in dB re 20
re
S
nd P
8
8
A-Weighted Residual
Noise Level Spectrum Which
Adds to Give A-Weighted Noise
Level of 40 dB
10
100 2 5 1000 2
Frequency in Hertz
10000
Figure 2-1. A Typical Octave Band Spectmm of the Outdoor Residual Noise
Level In Late Evening In a Normal Suburban Neighborhood
2-6
-------
GUIDELINES AND REPORTS 135
element in the noise scale used for certifying aircraft. For most sounds, the Per-
ceived Noise Level exceeds the A-weighted noise level by 13 dB, the difference
ranging between 11 and 17 dB, depending upon the amount of the correction for pure
tones. The complex Perceived Noise Level is used in this report only for describ-
ing aircraft noise, since the A-weighted sound level adequately describes the outdoor
noise environment in a community.
To complete the description of the outdoor noise environment at a specific loca-
tion, it is necessary to account for the temporal pattern of the A-weighted noise level.
The temporal pattern is most easily observed on a continuous graphic-level recording,
such as the two samples illustrated in Figure 2-2. The first striking feature of these
two samples is that the noise level varies with time over a range of 33 dB, which is
greater than an eightfold range of noisiness. *
The second major feature of the samples is that the noise level appears to be
characterized by a fairly steady lower level, upon which is superimposed the increased
levels associated with discrete single events. This fairly constant lower level will be
termed the residual noise level for purposes of this report. The continuous noise
heard in the backyard at night when no single source can be identified, and which seems
to come from all around, is an example of residual noise. Distinct sounds that are
superimposed on the residual noise level, such as aircraft overflight, cars, and dogs
barking (Figure 2-2), can be classified as intrusive noises. Further, they can be sep-
arated into intrusive noises from outside the neighborhood, such as aircraft and the
cars on boulevards and local neighborhood noises, such as dogs barking and local
cars passing by.
* A change of approximately 10 dB represents a doubling, or halving, of perceived
loudness or noisiness of a sound. Thus, a 33-dB range of variation represents
more than 2x2x2, or eightfold, range of possible variation In loudness or noisiness.
2-7
-------
136
LEGAL COMPILATION—NOISE
Early Afternoon
.6
z
a.
80
70
60
50
40
30
ACars on Nearby
Boulevard
Aircraft
.Overflight
Local Cars
Residual Noise Level
I I I
Time in Minutes
Late Evening
4 6
Time in Minutes
Figure 2-2. Two Samples of Outdoor Noise in a Normal Suburban
Neighborhood with the Microphone Located 20 Feet
From the Street Curb.
2-8
-------
GUIDELINES AND REPORTS 137
The third feature in these two samples is the difference in the noise level-time
patterns among the various sounds. The noise level of the aircraft in this example
is above that of the residual noise level for approximately 80 seconds, whereas the
noise levels from the passing cars are above the residual noise level for much shorter
durations, ranging between about 5 and 20 seconds. Clearly, if the noise associated
with these single events were of sufficient magnitude to intrude on an individual's
activities — conversation, thinking, watching television - the duration factor might
be expected to affect the degree of annoyance. Similarly, it might be anticipated that
the number of times such an event occurred would also affect the degree of annoyance.
The details presented in a 24-hour recording such as Figure 2-2 aids in under-
standing the nature of the outdoor noise environment at any neighborhood location.
However, to quantify an outdoor noise environment so that it can be compared with
others, it is often necessary to simplify Its description by eliminating much of the
detail. One way of accomplishing this simplification is to measure the value of the
residual noise level and the values of the maximum noise level for specific single-
event sounds at various times, using either a simple sound level meter or the con-
tinuous graphic-level recording of Its output.
Another method of quantifying the noise environment is to determine the statistical
properties of the noise level, through use of a statistical analyzer in conjunction with a
sound level meter. The data from the statistical analyzer can be used to determine the
percentage of time the value of the noise level remains between any two set limits.
Alternatively, the data can be used to obtain a cumulative distribution in terms of the
level exceeded for a stated percentage of the time.
2-9
-------
138 LEGAL COMPILATION—NOISE
Both the direct reading and the statistical methods have been applied to 24-hour
recordings of the outdoor noise level at a typical suburban residential location. The
results are illustrated in Figures 2-3 and 2-4. The variation of the hourly and the day,
evening, and nighttime values of the various statistical measures, together with the
minimum and maximum values read from a continuous recording, are summarized in
Figure 2-3. The period histograms, showing the percentage of time that the level was
in any stated level interval, are shown in Figure 2-4.
The maximum noise levels are often much greater than the highest statistical
measure, L,, which is the value exceeded 1 percent of the time. Consequently, for
many communities in which the residual noise level (Lg0) is relatively low and the
statistical distribution is skewed far from the normal distribution, one must monitor
almost continuously to determine the maximum environmental noise level.
All of the statistical measures In Figures 2-3 and 2-4 show the typical daytime-
nighttime variation in noise level. In this example, the residual noise level drops
sharply after midnight, reaching a minimum value between 4:00 and 5:00 a.m., and
rises between 6:00 and 8:00 a.m. to its almost constant daytime value. This time
variation of the noise is generally well correlated with the amount of activity and par-
ticularly well correlated with the amount of vehicular traffic in urban areas, which is
generally considered to be the basic source of the residual noise. For this report the
level exceeded 90 percent of the time, Lgo, will be used as the statistical measure of
residual noise where there are no Identifiable stead-state noises present. The median
noise level (L50) is a useful measure of the "average" noise environment in the sense
that one-half of the time it is quieter and one-half of the time it is noisier than L50.
The dashed line in Figure 2-3, labeled L , is the Energy Equivalent Noise Level
eq
(L ) affected by both the duration and the magnitude of all the sounds occurring in
eq
the time period. Its value equals that of a steady-state noise that has the same
2-10
-------
GUIDELINES AND REPORTS
139
Arithmetic
Average of the
Hourly Values
During Period
O Residual Noise Level
• Maximum Noise Level
(Read from graphic level recordings)
20
8 10 12 2 4
Beginning of Hour
6 8 10 12
Day Eve Night
Figure 2-3. Various Measures of the Outdoor Noise Level.
Night (10p.m. - 7a.m.)
1UU
80
60
40
20
-
-
n~i
J m-T_
T^
—
-fk
30 40 50 60 70 30 40 50 60 70 30 40 50 60 70
A-Weighted Noise Level in dB re 20
Figure 2-4. Histograms of the Percentage of Time Noise was in Each 5-dB
Interval for Three Time Periods.
2-11
-------
140 LEGAL COMPILATION—NOISE
energy during the period analyzed as that of the actual time-varying noise. The
energy equivalent noise level Is one of the most Important measures of the outdoor
noise environment for the purpose of correlating noise and community reaction. These
statistical measures simplify the quantification of the outdoor noise level and will be
used in this report to compare the outdoor noise environments in various places. How-
ever, they must be supplemented by other observations if the character of the outdoor
noise environment is to be understood beyond the simple statistics of the noise levels.
Range of Outdoor Noise Environments
To define the range of outdoor noise environments encountered by people in their
normal activities, a series of 24-hour outdoor noise recordings was made at each of
18 sites, as part of the research for preparation of this report. This exploratory
measurement survey was designed to sample noises in all types of locations, with
major emphasis on the suburban and urban residential areas, and to include examples
of the more significant noise problems. Thus, the survey presents a preliminary
cross-section of the noise environment, but since it was not designed to be weighted
by population density, it cannot give a true statistical picture of the noise environ-
ment in terms of a national baseline.
The range of daytime outdoor noise levels at the 18 locations is presented in Fig-
ure 2-5. The locations are listed from top to bottom of the figure in descending order
of their daytime residual noise levels (Lgo). The noisiest location, outside a third-
story apartment overlooking an eight-lane freeway, is at the top of the list with Its
daytime residual noise level of 77 dBA, and the rural farm Is next to the bottom of
the list with its daytime residual noise level of 33 dBA. That all citizens do not
enjoy the same quality In their noise environment is exemplified by the case of the
owner of the third-story apartment near the freeway who has trouble renting because
of the noise from the freeway.
• 2-12
-------
GUIDELINES AND REPORTS
141
o
Z
3
3
Q>
f,
5
i*
2-13
-------
142
LEGAL COMPILATION—NOISE
Table 2-2
QUALITATIVE DESCRIPTORS OF URBAN AND SUBURBAN DETACHED
HOUSING RESIDENTIAL AREAS AND APPROXIMATE DAYTIME
RESIDUAL NOISE LEVEL (Lg())
Description
Quiet Suburban Residential
Normal Suburban Residential
Urban Residential
Noisy Urban Residential
Very Noisy Urban Residential
Typical Range
dB(A)
36 to 40 inclusive
41 to 45 inclusive
46 to 50 inclusive
51 to 55 inclusive
56 to 60 inclusive
Average dB(A)
38
43
48
53
58
suburban residential to noisy urban residential, it is not surprising that the average
residual level for these locations Is close to the average of the four categories in
Table 2-2.
Intruding Noises and Community Reaction
There are two basic types of identifiable intruding noises that increase the out-
door noise level above the residual noise level — steady or quasi-steady-state noises
and intermittent single-event noises. A steady or nearly constant level noise intru-
sion may result from a nearby freeway, industry, or air conditioner. The intermittent
single-event noise is exemplified by the noise from an aircraft flyover, a single car
passby, or a dog barking.
Constant-Level Noise Intrusions
One of the best known examples of constant?level noise intrusion Is the noise en-
vironment within a busy city. The high daytime noise levels within the city make it
difficult to have an outdoor conversation at normal voice levels. For example, If the
outdoor noise level Is 76 dBA, a condition commonly encountered in cities, It Is nec-
essary to talk In a raised voice to achieve Intelligibility at a 2-foot distance.
2-16
-------
GUIDELINES AND REPORTS 143
The Grand Canyon measurement was made at a remote camping site on the north
rim. Even in this remote location, crickets raised the outdoor residual noise level
to approximately 32 dBA for a few hours in the evening and early nighttime. For the
remainder of the 24 hours, the residual noise levels were extremely low. The outdoor
daytime residual noise level (Lgo) of 16 dBA is close to the internal noise threshold
of the field measurement system and should be representative of the quietest locations
in this country. The difference between this extremely low residual noise level and
the much higher noise levels in the city is representative of the contribution of man
and machine to the outdoor noise environment. In this small sample of measurement
locations, the average residual and median noise levels are over 20 dB greater in the
city than in the detached residential housing areas for both daytime and nighttime, as
seen in the comparisons in the first two columns of Table 2-1.
In this survey, the nighttime noise was less than that measured during the daytime,
as is generally the case, except in summer when crickets abound. The average of
the differences between the daytime and nighttime residual noise levels at each of the
11 locations in the residential areas is 5. 8 dB. A similar comparison of the differences
between the maximum daytime and minimum nighttime residual noise levels showed
a difference of 13 dB, averaged over the same 11 locations. The comparison between
maximum and minimum levels gives full weight to the quiet nighttime period, which
was illustrated in Figures 2-3 and 2-4 examples of a normal suburban residential
neighborhood.
The average value of the daytime residual noise level is 45 dBA for this limited
number of measurement locations. This value lies on the borderline between the day-
time residual noise level ranges chosen to represent normal suburban and urban resi-
dential areas, as given in Table 2-2. Since the qualitative descriptions of these 11
residential locations included four descriptive categories that ranged from quiet
2-14
-------
144
LEGAL COMPILATION—NOISE
Between
i Night
o 2
2 *
as
a
Q
1?
j= a
2^.
§0 C.
go,
g 0
-------
GUIDELINES AND REPORTS 145
The maximum distances for intelligible conversation at various voice levels have
been calculated in accordance with the data in Chapter 1 for the outdoor daytime median
noise levels (Lc0) measured at each of the 18 locations in the exploratory survey. The
median noise level (I*0) rather than the residual noise level (L90). has been selected
for evaluating the effects of the outdoor noise environment on speech communication
since the median noise level more nearly represents the typical noise environment for
most communication situations. The calculated distances, summarized in Figure 2-6,
illustrate the restrictions in voice communication distances due to city noise.
Similar calculations show that the maximum distance for normal voice conversa-
tion outdoors in a noisy urban residential area is 3 to 5 feet, according to the range
of noise levels for this category in Table 2-2. Also, the noise associated with the
"very noisy urban residential" area of Table 2-2 is sufficiently high to restrict the
amount by which doors and windows can be opened if one is to retain a desirable in-
door noise environment. *
The noise levels associated with the "quiet suburban residential" area of Table
2-2 permit barely intelligible normal voice conversation at distances ranging between
30 and 50 feet. However, if the noise level is so low that the distance for intelligible
conversation in normal voice approaches the distances between neighbors, it becomes
difficult to have a private conversation. For example, with a 50-foot distance be-
tween neighbors, the median noise level required to obtain privacy would have to
be on the order of 46 to 50 dBA, depending upon orientation of the talker relative to
the neighbor and assuming no barriers exist. This median noise level range is ap-
proximately that of the normal suburban community.
A general estimation of building interior noise levels could be made on the basis
of a reduction of exterior levels by about 7 dBA with windows open and 15 dBA
with them closed, in the direction facing the noise source, and assuming average
residential structures.
2-17
-------
146
LEGAL COMPILATION—NOISE
Ł
Łi
SZ
•e h
11
$ ••*
!°J
*IS
SSI
9 cs g
i*l
II!
Il-8
>< CO *J
C Q> -H
•§ I a
2-18
-------
GUIDELINES AND REPORTS 147
The considerations of speech intelligibility and privacy suggest that there are
both maximum and minimum bounds to the outdoor noise levels that are compatible
with reasonable enjoyment and full use of patios, porches, and yards. The upper bound
for speech intelligibility appears to be in the range of the "very noisy urban residen-
tial" category of Table 2-2, and the lower bound for speech privacy is a function of
the distance and shielding between neighbors.
Intermittent Single-Event Intriduing Noises
At many points in typical communities, the noise environment is made up of a
series of transient noise events, such as caused by vehicular traffic. Many of these
single-event noises interfere with speech and other activities for brief intervals of
time. However, their impact is not as easily quantified in terms of speech interference
as are constant level noise intrusions.
One method for estimating the magnitude of the intrusion for single-event noises
is to have people rank the acceptability of a series of noises at different levels. One
of the most comprehensive recent studies of the subjective judgment of single-event
noises was performed using vehicle traffic noises, and the results are summarized
in Figure 2-7. This data is consistent with the apparent general acceptance of maxi-
mum levels that result from standard passenger automobiles driven on residential
streets.
When a single event is of sufficient magnitude and duration, it will add to the total
noise energy in the hour, increasing the value of L . Depending on the duration,
eq
it will also increase L, and L.». These effects are illustrated in Figure 2-8, which
shows the values of L , LJQ, and Lj relative to the value of the residual noise level
for daytime at each of the 18 locations. For most of the locations, L.,0 is approximately
10 dB greater than Lg(.. At the seven locations where significant Intruding noises were
2-19
-------
148
LEGAL COMPILATION—NOISE
- Excessively Noisy
* Noisy
I
- Acceptable
60
70 . 80 90
Maximum A-Weighted Noise Level in dB re 20 flN/rr?
100
- Quiet-
•« Acceptable -
- Noisy-
Excessively
Noisy
Figure 2-7. Average Mean Subjective Rating as a Function of Maximum Noise
Level in dBA for the British Experiment at the Motor Industry
Research Association Proving Grounds
2-20
-------
GUIDELINES AND REPORTS
149
•g,
=
I
I 3
s
.c
CT1
w
W
•o
c
o
Z
"3
I
O
i
8
•O
S
•S
I
5 z o o- O tt
2-21
-------
150 LEGAL COMPILATION—NOISE
noted, both L, and L tended to be significantly higher relative to L,,. than at loca-
tions where significant intruding sources were not noted. However, LIO showed in-
creases in only four of the cases.
These increases in L and L. are characteristic of the outdoor noise environ-
ments at locations where significant single-event type noise intrusions are experienced.
In many cases, these noise Intrusions will interfere with speech and other activites for
short time periods, even though the median noise level is satisfactory.
Community Reaction to Noise
The advent of commercial jet aircraft initially Increased the maximum noise levels
at some locations around major airports by 10 to 20 dBA. These increases in noise
caused widespread complaints and various forms of legal action from citizens living
in neighborhoods near these civil airports. This situation paralleled earlier history
of military jet operations by the Air Force after World War II, although only a few Air
Force operational bases were close to cities and towns. Unfortunately, the civil air-
ports, which accounted for the majority of the early commercial jet operations, were
located near the major cities they served. Further, they were becoming surrounded
by homes constructed In the post-WWII building boom. As jet thrust ratings, jet air-
craft operations, and airports continued to increase, the airport noise problem tended
to spread through the wider areas of the community and to more communities.
The U. S. Air Force and other governmental agencies began to investigate the effects
of aircraft noise on people in communities In the early 1950's. This early research
resulted In a proposed model for relating aircraft noise intrusion and the probable
community reaction. This model, first published by the U. S. Air Force (Handbook
of Noise Control. Vol. II, "Noise and Man," WADC TR-52-204), accounted for the
following seven factors:
2-22
-------
GUIDELINES AND REPORTS 151
1. Magnitude of the noise with a frequency weighting for hearing response
2. Duration of the intruding noise (10 times the logarithm of the relative duration)
3. Time of year (windows open or closed)
4. Time of day noise occurs
5. Outdoor noise level in community when the intruding noise is not present
6. History of prior exposure to the noise source and attitude towards its owner
7. Existence of pure tone or impulsive character in the noise.
Corrections for these factors were generally made in 5-dB intervals, since many
of the initial relationships were based solely on the intuition of the authors (Rosenblith
and Stevens), and it was considered difficult to assess the response to any greater
degree of accuracy. This method was incorporated in the first Air Force Land Use
Planning Guide in 1957 ("Procedures for Estimating Noise Exposure and Resulting Com-
munity Reaction From Air Base Operations," WADC TN 57-10) and was later simplified
for ease of application by the Air Force and the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA).
Many other methods have been proposed for describing repeated single-event type
noise, with primary application to airport noise problems. Most of those methods rep-
resent an evolution of the community noise reaction model and consider at least some
of its principal factors. Three of the methods for calculating the magnitude of noise
intrusion are summarized in Table 2-3.
The Composite Noise Rating (CNR) was introduced in the early 1960's and has been
widely used by Federal agencies. The Noise Exposure Forecast (NEF) is a recent evo-
lution of the CNR and is proposed as its successor by the FAA. It essentially updates
the CNR by substitution of the tone- and duration-corrected Effective Perceived Noise
Level (EPNL) scale used for aircraft certification, instead of the Perceived Noise
Level (PNL) scale of the earlier CNR. Thus, the NEF accounts for both duration and
pure tone content of each single-event sound, whereas the CNR accounted for neither.
2-23
-------
152
LEGAL COMPILATION—NOISE
X!
g
tf
H O
01 U
»W
Sg
go
W M
o
So
Q S5
W O
«ffi
W p
O K
H
5?
PH
2 «
^> t>
Commun
Equivale
(CNE
§
§ to
!$>Ł•
*> ° S.
s *
a-sli
g 5 °j o
6 ~
Factor
o
*o
B
A-weighted
level
I
O
fc-o's
1*1
|ls
s§.§
B'g
1-5
? 2 °° **
sail
"S
V
1
i e
|g
e
Ł
2
M
"c
1
Energy
integratiol
§
*
of duration of
il single event
Si
«S
IS
sf^
(X ^* ^
5^
*"! Q. rH
Daytime (7
Evening (7 1
Nighttime (
!?
^ i-H
t- QJ
IS
^ S
i*
oS
riods during day
o.
0
_a
PQ CQ CQ
T3 T3 13
o m o
«H
Daytime
Evening
Nighttime
m n
•O T3
O C4
rH
„
a-
t-is
nate weighting
noise of single
ich occurs in
1 period
•jj S'f 5
l^fll
13*?
< s » s
5
S
z
1?
S
3*
ll
3 8.
rtj
II
gi
o
Logarithmt
o
|
s>
2
_o
I
*s
O
1
a
CQ
2-24
-------
GUIDELINES AND REPORTS 153
The Community Noise Equivalent Level (CNEL)* was recently introduced by the State
of California for monitoring purposes. It is based on the A-weighting to avoid the com-
plexity of the computer calculations required to obtain EPNL and, thus, cannot con-
tain a pure-tone weighting. It also differs from the NEF by inclusion of the evening
time period weighting, in addition to daytime and nighttime. However, despite these
structural differences, the difference between the absolute values of CNEL and NEF
for specific locations near airports is approximately constant at 35+2 dB. Thus NEF-
30 is approximately equivalent to CNEL'65.
The CNEL has been applied to a series of community noise problems to relate the
normalized measured CNEL with the observed community reaction. The normalization
procedure followed is the Rosenblith/Stevens method, with a few minor modifications.
The correction factors added to the measured CNEL to obtain the normalized CNEL
are given in Table 2-4. Two examples of the application of these factors to the
measured values of the Equivalent Noise Levels (L ) of the intruding noise are given
in Table 2-5. The examples are drawn from the results at two locations in the survey
and illustrate an approximate procedure for calculating CNE L from the measured
averages of L in the daytime, evening, and nighttime periods, accounting both for
eq
the weightings of 0, 5, and 1.0 dB, respectively, and for the duration of each of the per-
iods. The results of 55 case histories are summarized in Figure 2-9, with an approx-
imate NEF and CNR scale shown for reference. The data is normalized to the descrip-
tions in Table 2-4, which have a correction of zero. The distribution of the cases
among the various sources impacting areas of the community are listed in Table 2-6.
CNEL has been adopted for use in this report. However, this use should not be
interpreted as an endorsement by the EPA since neither CNEL nor any other
method has been sufficiently validated to determine their adequacy in predicting
present and future community reaction to noise.
2-25
-------
154
LEGAL COMPILATION—NOISE
Table 2-4
CORRECTIONS TO BE ADDED TO THE MEASURED COMMUNITY NOISE
EQUIVALENT LEVEL (CNEL) TO OBTAIN NORMALIZED CNEL*
Type of
Correction
Description
Amount of Correction
to be Added to Measured
CNEL in dB
Seasonal
Correction
Correction
for Outdoor
Residual
Noise Level
Correction
for Previous
Exposure &
Community
Attitudes
Pure Tone
or
Impulse
Summer (or year-round operation)
Winter only (or windows always closed)
Quiet suburban residential or rural com-
munity (remote from large cities and
from industrial activity and trucking)
Normal suburban residential community
(not located near industrial activity)
Urban residential community (not
immediately adjacent to heavily traveled
roads and industrial areas)
Noisy urban residential community (near
relatively busy roads or industrial areas)
Very noisy urban residential community
No prior experience with the intruding
noise
Community has had some previous exposure
to intruding noise but little effort is being
made to control the noise. This correction
may also be applied to a situation -where the
community has not been exposed to the noise
previously, but the people are aware that
bona fide efforts are being made to control
the noise.
Community has had considerable previous
exposure to the intruding noise and the noise
maker's relations with the community are
good
Community aware that operation causing
noise is very necessary and It will not con-
tinue Indefinitely. This correction can be
applied for an operation of limited duration
and under emergency circumstances.
No pure tone or Impulsive character
Pure tone or Impulsive character present
0
-5
+10
-5
-10
+5
-5
-10
0
+5
Source: "Supporting Information for the Adopted Noise Regulation for California
Airports," Report WCR 70-3(R), January 29, 1971.
2-26
-------
GUIDELINES AND REPORTS
155
Table 2-5
TWO EXAMPLES OF CALCULATION OF NORMALIZED COMMUNITY
NOISE EQUIVALENT LEVEL
Factor
Energy Equivalent Noise
Levels (Leq) in dB(A) for
Time Period
Duration and Time of Day
Correction Factor
Subtotals Which are added
Logarithmically to Obtain
CNEL
Community Noise
Equivalent Level
Additional Corrections from
Table 2-4
Seasonal
Residual Noise Level
Experience & Attitude
Pure Tone or Impulse
Total Additional Corrections
Normalized CNEL
Actual Reaction
Aircraft Landing Noise
in Noisy Urban
Residential CommunityW
Day
80
-3
77
Eve.
83
-4
79
Night
75
+6
81
84
0
-5
0
5
~0
84
Extensive Lawsuits and
Political Pressure
Traffic Noise in Old
Residential Area Near
City CenterP)
Day
56
-3
53
Eve.
57
-4
53
Night
53
+6
59
61
0
0
-5
0
~^5
56
No Reaction
(1) Location F in Figures 2-5 and 2-8.
(2) Location L in Figures 2-5 and 2-8.
2-27
-------
156
LEGAL COMPILATION—NOISE
f
a
1
I
is
IRC
o .=
n o
§1
I
II
««
II
>:-
"e \
-U-
it
« 2
gl
J5I
•Ł 5f
Ills
V tj o O
« n 2 C
1°
8 S
^«g
E «. -c
ss
o
•5.
1
«.=
s a
S
I
2-28
-------
GUIDELINES AND REPORTS
157
Table 2-6
NUMBER OF COMMUNITY NOISE REACTION CASES AS A FUNCTION
OF NOISE SOURCE TYPE AND REACTION CATEGORY
Type of Source
Transportation vehicles, including:
Aircraft operations
Local traffic
Freeway
Rail
Auto race track
Total Transportation
Other single-event or inter-
mittent operations, including
circuit breaker testing, target
shooting, rocket testing and
body shop
Steady state neighborhood
sources, including transformer
substations, residential air
conditioning
Steady-state industrial opera-
tions, including blowers,
general manufacturing, chemical,
oil refineries, et cetera
Total Cases
Community Reaction Categories
Vigorous
Threats of
Legal Action
6
1
2
9
5
I
7
22
Wide
Spread
Complaints
2
1
3
4
7
14
No Reaction
or Sporadic
Complaints
4
3
7
2
10
19
Total
Cases
12
3
1
1
2
19
7
24
55
2-29
-------
158 LEGAL COMPILATION—NOISE
The data points for "no reaction" response in Figure 2-9 correspond to a. level
ranging between 50 and 61 dB, with a mean of 55 dB. This mean value is approxi-
mately 7 dB above the mean value assumed in categorizing the daytime residual noise
(Lg0) level for a residential urban community, which is the baseline category for the
data in the figure. This difference of 7 dB between the mean reaction line and LQ,, is
yu
only approximately 2 dB greater than the average difference between the outdoor median
noise level (Lg0) and the residual noise level, as shown in Table 2-1. Consequently,
from these results it appears that no community reaction is usually expected when the
normalized CNEL of the intruding noise is approximately equal to the daytime out-
door median noise level (L50). ^"ls conclusi°n ts not surprising; it simply suggests
that people tend to judge the magnitude of an intrusion with reference to the noise
environment existing without the presence of the intruding noise source.
The data in Figure 2-9 indicates that widespread complaints may be expected when
the normalized value of CNEL exceeds the outdoor residual noise level by approx-
imately 17 dB, and vigorous community reaction may be expected when the excess
approaches 33 dB. Thus, the normalized CNEL community reaction relationship
appears to be a reasonably accurate and useful tool in assessing the probable reaction
of a community to an intruding noise.
This community reaction data has also been used to test the effect of the var-
ious normalizing factors in Table 2-4 on the degree of correlation between the commun-
ity reaction and the normalized CNEL. The factor most necessary in the normaliza-
tion to bring the data closer to a common line is the duration correction. The next
most important factor is the residual noise level correction. Less important, but still
significant, are the corrections for time of day, pure tone/impulse, and prior exper-
ience/attitude, the lack of which resulted in standard deviations of 4.6, 4.3, and 4.0
respectively. No change occurred by removing the seasonal factor, which was only
applicable to three of the 55 cases.
2-30
-------
GUIDELINES AND REPORTS 159
The data for the 55 cases was also compared with a version of the CNEL modified
by replacing the day-evening-night corrections of the standard CNEL with the day-night
corrections of the NEF calculation procedure. The resulting mean line was altered by
less than 1 dB from that given in Figure 2-9, and the standard deviation was only 0. 1
dB greater than before, an insignificant difference. Thus, these 55 cases can support
the adoption of either type of time period weighting, in combination with the energy
equivalent A-weighted noise level and the other correction factors in Table 2-4, for
the prediction of community reaction to noise.
The normalized CNEL scale can also be compared with the results of social sur-
veys, such as those taken in London and in the U. S., showing that people are usually
at home when they are annoyed by noise. As might be anticipated, disturbances of
activities related to speech intelligiblity are the most frequently reported as sources
of annoyance.
Figure 2-10 shows the average annoyance reaction found in the London Airport
Survey as a function of CNR and approximate normalized CNEL. Figures 2-11 and 2-12
show the relationships of those 'Very much annoyed" and those "only a little, or not an-
noyed" with data from the same survey. Also shown in Figure 2-11 is a data point from
Sweden and a tangent line through the most important range of community reaction.
These results demonstrate that a majority of the citizens are greatly annoyed
when the noise is sufficient to produce a vigorous community reaction in accordance
with the data in Figure 2-9. This survey also shows that a small but significant per-
centage of the population is still greatly annoyed at the CNEL44 value, whei~e no com-
munity reaction is expected. Thus, the true impact of intrusive noises as measured
by individual or personalized annoyance goes deeper than that indicated by the com-
munity "no reaction" point.
2-31
-------
160
LEGAL COMPILATION—NOISE
Very
Much- 4.0
5 Moderate-
Little-
o.
O
3.0
2.0
1.0
Not at All-
London Survey
1
I
80
90
100 110
Composite Noise Rating in dB
120
130
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
50 60 70 80 90
Approximate Normalized Community Noise Equivalent Level in dB
Figure 2-10. Relationship Between Average Expression of Annoyance
to Aircraft Noise and the Composite Noise Rating
2-32
-------
GUIDELINES AND REPORTS
161
80
1
I
f
J
Ł
>
60
a.
•s
40
20
• London Survey
O Swedish Survey
70 80 90 100 110 120
Composite Noise Rating in dB
I I I I I I I III
40 50 60 70 80
Approximate Normalized Community Noise Equivalent Level in dB
Figure 2-11. Percentage of People Expressing "Very Much Annoyed" as
a Function of Composite Noise Rating
2-33
-------
162
LEGAL COMPILATION—NOISE
80
I
"5. j 40
8<
a. :
20
London Survey
I
70 80 90 100 110 120
Composite Noise Rating in dB
I I I I I I I I I I
40 50 60 70 80
Approximate Normalized Community Noise Equivalent Level in dB
Figure 2-12. Percentage of People Expressing "Not At All" or "A Little"
Annoyed as a Function of Composite Noise Rating
2-34
-------
GUIDELINES AND REPORTS 163
The preceding material relates to community reaction as evidence of an aggrega-
tion of individual responses. There are no good measures, however, of the impact of
noise in terms of effects on individual hearing and generalized response.
The Growth of Noise
There have been dire predictions that the noise in our environment is increasing
by as much as 1 dB per year, or 10 dB per decade. Clearly, such a growth rate, if
true, would lead to severe consequences. To place this issue in perspective, it is
useful to examine the possible changes in both the intruding noises and the residual
noises over the past few decades.
There has been considerable growth in the number of miles of urban freeways and
thruways since 1950 accompanied by an increase in noise in neighborhoods adjacent
to the freeways. Similarly, there has been a significant increase in commercial air
travel since 1950. This increase, together with an increase of the noise level of jet
aircraft relative to propeller aircraft, and the building of homes around existing
civil airports has precipitated complex noise problems.
The amount of land estimated to lie within the CNEL-65 (approximately NEF-30)
contours is illustrated in Figure 2-13 for both freeways and airports. CNEL-65 is a
convenient value to choose for this type of impact assessment because at a normalized
CNEL of 65, widespread complaints are expected, with more vigorous reactions at
the higher values occurring inside the contours. These estimates show that in 1970
approximately 2000 square miles of land were bounded by CNEL-65. The actual
land use within these impact boundaries (airport property and freeway property have
been excluded) is not known. However, if it is assumed, as a reasonable estimate
2-35
-------
164
LEGAL COMPILATION—NOISE
1970
1965
I960
1955
''/////////A
Legend
I I Aircraft
Y////X Urban Freeways
I I
500 1000 1500
Number of Square Miles
2000 2500
Figure 2-13. Approximate Growth in Aircraft and Freeway Noise Impacted Land
Area, Enclosed by CNEL 65
2-36
-------
GUIDELINES AND REPORTS 165
based on general observation, that the average use is like the average urban land use,
approximately 10 million people would be expected to live in these areas. These areas
are conservative estimates of the impact, since an intruding noise source causing a
normalized CNEL of 65 dB in an urban residential community is expected to result in
widespread complaints. Clearly, the noise impact extends beyond the estimated
boundaries in an urban residential community and even further in a quieter suburban
community. In addition, the growth of construction activity within cities and the lo-
cation of new industrial plants in the suburbs and rural areas brings increased noise to
each affected area. The number of noisy devices, such as power lawnmowers and
motorcycles, has increased from a few hundred thousand units in 1950 to over 20 mil-
lion in 1970. Similarly, the introduction and use of recreational vehicles, chain saws,
and fully equipped campers has introduced a new element to wilderness areas. Even
at a remote location on the north rim of the Grand Canyon, noise from a small pro-
peller driven private aircraft has been found to have a maximum level of 70 dBA, a
54-dB intrusion above the residual noise level (these operations being the cause of
considerable complaints).
The increasing number of sources producing high noise level intrusions gives clear
evidence of the significant growth of noise over the last two decades. Although the
majority of this growth occurred in specific areas in which freeways or airports were
located adjacent to the communities, a significant number of new single-event sources
were added to all areas, from the wilderness to urban residential communities.
The question remains of whether the additional intrusive noisy sources, together
with any changes in the noise characteristics of all other sources, have changed the
outdoor residual noise levels in the residential areas in which land usage has not
significantly changed. The answer is elusive without the existence of a statistically
significant survey of residential noise environments. To obtain a current estimate,
2-37
-------
166 LEGAL COMPILATION—NOISE
the data for the 11 residential locations in the survey, Table 2-1, has been combined
with data for 17 typical residential locations from another recent survey, to give a
better composite of an average urban residential noise environment. Since neither
survey was undertaken with the intent of statistically sampling a city, and there are
only 28 locations in total, the results should be considered indicative only of central
trends. The available past data consists of the results of four surveys covering the
last 34 years and beginning with the 1937 Bell Telephone Company extensive survey
of noise in residential areas in Chicago, Cleveland, and Philadelphia. The compari-
son of results is given in Figure 2-14.
Each survey was different in method, objective, and instrumentation; and none
compare identical locations. Most were also different in methods of reducing and re-
porting data. Therefore, it is necessary to adjust the data to a common base for
comparison. The data for the 1937 and 1968 surveys was published in terms of the
median outdoor noise level (Lr(,) and that of the 1954 survey in terms of an energy
mean of the noise environment. All three results have been corrected to the residual
noise level (Lgo) by subtracting the average difference of 5 dBJfound between the
median and residual levels in the current data. The mean and 50-percent range for
the residual noise levels of the 1947-1948 and 1971 surveys are shown as originally
presented.
Disregarding the 1954 results, the means of the other four surveys lie between 46
and 50 dBA, with a grand average of 46.9 dBA. This value is also close to the average
value of 45.5 dBA calculated for the four categories described in Table 2-2 (quiet,
normal suburban, urban, and noisy urban residential areas).
The mean value of the 1954 data is 7.7 dB below the 1971 results and 7.9 dB below
the average of the other four surveys. This survey was designed to investigate the
effect of aircraft noise at many locations under aircraft flight tracks up to 12 miles
2-38
-------
GUIDELINES AND REPORTS
167
1937 Chicago, Cleveland
& Philadelphia (several
hundred locales)
1947 Chicago (more than
-1948 100 locales)
1954 Within 12 miles of
8 Airports in Eastern
USA (180 locales)
1968 Suburban Areas in
Atlantic States
(9 locales)
1971 Los Angeles, Boston
and Detroit (28 locales)
Average of Urban and
Suburban, not including the
1954 Data
Calculated Urban and
Suburban with Equal
Weighting on each of
the Four Categories
1
Range of 50% of Data Mean
Y////b///A
1 X T '
Range of 90% of Data
t.>-^
22
1
Y///AS///A
\ T I
I
\
i
\//fc//\
\ T 1
1
1
V//LS/A
T
i
ix//i///j
1 T '
i
i i i i i i i i
20
30
40
50
60
A-Weighted Residual Noise Level (L90) in dB re 20 N/m2
Figure 2-14. Comparison of Five Surveys of Outdoor Noise Levels in Residential
Areas in the United States Between 1937 and 1971
2-39
-------
168 LEGAL COMPILATION—NOISE
from each of eight airports and Included rural as well as suburban and urban locations.
It is probable that the principal reason for the low values reported by the 1954 survey
is that its mix of locations gave significantly more weight to the quiet rural and subur-
ban areas than to the urban and noisy urban residential areas. Similarly, the 1937
survey included city apartment dwellings as well as suburban and urban residential
areas with detached dwellings. This difference in emphasis probably resulted in
higher emphasis on the "very noisy urban residential" category and explains why this
data has the highest reported mean value for the residual noise level.
Thus, it is considered that the 1937 survey was biased to slightly noisier areas
that the 1954 survey was significantly biased to the quieter areas, and that the three
remaining surveys are probably somewhat similar in their distribution of locations.
Within this perspective, it is concluded that where land use has not changed, there is
no strong trend toward an increase in the average suburban and urban residential
area residual noise levels over the past 34 years. Further, it appears that the only
increase that can be Inferred from this data is 2 dB in over two decades, based on
the difference between the 1947-1948 and 1971 results.
This conclusion is also supported by a comparison of two locations in the 1971
Los Angeles data that was directly comparable to measurements made in 1955 and
1959. At a normal suburban neighborhood location, where no significant change in
land or road use has occurred over 16 years, the two measurements of the residual
noise level agreed within 1 dB. In the other case, the 1971 measurements in a resi-
dential urban area were approximately 2 dB higher than in 1959, due at least in part
to the construction nearby of a major freeway.
It can be further concluded that the average outdoor residual noise level in an
area with a constant land usage probably changes slowly with time as has been true
over the past few decades in the area studied. If the land use is changed, such as
2-40
-------
GUIDELINES AND REPORTS 169
from quiet suburban residential to urban residential, a normal suburban residential
to noisy urban residential, the outdoor residual noise level can increase significantly
(10 dBA or more), approximately in accordance with the values in Table 2-2. Even
if the noise level for given categories of land use do not change, rapid change in the
land use of specific areas has significantly increased the number of people affected
by urban type noise.
More important in this review is the fact that outdoor noise levels throughout a
major portion of the day are not satisfactorily indicated by the residual noise level
but rather by the character and intensity of intruding noises. The outdoor noise level
at any location increases significantly as new intruding noise sources, such as free-
ways, power plants, a jet aircraft overflight paths, or construction equipment, are
added. The general increase in environmental noise is associated with the spread of
areas infringed upon by such intruding noise sources.
Summary
The preceding discussion leads to several significant observations regarding the
nature of noise and the methods of measuring its magnitude. Although many of these
conclusions must be regarded as tentative because of the lack of statistically sound
community noise baselines, the general trends appear straightiorward and give useful
perspective for the overall nature of the problem. The following points are significant:
• The outdoor daytime residual noise level in a wilderness area, such as ex-
emplified by the Grand Canyon rim, is on the order of 16 dBA, on the farm
30 to 35 dBA, and in the city 60 to 75 dBA.
• Areas in which the daytime outdoor median noise level exceeds the range of 56
to 60 dBA, categorized as "noisy urban,'' are not well suited to detached resi-
dential housing, since normal voice conversation outdoors is limited to dis-
tances of less than 6 to 10 feet between talker and listener. Also, when the
2-41
-------
170 LEGAL COMPILATION—NOISE
noise level is above this range, it is not possible to have relaxed conversation
in a living room at a distance of 10 feet with windows or sliding glass doors
fully opened.
• Areas in which the daytime outdoor median level exceeds 66 dBA are not
suited to apartment living unless the buildings are air conditioned, so that
the windows may be kept closed to enable relaxed conversation indoors. If
the outdoor median noise levels are above 71 dBA, special sound proofing is
necessary to preserve the indoor noise environment, even with windows closed.
• The outdoor residual noise level in suburban and urban residential communi-
ties serves the useful function of providing speech privacy between neigh-
bors. K appears that considerations of speech privacy requirements will set
the lower limit of a desirable residual noise level in each type of community.
• The limited available data from community noise surveys conducted over the
past 34 years indicates that little increase has occurred in the residual noise
level, except where land usage has changed. Where such change has occurred,
the noise has generally increased, probably in accordance with the expected
change between land use categories in Table 2-2, such as plus 10 dB from quiet
suburban residential to urban residential, or plus 20 dB from quiet suburban
residential to very noisy urban residential. A significant spread of noise
has occurred in this manner because of the large growth of urban and sub-
urban areas, and their populations, in the last 20 to 30 years.
• A significant increase in noise in the past 20 years has resulted from the rapid
growth of commercial avalation and from its use of jet aircraft that are about
10 to 20 dB noisier than the older, smaller piston engined aircraft. A somewhat lesse
but still significant, increase in noise has resulted from the construction and
use of freeways located within urban and suburban residential areas. It is
2-42
-------
GUIDELINES AND REPORTS 171
estimated that at least 2000 square miles of urban and suburban area have
been severely impacted by noise from these two major sources, with lesser
degree of impact extending over a much larger area.
The rapid increase in the use of noisy recreational vehicles and home lawn
care equipment powered by poorly muffled internal combustion engines has
contributed to noise in both wilderness areas and residential neighborhoods.
The community reaction scale based on the normalized CNEL appears to give
reasonable predictions of community complaints, with 90 percent of the data
within ±5 dB of the mean relationship between the normalized magnitude of
the intruding noise and the degree of community reaction.
The data indicates that no community reaction should be expected when the
normalized CNEL of the intruding noise is approximately 2 dB above the day-
time median noise level, or equivalently, approximately 7 dB above the re-
sidual noise level. However, some social surveys indicate that when the
intruding noise equals this level, approximately 18 percent of the population
is "very much annoyed" although 43 percent are only "a little," or "not at
all annoyed."
The significant complaint reactions from the 55 community reaction cases
and the approximate percentage of the population "very much annoyed" and
"only a little" or "not at all annoyed" from the London study are given in
Table 2-7.
2-43
-------
172
LEGAL COMPILATION—NOISE
Table 2-7
SUMMARY OF EXPECTED COMMUNITY REACTION AND APPROXIMATE
ANNOYANCE AS A FUNCTION OF NORMALIZED COMMUNITY NOISE
EQUIVALENT LEVEL
Expected
Community
Reaction
No reaction
Sporadic complaints
Widespread complaints
Threats of legal action
Vigorous action
Approximate Difference
Between Normalized
CNEL and Average Day-
time Residual Noise
Level (Lgo) in dB
Mean
7
11
17
26
33
Range of Data
2 to 13
8 to 13
12 to 24
23 to 29
28 to 39
Approximate
Percent
Very Much
Annoyed
20
26
37
60
87
Approximate
Percent
Little or Not
Annoyed
45
37
26
14
7
2-44
-------
GUIDELINES AND REPORTS 173
TRANSPORTATION SYSTEMS
One of the most significant byproducts of our increasing population and economic
growth is the increasing demand for improved modes of transportation. These de-
mands have been met by the development of more efficient, larger, and faster trans-
portation systems. The transportation industry represented, in total, approximately
14.5 percent of the gross national product in 1970 and employed approximately 13.3
percent of the total labor force. This major section of the nation's economy is defined,
for this report, as the sum total of the:
• Commercial aircraft and airline industry
• General aviation industry
• Highway vehicle industry
• Recreational vehicle industry
• Railroad and urban mass transit industry
• Commercial shipping industry.
The economic structure of this industry and the general division and magnitude of
the transportation services provided are illustrated in Figure 2-15, and the rapid
growth of several segments of the transportation system since 1950 is summarized in
Table 2-8. While there are many important sources of intrusive noise, transportation
vehicle noise tends to dominate most residential areas. In fact, the cumulative effect
of the increase in noise intrusion by transportation vehicles is, to a large extent, re-
sponsible for the current general concern with noise. This discussion briefly treats
the general nature of transportation system noise sources and considers their overall
impact in the United States today. Aircraft, one of the more dominant sources of noise
in the transportation industry, will be considered first.
2-45
-------
174
LEGAL COMPILATION—NOISE
Ł Ł
I*
f
I
i
o
2-46
-------
GUIDELINES AND REPORTS
175
Table 2-8
GROWTH IN THE TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM, 1950-1970
Source
Population (in millions)
Passenger Cars (in millions)
Trucks and Buses (in millions)
Motocycles (in millions)
(Highway) - Registered
Motorcycles (in millions)
(Off-road)
Snowmobiles (in millions)
2-3 Engine Turbofan Aircraft
4 -Engine Turbofan Aircraft
General Aviation Aircraft
Helicopters
1950
151
40.4
8.8
0.45
-
0
0
0
45,000
85
1960
181
61.7
12.2
0.51
-
0.002
0
202
75,550
830
1970
204
87.0
19.4
2.6
1.0
1.6
1, 174
815
128,900
3,260
Commercial Aircraft
The increase in air travel during the last decade is closely related to the introduc-
tion and growth of the commercial jet aircraft fleet. The advantages of jet-powered
passenger airplanes have led to a gradual phasing out of the older propeller-driven
commercial aircraft. Only a small percentage of pis ton-powered aircraft now remain
in the fleet, and the turboprop aircraft in use are primary short range twin-engine
types used on light traffic routes. There were a total of 10.7 million operations of
commercial aircraft in 1970. Military jet aircraft, not considered in this report, have
about one fourth as many operations. Due to this lower level of operation and the gen-
erally remote location of most military airfields, the noise impact from military air-
craft is substantially less than for commercial aircraft.
2-47
-------
176 LEGAL COMPILATION—NOISE
Figure 2-16 summarizes the category of commercial fixed-wing aircraft in terms
of type, application, passenger capacity, and range of typical noise levels. The original
commercial jet aircraft were powered by turbojet engines. These engines have been
largely replaced by quieter and more powerful turbofan engines. The new types of com-
mercial jet aircraft have recently been introduced and are powered by advanced tech-
nology turbofan engines that are much more powerful and quieter than earlier engines.
Although the current V/STOL aircraft fleet is inherently part of both the com-
mercial and general aviation fleet, its unique capability of operating from small air-
fields or from urban centers tends to distinguish it in terms of noise impact from the
remainder of the aviation transportation industry. The present V/STOL fleet consists
predominantly of helicopters.
The STOL fleet is not yet a significant reality but is currently undergoing consid-
erable Federal and industry study. The principal objective of STOL aircraft is to move
much of the intercity air transportation (short haul) away from the congested major-
hub airports and toward urban communities. Tentative noise goals have been pro-
posed for aircraft operating from the projected peripheral STOL ports, but as yet a
community-compatible noise goal has not been defined for the intracity heliports now
in operation or for those that will serve as city-feeder terminals for the STOL ports.
Figure 2-17 shows the typical structure of the present and proposed V/STOL fleet,
the typical range of noise levels for these aircraft, and their major applications. Of
the current total of 3260 vehicles, approximately 1900 are based in urban areas. The
most significant increase of usage in recent years has been by civil government
agencies. In particular, the number of city police helicopters is rapidly increasing,
with a total of about 150 vehicles in present use. Commercially operated helicopters,
currently about 2100, are predominantly used for charter air service operations, with
only about 15 vehicles on regularly scheduled intracity air carrier routes.
2-48
-------
GUIDELINES AND REPORTS
177
I
2-3 Engine
Turbofan
Commercial Aircraft
4 Engine"
Turbofan
1 1
4 Engine
Widebody
Turbofan
3 Engine
Widebody
Turbofan
Propeller
Aircraft
• Short to • M«dium to • Long Range • Medium Range • Short Range
Medium Range Long Range • B747
• B727, B737 • B707, B720
• DC-9, BAC-111 • DC-8
• DC-10, • F-27
L-1011 • CV340/440
• DC 3
Average Passenger Capacity
100
150
365
250
40
Typical Range — Miles
250-1500
1000-4000
2000-6000
1000-2500
, 50-250
Growth of Aircraft Fleet
1800
nj
y
"o
Number
01
8
p
-
1174
209
815
J rfl
60 65 70 60
65 70 60 65
Typical No
1640
79
1 1
1163
380
70 60 65 70 60 65 70
se Levels
Approach and Takeoff Noise Levels Measured at 1000 feet
110
" 90
I
! »
2
1 »
60
wi
106 103
_
_
-
-
100 100
r^
90 •*•
r**" 94
Si
85
^
1 1
< H
92
^a
."•;'
Ł!|
•^H
77
c
.3
»4
•s
0
#
tr''..'
IOC 92
'•$
Ł,Ł
75
1 1
H <3
| —
jr
5 "o
< H
100
90 90 'V.
84 84 84 m Ł2 !•:
T?
i^M
72
c
(3
'"-:
,.^
72"
O O c
< 1= 0
PP< flc f s "J
;>i 8S i'-.
75 75
i S Ł
5 H <3
Figure 2-16. Characteristics of Commercial Aircraft
2-49
-------
178
LEGAL COMPILATION—NOISE
100
4 yo
CD
•5 °"
s
a 70
0
60
50
Ł
cl
3*
Ł i
"5 J
JJ c
e ~
•?
1
Light Utility
Helicopters
(2-7 Seats)
Air-Taxi
Law Enforcement
Executive Travel
Rescue/ Ambulance
Agriculture
Traffic Monitor
• Scenic/Survey
2900
100
Piston i/Jv
OR ' •'^•'
Turbine _ J^J
•i: ' - 86
78 ij'i
>;."'^ •'-':'-"-
; v,!s, 73
^M
I5 r §
o «>
in 2S —
3.0 r
w
2.5 a
2.0 |.
15 y >
o 3
O y
1.0 := 1
0.5 g 8
0 1 — 1
V/STOL Aviation
1
i 1 :
Medium Weight Heavy Transport' j STOL }
Helicopters Helicopters j Aircraft 1
(10- 15 Seats) (20-50Seats) ^ (40-150Seats) J
Commercial Charter • Scheduled Transport • Commercial Transport
Company Transport • Industrial Cargo
Executive Travel • Construction Lift
Fire Contro • Coast Guard
Coast Guard
Number in Service
320 40 :
In Planning Stage
Typical Noise Levels
96
88 ;j.f-Ł .?'••,.{ Ł'jf. .'
V--;-, ;•*.*<"- •;*:•••.' .^K
,.•';>? ^S iiii 85 83
,?;« 83 82 | 1
*-Jg (Approx.
Equivalent
to 95 PNdB
Ł 2 « .2 « Proposed
§Ł § ^ § Limit)
— in — in
Growth of Helicopter Fleet
•0 3260
1 Tota
s s <3
.2 i 8 1 8
2 f § r-i • * 1 —
1 | | | ? 1 «
5 o
-------
GUIDELINES AND REPORTS 179
Jet Aircraft
The noise associated with jet aircraft is primarily generated by the processes that
take place both within and outside the engine. The dominant source of noise from the
early turbojet engines was the jet noise generated by the turbulent mixing of the high
velocity exhaust jet and the surrounding air. Sound power increases rapidly with in-
creasing jet velocity; therefore, high noise levels are associated with the high velocity
exhausts of turbojet engines.
The turbofan engines that have replaced the turbojets offer substantial jet exhaust
noise benefits because they take in larger quantities of air and expel this air at lower
jet velocities. However, with reduced levels of jet noise and with the increased size
and power of the fan, its whine was elevated from a secondary to a primary noise
source, particularly for landing or approach power.
For the four-engine turbofan aircraft, powered by early models of turbofan engines,
the engine thrust, and thus the jet exhaust velocity, is higher during takeoff than during
approach. Consequently, the low frequency roar of the jet is significantly higher at
takeoff than at approach. However, the high frequency fan noise is relatively insensi-
tive to enr'. ". power setting and thus becomes clearly dominant at approach engine con-
ditions. This type of aircraft generates higher noise levels than most of the aircraft in
the commercial fleet today. For the two- to three-engine turbofan aircraft, the jet
noise is lower because of slightly reduced jet velocities, aim the hu-'i frequency fan
noise is considerably reduced due to fundamental improvements in fan design.
The new Boeing 747 four-engine turbofan aircraft are powered by new technology
engines that incorporate several advancements, with respect to propulsion efficiency
and reduced noise generation. The low jet exhaust velocity made possible with these
new engines has resulted in a significant reduction in jet noise so that fan noise now
dominates both during takeoff and approach operations. Despite the consid rable
2-51
-------
180 LEGAL COMPILATION—NOISE
technological advances incorporated in the fan design, the discrete frequency fan whine
forms the major obstacle to achieving significant noise reduction. The newest three-
engine turbofan widebody aircraft (DC-10 and L-1011) use similar engines, but with
additional improvements in fan noise reduction. The net result ie a. 10-EPNdb to 13-
EPNdB reduction in noiae for these latest designs over the earlier turbofan aircraft.
The noise level in the interior of jet aircraft is dominated by a different noise source
Because these aircraft travel at high speeds, the pressure fluctuations generated by
the turbulent mixing that occurs in the boundary layer between the aircraft fuselage
and the surrounding air becomes significant. These fluctuations cause the fuselage
walls to vibrate and radiate noise into the aircraft interior.
The growth of community noise levels due to commercial aircraft operations is
closely related to the introduction of the commercial jet aircraft in 1958 and the growth
of air travel during the following decade. First, the jet aircraft were noisier on ap-
proach and takeoff than piston-engined aircraft they replaced. Secondly, although
the number of major airports has increased only slightly since the late 1950's, the
quantity and frequency of air travel has grown many times over. Finally, vast new
residential communities have been established in the vicinity of nearly all busy airports.
This combination of expanding air travel and residential growth has resulted in a grow-
ing airport-community noise problem.
To assess the effect of aircraft noise on the community, the previously described
NEF method has been widely used. This method, developed initially as a land-use
planning guide, gives a single number rating of the cumulative noise produced in the
vicinity of an airport by aircraft operations, taking into account factors such as the
total mix of aircraft utilizing the airport, subjective noise levels generated by each
aircraft class, flight paths, and number of operations in day and night periods. Con-
tours of constant values of the NEF index provide a measure of the total impacted
2-52
-------
GUIDELINES AND REPORTS 181
area. A criterion level of NEF-30 is normally used to indicate the approximate outer
boundary of the impact area. NEF-30 contours are shown in Figure 2-18 for a repre-
sentative one-runway airport and average commercial aircraft fleet mix. * For
simplicity, the aircraft are assumed to operate in the same direction on the single
runway, and the contour combines the effects of takeoffs and landings. Operations by
four-engine, low-bypass-ration turbofan standard aircraft (Boeing 707 and 720,
McDonnel-Douglas DC-8) are responsible for 69 percent of the total impact area,
while comprising only 23 percent of the total number of operations.
Helicopters
The helicopter is unique in that its noise signature is characteristically different
from that of all other common noise generators: a distinctive, low frequency throbbing
sound. Due to this characteristic, it is extremely difficult to control noise intrusion
into the passenger cabin or into buildings because sound-insulation methods are
notably inefficient in the low frequency range. This problem is further complicated
by the fact that low frequency sound propagates through the atmosphere more readily
than high frequency sound. Thus, helicopter noise can be distinguished at greater dis-
tances than most other sources of equal source noise level.
Interior Levels for Commercial Jet Aircraft
Passengers on jet aircraft are exposed to moderately high noise levels from the
time of boarding the aircraft to landing. The interior noise levels during cruise
typically range from 79 to 88 dBA, depending on the seat location, with a typical value
of 82 dBA. During takeoff and landing operations, the noise levels are up to 12 dBA
A simplified method for estimating NEF contours, for use by persons without
technical training is available from the Department of Housing and Urban De-
velopment, in "Noise Assessment Guidelines, " Report No. 2176, August, 1971.
2-53
-------
182
LEGAL COMPILATION—NOISE
t
a
i
'Si
c
in
1
a
UOOOl
aujijajuao Aewuny
2-54
-------
GUIDELINES AND REPORTS 183
higher, but only for periods of up to 1 minute during each operation. The noise level
inside many helicopters ranges between 90 and 100 dBA, representing a definite risk
of hearing damage for the constant traveler.
General Aviation Aircraft
General aviation refers to all civilian aviation activity other than that of the com-
mercial air carriers. Within this broad definition, general aviation includes a wide
variety of aircraft uses; Figure 2-19 summarizes this fleet mix and provides infor-
mation on the number of aircraft and typical range of noise levels produced. The
general aviation fleet has grown rapidly during the last 15 years and will continue to
do so for the next 10 to 20 years. During 1970, these aircraft flew an estimated 25.5
million aircraft hours, conducted 153 million operations, and carried a total of 220
million passengers. The composition of the fleet has changed over the last 10 years
from mostly small, single-engine propeller types to a more complex fleet mix.
The noise associated with general aviation propeller aircraft, both piston and
turboprop types, is produced primarily by the propellers, with dominant fundamental
tones typically In the range from 50 to 250 Hz. Higher harmonic tones may also be
significant, depending on the propeller blade shape and operating conditions. The
broadband and discrete frequency noise generated above approximately 250 Hz consists
of higher propeller noise harmonics, discrete frequency noise from the engine and ex-
haust, and exhaust broadband noise.
The noise characteristics of jet-powered general aviation aircraft, or executive
jets, are similar to those of commercial jet aircraft. Although the engines are much
smaller than those used to power commercial jet aircraft, the jet noise levels are com-
parable to those of existing two- and three-engine turbofan commercial jets. However,
some recent executive jets are powered by turbofan engines with substantially lower
sound levels.
2-55
-------
184
LEGAL COMPILATION—NOISE
I
General Aviation Aircraft
Single-Engine
Propeller
Muiti— Engine
Propeller
• Pleasure • Pleasure
• Instructional • Business
Executive Jet
• Corporate Aircraft
• Business
• Business • Commercial
110,500
Numbers in Service (1970)
17,500
900
Growth of Aircraft Fleet
110,500
« 81,300
o 68,300
•5
Number
~^~
17,
11.800
7,260J
M
1960 65 70 1960 65
iOO
70
900
1960 65 70
Typical Noise Levels
110
100
90
80
70
60
fin
105
90
67
77
PTTT
1
—*
76
i=
85
3
70
93
•nfi
80
*•* *^
79
105
85
c
3
87 95
87 93 • J
fJT 80
III
Approach and Takeoff Levels Measured at 1000 feet
Figure 2-19. Characteristics of General Aviation Aircraft
2-56
-------
GUIDELINES AND REPORTS 185
The operator or passenger In a general aviation propeller aircraft is subjected to
noise levels of about 90 dBA, which is 5 to 15 dB higher than in a commercial jet.
These higher levels are the result of the typical close spacing of engines and pro-
pellers to the cabin and the small space and weight allowance for acoustic treatment
in general aviation aircraft. Internal levels inside executive jets are comparable to
those in commercial jets.
Highway Vehicles
Highway vehicles include automobiles, trucks, buses, and maintenance and utility
vehicles. Motorcycles are treated in the discussion of recreation vehicles. Traffic
studies of highway vehicle usage In typical urban areas show that about 1600 to 2300
trips are made by automobile drivers and passengers every day for every 1000 people,
while 200 to 400 truck trips are made for every 1000 people. Approximately 40 to 45
percent of the latter terminate In residential areas. This urban travel represents
about 52 percent of the estimated 3 billion highway-vehicle-miles traveled in 1970.
The general characteristics, numbers, growth patterns, and range typical noise
levels for highway vehicles are summarized in Figure 2-20.
The noise levels produced by highway vehicles can be attributed to three major
causes:
1. Boiling stock: tires and gearing
2. Propulsion system: engine and related accessories
3. Aerodynamic and body noise.
Tires are the dominant noise source at speeds greater than approximately 50 mph for
both trucks and automobiles. Tire noise levels increase with vehicle speed and also
depend upon variables such as the road surface, axle loading, tread design, and wear
condition. Changes in any of the variables can result in variations in noise level of up
2-57
-------
186
LEGAL COMPILATION—NOISE
Highway Vehicles
1 1
Automobiles
Trucks
1
Utility &
Maintenance
1 II
1
Buses
1
• Passenger Cars • Light Trucks
• Sports & High • Medium
Performance • Heavy Duty
• Economy & Compact
• Imported
Numbers in Operation
• Street Sweepers • Highway
• Garbage Compactors • City
• Tree Chippers • School
87,000,000 . 19,000,000 Estimated 75.000
100 r-
.2 80
i
c
~ 60
S
0
•s
> 40
o
J>
I 20
.
-
•
100p
< 90
-Q
8
*
60
' 1
S
76
64
Growth of Number of Highway Vehicles
400,000
Autos Trucks 500 1- Buses
^
to
<•
9
CO
*
5 400
x:
= 300
S
Tj
•s
> 200
o
01 .8
:•' >82 80
^ '.'.: :. 76
70 70
64
§
- r^
CM
1950-60-70
>
5
* ^ 8
I
87
75
o cSi
85 85
70
70
88
§
,—
70
50 ft. 50 ft. 50 ft.
Figure 2-20. Characteristics of Highway Vehicles
2-58
50ft
-------
GUIDELINES AND REPORTS 187
to 20 dB at constant vehicle speed. Truck tires are generally noisier than automobile
tires because of their size and other design constraints. Engine generated noise is
normally the dominant noise for trucks and automobiles at speeds below 45 and 35 mph,
respectively. This noise is radiated directly from the engine exhaust and Intake open-
ings and from the vibrating engine casing. The third source of highway vehicle noise
includes noise produced by turbulent aerodynamic flow over the body and rattling of
loose mechanical parts.
Automobiles constitute the largest number of highway vehicles. While not as
noisy as trucks, buses, and motorcycles, their total contribution to the noise environ-
ment is significant due to the number in operation - 87 million in 1970. Of the 19 mil-
lion trucks in operation, only 2 to 3 percent are powered by diesel engines. However,
these trucks are generally 8 to 10 dB noisier than gasoline powered trucks and 12 to J8
dB noisier than automobiles. Due to their heavy rate of usage, trucks produce noise
levels that tend to increase with truck age. This situation is worsened by the tendency
to overhaul trucks with replacement mufflers that are inferior to the original equip-
ment. Figure 2-21 summarizes the dominant noise sources for automobiles and trucks
and indicates a typical example of noise levels for each source component.
Utility and maintenance trucks often generate a unique noise signature because
of the auxiliary functions they perform. The noise of the garbage truck during its
compacting operation is the classic example.
Although buses share many basic design characteristics with trucks, they are
generally quieter due to their increased packaging space (which allows larger mufflers)
and enclosed engine compartment. At highway speeds, passenger buses produce noise
levels primarily in the 80 to 87 dBA range at 50 feet. The pedestrian standing at the
curb experiences comparable levels as the bus passes him during low speed acceleration.
2-59
-------
188
LEGAL COMPILATION—NOISE
Exhaust
Aerodynamic Noise
90 -
I
«
8 8°
70 -
60
r- \ Tires
Gears 89
85
-
3
"» Ł
M
ui5
82
3
X
80
1
"
81
c
n>
1
<§
79
fi
S E
>- in
h- <°
E
_l
<
5
Subsource Contributions under Maximum Acceleration Noise Test at 35 mph
(Trucks)
Intake
Aerodynamic
Noise
Zil ^Cooling Fa
Exhaust
Engine
Transmission
Tire Noise
Full Throttle Acceleration at 35 mph
90
m
~° 80
I
S 70
!
a 6°
5
50
~"
-
-
Fl
1
1
:-jy
—
|
|
>i<
\V:
;•-;'•!
:-j?iŁ
— I
i
i
^
il
^'•5'
iff--
^v
Eng
70
mph
30
mph
Legend
Engine and Fan I I
Intake | |
Exhaust ElKfeq
Car No. 1 Car No. 2 Car No. 3 Tlre Noise
Figure 2-21. Noise Sources for Highway Vehicles
2-60
-------
GUIDELINES AND REPORTS 189
Highway Vehicle Noise in the Community
Vehicular traffic generally establishes the residual noise levels in most urban
and suburban communities. This residual noise level varies throughout the day,
based on the average density of noise sources in a given community. However, in the
immediate vicinity of a major arterial highway or freeway, the noise level is much
higher. Its actual value is dependent upon traffic flow rate, average vehicle speed,
distance to the traffic lane, and the ratio of trucks to automobiles on the highway. For
a typical eight-lane freeway, average daytime traffic flow raws can be on the order of
6000 to 10,000 vehicles per hour. For this condition, the median noise level beyond 100
feet from the flowing traffic is equivalent to that from a continuous line of noise sources.
Typical median traffic noise levels near a major freeway are about 75 to 80 dBA at
100 feet from the roadway and about 60 to 65 dBA at 1000 feet. *
Superimposed on this median traffic noise level are the intrusive or single-event
noises from individual trucks, cars, and motorcycles that are normally 15 to 25 dBA
above the residual noise levels on neighborhood streets. However, at the high traffic
flow rates typical for freeways, these individual single events are less distinguish-
able from the overall roar of the total traffic flow.
Interior Levels for the Passenger
At highway speeds, the interior noise levels in the majority of the larger American
passenger cars are in the 65 to 70 dBA range, with the air conditioner off and windows
up, whereas the smaller economy and compact cars have somewhat higher levels rang-
ing between 70 and 82 dBA. However, some of the small cars with noisy air condi-
tioners, or with the windows open, generate internal noise levels in the range of 80 to
Information on estimation of noise effects from highways is also contained in the
HUD "Noise Assessment Guidelines," cited regarding NEF values.
2-61
-------
190 LEGAL COMPILATION—NOISE
90 dBA. Buses, by virtue of their rear engine design and adequate allowance for in-
terior sound package treatment, provide interior noise levels in the range of 72 to
80 dBA.
Recreation Vehicles
Recreational vehicles, as defined here, include all types of motorcycles, snow-
mobiles, all-terrain vehicles, and pleasure boats. There has been a remarkable growth
in the number of these vehicles in the last 10 to 20 years, which is a reflection of the
greater amount of leisure time and of the availability of these vehicles at attractive
prices.
Over 90 percent of the 2.6 million motorcycles in the United States are used for
pleasure and are operated in residential and recreational areas. This number is ex-
pected to increase to 9 million by 1985. Nearly 80 percent of the 1.6 million snow-
mobiles in use today are operated primarily for pleasure by families in rural communi-
ties. Boating, enjoyed by an estimated 44 million persons in 1970, presents the most
widely employed form of recreational travel. Figure 2-22 summarizes the general
characteristics of this category in terms of growth patterns and range of typical
noise levels.
The noise output of recreational vehicles, although dependent upon speed, is pri-
marily a function of their mode of operation. For example, many off-road-motorcycles
and some snowmobiles are capable of speeds of 80 to 100 mph but are most often op-
erated at low speed in the lower gears, with medium to high engine power output.
Thus, except when cruising at constant speeds or coasting downhill, they are operated
at high throttle settings near their maximum noise output. This high noise level is
frequently considered synonymous with high power by the recreational user.
The major contributing source of noise from these vehicles is the exhaust system.
This exhaust noise is often increased by operators who modify or remove their exhaust
2-62
-------
GUIDELINES AND REPORTS
191
Recreation Vehtc es
Motorcyc es
• Highway <
350 cc
Snowmobiles
• Stock
• Highway > 350 cc • Modified
• Off
Pleasure Boats
1
• Outboard
• Inboard
Road
• Minicycles
Numbers in Service
2,600,000
8 p
S 7
H
~ ~ 5
2 2
1
1,600,000
5,850,000
Growth of Recreation Vehicles
-
-
p
[—
r
^
1950-60-
115
110
< 10°
CD
•o
J. 90
5
X 80
70
r-
2.6
~1 1'6
I 0 <°-'| |
70 1950-60-70
Typical Noise Levels
115 115
105
-
-
-
85
I
I
*
64
9R
"!S
|
3
74
Ł
S
i
l!*
Ł
87
•§
'f
64
60ft.
^t,
%
g
i
I
1
i
80
105
86 ;,?,
'•$ 85
1
y
70
5
0) .
5j
95
58
4.7
2.6
1950 - 60 - 70
|50ft.
f
1
i*
ii
65
115
105
95
F""
C
•g
IMta
75
1
85
"T
$•
•2
i
S
73
50ft.
Figure 2-22. Characteristics of Recreation Vehicles
2-63
-------
192 LEGAL COMPILATION—NOISE
muffler in a misguided attempt to produce more engine power. Of secondary, but sig-
nificant, importance in these vehicles is the noise radiated from their intakes and en-
gine walls. Generally, intakes are not silenced and engines are either partially or
totally unshielded. As a result of this lack of silencing, some of these vehicles create
noise levels as high as 100 to 110 dBA at 50 feet. Pending state legislation to regulate
the noise produced by off-road machines has caused manufacturers to reduce the max-
imum noise levels of vehicles in current production to 92 dBA.
The type of pleasure vehicle that currently reflects the most significant noise re-
duction technology In its basic engineering design is the outboard-powered pleasure
boat. The power plants on most of these boats represents the most effectively silenced
application of the widely used two-stroke internal combustion engine.
Motorcycles
The noise levels produced by many motorcycles increase rapidly with cruising
speed. Typical noise levels at 50 Jeet range from 59 to 69 dBA at 20 mph to 78 to 86
dBA at 60 mph. Typical noise exposure levels at the operators ear range from 85 to
90 dBA for the quiet highway cycles to 110 dBA for the large qff-the-road motorcycles
and modified large highway motorcycles. A typical example of the principal contrib-
uting sources of noise for motorcycles is given in Figure 2-23.
Snowmobiles
The noise levels produced by snowmobiles are largely dependent upon their age,
because of a trend to improved designs. Current production models are generally in
the range of 77 to 86 dBA, measured at 50 feet, under maximum noise conditions. The
noise level of older or poorly muffled machines ranges from 90 to 95 dBA, with racing
machines generating levels as high as 105 to 110 dBA at this same distance. The noise
from new machines normally ranges from 95 to 115 dBA at the operator position but
2-64
-------
GUIDELINES AND REPORTS
193
Intake
Tires
90 _
•o
* 80
0
1 70
o 60
_—
86
^
n
X
LU
82
3
Qi
C
UJ
69
?
P
en
O
1-
Subsource Contributions
Figure 2-23. Motorcycle Noise Sources
can be higher on racing machines. A typical example of the principal contributing
sources of noise for snowmobiles is summarized in Figure 2-24.
Pleasure Boats
The maximum noise levels measured in a recent survey of a large number of
pleasure boats (both inboard- and outboard-powered) ranged from 65 to 105 dBA at a
distance of 50 feet. The lower limits of this range are created by small craft (with 6-
to 10-horsepower engines). The highest levels, exceeding 105 dBA at 50 feet, were
produced by inboard-powered ski boats with unmuffled exhausts.
Engine exhausts are the main source of noise for the boats exhibiting the highest
noise levels. On the ski boats, which have large exposed engines, intake and engine
mechanical noise also provide a significant contribution. The noise levels of smaller
2-65
-------
194
LEGAL COMPILATION—NOISE
Engine
Clutch
Gears
Chain
<
o
90
an
60
M\
3ogies ^Exhaust
Tra<* 3 88
—
82
V,
3
•5
LJJ
1
80
5
u.
76
72
1
V
ra
Subsource Contributions
Figure 2-24. Snowmobile Noise Sources
inboard engines are typically lower; but the exhaust, even though released under water,
is still the major noise source. In the medium and smaller outboard engine sizes, the
engine and intake, though acoustically shielded, produce almost as much noise as the
exhaust.
The typical noise exposures for operators of outboard boats are also high. These
exposures range from 84 dBA for 6-horsepower units to 98 to 105 dBA for 125-
horsepower units measured at the driver position under accelerating conditions. At
cruising speeds, operator levels on all boat types (inboard and outboard) range from
73 to 96 dBA.
2-66
-------
GUIDELINES AND REPORTS 195
Dune Buggies, All-Terrain Vehicles and Other Off-Road Vehicles
The major source of noise output in the remainder of those vehicles considered
under the recreation classification is predominantly exhaust. Because of the unregu-
lated nature of these vehicles and their use, the owners tend to attempt the achieve-
ment of maximum power output through the use of tuned and unmuffled exhaust
systems.
Rail Systems
Rail systems are defined here as consisting of:
1. Railroads. Long distance freight and passenger trains and high speed inter-
city trains.
2. Rail Transit Systems. Rapid transit subways and elevated systems, street-
cars, and trolley lines.
The characteristics of rail systems are summarized in Figure 2-25.
Approximately 10,000 freight and passenger trains operate daily, hauling 40 per-
cent of all freight tonnage. Urban rapid transit systems operate over 22,000 trips per
day and transport approximately 2.3 billion passengers a year over 1070 miles of line,
using about 11,650 rapid transit rail cars and trolley coaches. Each application has
required development of specialized vehicle systems that differ significantly in their
noise characteristics.
Railroads
Noise in railroad systems is made up of the contributions from locomotives and the
train vehicles that the locomotives haul.
Locomotives. Ninety-nine percent of the 27,000 locomotives in service in the
United States in 1971 were diesel-electric, and the majority of the remainder were
electric. Approximately one-half of the locomotives are used for main line hauling.
2-67
-------
196
LEGAL COMPILATION—NOISE
1
Railroads
1
Rail Systems
I
1
Rail Transit
1
• Freight
• Shunting Operations
• Long Distance Passenger
• High Speed, Inter-city
Passenger
• Commuter
• Subway and Elevated
• Surface Rail
• Trolleys and Street Cars
Growth'of Rail Fleet
$
u
1
^
*Ł
1
Z
| | Diesel Electric Locomotives
fc|fj Passenger Train Cars
8
f
^fi.
s
"".;::'-
8
3
R
5
I
•^
1
0
I
1950 1960 1970
ioor 98
90
CQ
7 80
~s
" 70
Z 60
88
-
-
_
P
^
2
|
g
i
Q
94
80
*TZ
$
ii
s
1
u_
90
80
•^
iS
»
<3
1
(Ł
75
60
M
s
V
CJ
.c
tt>
"o
5
1
Typical Noise Levels
100 r-
< 90
BO
~a
_L 80
J
i 7°
*«
"
-
-
-
__ t I Trolleys
I | Surface {— {
p^-3 Subway and
**li* Elevated
'*••
|
lr
^3 (7?
fei —i i'J
fe 1 4'3
iSS 1 1 >C-i '"1
1950 1960 1970
95 on
82
P?w
^
Ł
8
O
S
50 ft. Interior 50 f
90 r^-.
era
^
|i:
72 ^
1
3,
80 *- '
|
a
_ */
Interior
Figure 2-25. Characteristics of Ra.il Systems
2-68
-------
GUIDELINES AND REPORTS 197
The remainder are lower powered locomotives used for short-hauls and as switchers
in railroad yards.
The sources of noise in a moving diesel-electric locomotive are, in approximate
order of contribution to the overall noise level:
• Diesel exhaust muffler.
• Diesel engine and surrounding casing, including the air intake and turbo-
charger (if any).
• Cooling fans.
• Wheel/rail interaction.
• Electrical generator.
An additional source of noise is the siren or horn, which produces noise levels 10
to 20 dBA greater than that from the other sources. This is not a continuously oper-
ated source (30 timer per hour on a typical run), however, and is a necessary opera-
tional safety feature and is therefore excluded from the above list. The electrical
locomotive draws electrical power from an overhead line and, except for noise gen-
erated during braking operations, is considerably quieter than its diesel-electric
counterpart.
Train Vehicles. Since freight and passenger cars have no propulsion system
of their own, the exterior noise produced is due mainly to the interaction between the
wheels and the rails. The magnitude of the noise depends heavily on the condition of
the wheels and track, on whether or not the track is welded, and on the type of vehicle
suspension. Modern passenger vehicles with auxiliary hydraulic suspension systems
in addition to the normal springs can be about 10 dBA quieter than the older vehicles
and most freight cars, which have only springs. Additional noise can be produced in
empty boxcars containing loose chains and vibrating sections.
2-69
-------
198 LEGAL COMPILATION—NOISE
The interior noise of passenger vehicles is partly due to structurally-borne noise
from the wheel/rail interaction and the passing of the wheels over rail joints. Another
source is airborne noise passing through the car body and windows, which becomes
more important when the train is passing through cuttings and tunnels. Welded track,
present on only about 10 percent of the nation's railroad track mileage, materially
reduces interior noise levels, but the amount of welded track is being increased at
the rate of only 3000 miles per year (or less than 1 percent per year) as the older sec-
tional type requires replacement. In addition to the track noise, interior passenger
car noise levels are produced by the air conditioning system.
fo suburban areas, many commuter trains consist of multiple-unit electric cars
that operate from the lead car. Many of these systems utilize modern, high-speed
equipment with low track noise levels. The interior noise level, then, is dependent
upon the air conditioning system.
One other major source of noise from railroads is braking operations in re-
tarder yards, which produce a high-pitched sound at a level that can exceed 120 dBA
at 50 feet.
Rapid Transit Systems
All the rapid transit/rail systems use electric multiple-unit rail cars, designed
with many exit doors for rapid handling of passengers, large windows for good
visibility, and lightweight structure to reduce the overall load. The result is that
these vehicles have lower noise insulation than railroad passenger cars. Suspension
systems universally contain steel springs, additional cushioning being provided by
either rubber pads or air cushioning systems.
There is presently a wide range in the age of the operational vehicles of this type.
The newer vehicles have better suspension systems than the older types, and there is
2-70
-------
GUIDELINES AND REPORTS 199
also a current requirement to use air conditioned vehicles that allow all windows to be
permanently sealed. Both the new suspension systems and the sealed windows serve
to provide substantially lower levels inside the new transit cars.
The range of noise levels for major noise sources associated with rail transit
systems is shown in Figure 2-26. The main source of noise is the interaction be-
tween the wheels and rails. This is more serious in rapid transit systems than In rail
systems because the tracks are subject to a much higher rate of wear. Other sources
of noise are the propulsion system and the auxiliary equipment. Rapid transit sys-
tem noise is complicated by other elements not totally connected with the vehicles,
including the reverberant effect of tunnels on noise in subway systems, the increased
vibration-induced noise from elevated systems, and the higher reflectivity of concrete
roadbeds used for some rapid transit lines.
Street and trolley cars still operate in Boston, San Francisco, Philadelphia, and
other cities. In some cases they operate in conjunction with subway systems. External
noise levels vary for streetcars between the old and the new types of cars, the levels
ranging from approximately 68 to 80 dBA at 50 feet under varying operating conditions.
Ships
Of all the sources of noise in transportation systems, ships are the least important
in terms of environmental impact. Only the noises aboard ship are significant. The
only aspect of this shipboard noise of potential significance is the environment of
passengers. These levels are generally lower than 65 dBA.
Environmental Impact
The preceding discussions have illustrated the nature of the noise environments
for each major element of the transportation system. AS with any complex situation,
several views of the overall Impact of transportation noise are desirable to obtain
an overall perspective.
2-71
-------
200
LEGAL COMPILATION—NOISE
S 8
8 K
u_
8 2
»09>. V8P
IWT1 punos
1 1 1 1
S 8 8 8 S
- *f
Hi
-i s§
i i*
s "!
SHS
tm*
Motor Air
m Gen- Con
erator pres
Propul- Ai
non Bl
System
At Aerial Stre
Grade Struc- Cars
S88S S 8 S
o
Z
_«
o
IS
4U
Ł
3,
2-72
-------
GUIDELINES AND REPORTS 201
First, a simplified overview of the relative contribution of each of the source
categories is provided by comparing their estimated daily outputs of acoustic energy.
Next, the sources are compared to estimate their relative contributions to the outdoor
residual noise level in typical urban residential areas. Third, the sources are re-
viewed with respect to their individual single-event intrusive characteristics and their
potential Impact in terms of community reaction. Finally, the operator/passenger
noise environment is reviewed with respect to the potential hazard for hearing damage
and speech interference. Each of these views provides some insight into the relative
impact of the various source categories.
Total Noise Energy Output Per Day
One useful way to order the relative impact of the various sources is to estimate
the total noise energy generated in an average day. This noise energy will be higher
for those elements of the transportation system that generate higher noise levels, exist
in large numbers, and operate more hours per day. Table 2-9 summarizes by each
category the estimates of the A-weighted noise energy generated throughout the nation
during a 24-hour day.* The top 10 transportation categories, as indicated by their
noise energy, produce 96 percent of the total noise energy, and, of these, heavy trucks
and four-engined aircraft produce over 50 p< rcent of the total noise energy.
Contribution of Transportation System Components to the Residual Noise Level
As discussed previously, the residual noise level in a community is the slowly
changing, nonidentifiable background noise that is always there whenever one listens
carefully. This noise level is normally dominated by highway vehicles moving through-
out the community. Other noise sources in a community, such as aircraft, railroads,
* The passage of a sound wave is accompanied by an increase in energy. For
example, when a person shouts, he produces a sound power of approximately
0. 0007 watt at 1 foot from his lips. Commonly accepted mathematical formulas
are available for making conversions of sound pressure to sound power. These
have been used as the basis of the derivations of the noise energy values discussed
herein. See EPA document NTID300. 13.
2-73
-------
202
LEGAL COMPILATION—NOISE
Table 2-9
NOISE ENERGY FOR ELEMENTS OF THE TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM
Major Category
Aircraft
Highway
Vehicles
Recreational
Vehicles
Rail Vehicles
• 4 -Engine Turbofan Aircraft
• 2- and 3 -Engine Turbofan Aircraft
• General Aviation Aircraft
Helicopters
• Medium and Heavy Duty Trucks
• Sports Cars, Imports and Compacts
• Passenger Cars (Standard)
• Light Trucks and Pickups
• Motorcycles
City and School Buses
Highway Buses
• Minicycles and Off-Road Motorcycles
Snowmobiles
Outboard Motorboats
Inboard Motorboats
• Locomotives
Freight Trains
High Speed Intercity Trains
Rapid Transit Trains
Passenger Trains
Old Trolley Cars (pre WWII)
New Trolley Cars (post WWII)
Noise Energy
(Kilowatt-Hours/Day)
3,800
730
125
25
5,000
1,000
800
500
500
20
12
800
120
100
40
1,200
25
8
6.3
0.63
0.50
0.08
Total -15,000
• Top 10 categories that each generate at least 125 kilowatt -hours per day.
2-74
-------
GUIDELINES AND REPORTS
203
recreational vehicles, industrial plants, or multiple air conditioning systems, are
usually widely dispersed and are therefore responsible for identifiable intruding noises.
Table 2-10 summarizes the estimated daytime residual noise levels for each ma-
jor type of highway vehicle operating in an average urban community. It is apparent
that passenger cars and trucks are the principal noise sources. Only if all traffic
were stopped would other sources be important to the residual noise level in an aver-
age urban residential community.
Table 2-10
PREDICTED CONTRIBUTIONS TO DAYTIME RESIDUAL NOISE LEVELS
BY HIGHWAY VEHICLES FOR A TYPICAL URBAN COMMUNITY IN 1970
Source
Standard Passenger Cars
Sports Cars, Compacts, and
Imports
Light Trucks
Heavy and Medium Trucks
Highway Motorcycles
City Buses
Approximate
Source Density,
Units/Square Mile
-50
-20
-20
- 1.5
- 1
- 0.8
Total
Residual Noise Level
dBA
43
41
42
33
18
15
47 dBA
The residual level was also computed with the same technique for the years 1950
and 1960. The estimated values of the daytime residual noise levels for a typical ur-
ban residential community are 45 dBA for 1950 and 46 dBA for 1960. These estimates
indicate an increase over 10 years of approximately 1 dB in the residual noise level
(LQn). This rate of increase is consistent with the available data summarized in the
yu
2-75
-------
204 LEGAL COMPILATION—NOISE
discussion of community noise. Again, it is emphasized that the intruding noise, not
the residual, is the problem.
Relative Annoyance of Intruding Single Events
For evaluating impact of intruding single events such as resulting from a car
driven past a house, each transportation subcategory can be compared according to
its noise level at a fixed distance. Table 2-11 summarizes typical values for noise
levels at a distance of 50 feet from surface transportation sources.
Examination of the various categories in Table 2-11 clearly shows that noise from
heavy trucks, highway buses, trains, and rapid transit vehicles that normally operate
along restricted traffic routes will distinctly intrude upon people living near those traf-
fic routes. On the other hand, motorcycles and garbage trucks, which operate on all
streets, are a more widely encountered source of intrusion and potentially affect more
people. This noise intrusion of single events is more severe for communities in
which the residual noise level is inherently low. For example, in a rural or quiet
suburban community located well away from major highways, the residual noise level
is 10 to 15 dB lower than in urban areas; and the passby of a noisy sportscar at night
may momentarily Increase the noise level by as much as 40 dB. Similarly, during
the night near a major highway, noise intrusion from single trucks is readily apparent
due to the lower density of automobile traffic.
Recreational vehicles operating on land are in a class by themselves. Their
wide use in both residential and recreational areas and the rapid increase in their
number, in addition to their high noise levels, have contributed to the current concern
regarding these devices. The growth pattern is particularly significant, as indicated
in Figure 2-27, which also illustrates the growth pattern of other consumer devices
operated by internal combustion engines.
2-76
-------
GUIDELINES AND REPORTS
205
Table 2-11
RANK ORDERING OF SURFACE TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM
ACCORDING TO A-WEIGHTED NOISE LEVEL
HIGHWAY
Medium and Heavy Trucks
Motorcycles
Garbage Trucks
Highway Buses
Automobiles (Sport, etc.)
City Buses
Light Trucks
Automobiles (Standard)
RAIL
Freight and Passenger Trains
Rapid Transit
Trolley Cars*
Trolley Cars**
RECREATIONAL VEHICLES
Off-Road Motorcycles
Snowmobiles
Inboard Motorboats
Outboard Motorboats
Typical A-Weighted
Noise Levels at 50 ft(l)
dB re: 20^tN/m2
84 (88)
82 (88)
82 (88)
82 (86)
75 (86)
73 (85)
72 (86)
69 (84)
94
86
80
68
85
85
80
80
Estimated
Vehicle-
Miles in
Urban AreŁ s
Billions
19
NA<2>
0.5
0.1
21
2.2
77
335
NAP>
0.33
0.03
0.03
(1) Values inside parentheses are typical for maximum
acceleration. All other values are for normal
cruising speeds. Variations of 5 dB can be expected.
(2) Not available.
2-77
* Pre-WWn
** Post-WWII
-------
206
LEGAL COMPILATION—NOISE
1970
<° 1960
1950
Legend:
Gas Powered Lawnmowers
Motorboats
Motorcycles
Chain Saws
Snowmobiles
Number of Units
(in millions)
Figure 2-27. Approximate Growth of a Few Types of Noisy Recreational
Vehicles and Outdoor Home Equipment
2-78
-------
GUIDELINES AND REPORTS 207
The noise Intrusion of water craft is generally regarded to be fairly low. Power
boats are legally required in many states to be at least 100 feet from shore when op-
erating at high speed, thus minimizing their impact in local communities.
Overall Assessment of Noise Impact by the Transportation System
on Nonparticipating Observers
The cumulative effect of the repeated occurrence of intruding noises will place a
different emphasis on individual transportation system categories than is obtained by
considering only a single event. This cumulative effect is expressed in terms of the
land area within an NEF contour of 30, or the corresponding contour value on the
CNEL scale of 65. As discussed earlier, the expected reaction of a residential urban
community for CNEL-65 would be widespread complaints. Thus, the choice of the
contour boundary may tend to understate the total impact, which for both airports and
freeways, is certainly greater.
The estimated noise-impacted land within this NEF-30 contour for airport opera-
tions throughout the nation was approximately 1450 square miles in 1970. The area
enclosed between an effective right-of-way freeway boundary and the CNEL-65 bound-
ary is estimated to be approximately 545 square miles.
Thus, the estimated noise-impacted land within a CNEL-65 boundary for urban
freeways and commercial airports as of 1970 was approximately 2000 square miles.
Based on a typical population density in urban communities of 5000 people per square
mile, this total noise-impacted area represents approximately 10 million people with-
in a CNEL boundary of 65. Again, this ts an underestimate, with the complete impact
certain to be greater.
The noise-impacted land near rapid transit lines was not involved in this sum-
mary, since there are only 386 miles of electric railway lines, compared to about
9200 miles of freeways. However, since these lines typically serve commuters, much
2-79
-------
208 LEGAL COMPILATION—NOISE
of the mileage is contained in densely populated city areas, and the commuting impact
is far greater than would be anticipated simply by the area impacted. As with other
noise sources, impact cannot be considered regarding exposure to only a single source.
Individuals are routinely exposed to many such sources on a daily basis.
Because helicopter flight route patterns are essentially random, it is practically
impossible to define their noise impact in terms of land area or population. A sus-
tained public reaction has not materialized, despite the intrusive nature of the sound,
probably because of the irregularity of this use pattern. However, widespread com-
plaints have arisen regarding air taxi services in New York and police operations in
Los Angeles.
Impact on Operators and Passengers in Transportation Systems
The two significant effects of noise on operators or passengers of transportation
systems are potential hearing damage from excessive noise and interference with
speech communication.
Potential Hearing Damage. The potential hazard with respect to hearing handicap
for all categories of the transportation system is summarized in Figure 2-28 in terms
of an equivalent 8-hour exposure level. This equivalent level is determined from the
actual passenger noise exposure using the same rule for trading off time of exposure
and level that is utilized in the noise limiting regulations adopted under the Occupa-
tional Safety and Health Act. The estimated equivalent 8-hour exposure levels of five
of the transportation categories exceed the Occupational Safety and Health Act criteria
for an equivalent 8-hour day. In each of these five cases, noise protection for the op-
erator's ears is highly desirable. In occupational situations, because of longer expo-
sure, hearing protection would become mandatory. In addition, many of the other
sources, including all those exceeding an equivalent 8-hour exposure level of 80 dBA
are potentially hazardous to some individuals, particularly in combination with their
2-80
-------
GUIDELINES AND REPORTS
209
Highway Vehicles (Typical Hours Use Per Day on Day of Use)
Motorcycles (1)
Medium and Heavy Trucks (4)
Highway Buses (4)
Utility Trucks (1)
Light Trucks (1.51
School and City Buses (2)
Passenger Cars - All Types (1)
75
»r
as;.
LEGEND
Avj.
53[
Aircraft
Light Utility Helicopters (2)
Commercial - Propeller (1 4|
General Aviation — Propeller (1)
Commercial — 2- and 3-Engme Turbofan (1 4)
Heavy Transport Helicopter (0 5)
Medium Weight Helicopter (0.5)
Commercial — 4-Engme Turbofan
Commercial - Widebody (1.4)
General Aviation - Executive Jet (0 5)
Rail Vehicles
Rapid Transit (1 5)
Trolleys (1 51
Passenger Trains (6)
High Speed Interurban (2)
)75fiH
n I
Max
~~1 8'
Avg
71
71
70
70
70
87
87
Average (number
indicated on
left ode of bar
• Maximum (number
indicated on
right side of bar
il lag •:;Ł>:*
O76;/"^
67
75
• ••'•'' ( Criteria
Occupational
Safety and
ilth Act
58
I l
Recreational Vehicles (Typical)
Snowmobiles (2)
Minicycles and Off-Road Motorcycles (2)
Inboard and Outboard Boats (2)
I
Probable region
of concern for
non-occupational
exposures
I
&&SAtl
50 60 70 80 90
Equivalent 8-Hour Exposure Level, dBA
100
Figure 2-28. Potential Hearing Damage from Transportation System
Components in Terms of Equivalent 8-Hour Exposure
Levels, for Passengers or Operators
2-81
-------
210
LEGAL COMPILATION—NOISE
exposure to other noise environments. As Indicated, a considerable exposure poten-
tial for a significant portion of the population may exist because of the combination of
exposures to a variety of sources.
Speech Interference. Speech Interference criteria specify maximum desirable
noise levels at the listener's ear as a function of talker-listener separation for effec-
tive normal speech communication. Table 2-12 summarizes typical talker-listener
separation distances in various transportation systems and corresponding desired
noise limits to minimize speech interference at these distances. With the exception
of V/STOL propeller or rotary-wing aircraft, the internal noise levels are not exces-
sive in terms of speech interference, while affording a maximum of speech privacy
for each passenger pair.
Table 2-12
TYPICAL PASSENGER SEPARATION DISTANCES AND SPEECH
INTERFERENCE CRITERIA
Passenger Cars
Buses
Passenger Trains
Rapid Transit Cars
Commercial Aircraft
(Fixed Wing)
V/STOL Aircraft
Talker-Listener
Separation
Feet
1.6 to 2.8
1
1 to 1.7
1 to 1.7
1.1 to 1.7
1,1 to 1.7
Speech
Interference
Criteria*
dBA
73 to 79
79 to 85
79 to 85
79 to 85
79 to 84
79 to 84
Average
Internal Noise
Levels
dBA
78
82
68 to 70
82
82 to 83
90 to 93
* Maximum noise levels to allow speech communication with expected voice
level at specified talker-listener separation distances.
2-82
-------
GUIDELINES AND REPORTS 211
DEVICES POWERED BY INTERNAL COMBUSTION ENGINES
The noise emanating from lawn care equipment powered by small internal com-
bustion engines is well known to the millions of people who maintain gardens or lawns
and their neighbors. The total United States production of these engines was about
10. 9 million units in 1969. This total includes all engines below 11 horsepower except
those used for boating, automotive, and aircraft applications. Over 95 percent of
these are single cylinder, air cooled engines. The vast majority are four cycle,
while the two-cycle version of the same size dominates the remaining market. More
than half of the single cylinder engines power the estimated 17 million lawnmowers in
use today, while the majority of the remaining engines are used in other lawn and gar-
den equipment such as leaf blowers, mulchers, tillers, edge trimmers, garden trac-
tors, and snowblowers. In addition, about 750,000 chain saws and 100,000 engines
for equipment such as small loaders and tractors, were produced in 1970, while agri-
cultural and industrial usage together accounted for another 1. 5 million engines. The
categorization of these devices by use and range of typical noise levels is summarized
in Figure 2-29. The range of noise levels for the various devices in this category are
shown in Figure 2-30.
Lawn Care Equipment
The characteristic noise produced by lawn care equipment has a low frequency
peak corresponding to the engine firing frequency (about 50 to 60 cycles per second)
and a high frequency maximum occurring anywhere from two to three octaves above
the firing frequency. In the case of a lawnmower, much of the energy in the high fre-
quency noise peak is from the exhaust, which has only a minor degree of muffling.
Additional high noise levels are radiated by the rotating blade. Equipment without a
rotating blade will generally have other machinery noise of the same approximate
2-83
-------
212
LEGAL COMPILATION—NOISE
1
Generators
• Battery Chargers
• Air Conditioners
• Auxiliary Power
Internal Combust ion
Engines
1
Lawn Care
Other Types
• Mowers • Chain Saws
• Edgers • Model Aircraft
• Tillers
• Leaf Blowers
• Snow Blowers
Number in Service
550,000
17,100,000
2,500,000
Typical Noise Levels
120
110
100
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
on
-
_
96 95 1°3
-
-
—
—
-
'
~ir\
/u
CO
85
58
S
77
52
b
in
71
••
46
8
PJ
I_M*
80
CO
91
65
in
CNI
85
59
8
115
u.
CM
93
..
80
CO
CM
»6
•'.".,
64
%
o
o
§ S
Figure 2-29. Characteristics of Devices Powered by
Internal Combustion Engines
2-84
-------
GUIDELINES AND REPORTS
213
ill
JOiejadQ
8O Q O
^ °° * *
V9P - I9A9T esioN
« i
" a
1 PI
J S
Kfe^s a
SEv"-i''-3° <•>
s(— 3-
cl
SOv.,'15 S
s l.«/r,'-j s h
i 1 i i i i i
S 8[?|"OS»l"r|
H ^ffe |JA8T joiejadQ
o
« p[jTi7os«
J^ y S JOlBJ9dQ
E "Fi'.^S 'loan
iS~ ^ fc^J 0 I9A8T JOlBJSdQ
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
s ?r
- si
1 »rc==:
S «| P"ll*nw
c' S| Peuinujun
i 1 1 f 1 1 1
n
o
0
* OJ
?
r '&
Sc
w
o
Ł m
to 3
5 a
C
0
o
-------
214 LEGAL COMPILATION—NOISE
level. The modulation oŁ the high frequency engine noise by the engine firing frequen-
cy makes the engine noise more audible than the noise of a rotating blade or other
machinery. Thus, even heavy muffling on lawn care equipment cannot totally eliminate
the characteristic noise associated with this modulation.
Generators
Of the 100,000 generators sets sold each year in the United States, most are used
in mobile homes, campers, and large boats, where their electrical power output is
used for air conditioning, lighting, and other equipment. Their noise output is gener-
ally dominated by high frequency exhaust noise, which can be well muffled to achieve
quiet operation acceptable to users and their neighbors.
Chain Saws
The typical chain saw engine is a two-cycle, high-speed device that operates with
a firing frequency of about 150 times per second. A minimum muffler is usually
a part of the configuration and is equipped with a spark arrester to prevent fire. The
high firing frequency and light muffler result in noise levels as high as 115 dBA at the
operator position, with levels of 83 dBA common at a 50-foot distance.
Model Airplane Engines
Model airplane engines are two-cycle engines that typically operate at 12,000 to
18,000 rpm, resulting in a firing frequency above 200 Hz. Until recently, these en-
gines had no muffling at all, and with muffling, the A-weighted noise level is reduced
by about 12 decibels.
Environmental Impact
The principal characteristics of internal combustion engines as sources of poten-
tial noise impact are summarized in Table 2-13. In general, these devices are not
significant contributors to the average residual noise levels in urban areas. However,
the annoyance distance of most of the garden care equipment equals or exceeds about
2-86
-------
GUIDELINES AND REPORTS
215
0)
3
&
OT
w
5
o
z
H
g
i-*
H
W
P
«
§
O
W
H
5
,
o
CO
O
w
5
w
o
s
=
Q
U
1
H
Q
fl4
Q
S
s
w
Mil
W
S
s fi
Ł •§
3 - J
0 g< S
^* ? ^
w * ^
t, ?„
a a
( h
CO O [>- CXI
t-^QOCOCDt~CD 1 C-
ooooooowo
iricococDQOoocDcoeo
rH iH
T^OOC^-^COOOtO'— tO
IN CO -tf
SCOOOCONCOOO
to •* •<* i-* .-t
Ł
w -2 m co 13 w
IS d^Sw^Sg w
0)g «"
t? bfl
E rf
c
O "S
If
G fl)
"S S
>
Ł 2
r the total nu
valuation of
ng operation
° " a
« S c
S Ł |
|1|
O -»-» bo
s s s
•o g q"
» 3 "2
d O1 3
CO U Q
2 S S
2-87
-------
216 LEGAL COMPILATION—NOISE
50 feet — a typical neighbor-to-netghbor distance - indicating further noise reduction
for these devices is desirable. Similarly, a distinct local increase in the noise level
in rural or wilderness areas may be experienced at distances up to 1 mile from such
devices as chain saws. As a result, they constitute a persistent source of annoyance
for persons seeking the solitude of wilderness areas. Use of chain saws can result in
equivalent 8-hour exposure levels of 83 to 90 dBA for the operator, indicating the de-
sirability of hearing protection for operators.
NOISE FROM INDUSTRIAL PLANTS
Industrial plant activity in the United States ranges from the small single machine
garage operation to the large multimillion dollar, multiproduct operation. U. S. De-
partment of Commerce Statistical Abstracts for the year 1967 reported that there were
311,000 industrial establishments in the United States employing approximately 14. 36
million production workers. Although the types of industrial activities vary greatly,
for the purpose of this report they have been categorized into four basic types:
1. Product fabrication
2. Product assembly
3. Power generation
4. Process plants.
Due to the"broad nature of the product fabrication industry, it was further subdivided
into metal fabrication and molding.
To investigate the industrial plant as a total noise source and to evaluate the effect
of this noise source on the community, a case study was performed that included ex-
amples of each industrial category. Specific industrial activities typical of possible
sources of community noise were studied and are as follows.
2-88
-------
GUIDELINES AND REPORTS 217
• Metal fabrication — can manufacturing
• Molding - glass bottle manufacturing
• Product assembly — automobile assembly
• Power generation - public utility electric
• Process - oil refinery
Based on Bureau of the Census and the Automobile Manufacturers Association
data (as of 1967) there were 305 glass and glassware manufacturing plants, 438 petro-
leum refineries, 3429 electric power generating plants, 98 automobile assembly
plants, and 300 can manufacturing plants in the U. S. The number of plants being rep-
resented by the specific plants of the case study account for approximately 1. 5 per-
cent of the total number of industrial establishments in the United States.
Plant Noise Sources
A study of industrial plants as sources of community noise must begin with the
individual noise sources within the plant. Industrial plant noise sources can be gener-
ally classified into five major categories.
• Impact -punch, presses, stamping, hammers
• Mechanical - machinery unbalance, gears, bearings
• Fluid Flow —fans, blowers, compressors, valves
• Combustion -furnaces, flare sticks
• Electromechanical —motors, generators, transformers
A brief description of the types of individual noise sources observed in the typical
plants of the case study conducted for this report are given in the following subsections.
The range of industrial machinery and equipment noise levels (A-weighted) ob-
served within the five typical plants surveyed are presented in Table 2-14.
2-89
-------
218
LEGAL COMPILATION—NOISE
Table 2-14
RANGE OF INDUSTRIAL MACHINERY, EQUIPMENT,
AND PROCESS NOISE LEVELS*
1. Pneumatic Power Tools (grinders,
chippers, etc.)
2. Molding Machines (I. S. , blow
molding, etc.)
3. Air Blown-Down Devices (paint-
ing, cleaning, etc. )
4. Blowers (forced, induced, fan,
etc.)
5. Air Compressors (reciprocating,
centrifugal)
6. Metal Forming (punch, shear-
ing, etc.)
7. Combustion (furnaces, flare
stacks)
8. Turbo-generators (steam)
9. Pumps (water, hydraulic, etc. )
10. Industrial Trucks (LP gas)
11. Transformers
Noise Levels - dBA
80 85 90 95 100 105 110 115 120
_
-
•
•—•
-
mt
MMM
MHM
»
(measured 25 ft.
from
sourc
1
•(measured 10 ft. from source)
•
e)
*Measured at operator positions, except for 7 and 8.
2-90
-------
GUIDELINES AND REPORTS 219
Glass Manufacturing Plants
Glass bottles are manufactured by "blowmolding" the molten glass to the desired
size and shape. High pressure air is used for cooling, pneumatic control, and opera-
tion of the glass molding machines and is normally vented into the atmosphere. The
turbulent mixing of the high pressure air with the atmosphere is the major noise
source. Such noise sources are typically located within masonry-type buildings that
may contain acoustic louvers at air inlets and exhausts.
Oil Refineries
The noise sources within a typical oil refinery are furnaces, compressors, heat
exchangers, cooling fans, pumps, control valves, and air and steam piping leaks, all
of which are located outdoors. Furnace noise is unique in that it is a combination of
high frequency noise produced by the gaesified fuel, low frequency noise produced by
the air intake, and, finally, the noise produced by the combustion process itself.
Public Utility Electric Power Plants
A power plant is a complex system of furnaces, turbine generators (gas and
steam), air compressors, transformers, and associated equipment such as forced
draft blowers, induced draft fans, and control valves. Turbine-generators and air
compressors are usually located inside masonry-type buildings, while the other noise
sources are outdoors.
Automobile Assembly Plants
The mass production of automobiles requires the use of electucally and pneumat-
ically powered labor assist devices such as grinders, impact wrenches, and air blow-
down devices. The combination of tool and operation noise is of a broadband type,
with the levels greatest at high frequencies.
2-91
-------
220 LEGAL COMPILATION—NOISE
Can Manufacturing Plants
The process of metal stamping requires metal forming, cutting, punching, shear-
ing, and pressing, all of which are noisy impact operations.
Community Noise Climate
Industrial plants in the past were normally located in heavily populated urban
areas due to requirements for skilled and semiskilled labor and transportation. By
locating in or near a large city, the industries were able to draw employees from a
large labor pool and had a ready means, through railroads, highways, and port facili-
ties, to receive raw material and to ship their finished products.
Groups of industrial plants, in general, raise the residual noise level in the sur-
rounding community to such a level that intrusive noise due to individual plants is
masked or minimized. The rise in the residual level is caused by the exceedingly
high noise levels within a plant due to industrial machinery and processes and the in-
crease in truck traffic due to the existence of the plant.
During the past several decades skilled and semiskilled labor has migrated from
the cities, a trend followed by commercial and industrial activity. The attraction of
local industrial plants to the suburbs has been partly attributed to more favorable mu-
nicipal tax structures, the relocated labor pool, and the clogging of city arteries by
increased traffic. Plant noise has become more evident in suburban and urban areas,
due to the lower existing residual levels, and may generate complaints.
Noise measurements in and around the communities adjacent to the industrial
plants selected for the case study were made during weekend periods when the plants
were either shut down or their mode of operation differed significantly from normal
weekday operation, and during daytime and nighttime periods during the week. Results
of the noise surveys conducted for the case study are discussed in the following
2-92
-------
GUIDELINES AND REPORTS 221
subsections. The residual noise levels (L ) measured (A-weighted) are presented on
area maps, Figure 2-31 through Figure 2-35.
Glass Manufacturing Plant Example
The glass manufacturing plant, Figure 2-31, is located in a community with a pop-
ulation of 5535. To the south and southwest of the plant, the land use is mainly resi-
dential, with a predominance of multifamily homes. Homes on the east side of the
plant are single family, detached housing units.
The plant operates on a three-shift basis but is closed, except for maintenance on
weekends. Since there are no nearby major highways, airports, or construction activ-
ity, the glass manufacturing plant is the predominate noise source in the community.
Even though the noise levels in the community are relatively low, residents have filed
complaints with their local board of health and have even threatened legal action. The
basis of the complaints is the intrusive sounds produced by large air intake vents lo-
cated on the roof at one end of the factory building (near measurement position #2).
Oil Refinery Example
The oil refinery, Figure 2-32, is located within an industrial area of a city of
41,409 persons. It is bordered by major highways to the north and east, and a turn-
pike passes through the southern portion of the property. The refinery operates three
shifts per day, 7 days per week. The refinery is not the predominate source of noise
in the nearby residential community of multifamily dwellings. The noise level observed
at measurement position "1" is not due to the refinery noise sources but is due to the
combined noise of the turnpike and a nearby chemical plant. The fenceline noise mea-
surement at position "b" is high due to temporary construction activity, while the
measurement at positions "g", "h", and "i", though high at night, cannot be attributed
to the refinery, since only storage tanks are located nearby. Plant personnel and
local community officials know of no complaints attributable to the long term opera-
tions of the refinery.
2-93
-------
222
LEGAL COMPILATION—NOISE
Feet
Weekend
Weekday
Weeknight
Weekend
Weekday
Weeknight
Key
Community Residual Noise Levels in dBA
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13
46 54 45 39 41 43 - - 48 41 41 51 43
50 59 44 42 42 40 44 40 41 44 39 53 43
52 61 46 40 43 45 43 40 41 41 42 49 42
Plant Property Line Residual Noise Levels in dBA
aefjmqccaaxvu
50 62 59 68 55 41 44 40 60 65 52
49 64 61 68 59 49 50 49 66 68 55
51 64 63 69 58 48 41 46 61 65 54
Industrial Noise Source
Residential Area
Railroad Track
Highway
Measurement Location
Figure 2-31. Glass Manufacturing Plant Community
2-94
-------
GUIDELINES AND REPORTS
223
5000
Weekend
Weekday
Weeknight
Weekend
Weekday
Weeknight
Key
Feet
Community Residual Noise Levels in dBA
12345678
59 49 52 55 50 50 50 48
63
60
52
51
50
51
56
50
48
47
51
49
54
47
47
51
50
49
Plant Property Line Residual Noise Levels IP dBA
abcdefghi
55 71 60 60 60 55 54 52 56
63 68 60 62 64 63 51 52 53
58 67 59 59 62 61 49 50 54
Industrial Noise Source
/ '".'I Residential Area
1—(- Railroad Track
~~ Highway
Measurement Location
Figure 2-32. Oil Refinery Community
2-95
-------
224 LEGAL COMPILATION—NOISE
Power Plant Example
This power plant, Figure 2-33, is located near a community of single-family de-
tached housing that is part of a larger urban municipality of 98,944 persons. The
power plant operates 7 days per week, with its power generating units being activated
upon demand. The main power sources are five steam turbogenerators, with a gas
turbine generator reserved for peak loads.
In general, the community noise level ia established by the turnpike to the north
and the power plant and oil refinery (not shown) to the south. Note that the community
noise levels are constant throughout the workweek and weekend. The power plant noise
is directed toward the waterfront area. The high noise level at the property line, po-
sition "a, " during the weekend was due to flow noise in a pipe nearby, while the noise
at "e" was due to a pumping station. Sporadic complaints have been received by the
power plant concerning operation of the gas turbine generator.
Automobile Assembly Plant Example
The automobile assembly plant, Figure 2-34, is situated In an industrial area.
The area south of the plant is mainly residential, while the land to the north and west
is residential but mixed with business activity. The population of the town surrounding
this plant is 10, 534. The plant operates on a two-shift per day basis, with a third
shift (11 p. m. to 7 a. m.) reserved for maintenance and restocking operations; and no
work is normally conducted at the plant on weekends. Since this plant is not located
near major highways, airports, or construction activity, the property line and com-
munity data Indicated that the assembly plant is the principal source of noise in the
community. The weeknight noise levels approach weekday levels because of the un-
loading of railroad cars during restocking. Neither plant personnel nor community
officials expressed a knowledge of any noise complaints concerning the plant.
2-96
-------
GUIDELINES AND REPORTS
225
Feet
Weekend
Weekday
Weeknight
Weekend
Weekday
Weeknight
Key
Community Residual Noise Levels in dBA
12345678
48 50 50 50 52 58 57 54
48 51 49 53 55 56 55 54
51 52 52 52 53 56 57 54
Plant Property Line Residual Noise Levels in dBA
abcdefghi
81 58 63 69 64 53 54 59 68
64 59 61 72 80 61 59 57 63
68 63 67 70 80 61 60 61 65
Industrial Noise Source
Residential Area
Railroad Track
Highway
Measurement Location
Figure 2-33. Power Plant Community
2-97
-------
226
LEGAL COMPILATION—NOISE
Scale
0 1000
K
Feet
3000
Weekend
Weekday
Weeknight
Weekend
Weekday
Weeknight
Key
Community Residual Noise Levels in dBA
123456789
47 43 49 45 43 47 45 48 47
50 48 50 49 47 54 50 53 50
51 50 50 50 47 52 48 54 48
Plant Property Line Residual Noise Levels in dBA
abcdefghi j
54 47 46 46 47 54 54 49 54 46
58 57 55 S3 54 62 57 54 55 54
57 57 56 51 53 58 55 53 54 54
Industrial Noise Source
Plant Property Line
Residential Area
Railroad Track
Highway
Measurement Location
Figure 2-34. Automobile Assembly Plant Community
2-98
-------
GUIDELINES AND REPORTS 227
Can Manufacturing Plant Example
This plant, Figure 2-35, is located in a moderately sized city with a population of
144, 824. It is located within an industrial-residential area and is bounded by streets
having dense automobile and truck traffic. The homes in the nearby community are
multifamily dwellings. The can manufacturing plant operates on a three-shift basis
during the work week but is essentially shut down during the weekend.
It appears that the community noise is due to both surface transportation and the
plant. Noise levels in the community are similar for the weekend, weekday, and week-
night periods, although the noise levels are generally higher during the weekday along
portions of the property line. No information regarding community complaints attrib-
utable to the plant is available from plant personnel or city officials.
Community Impact
A review of the data obtained from the case studies shows that although interior
plant noise levels due to individual machines, equipment, or processes are exceeding-
ly high, the impact of plants on the community as indicated by complaint history was
not significant, with the single exception of the glass manufacturing plant. The noise
that actually reaches the community is reduced by plant building construction and the
distance between the plant and the community. Often, the plant combines with other
noise sources to create the community noise climate. The five plants in this study
are located in areas in which the residual noise levels compare favorably with levels
shown in Table 2-2. The community adjacent to each plant may be categorized as fol-
lows:
• Glass Manufacturing Plant — Quiet Suburban Residential to Normal Suburban
Residential.
• Oil Refinery -Urban Residential to Noisy Urban Residential.
• Power Plant —Urban Residential to Noisy Urban Residential.
2-99
-------
228
LEGAL COMPILATION—NOISE
Scale
o soo
2000
Feet
Community Residual Noise Levels in dBA
123456789 10
Weekend 55 49 53 51 50 50 57 56 51 58
Weekday 53 49 55 49 51 54 59 56 56 55
Weeknight 48 49 53 51 47 49 58 50 55 47
Plant Property Line Residual Noise Levels in dBA
abcdefghi j
Weekend 58 59 59 61 58 58 52 50 49 53
Weekday 60 65 64 65 60 60 56 52 57 63
Weeknight 53 63 63 61 58 62 53 43 53 66
Key
Industrial Noise Source
Residential Area
Railroad Track
Highway
Measurement Location
Figure 2-35. Can Manufacturing Plant Community
2-100
-------
GUIDELINES AND REPORTS 229
• Automobile Assembly Plant - Urban Residential.
• Can Manufacturing Plant — Noisy Urban Residential to Very Noisy Urban
Residential.
The noise data collected for this case study was included in Figure 2-9. As
would be expected, the glass manufacturing plant noise levels, which exceeded the
community levels by up to 29 dBA, caused widespread complaints and threats of legal
action as predicted by Table 2-7. Complaints were received at only one of the other
four plants, even though the noise levels they produced in their communities would
lead one to expect sporadic complaints (Table 2-7). Complaints, as an indicator of
community impact, must be viewed with caution. Many people can be annoyed but will
not complain to authorities because they believe it futile. Further, it is also known
that residents may not object to plant noise even at fairly high levels, if
• It is continuous.
• It does not interfere with speech communication.
• It does not include pure tones or impacts.
• It does not vary rapidly.
• It does not interfere with sleep.
• It does not contain fear-producing elements.
Counter-balancing the above effects, individuals or families may be annoyed by
an industrial noise that does not annoy other plant neighbors. This often may be
traced to unusual exposure conditions or to interpersonal situations involving plant
management.
2-101
-------
230 LEGAL COMPILATION—NOISE
CONSTRUCTION EQUIPMENT AND OPERATIONS
Construction Site Noise
In recent years, noise associated with construction projects has become increas-
ingly responsible for the degradation of the human environment. Many construction
projects of various types and sizes are active at any given time in the urban, suburban,
and rural areas of the United States. Many people residing or working near or passing
by norstruetion sites are thus exposed to extreme noise levels often for periods of
several years.
Types of Construction Sites and Activities
For purposes of this report the fifteen site categories used by the U.S. Bureau of
Census and by various state and municipal bodies can be reduced to the following four
major types;
1. Domestic housing -including residences for one to several families.
2, Nonresidential buildings-including offices, public buildings, hotels, hospi-
tals, schools.
3, Industrial -including industrial buildings, religious and recreational centers,
stores, service and repair facilities.
4. Public works — including roads, streets, water mains, sewers.
Noise from construction of such major civil works as dams and bridges affects
relatively few people (other than those employed at or near such construction sites)
and therefore has not been studied in detail for this report. Also, exposure of con-
struction workers to noise is a serious problem but was omitted from this study since
occupational hazards are considered to be beyond the purview of this section of this
report and was covered in the various EPA hearings on noise.
The type of activity at any given site varies considerably as construction pro-
gresses. Further, since the noise produced on the site depends on the equipment
2-102
-------
GUIDELINES AND REPORTS 231
being used, it exhibits a great deal of variability. For purposes of characterizing
this noise, one may consider construction at a given site in terms of the following five
consecutive phases:
1. Ground clearing - including demolition and removal of prior structures.
trees, rocks.
2. Excavation.
3. Placing foundations —including reconditioning old roadbeds, compacting
trench floors.
4. Erection — including framing, placing of walls, floors, windows, pipe instal-
lation.
5. Finishing — including filling, paving, cleanup.
Characterization of Site Noise
To totally describe construction site noise, the five described phases for each of
four different types of sites must be considered. However, there is an additional
complication. Since the intrusion produced by any noise depends on the residual noise,
the residual noise levels that exist at a site location in the absence of any construction
activity must be taken into account. For comparison purposes, it is enough to con-
sider only the two cases of urban (relatively noisy) and surburban (relatively quiet)
environments.
For purposes of these site noise characterizations, a model was developed in
which the equipment producing the highest A-weighted noise levels was taken to be lo-
cated 50 feet from an observer (at the boundary of the site), and all other equipment
was considered as being located at 2000 feet from the observer. The noise contribu-
tions of the various equipment items were calculated for representative duty cycles.
Although this construction site noise model may not be entirely realistic, it still may
2-103
-------
232
LEGAL COMPILATION—NOISE
oe expected to yield at least a relative measure of the noise annoyance potential of
each type of site and construction phase.
The energy equivalent noise levels (Lfi ) for each construction phase at each site
are shown in Table 2-15. For each phase/construction type element, a range of
levels is given, reflecting different mixes of construction equipment that might be
used for the same kind of process. The range encompasses maximum (I) and mini-
mum (TT) concentrations of equipment.
Table 2-15
TYPICAL RANGES OF ENERGY EQUIVALENT NOISE LEVELS,
Le IN dBA, AT CONSTRUCTION SITES
Ground
Clearing
Excavation
Foundations
Erection
Finishing
Domestic
Housing
I II
83 83
88 75
81 81
81 65
88 72
Office Build-
ing, Hotel,
Hospital,
School, Public
Works
I II
84 84
89 79
78 78
87 75
89 75
Industrial
Parking Garage,
Religious
Amusement &
Recreations,
Store, Service
Station
I II
84 83
89 71
77 77
84 72
89 74
Public Works
Roads & High-
ways, Sewers,
and Trenches
I II
84 84
88 78
88 88
79 78
84 84
I - All pertinent equipment present at site.
II - Minimum required equipment present at site.
2-104
-------
GUIDELINES AND REPORTS 233
The maximum levels range from 77 to 89 dBA for all categories and have an
average value of approximately 85 dBA. The minimum values for all categories have
a wider range, extending from 65 to 88 dBA, and have an average value of 78 dBA.
The table also shows that the initial ground clearing and excavation phases generally
are the noisiest, that the intermediate foundation placement and erection phases are
somewhat quieter, and that the final finishing phase tends to produce considerable
noise annoyance.
The expected community reaction to construction noise may range from none to
vigorous community action to stop the project, depending on the total circumstances.
Calculations for three construction situations are presented in Table 2-16. Depending
on the season, attitude toward the project, and existence of equipment having an im-
pulsive noise character, the normalized community noise equivalent levels given in
the table could be as much as 15 dB lower or 5 dB higher than the values appropriate
to a specific situation. The biggest factor in this possible range results from the ap-
plication of the attitude correction of -10 dB, which is appropriate for a project of
known duration when the community recognizes that the project is necessary. The
magnitude of this correction implies a significant acquiessance by the community to
the noise of construction activity.
Construction Equipment Noise*
Although there is a great variety in the types and sizes of available construction
equipment, similarities in the dominant noise sources and operational characteristics
of commonly used equipment items permit noise characterization of all equipment in
terms of only a few categories, as discussed subsequently.
See also the extensive data provided on construction equipment noise at the
EPA Hearing at Atlanta and Washington, D. C.
2-105
-------
234
LEGAL COMPILATION—NOISE
Table 2-16
EXPECTED COMMUNITY HEACTION TO THREE TYPICAL
EXAMPLES OF CONSTRUCTION NOISE
Factor
Energy Equivalent Noise Level
(Lg ) in dBA for 8-Hour
Work Day
Duration & Time of Day
Correction Factor
Community Noise Equivalent
Level
Additional Correction Factors
from Table 2-4:
Seasonal
Residual Noise Level
Experience & Attitude
Pure Tone or Impulse
Normalized CNE L
Expected Reaction from
Figure 2-9
Single House
Built In Normal
Suburban
Community
70*
-5
65
0
+5
-10
0
60
Sporadic
complaints
Major Exca-
vation & Con-
struction in
Normal Sub-
urban Com-
munity
85
-5
80
0
+5
-10
0
75
Threats of
legal action
or strong
appeals to
local officials
to stop noise
Major Public
Works Project
in Very Noisy
Urban Resi-
dential Area
85
-5
80
0
-5
-10
0
65
Widespread
complaints
*Considertag only erection and finishing phases for minimal equipment.
2-106
-------
GUIDELINES AND REPORTS 235
Equipment Powered by Internal Combustion Engines
Engine-powered equipment may be characterized according to its mobility and
operating characteristics as:
1. Earthmoving equipment, including excavating machinery (such as bull-
dozers, shovels, backhoes, front loaders) and highway building equipment
(such as scrapers, graders, compactors).
2. Materials handling equipment, such as cranes, derricks, concretemixers,
and concrete pumps.
3. Stationary equipment, such as pumps, electric power generators, and air
compressors.
Earthmoving equipment employs internal combustion engines (primarily of the
diesel type) rated from about 50 hp to above 600 hp, both for propulsion and power
for working mechanisms. Materials handling equipment, for which locomotion does
not constitute a part of the major work cycle, employs internal combustion engines
for powering working parts. In stationary equipment, of course, engines are used
for the desired power generation.
Noise levels observed 50 feet from construction equipment are shown in Figure
2-36. These levels range from 72 to 96 dBA for earthmoving equipment, from 75 to
88 dBA for materials handling equipment, and from 70 to 87 dBA for stationary equip-
ment.
In virtually all engine-powered equipment, the engine constitutes the primary
noise source. Usually, exhaust noise predominates, but intake noise also tends to
be significant. Noise from fans used for cooling the engine and hydraulic system
often constitutes an important component, with noise from mechanical or hydraulic
power transmission or actuation systems generally of secondary importance. In
earthmoving equipment, the tracks often contribute noticeable noise, and in both
2-107
-------
236
LEGAL COMPILATION—NOISE
NOISE LEVEL (dBA) AT SO FT
60 70 80 90 100 110
NTERNAL COMBUSTION ENGINES
EQUIPMENT POWERED BY 1
0
EARTH MOV
MATERIALS HANDLING
STATIONARY
IMPACT
EQUIPMENT
OTHER
COMPACTERS (ROLLERS)
FRONT LOADERS
BACKHOES
TRACTORS
SCRAPERS, GRADERS
PAVERS
TRUCKS
CONCRETE MIXERS
CONCRETE PUMPS
CRANES (MOVABLE)
CRANES (DERRICK)
PUMPS
GENERATORS
COMPRESSORS
PNEUMATIC WRENCHES
JACK HAMMERS AND ROCK DRILLS
IMPACT PILE DRIVERS (PEAKS)
VIBRATOR
SAWS
•
-
•
^HBH^M^H
•^•^••^^H
-
—
—
»
rt
Note. Based on Limited Available Data Samples
Figure 2-36. Construction Equipment Noise Ranges
2-108
-------
GUIDELINES AND REPORTS 237
earthmoving and materials handling equipment, the working process — interaction of
the machine and the material on which it acts — often contributes much noise.
For all engine-powered equipment, the greatest noise reductions may be ob-
tained by quieting the engines. Significant amounts of noise reduction may often be
readily achieved by the use of better exhaust mufflers, intake silencers, and re-
designed cooling fans. Use of acoustic enclosures for stationary equipment also ap-
pears to be a readily implemented and generally useful noise reduction approach
(which has already been employed by some air compressor manufacturers). Prac-
tical, long term abatement on the order of 15 to 20 dBA can probably be achieved by
basic engine design changes. Of course, replacement of the internal combustion
engine by a quieter prime mover, such as a gas turbine or electric motor, would
eliminate the reciprocating engine noise altogether.
Impact Equipment and Tools
Pile drivers and pneumatic tools accomplish their functions by causing a "ham-
mer" to strike against a work piece. The resulting impact constitutes one of the
major noise sources associated with such equipment, and because this impact is
essential to operation of the equipment, its control generally cannot be accomplished
practically. Representative noise levels are indicated in Figure 2-36.
In steam-driven pile drivers, noise is also produced by the boiler and by re-
lease of steam at the head; in diesel drivers, noise is also produced by the com-
bustion explosion that actuates the hammer. Impact noise is absent in the so-called
sonic pile drivers, which have no drop hammer since they use engine-driven ec-
centric weights to vibrate the driven pile at resonance. For such drivers, the
engines are the primary noise sources. Unfortunately, the use of these pile
drivers is not widespread, owing in part to codes for pile load-bearing assessment
based on impact response.
2-109
-------
238 LEGAL COMPILATION—NOISE
Most impact tools, such as pavement breakers and rock drills, are pneumatic-
ally powered. The same Is true of such hand-held tools as impact wrenches. In
such tools, noise is produced primarily by the high pressure exhaust and by the
working impact. This pneumatic exhaust noise does not occur in hydraulically
or electrically powered tools.
The use of tools that do not involve impacts appears to be the best means for
coping with impact noise. Where such replacement is not possible, use of enclosures
may be required, although these tend to be cumbersome, costly, and of limited benefit.
Exhaust noise from pneumatic tools (or from steam or diesel pile drivers) can be re-
duced effectively by mufflers, but the size and weight limitations on workman-handled
tools limit the size and effectiveness of mufflers for such tools.
Other Equipment and Tools
The two foregoing categories clearly do not exhaust the list of tools and equip-
ment used in construction work. They do, however, encompass a significant por-
tion of the noisier ones.
Although concrete vibrators are not noisy in and of themselves, their action
usually shakes the wooden concrete forms, and these vibrations produce a significant
amount of noise (Figure 2-36). Reinforcing the forms would provide some reduction.
The intense high-pitched whine of power saws (Figure 2-36) is a significant
factor in several construction phases; e.g., wood cutting occurs in the construction
of concrete forms, in assembly of frames, and in finishing operations. Noise con-
trol in this instance would involve use of specially designed laminated (damped) blade
disks and enclosure of the working areas.
2-110
-------
GUIDELINES AND REPORTS 239
Environmental Impact
Table 2-17 summarizes the exposure of people other than construction workers,
to construction noise*, in terms of a statistic —the person-hour — which reflects both
the number of people exposed and the duration of their exposure. This information
is based on an analytical model of site noise, propagation conditions, and population
densities. Accordingly, care must be taken in interpreting exposure figures ex-
pressed in person-hours. First, exposures so expressed are obviously intended as
order-of-magnitude rather than exact estimates. Second, direct comparisons among
exposures expressed in person-hours to noise sources of greatly different character
may not be freely made.
It is apparent from Table 2-17 that the most widespread effect of exposure to con-
struction noise is speech interference. Construction noise significantly degrades
speech communication for about 300 million person-hours per week in the U. S. and
can also be responsible for as much as 10 million additional hours of severe speech
interference. Not only are those living and working in the vicinity of construction sites
(approximately 30 million people) affected, so also are passersby (approximately 24
billion encounters per year). People experiencing speech interference from con-
struction noise in home or work environments can be exposed nearly continuously
during the working day, for weeks or even months at a time. On the average, the
transmission loss characteristics of buildings are high enough to moderate the
speech interference effects of intrusive construction noise. Transient exposure to
construction noise is likely to interfere with speech to a greater degree than constant
exposure, since there is little or no attenuation of the noise.
For construction workers, there are serious risks of hearing impairment be-
cause of job-related noise.
2-111
-------
240
LEGAL COMPILATION—NOISE
*s!
ss°>
1 -
6
3-3
III
3- CO 1
0
fc
*if
• ES
fl) fli O
OT3 »
sis
fi ~
s
It?
M S m
CO 1
in
i2-
E<"
» «
s ss
gl*
E™ A
ft) **" *
ill
ii 4
8
1
s
I
o
N
•*
Primary (Stationary)
Exposure to Domes-
tic Construction
Noise
0
04
oo
Primary (Stationary)
Exposure to All
Other Building Con-
struction
0
-H
•*
Primary (Stationary)
Exposure to All
Other Construction
in SMSAX Areas
o
o
o
Secondary (Passerby)
Exposure of Pedestri-
ans to Construction
in All SMSAX Areas
n
o
o
n
o
Secondary (Passerby)
Exposure of Drivers
and Passengers to
All Construction in
SMSAX Areas
I
i
g
J5> g
1 I
I f
I I
s 3
J! &
a »
5 3
*^ CO
S o
>, I
IS « i
i o g a
Its i
» + X
2-112
-------
GUIDELINES AND REPORTS 241
Use of available noise reduction techniques could significantly reduce the speech
interference caused by construction noise. The total number of person-hours of speech
interference attributable to construction noise might be diminished by about a third if
noise levels were reduced by 10 dBA.
To the extent that construction activity and sleep do not commonly occur during
the same hours, construction noise does not interfere with sleep. Of course, oc-
casional nighttime construction occurs and seriously disturbs the sleep of people
living nearby. Approximately 15 percent of those who may encounter noise intrusions
from construction sites do so while attempting to sleep during daytime construction hours.
These people spend about 20 million person-hours per week sleeping in noise levels that
may interfere with sleep. About 40 percent of the people exposed to construction noise
sufficiently Intense to Interfere with sleep would be awakened. A somewhat smaller
percentage might encounter difficulty in falling asleep due to noise intrusions. Reducing
construction noise levels by 10 dBA would not greatly reduce sleep interference caused
by such intrusions. To relieve the situation, more significant levels of noise reduction
are required.
On the average, the risk of hearing damage from construction noise for those
not directly concerned with construction activity does not seem to be great. In
most cases, the distance between the construction site and people exposed to its
noise and the transmission loss of buildings or vehicles are sufficient to minimize
the probability of hearing damage. However, It Is likely that peak noise levels from
construction sites present some risk to people who are in frequent proximity to the
site. The greater number of such people (presumably pedestrians or onlookers),
however, are subject only to exposure of short durations.
Without doubt, a major consequence of exposure to construction noise is an-
noyance. Both those people exposed to construction noise on a. regular, long-term
2-113
-------
242 LEGAL COMPILATION—NOISE
basis and those exposed on a transient basis are annoyed by their exposure. Annoy-
ance may be particularly great if the noise intrusion from the construction site is
perceived as unnecessary or inappropriate. People who must endure weeks or months
of construction noise exposure may exhibit some form of habituation to the noise, but
despite the commonly expressed attitude toward noise of "you get used to it," it is doubt-
ful that construction noise ever loses much of its annoyance capability.
Although it is extremely difficult to absolutely quantify the annoyance produced by
construction noise, it is clear that such noise is a serious environmental pollutant.
The speech and sleep of millions of people are disturbed; many people working or
living near or passing by construction sites are exposed to levels that could contribute
to hearing damage. As indicated by community and individual complaint behavior,
construction is certainly a source of community annoyance.
2-114
-------
GUIDELINES AND REPORTS 243
HOUSEHOLD AND BUILDING NOISE
Characteristics of Noise Sources
Home Appliances
In general, motors, fans, knives (or other cutting blades), and air flow are the
most frequent sources of noise from home appliances. Noise radiated from the
casing or panels of the appliances and noise radiated from walls, floors, cabinets,
sinks (set into vibration by solid structural connections) are also of major im-
portance. The noise generating mechanisms of several appliances that have high
enough noise levels and exposure time to be considered annoying are reviewed
below.
Room Air Conditioners. The major sources of noise in the air conditioning
process are the motor, the blower (evaporator fan), the propeller fan (condenser
fan), the compressor, and the air flow across the evaporator coils. In addition,
panels of the housing radiate noise, as does the structure to whicn the air conditioning
unit is mounted.
Food Waste Disposers. The primary noise sources include the motor, the grind
wheel, the sloshing of water and waste against the housing of the chamber, and res-
onances in the sink.
Dishwashers. The noise generating mechanisms in a. dishwasher, in addition to
the impingement of water against the sides and top of the tub, are the motor, the pump,
the excitation of panel casings, the structural connections to water supply, water
drain and cabinet, and the blower.
Vacuum Cleaners. The primary noise sources in vacuum cleaners are the motor,
blower, resonances of the unit structure, and, in upright vacuum cieaners, a mech-
anism (either vibrating agitators or rolling brushes) that beats the carpet to bring
dirt to the surface.
2-115
-------
244 LEGAL COMPILATION—NOISE
Toilets. The important parameters in toilet noise are the type (tank vs valve) and
the mounting (floor vs wall). In each type of toilet, noise is attributed to valves and
water flow.
Building Equipment
The majority of electrical and mechanical equipment in buildings Is used to
supply the building occupants with a suitable quantity of air at a comfortable tempera-
ture and moisture content. In addition, fluid pumping and piping systems and ele-
vators, escalators and other conveyences are used for moving people and materials.
Much of this equipment is hidden In mechanical equipment rooms, above ceilings,
In walls, or behind cabinet-type exterior enclosures, as Illustrated In Figure 2-37.
Characteristics of Environment and Noise Levels
Home Appliances
Because of the scarcity of reliable data, for the purposes of this report, measure-
ments were recently made on 30 types of home appliances and 11 types of home shop
tools. Sound levels were measured In dBA at a distance of 3 feet from the appliance
installation and at a height of 5 feet; this measurement position approximates the
location of the operator's ear for those appliances requiring an operator. For those
appliances not requiring an operator, this position represents noise levels In the
vicinity of the appliance. Noise levels In the reverberant field of the room in which
the appliance is being operated may be on the order of 2 to 3 dBA less than the
values measured at 3 feet.
Noise levels in adjacent rooms, with the interconnecting door open, may range
from 10 dBA less than the levels at 3 feet to as much as several dBA greater than
the levels at 3 feet, depending upon the details of the Installation. For the appliances
used near the ear (e.g., an electric shaver), the noise level at the ear may be as
much as 10 dBA greater than the levels at 3 feet. Figure 2-38 summarizes the
2-116
-------
GUIDELINES AND REPORTS
245
COOLING
TOWER
BALLAST
PENTHOUSE MECHANICAL EQUIPMENT ROOM
f" ~\ PUMPS^
CHILLER X .^ift & 9
AIR
COMPRESSOR
TRANSFORMER
Figure 2-37. Cross-Section of a Typical Multistory Building
Showing Building Equipment
2-117
-------
246
LEGAL COMPILATION—NOISE
A-WEIGHTED NOISE LEVELS AT 3 FT
40 60 60 70 80 90
FREEZER
REFRIGERATOR
HEATER, ELECTRIC
HAIRCLIPPER
TOOTHBRUSH, ELECTRIC
HUMIDIFIER
FAN
DEHUMIDIFIER
CLOTHES DRYER
AIR CONDITIONER
SHAVER, ELECTRIC
WATER FAUCET
HAIRDRYER
CLOTHES WASHER
WATER CLOSET
DISHWASHER
CAN OPENER, ELECTRIC
FOOD MIXER
KNIFE, ELECTRIC
KNIFE SHARPENER, ELECTRIC
SEWING MACHINE
ORAL LAVAGE
VACUUM CLEANER
FOOD BLENDER
COFFEE MILL
FOOD WASTE DISPOSER
EDGER AND TRIMMER
HOME SHOP TOOLS
HEDGE CLIPPERS
LAWN MOWER, ELECTRIC
• AMERICAN APPLIANCES
• FOREIGN APPLIANCES
A MEAN OF MEASUREMENT
Figure 2-38. A Summary of Noise Levels for Appliances Measured
at a Distance of 3 Feet
2-118
-------
GUIDELINES AND REPORTS 247
noise measurements made for this study and some of those reported in the literature.
Each point represents a single measurement. Several measurements are given for a
single appliance that operates in different modes. The solid circles represent noise
levels generated by domestic appliances; foreign brands are represented by the solid
squares.
Building Equipment
The exposure of occupants to the noise generated by building equipment, sum-
marized in Table 2-18 and Figure 2-39 shows that occupants are directly exposed to
the noise of only about eight different types of equipment. The noise generated by
these units is, thus, of special interest since there are no intervening walls to pro-
vide noise reduction.
Although details of the frequency spectrum are important in selecting noise
control treatments, the model presented here is keyed, for simplification, to dBA.
Figure 2-40 summarizes the noise exposure, in dBA, of an occupant to individual
sources. The upper level in each case is representative of the sound level near the
source - i.e., at 3 feet. The lower level is representative of the level to which the
noise from a particular source is reduced as it is transmitted through enclosures,
partitions, etc., as illustrated in Figure 2-37.
In summary, the noise environment of a building is a feature that architects
and landlords can control through the proper selection of equipment and the utiliza-
tion of noise control techniques, if there is a willingness to bear the cost and allocate
the necessary space.
Impact of Household Appliances and Building Equipment
For purposes of this report, home appliances and building equipment were di-
vided into four broad categories on the basis of their noise levels.
2-119
-------
248
LEGAL COMPILATION—NOISE
Table 2-18
EXPOSURE OF BUILDING OCCUPANTS TO THE
NOISE OF BUILDING EQUIPMENT
Building
Equipment
Air
Conditioning
Absorption
Machines
Air Compressor
Ballasts
Boilers
Boiler Feed
System
Chillers
Condensers
Cooling
Towers
Dehumidifiers
Diesel Eng.
Diffusers
Electric
Motors
Elevators
Escalators
Fans
Furnaces
Gas Turbines
Heat Pumps
Humidifiers
Mixing Boxes
and Air
Control Units
Pneumatic
Transporter
System
Pumps
Steam Valves
Transformers
Unit Vent and
Unit Heat
Location
MER*
Roof Unit
Wind.Unit
MER
MER
Room
MER
MER
MER
Rooftop
Rooftop
MER
MER
Room
MER
Varies
Varies
MER
Room
MER
MER
MER
MER
Varies
Varies
MER
MER
MER
Room
Type of Exposure
Direct
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Indirect
Through Mechanical
Distribution System
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Through Walls,
Floors, etc.
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
' Mechanical Equipment Room
2-120
-------
GUIDELINES AND REPORTS
249
A-weighted sound level
20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120 130
Ballast
Fluorescent Lamp
Fan Coil Units
Diffusers, Grilles Register
Induction Units
Oehumidlfiers
Humidifiers
Mixing Boxes,
Terminal Reheat Units, etc.
Unit Heaters
Transformers
Elevators
Absorption Machines
Boilers
Rooftop
Airconditioning Units
Pumps
Steam Valves
Self-contained
Airconditioning Units
Chiller - Rotary
Screw Compressors
Condensers - Air-Cooled
Pneumatic
Transport Systems
Central Station
Airconditioning Unit
Chiller — Reciprocating
Compressor
Electric Motors
Fans
Chiller — Centrifugal
Compressor
Air Compressor
Cooling Towers
Diesel Engines
Gas Turbines
Figure 2-39. Range of Noise In dBA Typical for
Building Equipment at 3 Feet
2-121
-------
250
LEGAL COMPILATION—NOISE
30 40
A-WEIGHTED NOISE LEVEL
50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120
LAMP BALLASTS
AND VAPOR
DIFFUSERS
MIXING BOXES
FAN COIL
TRANSFORMERS
PUMPS
BOILERS
STEAM VALVES
CHILLERS
ELEVATORS
AIR COMPRESSORS
COOLING TOWERS
FANS
DIESEL EMERGENCY
GENERATOR
c-»
c
0-»
(
(
(
(
•
E
>* —
D
— w +
-•
V —
t + v
/ + V
+ R
/+D
l III
Wj
+ '
+
W- II
D-D
E - E
R - 1
S
S - B
B
0
V\>
0
— •
MTERVENING WALL
UCT TREATMENT
NCLOSURE OF EQUIP.
MTERVENING ROOF
TRUCTURE
UFFER ZONE FLOOR
ETWEEN SOURCE AND
CCUPANT'S FLOOR
IBRATION ISOLATION
F EQUIPMENT
• NOISE LEVEL AT 3 FT FROM SOURCE
O NOISE LEVEL AT OCCUPANT'S POSITION
Figure 2-40. Range of Building Equipment Noise Levels to
Which People Are Exposed
2-122
-------
GUIDELINES AND REPORTS 251
1. Quiet major equipment appliances, characterized by operating levels lower
than 60 dBA.
2. Quiet equipment and small appliances, characterized by noise levels between
60 and 70 dBA.
3. Noisy small appliances, characterized by noise levels between 70 and 80 dBA.
4. Noisy electric tools, characterized by noise levels in excess of 80 dBA.
Table 2-19 lists the mean noise levels, in dBA, for such appliances in their nprmal
operating environments.
Group I: Quiet Major Equipment and Appliances
Group I contains the noise sources to which people are exposed for the greatest
lengths of time, such as most building climate-control equipment, food-refrigeration
appliances, and clothes dryers, fc general, due to the low levels oi noise produced
by equipment and appliances in Group I, effects of exposure are either negligible or
mild, with no appreciable risk of hearing damage. Under certain conditions such
equipment may be capable of delaying the onset of sleep of those suffering secondary
exposure. The major effect of exposure to noise from Group I equipment and ap-
pliances is speech interference. It would be necessary to conduct conversations in
the immediate vicinity of the noisier sources in Group I at somewhat higher than
normal voice levels or by reducing the distance between speakers.
Group II: Quiet Major Equipment and Small Appliances
Most of the noise sources in Group II are found in many American homes, al-
though not all of the sources are as common as those in Group I. Because Group II
sources typically require operators, the most common'pattern of exposure to their
noise is one of infrequent and brief encounters.
Of the three major effects by which noise impact is gauged in this report,
noise sources in Group n significantly contribute to only speech interference.
2-123
-------
252
LEGAL COMPILATION—NOISE
Table 2-19
NOISE LEVELS OF HOME APPLIANCES AND BUILDING EQUIPMENT
ADJUSTED FOR LOCATION OF EXPOSURE (IN dBA)
Noise Source
Group I: Quiet Major Equipment
and Appliances
Refrigerator
Freezer
Electric Heater
Humidifier
Floor Fan
Dehumidifier
Window Fan
Clothes Dryer
Air Conditioner
Group II: Quiet Equipment and
Small Appliances
Hair Clipper
Clothes Washer
Stove Hood Exhaust Fan
Electric Toothbrush
Water Closet
Dishwasher
Electric Can Opener
Food Mixer
Hair Dryer
Faucet
Vacuum Cleaner
Electric Knife
Group HI: Noisy Small Appliances
Electric Knife Sharpener
Sewing Machine
Oral Lavage
Food Blender
Electric Shaver
Electric Lawn Mower
Food Disposal (Grinder)
Group IV: Noisy Electric Tools
Electric Edger and Trimmer
Hedge Clippers
Home Shop Tools
Level of
Operator
Exposure*
40
41
44
50
51
52
54
55
55
60
60
61
62
62
64
64
65
66
66
67
68
70
70
72
73
75
75
76
81
84
85
Level of Exposure** of
People in Other
Rooms
32
33
37
43
44
45
47
48
48
40
52
53
42
54
56
56
57
51
51
60
60
62
62
62
65
52
55
68
61
64
75
*Termed "primary exposure"
**Termed "secondary exposure"
2-124
-------
GUIDELINES AND REPORTS 253
Hearing-damage risk is negligible for operators and for those wno may experience
secondary exposure, and sleep interference is a problem only for the few people who
experience high level secondary exposure while attempting to sleep.
Users of the appliances in Group II find speech communication during opera-
tion difficult. Conversations generally must be conducted with significantly greater
than normal vocal effort or at short ranges. For many people, temporary interrup-
tions of conversation during applicable use of such equipment and appliances are
probably found to be preferable to conducting conversations under strained conditions.
Annoyance is the most significant of the indirect consequences of exposure to
noise from Group II appliances. While the operator may be annoyed by brief
speech interference, people experiencing secondary exposure may be equally, if not
more, annoyed. The annoyance of such people (including neighbors in multifamily
residences and family members in other rooms) is conditioned in part by the in-
trusive nature of the exposure and in part by feelings created by the inability to
control the noise source.
Group III: Noisy Small Appliances
The distribution and exposure patterns of noise sources in Group III continue
the trend observed in Groups I and II. Based on ownership data, it was found that
Group HI appliances are found in fewer homes than are the appliances of preceding
groups. Exposure to noise from this group of appliances is brief and is separated
by long intervals. Both of these factors moderate the impact of the relatively high
level noise produced by these appliances.
Hearing-damage risk cannot be dismissed as of minor importance for this
group of noise sources. While it is true that the average exposure to noise sources
of Group III is measured in fractions of hours per week, it is likely that certain
elements of the public are exposed to some Group III source for prolonged
2-125
-------
254 LEGAL COMPILATION—NOISE
periods of time. Home seamstresses, for example, could easily be exposed to several
hours of sewing machine noise daily. Although even this sort of exposure would not
constitute an imminent hazard to hearing, it could nevertheless hasten eventual hear-
ing damage in the context of cumulative exposure from many sources.
Operators of the appliances of Group III must contend with severe speech inter-
ference. Although communication by shouting may be possible during appliance use,
operators would probably tend to avoid conversation at these times. Even secondary
exposure to the noise of Group III appliances interferes somewhat with speech
intelligibility.
Sleep interference caused by noise of Group m appliances is minimal for the
same reasons that they are negligible for Group n appliances. Also, annoyance Is
the major Indirect effect of noise exposure for Group III, as Is true for Group n.
The operator may find the noise signature of the appliance unpleasant, particularly
if it contains pure tone components or a highly variable temporal distribution of
sound levels.
Group IV; A/o/jy Eleftric Tools
Group IV contains the appliances that produce the highest levels of noise In the
home environment. In this category are about 4 million electric yard care tools and
12 million electrtc shop tools.
Hearing-damage risk can be great if exposure to the noise levels produced by
Group IV sources Is habitual or prolonged. Hobbyists engaging In regular use of
power tools are likely to experience prolonged exposure at working distances of
a few feet. Such use of tools can produce the risk of hearing impairment.
Speech Interference produced by Group IV sources can be of sufficient magni-
tude to preclude verbal communication In any form other than shouting directly into
2-126
-------
GUIDELINES AND REPORTS 255
the ear. Even the speech interference due to secondary exposure can be great enough
so that conversations must be conducted at high voice levels.
Sleep interference from secondary exposure to home shop tools or electric
yard care tools is a distinct possibility, and people attempting to sleep while exper-
iencing such noise exposure would have considerable difficulty. Both annoyance and
stress are probable byproducts of the noise from Group TV equipment. A neighbor's
noise, particularly at levels as high as those of Group IV sources, is rarely welcome.
Summary of Effects of Appliance Noise on People
Table 2-20 summarizes the impact of appliance noise on people in concise
terms for the interpretation of figures expressed in person-hours. The table re-
lates person-hours of exposure directly to the major criteria. It should be em-
phasized that these values of exposure represent potential effects. For example,
fans will create conditions that would moderately Interfere with speech intellig-
ibility for 1.2 billion person-hours per week. The actual speech interference de-
pends on the fraction of that time people attempt to speak while a fan is running.
2-127
-------
256
LEGAL COMPILATION—NOISE
O
5
3
i— .>
Q SS
«w
Q *Ł
s *
«
a
S a
%
•g S
t° a)
*5
O
S
1 Noise Source
O 0 0 O 0 0
O i-H O irt O O
Ł3
§03 -3< O 0 O
•^ « T-*
IN M
^H
•*-»
a a
1 "S 8
I 2f
a s-
CT MI v Q.
w S S a
li- "1
o« ^ -^ w
W< § H .2-q
I1 lliil-'
g « W ^ ^ fl) Tj 3
g §Ł.2! 2-3 2
o fe> |g
•5|^gSo|-E
a ol^sl z ^S
.. |a 3 J a » §•><
E * o 4 o 2 S i o
IaSjS« | ,S
1 lllll 1 ll
O cS W fe W fc< O K W
o
a
-------
GUIDELINES AND REPORTS 257
OVERALL ASSESSMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT OF MAJOR NOISE SOURCES
The impact of noise has been discussed for each of the major non-occupational
noise source categories. These impact assessments have been developed from various
points of view, which are pertinent to the noise and use characteristics of each source
category. Together with the presentation of the detailed noise characteristics of the
sources and the community, they provide the basic data for an assessment of the total
environmental impact of noise. This assessment is made relative to interference
with speech, community reaction, and noise that may produce potential hearing dam-
age. The impact assessments are based upon criteria specified elsewhere in this re-
port and the data presented earlier in this chapter.
It should be kept in mind that the noise environment is primarily a product of man
and his machines and consists of an all-pervasive and nonspecific residual noise, to
which is added both constant and intermittent intrusive noises. The residual noise
level in urban residential communities is generally the integrated result of the noise
from traffic on streets and highways but does vary widely with the type of community.
Interference with Speech
Residual noise levels in suburban and rural areas do not appear to interfere
with speech communication at distances compatible with normal use of patios and
backyards. However, some interference with outdoor speech is found in urban
residential communities, and considerable continuous interference is found in the
very noisy urban and downtown city areas. Thus, the use of outdoor spaces for
relaxed conversation is effectively denied to an estimated 5 to 10 million people
who reside in very noisy urban areas.
The backyards, patios, and balconies facing an urban freeway are similarly
rendered useless on a continuous basis, except when traffic is light in the early
morning hours. Although windows are kept closed in many dwelling units adjacent
2-129
-------
258 LEGAL COMPILATION—NOISE
to freeways to keep out the noise, the noise level Inside the dwelling may still be
too high for relaxed conversation. An estimated 2.5 to 5 million people living near
freeways are significantly affected by such intrusive noise. Probably, another 7 to
14 million people are affected to a lesser degree by the noise from traffic on the
96,000 miles of major arterial roads in urban communities.
Construction In urban areas is characterized by a relatively high continuous
Intrusive noise level, plus intermittent higher level noise events. It is estimated
that, during daylight and early evening hours, the ability of 21 million people to enjoy
outdoor conversation is severely impaired, particularly during the higher level noise
events. In many of these cases, the ability to converse Indoors Is also Impaired. The
tolerance of people to construction noise appears to be higher than to other Intruding
noises because of the expectation that the construction activity will soon cease.
However, In many larger cities where there appears to be almost continuous con-
struction activity near apartment dwellings, Intolerance of construction noise may
be expected to be similar to that of other forms of noise Intrusion.
Thus, the combination of continuous daytime noise caused by traffic on city
streets, major arterial streets, and freeways Impairs the utility of the patios,
porches, and yards of approximately 7 to 15 percent of the total population, while
at any one time the noise from construction similarly affects another 10 percent.
The noise from many home appliances and other equipment makes it difficult
for the operator and others in the home environment to converse or hear a child's
cry. The noisier Items in this category Include power lawnmowers, home shop
tools, food disposers and blenders, sewing machines, electric shavers, and vacuum
cleaners, and it Is estimated that, at least 66 million people operate one or more of
these devices. Together with an estimated 115 million dwelling occupants, they
experience a severe reduction in speech intelligibility whenever such devices are used.
2-130
-------
GUIDELINES AND REPORTS 259
Community Reaction
Community reaction may be expected to begin when the energy equivalent level of
an intruding noise exceeds the residual noise level. The degree of reaction depends,
as discussed elsewhere In thie report, primarily on the amount of the intrusion and,
secondarily, on other characteristics of the noise and on additional factors such as
season of the year and attitude of those exposed. The impact of several forms of
noise, events such as noise from aircraft overflights, noise from diesel trucks on the
highway, and industrial noise, is best evaluated in terms of community reaction.
The most significant national problem that can be defined in such terms is air*
craft noise. There are, by conservative estimate, 7.5 million people living in areas
where aircraft noise exceeds the level required to generate widespread complaints.
This estimate assumes that all of the people affected live in residential urban com-
munities. A more realistic estimate, including people who live in quiet and normal
suburban communities and are affected by aircraft noise, is 15 million. Not only
does aircraft noise interfere with TV viewing and speech communication for most of
the people exposed, it also disturbs the sleep of many.
Community reaction can also be expected from the uncounted millions annoyed
by devices such as motorcycles, minicycles, and sportscars operated in a noisy
manner on residential streets; dunebuggies, off-road motorcycles, chainsaws and
snowmobiles operating in the wilderness; power lawnmowers, hedge clippers, and
shop tools operated by a neighbor on weekend mornings. The number of such noise
sources is rapidly growing, and their impact is spreading.
Industrial noise also results in complaints of varying degree in communities
throughout the United States. However, it if difficult to quantify the number of
people disturbed because the majority of industrial noise problems are resolved at
a local level. The process of accommodation continually occurs in various
2-131
-------
260 LEGAL COMPILATION—NOISE
communities when new plants are constructed or new machines or operations are
added to existing plants. These local accommodations are accomplished in many
ways, including direct interaction between the plant management and the community,
lawsuits, enforcement of local noise or zoning ordinances, and other actions by local
officials.
Hearing Damage Risk
There is a long history of occupational noise causing various degrees of hearing
impairment in some of the working population. The legal structure for the protection
of workers now exists through the provisions of the Occupational Health and Safety
Act, and also the Coal Mine Safety and Health Act.
However, there are also many occasions when people may be exposed to po-
tentially hazardous noise in non-occupational environments. The more significant
of these potential hazardous noise exposures are summarized in Table 2-21. These
data include only those people directly affected by the noise sources, that Is, oper-
ators and passengers rather than bystanders. Although those who are only occasion-
ally exposed to such noises will not necessarily suffer permanent hearing impairment,
frequent exposure to the noise from any one or several of such sources, or occasional
exposure in combination with Industrial noise, will increase the risk of incurring
such damage. In addition, the proliferation and use of such noise sources further
Increase the risk of hearing impairment for a substantial percentage of the general
population.
Summary of Assessment
This data shows that approximately 22 to 44 million people have lost part of the
utility of their dwellings and yards to noise from traffic and aircraft on a continu-
ous basis, and another 21 million at any one time are similarly affected by noise
from construction activity. Further, many people are exposed to potentially
2-132
-------
GUIDELINES AND REPORTS
261
Table 2-21
APPROXIMATE NUMBER OF OPERATORS OR PASSENGERS
IN NON-OCCUPATIONAL SITUATIONS EXPOSED
TO POTENTIALLY* HAZARDOUS NOISE FROM
VARIOUS SIGNIFICANT SOURCES
Source
Snowmobiles
Chain Saws
Motorcycles
Motor-boats (over 45 HP)
Light Utility Helicopters
General Aviation Aircraft
Commercial Propeller Aircraft
Internal Combustion Lawnmowers
and other Noisy Lawn Care
Equipment
Trucks (Personal Use)
Home Shop Tools
Highway Buses
Subways
Noise Le\
Average**
108
100
95
95
94
90
88
87
85
85
82
80
/el in dBA
Maximum
112
110
110
105
100
103
100
95
100
98
90
93
Approximate Number
01 People Exposed
(In Millions)***
1.60
2.50
3.00
8.80
0.05
0.30
5.00
23.00
5.00
13.00
2.00
2.15
*Although average use of any one of these devices by itself may not produce
permanent hearing impairment, exposure to this noise in combination, or
together with occupational noise will increase the risk of incurring perma-
nent hearing impairment.
**Average refers to the average noise level for devices of various manufacture
and model type.
***Single-event exposures. Many individuals may receive multiple exposures.
For example an individual may be exposed during the week to noise from
any or all of the above sources.
2-133
-------
262 LEGAL COMPILATION—NOISE
hazardous noise when operating noisy devices. Although the number exposed to po-
tentially hazardous noise cannot be accurately assessed (since the people referred
to in Table 2-21 are not additive), a total of 40 million people might be reasonable.
Thus, not including the contribution of appliances, noise appears to affect at
least 80 million people, or 40 percent of the population. Roughly one-half of the
total impact of noise represents a potential health hazard (in terms of hearing im-
pairment potential alone), and the remaining half represents an infringement on the
ability to converse in the home. Such impact estimates clearly show the need to re-
duce the number of devices that emit potentially hazardous noise levels and to reduce
the outdoor noises that interfere with the quality of life.
2-134
-------
GUIDELINES AND REPORTS 263
CHAPTER 3
CONTROL TECHNOLOGY AND ESTIMATES FOR THE FUTURE *
This chapter summarizes the noise reduction efforts of industry and the noise re-
duction potential for the various sources discussed in Chapter 2. The past, current,
and planned efforts of industry have been determined for the purpose of this report by
communication with representative companies and industrial associations. This chap-
ter is intended to give insight into the industry situation with respect to noise control
and should not be considered to represent carefully drawn industry positions. ** The
noise reduction potential has been estimated for most of the sources based on existing
experimental data, when available, and upon application of known technology to sources
for which no noise control experimental data exists.
The noise of many of the sources has been extrapolated to the year 2000, both
with and without additional noise control. Although such extrapolations are conjec-
tural, they do provide a useful framework for establishing today's noise control
priorities.
* This chapter is based upon material prepared by the Staff EPA Office of Noise
Abatement and Control as a result of testimony received during public hearings
and on data contained in EPA Technical Information Documents NTID300.1,
"Noise from Construction Equipment and Operations, Building Equipment, and
Home Appliances" (EPA contract 68-04-0047, Bolt, Beranek and Newman);
NTTO300.2 "Noise from Industrial Plants" (EPA contract 68-04-0044, L.S,
Goodfriend Associates); NTD0300.13, "Transportation Noise and Noise from
Equipment Powered by Internal Combustion Engines" (EPA contract 68-04-0046,
Wyle Laboratories); and NTID 300.14, "The Economic Impact of Noise," pre-
pared under interagency agreement between EPA and the National Bureau of
Standards.
** Such statements, containing detailed technical data, are contained in the trans-
cripts of the various EPA hearings on noise.
3-1
-------
264 LEGAL COMPILATION—NOISE
TRANSPORTATION INDUSTRY PROGRAMS
The significance of noise from the transportation system is recognized in varying
degrees by many segments of the transportation industry. This awareness is reflected
in the degree of effort expended by the industry toward noise reduction. This discus-
sion considers the general nature of each industry as it relates to effecting noise
reduction programs, reviews the results of such programs, and presents estimates
of the noise reduction that could be achieved through additional effort—both by industry
and the cognizant government agencies.
Commercial Aircraft
The excessive noise resulting from jet aircraft operations is perhaps the most
widely recognized and acted upon noise problem.
The airport noise problem originated in the late 1950's with the introduction of
jet aircraft, which were much noisier than the propeller aircraft they replaced, and
was compounded by the post-war construction of homes on vacant land around airports.
The problem grew to major proportions with the rapid growth of the commercial fleet
and spread to more airports with the introduction of commercial air operations to
smaller cities and towns. Despite concerted efforts in research and development of
quieter engines by the industry, significant progress was slow until spurred by federal
regulation.
The negative public reaction to commercial aircraft noise led to the adoption of
a federal regulation limiting the noise emission of new airplanes. This noise regula-
tion, Federal Aviation Regulation Part (FAR) 36—Noise Standards: Aircraft Type
Certification—became effective in December of 1969. The limits in this regulation
apply primarily to subsonic aircraft of new design having gross takeoff weights ex-
ceeding 75,000 pounds.
3-2
-------
GUIDELINES AND REPORTS 265
The majority of aircraft in the present fleet exceed the FAR-36 noise limits by 5
to 15 EPNdB. Thus, new aircraft certified under FAR-36, such as the three-engined
widebody and later model four-engined widebody aircraft, will be substantially quieter
than aircraft in the present fleet. The reduction of noise to the FAR-36 limits could
significantly aid in the solution of today's airport noise problem.
However, further noise reduction is required to accomplish an economically
balanced and publicly satisfying solution at the majority of affected airports and to
accommodate the anticipated future growth of the fleet. To develop the technology for
noise reduction, the federal government has supported various research and develop-
ment programs. The current funding level by both government and industry on jet
engine noise alone now exceeds $37 million annually. One result of federal and indus-
try sponsored research and development during the 1960's is demonstrated in the noise
characteristics of the new DC-10 aircraft, which is quieter than the limits imposed by
FAR-36 and much quieter than the other aircraft in the current fleet.
Noise Reduction Programs for Jet Aircraft *
The design features responsible for the noise reduction in new aircraft are asso-
ciated with improvements in engine bypass ratio and fan design with new designs for
inlet and discharging ducts of the new engines. Noise reduction technology has also
been accelerated through several research and development programs aimed at
*
utilizing existing turbofan engines that are modified with a noise reduction retrofit
package. An example of such an effort IB the NASA Acoustically Lined Nacelle
Program, which has demonstrated the feasibility of significantly reducing engine
noise on approach and of moderately reducing takeoff and sideline noise. A current
For details on economics and technological problems associated with jet engine
noise, see the transcript of the EPA hearings held in Washington, D. C.
3_o
o
-------
266 LEGAL COMPILATION—NOISE
FAA sponsored program is expected to produce hardware that can be certificated by
the end of 1972. The existence of such hardware may establish retrofit as a viable
method for reducing airport noise, to be considered as an alternative to aircraft re-
placement.
Another NASA program, due to be completed in 1973, is the Quiet Engine Pro-
gram aimed at demonstrating the feasibility of designing a new turbofan engine with
takeoff and approach levels significantly lower than any achieved to date. This pro-
gram, together with the new FAA Core Engine Noise Reduction Program and others
are the forerunners of the total research and development effort required to reduce
noise of future aircraft to acceptable levels.
A parallel and supplemental approach to engine noise reduction in airport com-
munities is the alteration of flight procedures during takeoff and landing. Signifioan
noise reductions have been demonstrated with most commercial aircraft currently
in operation by using power cutback procedures (i.e., reducing engine thrust after
the initial takeoff climb). To reduce noise impact during approach, a two-segment
landing procedure has been proposed. This procedure consists of an initial glide
slope terminated prior to landing in the standard 3-degree glide slope. Noise reduc-
tions comparable to those achieved by the power cutback have been achieved with this
procedure. Although the feasibility of the steep approach method, in terms of opera-
tional safety, has not been verified for all types of aircraft, it is already being used
by at least one major airline, when operating under visual flight conditions.
Noise Reduction Potential for Jet Aircraft
The noise reduction achievable by means of current and potentially available
technology, starting with the technology demonstrated in the DC-10 engines and those
of the federally funded research programs, is summarized in Table 3-1. The noise
3-4
-------
GUIDELINES AND REPORTS
267
levels are specified in terms of the FAR-36 takeoff measurement locations. The
table indicates, for example, that a noise reduction of 10 to 15 EPNdB below the levels
generated by the DC-10 aircraft should eventually be possible for that size aircraft.
Table 3-1
ESTIMATED AIRCRAFT NOISE REDUCTION POTENTIAL
DC-10 Technology
Quiet Engine Design Goal*
Future Quiet Engine
Noise Reduction
EPNdB re DC-10
0
5
10 to 15
EPNdB
100
95
85 to 90
* Recent test results indicate the engine is quieter than the design
To place this noise reduction potential in proper perspective, it is constructive to
consider the growth of noise impact during the last decade due to commercial aircraft
operations and to project future trends on the basis of current and potential noise re-
duction technology. Figure 3-1 shows the range of projected impact area depending
on the application of noise reduction technology to the current commercial aircraft
fleet. The following significant factors are illustrated by this figure:
• Maintaining the current aircraft noise levels would result in an increase in
impacted area to 187 percent of the 1970 figure by the year 2000, due to
increases in air traffic.
• Retrofit of existing aircraft necessary to ensure compliance with FAR-36
would result in a significant decrease in impact area in the 1976-1987 time
period. This assumes availability of an effective and economical retrofit
package.
3-5
-------
268
LEGAL COMPILATION—NOISE
3000
2500
2000
I
o
u
°
u. 1500
1000
I
500
1960
-»- 5% Projected Annual Growth
in Passenger Enplanements
and Air Freight Tonnage
Retrofit to FAR-36
(1973 to 1977)
New Aircraft Similar to Current
Types of Aircraft w/o
FAR-36 Restriction
All New Aircraft After
1980
FAR-36 minus 4EPNdB
All New Aircraft After •
1985
FAR-36 minus 10 EPNdB
1970
1980
1990
2000
Year
Figure 3-1. Noise-Impacted Areas (NEP-30 or Higher) as
Function of Jet Engine Noise Reduction Goals
2010
3-6
-------
GUIDELINES AND REPORTS 269
• A reduction in aircraft noise levels corresponding to FAR-36 and assuming
a further 10-EPNdB noise reduction due to advances in technology would
result, by the year 2000, in an 83-percent reduction in impact area below
the 1970 value.
In summary, significant reductions in the noise impact of commercial aircraft
are technically achievable in spite of projected increases in air traffic. However,
the ultimate reduction goals can be effected only by a continuing commitment of re-
sources by industry and the federal government to achieve the required advance in
technology. This may well include changes in operational procedures that would cost
little or nothing, provided safety is not compromised. It may also involve changes
in land use requirements, zoning regulations, and similar restrictions.
V/STOL Aviation
STOL Aircraft
The anticipated development of large STOL commercial aircraft during the next
decade will create new demands for noise abatement technology. In addition to oper-
ating out of large commercial airports, these aircraft will operate out of short field
general aviation airports that had not previously created an adverse noise impact on
the surrounding communities.
New STOL aircraft are expected to be subject to new noise certification regulations
developed specifically for this type of aircraft. A design objective of 95 EPNdB at 500
feet for STOL aircraft has been tentatively selected. However, no regulatory limits
have been established to date.
Design of vehicles and propulsion systems meeting this goal is being approached
by intensive research and development of suitable propulsion and lift concepts that
may be examined with respect to potential jet noise technology. Although the STOL
industry can take advantage of noise reduction technology previously discussed in
3-7
-------
270 LEGAL COMPILATION—NOISE
terms of commercial jet aviation, It must overcome new problems associated with
its unique propulsion requirements.
VTOL Aircraft (Helicopter/
The VTOL industry is primarily geared to military helicopter requirements,
which account for approximately 80 percent of the more than 20,000 vehicles produced
prior to January 1970. The vulnerability to enemy action of military helicopters has
been closely correlated to their excessive noise signature, which allows early detection
and consequent retaliatory enemy reaction. The Industry has therefore been engaged
in research and development programs specifically aimed at reducing helicopter noise.
However, there are no regulations limiting the noise of helicopters for civil use; thus,
there is little motivation for transferring this helicopter noise abatement technology
into the civil sector. The major sources of helicopter noise that have been, or can be,
reduced are summarized in Figure 3-2.
With the increasing use of helicopters within the urban service system, community
reaction to the noise intrusion will continue to increase. It has been demonstrated that
substantial noise suppression can be provided for current helicopter designs and, there-
*
fore, it is practical to consider that the helicopter can eventually became compatible
with community usage. In the long run, this result can be achieved only by incorpor-
ating adequate noise reduction methodology Into vehicles produced for the urban user.
However, application of available noise control technology to currently marketed light
piston-powered helicopters can be fostered by regulatory action. In addition, consumer
groups (such as large city governments and leagues of cities) might precipitate the
availability of quieter civil helicopters by exercising their purchasing power. The
potential for future helicopter noise reduction Is summarized in Table 3-2.
3-8
-------
GUIDELINES AND REPORTS
271
Q Lower revolutions per second
© More blades
(3) Large blade area
(4) Modified blade tip shapes
© Reduced blade interaction
® Engine inlet suppression
(j) Engine exhaust muffling
(§) Cabin insulation improvements
Current Design Approaches to Helicopter Noise Reduction
120.
110
100
90
pn
1
5
_>
J!
-
1
| Later M
•p
Ł
|
—
1
01
1
•5
s
n
5
i
_>
A
IU
—
I
S
3
*
1
I
1
60 kt
* Rotor Blade Modifications
120kt
Demonstrated Noise Reduction of a Heavy-Helicopter
Twin-Rotor System
Figure 3-2. Noise Reduction for Helicopters
3-9
-------
272
LEGAL COMPILATION—NOISE
Table 3-2
ESTIMATED NOISE REDUCTION POTENTIAL FOR HELICOPTERS
Time Period
Potential by 1975
Utilizing Available
Production Methods
Potential by 1985
Utilizing Current
Industry Trends
Potential by 1980 to 1985
Utilizing Demonstrated
or Advanced Technology
Noise Reduction, dB*
Heavy
Transport
Helicopters
0
10
10
Light and
Medium
Turbine -Powered
Helicopters
5
15
17
Light Piston-
Powered
Helicopters
10
10
20
*Noise reduction relative to typical current noise levels in dBA at 1000 feet.
General Aviation Aircraft
The majority of general aviation aircraft are owned by private individuals and are
used for personal and recreational flying. Therefore, the general aviation aircraft
industry deals predominantly with a consumer market similar to that for automobiles
or motorcycles. Consequently, the exploitation of technologies that bear only indi-
rectly on product desirability, such as exterior noise reduction, is relegated to a
secondary level of importance. However, the attitude of a vast majority of those
affected by general aviation noise is such that this approach is not considered accept-
able.
At present, general aviation aircraft are not a major source of community noise,
although internal noise in many types is of Importance with respect to hearing damage.
3-10
-------
GUIDELINES AND REPORTS 273
Approximately one-half of the aircraft operate naar hub airports, where their noise
characteristics, except for the executive jets, are masked by the much noisier com-
mercial aircraft. The remainder of the aircraft are distributed over more than 11,000
airports within the U.S. Thus, the general aviation industry has not, until recently,
considered aircraft noise In terms of the nonparticipant environment. Furthermore,
there are no noise regulations for the majority of these aircraft, which are below the
75,000-pound minimum gross weight considered by FAR-36.
The general aviation fleet has grown rapidly during the last 15 years and will con-
tinue to grow at an accelerated rate until at least 1985. More important, from a noise
standpoint, is the growing proportion of larger and more powerful multiengined piston,
turboprop, and turbojet aircraft in the projected fleet. Because of this changing mix,
the typical general aviation aircraft could become noisier in the future. This factor,
in addition to the increase in the number of aircraft operations, will lead to an increas-
ing potential for the production of community noise intrusions.
Noise Reduction Programs
Reduction of interior cabin noise levels is presently a much higher priority item
for the general aviation industry than is reducing exterior levels. Some improvement
has been achieved by reducing noise from the engine and propeller and by increasing
transmission loss through the cabin walls. The general aviation industry's plans for
further reduction indicate that interior noise levels of about 75 dBA are possible
within the next 10 years. Such an accomplishment would essentially eliminate any
potential hazard of hearing loss and would result in cabin noise levels comparable to
the interior noise levels of an average automobile at highway speeds. The general
aviation industry has recently begun to use quieter turbofan engines for business jet
aircraft instead of the noisier pure turbojets. This quieter engine can provide a
3-11
-------
274 LEGAL COMPILATION—NOISE
substantial reduction in external noise, with equal or improved aircraft performance.
However, an equivalent noise reduction throughout the business jet fleet is required
to significantly reduce the noise impact of these aircraft.
Propeller and engine manufacturers have been engaged in the development of quiet
concepts for military and V/STOL commercial applications, and some of the results
have fed back to the general aviation industry. For example, current aircraft models
generally have three-blade propellers rather than the old two-blade propellers, with
a resulting noise reduction of 3 to 5 dBA. However, in the absence of definite goals
(such as could be established by regulation), much of the noise reduction technology
will not be systematically applied.
Noise Reduction Potential
A significant reduction in engine/exhaust noise for propeller aircraft is achievable
with current technology, and a 10-dB reduction of propeller noise is feasible to the
next 5 years. It appears that a maximum noise level objective in the range of 68 to
73 dBA at 1000 feet for new general aviation propeller aircraft is achievable in the
1980 time period. Similarly, noise levels of business jet aircraft could be reduced to
nearly these levels if the technology developed for commercial jets were applied to
the smaller business jet engines.
The achievement of these reduced exterior noise levels in general aviation air-
craft will undoubtedly require regulatory action by the government, since the operator
of this category of transportation cannot be expected to apply pressure on the manu-
facturer. Similarly, regulation would ensure the achievement of Internal noise levels
that are not potentially hazardous to hearing.
Highway Vehicles
The highway vehicle industry is strongly committed to the development of vehicles
intended for specific segments of the consumer public. Each vehicle model is
3-12
-------
GUIDELINES AND REPORTS 275
manufactured with a particular performance goal or overall image in mind. This
image ranges from a luxury vehicle, wherein a quiet car is desired by the consumer,
to a competition type vehicle that generally exhibits the highest legal noise level.
In its infancy, the automotive industry found it necessary to equip its engines with
mufflers because the noise of the horseless carriage frightened horses on the road.
Cities and towns began to require mufflers on cars in the 1920's, and the automobile
muffler has improved significantly since then.
Trucks, utility and maintenance vehicles, and buses are generally manufactured
to individual customer specifications that place major emphasis On performance,
operating economy, and initial cost. Truck noise is often mistakenly associated with
better economy and more power. Thus, there has been little purchaser pressure to
reduce truck noise, although individual cities and towns have begun to demand quieter
maintenance vehicles and buses. However, in the late 1950's realization of potential
legislation to curtail truck noise led the industry to adopt a voluntary maximum ex-
terior noise level standard.
The manufacturer's commitment to noise reduction is twofold: (1) a program of
research and development to satisfy consumer requirements for a quiet car, for the
passengers, and (2) an attempt to meet existing legislation on exterior noise levels.
This legislation essentially takes the form of a short term noise requirement. These
commitments are greatly complicated because the vehicle manufacturers face a
number of differing noise laws, measurement standards, and time deadlines through-
out the country for various noise limits on highway vehicles. Because of the time
constraints contained in some of the laws, industry has frequently been required to
exploit the so called "band-aid" type of problem solution, without having adequate
time to incorporate the new requirements into a basic redesign.
3-13
-------
276 LEGAL COMPILATION—NOISE
Incorporation of appropriate noise reduction techniques into the design of highway
vehicles proceeds slowly for a number of reasons, foremost of which is that the manu-
facturers are dealing with production units having a lead time of 3 to 5 years. Any
refinement going into new vehicles requires modification that must be proven compatible
with all design and production constraints.
There is potential for the reduction of noise associated with highway transportation
through consideration of noise impact in route selection and by the use in certain in-
stances of various types of noise barriers. Such barriers can cost from $50, 000
to well over $100, 000 per mile, depending on type of construction, and whether or
not they were included in the original highway design. Similarly, engineering
controls, such as use of depressed roadways and provision of sound insulation
on buildings adjacent to heavy traffic offer possibilities of minimizing noise impact.
Such measures may be even more effective as source control is applied.
Noise Reduction Programs
Passenger Cars. A great deal of noise reduction is currently incorporated into
the majority of passenger vehicles. Much of this noise reduction is directed at re-
ducing interior noise levels, and successful efforts often have been rewarded by
increased sales.
The exterior noise levels of passenger cars, measured under various normal
operating conditions along freeways, city streets, and rural roads, show that the noise
of the newest vehicles is less than that of older vehicles. In statistical studies con-
ducted on highway vehicle noise, the average noise level of vehicles in the category
"1969 and newer" was found to be approximately 2 to 3 dB less than that of older
vehicles.
According to testimony given at the San Francisco, Chicago, and Washington,
D. C. noise hearings, the majority of passenger cars built in the U.S. since 1969
3-14
-------
GUIDELINES AND REPORTS 277
meet present California noise requirements. According to industry estimates,
meeting future California regulations will increase new car prices by approx-
imately $30 to $50 per vehicle.
Trucks. Adequate silencing treatment on new vehicles under maximum noise out-
put conditions provides a substantial overall exhaust noise reduction, yielding overall
vehicle noise levels in the 85 to 90 dBA range. However, the average heavy diesel
truck will probably run over 500,000 miles in its lifetime. Over this time period,
many of the components will be replaced either due to wear or to modification for
individual operator needs. Consequently, the noise output of many heavy trucks may
increase significantly from their original condition, negating noise reduction features
incorporated into the original vehicle, particularly if muffler and tire replacements
do not provide noise performance equal to that of the original equipment.
Costs associated with reducing truck noise are difficult to estimate, because of
the variety of noise sources associated with each type of vehicle. Engine components,
such as fans, gears, and transmissions and accessories, as well as the engine itself,
are major noise sources. One engine manufacturer has estimated that there would be
an increase in cost of $1,500 in the $5,000 base price of a 250 hp diesel engine to
provide a 10 dBA noise reduction. Several truck manufacturers have estimated that
costs to meet the 1973 California law requirements range from $20 to $125 per vehicle
and to meet later requirements there may be as much as a 15 percent increase in
costs, assuming all technical problems are resolved. It should be noted that in the
absence of national standards, major manufacturers are using the California law as
a design basis.
Buses. The principal emphasis in noise reduction for buses has been to satisfy
the desire for more passenger comfort. Little emphasis has been placed on external
3-15
-------
278 LEGAL COMPILATION—NOISE
noise, and presently there are no uniform criteria for external noise for buses other
than recommended levels established by the Society of Automotive Engineers (SAE
J366).
Utility and Maintenance Vehicles. Utility and maintenance vehicles differ from
other similar highway vehicles only in their usage patterns and functions. They are
most often operated at low road speeds and at medium to high engine speeds. There-
fore, these vehicles, particularly the diesel powered units, generally produce high
noise levels, even at low highway speeds. The engine for such vehicles is normally
muffled, but noise associated with the performance of auxiliary functions is seldom
considered. One notable exception is the experimental quiet refuse truck developed
by a major U.S. auto manufacturer for the City of New York.
Noise Reduction Potential
Figure 3-3 illustrates the present ranges of noise levels for highway vehicles
under both maximum noise conditions and highway cruise conditions. Also summa-
rized in this figure are noise reduction goals deemed achievable with current tech-
nology in the near .future for existing vehicle concepts and long term goals that could
be met as a result of further research and development efforts. These goals are
based on an extensive analysis of the subsources of vehicle noise and assume continuing
advancement in the applicable noise reduction technology. For most vehicles, reduc-
tion of tire noise is the major technical challenge, except for the simple elimination
of exceedingly noisy truck tire retread patterns. At low speeds, further reduction
may require a change from the conventional reciprocating engine for propulsive power
to new devices such as gas turbines or electric drive.
Recreation Vehicles
The annoyance caused by noise from outboard motors was recognized by industry
long before any legislative bodies began to act to control its effect. Motivated by
3-16
-------
GUIDELINES AND REPORTS
279
« «
1!
cm
K\\l
k\\X
ixxyi
EV?\T
5
ii
S,
*i
X 0
Ł?I
S "|
5
o
2
>
z
"3
c
I
V8P - 1* OS IB I^AS-) 8siO|vj
3-17
-------
280 LEGAL COMPILATION—NOISE
public pressure, manufacturers began experimenting In the late 1920's with underwater
exhaust systems to reduce the noise output of outboard motors. Their success In the
late 1940's was one of the factors leading to a dramatic growth In the market for motor-
boats. The current outboard probably represents the quietest application of a two-
stroke engine for its power output on the market today.
Snowmobiles are relative newcomers on the leisure vehicle scene. Introduced In
1958 as a low-powered, lightweight utility snow vehicle, the snowmobile has evolved
into a more refined, high performance, all-purpose recreation vehicle. The increased
popularity of this vehicle has been accompanied by an evergrowing number of com-
plaints about its noise. The primary source of this noise is a poorly muffled exhaust
system usually resulting from attempts by the user to gain more engine power by
reducing engine muffling. Newer model snowmobiles generate lower noise levels than
earlier models, with measured noise levels of 1971 models generally ranging from 15
to 23 dB below levels of the early models. This is a significant accomplishment, par-
ticularly since there were no effective snowmobile noise regulations in effect prior to
June 30, 1970.
Motorcycles also have a long history in the leisure field. Due to the design con-
straints of lightweight construction and maximum power output, motorcycles have
continually produced excessive noise. The average motorcycle rider frequently asso-
ciates noise with power and generally feels that high noise levels fit the motorcycle
image. The major manufacturers have only recently taken steps to try to change
these beliefs. All current motorcycles now intended for highway use are built to com-
ply with California state noise regulations. In addition, most major manufacturers,
under the guidance of the Motorcycle Industry Council, have agreed to place mufflers
on all their off-road motorcycles to limit their noise output. The industry is currently
in the process of trying to convince the consumer that noise does not necessarily mean
3-18
-------
GUIDELINES AND REPORTS 281
power and that a reduction of the noise problem is necessary to the continuing enjoy-
ment of motorcycling as a widespread recreational activity.
Noise Reduction Programs
The gross noise reductions of most current recreation vehicles have been accom-
plished through exhaust system treatment. Engine shielding and isolation have also
been developed to a high degree on outboard motors, and this technology is gradually
being applied to snowmobiles. Excluding motorcycles and some snowmobiles, the
industry, as a whole, has nearly reached the stage in which exhaust treatment has
been fully exploited, leaving further reduction efforts to be aimed toward intake
silencing and engine noise itself. For motorcycles, most of the current noise reduc-
tion has been achieved on the engine exhaust; however, design constraints on pack-
aging exhaust systems of sufficient size have yet to be overcome. Further research
is required in this area.
Potential Noise Reduction
The current range of noise levels and the future noise reduction goals for recre-
ation vehicles are summarized in Figure 3-t. Short term goals are considered
achievable with current technology. The feasibility of long term goals is based on an
analysis of contributing noise sources and the continuing advancement of the applica-
ble noise reduction technology.
For pleasure boats, motorcycles, and snowmobiles, the exhaust is the principal
noise source. The lightweight design of motorcycles and snowmobiles frequently does
not allow for adequate exhaust treatment or intake silencer placement, and further
development of exhaust mufflers will be necessary to achieve a substantial decrease
beyond the best muffler technology currently available. The practice of deliberately
disabling or completely removing exhaust mufflers must, of course, be totally dis-
couraged.
3-19
-------
282
LEGAL COMPILATION—NOISE
E _
fc S
.3n°
\Z4
s«
Y///\ S
m
i
o
kXXXXXXVl Ł
1 a
1 o
k\\VsX\VsX
3
m
I
L
!
1
A
•8
JS
i
83
Vgp - |3A3-|
o
•a
o
Z
3-20
-------
GUIDELINES AND REPORTS 283
For boats, a reduction in the transmission of noise through engine enclosures for
inboard engines can be accomplished by application of the advanced state of acoustic
enclosure design. Outboard engines pose a more difficult problem due to design con-
straints that employ high power-to-weight ratios.
Substantial reduction in engine noise for recreation vehicles beyond that available
with current technology must result from internal engine redesign programs and
modification to the intake and exhaust systems. Effort should also be made to reduce
noise exposure levels for the vehicle operator and passenger.
Rail Systems
The incorporation of noise limiting requirements in the specifications for new
rail vehicles has only recently caused industry to initiate noise abatement programs.
Therefore, the majority of vehicles in operation today have not been affected by
such programs.
The development of specifications for rapid transit vehicles is complicated by
the division of responsibilities between the cognizant transit authority and the manu-
facturer. For example, a typical present-day specification does not include the noise
produced by the wheel/rail interaction, which in most cases is the major contribution
to the overall noise level, nor does it take into account the effect of noise reverber-
ation in tunnels upon the interior noise levels in the vehicles. This means that the
transit authority and the manufacturer may be required to pursue separate noise
reduction programs to solve a common problem.
Noise Reduction Programs
Railroads. The impact of wheels on the joints of sectional rails can be reduced
5 dB or greater by the use of continuous welded rail. For intercity passenger sys-
tems , sectional tracks are frequently replaced by welded rails when the older rails
3-21
-------
284 LEGAL COMPILATION—NOISE
wear out. Other techniques for reducing wheel/rail noise have included grinding the
rails to eliminate surface irregularities and lubricating the wheels.
Noise abatement programs conducted by the railroad industry have co centrated
mainly on the modern, high speed, intercity trains such as the Metroliner and the
TurboTrain. The noise levels in these multiple-unit trains have been kept fairly low
by carefully considering noise control details in the design. Due to their more sub-
stantial body structure and because they normally travel at lower speeds, locomotive-
hauled passenger cars have similar or lower noise levels.
A small number of programs concerned with wayside noise from railroad equip-
ment are in progress. These programs are concerned with the noise from diesel-
electric locomotives. The introduction of more electric locomotives would reduce
the noise impact from the propulsion system and would eliminate the typical pulsating
sound of the diesel-electric to which many people object.
Noise control has generally not been a consideration, other than in the interior
of the cab, in diesel-electric locomotives. The exhaust system has no muffler, and
since this is the major source of noise, it is possible that mufflers could be designed
to reduce the overall sound level. In addition, more substantial or modified casing
around the diesel engine, together with the acoustically absorbent material, may be
effective in reducing the noise from this source.
Rail Transit Systems. A number of noise abatement programs have been con-
ducted by both equipment manufacturers and transit authorities. The work that has
been done to date in connection with rail transit systems has shown that considerable
noise reduction can be achieved with current technology. Some systems are noisy
because of poor wheel and rail maintenance, lack of air-conditioning equipment in
cars, and lack of acoustic absorption in the subways. Nearly all new cars are now
air conditioned, allowing the windows to be permanently sealed, resulting in a 10-dBA
3-22
-------
GUIDELINES AND REPORTS 285
reduction from the 90 to 93 dBA levels that exist in the noisier vehicles. It has also
been shown in the Toronto system that a further reduction can be attained by the use
of absorptive material on tunnel walls, and by proper attention to acoustics in the
design of stations.
The most significant reduction in exterior and interior noise levels can be made
in existing systems by careful maintenance of the wheels and rails. A summary
of the noise reduction that is possible using current technology from related indus-
tries is shown in Table 3-3.
Noise Reduction Potential
The railroad and transit authorities, together with the manufacturers of rail
equipment, are be coming increasingly aware of the noise problems associated with
rail systems and are planning a number of programs for noise reduction. In
most cases, however, the programs are not defined in terms of final objectives,
but more to determine what reductions can be achieved using current technology.
The following programs are among those planned.
Railroads
• A study of the noise characteristics of diesel-electric locomotives with a
view toward eventual noise reduction.
• An improved suspension system for the TurboTrain that, it is estimated,
may reduce interior noise levels from 74 dBA to 60 or 65 dBA. Due to the
noise from the air-conditioning system, the noise reduction obtained may
be less than this. The final levels may be in the range of 60 to 70 dBA,
depending on the position in the car, unless the air-conditioning equipment
noise is reduced.
• The replacement of old track by welded track. Only about 3000 miles of
track per year are renewed in this manner.
3-23
-------
286
LEGAL COMPILATION—NOISE
Table 3-3
SUMMARY OF THE NOISE REDUCTION POTENTIAL BY APPLYING
CURRENT TECHNOLOGY TO EXISTING TRANSIT VEHICLES
Existing Condition
Standard track, not
regularly maintained
Concrete trackbed
Bare concrete tunnel
surfaces
Bare concrete station
surfaces
Old type vehicles
using open windows
or vents for ventila-
tion
Standard doors and
body
Standard steel
wheels
Standard type
vehicles
Standard, noisy pro-
pulsion unit
Modified Condition
Welded track, ground
Ballast trackbed
Strips of absorbent
material at wheel height
Limited absorbent
material on wall sur-
faces and under plat-
form overhang
New type cars with
air conditioning
Improved door seals,
body gasket holes
plugged, et cetera
Steel wheels with con-
strained damping
layer
Installation of a 4 ft.
barrier alongside
track
Installation of a skirt
on side of vehicles
Modified unit with
skewed armature slots ,
random blower fan
blade spacing, acous-
tically treated fan ducts
Estimated Noise
Reduction, dBA
Car
Interior
5-15
0-5
5-10
-
10-15
0-5
5-15
-
-
0-5
Car
Exterior
5-15
0
-
5-10
-
-
5-15
10-15
6
5
Note: The values of noise reduction are estimated for the particular source
alone, assuming no contributions from other sources. The values
therefore cannot be added to obtain an overall noise reduction.
3-24
-------
GUIDELINES AND REPORTS 287
Rail Transit Systems
• The application of spray-on acoustic absorption material on the ceilings and
under the platform edges, together with noise barriers between tracks at a
New York subway station.
• The replacement of old transit cars with more modern types incorporating
air-conditioning, door and window seals, rubber suspension mounts, and vi-
bration damping materials on the body.
• The replacement of old track with welded track in many transit systems.
• A study to determine whether improved sound insulation of transit cars can
be achieved without increasing the mass of the car body.
• Design of an integrated heat transfer system for air conditioning equipment
that uses cooling coils or fans that are operated while the train is out of the
station area.
Future Changes in the Noise Environment
The current trend of the transportation industry relative to noise abatement has
been outlined, and independent estimates have been presented for the noise reduction
potential for each category. The net effect of this current trend, and of the changes
that would result if the noise reduction potentials by source control were achieved, is
reviewed in this discussion.
As a basis for projecting noise impact to the year 2000, a conservative model was
chosen for growth of the existing transportation system. Major assumptions for the
model included:
1. Conservative population growth of 1.15 percent per year from 1970 to
1985 and 1.05 percent thereafter.
3-25
-------
288 LEGAL COMPILATION—NOISE
2. Conservative estimates for numbers of highway and transit vehicles, with
growth rates approaching urban population growth rates by the year 2000.
3. Conservative estimates for growth in total freeway miles and freeway
traffic.
The change in noise levels generated by transportation system categories has been
estimated for three possible options for future source noise reduction:
Option 1—No change in source noise levels after 1970 (baseline).
Option 2—Estimated noise reduction achieved with current industry trends by the
year 1D85 with no further reductions thereafter. This assumes no new noise control
regulations by local, state, or Federal agencies or any change in consumer demand for
quieter vehicles. Historically, these factors have provided the principal motivation for
industry action to reduce noise.
Option 3—Projected noise reduction is achieved by implementation of an incremen-
tal regulatory program for a specified amount of noise reduction by the years 1975,
1980, and 1985. The examples of potential noise reduction utilized for Option 3 are
summarized in Table 3-4 for the major transportation categories.
Change in Noise Energy Output
The approximate total A-weighted noise energy expended per day by the year 2000
for all units of a given transportation category, except aircraft, has been estimated
for each of the three options. The results are summarized in Table 3-5. The esti-
mated value for 1970, given in Chapter 2, is listed In the first column for reference.
The second column, based on Option 1 (no noise reduction), shows the increase in
noise energy per day due solely to the estimated increase in number and usage of
sources. The third and fourth columns show the estimated trend in noise energy by
the year 2000 for Option 2 (current industry trends) or Option 3 (possible noise regu-
lation).
3-26
-------
GUIDELINES AND REPORTS
289
Table 3-4
EXAMPLES OF POSSIBLE NOISE REDUCTION GOALS FOR EXTERNALLY
RADIATED NOISE FOR TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM CATEGORIES
Source
HIGHWAY VEHICLE1
Diesel Trucks
Utility Trucks
Light Trucks and Pickups
Highway Buses
City and School Buses
Standard Passenger Cars
Sport, Compact and Import Cars
Motorcycles (Highway)
AIRCRAFT
2
Commercial Aircraft
(with turbofan engines)
0
General Aviation Prop Aircraft
Heavy Transport Helicopters3
Light Turbine -Powered Helicopters3
Light Piston-Powered Helicopters3
RAILWAY1
Locomotives
Existing Rapid Transit
RECREATIONAL VEHICLES1
Snowmobiles
Off-Road Motorcycles and Minicycles
Outboard Motor Boats
Inboard Motor Boats
Effective Date
1975
3
3
2
3
2
2
6
2
0
0
5
10
0
5
10
2
2
5
1980
8
8
5
8
5
4
8
7
5
5
12
15
5
10
12
7
4
6
1985
10
10
8
10
8
5
9
10
1 f\
1U
10
10
17
20
8
13
14
10
6
7
Relative reduction in average noise levels in dBA at 50 feet.
2Relative reduction in EPNdB at FAR-36 Measurement Position for Takeoff.
3Relative reduction in EPNdB at 1000 feet fromaircraft during takeoff.
3-27
-------
290
LEGAL COMPILATION—NOISE
Table 3-5
ESTIMATED FUTURE CHANGE IN NOISE ENERGY FOR TRANSPORTATION
SYSTEM CATEGORIES WITH THREE OPTIONS FOR NOISE REDUCTION
Source
HIGHWAY VEHICLES
Medium and Heavy Trucks
Sports Cars , Import and
Compacts
Passenger Cars (standard)
Light Trucks and Pickups
Motorcycles
City and School Buses
Highway Buses
RECREATION VEHICLES
Motorcycles
Snowmobiles
Outboard Motorboats
Inboard Motorboats
RAIL VEHICLES
Locomotives
Existing R/T Systems
Noise Energy in Kllowatt-Hours/Day
1970
5,000
1,000
800
500
250
20
12
800
120
100
40
1,200
6
1
10,000
2,500
1,200
1,000
800
20
12
2,500
400
160
63
1,200
10
2000
2
4,000
1,600
800
400
320
8
5
NA
NA
NA
NA
1,200
6.3
3
800
250
400
160
80
3
1.2
250
16
40
12
200
0.5
NA-Not available.
*Option 1—No noise reduction.
2—Estimate industry trend In noise reduction.
3—Example of possible incremental program of noise regulation.
3-28
-------
GUIDELINES AND REPORTS 291
Under Option 3, the noise energy by the year 2000 for all categories is always
less than 1970 values. The reduction for Option 2, relative to Option 1, by the year
2000 reflects the current effort by the various industries to produce a quieter product,
while the additional reduction indicated for Option 3 shows the significant additional
benefit that could be obtained through noise regulation.
These values of noise energy provide a rough indication of changes in the relative
magnitude of potential noise impact of transportation vehicles. By the year 2000, the
noise energy value in Table 3-5 indicates a twofold increase from 1970 if no further
action were taken to reduce noise. Assuming that current industry trends continue,
little significant change in noise energy is indicated by the year 2000. However, by
implementing positive regulatory program, a reduction in noise energy of nearly 4.5-
to-1 over 1970 is indicated for Option 3.
Aircraft have been omitted from Table 3-5 since the overall noise impact of air-
craft is more readily evaluated in terms of land area within a given Noise Exposure
Forecast (NEF) contour or Community Noise Equivalent Level (CNEL)
contour. This information is provided in Table 3-6.
Change in Residual Noise Level
The same model for residual noise levels utilized in Chapter 2 for 1970 has been
applied to forecast trends for 1985 and 2000 as a function of the noise reduction op-
tions for only highway vehicles. The result of this projection, including the estimated
residual levels for 1950 and 1960, is shown in Figure 3-5. The trend for Option 1 is
clearly an upper bound and indicates an additional growth of about 2.5 dB in the re-
sidual level by the year 2000, due solely to the increase in noise sources. The lowest
line for Option 3 represents the cumulative effect of achieving the three-step noise
reduction values summarized in Table 3-5 and shows the net reduction in residual
noise level to be 5 dB relative to today, or about 7 dB below the "no action" Option 1
trend for the year 2000.
3-29
-------
292
LEGAL COMPILATION—NOISE
Table 3-6
SUMMARY OF ESTIMATED NOISE IMPACTED LAND (WITHIN CNEL 65 CONTOUR)
NEAR AIRPORTS AND FREEWAYS FROM 1955 TO THE YEAR 2000
WITH FUTURE ESTIMATES BASED ON OPTIONS 3 AND 2
1955
1960
1965
1970
1985
2000
Impacted Land Area— Square Miles
Near Airports
-20
200
760
1450
780 (870)*
240 (1210)
Near Freeways
8
75
285
545
400 (1470)*
0 (2050)
Total
28
275
1045
1995
1180 (2340)*
240 (3260)
*Number in parentheses is the estimated impact area if no further
regulatory action is taken (Option 2). It assumes FAR-36 remains
in force for aircraft, no new limits established for highway vehicle
noise, and no change in existing freeway design concepts to increase
noise reduction. Numbers outside of parentheses assume FAR-36
minus 10 EPNdB for aircraft and additional combined noise reduction
for freeways and highway vehicles of 3 dBA by 1985 and 5 dBA by the
year 2000.
Change in Impacted Areas Near Freeways and Airports
Noise impact for land adjacent to freeways and airports was summarized in
Chapter 2 for 1970 conditions. To indicate past and future trends, the total affected
land area near freeways and airports has been estimated from 1955 to the year 2000.
The resulting values, given in Table 3-6, represent the incompatible land area lying
within a CNEL of 65. As defined in Chapter 1, this is equivalent to an NEF value of 30.
Estimates of noise impacted land areas are given for 1985 and the year 2000 for
both Option 2 (values in parentheses) and Option 3, for which a marked reduction in
3-30
-------
GUIDELINES AND REPORTS
293
50
48
m
•o
Ł 46
z
Ł
44
42
40
Option 1
(No Noise Reduction)"
Option 3
Effect of Regulatory Limits Set in
1975, 1980 and 1985
Dates of
Introduction
of Limits
Option 3
m
1950
1960
1970
1980
1990
2000
Figure 3-5. Estimated Long Term Trend in Daytime Residual Noise
Levels in a Typical Residential Urban Community
3-31
-------
294 LEGAL COMPILATION—NOISE
impact is achieved. For Option 3, the estimated noise impacted land near airports
is reduced by 83 percent from the 1970 value, assuming an annual fleet growth of 3
percent and no significant change in day-night operations mix or the ratio of freight
to passenger aircraft operations. Based on a CNEL 65 boundary, noise impacted
land near freeways is reduced to zero by the year 2000, assuming a net noise reduc-
tion in vehicle and freeway noise of about 5 dB below today's values.
The total noise impacted land by the year 2000 varies by a factor of over 13, de-
pending on the choice of Option 2 (no further change beyond today's industry trends)
or Option 3 (noise regulation). The striking effect of the decrease in noise impacted
land near freeways due to a small (5 dBA) decrease in freeway noise is clear.
It is particularly important to note that the imposition of noise limits on aircraft
by FAR-36 is resulting in at least a "holding action" regarding airport noise. How-
ever, without national policy concerning highway vehicles, the potential growth in
noise impact near freeways is great.
Estimates have been made of the relative cost-effectiveness of alternate methods
of reducing the noise impacted land. For airports having noise problems reduction
of noise at the source (i.e., quieter engines) is clearly more cost-effective than
reducing noise impact by land acquisition. For airports without noise problems, fu-
ture problems should be prevented by complementary airport and land use planning.
For future airports, environmental limits should be adopted in the planning stage for
use in site selection and for assuring compatible uses of adjacent land.
For freeways, designs to increase barrier noise reduction is more cost-effective
than land acquisition. Vehicle noise reduction Is one potential means for reducing
freeway noise and also provides benefits for the total urban population. Thus, a
3-32
-------
GUIDELINES AND REPORTS 295
balanced approach for reducing highway transportation noise should emphasize vehicle
noise reduction, improved freeway design, and community planning for compatible land
uses.
However, the most effective noise prevention measures will be identified and im-
plemented only by the use of balanced multimodal transportation systems, designed to
move people and cargo economically, while minimizing total environmental impact of
the transportation process. This transport planning process must be accompanied by
planning and implementation of land use designs and building regulations which will
prevent future noise problems and gradually resolve existing ones.
3-33
-------
296 LEGAL COMPILATION—NOISE
DEVICES POWERED BY INTERNAL COMBUSTION ENGINES
Historically, noise abatement has not been a primary consideration of manufac-
turers of small internal combustion engines, although unmuffled equipment has not
been produced for many years because of buyer resistance to excessively noisy
products. Public tolerance, combined with some noise control, has produced a com-
promise situation between the consumers and the manufacturers.
Noise reduction achieved by the engine manufacturers has resulted in reasonably
quiet engines that make somewhat less noise than the equipment they are designed to
power. Equipment manufacturers, however, :-,re not completely convinced of this
condition and tend to attribute noise to the engine. This is particularly characteristic
of the small equipment manufacturer who purchases the engine from an outside source
and has no involvement with engine design. In this category are large numbers of
lawn care equipment units constructed of pressed sheet metal in production shops
around the country.
Many manufacturers of equipment powered by internal combustion engines feel
that they are being placed in the difficult position of being required to meet several
divergent noise ordinances. Such laws are being established*by individual cities
and towns and are related to local economic and social conditions.
Noise Reduction Programs
The extent of noise reduction within the industries supplying small internal com-
bustion engines has been directly related to its effect on sales and the existence of
noise ordinances. With the exception of the small generator industry, buyer insis-
tence on quiet equipment has not been sufficient to produce significant noise reduc-
tion efforts. Consequently, noise abatement programs have not been consistent. For
instance, one manufacturer has demonstrated that a small generator, using a 3-
horsepower engine with a vertical shaft within a complete enclosure, may be quieted
3-34
-------
GUIDELINES AND REPORTS 297
to 70 decibels at an operator position of 6 feet from the engine. If this same treatment
were applied to a lawn mower, it would achieve an improvement of approximately 20
dBA over current production models and would make the engine inaudible in the presence
of a rotating blade. However, no serious plans exist for production of such a mower
because of the high cost of the noise reduction treatment and the resulting small market
potential, as estimated by the manufacturer.
Chain saw manufacturers recognize the existence of a serious noise problem re-
garding their equipment. The high power-to-weight ratio necessary in a hand-carried
device requires a lightweight structure that is incapable of containing most of its own
noise. Further, the noise produced by the chain is on the order of 100 dBA at the
operator position, and reduction of the engine noise below this level would not reduce
total output. Some experimental work is being done to reduce the noise of the chain,
but costs rapidly become prohibitive when exotic materials are used to damp the
response of the blade to the chain. Considerable engineering work has been expended
to make chain saw mufflers more efficient within weight and size limitations, and
some success has been demonstrated. Sound levels have been reduced to as low as
102 dBA by some special mechanical devices, with power losses of no more than 10
to 12 percent.
Noise control within the industry served by small internal combustion engines
will continue to be affected by various local laws and ordinances. However, there
will always be difficulty in encouraging noise abatement until public education advances
to the point at which the charisma of noise is gone. When each person is convinced
that his contribution to noise reduction is meaningful, he will then go to the manufac-
turer of the quietest machine and pay the extra money required and will take pride
in his accomplishment. When this happens, as it has in the small generator field,
manufacturers will probably respond accordingly. Interviews have shown that most
3-35
-------
298
LEGAL COMPILATION—NOISE
manufacturers can respond but at present have found Uttle market for quiet products
when the public is asked to pay the price.
Potential Noise Reduction
The combined effort by the public in demanding quieter products powered by intern-
al combustion engines, and successful response to this demand by the manufacturers,
should provide a substantial decrease in annoyance from this equipment. The estimated
potential noise reduction that might be expected for these devices is summarized in
Table 3-7. The noise reduction values are relative to current noise levels and are
specified in terms of potential reductions achievable by the 1975, 1980, and 1985 time
periods.
Full accomplishment of these noise reductions would largefy eliminate annoyance
problems associated with use of lawn care equipment. However, the noise reduction
potential for chain saws, using existing technology, is not sufficient to eliminate their
annoyance characteristics or hearing damage risk for their operators. Further noise
reduction research is necessary.
Table 3-7
ESTIMATED NOISE REDUCTION POTENTIAL FOR DEVICES
POWERED BY INTERNAL COMBUSTION ENGINES
Source
Lawn Care Equipment
Chain Saws
Generator Sets
Noise Reduction, dB*
1975
10
2
5
1980
13
2
7
1985
15
5
17
*Noise reduction relative to typical current noise levels at 50 feet.
3-36
-------
GUIDELINES AND REPORTS 299
NOISE REDUCTION FOR INDUSTRIAL PLANTS
Industrial noise is a local problem, with each plant possessing individual intrusive
characteristics. The plant location, community residual noise levels, and other noise
sources such as major highways, airports, and construction activities contribute to
the community noise environment. It appears that noise from construction, surface
transportation, and aircraft generally contribute more to community annoyance, than
do industrial plants. The contribution of industrial plant noise to the community re-
sidual levels may increase when the noise from the other sources is reduced. It is
anticipated that, in general, industrial plant noise reaching the community will not
increase in the near future but may, in fact, decrease, as noise abatement efforts
required by the Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970 become effective. However,
it should be pointed out that at specific locations where interior plant noise is reduced
by simply locating the noise sources outdoors, without adequate noise control measures,
the impact upon the nearby community may increase.
Motivation
There are a number of significant factors that motivate industrial plant manage-
ment to institute community noise reduction programs. The primary motivation is
the desire to be good neighbors and to maintain good community relations. Through
discussions with industrial plant management, it was found that the large national
corporations are usually particularly sensitive to public opinion. Funds and personnel
are usually made available to reduce noise that generates community complaints.
Often, plant management anticipates community reaction.
The site selection and industrial plant design processes, together with the local
government control of industrial zoning, provide the motivation and the early oppor-
tunity for noise abatement. During this early phase of industrial plant development,
the most economical application of noise reduction techniques can be made. Local
3-37
-------
300 LEGAL COMPILATION—NOISE
municipal pressures in the form of noise nuisance ordinances and, more recently,
realistic zoning regulations have produced legal pressures to prevent plant noise.
An additional motivation to reduce plant noise, alluded to earlier, is the Occupa-
tional Safety and Health Act of 1970. This act forms the legal basis for the initiation
of In-plant noise reduction programs. That these in-plant noise sources may be suffi-
ciently high not only to be hazardous to employee hearing but, in addition, to contribute
to the total industrial plant exterior noise picture, can be seen in Table 2-12.
Consumer pressures, which exist for other sources, are not a motivating factor
for plant noise reduction. The purchaser is interested in the product and not in the
manufacturing process.
Method of Approach
The potential for reducing interior and exterior noise of industrial plants is, in
general, excellent. The engineering and architectural techniques for reducing this
noise along its transmission paths are known. However, reducing the noise at its
source may be difficult and expensive (particularly if not included in the original
design of the equipment) and often results In the degradation of performance of the
equipment, machine, or process.
For new plants, application of noise abatement techniques during site selection
and plant design, together with realistic noise level requirements for new equipment
being purchased, provide an economical and effective means for achieving noise level
goals. Many companies are currently developing purchase specifications that con-
tain noise level requirements. An example of this is the parent corporation of the
automobile assembly plant discussed in Chapter 2. This corporation, one of the
"big three" automobile manufacturers, requires suppliers to perform noise studies
at the manufacturer's location under simulated production conditions prior to ship-
ment, to assure compliance with company standards.
3-38
-------
GUIDELINES AND REPORTS 301
An existing plant must achieve noise reduction goals by application of noise reduc-
tion techniques to the acoustical transmission path, since it generally proves to be
difficult and expensive to reduce the noise at the source. Noise of ventilation and
blower systems that terminates outside a building may be reduced by application of
mufflers, acoustical louvres, or simple barriers. Often, relocation of the intake or
exhaust, to take advantage of noise directivity, solves the problem. Furnace noise
evident at power plants and oil refineries has been reduced by redesigned burners,
combined with mufflers at the inlet to the fire box.
Noise inside plants can be, and has been in many instances, effectively reduced
by application of mufflers, vibration isolation, acoustical area treatment, or enclo-
sures. A systems approach must be utilized to ensure that all the major noise
sources are treated. If one noise source in a group of sources is left untreated,
the results of the noise reduction program may prove to be insignificant.
Future Commitment
The case studies discussed in Chapter 2, though representing only a small portion
of the total industrial activity in the country, illustrate the range of industrial involve-
ment associated with noise reduction programs.
Projected Impact of Plant Noise
It is anticipated that the noise levels due to industrial plants will not increase in
level or importance relative to the noise from construction activity, surface transpor-
tation, or aircraft. As in-plant noise abatement efforts motivated by the Occupation
Safety and Health Act of 1970 succeed and local nuisance laws and zoning ordinances
are adopted, noise levels will be reduced.
As noise abatement efforts successfully reduce the levels of transportation and
construction activity noise, plant noise will become more important as a source of
community annoyance. When this occurs, community pressures for noise abatement
3-39
-------
302 LEGAL COMPILATION—NOISE
can be expected, and the necessary abatement programs may be expected to result
in resolution at a local level.
3-40
-------
GUIDELINES AND REPORTS 303
CONSTRUCTION INDUSTRY EFFORTS*
The construction Industry consists of two major sectors: equipment manufactur-
ing and equipment operation (i.e., building construction). The functions of these two
sectors of the industry are so different as to warrant separate discussion.
Equipment Operation
This sector of the construction inudstry is described in detail in Chapter 2, iden-
tifying types and phases of site activity and describing the areas in which noise abate-
ment can be achieved. The construction industry has, until recently, been relatively
uninvolved in efforts to quiet site operations. Its attitude may be attributed in part to
the fact that quiet equipment has not yet been made generally available on a cost-effec-
tive basis; however, a limited capability does exist for quieting a site by relocating
or rescheduling equipment. This sector has not exercised its influence as a consumer
to bring pressure to bear on the equipment manufacturers, nor has it responded to
public complaints. Thus, regulatory measures may be the only solution to the problem
of construction site noise, and such regulations are imminent.
Equipment Manufacturers
There are approximately 2000 manufacturers** of construction equipment in the
U.S. In total, these companies offer about 200 different products. For the purposes
of assessing the state of noise control in this sector of the construction industry, 48
general types of products that are potentially significant noise sources were cate-
gorized. These product types may be grouped into three orders of classification:
(1) class of noise problem anticipated, (2) relation of equipment to function at the
* See transcripts of EPA hearings held in Atlanta, San Francisco, and Washington,
D. C.
** Defined by counting separately certain divisions of larger firms that have a high-
ly identifiable product line.
3-41
-------
304 LEGAL COMPILATION—NOISE
site, and (3) specific equipment names. Manufacturers of construction equipment can
be classified according to size/type of equipment produced as
• Large companies producing large volumes of essentially similar, large items
of machinery.
• Medium-sized companies maintaining customized production runs of more
limited numbers, usually of smaller machinery.
• Manufacturers of power hand tools and pneumatic equipment.
An overview of the equipment manufacturing industry showed that
1. Large companies employ methods closely resembling the Detroit assembly
line manufacturing concept. They tend to have large engineering staffs and
are advanced in their efforts toward developing quieter products. They are
aware of the competitive advantage of quieting equipment but are also sensi-
tive to price competition from smaller companies and foreign manufacturers.
2. Medium-size companies producing customized items tend to feel more
keenly the competitive pressures of the market place. Competition comes
not only from domestic and foreign companies but also from manufacturers
of other types of equipment that can perform the same operation. Engineer-
ing staffs tend to be small and product oriented, interested only in improve-
ments that incorporate new technology (e.g., hydraulic vs mechanical
drive). Little effort has been made toward quieting products. The pressures
of current and planned noise control legislation being passed on to suppliers
of their components. They generally have no plans or see no need for fur-
ther developing noise control technology.
3. Manufacturers of hand power tools and pneumatic equipment fall into two
categories: large multiproduct companies that tend to mount considerable
R&D efforts and smaller companies that are not so innovative but that
3-42
-------
GUIDELINES AND REPORTS 305
follow trends developed by the larger companies. Noise control has been
pursued vigorously by these larger companies as part of their product
improvement programs, but effective quieting of hand tools is difficult be-
cause of such practical constraints as size and weight.
In-depth interviews and testimony given at various EPA hearings revealed that
in the past the industry's concern with noise problems has been directed primarily
to protection of the equipment operator. The impetus for noise control concern
came also from noise codes imposed by foreign countries, where some U.S. equip-
ment has had to be reworked by foreign distributors. Three of eight large equipment
companies queried during this report effort nad previously quieted equipment to enter
European markets. Switzerland and Belgium specify noise emission limits for such
machinery; in addition, foreign manufacturers make quieter machines and set a
competitive pace in foreign markets. American manufacturers seem to have met
this competition by custom-designing equipment for export. There is an implication
here, of course, that many American machines marketed abroad have been quieter
than counterparts marketed domestically; however, this implication has not been
adequately investigated.
Half the companies queried are currently undertaking their initial programs to
quiet their products for the domestic market. Many of the present programs have
been started this past year and are aimed primarily at protecting operators, so as
to conform to impending legislation/regulation regarding occupational health and
safety.* Only one of the companies indicated that purchasers complain about pro-
tection for operators on their own initiative, and only one case emerged in which a
Extensive testimony as to industry plans and current efforts in this regard was
received at the EPA hearings held in Atlanta, Dallas, Chicago, Denver and
Washington, D. C.
3-43
-------
306 LEGAL COMPILATION—NOISE
union had lodged a formal complaint. Six of the eight large companies described
pressures on behalf of operators that originated with existing or proposed governmen-
tal action.
Many manufacturers feel that the efforts they are now making on behalf of equip-
ment operators will pay off in meeting future noise limits designed to protect the
public. One of the manufacturers of large equipment has charged design teams with
the responsibility of integrating noise control into the overall design of the next gen-
eration of products and has set up review boards to evaluate new designs from all
standpoints, including noise.
Four of the eight large companies are specifically influenced by the recently
enacted Chicago noise ordinance as a contributor to their future objectives. The in-
dustry generally anticipates EPA-administered federal control; the visits of inter-
viewers reinforced this feeling. The management of two companies believes that
pressures for quieting will increase with time—apparently as a result of an increas-
ing public awareness of noise as an environmental pollutant.
Although the industry has become increasingly aware of the pressures for noise
control and has already made some efforts in this area, manufacturers must cope
with economic pressures that argue against noise abatement.* For some companies,
intensity of competition sets the limits on what price the market will bear. One of
the industry's leaders was concerned that purchasers will continue using old equipment
if prices rise significantly. Other industry leaders point out that foreign-made
machines (some of them already quieted) will enter the American market if prices rise
appreciably. One company predicted that a small rise in the price of truck-mounted
* The following comments relative to economic aspects of noise control are in the
main as applicable to other sources of noise as to the specific case of construc-
tion equipment.
3-44
-------
GUIDELINES AND REPORTS 307
concrete mixers would lead to the introduction of alternative methods for concrete
delivery and production.
Companies who feel that the demand for their products is great enough to plan to
pass quieting costs onto the consumer, although such threats as foreign competition
and alternative methods, put limits on this process. The question involved is how fast
the industry can afford to move. One limit on rapid movement is price competition.
One company may be able to beat its competitors to the market with a quiet machine
but may believe that it cannot raise prices substantially in the face of competition.
Companies approach this problem differently. Most express the intention to meet or
exceed the competition, but they feel that any great competitive advantage gained
through an all-out effort to quiet their products would be short lived. One company
sees its competition as being extremely severe and fears that it may not be prepared
for the next round of quieting, while another company has actively launched a program
designed to produce quieter machines at lower costs than the competitor will incur.
There is also the concern that often accompanies any industry leadership; i.e.,
a company may invest large sums to quiet equipment thus increasing the cost of
products, while another company that refuses to quiet products may keep its prices
low and may try to challenge noise regulation in the courts.
While all companies regard cost as an immediate—and perhaps the ultimate—con-
straint, two other constraints become paramount if, and as, costs diminish: time
and technology. Three companies, each in a different fashion, reported that costs
can be traded for development time; i.e., more time for development would reduce
the cost of competition, allowing quieting techniques to be integrated into planned
engineering efforts and to be an integral part of the seasonal progression of models.
The very company that is setting out to achieve the most quieting for the least cost
is the one that feels that technology will eventually supercede cost as the principal
3-45
-------
308 LEGAL COMPILATION—NOISE
factor limiting quieter equipment. At another firm, the technical limitations were
spelled out in terms of:
1. Loss of equipment power through increased muffling.
2. Increase in the difficulties and cost of maintenance.
3. Fire hazards through using insulating materials that can become oil-soaked.
4. Unsafe operation by suppressing or distorting the noise signals upon which
operators depend for safety.
5. Ineffective operation, by disturbing these same signals, thus hindering the
ability of the operator to tell how effectively he is operating.*
The industry also voiced concern over the feasibility of noise abatement where
equipment and materials being interact to become prominent sources of noise; e.g.,
concrete mixers (where the structure may be the noise radiator); jack hammers
(where the tool and its driving media may be the offender); riveters (where the struc-
ture of the building may be the primary source); and pile drivers (where both the
structure and the media may be significant sources). This interaction-type noise
source may be difficult to quiet.
No firm visited condemned noise limits out-of-hand, nor did they deny their
inevitability. The management of six of the eight companies expressed the opinion
that unless they quieted their products, their markets would disappear. Feelings
varied from acceptance of the inevitable to enthusiastic approval of the trend.
Regulatory bodies outside the construction industry have begun to exercise some
influence in the area of noise abatement. Within the industry, the Construction In-
dustry Manufacturers Association, the Engine Manufacturers Association, and the
national standards-setting bodies of American Society for Testing Materials and
See transcripts of EPA hearings held in Atlanta and Washington, D. C.
3-46
-------
GUIDELINES AND REPORTS 309
the Society of Automotive Engineers are actively addressing the problems of measuring
equipment noise and recommending standards. The equipment manufacturing industry
would like to coordinate its activities with those of its closely related standards -setting
bodies. However, self-regulation via industry-initiated standards is more than some-
what hindered by federal anti-trust provisions.
As yet, no broad controls have been established. Industry tends to assume that
the example set by the City of Chicago equipment noise ordinance will stimulate other
similar action, eventually resulting in a proliferation of standards at the local level.
Projected Impact of Construction
Projecting conditions to the year 2000 involves a number of uncertainties. One
of these is the exponential rate at which technology is evolving and affecting society.
Technological innovation, however, is not the only factor to be considered. One can-
not account for future changes in social attitudes. Although long-term predictions
are fraught with such difficulties, one can still make educated guesses with a reason-
able level of confidence. Bather than merely extrapolating existing conditions to the
indefinite future, the following projections of the impact of noise are based on fore-
casts of population, family size, gross national product, and trends toward urbaniza-
tion. Construction activities will continue to follow such growth patterns, although
the character of construction may change significantly with greater use of prefabri-
cated materials and the introduction of new kinds of equipment. Also, rather than
trying to account for conflicting trends and changing attitudes, the projected extent of
exposure is based on the assumption of no change in noise level for given equipment
and considers only major trends that can be easily identified. (Obviously, by incor-
porating available technology, and with active regulatory participation at the various
levels of government, the projected far-term impact could be avoided.)
3-47
-------
310 LEGAL COMPILATION—NOISE
The following U.S. Census Bureau data has been employed in projecting the in-
crease in exposure to noise:
1970 2000 Ratio
GNP (billions oŁ 1958 dollars) 720 2240 3.2
Total Population (millions) 200 293 1.45
Total Number of Households (millions) 63 104 1.65
People per Household 3. 17 2.8 0.9
Given the predicted increase in population and in financial resources, fairly
extensive building activity can be expected. However, the urban areas have limited
space available for new building; thus, the trend is for areas outside those now iden-
tified as central cities to become urbanized. Figure 3-6 illustrates this trend for
single-family, multifamily, and nonresidential construction activities. With available
land becoming more and more scarce within the central city, the building of single-
family and multifamily dwellings will continue to decrease sharply. By the year 2000,
we can expect to find approximately one-third the number of residential construction
sites as were active in 1970. Nonresidential building is expected to increase. In
areas outside the central cities, both residential and nonresidential construction
should increase significantly. Nonresidential building activity is expected to increase
by over 50 percent as the present suburbs become urbanized. With this general trend
in mind, the data given above has been used to project the expected increase in ex-
posure to noise from construction activities.
Nonresidential
The level of nonresidential construction activity in any given year is assumed to
be proportional to the real Gross National Product (GNP) for that year. To find the
nonresidential construction activity for any particular year, the ratio of the GNP for
that year to the 1970 GNP is multiplied by the number of nonresidential sites built in
3-48
-------
GUIDELINES AND REPORTS
311
1970
1980
1990
CENTRAL CITY
2000
Q
z
o
§ 4
03
LU
o
cc
uj „
CO 2
5
Z
777777/7
SINGLE FAMILY/ /
/ / / / / / //
1970
1980 1990
OUTSIDE OF CENTRAL CITIES
2000
Figure 3-6. Number of Building Construction Sites Projected to the Year 2000
3-49
-------
312 LEGAL COMPILATION—NOISE
1970 (Table 3-8). The resulting total construction figures are apportioned between
"central cities" and "other metropolitan areas" in the same proportions as occurred
in 1970. Despite the expected decrease in total construction sites within the central
city, nonresidential sites are expected to increase.
Residential
It is assumed that the population and population density of central cities will re-
main at their present levels until the year 2000 and that most residential construc-
tion in central cities will be for the purpose of replacing decayed units rather than
for housing additional population. The number of construction sites will decrease due
to the established trend toward an increasing number of multifamily dwellings over
single-family dwellings. (Two- to four-family houses, which represent a negligible
fraction of total construction, are included in the total for single-family housing.)
For metropolitan areas other than suburbs, It is assumed that the number of
units constructed in any one year will be proportional to the population increase in the
previous 10 years. To estimate this increase, the total metropolitan population is
projected by multiplying the projected total national population by the estimated pro-
portion of the population living in metropolitan areas. All the increase in metropoli-
tan area population for a particular year is ascribed to noncentral city areas.
Roads
A simple but plausible indication of road construction activity, is the population
level. Clearly,additional people will require additional roads, the capability of rapid
transit being small at present. However, the urban areas have limited space for new
roads, and urban residents are expressing increasing opposition to new road construc-
tion on grounds of aesthetics, pollution, and the community dismemberment concomi-
tant with the installation of limited access highways. Thus, it would seem unlikely
3-50
-------
GUIDELINES AND REPORTS
313
5
R
o
I
H
O
§
O
z
a
ls
7^
•^ s
s ^
I-'
O 0) rS
I*1
ridential
dings
f sites)
Ł3 o
™ 3 •
c M o
o e
fc -'
ill
" *" «4H
J§°.
* 1
§
•a
S
1
S
o
*H
•*•»
00 O O
CO rH t-
co oo
CO O O
t™ 1C O
CM rH O
CM" to"
CM CO rH
m o CM
Ol OS O
rH ^T CM
oo oo Cft
o o m
t— in in
00 rH CM
CM O
rH
. CO
^1 flj
^ -JJ •Ł
g B 1 »
fl II 1
S>! &1 S
^ C H Q (-«
rt 53 cj S **
(-4 O (J O O
m o
to m
oo m
w" rn"
rH CO
o o
o o
00 t>
rH* rH*
rH ^CM
m oo
rH 1C
Oi t-
O CO
CO rH
O Ol
o r-
co t-
CM OO
tO rH
CM rH
•s
1
.1 II
«M rH tfj
« rt o
jj ^ §
h i2 h
D S3
CO
m
to
0*
(Ł>
CO
CM
cn
rH
IO
to
r^
CM
rH
I
3-51
-------
314 LEGAL COMPILATION—NOISE
that road construction will rise as fast as other measures such as the GNP. There-
fore, the future level of road construction has been obtained by multiplying the present
level of activity by the ratio of the projected population, divided by the current popula-
tion.
The number of people affected by construction site noise is computed In the manner
described in Chapter 2. Population densities for all metropolitan areas were assumed
to be constant with time—4500 people/square mile for central cities and 2400 people/
square mile for other metropolitan areas. At any one site, people are apportioned to
specific transmission loss intervals as shown in Figure 3-7.
The resulting exposure to construction noise is given in Figure 3-8 in person-
hours. In this figure, multifamily residential construction is included with nonresi-
dential construction, since these types of building activites are similar. Note
that the number of people exposed to noise from single-family dwelling construction
declines steadily with time. This trend is more than compensated for by the rapid
increase in nonresidenttal and multifamily sites—for which the duration of construc-
tion is typically six times greater than the duration for single-family houses. Thus,
the number of person-hours of exposure is expected to increase by about 50 percent
in the next 30 years.
3-52
-------
GUIDELINES AND REPORTS
315
§
o
f-
•o
0)
t<
a
3-53
-------
316
LEGAL COMPILATION—NOISE
3.0
co
O
O
O
s
o>
oo
tr
O
UJ
cc
3
8
a.
X
O
CO
oc
O
CO
cc
2.5
NONRESIDENTIALAND
MULTIFAMILY RESIDENTIAL-
2000
Figure 3-8. Projected Change in Exposure to Construction Noise,
Assuming No Change in Noise Levels
3-54
-------
GUIDELINES AND REPORTS 317
APPLIANCE INDUSTRY EFFORTS*
In general, the industry's attitude toward noise control is so direct a function of
market place pressure that noise control technology often exceeds application.
Appliance manufacturers tend to maintain R&D and product engineering staffs that
are capable of delivering more noise reduction than market strategy can justify. In
fact, some companies have tried—unsuccessfully—to market quiet products, such
as vacuum cleaners, blenders, and hair dryers; others have developed a number of
quiet prototypes that were not put into production.
Consumer research shows low noise levels are not highly valued by many cus-
tomers. Several companies keep systematic track of customer correspondence,
while the industry itself maintains a Major Appliance Consumer Action Panel
(MACAP) that acts as a clearinghouse for complaints. These records, all of which
concern major appliances, show relatively little complaint about noise. For example,
only 5 percent of the letters to MACAP in the first 8 months of 1971 concerned
noise.
The objectives for quieting household appliances seem to vary with the market
pressures on particular products. With this observation in mind, a discussion of
noise control efforts is organized around the problem appliances that have been
identified.
Air Conditioners
There is probably more market pressure to quiet air conditioners than to quiet
any other household appliance. Since air conditioners emit noise both indoors and
out, they frequently affect not only the purchaser and his family but also neighbors
and passersby. Both kinds of emissions generate pressure for noise reduction.
See transcripts of EPA hearings held in Dallas and San Francisco regarding
appliance noise.
3-55
-------
318 LEGAL COMPILATION—NOISE
Pressure from neighbors takes the form of local noise ordinances that specify maxi-
mum sound-emission levels at a property line; this pressure is passed on to the
manufacturer, as one company pointed out, by dealers or marketing men who are
aware of the ordinances.
One such company reports spending 3 man-years per year on air conditioner
noise control; 1 man-year per year was a more frequently mentioned level of effort.
While the product policy people generally reported that they were making maximal use
of available quieting technology, the study-project acousticians who initiated the inter-
views felt that current state-of-the-art technology was not being universally applied.
Two estimates were received indicating that quieting room air conditioners
adds 10 to 15 percent to the price. There may also be an inherent tradeoff between
quietness and efficiency (since one way to reduce air noise is to decrease air velocity).
Sometimes, quieting results in increasing the air conditioner's physical dimensions,
thus detracting from appearance as well as from convenience and ease of installation.
There may also be a trend toward model lines differentiated by noise output; i.e.,
and expensive quiet air condition and a cheaper noisier model. One manager pointed
out that there are antitrust constraints against organizing industry consensus on
noise levels.
Dishwashers and Food Disposers
The mechanical differences between dishwashers and disposers do not alter the
fact that noise control pressures are similar and that the manufacturers' approach to
quieting is similar. Quiet is a saleable characteristic in dishwashers and disposers,
although the pressures for quieting are not so great as for air conditioners. While no
advertising campaigns built exclusively on quiet are apparent, it is advertised with the
same prominence given to power and reliability.
3-56
-------
GUIDELINES AND REPORTS 319
Dishwashers and disposer noise are not currently under public regulation, hence
the incentive for quiet comes almost exclusively from the purchaser. This gives rise
to marked differences between models; if one wishes, one can buy an inexpensive,
noisy dishwasher or disposer. Reports from the industry indicate that landlords
frequently do just that.
Dishwashers present a promising example of industry's response to the purchaser's
desire for lower noise levels. In a 1970 survey by the United States Steel Co., 48 per-
cent of dishwasher owners had no complaints about their appliance, but of those who
did, more complained about noise than about any other aspect of its operation. Both
survey data and marketing lore indicate that the purchaser who has previously used
these appliances puts a higher value on quietness than does the new user.
The costs of quieting were estimated by one dishwasher manufacturer to be
10 percent and by another to add $1. 00 to $2.00 to manufacturing costs. A disposer
manufacturer felt that quieting would add 12 percent to a product cost, whereas a
retailer of disposers estimated 18 percent. It was felt that quieting these machines
might deny their availability to those least able to pay.
In the case of dishwashers, one manufacturer indicated the possibility of trade-
offs between noise and maintenance coats and reliability. Another manufacturer
indicated a tradeoff between water velocity and quiet but expressed the opinion that
there are no sertous technical restraints to quieting dishwashers.
In the case of disposers, industry claims inherent problems with water and
grinding noise (especially with the noise of grinding bones). Some noise is considered
3-57
-------
320 LEGAL COMPILATION—NOISE
necessary to the user's safety, so he will know when the disposer Is operating and
when it has finished grinding.
Vacuum Cleaners
The manufacturers of vacuum cleaners believe that the market pressures are for
noisy machines. The three manufacturers and one large retailer interviewed are all
convinced that customers use noise as the basis for judging a machine's power. For
example, after concentrated technical effort, a manufacturer had significantly re-
duced the noise from a canister model without reducing its cleaning capability. House-
wives v/ho participated in a marketing trial wanted to know if the machines were really
cleaning. Neither of the large private label retailers consulted during this report effort
mention quiet as a design goal. One company that carefully analyzes its correspond-
ence from customers finds virtually no noise complaints about vacuum cleaners or
any of its other portable appliances.
A reasonable level of engineering effort has produced feasible solutions to vacuum
cleaner noise; according to all Interviewed, however, these solutions are
not being applied to products that are sold, because vacuum cleaner manufacturers
and retailers do not sense a demand for quieter products. In fact, the sale of upright
cleaners, whose beaters make them noisier, is growing at the expense of the
canister models. Apparently, the beater action of upright cleaners can better handle
the new deep-pile weaves that make modern carpets harder to clean. There are tech-
nological limits to the quieting of upright vacuum cleaners, because of the interaction
between the beater and the carpet, but the noise levels of production models seem
to be determined by customer usage demand rather than by technological limitations.
Other Major Appliances
Quieter clothes washers, clothes dryers, and refrigerators tend to be byproducts
of engineering originally undertaken with other objectives in mind. The classic case
3-58
-------
GUIDELINES AND REPORTS 321
is a washing machine model that was incidentally quieted when two gears were removed
from the power train to save cost. In the context of product improvement, noise is
generally treated as a secondary design goal, although manufacturers are concerned
that engineering changes may produce noisier products. For example, refrigerators
are becoming larger and noisier as manufacturers seek to meet the demand for spe-
cial options such as ice makers; a spinner-type washing machine produced higher
noise levels when spinner speed was increased to 2000 rpm.
Two of four manufacturers interviewed make quiet models of washing machines
that sell at a $10 to $20 premium; sales for both lines are disappointing. None of the
other models of these companies are marketed on the basis of quiet nor do the mail-
order catalogues feature quiet. The single exception is a spinner-type washer in
which "quiet operation" appears in the small-type description. There is, then,
relatively little evidence of pressure for quieting appliances of this type.
Yet, despite the weakness of market pressure, considerable quieting effort has
gone into the design of these appliances, especially washing machines. One manu-
facturer mentioned six different quieting projects that have recently been completed
or are underway. A refrigerator manufacturer mentioned an efforf to avoid strange
or unidentifiable noise. No specific efforts to quiet dryers were uncovered.
So far, a number of sophisticated techniques have been applied to dishwashers:
isolation, damping, and part redesign. Manufacturers of both dishwashers and
disposers have tried to improve the quality of installation by providing carefully
drawn instructions and flexible fittings. One company has reduced noise on its top-
line dishwasher from 82 to 76 dB(A) (at an unspecified distance) since 1967 and plans
a further reduction in the next few years. Another manufacturer expressed only the
desire to keep abreast of the competition; this company tests each machine for noise,
rejecting under 1 percent.
3-59
-------
322 LEGAL COMPILATION—NOISE
None of the manufacturers Interviewed Intends to give up his noisier economy
lines; goals did not seem to be appreciably influenced by the prospects of noise regu-
lation. The company representatives interviewed claimed to have adequate acoustic test
facilities, although the efforts devoted to testing and to development varied widely In
quantity and quality.
Small Appliances
During the interviews, incidental information was gathered from five different
companies concerning 11 small appliances: blenders, can openers, coffee mills,
electric knives, fans, hair dryers, ice crushers, knife sharpeners, mixers, oral
lavages, and electric tooth brushes. Manufacturers feel that there Is public pressure
for these appliances to sound as though they are "really doing their jobs." One manu-
facturer offered the generalization that, in the small appliance field, the quality of
the sound is more important than the quantity. An appliance must sound right.
Some must sound powerful, some reliable, and none as though they are malfunction-
ing or undergoing excessive wear. This manufacturer expressed the belief that an
accurate interpretation of the customers' desires In these areas Is a condition for
remaining in business.
This market pressure leads to diverse noise-control objectives, both among
companies and between product lines produced by a single company. Customer com-
plaints were reported concerning the noise from fans and hair dryers, and one marketing
executive was quoted as believing that quiet is a saleable aspect of mixers. One
company that does not manufacture the ice crusher sold under its label put
a fairly high value on quietness in selecting the model it sells. Yet, none of these
small appliances were described as quiet in either of the two mail-order catalogues
that we examined. Blenders and electric can openers were specifically described by
3-60
-------
GUIDELINES AND REPORTS 323
the managers interviewed as being appropriately noisy. A company that was not
interview was cited as having quieted a blender; in so doing, they slowed it down so
that it became less efficient. At least one laboratory is seeking entirely new ways of
comminuting foods that could be both quieter and cheaper than blenders. Another is
designing a screw-type crushing tool that will substitute a growling sound for the
raucous sound of the chipper employed in ice crushers.
There is also a search for fan blade configurations that will eliminate certain
predominant frequencies and that will produce a more pleasing sound. In addition to room
fans, this experimentation includes hair dryers, for which quieter designs for air pass-
ages are also being sought.
Rubber feet have been added to electric coffee mills to reduce vibration noise,
but shielding is not being used because of its adverse effects on costs, size, and
aesthetic design. Plastic beaters for mixers promise to reduce both noise and costs.
Many of these appliances are powered by universal-type motors, which are
inexpensive, powerful for their size, but noisy. The size-power ratio is considered
important in such appliances as hand mixers, electric knives, can openers, and
motor-in-the-bonnet hair dryers. Conventional hair dryers also embody a tradeoff
between speed and quiet; one hair dryer model that was marketed as "quiet" took
30 to 75 minutes longer to dry hair than faster, noisier models.
Speed or the potential power that speed permits was cited as important in electric
knives, can openers, and blenders. In the case of blenders, one engineer argued
that, if they were slowed down, the intensity of the noise would simply be traded for
noise duration, with no lessening of resulting impact. There is also reported to be
a tradeoff for electric tooth brushes between noise and cleansing effectiveness.
Cases of limitations on quieting were pointed out for knife sharpeners in which
there is grinder-blade interaction, as well as for blenders in which rotating knives are
3-61
-------
324 LEGAL COMPILATION—NOISE
essential and a glass casing is necessary if the housewife is to visually monitor pro-
cess. In the case of blenders, there is hesitation to experiment with consumer
preferences, since the already intense domestic competition is being raised by the
entrance of foreign products into the market.
Small appliance manufacturers make frequent use of subjective noise judgments
in their developmental work. Their product laboratories tend to be less sophisticated
than those for major appliances, although many have access to highly sophisticated
central acoustical laboratories. One small appliance manufacturer tests new products
in his employees' homes. If employees object to the noise the new model makes, they
are asked if they would be willing to pay for a quieter product. The general result of
this approach is to make this manufacturer pessimistic about the economic payoff
from quieter products.
Although specific noise goals are hard to identify in the appliance industry and
although some manufacturers seem discouraged with the return on their efforts to
date, all those interviewed plan to persist in quieting their products. Technological
limits have not yet been reached. One manufacturer believes that the earlier compe-
tition that emphasized compactness has now been replaced with an emphasis on quiet.
Accordingly, industry generally plans to hold the size of future models constant and
to concentrate on producing quieter models, while presumably keeping prices within
competitive limits.
Projected Impact of Appliance Noise
It is assumed that the probability of future appliance ownership as a function of
income level will remain the same and that appliance costs will remain approximately
the same in current dollars. With these assumptions in mind, approximation of appli-
ance use was based on projected population, family income, and income distribution.
3-62
-------
GUIDELINES AND REPORTS 325
This estimation is probably conservative, since some appliances are continuing to
increase their acceptance in all income levels, although their growth of acceptance
is low at the higher income levels, in which some appliances have nearly saturated the
market. For those appliances for which insufficient information is available on appli-
ance possession at the various income levels, future possession was estimated from
current marketing information on percentage of replacement sales and on market
penetration.
In projecting future impact, it was estimated that appliance usage will remain
approximately at current levels and that there would be no change in their noise levels.
Supporting the usage assumption is the little deviation shown in average time spent by
homemakers in using appliances over the last 40 years.
Figure 3-9 illustrates the increase in exposure to appliance noise by plotting
hearing-impairment risk and speech and sleep interference in person-hours of ex-
posure. As explained in Chapter 2, these three effects are among the most salient and
tangible consequences of noise exposure and can thus be most readily interpreted in
nontechnical terms. As can be seen on Figure 3-9, the number of person-hours
during which people will be exposed to the risk of hearing damage will more than
double in the next 30 years, as will the number of person-hours during which normal
conversation will be difficult and during which people will be either awakened or pre-
vented from falling asleep. Obviously, by incorporating available technology the
projected impact can be avoided.
3-63
-------
326
LEGAL COMPILATION—NOISE
3.0
HEARING IMPAIRMENT RISK
SPEECH AND SLEEP
INTERFERENCE
1980
.1990
2000
YEAR
Figure 3-9. Projected Change in Exposure to Appliance Noise, Assuming
No Change in Noise Levels
3-64
-------
GUIDELINES AND REPORTS 327
ECONOMIC ASPECTS OF NOISE ABATEMENT
Information on the adverse effects of noise and the costs associated with various
types of abatement measures is contained in several chapters of this Report. Much
of the information obtained during public hearings held by EPA under PL91-604 also
addressed the economic aspects of noise. However, at this time, the rudimentary
state of knowledge regarding costs, benefits, and the impact of abatement expenditures
upon the national economy makes it extremely difficult to undertake an economic analy-
sis related to this problem.
As background material for this Report, EPA commissioned a study of the economic
impact of noise, NTID300.14 referenced at the beginning of this chapter. This study
provides a general overview of some aspects of the problem, discusses the limitations
of existing data, and indicates the need for additional research and analysis in this
area.
To evaluate alternative noise abatement strategies, there are three major types
of economic considerations to be evaluated:
1. The magnitude of the benefits derived in terms of damages avoided and
positive gains attained.
2. The costs of attaining various levels of control included.
3. The impact of abatement costs on the economy.
With a better understanding of these economic factors, it should be possible in the
future to evaluate alternative control strategies and to identify cost-effective solu-
tions .
3-65
-------
328 LEGAL COMPILATION—NOISE
SUMMARY
Much of the strength of the nation's economy, and the accompanying high standard
of living, result from technical innovation and its utilization by industry in the develop-
ment of new and better machines. Generally, the performance criteria for these
machines are defined in terms of the useful work that they will accomplish and the value
of this work with respect to its cost. The success of any new product is determined in
the market place primarily in terms of the potential economic value of the product to
the customer relative to its total cost, including both initial and operating costs.
In the case of acoustical devices such as musical instruments, hi-fi sets, and
speech communication equipment, sound characteristics are a primary performance
criterion. However, for the other devices, noise is generally an unwanted byproduct
not associated with the primary performance criteria. Only when a need for less noise
is articulated (through customer preference, industry awareness, or public action) does
noise become one of the primary performance criteria. The information feedback
process from the public to industry generally takes many years and often presents a
conflicting set of needs. For example, the purchasers of devices such as motorcycles,
some construction equipment, trucks, and cap pistols consider noise as a positive
indicator of high performance. For the same reasons, the owners of many types of
devices purposely operate them In their noisiest mode. In such cases, in which the
consumer and public interests diverge, industry responds to the consumer until the
offended public articulates its requirements.
One of the best examples of the possible long-term noise accommodation among
industry, public, and the market place is the standard American passenger car. In its
60-year history, it has evolved from a noisy, sputtering, crude, low-powered
vehicle to a relatively quiet efficient high-powered vehicle. Mufflers were
3-66
-------
GUIDELINES AND REPORTS 329
installed before World War I to prevent scaring horses and thus win a wider acceptance
in the market place. Cities and towns set regulations requiring that all cars be
muffled in the 1920's, primarily to ensure that owners retained the original mufflers
in good working order. Without further action in the public sector, industry has
made continuous progress toward quieting the automobile interior to gain wider
acceptability in the market place; and in so doing has also attained reasonably accept-
able exterior noise levels.
However, in most product areas, there has not been any method of placing before
the consuming public the necessary data to provide for consumer choices between
alternatives. Thus, industry has not been able to ascertain what purchasing habits
the public might adopt, given factual alternatives. One means of allowing the public
to express its requirements for quiet would be to provide information on product noise
emission, perhaps by direct product labeling.
During the last few years, various governmental bodies have begun to effect the
public concern by developing and implementing noise regulations for various sources.
With the exception of aircraft noise, for which the federal government has begun to act,
many of the remaining sources are being subjected to a. series of separated, uncoord-
inated, and often conflicting regulations. These actions by the public, as well as the
data presented in this report, show clear evidence of the need for noise reduction.
Most of the sources discussed in this chapter have additional noise reduction
potential that can be attained with application of today's technology. In many cases,
these potential improvements will probably be sufficient to control noise in
the public interest. However, in some cases, present control technology is clearly
3-67
-------
330 LEGAL COMPILATION—NOISE
insufficent to provide necessary noise control, and research is needed. In any case,
the eventual reduction of noise in the nation requires establishment of a balanced
set of noise goals that will enable priorities to be set for systematic exploitation of
existing technology and development of new technology.
Together with these goals, source noise standards and implementing regulations
should be promulgated for those products which are capable of causing excessive noise.
Such standards should have time scales for achievement that are consistent with indus-
trial design, prototype test, and production cycles to encourage the most economical
and effective incorporation of noise performance criteria into the total design of the
product.
Priority should be given to the sources that may constitute a potential hazard for
hearing, which include most of the recreational vehicles, Internal combustion powered
lawn care equipment, and some transportation vehicles. In addition, priority should
be given to all types of aircraft and large highway vehicles associated with the air-
port and freeway noise. Finally, priority should be given to construction equipment
and the noisier elements of city traffic, so that the people living In major cities will
eventually be able to enjoy relaxed conversation outdoors. Without an effective local,
state, and Federal regulatory program, today's noise problems willaffect an ever increas-
ing number of people. The technical components of an effective noise abatement plan must
include both control of noise at its source and preventive Intervention in terms of bal-
anced transportation system planning, land use planning and upgrading of building
construction quality. Such a program, to be effective, requires active regulatory part-
nership between the federal government on the one 'hand and state and local government
on the other, with active participation from industry and the public at large,
3-68
-------
GUIDELINES AND REPORTS 331
CHAPTER 4
LAWS AND REGULATORY SCHEMES
FOR NOISE ABATEMENT »
Legislative interest and action in the area of environmental noise abatement and
control is increasing as the magnitude of the general problem becomes more obvious.
Despite this increased awareness, regulatory schemes on all levels of government are
not fully successful. Generally, the problem can be attributed to two factors, acting
separately or in combination:
1. Poorly written laws that do not provide the needed authority or incentive to
alleviate the problem and that are technically deficient regarding acoustics
and noise measurements.
2. Poor enforcement of existing laws due to Istck of available personnel and to
the lack of knowledge on the part of enforcement officers as to sound measure-
ment equipment and techniques.
The following discussion provides an overview of the entire legal structure regarding
noise abatement and control.
This report is based on data prepared by the Staff of EPA, Office of Noise Abate-
ment & Control and on EPA Technical Information Document NTID 300.4, "Laws
and Regulatory Schemes for Noise Abatement" (EPA Contract 68-04-0032, George
Washington University). See Appendix A regarding procurement of this source
material, which contains bibliographic information.
4-1
-------
332 LEGAL COMPILATION—NOISE
CURRENT GOVERNMENTAL NOISE REGULATION
Noise Abatement Regulation at the Federal Level
General Policy for Federal Noise Abatement and Control
The Noise Pollution and Abatement Act of 1970 was the first legislation to provide
a central focus for overall environmental noise abatement at the Federal level. This
Act required that an Office of Noise Abatement and Control be established in the Environ-
mental Protection Agency (EPA) to carry on research and investigations into environ-
mental noise. The act further directed, in Section 402(c) that, following a determina-
tion by the Administrator of EPA that noise related to a Federal agency's activity or
its sponsored activities is a public nuisance'or Is otherwise objectionable, the Federal
department or agency sponsoring such activity must consult with the Administrator of
EPA to determine possible ways of abating such noise. Previous Federal legislation
had been directed to noise abatement with respect to specific noise sources (such as
aircraft noise) or in regard to special environmental situations (such as occupational
exposure or transportation planning).
Further, the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 has required, since 1 Jan-
uary 1970, that Federal agencies use an interdisciplinary approach to Integrate the
"environmental design arts" Into the decision making process (Section 102(2) (A&B)).
Initially, this new approach to decision making has taken the form of environmental
impact statements required pursuant to Section 102(2) (C) on all "Federal actions"
significantly affecting the human environment. Such statements should, therefore,
include consideration of environmental noise. Sections 102(2) (A&B) are intended to
bring about the synthesis of an environmental awareness within Federal agency decision
making processes.
4-2
-------
GUIDELINES AND REPORTS 333
Noise Abatement and Control of Military and Internal I Jeral Activities:
A Microcosm Example of the General Noise Problems
Preliminary examination of activities of the Federal government to control the
noise produced in the very act of governing and providing protection to the general
society is enlightening. In the military context, many of the noise problems that occur
in the public and private sectors are also experienced. The military services have
been active for a great number of years in noise abatement, and the documents dis-
cussed below are only examples of the many military regulations whose implementation
is described more fully in this report in Chapter 5.
In the nature of a general approach to noise abatement, the Department of Defense
has issued Military Standard (MIL-STD)-1472A to set human design criteria for all new
military systems, equipment, and facilities. This standard adopts certain publications
of the various military branches and is intended to operate concurrently with all other
related military regulations; however, MIL-STD-1472A takes precedence whenever
other regulations conflict with it. Primarily, the standard promulgates objective limits
on noise in areas in which speech communication is necessary.
Under ML-STD-008806B, 21 September 1970 (applicable to all services but used
herein with respect only to the Air Force); Air Force Manual (AFM) 86-5, 1 October
1964; and Air Force Regulation (AFR) 55-34, 5 February 1971)* the Air Force has
policies to reduce noise impact. The first document establishes sound levels that must
be achieved in aircraft cabin spaces. The latter two documents address airbase noise
and direct Air Force efforts to encourage compatible land uses by communities adja-
cent to military airfields and to promote community noise impact reduction programs,
respectively. MIL-N-83155A, 25 March 1970, covers noise suppressors on engine
* The current version of AFR 55-34 is an updated revision of the directive first
issued in 1962.
4-3
-------
334 LEGAL COMPILATION—NOISE
test cells and is a revision of an earlier directive on this subject. AFM 160-25, 1957,
"Engineering Data, Preventive Medicine, and Occupational Health Program," contains
instructions for environmental engineering, evaluation, and control of community noise.
Other noise sources considered by the Federal government in military operations
and in operation of the government itself are occupational and construction noise. In
the area of occupational noise, the Air Force, Navy, and Army have respective hear-
ing conservation programs under AFR 160-3 29 October 1956, as amended through
7 February 1967; BUMEDINST 6260.6B, 5 March 1970; and EM 385-1-1, 1 March 1967.
These programs are primarily designed to protect the hearing of those exposed to the
noise.
In this discussion, construction noise can be broken down into the acoustical char-
acteristic standards that must be achieved in Federal buildings built under contract
with the Federal government and the actual site noise generated during the construction
process. For the first of these noise considerations, the General Services Administra-
tion (GSA), under PBS P3410.5, 12 June 1968; PBS P 3460.1C, 12 June 1968; PBS
4-0950, November 1970; PBS 4-1021, February 1970; and PBS 4-1515-71, April 1971,
has established certain objective standards to be met in various segments of govern-
ment buildings constructed under GSA contract. These standards are designed to re-
duce the impact of noise by providing a buffer between the noise source and the receiver.
While specifications delineate the allowable sound transmission for areas near such
noise sources as mechanical and electrical equipment, there is no attempt to regulate
noise by establishing standards for the equipment itself.
As far as the actual construction site noise is concerned, the Army, in EC 1110-
2-109, 15 June 1970; ETL 1110-3-141, 30 November 1970; and CE-1300, May 1970,
has adopted regulations for noise abatement on both civil and military construction
4-4
-------
GUIDELINES AND REPORTS 335
projects. The previously cited Air Force Manual 160-25 contained noise criteria to
be considered in design of USAF buildings and structures.
With respect to construction contracts for Federal buildings, the Occupational
Safety and Health Act (OSHA) noise standards have been applied by the Department
of Labor pursuant to the Construction Safety Act of 1969. However, there may be a
question as to whether OSHA standards can be applied to construction noise in view
of fundamental differences in physical environment between an open, multistory
construction site and a closed factory work place. In a closed factory environment,
one can assume that the factory owner has control of the entire noise exposure of
his workers. However, on an open construction site, the contractor cannot control
many of the noises that affect his workers. Thus, the engineering controls open to
him are limited, if not nonexistent. There is no reason that hearing protection
devices could not be used, however, to reduce the noise impact to meet the ex-
posure standards. A pilot project is underway, via a GSA contract, to develop base-
line data to these and other questions concerning the applicability of the regulations.
As pointed out earlier in this discussion, the military and internal Federal noise
control operations provide an excellent overview of the noise problems encountered by
the Federal government, as well as other governmental levels. These external Fed-
eral control measures will now be considered in terms of the general category of the
particular noise source.
Transportation Noise Abatement and Control
Federal efforts to bring about transportation noise abatement are directed at air-
craft and highway noise, with the former receiving the greater attention. But concern
and action in the highway noise area are also significant and increasing.
4-5
-------
336 LEGAL COMPILATION—NOISE
Aircraft Noise. The Department of Transportation (DOT) Act of 1966 was the
first statutory authority relevant to aircraft noise. Section 4(a) of the Act directed
the Secretary of Transportation to "promote and undertake research and development
relating to transportation, including noise abatement, with particular attention to
aircraft noise." Although some efforts were undertaken by the Federal Aviation
Administration (FAA) as early as 1960, it was not until the 1968 enactment of Section
611 (PL 90-411), relating to Control of Aircraft Noise and Sonic Boom, as an amend-
ment to the Federal Aviation Act of 1958, that the Federal government undertook an
active program of civil aircraft noise abatement. Considerable impetus to the enact-
ment of this legislation resulted from the Office of Science and Technology study on
jet aircraft noise near airports, completed in 1966. Implementation of this effort to
abate noise at the source began 1 December 1969, with regulations made applicable to
new subsonic aircraft. Regulations with respect to retrofit, sonic boom, SST type
certification, and STOL/VTOL type certification are still in the development stages.
In the Airport and Airways Development Act of 1970, the FAA has a valuable tool
that could be used to abate noise with respect to airports, since the Act declares the
"national policy that airport development projects authorized pursuant to this part shall
provide for the protection and enhancement of the natural resources and the quality of
environment of the Nation." The airport certification provisions of Section 51(b)(l)
direct the Administrator of the FAA to set minimum operational safety standards for
airports served by Civil Aeronautics Board (CAB)-certified air carriers, but do not
apply to the regulation of airport noise levels. The Act is applicable to all projects
involving new airports and runways or extension of existing runways; thus, relatively
few airport developments that might create additional noise escape consideration.
State and local governments gain two leverage mechanisms with respect to such pro-
jects: first, the community acceptance provision of the Act requires that the project
be accepted by communities around the airport before DOT may give its approval;
4-6
-------
GUIDELINES AND REPORTS 337
second, under the state air and water quality certification section, the governor of the
state in which the airport is located must certify that there is "reasonable assurance
that the project . . . will comply with applicable air and water quality standards"
before Federal approval. Since some states have included noise as an air contami-
nant, the noise standards of these states will figure in the development of airports via
this provision of the Act. Unfortunately, the more sophisticated state noise laws are
not generally under such an air quality framework, but, rather, are given separate
consideration. Thus, these states do not have the input potential provided under the
Act.
Highway Noise. Beginning in 1965, the Secretary of Commerce (duties transferred
to the Secretary of Transportation since 1966) was required to "cooperate with the
States ... in the development of long range highway plans . . . which are formulated
with due consideration to their probable effect on the future development of urban areas
of more than fifty thousand population." The first active consideration of highway noise
at the Federal level was Policy and Procedures Memorandum 20-8 of the Bureau of
Public Roads, issued January 14, 1969. Environmental effects, which must be con-
sidered by the state or local sponsor seeking Federal aid, are defined to include "noise,
air, and water pollution." Pursuant to a 1970 amendment to the Federal-aid Highway
Act (PL 91-605), the Secretary of Transportation is directed "to assure that possible
adverse economic, social, and environmental effects have been considered in develop-
ing ... ^Tnd Federally aided highway/ project ..." Further, he is to "develop and
promulgate standards for highway noise levels compatible with different land uses after
July 1, 1972."
Occupational Noise Abatement and Control
Following the lead provided under Federal supply and construction contracts, dis-
cussed earlier, by the Department of Labor regulations under the Walsh-Healey Public
Contracts Act and the Construction Safety Act, the Secretary of Labor carried over
4-7
-------
338 LEGAL COMPILATION—NOISE
these regulations under OSHA. The standards under all three acts are the same.
While the Walsh-Healey regulations carry only a potential penalty of removal of the
contractor from the eligible bidder list for 3 years, the Occupational Safety and Health
Act provides for both civil and criminal penalties.
An interesting feature of the new Act is that a state may take over regulation of a
particular matter through a program of application and acceptance by the Secretary of
Labor, This may provide a technique deserving broader application in the noise abate-
ment area, to avoid potential preemption problems.
The Atomic Energy Commission (AEC), in AEC Manual 0550-01 OS, 25 February
1970, and the Department of Interior, pursuant to the Coal Mine Health and Safety Act
of 1969, have also adopted the OSHA standards for occupational noise programs.
The AEC program is intended, ". . . for the protection of AEC and AEC contractor
employees, the general public, and the environment. ..." The Department of Interi-
or, through the Bureau of Mines, applies the standards to some 1900 licensed under-
ground coal mines.
Construction Noise Abatement and Control
Construction Site Noise. The only Federal activity directed toward noise abate-
ment at construction sites has been considered under the discussion of the Federal
military and in-house government activities. Construction site noises are covered by
the Occupational Safety and Health Act as being a business affecting interstate com-
merce, and the standards adopted for noise exposure by the Department of Labor
under that Act apply to construction sites. Construction activities are enforced in the
Occupational Safety and Health Administration.
Acoustical Characteristics of Buildings. Regarding acoustical characteristics of
buildings, the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) has issued Policy
Circular 1390.2, 4 August 1971, concerning acoustical acceptability of new sites and
4-8
-------
GUIDELINES AND REPORTS 339
existing buildings to be aided by HUD monies. This circular applies noise standards
to programs where none existed previously and replaces the standards of the Federal
Housing Administration (FHA), which is under HUD, to the extent that programs,
". . . have less demanding noise exposure requirements. " The existing noise abate-
ment programs of FHA now must be reviewed concerning their continued applicability.
These programs relate to:
1. Mortgage underwriting in noisy areas near airports (FHA Manual, Vol. Vn,
Book 1, §71453 — new development not be considered for mortgage under-
writing, if site within NEF-40 contpur, pro and con evaluation for NEF-35,
site approved without further consideration for NEF-30 or less.
2. Minimum property standards for multifamily dwellings for which FHA finan-
cial assistance is sought (FHA #2600, reissued February 1971, setting sound
transmission standards and impact noise standards for partitions and floors/
ceilings for developments of multifamily residences supported by FHA money).
Other Noise Sources Controlled at the Federal Level
The Federal Power Commission, acting under the authority of the Natural Gas Act
of 1938 (15 U.S.C. 1717), has directed in 18 C.F.R. §2.69, 1971 (first appearing on
16 July 1970 in 35 Fed. Reg. 11389) that compressors, when used above ground in con-
nection with gas pipelines, must be located and treated so as to reduce the noise im-
pact on the environment.
Noise Sources Regulated at the State Level
Many states are entering the noise control field in earnest, as demonstrated by
the large number of recently enacted state laws in this area (nine during the first half
of 1971 alone). It Is increasingly common for states to establish environmental depart-
ments to deal with noise and other pollutants, and the number of noise sources being
regulated by any single state is growing. The states are also becoming more sophisti-
cated in the writing of noise laws and are beginning to substitute specific decibel limits
4-9
-------
340 LEGAL COMPILATION—NOISE
for subjective standards such as "unnecessary" and "unreasonable," although such
standards have by no means disappeared. A growing number of states are also setting
standards for noise from new vehicles and equipment, forbidding the sale of any that
fall to conform to the standards.
Five states (Florida, Hawaii, Illinois, New York, and North Dakota) have dele-
gated, to departments dealing with environmental affairs, the power to set standards
for the limitation of noise from many sources. All of these states are currently pre-
paring for or conducting hearings on standards, many of which will probably be pro-
mulgated In late 1971 or during 1972. California and Illinois have declared their policy
to be to reduce noise, and both require environmental reports from state agencies.
Illinois has declared It unlawful to create unreasonable and unnecessary noise on one's
properly, while Colorado has established decibel limits on noise permitted to emanate
from any premises.
Following development and adoption of standards In late 1971 and early 1972, the
state programs to combat noise will enter a new phase. The success of these programs
will be determined by the ability of the states to enforce their new laws.
Transportation
California has developed a complex regulatory scheme for controlling airport noise.
The law requires airport operators to monitor takeoff and landing noise and to establish
a noise impact boundary around the airport, with noise at this boundary to be reduced
over the next 15 years. Also, the airport operator must set noise limits on single
takeoffs and landings and must report violations to county enforcement officials. Those
airports failing to come within the noise limits may lose their licenses or face other
state sanctions. The legal basis for the law is the state's licensing power over airports
and the asserted proprietary rights of airports vis-a-vls the scheduled airlines and
other users. Discussions of the legality of this law and the problem of Federal pre-
emption are presented elsewhere In this chapter.
4-10
-------
GUIDELINES AND REPORTS 341
The states have long provided statutory restrictions on noise from motor vehicles,
with 43 states requiring mufflers on vehicles and 15 restricting noise from horns.
Five states set limits on the total vehicle noise, based on subjective standards. Con-
necticut has recently empowered its Commissioner of Motor Vehicles to set noise
limits not to exceed 90 dBA, and New York and Idaho set decibel limits on the operation
of vehicles. California sets standards on noise from the operation of vehicles as well
as noise limits on new vehicles. Colorado and Minnesota have recently enacted legis-
lation patterned closely after the California law. Of these laws, the Idaho law specifies
a limit of 92 dBA measured at 20 feet, while the others provide limits in the range of 88
to 92 dBA measured at 50 feet. California, Colorado, and Minnesota have provisions
for lower limits to take effect in several years.
Five states specifically require mufflers on motorcycles, while California, Colo-
rado, and Minnesota set overall noise limits on these vehicles. As with automobiles
and trucks, the standards will become stricter over time.
Five states require mufflers on boats. Wisconsin delegates to its communities
the power to regulate motorboats.
Snowmobiles have been given increased attention by the states. Maine and Wiscon-
sin require mufflers, while Colorado, Massachusetts, Montana, and New York set
limits on new snowmobiles. Colorado and Massachusetts also regulate noise from the
operation of snowmobiles.
Occupational Noise
Twenty five states have reported existing occupational noise standards of some
kind. These reports were made to the Secretary of Labor pursuant to the Occupational
Safety & Health Act of 1970 and its program for state substitution for the Federal reg-
ulatory framework under the Act. California, as an example of these state frame-
works , has adopted the same standard as that promulgated by the Secretary of Labor
4-11
-------
342 LEGAL COMPILATION—NOISE
under the Walsh-Healey Public Contracts Act. Responses have yet to be received by
the Secretary from 12 states (nine of which plan to exercise their takeover option and
three of which have decided not to enter into temporary agreements with the Depart-
ment of Labor to continue enforcement on the state level during the takeover period).
Construction Site Noise
Colorado alone sets decibel limits on noise from construction sites, namely 80
dBA measured at 25 feet from the source from 7:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. and 75 dBA
measured at 25 feet between 7:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m.
Acoustical Treatment of Bui/dings
The small amount of state regulation in the construction field is directed primar-
ily toward shielding individuals from noise rather than toward restricting noise at its
source. The New York State building code sets standards for sound retardation in new
apartment buildings. Hawaii requires school officials to acoustically treat schools so
as to insulate students from the effects of transportation noise. California forbids new
freeways that increase the noise in existing schools, although state officials may acous-
tically treat the schools so as to prevent an increase in the noise experienced by stu-
dents.
Other Noise Sources
Noise that disturbs the peace is specifically prohibited in 20 states, with 14 dele-
gating this authority to municipalities. The states provide penalties for violations to
a greater degree in this area than any other. A few states regulate commercial noise
in some way. Mississippi, New Jersey, and Nevada delegate this power to localities,
while Delaware and Texas restrict noise from businesses dealing in alcoholic bever-
ages.
4-12
-------
GUIDELINES AND REPORTS 343
Trends and Gaps in State Legislation
More states are entering the field of noise regulation. The number of sources
restricted by any one state is also expanding. The trend in the area of state regulation
is toward more sophisticated, objective laws enforced by environmental agencies.
States tend to adopt laws that set progressively stricter standards over specified time
periods and often direct their laws at the manufacturers.
Despite these encouraging signs, there are still gaps in state regulation. Aircraft
noise is not restricted except in California.* Colorado has taken the steps only in the
direction of control of railroad and construction site noise, and industrial and commer-
cial noise is hardly regulated on the state level. This is also true of household noise.
With some exceptions, states have not been experimenting with new methods of
regulating noise. In particular, there has been a noticeable failure to employ land use
policies to limit the effects of noise. The single exception to this appears to be the
Minnesota statute, which provides for state control over zoning around new stale-
owned airports. This type of implementation technique could be used to a much larger
degree by state governments.
Noise Sources Regulated at the Regional Level
The only significant regional regulation of noise sources is the limit on aircraft
takeoff noise imposed by the Port of New York Authority, which operates Kennedy, La
Guardia, Newark, and Teterboro Airports in the New York City vicinity. Takeoffs are
not permitted if atmospheric conditions and operating procedures would cause a limit
of 112 PNdB to be exceeded at certain measuring points near the airport.**
* But see following discussions regarding division of Federal, state and local
powers.
** The suitability of these rules as effective measures has been challenged by nearby
communities.
4-13
-------
344 LEGAL COMPILATION—NOISE
Noise Sources Regulated on the Local Level
The Information In this portion of the report is based on data gathered from 83
local governments. Many large cities are represented, as well as smaller communi-
ties.
General Noise Laws
Better than two-thirds (69 percent) of the 83 cities examined have either no noise
laws whatever (12 cities) or only general laws covering noise from any source. The
most popular type of general law is that patterned after the Model Ordinance Prohibit-
ing Unnecessary Noises, Issued by the National Institute of Municipal Law Officers
(NIMLO). Over one-third of the cities examined have laws similar to this model ordi-
nance. The model employs subjective criteria and prohibits loud, unnecessary, and
unusual noise. Three cities have ordinances that differ from the NIMLO model but
that apply similar subjective standards. Two other cities set a limit of 80 dBA at 20
feet, or 20 feet from the property line of the noise source. A number of cities combat
noise through the use of public nuisance laws that label excessive noise as a public
nuisance and provide for its abatement.
One of the most popular methods of noise control on the local level is the zoning
ordinance, which sets limits on noise in designated residential, commercial, or in-
dustrial zones. Cities often include quantitative noise level standards in their zoning
ordinances.
Transportation Noise
Aircraft Noise. Six of the cities in this survey place some restriction on noise
from aircraft. These ordinances are of two types:
1. Those that undertake to limit nonflight activity.
2. Those that purport to limit operating noise from aircraft in flight.
4-14
-------
GUIDELINES AND REPORTS 345
In the first category, Denver restricts noise not necessary to flight, while Salt
Lake City regulates noise in ground runup areas. In the second category, Santa Bar-
bara, California, limits noise to takeoffs and landings as well as noise from runup
areas and sonic booms. Scottsbluff, Nebraska, forbids any flight below 2000 feet.
Park Ridge, Illinois, prohibits noise over 95 dBC in designated areas extending from
the runways of O'Hare Airport. Portland, Oregon, limits noise from helicopters.
A discussion of the validity of laws in the second category is presented elsewhere in
this chapter.
Motor Vehicle Noise. Thirty-three municipalities examined require mufflers on
motor vehicles, while 22 restrict horn noise and 12 cities set subjective limits, such as
"unnecessary," on the total noise from vehicles. Three cities set objective limits in
the 90- to 95-dBA range measured at 20 or 25 feet. Chicago and Minneapolis, in re -
cently enacted legislation, set stricter noise limits on vehicle operation, as well as
noise emission standards for new vehicles.
Specific provisions concerning noise from motorcycles were made by four of the
cities examined. Missoula, Montana, and Detroit set subjective limits, while the new
Chicago and Minneapolis laws restrict noise from operation and set a limit on noise
from new motorcycles.
Other Transportation Noise Sources. Chicago regulates noise from boats in its
new law, and Detroit restricts noise from whistles of steamers using its harbor.
Generally cities have been slow to respond to snowmobiles as new noise sources.
Chicago sets objective limits on these vehicles, while Dillon, Colorado, allows them
only on marked trails — of which there are none.
4-15
-------
346 LEGAL COMPILATION—NOISE
Commercial Noise
Noise from commercial establishments or individuals acting in business capacities
is widely regulated at the local level. The nonadvertising regulation In this area can
be divided into five categories:
1. Regulation of business establishments (either all business or particular bus-
inesses) .
2. Regulation of some particular accessory or device used by the business (such
as noisy air-conditioning equipment) or some noisy aspect of the commercial
operation (such as loading or unloading materials).
3. Regulation of musicians.
4. Regulation of music-producing machines.
5. Regulation of sound equipment.
Noise from advertising, especially the use of sound-producing or sound-amplifying
equipment, is heavily regulated on the local level. Itinerant peddlars calling their
wares, stationary sound equipment, and sound equipment mounted on vehicles and air-
craft are either prohibited or subject to strict controls.
Occupational Noise
Two cities have objective decibel limits on the amount of noise to which workers
may be subjected. The Detroit standards are identical to the Walsh-Healey limits pre-
viously discussed. Philadelphia has adopted standards that are less strict than the old
Walsh-Healey limits, with the exception of the maximum limit placed on impact noise.
Construction Noise
Many cities regulate noise from construction sites, using curfews and zoning re-
strictions. Minneapolis sets a noise limit on the entire construction operation, while
Chicago specifies noise limits on most types of construction equipment.
4-16
-------
GUIDELINES AND REPORTS 347
Acoustical Treatment of Buildings
Several cities have requirements concerning the acoustical treatment of buildings.
The new New York City law on multifamily residential buildings sets limits on the noise
that can be allowed to travel between two apartments and between apartments and public
areas of the building. These objective limits are based on measurement standards
adopted by various associations, such as the United States of American Standards
Institute. Before a permit is issued approving the opening of the building to occupants,
the Department of Buildings must be satisfied, as a result of either its tests or those
of an independent firm, that the new building conforms to the limits.
Other Noise Sources Controlled at the Local Level
Disturbing the peace is heavily regulated on the local level. Some cities simply
prohibit such behavior, while others impose curfew and zoning regulations. Domestic
noise is beginning to come under regulation at the local level. The recent Chicago
noise laws cover noise from various home products such as lawnmowers, power tools,
and snowblowers by setting decibel limits for new products. Minneapolis sets a curfew
on this equipment if noise from it causes the noise level at property lines to exceed
specified standards. Sound equipment used for noncommercial activities is also heav-
ily regulated. Some cities ban its use, while others require permits or set curfew
and zoning restrictions. There are also local ordinances pertaining to noisy animals.
As with the states, more cities are developing programs to cope with excessive
noise. Some have established noise abatement offices with special noise monitoring
teams. City noise laws are becoming more sophisticated, substituting decibel limits
for the former subjective standards. These laws also provide for tougher standards
over time. As is true for the states, the success of city antinoise programs will de-
pend upon enforcement of the new laws. Unfortunately, enforcement strains the already
overburdened budgets of many of the nation's cities.
4-17
-------
348 LEGAL COMPILATION—NOISE
Trends and Gaps in Local Legislation
Noise has traditionally been regulated more often at the local level. However,
with the increase in the general environmental noise levels of American cities in re-
cent years, local governments have begun to adopt new laws to deal with this phenom-
enon. Like the states, cities have developed more sophisticated laws covering more
noise sources. These laws are tending to include tougher standards over time and are
often directed at manufacturers. Although the major noise sources are regulated at
the local level, any one city does not have laws governing noise from every type of
noise source. More cities must expand the number of regulated noise sources if local
control of noise is to be more effective.
4-18
-------
GUIDELINES AND REPORTS 349
ANALYSIS OF EXISTING REGULATORY STRUCTURE FOR ENVIRONMENTAL NOISE
ABATEMENT AND CONTROL
Legal Basis for Environmental Noise Abatement and Control Through Private Actions
Private Actions: Private Sector Noise Sources
The more conventional legal theories for abatement and control of noise in the
judicial areas have been nuisance, physical trespass, inverse condemnation, and con-
stitutional damaging. A plaintiff can recover damages on the nuisance theory if noise
generated by the defendant results in a substantial interference with the use and enjoy-
ment of the plaintiff's land, the usual measure of damages being the decrease in the
value of such property. However, such determinations are made in the context of the
particular case wherein the social utility of the noise-maker's activity must be
weighed against the gravity of the harm to the plaintiff. In general, private actions in
nuisance for damages or for injunctive relief have proved to be an inadequate means of
controlling environmental pollution, including excessive and unnecessary noise.
Industrial and commercial noise makers have been permitted, in effect, to treat such
pollution as a social cost to be assumed by the general public, since the number and
amount of court judgments against offending noise sources have not induced a substan-
tial reduction in noise. In brief, such actions have been effective only to the extent
that they have served as incentives for polluting activities to apply new managerial
techniques or technological innovations to the abatement of adverse social impacts.
Private Actions: Government Sector of Government Authorized Noise Sources
In those situations wherein the government is the manager of facilities or the oper-
ator of activities producing noise or has formally sanctioned the operation of facilities
or activities by private participants or entities, resort to the theory of inverse condem-
nation or the allegation of a constitutional taking has been increasingly employed as an
4-19
-------
350 LEGAL COMPILATION—NOISE
alternative to a nuisance suit. The defense of legalized nuisance has proved a formid-
ible barrier to recovery on the nuisance theory. The theory of inverse condemnation
is a means of avoiding the obstacle of sovereign immunity. While inverse condemna-
tion suits have been successful in several situations involving aircraft noise, contro-
versy persists as to whether noise alone (as contrasted with physical trespass) is suf-
ficient to justify recovery and, if so, whether noise-viola ted adjacent landowners can
recover where no overflight takes place. A mild trend is perceptible toward recover-
ies for noise intrusion, especially in slates having constitutional "taken or damaged"
provisions, including recovery by adjacent landowners whose property has not been
officially taken. It is necessary, however, to prove that the injury is peculiar to such
adjacent landowner and not simply that he shares such intrusion with the community at-
large.
Formal Authority for Governmental Control Over Noise Sources and
Noise Effects
In view of the limitations of private suits in providing an adequate environmental
noise quality control technique, various municipal and some state regulatory efforts
have been undertaken, as noted previously; and more comprehensive regulatory schemes
are now under consideration at all governmental levels. It is probable that the com-
merce power affords the Federal government sufficient authority to regulate most, if
not all, noise sources at the national level. The traditional police power provides the
basic formal authority for noise abatement and control measures at the state and local
level. States have considerable latitude in the exercise of the police power, the essen-
tial test being whether there is a perceived public need to be satisfied and whether the
means selected is reasonably appropriate to the achievement of this purpose. The ex-
ercise of the police power is subject to the further limitation that private property can-
not be taken for public use without just compensation, a problem that has frequently
4-20
-------
GUIDELINES AND REPORTS 351
posed difficulties for the courts. However, the development of adequate regulatory
schemes for the control of noise should not raise serious questions with respect to
Constitutional authority,
Distribution of Formal Authority Among Federal, State, and Local Jurisdictions
Illustrative Cases and Materials Relevant to the Commerce Clause and the Police Power
Assuming the basic authority of the commerce power (Federal) and police power
(state/local) to impose effective controls over environmental noise sources, the ques-
tion remains as to which level of government has authority to prescribe and apply
which regulatory measures (ranging from source control to zoning and building codes)
and under what circumstances. Useful guidelines as to appropriate distribution of
authority between the Federal and state/local levels are provided by Supreme Court
decisions following primarily the doctrine of "Cooley vs Wardens of the Port of Phila-
delphia" (1851). In determining whether the power of the Congress to regulate foreign
and interstate commerce was exclusive or might be in part shared with the states, the
Court in "Cooley" adopted a rule that placed a share of the control in the states, the
test being whether a particular subject or activity of commerce requires uniform
national control or whether it is sufficiently local (and unique) in character as to be
more appropriate for state/local regulation. For example, a strong national interest
has been asserted in railway regulation. In "Southern Pacific Co. vs Arizona" (1945),
the Supreme Court, relying on the "Cooley" doctrine, held that the Arizona Train
Limit Law (limiting train length) contravened the Commerce Clause, the majority
opinion stating that "Here examination of all the relevant factors makes it plain that
the state interest is outweighed by the interest of the nation in an adequate, econom-
ical, efficient railway transportation service, which must prevail." But a strong
state/local interest has been recognized in the regulation of the use of interstate as
well as state highways. In "South Carolina State Highway Department vs Barnwell
4-21
-------
352 LEGAL COMPILATION—NOISE
Bros." (1938), a state statute limiting the width and weight of motor trucks, which
was more restrictive than those of most other states, was held not be an undue burden
on interstate commerce even though "interstate carriage by motor trucks has become
a national industry." The Court stated: "Few subjects of state regulation are so pecu-
liarly of local concern as is the use of state highways." But compare "Bibb vs Navajo
Freight Lines, Inc." (1959), wherein the Supreme Court found an Illinois contour mud-
guard requirement for motor freight carriers to be in conflict with the Commerce
Clause even though such local safety measures are normally not found to place an un-
constitutional burden on interstate commerce.
The "states and their instrumentalities may act, in many areas of interstate com-
merce, . . . concurrently with the Federal government' and "Evenhanded local regu-
lation to effectuate a legitimate local public interest is valid unless preempted by
Federal action, ... or unduly burdensome on ... interstate commerce . . . ."
In general, preemption by Federal legislation is not to be inferred "unless the act of
Congress, fairly interpreted, is in actual conflict with the law of the state."
Illustrative Federal Environmental Quality Control Legislation
Evolving regulatory schemes for the abatement and control of environmental noise
will be shaped not only by the authoritative Constitutional decisions apportioning
Federal-state-local power but also by emerging public attitudes as expressed in for-
mal governmental policies toward environmental quality and the recent legislation de-
signed to institutionalize effective supporting programs. The implementation of the
National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, requiring the submission of environmental
impact statements on all Federal actions significantly affecting the quality of the human
environment, has given strong impetus to the consideration of environmental effects of
public programs. The Airport and Airway Development Act of 1970 will certainly re-
quire consideration of the noise factor when new airports are located or existing facil-
4-22
-------
GUIDELINES AND REPORTS 353
ities are modified. Provision for citizen suits in Section 304 of the Clean Air Amend-
ments of 1970 establishes a regularized channel for formally asserting complaints.
Most of the new environmental quality legislation pays appropriate respect to state
and local prerogatives as does, for example, the Environmental Quality Improvement
Act of 1970, which states that "The primary responsibility for implementing this policy
rests with state and local governments." But a striking characteristic of the new leg-
islation is the emphasis placed on cooperative efforts among agencies at the same
level of government, among the various levels of government, and between public and
private sector entities, as illustrated by the Water Resources Planning Act of 1965.
Whether this intent will mature into effective inter-entity working relationships is, of
course, another matter. Since the Federal government is establishing national stand-
ards in given areas (for example, ambient air quality standards and standards regard-
ing emissions of air pollutants from aircraft), it is to be anticipated that difficult prob-
lems of preemption or of conflict arising from other formal or informal actions may
arise unless there is, in fact, dedicated and knowledgeable cooperation among the
various levels of government.
Distribution of Power Among Federal-State-Local Jurisdictions with Respect to Environmental
Noise Abatement and Control
Regulatory Scheme for Aircraft Noise Abatement
Federal Aircraft Noise Abatement Policy and Regulations. As discussed earlier
in this chapter, the authority to prescribe rules and regulations for the control and
abatement of aircraft noise was granted the Administrator of the FAA by amendment
of Title VI of the Federal Aviation Act of 1958 (Public Law 90-411). One of his first
acts was initiating the noise abatement regulatory program of the FAA by promulgat-
ing Part 36, an amendment to the Federal Aviation Regulations, prescribing noise
standards for the type certification of subsonic aircraft.
4-23
-------
354 LEGAL COMPILATION—NOISE
State Aircraft Noise Regulation - Including Transportation Authorities. The gen-
eral policy guidance at the Federal level for distribution of authority among Federal,
state, local, and private entities with respect to the abatement and control of aircraft
noise has not been adequate to decide many practical questions such as: who can con-
trol what by applying which techniques, under what circumstances, and pursuant to
what authority? The situation tends to be further confused by considerable loose lan-
guage in both official reports (policy statements) and in the legal-regulatory commen-
taries concerning "control over aircraft noise." Frequently, little effort is made to
distinguish abatement at the source (noise emitted from the aircraft), abatement
through operational procedures, abatement of the effects of aircraft noise through
specific implementation techniques, abatement of airport noise through multiple tech-
niques , penalties for noncompliance with airport regulations, and remedies for dam-
age caused by aircraft noise.
A few states have undertaken to establish some measure of regulation over the
effects of aircraft noise despite the risks of their eventual negation through a judicial
finding of Federal preemption or of conflict with the Commerce Clause. One tech-
nique has been to establish an authority (intrastate or interstate) that operates an air-
port or airports in a proprietary capacity, as distinguished from governmental opera-
tion, so as to take advantage of the legal concept that a state or. municipality can fix
permissible levels of aircraft noise as the proprietor of an airport that it would not
have the authority to fix in its governmental-legislative capacity. The sensitivity of
the states to Federal preemptive legislation regarding air traffic safety (in-flight,
takeoff, and landing operations) and aircraft noise standards (§611) is illustrated by the
comprehensive California regulations on noise standards' for airports, which are
"based on two separate legal grounds: (1) the power of airport proprietors to impose
4-24
-------
GUIDELINES AND REPORTS 355
noise ceilings and other limitations on the use of the airport, and (2) the power of the
state to act to an extent not prohibited by federal law." This effort goes primarily to
the encouragement of compatible land use near airports, so as to preserve the utility
of the airport to the community while achieving environmental compatibility.
Regulation of Aircraft Noise by Private Actions and Local Ordinances. If states
are seriously inhibited from control over aircraft noise sources, it is evident that
local governments and private citizens can expect little success with the legal re-
courses of municipal ordinances and common law remedies. Judicial experience
since the early 1950's tends to confirm this proposition. Several local ordinances
undertaking to regulate the altitude (and thus flight patterns) of scheduled interstate
aircraft have been struck down (commencing with "All American Airways, Inc. vs
Village of Cedarhurst" (1953), wherein the municipality had enacted an ordinance
making it a criminal offense to fly aircraft over the village at altitudes under 1000
feet, on the rationale that the Federal government has preempted the regulation of
such flight in the interest of safety and that such local restrictions place an undue bur-
den on interstate commerce. While a few courts have demonstrated a degree of toler-
ance for local ordinances establishing nighttime curfews under special circumstances
(small airport with no interstate scheduled air carriers, for example), courts that
have considered such ordinances tend to be highly sensitive to the interstate commerce
implications, especially if scheduled interstate air carriers use the airport. Stress
is often given to such propositions as "air traffic is unique and should be controlled on
the national level" or that "solution of problems in air transportation at the local level
just does not work. It has to be done on a national basis because it is a national opera-
tion."
It is of interest to note that in the context of the "Griggs" case of 1962 (wherein
the plaintiff, in a private action based on inverse condemnation, recovered damages
4-25
-------
356 LEGAL COMPILATION—NOISE
from the airport owner-operator by alleging that the flights of commercial aircraft
over the plaintiff's home caused excessive noise, fear, and physical damage) the Su-
preme Court majority minimized the Federal regulatory role and emphasized the func-
tion of the airport owner-operator in the design, implementation (including the acqui-
sition of navigational easements), and operations of the airport. But even though there
have been several successful inverse condemnation cases, it is obvious that this rem-
edy is not suitable for coping with the distress suffered by large numbers of people
residing in or near busy airports. As the court concluded in the 1969 New Jersey
case of "Township of Hanover vs The Town of Morristown" (wherein the plaintiffs
sought to enjoin the Town of Morristown from enlarging its airport because of the an-
ticipated increased noise): "private compensatory damage suits do not accomplish the
end objective of noise suppression."
The likely invalidity of control by local ordinance and the general inadequacy of
spasmodic private suits in inverse condemnation to provide adequate noise regulation
has pressed many airport operators into the application of alternative abatement mea-
sures such as the use of preferential runways. This, of course, is also a marginal
means of noise suppression. Thus, certain high density air traffic states such as Cali-
fornia have taken or considered action that will make some small further contribution
to aircraft and airport noise abatement.
Implications of the Griggs Doctrine: Federal. State. Local and Private. The
"Griggs" decision placed the locus of liability for aircraft noise on the airport operator
and thus relieved the Federal government and the scheduled air carriers from liability.
Thus, there was no pressing incentive for either the Federal government or the air
carriers to take drastic noise abatement action, even though both recognized the grow-
ing seriousness of the problem. A Congressional report conceded in 1962 that the lack
of a "maximum noise" criterion established by the Federal government was a "deter-
4-26
-------
GUIDELINES AND REPORTS 357
rent to manufacturers to achieve greater noise suppression." Competitive considera-
tions precluded the allocation of substantial research support to noise abatement by the
aircraft engine manufacturers, the objective being to "build engines and aircraft (with)
maximum performance characteristics without regard to noise." In short, the author-
ity of the "Griggs" decision obstructed the coordinated efforts required of all affected
participants called for by the Office of Science and Technology Jet Aircraft Noise Panel
in 1966. Further, Congress has given careful attention to the possibility of the Fed-
eral government's indemnifying all airport operators throughout the U.S. against judg-
ments obtained against them for noise damage alleged under the "Griggs" doctrine and
has found this to be "impracticable." Not until the promulgations of the FAA noise
standard regulations of 1 December 1969, pursuant to §611, did the aircraft engine
manufacturers and the airlines have a compelling incentive to introduce noise reduc-
tion criteria into their planning and operations.
The Relationship of the Proprietorship Doctrine of Control to Alternative Air-
craft Noise Abatement Techniques. Pervasive Federal regulation of air transpor-
tation has essentially precluded effective control over the abatement of aircraft
noise by State and local governments. On the other hand, the Federal government has
not accepted a level of responsibility for aircraft noise abatement (in terms of timely
R&D and regulatory measures to reduce noise at the source) that corresponds to the
magnitude of control it exercises over air transportation. Yet, the "Griggs" doctrine
places liability for aircraft noise on the airport owner-operator, who is, in most sit-
uations, a State or local governmental entity. Furthermore, the threat of massive
damage awards is clearly increasing for the obvious reasons that the aircraft noise
situation is worsening in many areas and that complainants are finding that some
courts share a growing sympathy with their situation. While it may be generally
agreed that air transportation must be regulated at the national level, the lack of a
4-27
-------
358 LEGAL COMPILATION—NOISE
corresponding national effort to abate one of its most distressing side-effects encour-
ages resort to the courts as the only means of prodding, indirectly, the Federal sys-
tem into action.
However, since the states and municipalities, as airport owners-operators, must
bear the direct and immediate burden of complaints from the public, they have seized
upon whatever interstitial measures are available (governmental, technical, econ-
omic, etc.) to lessen the impact of community complaints and noise damage judg-
ments. Notable in this connection is the doctrine of proprietary control over airport
operations, which has its source in ownership or operational status as distinguished
from the operation of the airport by a State or local governmental entity in its govern-
mental capacity. While the Port of New York Authority has been able to maintain
noise standards set by itself (less stringent, however, than FAA standards for new
aircraft) and the California regulations on noise standards for airports are
essentially grounded on the "power of airport proprietors, " this regulatory technique
is severely limited. This is particularly true for short-term relief, since most major
hub ports are now situated in densely populated areas and proprietor control over noise
reduction at the source is essentially nonexistent. The FAA has clearly preempted
aircraft operations as to safety. As to noise, the airport operator is left with whatever
marginal control he can exercise through such a measure as "planning runway utili-
zation schedules to take into account adjacent residential areas, noise characteristics
of aircraft and noise sensitive time periods," which is provided, among other methods,
in the new California noise regulations for airports. While the proprietary doctrine
may provide the airport operator some small but useful bargaining leverage vis a vis
the Federal government in the present evolutionary phase of aircraft noise regulation,
it is based on an anomalous legal assumption, the future efficacy of which is in doubt;
namely, that an instrumentality of the state, acting in a private, nongovernmental
4-28
-------
GUIDELINES AND REPORTS 359
capacity, has a degree of control over the activities prescribed in its state-originated
charter that the state itself is precluded from exercising in particular preemptive sit-
uations; i.e., regulation of aircraft operations.
Regulatory Schemes for Abatement and Control of Environmental Noise Sources and Effects
other than Aircraft Noise
The Analytical Framework. The analysis of existing modes of environmental
noise regulation and the evaluation of the design of new regulatory schemes requires
that a structured set of questions be addressed involving such factors as formal auth-
ority, limitations on authority, and implications of the proposed action. These in-
quiries will differ somewhat, depending upon the governmental level proposing noise
source and effects regulation. Relevant questions at the State level might include:
1. Authority asserted to justify enactment of the legislation?
2. Limitations of authority likely to be asserted with respect to such statutory
schemes?
a. Preemption by Federal legislation?
(1) Field completely preempted ?
(2) More stringent standards precluded ?
b. Due Process limitations ?
(1) Not reasonable means to a legitimate end
(2) Discriminatory and violative of equal protection
(3) Vagueness
c. Encroachment on free expression?
d. Encroachment on other individual liberties?
e. Threat to other significant social values such as safety, efficiency of
operation, community economic well-being, etc. '
f. Technological feasibility?
4-29
-------
360 LEGAL COMPILATION—NOISE
g. Economic reasonableness?
h. Undue burden on interstate commerce?
3. Implications for local noise regulation with respect to:
a. Criteria and standards?
b. Participants affected ?
c. Implementing techniques?
d. Enforcement procedures?
e. Remedies and penalties?
f. Local ambient noise levels ?
4. Implications of noise level standards on judicial determinations of a Consti-
tutional taking or of a State constitutional "taking or damaging."
Private Actions: Suits Grounded in Nuisance, Trespass, and Compensable
Taking or Damaging, tt is clear that private civil actions at best can constitute only
one important means, among many, for effective regulation of noise. Courts have
been wary of extending recognition to noise intrusions. Some courts consider noise
to be an incident of living in a technologically oriented society and that noise is an
inconvenience that is, and must be, shared by all. Other courts are more disposed
to recognize noise abuse but are troubled by the problem of limiting liability, such as
by determining satisfactorily which claimants suffer special damages. Further, noise
disturbances from many of the more serious noise producing sources, such as the
construction and use of highways, cannot be alleged as the basis for damages in cer-
tain states since such states provide that "nothing which is done or maintained under
the express authority of a statute, can be deemed a nuisance. " Nevertheless, over
the years numerous suits have been initiated against a variety of community noise
producing sources that interfere with the use and enjoyment of property.
4-30
-------
GUIDELINES AND REPORTS 361
There is a more perceptible trend for courts to recognize damages resulting from
noise intrusion in taking or inverse condemnation suits, particularly with reference to
highway construction and use. However, most courts have held that noise from this
source is not compensable where there has been no physical taking of any part of the
complainant's property. Where there has been an actual taking or severance of the
claimant's property, there is a split in court decisions among the various states. The
tendency seems to be, however, to consider noise as a factor in determining conse-
quential damages where there has been a taking. In the 1968 "Dennison" case the New
York Court of Appeals stated that "where there has been a partial taking of property
of the kind taken here, the noise element may be considered as one of several factors
in determining consequential damages. " The type of property taken may be decisive,
noise more likely to be considered as a factor in the overall diminution of the value of
the property if the property's purposes are devoted to seclusion and quietude. What
impact the aircraft noise cases recognizing noise intrusion with respect to adjacent
landowners will have on the recognition of claims of abutting landowners to highway
construction and use is still uncertain. Florida has rewarded the aircraft noise claim-
ant but denied recovery to the highway noise claimant.
Noise Regulation through Municipal Ordinances. Local ordinances directed ex-
plicitly to, or inclusive of, noise pollution include those designed to preserve the public
peace and tranquility, to abate noise as a nuisance, or to control noise levels through
zoning. Where an ordinance is directed to noises or noise sources in general, the
elements of a common law nuisance must ordinarily be shown to justify damages or
injunctive relief. Noise ordinances may face various legal challenges: whether the
4-31
-------
362 LEGAL COMPILATION—NOISE
standard is unconstitutionally vague or discriminatory or is administered in a discrim-
inatory manner; whether the ordinance encroaches upon the freedom of expression or
other individual rights; whether the ordinance seriously interferes with the safety of
operations of the noise source or comes in conflict with other priority social values;
whether the requirements of the ordinance are technologically feasible and economi-
cally reasonable; whether the ordinance addresses an area of activity that has been
preempted by the state or Federal government; or whether the ordinance, absent
Federal legislation, imposes such a heavy burden on a national activity or interest,
such as the free flow of commerce, that it constitutes an unreasonable burden.
Ordinances regulating sound trucks raise many of the foregoing questions. How-
ever, the Supreme Court held in the 1949 Sound Truck case, "Kovacs vs. Cooper", that
the standard of "loud and raucous" was not so vague and indefinite as to be properly
enforced, since it conveyed to any interested person a sufficiently accurate concept of
what was forbidden. Quantitative standards (prescribed decibel sound levels in decibels)
avoid the problem of unconstitutional vagueness but do not necessarily facilitate the
enforcement of noise standards. The cases show that verbal (subjective) standards
such as "unusual and excessive" have generally been upheld as applied to both local
ordinances and state statutes requiring mufflers or relating to the operation of motor
vehicles. While the reported cases do not specifically deal with traffic routing within
urban areas in terms of noise, such ordinances have been upheld unless the state, by
terms of its constitution or by legislation, has preempted control over vehicular traf-
fic, even within municipalities.
4-32
-------
GUIDELINES AND REPORTS 363
Comprehensive city codes, such as that proposed for New York City, attempt to
retain the benefit of common law nuisance precedents by prohibiting unnecessary
noise while at the same time setting specific decibel limits for the principal noise
producing devices or sources. Provision for noise-sensitive zones is an attempt to
assure that future land use planning will be environmentally sound with respect to
noise. Many provisions of such codes, being new, are still to be litigated.
It appears that most of the challenges to local noise ordinances as undue burdens
on interstate commerce have arisen in the air transportation field. Such ordinances
in other areas, if not clearly unreasonable burdens as applied by one community, may
be judged by the test of whether a given ordinance, if adopted by a large number of
municipalities, would impose unlawful burdens.
State Environmental Noise Regulatory Schemes. State regulation of noise has been
relatively minor until recent years, with the exception of vehicle muffler and exhaust
noises. An interesting question is arising, with the shift from verbal to quantitative
standards, as to the efficacy of the older statutes (left undisturbed by new legislation)
prohibiting excessive or unusual noise. The New York Court of Appeals has held that
in such circumstances "the two (statutes) stand side by side. One now sets a limit
beyond which np^ vehicle noise may go while the other requires each motorist to mini-
mize the noise his particular vehicle makes within that limit. " This interpretation
raises interesting possibilities for more stringent and refined control over noise
sources than set by maximum allowable decibel levels. However, state control over
vehicular noise has raised serious questions (and confusion) in several states as to
preemption of local control, especially in instances where the state standard is clearly
4-33
-------
364 LEGAL COMPILATION—NOISE
inadequate for the monitoring and control of urban vehicular noise. Where states do
undertake comprehensive environmental noise regulation, the preemption status should
be clarified. However, some new State legislation completely ignores preemption
implications for local governments.
New State environmental noise legislation should also give careful consideration
to the implications for interstate commerce. Operators of trucks and busses (moving
interstate noise sources) are particularly concerned about the possible lack of unifor-
mity, arguing that they "should not be faced with an increasing problem of having wide
variations in noise limits, test procedures, equipment and interpretation of the
regulations. " Reference to "Bibb v. Navajo Freight Lines, Inc. " suggests that even
though local safety measures (and presumably, environmental quality measures) are
not normally found to place an unconstitutional burden on interstate commerce, unless
the states should enact approximately equivalent vehicular noise standards (as to deci-
bel levels and effective dates), that litigation involving the Commerce Clause is likely
to arise. But in addition to the test of whether a given ordinance or state statute under-
takes to regulate matters "admitting of diversity of treatment, according to the special
requirements of local conditions, " are the factors of delay or inconvenience to inter-
state carriers, safety, technological feasibility, economic reasonableness (including
the availability, cost and effectiveness of alternative protective measures), and "the
nature of the menace against which (the ordinance or statute) will protect. ". . . "Legis-
lation, and implementing standards-setting administrative procedure, which does not
take these factors into account may well be vulnerable to either Due Process or
Commerce Clause challenge.
4-34
-------
GUIDELINES AND REPORTS 365
Federal Environmental Noise Regulatory Schemes. In addition to the §611 amend-
ment to the Federal Aviation Act of 1958, the Walsh-Healey requirements, the Occu-
pational Safety and Health Act of 1970, and the 1970 amendment to the Federal-aid
Highway Act (PL 91-605), the Federal government has given notice of impending,
comprehensive environmental noise legislation in the Noise Pollution and Abatement
Act of 1970. Of major interest is the present status of the Administration's proposed
legislation (HR-5275, S-1016—The Noise Control Act of 1971). The Administration
proposed to give EPA overview and veto authority'regarding aircraft noise. However,
this proposed legislation has been revised by the House Committee on Interstate
Commerce to provide only for a consultative EPA role concerning that agency's
dealings with the FAA regarding the solution of this major noise problem.
4-35
-------
366 LEGAL COMPILATION—NOISE
EFFECTIVENESS OF EXISTING NOISE CONTROL REGULATIONS
Effectiveness of Existing Federal Regulations
Aircraft Noise
FAA Type Certification of commercial aircraft delivered after 1 December 1969,
under Part 36 of the FAA Aircraft Regulations, is the most significant Federal action
for control of aircraft noise. The DC-10 and Cessna Citation 500 have been certifi-
cated, and the L-1011 and all subsequent subsonic aircraft will have to comply with
Part 36. The Boeing 747 was granted a type certificate in December 1969, which allowed
noise levels in excess of the requirements of Appendix C of Part 36 of the FAA regula-
tions. However, aircraft produced after December 1, 1971 must comply with Part 36,
Appendix C. Allowable Noise level Limits.
Projections by the Air Transport Association estimate that by 1975 only 18.6 per-
cent of the fleet will have been certificated under Part 36, and even this is probably
optimistic given present economic conditions that will retard aircraft replacements.
Thus, to the extent that it depends upon type certification as presently structured, the
noise problem will have been only slightly relieved by 1975 and, indeed, could still
be significant as late as 1990.
Noise has an environmental impact and must be considered in 102(2) (C) Environ-
mental Impact Statements for airport development and modification. * While there are
* The reader is referred to testimony before EPA hearings held in San Francisco
regarding views on the efficacy of the 102(2) (C) statement provisions.
4-36
-------
GUIDELINES AND REPORTS 367
no Federal noise standards for airports, the Airport and Airways Development Act re-
quires consideration of environmental interest of communities near airports and provides
for public hearings, if requested, on airport projects. But examination of project pro-
posals on file with the FAA reveals that hearings have been held in only 29 percent of
the cases, and in few of these has noise been raised as an issue. This suggests that
whereas public hostility to proposed or expanded airports near already congested avia-
tion hubs is high and growing, communities in other parts of the country are still more
alert to potential economic benefits from airports than to possible noise problems.
This may tend to prevent full utilization of promising planning and zoning techniques
for controlling future noise problems.
Highway Noise
Environmental Impact Statements must also be provided for proposed highways.
The 1970 Amendments to the Federal-Aid Highway Act requires the Secretary of
Transportation to withhold approval of highways until specifications include adequate
implementation of appropriate noise standards. Noise guidelines will not be issued
until 1 July 1972, but early drafts are promising. Only 4 percent of the National In-
terstate and Defense Highway System remains in preliminary stages as of 30 June
1971, but an Urban System (funded for FY 1972 at $100 million) will be built under
the new standards.
Occupational Noise
Regulations of May 20, 1969, pursuant to the Walsh-Healey Public Contracts Act,
set noise limits for employees of Federal Supply Contractors. These apply to 75,000
4-37
-------
368 LEGAL COMPILATION—NOISE
plant locations (about 27 million workers). As of 27 August 1971, the Walsh-Healey
noise standards have been extended by the Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970 to
all employees in businesses affecting interstate commerce (55 million additional workers).
Since 7 July 1971, the Bureau of Mines, under the Federal Coal Mine Health and
Safety Act of 1969, has imposed mandatory noise limits (identical to the Walsh-Healey
standards) for approximately 100,000 miners in 1900 registered underground mines.
Regular monitoring is assigned to mine operators, with the Bureau of Mines providing
their training and providing a check through noise surveys conducted during quarterly
safety and health inspections.
Effectiveness of Existing State Regulations
Airport Noise
California has taken the lead in setting overall noise limits around airports by
legislation (1969) empowering the State Department of Aeronautics to set standards
both for overall airport noise and for single-event noise. These regulations were
to become effective on December 1, 1971 but have been held in abeyance by the
1971 legislature. When put into effect, they will allow large airports 15 years to
shrink noise contours to what has been defined as the acceptable level applicable to
all airports under the statutory standards of "noise acceptable to a reasonable person
living near the airport" and "economically and technologically feasible. " Some
difficulties with enforcement and effectiveness can be foreseen.
Some airport officials allege that, unless the fleet is substantially converted to
quieter planes within this 15 year period, It may be necessary to curtail operations
considerably or else to make major purchases of land. The former measure would
4-38
-------
GUIDELINES AND REPORTS 369
have major repercussions for national air transportation patterns, while the latter
could lie well beyond the financial capacity of the airport.
The law may be challenged in court by the airlines on the grounds of Federal pre-
emption and unreasonable burden on interstate commerce. California holds that there
is no preemption in the absence of Federal rule making on airport noise levels and
that the standards are firmly grounded on the proprietorship of airport owners and
the right to the state to license airports.
There is a possibility that acceptable noise contours established by the regulations
will be used by courts as evidence for inverse condemnation, although the Act provides
that they shall not be so used. The California Law Revision Committee favors a
three-year moratorium on such use and a bill to establish this moratorium was passed by
the state legislature.
The single-event limit was deliberately set so high as to be effective only in con-
trolling operating procedures of existing aircraft, rather than as a push for technolo-
gical improvement. Enforcement is left to the county in which the airport is located.
In many states, unfortunately, airport noise impacts most detrimentally on counties
adjacent to, but not containing, the airport; and in considering similar legislation
states should take this into account.
A number of other states, in considering similar legislation, appear to be await-
ing the outcome of California's pioneering effort. With the reservations noted above,
this model may be widely adaptable to states with significant airport noise problems.
Twenty-five states own and operate airports, of which some 300 are served by
scheduled air carriers, and can exercise some control ver them as proprietor. The
4-39
-------
370 LEGAL COMPILATION—NOISE
bistate Port of New York Authority has done the most In this area, by establishing
maximum noise levels. This regulation is effective in terms of compliance, the over-
all rate for which Is 99. 5 percent, with 80 percent of takeoffs below 105 dBA. Viola-
tion rates are much higher, however, for heavily loaded transoceanic jets. In terms
of noise reduction, however, it is only marginally effective; the violation rate is low
because the limit is high. * There is also alleged to be systematic cheating by aircraft,
in which they momentarily cut power as they pass the monitoring equipment. Further-
more, airport operators have no authority over landing procedures, since these are
controlled by FAA — and landings, due to long glide paths, subject larger numbers of
people to noise than takeoffs. The Port of New York Authority reports that 80 percent
of complaints are produced by landings.
Restrictions on the number of night flights are effective in reducing complaints
but are seriously restrictive of transportation because of national and international
time differences. Moreover, congestion at some airports has reached, a point at
which safety considerations may dictate more, rather than fewer, night flights.
The fiscal conditions of most state and local governments, the shortage of housing
in large metropolitan areas, and the large land areas that are noise-impacted combine
to limit the effectiveness of land purchase or strict zoning of land around existing
* Testimony received at the EPA hearing in Hempstead, Long Island indicates that
no punitive enforcement actions have ever been taken against any airline.
4-40
-------
GUIDELINES AND REPORTS 371
airports, fa the case of new airports, however, land-use techniques such as indus-
trial buffer zones appear to have considerable promise. *
Vehicle Noise Programs
Most states prohibit modified or defective mufflers, but few or none systematic-
ally enforce this prohibition in spite of quantitative evidence that rigorous enforcement
would significantly reduce vehicle noise levels. California has the most comprehen-
sive operating vehicle noise law, but the level of enforcement even there is low, since
6 two-man teams are responsible for 162, 303 miles of highways. During a 12-month
period, 600,000 vehicles were monitored and violations were charged for 0. 5 percent:
0. 1 percent of passenger cars, 1. 2 percent of trucks, and 2. 0 percent of motorcycles.
(Californi . had 11, 980, 000 registered motor vehicles in 1970.) There is no record of
the number >/f cases taken to court (this is a minor offense carrying a fine of $25 or
less), but the Highway Patrol states that most citations have resulted in convictions.
Through July 1971, some 2,200 citations were issued within California for excessive
vehicle noise. The state population is greater than 20 million. The low percentage of
violations probably does not indicate the effectiveness of the law but indicates the in-
adequacy of the standards set. The Highway Patrol has indicated that it would support
standards that would cause 7 to 8 percent of presently operating vehicles to be in viola-
tion, on the grounds that 93-percent compliance indicates technical feasibility. The
legislature is presently considering these and even stricter standards.
* An extensive discussion of past, present, and future land use planning efforts at
major airports is contained in the transcript of the EPA Noise Hearing,
Washington, D. C.
4-41
-------
372 LEGAL COMPILATION—NOISE
A similar law in New York State has a lower level of enforcement. No special
enforcement teams are provided, and one observer puts the number of summons
issued at six in the first 2 years.
California sets noise emission limits for new vehicles, but requires testing only
when an operating violation has been charged to a new or current-year model. Some
vehicles have been recalled for fitting with improved mufflers, but the manufactur-
ers' right to sell has not yet been revoked for excessive noise emissions. Vehicle
laws of two other states are too new for comment on their effectiveness.
Besides the insufficient strictness of standards, existing state controls on noise
from operating motor vehicles appear to be ineffective because of:
1. Technical difficulties in monitoring noise sources. In New York, statutory
limits apply to vehicles traveling at less than 35 mph, rather than to vehicles
in zones with speed limits of 35 mph (as in California). By using zones, the
enforcing officer can presume rather than prove the speed of the vehicle
being cited for violation. A more serious constraint is the California require-
ment of 100 feet of free space around both the monitoring microphone and the
monitored vehicle; and (in California and New York) the requirement that noise
be measured at a distance of 50 feet from the center line of the highway. Both
requirements are for the purpose of separating and identifying specific noise
sources and avoiding reflected sound from nearby buildings or other objects.
but both make it difficult or impossible to monitor vehicles on city streets where
the worst problem exists. Idaho has tried to make its muffler law more effec-
tive by specifying that mufflers must prevent noise over 92 dBA at a specified
4-42
-------
GUIDELINES AND REPORTS 373
distance, but the law is not enforced because vehicle inspection is done in state-
licensed commercial garages where there is no sound measuring equipment.
2. Assignment of enforcement responsibility to regular police officers. State
and local police universally give higher priority to safety and criminal in-
vestigation and apprehension than to noise control; observers also report
that police rapidly lose proficiency with sound measuring equipment when it is
seldom used, and then become even more reluctant to use it. *
3. Disregard of noise sources other than that from engines and exhaust systems.
There is substantial evidence that much of vehicle noise comes from tires and
running gear, but California police (contrary to statutory provisions) do not
cite where noise is attributable to such causes; this is probably true in other
jurisdictions also.
4. Low probability of monitoring and apprehension and relatively insignificant
penalties. This is probably the most important cause of ineffectiveness.
Other Ant/noise Regulation by States
State laws defining noise as a nuisance are generally enforced infrequently, and
seldom or never against major sources of noise such as factories, transportation equip-
ment, and construction sites. Statutory noise limits on leisure vehicles such as
* The reader is referred to testimony given at EPA hearings in Dallas, Atlanta,
San Francisco, and New York regarding police officer attitudes on assignment
of noise responsibilities.
4-43
-------
374 LEGAL COMPILATION—NOISE
snowmobiles are most often enforced by game inspectors and conservation officials,
and there is no data available on levels of enforcement. Some snowmobile clubs are
enforcing noise limits on their members to moderate or avoid public reaction to these
noisy vehicles.
Effectiveness of Existing Local Noise Control Regulation
In dealing with noise problems, local governments frequently express a need for
technical assistance in the form of advice, guidelines, model ordinances, and financial
aid from states or the Federal government. However, they are also jealous of their
prerogatives in setting stricter standards than the larger jurisdictions may choose.
Aircraft Noise
Except for a few curfew laws, attempts by local governments to prohibit or re-
strict aircraft noise have generally been struck down. A few remain on the books but
are not enforced. There are over 1,000 pending noise suits against airports; usually
a local government is the defendant in such a suit, and in some cases the plaintiff is
another (neighboring) local government.
Vehicle Noise
In Hawaii and (it is generally assumed) in California and New York, local govern-
ments are preempted by the state from control of vehicle noise, although state laws in
the latter two states are poorly enforced for reasons given previously. In Colorado,
local governments may now adopt noise standards provided in State law.
The relatively few municipalities that have quantified noise standards for vehicles
report the following problems with enforcement:
4-44
-------
GUIDELINES AND REPORTS 375
1. Difficulty in setting standards that are both technically feasible and yet strict
enough to be effective, particularly because cities have limited budgets and
a great scarcity of technically trained personnel. City officials frequently
express a need for Federal or state guidelines and technical assistance in
setting standards, as well as in establishing enforcement procedures.
2. Technical difficulties in separating and identifying individual noise sources
on crowded city streets with a generally high ambient noise level. These
difficulties also prevent enforcement of State noise laws on city streets.
3. Lack of personnel and equipment for systematic monitoring and enforcement.
Again, as has been pointed out, police place higher priority on other duties.
Some local governments are experimenting with new vehicle noise standards. But
here they face a particular difficulty in that a large fraction of the vehicles using the
city streets are probably purchased elsewhere: within metropolitan areas there are
generally many local governments, many contain several counties, and some straddle
state boundaries.
Levels of enforcement of muffler or horn-blowing laws and general nuisance laws-
(as used against vehicles) vary widely. Few cities can provide- data on enforcement
actions, since there is generally no index of general citations and usually no compila-
tion of city court cases. Where a high level of enforcement and effectiveness is re-
ported (as in Memphis and Boulder), city officials attribute this to a high level of
priority on the part of city officials and police, and an educational campaign to sensi-
tize the public to vehicle noise. Such educational programs are reported to have lasting
effects on driving habits.
4-45
-------
376 LEGAL COMPILATION—NOISE
Mass Transit Noise
This is a major factor in large cities. Mass transit facilities often represent a
large capital investment in aging and deteriorating stock and equipment, for which the
cost of acoustical treatment would be very high. For example, in New York City, an
effective method has been developed for reducing subway noise by replacement of
track—but only four miles are replaced each year out of a total of 750 miles of track. *
General Nuisance Laws
Few statistics are kept by cities on enforcement of nuisance laws. Police control
noise on the basis of complaints, and frequently depend on persuasion and warning
rather than official action. Where enforcement against unnecessary noise or exces-
sive noise depends on discretion (in the absence of quantitative standards) statutes are
sometimes struck down. Decibel limits, where tried, suffer from the difficulties out-
lined above for vehicle noise standards. And it is even more difficult to establish
reasonable limits for the variety of sources covered in general noise laws. Educa-
tional programs can greatly enhance the effectiveness of noise laws by sensitizing
citizens both to their duties and to their rights to a quiet community.
Comprehensive Noise Ordinances and Offices of Noise Abatement
These represent a new and small, but growing, trend for municipalities as small
as foglewood, California (population 90, 000) or as large as New York City. They offer
the following advantages:
* Details are contained in testimony given at EPA hearings held in New York City.
4-46
-------
GUIDELINES AND REPORTS 377
1. A directorate whose primary responsibility is noise abatement.
2. Investigators specifically responsible for responding to noise complaints.
3. A staff with initiative to seek out noise violations and proficiency in using
sound measuring equipment.
4. A focal point for mounting a public education campaign.
Costs of such operations are not necessarily large ($60,000 annually in Inglewood
and $300,000 currently in New York City) but may nevertheless be a strain on limited
municipal budgets. Both New York City and Chicago plan to use about 40 to 50 in-
vestigators for noise enforcement.
Zoning and Building Codes*
Inclusion of noise standards in zoning codes is generally recent, and most are not
well enforced. Many cities with quantitative noise limits in zoning codes have no measur-
ing equipment for enforcement purposes, and there is again a need for guidelines in for-
mulating workable standards. Standards are useful for planning and zoning commis-
sions in screening applicants for industrial locations. Few cities have noise standards
in building codes. New York City has them, but no buildings completed under the new
code have yet been occupied.
Construction Noise
Experience with local control of construction noise is largely restricted to curfew
laws, which are often relaxed on a plea of convenience, particularly where daytime
traffic is a problem. This is one of the biggest gaps in local noise control.
* The reader is referred to detailed testimony on this subject given at EPA hearings
held in Dallas, San Francisco, and New York City.
4-47
-------
378 LEGAL COMPILATION — NOISE
There are some general observations that can be made regarding the laws and
regulatory schemes for noise abatement and control:
• With regard to aircraft noise, there is a jurisdictional problem.
• State statutes exhibit increased technical proficiency in understanding the
evolving technologies for noise control as compared with city ordinances.
However, states are constrained in many instances by Federal preemption
of the regulatory field (an example being aircraft) or conflicts with interstate
commerce matters or other Federal constitutional powers.
• City ordinances are, in general, vague and technically deficient. However, as
the awareness of the noise problem increases, some city ordinances are be-
coming more sophisticated through the use of objective standards with decibel
levels.
4 The courts are becoming increasingly involved in the controversies over
noise control. In general, however, private suits for money damages have
not accomplished a great deal regarding noise suppression.
One of the major problems on the state and local levels of government is that of
enforcement. In general, noise statutes, no matter how well written, are rendered
ineffective because most state and local programs are insufficiently funded and staffed.
4-48
-------
GUIDELINES AND REPORTS 379
CHAPTER 5
GOVERNMENT, INDUSTRY, PROFESSIONAL AND VOLUNTARY
ASSOCIATION PROGRAMS »
FEDERAL GOVERNMENT PROGRAMS
To discover the present extent of Federal activity in noise abatement and control
and to accurately assess that activity, the Environmental Protection Agency's Office
of Noise Abatement and Control conducted a survey of Federal agencies and depart-
ments. On the basis of program size and authority, the 17 agencies and departments
were grouped into three general categories according to relative magnitude of programs:
significant, moderate or minor. It was found that in addition to the Environmental
Protection Agency, departments with significant involvement in noise included:
1. Department of Defense
2. Health, Education and Welfare
3. Housing and Urban Department
4. Department of Labor
5. The National Aeronautics and Space Administration
6. Department of Transportation
* This Chapter is based on data contained in EPA Technical Information Documents
NTID300.8, "State and Municipal Non-Occupational Noise Programs;" NTID300.9,
"Noise Programs of Professional/Industrial Organizations, Universities, and
Colleges;" and NTID300.10, "Summary of Noise Programs in the Federal Govern-
ment." See Appendix A regarding procurement of this source material.
6-1
-------
380 LEGAL COMPILATION—NOISE
Agencies having more moderate programs are:
1. Department of Agriculture
2. Department of Commerce
3. General Services Administration
4. Department of the Interior
5. National Science Foundation
6. The Postal Service Commission
Finally, agencies reporting relatively minor programs were:
1. Atomic Energy Commission
2. Federal Power Commission
3. State Department
4. Tennessee Valley Authority
5. Treasury Department
Significant Federal Involvement
Table 5-1 illustrates the extent of Federal research and development activity in
the noise field. Responsibility (authority) and funding for fiscal year 1972 is in thou-
sands of dollars. The scope of federal activities includes the areas of hearing conser-
vation, non-auditory effects, aircraft noise suppression, community noise problems,
and standardization of sound measuring equipment.
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
EPA established its Office of Noise Abatement and Control in April, 1971, just
4 months after the Agency's formation. Under Title IV of PL 91-604, the EPA
Administrator was authorized and directed to establish an Office of Noise Abatement
and Control (ONAC) to deal with problems of excessive noise. The statute further
required the office to prepare a report on environmental noise for submission to Con-
gress no later than 31 December 1971. This document fulfills that requirement.
5-2
-------
GUIDELINES AND REPORTS
381
s
z
&
p
APPKOX. FY
1
[
RESPONSIl
o
TYPE Of R &
>
0
*
!
i
j
j
1
1
"
l!i
111*
Clorl, McNor;
MeNoryFcr*
Agricultural I
(Smith-Uver)
i
1 i
•1 ? .
»fl * 8
-. ii
Noise emission, contrc
in rural oreos — equipm
uotion by vegotion sen
j
1
•s
D*porrnient
§
1
.•s
1.1
-I 1
-A 4
Noise abatement & cot
building acoustics, sta
sound equipment.
Atmospheric acoustics
propogation.
1 'I
i? uil
If 'I'
}"• •* °'s
O.Z Z,
j
1 3 i
j
1 II 1
1 II i
* 15 °
|| f
IN il !
5ll |i i
1 & 3 ^ 't e
|{! Ii 1
|;I lit II
II! llMI
1
1
•o .
!i ! i
1
1
^
ji
fffects of noise on pub
welfare (report to Con
11
.||
^i
— Z
I'S
I «"5
P"
s
t. s
1 i
tri t/\
J 1J
•3 x
J I
I j
* i?
i I
fu
*
s
.11 i
P "«
y.- 1
.f a .s 5
sig 1
iŁ-S Z
.! f
S 8 -5
J <='f * S
| irl | ]
"X o — Ł '
fill 11
o *d
H
U
O
K
W
I
ij
(B
W
P
W
CK
fa
O
>H
K
5-3
-------
382
LEGAL COMPILATION—NOISE
I
s
g s
U
!l
* a •
5 *|
Ur
5-4
-------
GUIDELINES AND REPORTS
383
s
w
55 M
o w
&
Ł
<
s
SU
i
s-s
-------
384 LEGAL COMPILATION—NOISE
In the preparation of this report, contracts with universities and acoustical engineer-
ing firms were let for assistance in assembling data on different aspects of the noise
problem. Public hearings were conducted in major cities during the summer and au-
tumn of 1971 in an effort to gather testimony from industrialists, local and state gov-
ernment officials, scientific experts, conservationists, public and private organiza-
tions, and private citizens.*
Title IV of Public Law 91-604 (Section 402c) requires Federal agencies to consult
with the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency on their current noise
generating activities that may constitute a nuisance or be otherwise objectionable.
The Environmental Protection Agency is in the process of issuing the appropriate
guidelines to implement these requirements. The Agency has held consultations with
these agencies on preliminary guidelines, and has obtained information from the agen-
cies on their operations which engender public complaints.
Section 102(C) of the National Environmental Policy Act (PL 91-190) requires all
agencies of the Federal government to provide statements specifying the environmental
impact of all proposed projects, legislation or comments on legislation. The Environ-
mental Protection Agency is required by law to comment on all such statements.
Environmental impact statements involving potential noise problems are currently
being reviewed by the Agency. The proposed guidelines, mentioned above, will pro-
vide for an integration of approach between the two laws.
Under Title IV, EPA also is undertaking other actions including demonstrations,
exhibits and follow-on actions indicated by the renort to Congress and the testimony
received at the public hearings.
* See Appendix C for information as to scope of hearings, locations, and subject
matter. Testimony received will be published as verbatim transcripts.
5-6
-------
GUIDELINES AND REPORTS 385
Congress is now considering noise legislation as a major environmental concern.
The Administration's proposed Noise Control Act of 1971 provides for the following
(See also Appendix B):
1. A comprehensive Federal noise control and research program, with the
Environmental Protection Agency serving as the coordinator of Federal ac-
tivity.
2. Federal standards, promulgated by the Environmental Protection Agency for
transportation and construction equipment, electric motors, internal combus-
tion engines.
3. A labelling system to identify products as to noise producing characteristics
for the benefit of the prospective consumer.
4. A provision prohibiting states and their political subdivisions from establish-
ing noise emission standards where Federal standards have been established;
states would be permitted (and would be encouraged to establish) use, opera-
tion and movement regulations of noise-producing machines.
5. A broad, EPA-sponsored research and development program to fill the gap
in other Federal agencies' research activities.
6. A comprehensive technical assistance program, including provisions for as-
sistance on noise enforcement.
7. A vigorous and effective enforcement scheme.
8. Finally, the Environmental Protection Agency would have authority to review
existing Federal Aviation Administration regulations and be authorized to re-
quest the Administrator of the FAA to make changes. EPA approval would
also be required for any new regulations on aircraft noise.
5-7
-------
386 LEGAL COMPILATION—NOISE
At the present writing, this last revision on aircraft noise has been modified in
committee to provide only for consultation between the Administrators of the FAA and
EPA.
The Department of Defense IDOD)
Noise abatement efforts by DOD have been both considerable and longstanding.
The armed services particularly are involved in research on noise and noise abate-
ment procedures. The pririary DOD thrusts are concentrated in four main areas:
1. Occupational noise control and hearing conservation.
2. Operational aircraft noise abatement.
3. Noise signature elimination in weapons system.
4. Construction specifications for noise control.
At present, noise programs are conducted within each of the three military branches
to meet specific operational requirements. An enumeration of the separate efforts is
contained in the following paragraphs.
Army Noise Efforts. Army noise programs are executed through the following
agencies:
• Office of the Chief of Engineers. U.S. Army. This office is conducting a
study ($82,000) on noise induced hearing loss and the effects of noise on the
efficiency of soldiers' performance.
• Office of Corps of Engineers. U.S. Army. The Corps Office conducts re-
search on the control of noise generation and the application of measures to
eliminate noise levels that may have adverse effects upon human beings.
Current investigations include work in establishing criteria for the location
of certain military activities relative to residential areas and the Identifica-
tion of causes of noise pollution and control criteria during construction
5-8
-------
GUIDELINES AND REPORTS 387
activities. Fiscal support for noise-related work within the Corps cannot be
determined. No personnel are specifically assigned to noise control programs.
• Army Medical Research and Development Command. This command conducts
programs and research concerned with biomedlcal effects of noise, noise re-
ductions, noise exposure, and the physiological and psychological effects of
noise. Current programs include traumatic origins of hearing losses, audi-
tory perception and psychophysics, and the aviation audlometry program.
The operating budget for fiscal 1972 if $464,300.
• Army Environmental Hygiene Agency and Environmental Health Engineering
Services. Both agencies conduct programs to assure the health of personnel.
Current programs include the Hearing Conservation Program for the surveil-
lance of occupational hearing loss and studies of effects of noise on individuals
at military installations. The operating expenditures for the noise program
cannot be determined.
• Army Materiel Command, Under this Command, programs and research are
carried out under contract for noise reduction of equipment, rotary wing air-
craft noise reduction, and human capabilities. Expenditures for fiscal 1972
are approximately $650,000.
Air Force Noise Programs. The Air Force conducts research under authority of
Section 8011, Title 10, U.S. Code. Program activities related to noise include the con-
servation of hearing program (AFR 160-3; Hazardous Noise Exposure), with an operational
expenditure of $509,300 for fiscal 1972. Research programs are conducted at the Aero
Propulsion Laboratory, the Flight Dynamics Laboratory, the 6570th Aerospace Medical
Research Laboratory, and the Weapons Laboratory, all laboratories of the Air Force
Systems Command. Contracted research is maintained by the Air Force Office
5-9
-------
388 LEGAL COMPILATION—NOISE
of Scientific Research. There are no laboratories presently devoting full resources to
noise research. Less than 3 percent of the total resources of laboratories having
noise research programs is allocated to that end. The Office of Scientific Research
conducts research on aircraft noise generation processes. Estimated funding for the
project is $80,000. The Flight Dynamics Laboratory is conducting development work
on aircraft acoustics, including noise control within vehicle interiors and sonic fatigue,
with current expenditures of $290,000 per year. The Aerospace Medical Research
Laboratory conducts research on the effects of noise on Air Force personnel. Special-
izing in bioacoustical research, this Laboratory is unique among Federal noise re-
search programs. Expenditures for such research are $410,000 per year. The Aero
Propulsion Laboratory, with expenditures of $475,000, is concerned with noise abate-
ment in aircraft propulsion systems. The Air Force Weapons Laboratory is research-
ing computerized noise exposure forecasting and has expenditures of $80,000. Total
expenditures for research are $1,255,000. Additionally, the Air Force has a program
for the development and acquisition of sound suppressors for ground runup of jet air-
craft engines. This work is done entirely by contract at an expenditure of $4,810,000.
Navy Noise Program. The Navy noise abatement program concerns aircraft and
related ground facilities and equipment and is divided into the areas of:
• Noise reduction of operating aircraft.
• Noise suppression for ground runup of engines.
• Noise suppression for overhaul and maintenance testing.
In addition, an exploratory development program concerning a semi-portable noise
suppressor for gas turbine engines is underway. A contract for $187,000 has been
awarded for the exploratory development program in fiscal 1972.
5-10
-------
GUIDELINES AND REPORTS 389
Department of Health, Education and Welfare (HEW)
The Occupational Safety and Health Act provides authority for the National Institute
for Occupational Safety and Health to undertake research with the objectives of: (a)
defining occupational noise limits for conserving hearing, (b) assessing industrial noise
effects on overall health, safety and performance capability, (c) considering differen-
tial diagnoses of noise-induced hearing loss cases and (d) training and demonstration
projects bearing on industrial noise control and hearing conservation. Funding for
these assorted activities in FY 1972 will be in excess of $400,000.
Likewise, the National Institute of Health (NIH) is vested with authority to conduct
research in noise as part of its broad mission in health. NTH sponsored studies are.
being conducted largely on the physiological mechanisms underlying noise-induced
hearing loss and aspects of speech perception in noise through grants totaling nearly
$1,000,000 awarded to various universities and laboratories.
HEW conducts a hearing conservation program for its own employees as part of
its occupational health activities. Program objectives are to assess and remove
hazardous noise sources and otherwise protect employees from adverse noise effects.
Other concerns include the isolation and evaluation of noise-producing equipment.
Occupational medical guidelines described in PL 658 (79th Congress) and DOD circular
A-71 govern the administration of the program.
Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD)
Noise control and abatement is not a separate program within HUD; however, the
Secretary has established noise control requirements for HUD programs (HUD Circu-
lar 1390.2). Noise problems arising in housing site selection, structural characteris-
tics of buildings, and land use planning, are included. Development of comprehensive
urban noise survey methodologies, metropolitan aircraft noise abatement policy
5-11
-------
390 LEGAL COMPILATION—NOISE
studies, and technical support for operational noise abatement programs are major
activities of the department. * Plans for future consideration include extension of the
Comprehensive Urban Noise Survey Program, measurement instrumentation for deter-
mining site noise exposure, site noise exposure techniques, development of model
ordinances and building code sections, and noise emission ratings for appliances and
equipment. Approximately $500,000 has been programmed for noise research and
development activities in HUD for FY 1972.
Department of Labor (DOU
The main DOL emphasis on noise is in two areas: The Walsh Healey Contracts
Act, which covered health standards for employees engaged in Federal contract work
exceeding $10,000, and The 1970 Occupational Safety and Health Act, extending cover-
age to all businesses engaged in interstate commerce. Worker exposure standards
under the two acts are identical. There are approximately 80 million Americans com-
posing the work force; the overwhelming bulk of these is somehow engaged in interstate
commerce. Hearing loss due to noise is, of course, one of the health considerations
covered under the 1970 legislation. Regulations limiting noise exposure of workers were
adopted by DOL under authority of the Act; these limits were published in the Federal
Register.
National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA)
The NASA (as well as its predecessor, NACA) has been deeply involved in aircraft
noise research for many years. The Fiscal Year 1972 program includes contract and
in-house research totaling $25 million in the areas of reduction of aircraft noise at the
source, noise propagation, effects on receptors, sonic boom, and approach trajectory
modification. Of this total, $12.6 million is contracted research, $5.4 million covers
A notable example of the Department's activities is the issuance in 1971 of its "Noise
Assessment Guidelines" to be used by nontechnical persons to assess present and
future noise exposures of housing sites.
5-12
-------
GUIDELINES AND REPORTS 391
test equipment and instrumentation for the in-house research, and $7 million is bud-
geted for research and program management (chiefly in-house research manpower
costs). Construction of a new aircraft noise reduction laboratory is underway at the
NASA Langley Research Center, and the laboratory, costing about $5.8 million and
scheduled for completion late in 1972, will provide a major expansion of the national
capability.
In addition to research activities, NASA provides noise protection for its employ-
ees through work site surveillance and audiometric testing, supplemented by general
medical protection.
Department of Transportation (DOT)
In accordance with the Department of Transportation Act of 1966 (P.L. 89-670),
Section 4, DOT is engaged in research and development relating to transportation
noise, particularly aircraft noise. Additionally, PL 90-411 provided for noise cer-
tification of aircraft by the Federal Aviation Administration. A separate office of
Noise Abatement administers the noise program within DOT. Its programs are con-
cerned with: 1. evaluating community response to aircraft and transportation noise,
2. developing transport noise measurement criteria, 3. evaluating transportation
noise sources, 4. developing mathematical models for estimating noise and evaluating
the impact of transportation noise. The office's many technical research programs in-
clude investigation of truck engine noise and jet noise as well as the development of
measurement equipment and procedures. Twenty percent of the office's budget is
spent in the utilization of the technical capabilities of the Transportation Systems
Center at Cambridge, Massachusetts as well as those of outside contractors. The
Center investigations, amounting to $900, 000, include measurement and simulation
modeling of community noise levels caused by transportation related sources and re-
search of mechanisms of noise generation in jet engine exhaust V/STOL aircraft, ;md
internal combustion engines.
5-13
-------
392 LEGAL COMPILATION—NOISE
Included within the DOT research and development effort Is 'hat of the Federal
Aviation Administration in which aircraft noise suppression and adverse effects of
sonic boom are heavily emphasized. Expenditures for this program total $3,150,000.
Finally, the Federal Highway Administration conducts a noise research program
whose scope includes traffic noise measurements, evaluation and abatement. Expendi-
tures for this effort total $149,000.
Moderate Federal Involvement
Department of Agriculture tUSDA)
The USDA Is engaged in eight specific noise reduction programs. The overall
objective of these programs is to determine noise levels emanating from agricultural
sources. As a part of this effort, USDA conducts research on noise propagation and
attenuation from vegetative screens through grants totaling $250,000 to state agricul-
tural experiment stations. Authority for this research is located in the Clark-McNary
Act of 1942; the McSweeney-McNary Forest Research Act of 1928, and the Agricultural
Experimental Station (Smith-Lever) Act of 1955. Moreover, USDA and the U.S. Air
Force participated in a mutual research effort on the effects of noise on chickens,
cows, and swine.
Department of Commerce (DOC)
Within DOC, research and measurement programs in acoustics are conducted by
both the National Bureau of Standards (NBS) and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration (NOAA). Only programs of the former division, however, are specif-
ically directed toward noise abatement.
Within NBS, the Institute for Basic Standards (IBS) is currently involved in two
noise-related projects:
5-14
-------
GUIDELINES AND REPORTS 393
1. An Investigation of reverberant sound fields with an aim of developing new,
improved methods for measurement of sound absorption and sound power in
reverberation chambers.
2. A study of current methods for measuring the subjective factors of loudness,
noisiness and annoyance and the development of new methods for subject mea-
surement.
In addition to these two programs, IBS is also engaged in basic research including
the development and standardization of calibration procedures for various sound mea-
suring equipments. Additionally, the National Bureau of Standards in a joint effort
with the DOT has undertaken research on truck tire noise. It has also joined with HUD
on a project called "Operation Breakthrough" to measure noise levels at building
sites.
The Bureau is also concerned with passenger car tire noise and has made investi-
gations into the subjective assessment of this unwanted sound. It also tests noise
characteristics of toys and of postal mail sorting machines.
Also under NBS, the Institute for Applied Technology is conducting a variety of
research programs concerning noise abatement in buildings. The development of im-
proved test methods is emphasized both for measuring sound transmission and for
rating and testing the overall acoustical performance of entire buildings.
In addition to these direct research projects, NBS presently has a working budget
of about $465,000 for programs sponsored by eight other agencies (including EPA).
The current operating budget is $500,000 of which approximately $200,000 is
applied directly toward noise abatement research. A $200,000 increase in funding is
requested for fiscal 1973, which would allow NBS to expand its efforts in noise control.
Contracts totalling $41,000 have been negotiated with two private organizations to ob-
tain data relating to noise in European environments and to gather information
5-15
-------
394 LEGAL COMPILATION—NOISE
concerning the acoustical properties of doors and windows. This latter data is expected
to provide architects with valuable information in practical design. DOC has no author-
ity in the area of noise regulation or certification.
General Services Administration (GSA)
The magnitude of GSA operations requires its inclusion in this discussion. Although
it has no formal noise abatement program, GSA is developing noise abatement proce-
dures for construction and demolition activities.
Maximum sound level criteria for mechanical building equipment were established
in 1970, and are included in specifications for major construction projects. These
levels are more stringent than those established by the Department of Labor under the
Occupational Safety and Health Act. Constructional noise currently is being monitored
at the site of the building now under construction in Philadelphia, Pa., to determine
possible criteria for future development of noise abatement standards. As for space
already occupied, GSA is continuously developing sound level criteria to improve the
acoustical environments of buildings. Finally, GSA is amending procurement specifi-
cations to require quieter products. This agency will have a profound impression in
noise reduction through its vast purchasing power. Data on funds for support of these
activities was unavailable at the time this report was prepared (GSA's noise abatement
program is not budgeted separately.)
Department of the Interior (DOI)
This agency is currently involved in conducting three specific noise programs:
1. An FAA funded project for monitoring the frequency and characteristics of
sonic booms in certain national parks.
2. A Bureau of Mines instituted training program for inspectors who will survey
noise conditions in mines.
5-16
-------
GUIDELINES AND REPORTS 395
3. A research program instituted by the Bureau of Mines and HEW to study noise
problems In mines and related hearing loss suffered by miners. Only the
Bureau of Mines program has been specifically budgeted for noise abatement
and control. Estimates Include $45,000 for research and $19,000 for an
acoustical research inventory. Future DOI program plans in the noise field
are almost entirely limited to this program.
DOI legislative authority for noise research together with regulations for the fur-
ther definition of that authority are contained in: The Federal Coal Mine Health and
Safety Act of 1969 and the Act of May 28, 1936, and regulations found in 41 CFR 14;
50 CFR 4; 36 CFR 1; 30 CFR 1; 43 CFR 2 and 30 CFR 1(F) (70).
National Science Foundation
From 1968 through 1971, the Foundation funded equipment purchases for noise re-
search amounting to $99,200. The Special Engineering Program director and his staff
spend about 15 percent of their time on acoustics and noise control. Time is also com-
mitted to the noise area in the psychobiology and neurobiology programs. Similarly,
a number of projects on noise research are funded through contracts or grants. Total
research expenditures for noise projects in fiscal 1971 were $175,000. While no pro-
jections for future noise research have been made, the Foundation has stated that it
expects to fund additional projects in noise problems and acoustics.
The Postal Service Commission IPSC)
The newly formed PSC is currently involved in three specific programs designed
to reduce noise in the workroom area. Two research projects aimed at identifying
existing noise sources, determining noise abatement procedures, and implementing
prototype modifications have been initiated. On a trial basis, special Postal Service
Specifications have been issued on the development of new equipment to ensure that
5-17
-------
396 LEGAL COMPILATION—NOISE
operator noise levels do not exceed a given level. Expenditures for personnel and con-
tracts amounted to $250,000.
PSC has no individual assigned to noise abatement programs on a full time basis.
Moreover, it reports no legislative requirements and states that future noise control
plans will depend largely on the results of current projects.
Minor Involvement
Atomic Energy Commission (AEC)
In the process of obtaining licensing for a nuclear power plants, the AEC, under
procedures issued by the Director of Regulations, provides assurance that noise is
considered, as required by Section 102(2)(c) of the National Environmental Act of 1969.
Other than this, the AEC has no activities related directly to noise control.
Federal Power Commission (FPC)
The FPC, in the exercise of its authority for licensing hydroelectric projects and
other power-generating sources, considers noise as an environmental factor.
Department of State
The State Department, in its general mission as the institutional representative
of this nation to foreign countries, has widespread contacts with foreign governments
on environmental matters, including noise. Additionally, State intends to work closely
with the GSA in determining and enforcing noise level tolerances for facilities it uses.
Tennessee Valley Authority ITVA)
The TVA is planning to undertake a study on the effects of gas turbine generating
plants on community noise levels, to be funded from the General Industrial Hygiene
budget. TVA intends to develop standards and criteria for use by design and operating
organizations in community noise control. An expenditure of $45,000 for fiscal 1971
was reported for community noise efforts and noise measuring instrumentation.
5-18
-------
GUIDELINES AND REPORTS 397
Treasury Department
The Bureau of the Mint reports three sources of external noise generation causing
public complaint:
1. Melting furnace exhausts at the Philadelphia mint.
2. Rolling mills at the Denver mint.
3. Presses at the San Francisco Assay Office, where coins are currently minted.
The Bureau reports a continuing, independent effort to solve these problems.
Research Activities*
Of some $34 million expended by the Federal agencies in fiscal 1970, approxi-
mately 78 percent, or $26 million, went for research and development. Most of this
research has been on aircraft noise.
The following list of major Federal laboratories involved in noise and noise-
related problem research should serve to indicate the nature and extent of Federal
agency research involved.
• Department of Agriculture
1. Agriculture Engineering Research Division, Bethesda, Maryland
2. Forest Products Laboratory, Madison, Wisconsin
• Department of Commerce
1. Environmental Research Laboratories, Boulder, Colorado
2. Institute of Applied Technology, NBS, Gaithersburg, Maryland
3. Institute of Basic Standards, NBS, Gaithersburg, Maryland
4. National Bureau of Standards, Boulder, Colorado
5. Wave Propagation Laboratory, Boulder, Colorado
* A detailed listing of principal research activities at these labs is contained in
NTID300.10.
5-19
-------
398 LEGAL COMPILATION—NOISE
• Department of Defense
1. Air Force
(a) Flight Dynamics Laboratory, Wright-Patterson AFB, Dayton, Ohio
(b) Aero Propulsion Laboratory, Wright-Patterson AFB, Dayton, Ohio
(c) Aerospace Medical Research Laboratory, Wright-Patterson AFB,
Dayton, Ohio
(d) School of Aerospace Medicine, Brooks AFB, Texas
(e) Weapons Laboratory, Kirtland AFB, Albuquerque, New Mexico
2. Army
(a) Environmental Health Engineering Services
(b) Environmental Hygiene Agency, Edgewood Arsenal, Maryland
(c) Human Engineering Laboratories, Aberdeen Proving Grounds,
Maryland
(d) Medical Research Laboratory, Fort Knox, Kentucky
(e) Natick Laboratories, Natick, Massachusetts
3. Navy
(a) Missile Center, Pt. Mugu, California
(b) Naval Aerospace Medical Research Laboratory, Pennsecola, Florida
(c) Naval Air Engineering Center, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania
(d) Naval Air Propulsion Test Center
(e) Naval Medical Submarine Research Center, Groton, Connecticut
(f) Naval Undersea Research and Development Center, San Diego,
California
(g) Naval Undersea Warfare Laboratory, Pasadena, California
(h) Ship Research and Development Center, Washington, D. C.
5-20
-------
GUIDELINES AND REPORTS 399
• National Aeronautics and Space Administration
1. Ames Research Center, Moffettfield, California
2. Flight Research Center, Edwards, California
3. Jet Propulsion Laboratory, Pasadena, California
4. Langley Research Center, Hampton, Virginia
5. Lewis Research Center, Cleveland, Ohio
6. Marshall Space Flight Center, Huntsville, Alabama
• Public Health Service
1. Occupational Health Research and Training Facility (PHS), Cincinnati,
Ohio
• Department of Transportation
1. Civil Aeromedlcal Institute, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma
2. Transportation Systems Center, Cambridge, Massachusetts
Aircraft Research
The reduction of aircraft noise and its suppression at the source were investigated
in FY 1971 by NASA and the Departments of Defense and Transportation. NASA fund-
ing in FY 1971 totaled nearly $21 million, of which about $11.1 million was for contract
research, $3.3 million was for test equipment and instrumentation lor the in-house
research, and $6.4 million was for research and program management. This program
included research in source noise, noise propagation, receptor noise, sonic boom,
and approach trajectory modifications.
Other Noist Research Activities
The remaining extent of Federal program activity in noise control can be briefly
summarized. The DOD, HUD, and DOT, as well as NASA, conduct research in areas
such as land use planning, high speed equipment noise reduction, metropolitan noise
5-21
-------
400 LEGAL COMPILATION—NOISE
abatement, and noise In building structures. Work is also being carried out in subway
noise, urban vehicular noise, and tire acoustics.
In 1971, DOD spent $600,000 for research on the effects of noise on human beings.
DOT and HEW spent $40,000 and $200,000, respectively, on this general problem, in-
cluding a study of the psychological effects of continuous noise exposure, impulsive
noise, noise and performance, acceptability of aircraft noise, and other related sub-
jects.
Interagency Committees and Studies
Early attempts to achieve some measure of coordination on a Federal level among
the many noise abatement programs came in two forms: studies and interagency com-
mittees. In the former area, five reports were of particular significance. The reports
were:
1. Noise —Sound Without Value. Committee on Environmental Quality of the
Federal Council for Science and Technology (September, 1968).
2. The Noise Around Us. Panel on Noise Abatement, Commerce Technical Ad-
visory Board, U.S. Department of Commerce (September, 1970). This report
recommended the establishment of an Office of Noise Abatement within EPA.
3. Transportation Noise Pollution: Control and Abatement. NASA Langley Re-
search Center and Old Dominion University (1970); NASA contract NOT 47-
003-028.
4. Report to the Council on Environmental Quality by an Ad Hoc Committee on
Noise. 1969. This Committee issued recommendations that resulted in the
Administration's proposed legislation on noise now pending in Congress.
5. A Study of the Magnitude of Transportation Noise Generation and Potential
Abatement. Department of Transportation (1970); Report No. DOT-ONA-71-1.
5-22
-------
GUIDELINES AND REPORTS 401
There are important interagency groups concerned with noise. These include:
1. CHABA (the NAS-NRC Committee on Hearing, Bioacoustics and Biomechan-
ics). Sponsored by the National Academy of Sciences, it includes represent-
atives from academia, industry, and government. The government organiza-
tions represented are: The Army, Navy, Air Force, NASA, FAA, EPA,
HEW, NIH, DOT (Highway Safety Council). Services and activities of CHABA
include: literature reviews, reports on special problem areas, evaluations
of research proposals, on going research projects and the opportunity for mu-
tual interaction between the several agencies.
2. The Federal Council for Science and Technology's ad hoc committee on En-
vironmental Quality Research and Development. It is in its last phase and
will probably be terminated before the end of the year. This interagency com-
mittee investigated the Federal government's involvement (Research and
Development and demonstration programs) in all areas of environmental
quality. Noise was, of course, included in the investigation.
3. Under the U.S. Public Health Service, the Occupational Health Research and
Training Facility has interagency activities, primarily with DOL, DOI's
Bureau of Mines and recently, the Department of Standards. Most of its
activity centers upon the evaluation of hearing losses produced by occupa-
tional noise exposures and the evaluation of new equipment according to pres-
ent acoustical standards. In the past, the facility was involved with FAA in
studies of the physiological and psychological effects of noise, and of non-
occupational hearing loss from airport noise. Presently a study is being
conducted with the Bureau of Mines to survey prevalence of hearing loss
among miners exposed to mining equipment of assorted types.
5-23
-------
402 LEGAL COMPILATION—NOISE
4. Lnteragency Aircraft Noise Abatement Program: This committee Is one of the
few programs which has successfully incorporated a wide variety of agency
interests and authorities. Perhaps, it has been the most active of the various
interagency groups. Not only the aircraft oriented groups are represented
(DOT, DOD, FAA, NASA) but also such groups as the Department of Com-
merce, Department of Health, Education and Welfare, the National Academy
of Sciences, HUD and DOI. IANAP was organized just after the office of Noise
Abatement in the Department of Transportation was created (about 1968).
The program includes an executive group (from DOT) and eight panels (from
a wide variety of departments). Under IANAP1 s auspices, much information
on aircraft noise has been compiled and published; recently, it was proposed
that its scope be extended to include all areas of transportation noise.
5-24
-------
GUIDELINES AND REPORTS 403
STATE AND MUNICIPAL NON-OCCUPATIONAL NOISE ABATEMENT AND
CONTROL PROGRAMS
This discussion of state and municipal programs in non-occupational noise abate-
ment and control is based on Information received, up to the time this report was pre-
pared, from 114 of a possible 153 cities having a population of over 100,000 and from
41 of a possible 53 states and territories.
Responsible Agencies
Noise abatement and control has received only recently broad national attention;
and therefore, it is not surprising that approximately one half of the states and cities
do not have an agency responsible for noise abatement programs as shown in Tables
5-2 and 5-3.
Of those cities and states that do have some type of program, responsibility for
these programs is fragmented throughout several agencies. With a few exceptions,
these programs are staffed by on demand, part-time personnel, often having no
acoustical background and drawn from several agencies. Perhaps as a function of the
local nature of many of the noise problems, a greater percentage of the cities, as
compared to the states, have specific noise programs and personnel assigned to them
on a continuous basis.
Current Programs
Most programs now functioning are devoted to:
• Increased enforcement of existing nuisance ordinances.
• Establishment of governmental channels to respond to individual complaints.
• Studies and surveys of noise-related Issues in order to develop enforceable
laws, regulations, and ordinances that will include specific criteria and noise
level standards for facility and community requirements.
5-25
-------
404
LEGAL COMPILATION—NOISE
Table 5-2
RESPONSIBLE CITY AGENCIES AND PROGRAM CLASSIFICATION
Population
(in 1,000)
100-200
200-300
300-400
400-500
500-600
600-700
700-800
800-900
more 1,000
Total
Total
Number
of Cities
90
15
17
5
8
5
5
2
6
153
Responsible
Agency
1
37
7
3
2
5
4
2
-
1
S
9
-
5
1
2
-
1
2
2
o
1
tab
3
14
1
1
-
2
-
-
1
_
Environmental
Noise Abatement
City Government
212
2 - 1
3-1
- - 1
- - -
1 - -
1 - -
- - -
11-
61
22 19
10 2 5
Nature of
»
u
h 3, S
0 -C •-
l|1
0 ra Q
11 5 3
3-1
332
- _ _
112
- - 1
11-
11-
242
Program
8 «
Enforcing Ordinal
Research (Trainii
Public Education
7 6(1) -
1 2 1
1 2 -
12-
1
1 - -
- - -
- - -
1 1
22 15 11
11 14(1) 2
5-26
-------
GUIDELINES AND REPORTS
405
Table 5-3
RESPONSIBLE STATE AGENCIES & PROGRAM CLASSIFICATION
Population
(in 1,000)
300-900
1,000-2,000
2,000-3,000
3,000-4,000
4,000-6,000
6,000-11,000
Total
Number
of States
11
6
7
8
7
4
11,000-19,000 5_
Total
50
Responsible
Agency
1
6
3
3
2
4
2
1
23
B « *
o Ł o
** o) c C
• O *•* " C
till
a . 2 2 «
1 s 1 1 I
3 - - - -
- - 2 - -
1-1
4 - 2 - -
3 - - - -
1
1 - 2 - -
11 0 8 0 1
Nature of
h bp
0) .S
iŁ ^>
i °
< i
Complaint
Survey/M
-
1 1
- -
- -
1
- -
1 1
2 3
to
3
rt
Developin
2
-
2
-
1
2
1
8
Program
o
3
fl
Ł
Enforcing
-
-
-
-
2
-
1
3
.5
Z
Research
Other
1
1
2 3
1 1
- -
1
1
6 5
5-27
-------
406 LEGAL COMPILATION—NOISE
The few exceptional situations in which specific noise standards and regulations
(as opposed to general nuisance ordinances) have been promulgated and enforced, in-
clude:
• Control of highway vehicular noise according to noise level standards.
• Restriction of the time of day when scheduled airlines may use airport facili-
ties.
• Prohibition, in terms of both sales and use, of specific recreational vehicles
in wilderness areas.
Research and Testing Facilities
Those agencies carrying out noise related activities hav« equipment ranging from
a single sound level meter to several sets of equipment including a spectrum analyzer
and several cars. As an exceptional example, the California Highway Patrol is exten-
sively equipped to monitor noise. During one 12-month period (1970-1971), the noise
levels of 1 million highway vehicles were measured. However, most local govern-
ments have not reported any testing facilities or inspection stations.
Current Funding
In most cases, funding for non-occupational noise abatement is part of the opera-
tional budget of several agencies and not specifically allocated to a program of noise
abatement. However, for five cities allocating funds specifically for noise abatement
programs, the cost of current programs varies from approximately $.02 to $.04 per
resident per year as shown by Table 5-4.
California and Illinois have allocated respectively $.01 and $.025 per resident.
5-28
-------
GUIDELINES AND REPORTS
407
Table 5-4
BUDGET OF CURRENT (1971) NOISE ABATEMENT
PROGRAMS IN 5 CITIES
City
New York, N. Y.
Boston, Mass.
Columbia, S. C.
Fremont, Calif.
Philadelphia, Pa.
Approx. Pop.
(1,000,000)
8.0
0.6
0.1
0.1
1.9
Program Cost
Per Resident
(cents)
4
4
2
2
1.6
Although a few city governments have estimated future budgetary requirements
(New York City has $1 million budgeted for 1973 . . . $. 12 to $. 15 per resident),
most did not have an available estimate of cost for noise abatement programs.
Estimation of Potential Nationwide Budget of State and City
Non-Occupational Noise Control Programs
Through extrapolation of information based on the existing budgets of state and
local governments already actively addressing the noise problem, a rough estimate of
the possible state and local government budget that could be devoted to the initial
stages of noise abatement and control is $3 to $13 million per year. It would appear,
however, that this estimate of potential expenditure by state and local governments
would probably still be less than the lower bound for a comprehensive and effective
noise abatement program. This viewpoint is somewhat verified by the responses
from state and local government officials, which indicate that they are unable to evalu-
ate the effectiveness of their respective noise abatement programs. State and local
governments could greatly benefit if a set of national noise and abatement objectives
and goals were established to which they could relate their programming.
5-29
-------
408 LEGAL COMPILATION—NOISE
Potential Use of Federal Funds
Because of the difficulty of enforcing nuisance laws, most city and state govern-
ments would prefer to see Federal funds used to develop noise criteria. This would
allow the local governments to develop and Implement meaningful programs in 3 to 5
years.
Summary of State and Local Efforts
• Over half of the states and cities have no agency responsible for noise abate-
ment.
• Of those local governments that do have some type of program, responsibility
for such programs is fragmented throughout several agencies.
• Deflecting the local nature of many of the noise problems, a greater percent-
age of the cities, as compared to the states, have specific noise programs
and personnel assigned to them on a continuous basis.
• The broad power given to the courts under the general category of nuisance
laws concerning noise has had limited success in reducing noise. However,
most local governments feel that if noise criteria, involving such issues as
land use and human reaction to noise, were available in measurable terms,
they could develop and implement more meaningful programs appropriate to
their local requirements within 3 to 5 years.
• Those governments having active programs have noted that Federal funds
could be used to improve their staffs and facilities and to enlarge their pro-
gram scopes,
• Reflecting the recent concern for noise, local programs have been initiated
within the last 1 to 2 years but their success or failure has not as yet been
evaluated. It should be noted that in a 12-month period during 1970 and 1971,
5-30
-------
GUIDELINES AND REPORTS 409
California, having promulgated noise standards for road vehicles, measured
the sound level of 1 million highway vehicles and cited 1.5 percent of these
vehicles for violations.
5-31
-------
410 LEGAL COMPILATION—NOISE
INDUSTRIAL. PROFESSIONAL AND VOLUNTARY ASSOCIATIONS
Introduction
The importance of the effects of noise abatement and control is reflected by the
concerted efforts of many industrial, professional and voluntary associations through-
out the country. Their noise abatement research and development programs, their
programs in hearing conservation for the protection and well-being of personnel, and
their initiative in establishing criteria and standards reflect not only an aware-
ness of a significant problem, but a willingness and ability to attack the prob-
lem so it may be resolved or controlled. The efforts of these organizations reflect the
absence of governmental influence. Furthermore, their efforts have not been a mere
reflex reaction to overtures and public dissatisfaction with noise problems that have
been projected in recent years. Instead, the efforts of many of the organizations re-
flect active engagement during the past 15 to 20 years.
Activities
Interest in noise and noise related problems is demonstrated by the activities of
over 100 professional/industrial organizations. Some of these organizations, of
course, have a direct interest while others may have a tangential one. The Acous-
tical Society of America is perhaps one of the larger professional societies that is
directly engaged in a broad spectrum of noise and acoustical problems. It is currently
developing a program for its Coordinating Committee on Environmental Acoustics.
This program will establish means for defining environmental problems in societal
and technical terms and for disseminating information to the problem-solving
community. The Society of Automotive Engineers and the American Society of
Mechanical Engineers are two societies that have directed efforts over the years to
preparing suggested standards for the safety and protection of the public. The Depart-
ment of Labor has adopted for its use certain of the proposed standards recommended
5-32
-------
GUIDELINES AND REPORTS 411
by the American Society of Mechanical Engineers. The Society of Automotive Engineers
publishes relative material in the form of Information reports (e.g., methods of compar-
ing aircraft takeoff and approach noise; jet noise prediction) and recommended prac-
tices (e.g., procedures for computing the perceived noise level of aircraft noise) for
advice and voluntary use of others. They have published approximately twenty of these
types of reports related to noise and acoustics.
Hearing conservation, since 1947, has received the primary emphasis from the
Subcommittee on Noise in Industry of the American Academy of Ophthalmology and
Otolaryngology. This group has prepared and distributed guides and manuals, and
participated in symposia concerned with industrial hearing loss.
Two industrial hygiene organizations, the American Industrial Hygiene Associa-
tion and the American Conference of Governmental Industrial Hygienists, have sub-
stantial involvements in noise related problems. The first named of these
associations has an inter-industry noise subcommittee which directs its efforts toward
industrial hearing loss, and is presently revising the Industrial Noise Manual published
by the American Industrial Hygiene Association.
The American National Standards Institute is the national organization, represent-
ing industry, the Individual consumer and the government, which meets demands for
voluntary national standards. Through its committees on acoustics, bioacoustics, and
shock and vibration, the Institute coordinates the work of standards development in the
private sector in the areas of noise and noise related problems. The Institute has pub-
lished approximately forty standards in acoustics and vibration which relate to noise
problems.
Activities of professional and industrial organizations are also extended to testing
procedures, certification, and rating of various noise producing products. For exam-
ple, the American Society for Testing and Materials has proposed a standard method
5-33
-------
412 LEGAL COMPILATION—NOISE
to test sound absorption and acoustical materials In reverberation rooms. Another
example Is the Air Conditioning and Refrigeration Institute which has developed a
sound certification program and sound-rating procedures for outdoor air conditioning
units.
Publications
The dissemination of relevant information on noise and noise related problems
through the medium of publications of books, periodicals and technical reports, has
been a major source of contribution toward the understanding of problems related to
noise control. One of the several professional societies, the Acoustical Society of
America, publishes monthly scientific research reports relating specifically to noise
and related problems in the Journal of the Acoustical Society of America. Sound and
Vibration, a controlled circulation publication to the professional community, publish-
es articles covering a wide spectrum of acoustic and vibration subjects. Noise
Measurement, is a quarterly publication produced by an electronics instrument manu-
facturing and sound and electronics laboratory (General Radio Corporation). This
company has also published a widely used book, Handbook of Noise Measurement.
Recent books include Effects of Noise on Man, by Karl D. Kryter, Noise and Vibra-
tion Control by Leo L. Beranek, and Handbook of Noise Control by C. Harris.
5-34
-------
GUIDELINES AND REPORTS 413
CHAPTER 6
AN ASSESSMENT OF NOISE CONCERN
IN OTHER NATIONS *
This section presents an overview of noise abatement and control problems and
activities of foreign nations. It Is given here in support of the premises that noise
has attracted worldwide attention, that many nations have taken positive action and
are supporting extensive noise abatement research and, finally, that all such work
is nonpolitical and should be of universal benefit.
This material is presented In an Integrated topical manner, rather than on a
country-by-country basis, so that the reader may more easily compare International
noise abatement and control problems and measures with those of the United States.
The discussion on laws and regulations, however, is one exception to the Integrated
presentation, since It was necessary to review each country separately due to funda-
mental differences In the legal foundations and cultural backgrounds among nations.
* This chapter is based on material prepared by the staff EPA Office of Noise Abate-
ment and Control and on data contained in EPA Technical Information Document
NTID300.6, "An Assessment of Noiae Concern in Other Nations," (EPA contract
68-01-0157, Informatics, Inc.). See Appendix A regarding procurement of this
material, which contains bibliographic information.
6-1
-------
414 LEGAL COMPILATION—NOISE
SUMMARY OF IMPRESSIONS
In May of 1971, the U.N. Economic Commission for Europe sponsored a confer-
ence on environmental problems. The papers submitted at this conference indicate
that noise is of serious concern in Europe and has been the object of specific attention
for at least the past 10 years. Although the invitation to the conference suggested an
outline for the subjects to be discussed and mentioned only transportation and build-
ing noise, 18 of the 26 countries represented specifically mentioned noise. Twelve
of those countries treated noise as a major environmental topic along with water pollu-
tion, air pollution, and soil degradation.
Of the nations surveyed, it appears that Japan has some of the most severe pollu-
tion problems, including noise pollution, and is vigorously attacking them. Further,
it can be concluded that European nations have become more noise conscious and
have been more active in noise abatement than has the United States. There are, of
course, a number of obvious reasons.
1. Since World War II, most European countries have been engaged in recon-
struction and subsequent economic expansion. In England, construction
noise has been intensive, with approximately 600,000 new residences being
erected per year from 1966 to 1972. Similarly, aircraft flights there have
increased at the rate of from 15 to 20 percent each year in recent years.
In the European Common Market nations, the number of automobiles has
been increasing about 11 percent each year.
2. European demographic characteristics and social traditions differ greatly
from those of the U. S. Many European town dwellers own their own houses,
and even farmers tend to live in densely populated towns. Further, proxim-
ity to one's neighbor and narrow, crowded streets are historical character-
istics of European cities.
6-2
-------
GUIDELINES AND REPORTS 415
3. In most European governments there is a trend toward establishing unified
ministries of the environment. However, most of these ministries are
too new for their effectiveness to be measured. This is not to be interpreted,
however, as meaning that these governments have not been active in pollution
control, especially with respect to noise. Bather, the extensive activities of
various ministries such as health, transport, and housing have led to major
programs that required consolidation into single ministries.
The Scandinavian countries have been highly active in noise abatement and control.
Recently, a technical body under the name of Scandinavian Building Council was estab-
lished by the Nordic countries in order to exchange notes, to collect new ideas, to find
common approaches, and to arrive at solutions in combating all aspects of environ-
mental pollution. The Council's headquarters is located in Helsinki, with other de-
partments in Stockholm. Lately, the Council has been notably preoccupied with traffic
and aviation noise, resulting in recommendations that have been drafted for regulations
prescribing minimum distances between buildings and different types of roads. Studies
for providing safer and quieter road systems in new building developments are also
conducted. The Council also plans to establish Scandinavian Standards and common
regulations.
In England, the new Minister of Environment appears to have autonomy in his posi-
tion; however, like his colleagues, he must plead his cases before the Prime Minis-
ter or before the full cabinet in instances, for example, in which conflicts might exist
between environmental protection and industrial development. France's Ministry of
Environment is barely 5 months old, and its scope is not yet well defined. However,
it is noteworthy that jurisdiction for traffic and construction noise has been removed
from local governments and assigned to the new Ministry.
6-3
-------
416 LEGAL COMPILATION—NOISE
In West Germany, Chancellor Brandt is developing a new environmental policy.
It is already known, however, that his "sofort" priority program includes a new
law on noise pollution. And it is expected that it will cover construction noise
and emisslon/lmmisBlon standards as well as a general monitoring program and
a central clearinghouse for air and noise Information. Structurally, Germany's
Ministry of the Environment is an element of the Ministry of the Interior.
The Soviet Union and Eastern European countries do not seem to follow the same
pattern of centralization of environmental affairs. While noise and abatement control
has been an active Issue, It has been pursued by such ministries as those of health
and building technology. In the USSR, noise norms have the form of administrative
laws and, in general, are not strictly enforced.
6-4
-------
GUIDELINES AND REPORTS 417
LEGISLATION AND REGULATIONS
Great Britain
The only Act of Parliament specifically designed to control noise is the "Act to
make new provisions in respect of the control of noise and vibration with a view to
their abatement" of November 28, 1960, which can be considered an extension of
public health legislation. The first subsection of Section 1 of this noise abatement
act states: "noise or vibration which is a nuisance shall be a statutory nuisance for
the purposes of Part III of the Public Health Act, 1936, and the provisions of that Act
shall have effect accordingly as if sub-sections (1) to (4) of this section were provi-
sions of the said Part IE." This part of the Public Health Act specifically states that
action against "noise or vibration alleged to be a statutory nuisance can be instituted
either by the local authority in which the nuisance is being committed or by any three
or more persons, each of whom is an occupier of land or premises, who are affected
by the nuisance." The stipulation limiting institution of proceedings to at least three
aggrieved persons is Intended to discourage unnecessary complaints within the statu-
tory systems and does not restrict the right of individuals to take civil action. Before
the passage of this act, noise control was vested in local authorities under the provi-
sions set out in local acts and in bylaws instituted under the Local Government Act of
1933. K is estimated that before 1960 there were 400 authorities having noise control
powers, although prosecutions may have numbered as little as 20.
Aircraft noise is specifically exempted from proceedings under the 1960 Act.
Section 2 of the Act lays down detailed rules stating when and for what purposes loud-
speakers may be used in streets and creates offenses punishable by small fines and
enforceable by local authorities. The police themselves have various statutory powers
to prosecute and may also prosecute under local bylaws in cases in which noise can be
broadly described as resulting from disorderly behavior.
6-5
-------
418 LEGAL COMPILATION—NOISE
The only British statutory provisions, utilizing sound levels to directly decide
whether a noise should be controlled are the Motor Vehicles (Construction and Use)
Regulations of 1969. In addition, Section 60 of the Road Traffic Act of 1960 gives the
Ministry of Transport extensive powers of regulation. Motor vehicle limits more strict
than ECE requirements were issued for 1972. Domestic aircraft regulations were
amended to consider aircraft noise subsequent to International Civil Aviation Organiza-
tion Activity in 1969.
Switzerland
Switzerland does not have any federal legislation dealing exclusively with noise.
When the Swiss Government deals with problems concerning noise, the Police Division
of the Ministry of Justice and Police is consulted. The Federal Division of Police is
presently responsible for coordinating all Federal anti-noise measures.
There are a number of administrative and legislative practices regarding air-
craft and motor vehicle noise. They include mandatory vehicle certification, specify-
ing maximum emissions for five different classes of motor vehicle. And motor ve-
hicles are subject to inspection at intervals not to exceed three years. Public trans-
portation is subject to special regulation that is enforced, essentially, by government/
industry cooperation. On the local level, the Lausanne Anti-Noise Police Brigade is
noteworthy. This organization is concerned with reducing noise from all sources:
traffic, aircraft, construction sites, industry, and night clubs or bars. Similar
brigades exist in other Swiss cities.
The Swiss campaign against noise is frequently viewed as a model. It has been
effective in soliciting public and industrial cooperation.
France
Recently, France established a Ministry for the Environment; however, as of
early 1971, no specific French law on noise had been enacted. Nevertheless, the
legal tools for comprehensive noise control do exist and are enforced through various
applicable ministries. For example:
6-6
-------
GUIDELINES AND REPORTS 419
• The Ministry of Equipment is responsible for laying down noise level
standards for vehicles and for defining the conditions of sale of vehicles
and new exhaust systems.
• The Ministry of Health is responsible—in particular through the agency of
the Noise Commission—for assisting in the definition of desirable noise
levels.
• The Ministry of the Interior and the Ministry of the Armed Forces are
responsible, by means of the police force and gendarmerie, for the
enforcement of approved legislation and regulations.
It is interesting to note that the French Anti-Noise League was declared to be "in the
public interest" in 1963, and from that time its activities have been subsidized.
New motor vehicles must be certified, with limits of 76 dBA for scooters to 90
dBA for trucks over 3.5 tons, and the noise from agricultural tractors to be measured
at a fixed distance. Motor vehicles may be stopped, and fines of up to 360 Francs
can be imposed for violations. Numerous local ordinances exist that regulate traffic,
especially truck traffic. Since March 1960, the operation of portable ratio receivers
in the streets of Paris has been prohibited, and the use of rubber or plastic trash cans
is mandatory, to reduce the noise associated with refuse collection.
Japan
In June of 1971, a new ministerial level agency for the environment was estab-
lished. Within that organization, noise abatement and control falls under the purview
of the Special Pollution Section and the Motor Vehicle Pollution Section. Japan is
probably unique, with its national Law on Noise Abatement, drafted 25 May 1971.
This law established national standards for maximum noise levels in the following
zoning areas:
6-7
-------
420
LEGAL COMPILATION—NOISE
• Hospital and other quiet areas
• Residential areas
• Industrial and commercial areas.
The Japanese policy for implementing noise abatement measures includes some
interesting features. For example, the Government is empowered to grant loans to
local public institutions to cover the costs of special noise abatement activities. In
addition, the law provides for tax incentives to those industries that have voluntarily
modified their plants for quiet operations. Table 6-1 presents the major Japanese
laws dealing with noise abatement and control.
Table 6-1
MAJOR JAPANESE NOISE LAWS
Classification
Law
Jurisdiction
1. Environmental
standards
2. Industrial
Basic pollution measure
(Law 132, 1967)
Noise abatement law
(Law 98, 1968)
Environmental Agency
1. Environment Sanitation
Division, Ministry of
Health and Welfare.
2. Enterprise Bureau,
Ministry of International
Trade and Industry
6-8
-------
GUIDELINES AND REPORTS
421
Table 6-1 (cont.)
Classification
Law
Jurisdiction
3. Construction
4. Aviation
5. Aviation (Military
Bases)
Noise Abatement Law
(law 98, 1968)
Public or Private Airports
and Vicinities (Law 110,
1966)
Special Loss and Indem-
nity (Law 246, 1953) and
Defense Force (Law 135,
1967)
3. Forest Division, Agen-
cy for Forests and
Fields.
4. Processing Food
Division, Food Agency
5. Minister's Secretariat,
Ministry of Transpor-
tation
1. Environment Sanitation
Division, Ministry of
Health and Welfare
2. Planning Bureau,
Ministry of Construction
Aviation Bureau, Ministry
of Transportation
1. Account Division, Agency
Defense Equipment
6-9
-------
422 LEGAL COMPILATION—NOISE
Soviet Union
The Soviet Union may have the world's first comprehensive noise control legisla-
tion, dating from 1956. However, it is not embodied in one single law but, rather, is
represented in a series of standards and norms that assume the role of administrative
law. Sanitary Norm 785-69 covers industrial noise that is inside the factory emitted
to the surrounding community. The maximum noise levels permitted by this norm
inside Soviet work places is approximately 85 dBA; however, the norms for labora-
tories and offices are considerably lower.
to populated areas, the maximum noise an industry may legally emit into its
neighborhood (measured just outside the buildings to be protected) is as specified:
Time Approximate dBA
8 a.m. - 11 p.m. 55
11 p.m. - 8 a.m. 45
However, certain situations are allowed in which the noise levels may be increased by
approximately 5 dBA.
The underlying principles of Soviet noise norms are the protection of man's central
nervous system, the prevention of hearing loss or speech interference, and the con-
cern for labor productivity. The Soviet norms appear to be a guide to equivalent laws
of many Eastern European nations.
6-10
-------
GUIDELINES AND REPORTS 423
NOISE SOURCES
Community Noise
The noise to which workers are subjected in factories has been a matter of con-
tinuing concern in many countries. Only during the past 10 or 15 years, however,
has significant attention been paid to noise exposure elsewhere. Although residents
of rural areas and small towns are exposed to noise disturbances, it is often in the
larger metropolitan centers that noise levels arouse social and civic awareness.
Thus, it is not surprising that certain foreign cities have already become involved in
practical noise research.
A typical approach to noise research usually begins with a city-wide survey
aimed at assessing the extent of the local noise problem. Such a survey may be
based on either or both of the two fundamental approaches; i.e., physical measure-
ments of existing noise levels at a number of locations and sociological surveys of
disturbance/annoyance reactions.
Some authorities consider Dortmund, Germany to be the leading city in this kind
of noise research. Others group Dortmund with London and Tokyo. Each of these
cities has conducted extensive surveys, and each is well known for one or more
aspects of its noise research. Dortmund, for example, measured noise levels in
over 1400 different places and developed an intricate noise map, with streets shown
in different colors according to 5-dB noise level increments. Tokyo has taken a
number of surveys, each concentrating on a different target, such as automobile
noise, construction noise, industrial noise, noise levels at schools, and noise levels
by zone. London chose to cover an area of 36 square miles with 540 measuring
points systematically located 500 yards apart on a grid layout. These three cities
are by no means the only ones that have made noise surveys.
6-11
-------
424 LEGAL COMPILATION—NOISE
Similar surveys have been made elsewhere, notably in Dusseldorf, Munich,
Vienna, Berlin, Cologne, Toulouse, Paris, Athens, Madrid, Warsaw and Brno, as
well as in several populated areas and towns in Romania and the Netherlands.
The findings of the various surveys tend to support each other, and thus, suggest
that urban noise phenomena are much the same from city to city. For example, Lon-
don, Tokyo, Dusseldorf, Madrid, and other cities all report that the average noise from
heavy vehicles is higher than the noise from ordinary cars. The London report shows
that the noise level next to a road increased by 4 dBA (from a base varying between 68 to
80 dBA) if the traffic flow increases from 1000 to 3000 vehicles per hour. Dusseldorf,
though reporting in different measuring units, shows results of much the same magni-
tude. However, the Dusseldorf investigators carried this one step further, finding
that a given increase in traffic density had less effect on the noise level 20 or 40
meters away than it did next to the roadway itself.
One of the most frequently cited results of the London survey indicates that over
80 percent of London's noise is caused by vehicular traffic. It should be pointed out,
however, that this particular survey covered 36 square miles of the inner city, where
vehicles were the most numerous noise sources. In the survey report, it was shown
that the contribution of industrial and other noise emission grew as one proceeded
toward the outlying areas. More specifically, traffic noise predominated in 84 per-
cent of the locations chosen for the survey, while in the remaining 16 percent of the
locations the predominant noise came from industrial plants, river boats, docks,
railways, building operations, etc. While it is evidently true that surface traffic
makes the largest contribution to urban noise, the fact that it is dominated by other
noise sources in certain city locations is significant.
6-12
-------
GUIDELINES AND REPORTS 425
The relatively great impact of vehicular noise is supported by the sociological
surveys made in several cities, but the results vary widely. Brivo, Paris, and Lon-
don offer typical examples. In Brno, 90 percent of the people interrogated ranked
traffic noise as the most annoying, while 80 percent of the respondents in Paris
ranked it in first place. In London, where the responses were classified according
to location, the results showed 36 percent of the people at home, 20 percent of those
outdoors, and 7 percent of those at work rated traffic noise as the most annoying.
Interestingly enough, 39 percent of the Londoners at home gave higher priorities
to home-generated noise from appliances, voices, television, pets, etc., while the
rest complained about either aircraft or Industry.
So far, researchers have been unable to find many meaningful correlations be-
tween technological and sociological noise surveys. Admittedly this can be attributed
to the fact that the characteristics of a noise source as measured by an instrument are
not necessarily consistent with the complaints about it by a human being. Moreover,
neither sound level meters nor human ears can provide accurate identification of all
the sounds that may have harmful effects. It becomes clear only that community
noise is a cacophony of disturbances that require much research and analysis.
Air Traffic Noise
Virtually every country ts concerned In some way with noise produced by air
traffic. The disturbance caused by aircraft noise in residential areas around the
world's major airports is generally regarded as a serious problem.
Protests from aroused citizens have prompted planning agencies in most coun-
tries to move cautiously in establishing new airports. London, for example, has
spent several years debating the location of Its third airport, and Tokyo Its second.
The problem has reached the stage where public reaction is influencing the develop-
ment of future aircraft. Not the least of the Impediments is the publicity given to
6-13
-------
426 LEGAL COMPILATION—NOISE
the prospect of sonic boom carpets to be laid across the world during flights of
supersonic transports.
Awareness of aviation noise problems has kept pace with both the increase in air
traffic and the advancement of aircraft technology. According to the Airlines Research
Bureau, for example, the volume of international traffic in Europe during the period
of 1960 to 1969, exclusive of intercontinental flights not originating or terminating
in Europe, increased from 10.4 to 24.9 million passengers. An even sharper rise
was registered by freight and mail cargo. In view of increases in the power and size
of jet aircraft during this same period, the expressions of alarm over aircraft noise
are not surprising.
Typical of airport problems over this period of time is the experience of Heath-
row Airport in London. Reacting to over 1200 complaints received in 1960, Heath-
row authorities found that 23 percent of the daytime flights and 35 percent of the
nighttime flights were exceeding the airport's own maximum permissible noise
levels. After campaigning to bring noise levels to the established limits, airport
authorities reduced noise levels to within 1 percent of standards for both day and
night flights by 1963, and the number complaints dropped to 600. However, the in-
creased traffic and the increase in the number of jet aircraft brought the number of
complaints up to 2200 in 1969. Meanwhile, a survey of persons living in the two
boroughs most seriously affected by Heathrow noise showed that inhabitants, who
in 1965 or 1966 were able to tolerate the noise, had begun to resent it bitterly by as
early as 1968.
Heathrow's concern for the reactions of residents is by no means unique. Al-
most every country considers it necessary to not only know the aircraft noise levels
produced on the ground and in the vicinity of an airport but also to assess the noise
disturbance in terms of public reaction. Consequently, the concept of the Perceived
6-14
-------
GUIDELINES AND REPORTS 427
Noise Level (PNdB), with various modifications and interpretations, is commonly
accepted. Tills concept is reflected in the International Standards Organization pro-
cedure for the measurement and assessment of aircraft noise. Although most coun-
tries agree with the principles behind this procedure, some object to its methodology.
Notable among these is South Africa, which has been working on the development of
a measure that involves more factors and fewer measurements. South Africa was
also among the countries to follow the recent trend toward the measurement of noise
levels in dBA rather than In PNdB units, as originally specified in ISO recommenda-
tions.
One airport that has met reasonable success in the controlling noise is the ZUrich
Kloten Airport. More than five years ago, the government of the Canton Zurich es-
tablished regulations to limit excessive noise in the airport vicinity. The regulations
themselves are of less interest, however, than the techniques used to achieve com-
pliance. The airport employs a permanent monitoring system involving strategically
placed microphones connected by cables to a central evaluation unit, where A-weighted
sound levels are continuously recorded. If a tripping level is exceeded, then the date,
time, and duration of the event are printed out so that the offending pilot can be iden-
tified. The results of the monitoring activity are published in a bulletin distributed
to all airlines every month. In this bulletin a rank order is given, showing the rela-
tive proportions of infringements for the various airlines. No airline likes to be at
the top of the list, and no pilot likes to be cited too often. These factors alone have
served to make the procedure effective; but they are reinforced on rare occasions
by the practice of asking a pilot with an excessive number of citations to report to the
traffic control office before each departure and receive a detailed briefing on the
exact contents of the regulations. Even attempts to circumvent the system have pro-
vided unexpected benefits. For example, because knowledge of the system's details
6-15
-------
428 LEGAL COMPILATION—NOISE
la common, some aircraft have been avoiding the known locations of monitoring micro-
phones. Since these locations are at the outskirts of densely populated villages, the
evasive actions of the pilots have proved to be advantageous.
In other countries the techniques for enforcement of airport noise standards tend
to be more formal. Moreover, emphasis elsewhere seems to be placed on the estab-
lishment of acceptable criteria or on the selection of suitable sites. In common with
nations from other continents, the rest of the European countries are interested in
problems such as: noise certification, satisfactory methods for specifying noise
levels, location of airports where land usage in their vicinity is reasonably compatible
with the degree of noise disturbance likely to be experienced, and production or oper-
ation of aircraft to achieve noise abatement without sacrificing safety or economy.
A few countries have experimented with other approaches for protection from
aircraft noise, both flyover disturbances and airport effects. In 1963, Tokyo tried
a ban against jet flights between 11:00 p.m. and 6:00 a.m. fii later years Japan,
Norway, and Great Britain experimented with such physical measures as the construc-
tion of acoustic baffles and greenbelts, the installation of double windows, the use of
sound Insulation In the walls and ceilings of buildings, and the erection of concrete
walls around schools. While all these measures were at least partially successful,
circumstances often negated their effects. In some cases, for instance, the absence
of air conditioning in such protected buildings prompted the occupants to open the win-
dows in the summer.
The worldwide concern over aircraft noise comes at a time when the present
generation of jet aircraft will probably be in use for at least another eight to 10 years.
Accordingly, attention has been directed to retrofitting existing jet engines to make
them quieter. Although the International Civil Avlation.Organization sponsored a
6-16
-------
GUIDELINES AND REPORTS
429
retrofit meeting In November 1971, Uttle hope is held for general agreement on its
recommendation, because the estimated cost per engine is beyond the means of many
foreign nations. Air traffic noise thus promises to be a challenging problem for the
decade of the seventies, a problem with technical, economic, and political overtones
of considerable magnitude.
Surface Traffic Noiie
Of all the Irritant noise sources in both urban and rural settings, traffic noise has
been isolated as the most significant. Many countries have undertaken sociological
surveys that support this thesis. For example, Table 6-2 presents data gathered from
a British survey in 1968.
Table 6-2
BRITISH TRAFFIC SURVEY
Description of Noise
Road traffic
Aircraft
Trains
Industry/construction work
Domestic/Light appliances
Neighbors' Impact noise
(knocking, walking, etc.)
Children
Adult voices
Radio/TV
Bells/alarms
Pets
Number of People Disturbed
Per 100 Questioned
When at Home
36
9
5
7
4
6
9
10
7
3
3
When Outdoors
20
4
1
3
-
-
3
2
1
1
-
When at Work
7
1
-
10
4
-
-
2
1
1
-
6-17
-------
430
LEGAL COMPILATION—NOISE
The absolute percentages may vary from country to country, but the relative
position of traffic noise versus that from other sources Is constant. In Norway, a
relatively thinly populated country, a poll of 1600 people yielded the date presented
in Table 6-3.
Table 6-3
NORWEGIAN NOEE SURVEY
Tvte of Noise
A. Noise from motor vehicles
B. Noise from aircraft
C. Noise from railroads
D. Noise from ne ighbors
Number of People Annoyed per 100
Questioned
All Questioned
17
3
4
5
Area
Urban
20
4
5
6
Rural
11
1
1
3
A Swedish study shows that cultural differences are significant in assessing the
social impact of traffic noise. This comparative study, with a sample population
(matched in terms of age, social, and occupational status) of 200 in Stockholm and
166 in Ferrara, Italy, came up with a statistically significant difference—92 per-
cent in Stockholm versus 63 percent in Ferrara spontaneously mentioned traffic
noise, and 61 percent in Stockholm versus 43 percent in Ferrara were disturbed by
traffic noise. The conclusion was drawn that results concerning annoyance reactions
to traffic noise in one country cannot be directly extrapolated to another.
Road Traffic Noise Levels
la 1970 a report on urban traffic noise by the Organization for Economic Cooper-
ation and Development the observation is made that effective enforcement of traffic
6-18
-------
GUIDELINES AND REPORTS 431
noise regulations requires the availability of simple, reliable noise monitoring instru-
ments. Experience attests to the ineffectiveness of legal enforcement of noise legis-
lation without adequate equipment (or manpower). It implies that even though not all
governments experience equal deficiencies, a universal need for improvement does
exist. For research purposes, however, modern equipment satisfies all current
requirements.
Between 1963 and 1965, in roadside surveys made in Great Britain traffic noise
was isolated from all other sources. The measurements were made in a wide range
of situations, to learn how to relate the variables of traffic flow and road gradient to
noise levels. The procedures followed were those specified in British Standard 3425.
A useful method of displaying the time-varying nature of traffic noise is a sta-
tistical distribution. Figure 6-1 shows such distributions measured by Lamure and
Auzou, in France, for light and heavy urban highway traffic. A straight line on the
figure represents a Gaussian distribution. In this case, the heavy traffic situation
is described well by such a distribution, while the distribution of the light traffic
situation is skewed by the occasional noise peaks.
The data is essentially self-explanatory. It shows, for example, that in light
traffic 80 dBA Is exceeded 5 percent of the time, 70 dBA 20 percent of the time and
that In heavy traffic 80 dBA is exceeded 60 percent of the time and 70 dBA 97 per-
cent of the time. These noise levels far exceed those recommended by the Organi-
zation of Economic Cooperation and Development as acceptable.
A noise map plotted for Toulouse, France, showed that in the center of the city
the noise level rarely falls below 80 to 90 dBA and sometimes even exceeds 100 dBA
at peak periods.
Recordings made uninterrupted for 24-hour periods inside a number of buildings
in Paris showed that inside a building particularly exposed to urban traffic noise,
6-19
-------
432
LEGAL COMPILATION—NOISE
99.99
u 99.5
95
80
60
I
EC
1.0
0.1
0.01
\
\
\
\,
X
x
^
•
\
V
\
VERY LIGHT TRAF
y
V ,HEAV1
\_s
°\
\
\
\
>^.
FIC'
TRAFFIC
N
\
\
\
\
0 \
"V \
•^ "
^(
'\
X
X
60
70 80
A-Weighted Sound Pressure Level d8(A)
90
Figure 6-1. Typical Statistical Distributions of Urban Traffic Noise
the average total noise during the day (from 6:00 a. m. to 11:00 p. m.) varies between
50 and 60 dBA and that during the night (from 11:00 p. m. to 6:00 a. in.) is varied be-
tween 40 and 50 dBA, with frequent peaks of 60 dBA. During the day, the minimum
noise never falls below 45 dBA and falls below 30 dBA only between 1:00 a. m. and
3:00 a. m.
Control of Traffic Noise
Traffic noise abatement can be achieved by attacking either the source, the trans-
mission path, the receiver (buildings), or any combination of these elements. There
appears to be no consistency among the countries surveyed in their approach to the
6-20
-------
GUIDELINES AND REPORTS 433
control of traffic noise. In Sweden as well as Great Britain, busses have been
modified with special acoustic liners around the engines and exhausts. While an 8-
to 10- dBA reduction is being claimed, the Organization for Economic Cooperation
and Development cautions that such measures may be temporary unless relatively
expensive maintenance procedures are observed.
Soviet experiments have shown positive results through dynamic balancing of the
engine, gear box, wheels, and tires as well as through extensive use of soundproof-
ing materials. A British study by the National Physics Laboratory achieved noise
level reductions of 5 dBA for diesel engines and 9 dBA for gasoline engines by vary-
ing the compression ratios and timing patterns.
Regarding transmission path noise reduction, all countries surveyed agreed that
depressed highways with either slanted or vertical walls offered best results. Simi-
larly, noise shielding structures appear to be a popular approach, at least in Sweden,
Great Britain, and the West German Republic. In a London noise study employing
a protective barrier three meters from the edge of a road 30 meters wide, it was
found that 30 meters from the screen the total noise reduction varied from 9 to 15
dBA for a 1.5-meter barrier, from 17 to 22 dBA for a 5-meter barrier, and 22 to
25 dBA for a 10-meter barrier. Noise reduction due solely to distance was about
9 dBA.
Many countries have Introduced strips of grass and trees along highways. While
such measures are aesthetically pleasing, Swiss and Scandinavian data show typical
attentuation of 5 dBA per 100 meters for dense plantings of trees. The Swiss study
states that such a measure may be worthwhile from a psychological point of view:
when the source of the noise is not visible, it is less Irritating.
Many large urban governments are redesigning entire sections of their cities
to provide more pleasant environments that include reduced traffic noise levels
6-21
-------
434 LEGAL COMPILATION—NOIRE
outside and inside residences and other buildings. For example, an Amsterdam pro-
ject calls for wide spaces, planted with grass and trees, between highways and resi-
dences. Only low nonresidential buildings are allowed along the highway.
Enforcement
Nearly all countries surveyed have explicit national or local legislation regulating
noise emissions by motor vehicles. The Organization for Economic Cooperation and
Development Urban Traffic Noise Survey of 1970 observes;
"Jh order to be realistic these standards should reflect a compromise
between social considerations, what the public is willing to pay, and what
industry can manage to produce in the light of available technology. Some
reductions in noise emission could be achieved in the fairly short run sim-
ply by adding acoustical absorbers and by detailed attention to silencers,
air intakes and cooler fans. More significant noise reductions would, in
many cases, require alterations in the design of the engine, and could
therefore become effective only after a longer period. The important
point is that standards should be set, and set on a sliding scale, so as to
continue to reflect the current state of noise reduction technology."
A number of countries actively enforce noise emission standards by various
methods. Denmark, for example, has compulsory noise inspection whenever cars
over five years old are sold. In Switzerland, cities such as Lausanne, Zurich,
Berne, engage regular police noise patrols empowered to fine the driver or to
temporarily confiscate vehicles that have been altered to increase exhaust noise.
Tokyo elicits public cooperation and consciousness regarding street noise by using
illuminated signs that continually flash the noise level readings at busy intersec-
tions.
6-22
-------
GUIDELINES AND REPORTS 435
NOISE ENVIRONMENTS
The Residential Environment
Much has been said about the effects on residential areas of noise from aircraft,
surface vehicles, industrial plants, and other external sources. However, a close
review of foreign literature shows that other countries devote significant attention to
the identification and control of disturbances that originate in and around residential
buildings. Some of the annoyances already mentioned in connection with the London
noise survey have been cited by representatives of other countries as well. Much of
their discussion revolves around the transmission of sounds through poorly insulated
walls and floors. These sounds include human voices, footsteps, radios, musical
instruments, and many others generated either by neighbors or by members of the
same household.
At least 15 major countries have insulation specifications for dwellings, especi-
ally for apartment buildings. A common characteristic ol these countries is that
apartment buildings predominate in a new residential construction. A typical ex-
ample is Sweden, where, as early as 1961, 73 percent of all new dwellings were
apartments. This country was one of the first to introduce insulation requirements
that cover wall and floor insulation between living rooms and that set limits for noise
produced by the turning on or off of faucets in bathrooms and kitchens.
In some countries, specifications are presented as requirements, while in others
they are merely recommendations. Although most of the specifications center around
International Standard Organization recommendations, particularly with respect to
the measurement of airborne and impact sound transmissions, each country has
introduced special features of its own. For example, in Poland as well as in other-
East European countries, all apartments must be separated longitudinally by double
walls. Several countries recommend floating floors for control of impact noises and
6-23
-------
436 LEGAL COMPILATION—NOISE
lead-based foundations for the attenuation of ground-transmitted vibrations. Most
European countries specify insulation of water pipes from the structural members of
buildings to avoid transmission of water hammer vibrations and faucet noise.
Not all domestic noise sources are directly related to insulation. Elevators,
heating or air conditioning equipment, doorbells, household appliances, and other de-
vices have been cited as offenders. Sweden and the USSR have conducted notable
studies of such items, particularly of individual household appliances.
The Swedish Institute of Building Research has analyzed 68 noise sources such as
vacuum cleaners, refrigerators, kitchen exhaust fans, freezers, heating fans, and
hair driers. The highest noise levels in the Swedish study (70 to 80 dB at one meter)
came from vacuum cleaners. A Soviet study of home appliances ranked an electric
floor polisher as the noisiest, followed by a vacuum cleaner, a shaver, and a sewing
machine. This study also included some appliances that had been designed specifi-
cally for quiet operation. Notable among these were a vacuum cleaner with the motor
insulated from the housing, a centrifuge-type laundry extractor with a rubber pillow
in the base, some noiseless melodic doorbells, and a washing machine that used high-
pressure steam and had no moving parts.
An interesting viewpoint on household appliances was offered in the Hungarian
monograph submitted for this year's environmental conference sponsored by the
Economic Commission for Europe. The writer expressed the opinion that appliances
made in Hungary had little value for export purposes because they were noisier than
appliances manufactured in other countries. The Hungarian report introduces a rarely
expressed evaluation of noise as an economic factor. In general, studies of domestic
noise center around the same effects as do studies of other noises. Although home-
generated noises are surpassed by disturbances from traffic and industry, they are
by no means disregarded in other countries.
6-24
-------
GUIDELINES AND REPORTS 437
Public Institutions
Many countries have conducted special studies and surveys of public Institutions.
Most commonly studied have been schools and hospitals; but other institutions for which
some foreign noise control efforts can be observed include museums, concert halls,
libraries, and public administration buildings.
The USSR has developed a standard Vibronolse-I measurement laboratory for
measuring noise and vibration in certain buildings for inspection and control purposes.
Much of the equipment is portable, so field measurements can be made in schools,
hospitals, health stations, juvenile institutions, etc. O'er 350 Vibronoise-I units
were produced and distributed between 1967 and 1970.
Studies conducted in Austria, Czechoslovakia, and Germany explore noise as a
negative factor in the educational environment. These studies conclude that excessive
noise not only distracts the attention of students but affects them physically and psy-
chologically. Observations show that excess noise levels in classrooms produce
fatigue, reduce concentration span, raise blood pressure, and sometimes cause
neurosis. These observations concur with the maximum classroom level of 45 dBA
recommended by Great Britain's Wilson Committee. A Swedish recommendation
placed the maximum classroom level at 35 dBA.
Great Britain, Germany, Austria, Italy, Poland, Sweden, the USSR, and South
Africa are among the countries In which studies have been undertaken to determine
the noise levels In hospitals and to analyze the effects of noise on patients. Most of
the surveys showed excessive noise levels ranging from 50 to 90 dBA within the rooms
as compared to the recommended maximum levels of 55 dBA during the day and 25
dBA at night. All investigators agreed that noise levels considered tolerable for
healthy individuals could be unbearable or damaging to hospital patients.
6-25
-------
438 LEGAL COMPILATION—NOISE
Effects of Industrial Noise on the Community
Although Industrial noise receives some attention in general studies and surveys,
much of the information about it is generated in special studies. Often, such studies
are limited to isolated instances in single plants. For example, a cyclone extractor
in Australia was studied after residents complained about it. As a result of this study,
the unit was modified and shielded so that the emission was reduced to a level that was
not objectionable. In another Australian case, the loud hissing noise of the oil burn-
ers in an industrial kiln was the subject of complaints and a subsequent investigation.
A specially designed muffler system eliminated this problem.
The practice in London precludes the appearance in print of many reports on in-
vestigations of this nature. There, the control of industrial noise is the responsi-
bility of the local boroughs, and investigations of complaints are made by the public
health inspectors, fa most cases the investigations consist of informal discussions
with the offending firms.
A more extensive approach to industrial noise problems was taken by the Federal
Republic of Germany in a study of noise in the metal industry. This study identified
noise sources and measured their noise levels at various points in the surrounding
communities. The worst sources identified included high speed blowers, drop ham-
mers, and material handling equipment. In most instances, the residents had failed
to register complaints, except when unusual events occurred.
Unlike the residents near fixed industrial plants, citizens exposed to temporary
construction activities usually find the attendant disturbances objectionable. Con-
sideration of this has caused some countries to shorten the work shifts for construc-
tion activities. Switzerland has developed a formula that determines the allowable
work time on the basis of the average noise level of the operation.
6-26
-------
GUIDELINES AND REPORTS 439
In the Communist countries, allowance for industrial noise is often included in
town planning. Plant screens, greenbelts, and distance standards are customarily
employed.
6-27
-------
440 LEGAL COMPILATION—NOISE
SUMMARY
Most countries surveyed have viewed noise abatement and control as a major
environmental issue for more than a decade. Research efforts have been and are be-
ing supported largely by national governments. On the basis of research results, a
large number of countries have enacted comprehensive laws and regulations, and,
in many instances, national laws are stricter than the corresponding International
Standards Organization recommendations.
It is difficult to attribute these national concerns to a common basis, since there
are varying levels of emphasis. For example, economic effects of noise have been
frequently expressed, such as the impact of noise on labor productivity, the lack of
foreign acceptability of domestic (noisy) industrial products, or the impact of a noisy
community environment on a tourist-oriented economy. Similarly, the concern for
social welfare brought about the enforcement of numerous specific regulations.
There are several international organizations that have promoted noise control
to mei.-iber nations. The World Health Organization has made a number of sweeping
recommendations. Similarly, the Organization of Economic Cooperation and Develop-
ment has pressed the issue of traffic noise, has issued a report, "Urban Traffic Noise"
(Paris, 1971), and is presently sponsoring a comprehensive study on the environmen-
tal impact of the automobile, including air pollution and noise. The U. N. Economic
Commission for Europe (ECE), issued in 1968, recommended "Maximum Limits of
Sound Level - New Vehicles" (Bule No. 9, Uniform Provisions Concerning Approval
of Noise - ECE Geneva; and the Council of European Communities (CEC) has issued
a directive to the Common Market nations to provide for uniform noise limits for new
vehicles. This rule is to become effective by the end of August 1972.
6-28
-------
GUIDELINES AND REPORTS 441
In general, all countries surveyed recognized the following sources as noise
polluters (listed in order of impact):
1. Surface traffic
2. Aviation
3. Industry (as a community noise source)
4. Community activities.
Depending upon the political structure of each country, enforcement is guided
nationally but implemented regionally. Many countries have been successful in their
noise abatement efforts, but uniformity of approach is not evident.
6-29
-------
-------
GUIDELINES AND REPORTS 443
Appendix A
SOURCE DOCUMENT INFORMATION
The Technical Information Documents used as the basis for the preparation of this
report are:
NTID300.1 - Noise From Construction Equipment and Operations. Building
Equipment, and Home Appliances, prepared by Bolt, Beranek and Newman under
EPA contract 68-04-0047.
NTID300.2 - Noise From Industrial Plants, prepared by L. S. Goodfrlend Assoc1-
ates under contract EPA 68-04-0044.
NTTD300.3 - Community Noise, prepared by Wyle Laboratories under EPA con-
tract 68-04-0046.
NTID300.4 - Laws and Regulatory Schemes for Noise Abatement, prepared by the
George Washington University under EPA contract 68-04-0032.
NTID300. 5 - Effects of Noise on Wildlife and other Animals, prepared by Memphis
State University under EPA contract 68-04-0024.
NTID300.6 - An Assessment of Noise Concern In Other Nation's, prepared by
Informatics, Inc. under EPA contract 68-01-0157.
NTID300.7 - Effects of Noise on People, prepared by the Central Institute for the
Deaf under EPA contract 68-01-0500.
NTID300. 8 - State and Municipal Non-Occupational Noise Abatement Programs,
prepared by the staff of the EPA Office of Noise Abatement and Control.
A-l
-------
444 LEGAL COMPILATION—NOISE
NTID300. 9 - Notse Programs of Professional/Industrial Organizations, Unlversi-
tles and Colleges, prepared by the staff of the EPA Office of Noise Abatement and
Control.
NTID300.10 - Summary of Noise Programs in the Federal Government, prepared
by the staff of the EPA Office of Noise Abatement and Control.
NTID300.11 - Social Impact of Noise, prepared by the National Bureau of Standards
under Interagenoy agreement with the Department of Commerce.
NTID300.12 - Effects of Sonic Boom and Other Impulsive Noise on Structures, pre-
pared by the National Bureau of Standards under interagency agreement with the
Department of Commerce.
NTID300.13 - Transportation Noise and Noise From Equipment Powered by Inter-
nal Combustion Engines, prepared by Wyle Laboratories under EPA contract
68-04-0046.
NTID300.14 - Economic Impact of Noise, prepared by the National Bureau of Stan-
dards under interagency agreement with the Department of Commerce.
NTID300. 15 - Fundamentals of Noise; Measurement. Rating Schemes, and Stan-
dards, prepared by The National Bureau of Standards under interagency agreement
with the Department of Commerce.
To obtain these documents contact the Environmental Protection Agency,
Office of Noise Abatement and Control, Washington, D. C. 20460.
Also used in the preparation of this report was testimony obtained at public hear-
ings held by the Office of Noise Abatement and Control under authority of the Noise
A-2
-------
GUIDELINES AND REPORTS
445
Pollution and Abatement Act of 1970 - Title IV to the Clean Air Amendments of 1970
(PL 91-604). The cities in which those hearings were held and their subjects covered
are as follows;
Noise in Construction
Atlanta
Chicago
Dallas
San Francisco
Denver
New York
Boston
Washington, D. C.
Manufacturing and Transportation
Noise (Highway and Air)
Urban Planning, Architectural Design;
and Noise in the Home
Standards and Measurement Methods,
Legislation and Enforcement Problems
Agriculture and Recreational use Noise
Transportation (Rail and Other), Urban Noise
Problems and Social Behavior
Physiological and Psychological Effects
Technology and Economics of Noise Control;
National Programs and their Relations
With State and Local Programs.
The transcripts of these hearings may be obtained through the United States Govern-
ment Printing Office, Superintendant of Documents, after announcement of their avail-
ability in the Federal Register.
A-3
-------
-------
GUIDELINES AND REPORTS 447
Appendix B
PROPOSED BILL TO CONTROL THE GENERATION
AND TRANSMISSION OP NOISE
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
WASHINGTON. D C 20460
Dear Mr. [President/Speaker]:
Enclosed is a draft of a proposed bill "to
control the generation and transmission of noise
detrimental to the human environment, and for
other purposes."
The proposed legislation would expand and
coordinate Federal efforts to control noise, which
presents a growing threat to the health and welfare
of the American people. Particularly in congested
urban areas, the noise produced by the products of
our advancing technology, and in the manufacture
of those products, causes continual annoyance and
in some cases serious physical harm. While the
States and localities have the responsibility to
deal with many aspects of noise, effective Federal
action is essential with respect to major noise
problems requiring national uniformity of treatment.
The proposed bill would achieve three primary
functions. First, it would establish, in the
Environmental Protection Agency, authority to
coordinate existing Federal noise research and
control programs, and authority to publish criteria
and control-technology documents relating to noise.
Second, it would supplement existing Federal
authority to regulate the noise characteristics
of articles that are major sources of noise, and
authorize Federal noise labeling requirements for
such articles. Third, it would direct all Federal
agencies to administer their programs, consistent
with existing authority, in such a manner as to
minimize noise.
A detailed section-by-section analysis of the
bill is enclosed. A similar letter is being sent
B-l
-------
448 LEGAL COMPILATION—NOISE
to the [President of the Senate/Speaker of the House].
The bill is part of the President1s environmental
program as announced in his Environmental Message of
February 8, 1971. It will be administered by the
Environmental Protection Agency and was developed
in coordination with the Council on Environmental
Quality.
The Office of Management and Budget advises
that enactment of this bill would be in accord with
the program of the President.
Sincerely yours.
/s/ William D. Ruckelshaus
Honorable Spiro T. Agnew
President of the Senate
Washington, D.C. 20510
Honorable Carl B. Albert
Speaker of the House of Representatives
Washington, D.C. 20515
B-2
-------
GUIDELINES AND REPORTS 449
A BILL
To control the generation and transmission of
noise detrimental to the human environment, and for
other purposes.
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Rep-
resentatives of the United States of America in Con-
gress assembled. That: This Act may be cited as the
"Noise Control Act of 1971".
SECTION 2. FINDINGS AND POLICY
(a) The Congress finds —
(1) that inadequately controlled noise
presents a growing danger to the health and welfare of
the Nation's population, particularly in urban areas;
(2) that the major sources of noise
include transportation vehicles and equipment, machin-
ery, appliances, and other manufactured articles that
move in commerce; and
(3) that, while primary responsibility
for control of noise rests in many respects with the
States and local governments. Federal action is essen-
tial to deal with major noise problems requiring
national uniformity of treatment.
(b) The Congress declares that it is the
policy of the United States to promote an environment
for all Americans free from noise that jeopardizes
their health or welfare. To that end, it is the pur-
pose of this Act to establish a means for effective
coordination of Federal research and activities in
noise control, to supplement existing Federal authority
for regulation of the noise characteristics of arti-
cles moving in commerce, and to authorize Federal noise
labeling requirements for such articles. Nothing in
this Act is intended to diminish the responsibilities
of State and local governments to regulate other as-
pects of noise within their jurisdictions.
SECTION 3. DEFINITIONS
As used in this Act the term —
(a) "Administrator" means the Admini-
strator of the Environmental Protection Agency;
(b) "person" means any private person
or entity, any officer, department, agency, or instru-
mentality of any State or local unit of government,
and, except with respect to the provisions of section
B-3
-------
450 LEGAL COMPILATION—NOISE
12(a), any officer, department, agency, or instrumen-
tality of the Federal Government;
(c) "product" means any article or good
manufactured for sale in, or introduction into,
commerce, including but not limited to transportation
vehicles and equipment, machinery, and appliances,
provided, that it does not include (i) aircraft, air-
craft engines, propellers, or appliances that are
covered by Title VI of the Federal Aviation Act of
1958 (49 U.S.C. Sees. 1421-32), (ii) those military
aircraft, weapons, or equipment that are designed for
combat use; or (iii) those aircraft, rockets, or equip-
ment that are designed for research or experimental or
developmental work to be performed by the National
Aeronautics and Space Administration, or other machin-
ery or equipment designed for use in experimental work
done by or for the Federal Government;
(d) "ultimate purchaser" means the first
person who in good faith purchases a new product for
purposes other than resale;
(e) "new product" means a product the
equitable of legal title to which has never been trans-
ferred to an ultimate purchaser;
(f) "manufacturer" means any person en-
gaged in the manufacturing or assembling of new prod-
ucts or who acts for, and is controlled by, any such
person in connection with the distribution of such
products;
(g) "commerce" means trade, traffic,
commerce, transportation, or communication among the
several States, or between a place in a State and any
place outside thereof, or within the District of
Columbia or a possession of the United States, or be-
tween points in the same State but through a point out-
side thereof.
SECTION 4. COORDINATION AND EVALUATION OF FEDERAL
PROGRAMS
(a) The Administrator shall promote coordi-
nation of the programs of all Federal departments and
agencies relating to noise research and noise control.
Each Federal department or agency shall, upon request,
furnish to the Administrator such information as he
may reasonably require to determine the nature, scope,
and results of the noise-research and noise-control
B-4
-------
GUIDELINES AND REPORTS 451
programs of the department or agency.
(b) On the basis of regular consultation with
appropriate Federal departments and agencies, the
Administrator shall compile and publish, from time to
time, a report on the status and progress of Federal
activities relating to noise research and noise con-
trol. This report shall describe the noise programs of
each Federal department or agency and assess the con-
tributions of those programs to the Government's over-
all efforts to control noise.
SECTION 5. NOISE CRITERIA ASP CONTROL TECHNOLOGY
(a) The Administrator shall, after consulta-
tion with appropriate Federal departments and agencies,
develop and publish such criteria for noise as in his
judgment may be requisite for the protection of the
public health and welfare. Such criteria shall reflect
the scientific knowledge most useful in indicating the
kind and extent of all identifiable effects on the
public health or welfare which may be expected from
differing quantities and qualities of noise. The
Administrator shall confer with the Secretaries of
Health, Education, and Welfare, and of Labor to assure
consistency between the criteria published under this
subsection and the criteria and standards for occupa-
tional noise exposure produced under the Occupational
Safety and Health Act of 1970.
(b) The Administrator shall, after publication
of the initial criteria pursuant to subsection (a) of
this section and after consultation with appropriate
Federal departments and agencies, compile and publish
a report or series of reports identifying major sources
of noise and giving information on techniques for con-
trol of noise from such sources. This information
shall include such data as are available on the tech-
nology, costs, and alternative methods of noise
control.
(c) The Administrator shall from time to time
review and, as appropriate, revise or supplement any
criteria or information on control techniques published
pursuant to this section.
(d) The publication or revision of any cri-
teria or information on control techniques pursuant to
this section shall be announced in the Federal
Register, and copies shall be made available to the
B-5
-------
452 LEGAL COMPILATION—NOISE
general public.
SECTION 6. NOISE-GENERATION STANDARDS
(a) If the Administrator, in a report pub-
lished pursuant to section 5, identifies as a major
source of noise any product or class of products of
one or more of the following types:
(1) construction equipment,
(2) transportation equipment (including
recreational vehicles and related equipment), or
(3) equipment powered by internal com-
bustion engines,
he may, after consultation to the extent desirable with
appropriate Federal departments and agencies, by regu-
lation prescribe and amend standards limiting the
noise-generation characteristics (including reasonable
durability over the life of the product) of such prod-
uct or class of products. The standards so prescribed
shall be the standards that the Administrator deter-
mines, consistent with criteria published pursuant to
section 5, to be requisite to protect the public
health and welfare. In prescribing and amending such
standards the Administrator shall consider whether any
proposed standard is economically reasonable, tech-
nologically practicable, and appropriate for the par-
ticular products to which it will apply, and whether
the particular products can more effectively be con-
trolled through Federal regulation of interstate com-
merce or through State or local regulations. Pro-
vided, that no standards prescribed under this section
shall apply to products manufactured on or before the
effective date of such standards.
(b) The Administrator shall publish any
standards proposed under subsection (a) in the Fed-
eral Register at least 60 days prior to the time when
such standards will take effect. In addition to sub-
missions of written views, any person who will be ad-
versely affected by such proposed regulation may,
within 45 days of the date of publication of the pro-
posed regulation, or within such other time period as
the Administrator may prescribe, file objections with
the Administrator and request a public hearing.
Requests for a public hearing made by a manufacturer
of a product covered by the proposed standards shall be
granted. Requests for a public hearing by other
B-6
-------
GUIDELINES AND REPORTS 453
persons may be granted at the discretion of the Admini-
strator. If a public hearing is held, final regula-
tions will not be promulgated by the Administrator
until after the conclusion of such hearing.
(c) Section 611 of the Federal Aviation Act
of 1958 (49 U.S.C. Sec. 1431) is amended as follows:
(1) In subsection (a), after "with the
Secretary of Transportation" insert "and subject to
the approval of the Administrator of the Environmental
Protection Agency".
(2) At the end of subsection (a), insert
"Standards, rules, and regulations prescribed and
amended under this section shall become effective only
upon approval by the Administrator of the Environmental
Protection Agency; provided, that, all standards,
rules, and regulations prescribed pursuant to this
section prior to the effective date of the Noise Con-
trol Act of 1971 shall remain in effect until amended
or revoked by subsequent standards, rules, or regula-
tions prescribed and approved pursuant to this
section."
(3) After subsection (a), insert the
following new subsections:
"(b) The Administrator of the
Federal Aviation Administration shall not issue a
type certificate under section 603 of this act for
any aircraft, or for any aircraft engine, propeller,
or appliance that affects siqnificantly the noise or
sonic boom characteristics of any aircraft, unless he
shall have prescribed standards, rules, and regulations
under this section that apply to such aircraft, air-
craft engine, propeller, or appliance.
"(c) If at any time the Admini-
strator of the Environmental Protection Agency has
reason to believe that an existing standard, rule, or
regulation under this section does not protect the
public from aircraft noise or sonic boom to the maxi-
mum extent that is consistent with the consideration
listed in subsection (d) of this section, he may re-
quest the Administrator of the Federal Aviation Admini-
stration to review and report to him on the advisa-
bility of revising such standard, rule, or regulation.
Any such request shall be accompanied by a detailed
B-7
-------
454 LEGAL COMPILATION—NOISE
statement of the information on which it is based. "
(4) Subsections (b) and (c) are redesig-
nated as (d) and (e).
(d) No State or subdivision thereof shall
adopt or enforce, with respect to any product for which
noise-generation standards have been prescribed by the
Administrator under subsection (a) of this section, any
standard limiting noise-generation characteristics
different from the standards prescribed by the Admini-
strator. Nothing in this section shall diminish or
enhance the rights of any State or subdivision thereof
otherwise to control, regulate, or restrict the use,
operation, or movement of such products.
SECTION 7. LABELING
(a) The Administrator may by regulation desig-
nate products or classes thereof:
(1) that produce noise capable of
adversely affecting the public health or welfare; or
(2) that are sold wholly or in part on
the basis of their effectiveness in reducing noise.
(b) For each of such products or classes the
Administrator may, after consultation to the extent
desirable with appropriate Federal departments and
agencies, by regulation require that a notice of the
actual level of noise generation, or notice of the
actual effectiveness in reducing noise, be affixed to
the product and to the outside of its container at the
time of its sale to the ultimate purchaser. He shall
prescribe the form of the notice and the methods and
units of measurement to be used for this purpose.
(c) Nothing in this section shall preclude or
deny to any State or subdivision thereof the right to
regulate product labeling in any way not in conflict
with regulations promulgated by the Administrator under
this section.
SECTION 8. PROHIBITED ACTS
(a) The following acts or the causing thereof
are prohibited:
(1) in the case of a manufacturer of new
products, the sale, the offering for sale, or the
introduction or delivery for introduction into commerce
of any product manufactured after the effective date of
regulations promulgated under section 6(a) (respecting
noise-generation characteristics) that are applicable
B-8
-------
GUIDELINES AND REPORTS 455
to such product, unless it is in conformity with such
regulations (except as provided in subsection (b) of
this section);
(2) in the case of an owner or operator
of a product, the use in commerce of such product after
the effective date of regulations promulgated under
section 6 (a) that are applicable to such product, un-
less it is in conformity with such regulations (ex-
cept as provided in subsection (b) of this section);
(3) the removal or rendering inoperative
by any person, other than for purposes of maintenence,
repair, or replacement, of any device or element of
design incorporated into any product in compliance with
regulations promulgated under section 6(a), prior to
its sale or delivery to the. ultimate purchaser or
during its term of use.
(4) in the case of a manufacturer of new
products, the sale, the offering for sale, or the
introduction or delivery for introduction into com-
merce of any product manufactured after the effective
date of regulations promulgated under section 7 (re-
specting noise labeling) that are applicable to such
product, unless it is in conformity with such regula-
tions (except as provided in subsection (b) of this
section);
(5) the removal by any person of any
notice affixed to a product or container pursuant to
regulations promulgated under section 7, prior to sale
of the product to the ultimate purchaser;
(6) the importation into the United
States by any person of any product in violation of
regulations promulgated under section 13 that are
applicable to such product; and
(7) the failure or refusal by any person
to permit access to, or copying of, records or to make
reports or provide information required under section
9.
(b)(1) The Administrator may exempt any prod-
uct, or class thereof, from paragraphs (1), (2), (4),
and (6) of subsection (a), upon such terms and con-
ditions as he may find necessary to protect the public
health or welfare, for the purpose of research, inves-
tigations, studies, demonstrations, or training, or
for reasons of national security.
B-9
-------
456 LEGAL COMPILATION—NOISE
(2) A product intended solely for export,
and so labeled or tagged on the outside of the con-
tainer and on the product itself, shall not be subject
to paragraph (1), (2), or (4) of subsection (a).
SECTION 9. RECORDS. REPORTS. AND INFORMATION
(a) Every manufacturer of a product for which
applicable regulations have been promulgated under
section 6(a) or section 7 shall establish and maintain
such records, make such reports, and provide such
information (which may include the availability of
products coming off the assembly line for testing by
the Administrator) as the Administrator may reasonably
require to enable him to determine whether such manu-
facturer has acted or is acting in compliance with this
Act and shall, upon request of an officer or employee
duly designated by the Administrator, permit such
officer or employee at reasonable times to have access
to such information and to copy such records.
(b) All information obtained by the Admini-
strator or his representatives pursuant to subsection
(a) of this section, which information contains or
relates to a trade secret or other matter referred to
in section 1905 of title 18 of the United States Code,
shall be considered confidential for the purpose of
that section, except that such information may be dis-
closed to other Federal officers or employees, in
whose possession it shall remain confidential, or when
relevent in any proceeding under this Act.
(c) This section shall apply only to manu-
facturers in the United States.
SECTION 10. FEDERAL PROGRAMS
The Congress authorizes and directs that all
agencies of the Federal Government shall, to the
fullest extent consistent with existing authority,
administer the programs within their control in such
a manner as to further the policy declared in section
2(b).
SECTION 11. RESEARCH. TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE, AND PUBLIC
INFORMATION
In furtherance of his responsibilities under
this Act and to complement, as necessary, the noise-
research programs of other Federal departments and
agencies, the Administrator is authorized to:
(a) Conduct research, and finance
B-10
-------
GUIDELINES AND REPORTS 457
research by contract with other public and private
bodies, on the effects, measurement, and control of
noise, including but not limited to:
(1) Investigation of the psychological
and physiological effects of noise on humans and the
effects of noise on domestic animals, wildlife, and
property, and determination of acceptable levels of
noise on the basis of such effects;
(2) Development of improved methods and
standards for measurement and monitoring of noise, in
cooperation with the National Bureau of Standards,
Department of Commerce; and
(3) Determination of the most effective
and practicable means of controlling noise generation,
transmission, and reception;
(b) Provide technical assistance to State and
local governments to facilitate their development and
enforcement of ambient noise standards, including but
not limited to:
(1) Advice on training of noise-control
personnel and on selection and operation of noise-
abatement equipment; and
(2) Preparation of model State or local
legislation for noise control; and
(c) Disseminate to the public information on
the effects of noise, acceptable noise levels, and
techniques for noise measurement and control.
SECTION 12. ENFORCEMENT
(a)(1) Any person who violates section 8(a) of
this Act shall be subject to a civil penalty of not
more than $25,000 for each violation, which may be
assessed by the Administrator or by a court in any
action authorized by subsection (b) or (c) of this
section.
(2) In any proceeding by the Administra-
tor to assess a civil penalty under this subsection,
no penalty shall be assessed until the person charged
shall have been given notice and an opportunity for a
hearing on such charge. In determining the amount of
the penalty, or the amount agreed upon in compromise,
the Administrator shall consider the gravity of the
violation and the demonstrated good faith of the person
charged in attempting to achieve rapid compliance after
notification by the Administrator of a violation. Upon
B-ll
-------
458 LEGAL COMPILATION—NOISE
failure of the offending party to pay any penalty
assessed, the Administrator may request the Attorney
General to commence an action in the appropriate
district court for appropriate relief.
(3) For the purpose of this subsection,
the commission of any act prohibited byparagraph (1),
(2), (3), (4), (5), or (6) of section 8(a) shall
constitute a separate violation for each day or prod-
uct involved.
(b) The district courts of the United States
shall have jurisdiction of actions brought by and in
the name of the United States to restrain violations
of this Act or to enforce civil penalties authorized
by this Act. Any civil action authorized to be brought
by the United States under this Act shall be referred
to the Attorney General for appropriate action.
(c) By agreement with any State, with or with-
out reimbursement, the Administrator may authorize law
enforcement officers or other personnel of such State
to enforce the prohibitions of section 8(a) by bringing
actions in the appropriate State courts. When autho-
rized by State law, the courts of such State may enter-
tain actions brought by such officers or personnel to
restrain violations of this Act or to enforce civil
penalties authorized by this Act. In any action under
this subsection, any civil penalty imposed shall be
payable one-half to the State and one-half to the
United States Treasury.
SECTION 13. IMPORTS
(a) Products offered for importation shall be
subject to the same general standards and labeling
requirements that are applied to like domestic prod-
ucts. The Administrator shall by regulation prescribe
the procedures by which this will be accomplished with
a minimum detrimental effect on domestic and inter-
national trade.
(b) The Secretary of the Treasury shall, in
consultation with the Administrator, issue regulations
to carry out the provisions of this Act with respect to
products offered for importation.
SECTION 14. APPROPRIATIONS
There are authorized to be appropriated to
carry out this Act for Fiscal Year 1972 and for each
fiscal year thereafter such sums as are necessary.
B-12
-------
GUIDELINES AND REPORTS 459
SECTION 15. REPORT OF NOISE STUDY
Section 402(a) of the Clean Air Act is amended
by deleting everything before "a full and complete
investigation" and inserting in lieu thereof "The
Administrator shall carry out".
B-13
-------
460 LEGAL COMPILATION—NOISE
SECTION-BY-SECTION ANALYSIS
The title of the proposed act is designated as
"The Noise Control Act of 1971."
Section 2 contains a statement of congressional
findings and policy. Subsection 2(a) states findings
that noise, particularly in urban areas, presents a
growing danger to the public health and welfare; that
the major sources of noise include a variety of manu-
factured articles that move in commerce; and that the
Federal Government bears a responsibility to deal with
major noise problems requiring national uniformity of
treatment. Subsection 2(b) declares a Federal policy
to promote an environment for all Americans free from
noise that jeopardizes their health or welfare. This
subsection further states that the purpose of the pro-
posed act is to establish a"means for effective
coordination of Federal noise programs, to supplement
existing Federal authority for regulation of the noise
characteristics of articles moving in commerce, and
to authorize Federal noise labeling requirements for
such articles. The Act is not intended to relieve
States and localities of their responsibilities to
control other aspects of noise within their juris-
dictions.
Section 3 defines certain terms used in the
proposal. Subsection 3(a) defines the official
primarily responsible for implementing the legislation
as the Administrator of the Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA). Subsection 3(b) defines "person" in
such a way that all Federal, State, or local govern-
mental organizations, employees, and agents, along with
private persons or entities, are included within the
enforcement provisions of section 12. However, Federal
organizations, employees, and agents are excepted from
the definition of "person" insofar as subsection 12 (a).
providing for civil penalties, is concerned. Thus,
Federal organizations, employees, and agents must
comply with the prohibitions of section 8, but they are
not liable for or subject to the civil penalties
authorized in subsection 12 (a.) .
Subsection 3(c) defines "product" to include
any article or good manufactured for sale in, or
introduction into, commerce with three general
B-14
-------
GUIDELINES AND REPORTS 461
exclusions. "Product" does not include aircraft or
aircraft components that are covered by Title VI of
the Federal Aviation Act of 1958. The noise
characteristics of these aircraft and aircraft
components are already subject to regulation under
that Act, which will continue in effect subject to
the amendments made by section 6 of the proposed
legislation, discussed below.
"Product" also excludes any article that,
although otherwise within the broad definition, is
designed for military combat use. National security
requires that the responsible authorities be free to
determine to what extent noise control objectives must
be subordinated to military necessities in the use of
such articles. Therefore, they are excluded from the
definition of "product" to exempt them entirely from
the standard-setting and labeling provisions of sections
6 and 7 without regard to the exercise by the Admin-
istrator of his power under section 8(b) (1), discussed
below, to grant specific exemptions for national
security reasons. The policy of the proposed legis-
lation will, however, dictate that all feasible steps
be taken to improve the noise characteristics of even
these articles. "Product" also excludes equipment
designed for use in experimental work done by or for
the National Aeronautics and Space Administration or
other agencies of the Federal Government.
Subsection 3(d) defines "ultimate purchaser"
to be the first person who purchases a new product for
a use other than resale. This excludes both those
intermediaries who may handle the product before sale
to the first user, and subsequent users who may obtain
the product second-hand. Subsection 3(e) defines "new
product" to mean a product the title to which has not
yet been transferred to an ultimate purchaser.
Subsection 3(f) defines "manufacturer" to
include any person who manufactures or assembles new
products or who acts on behalf of such a person in the
distribution of new products. "Commerce" is defined
in subsection 3{g) to include all forms of interchange
involving two or more States, or a State and a place
outside thereof or the District of Columbia or a
possession of the United States.
Section 4 entrusts to the Administrator of EPA
B-15
-------
462 LEGAL COMPILATION—NOISE
the primary responsibility for promoting coordination
of Federal programs relating to noise. To assist him
in exercising this responsibility, subsection 4(a)
directs each other Federal agency to furnish him with
any information he may reasonably request about the
agency's noise programs. Subsection 4
-------
GUIDELINES AND REPORTS 463
public. This provision is intended to ensure adequate
public knowledge of the content of these publications.
Subsection 6 (a) authorizes the Administrator
of EPA to prescribe noise standards for construction
equipment, transportation equipment, and equipment
powered by internal combustion engines that he has
identified as a major source of noise and for which he
has discussed control technology in a report published
pursuant to section 5. When the Administrator determines
to impose standards, subsection 6(a) requires that
they be set at the level required, in light of the
published criteria, to protect health and welfare,
taking into account the feasibility of such a level
of control and the appropriateness of Federal regulation.
Standards under subsection 6 (a) shall not apply to
products manufactured on or before the effective date
of the standards. Subsection 6(b) alters the procedures
under the Administrative Procedure Act by granting a
manufacturer the right to a public hearing on-proposed
standards that would cover his products.
Subsection 6(c) amends section 611 of the
Federal Aviation Act, which authorizes regulation of the
noise characteristics of civil aircraft and aircraft
components. Subsection 6(c) provides that standards,
rules, and regulations prescribed by the Federal
Aviation Administration under section 611 must be
approved by the Administrator of EPA, and that such
standards, rules, and regulations become effective
only upon such approval. However, subsection 6(c)
contains a saving clause which allows all standards,
rules, and regulations prescribed under section 611
prior to the effective date of the proposed legislation
to continue in effect until superseded by new standards,
rules, or regulations prescribed in accordance with
the proposed legislation.
Subsection 6(c) further provides that after the
effective date of the proposed act the Federal Aviation
Administrator shall not issue a type certificate for any
aircraft unless he has already prescribed standards,
rules, and regulations governing the noise character-
istics of that aircraft. This requirement also applies
to any aircraft engine, propeller, or appliance that
affects significantly the noise characteristics of any
aircraft in which it is to be used. This provision wil]
B-17
-------
464 LEGAL COMPILATION—NOISE
ensure that in the future the noise characteristics of
any new aircraft or aircraft component will be
ascertained and controlled prior to its introduction
into air commerce or air transportation.
Subsection 6(c) further provides that if the
Administrator of EPA has reason to believe that an
existing standard, rule, or regulation prescribed under
611 of the Federal Aviation Act inadequately protects
the public from noise, he may request the Federal
Aviation Administrator to review the standard, rule,
or regulation and report to him on the advisability
of revising it. Any such request must be accompanied
by a detailed statement of the reasons therefor. The
Administrator of EPA may invoke this provision with
respect to a standard, rule, or regulation prescribed
before or after the effective date cf the proposed act.
Subsection 6(d) provides that when the Admin-
istrator of EPA has prescribed standards for any product
under subsection 6(a), no State or subdivision thereof
shall adopt or enforce noise standards for that product
different from the standards set by him. Nothing in
section 6 preempts any existing powers of the States
or localities to set noise standards for products for
which the Administrator has not yet set standards under
the proposed act, to set State standards identical to
standards set by the Administrator for the same product,
or to regulate the use, operation, or movement of
products.
Section 7 authorizes Federal noise labeling
requirements for products in commerce. Subsection 7 (a)
authorizes the Administrator of EPA to designate classes
of products that either produce noise capable of
adversely affecting the public health or welfare, or
are sold at least in part on the basis of their effec-
tiveness in reducing noise. These products need not
be limited to those for which noise standards have been
set under section 6 or which have been discussed in
a control technology document under section 5. Sub-
section 7(b) authorizes the Administrator to prescribe
a noise-generation or noise-reduction labeling require-
ment for any product designated under subsection 7(a).
To assure that such notices are informative and useful
in facilitating choices by buyers in the marketplace,
the Administrator is directed to prescribe the form of
B-18
-------
GUIDELINES AND REPORTS 465
the notice and the methods and units of measurement
used in its preparation. Subsection 7(c) leaves intact
any existing powers of the States to regulate product
labeling, except that such regulation may not conflict
with regulations promulgated by the Administrator under
section 7.
Subsection 8(a) prohibits a number of acts in
violation of the proposed legislation. Paragraph 8(a)
(1) forbids any manufacturer to sell a product manu-
factured after the effective date of noise-generation
standards prescribed under subsection 6(a) that apply
to the product, unless the product conforms with such
standards. Paragraph 8 (a)(2) forbids any person who
owns or operates a product to use it in commerce after
the effective date of noise-generation standards
prescribed under subsection 6(a) that apply to it,
unless the product conforms with such standards.
Paragraph 8(a)(3) forbids any person to remove or
render inoperative, other than for maintenance, repair,
or replacement, any device or element of design
incorporated into a product to make the product comply
with noise-generation standards prescribed under sub-
section 6(a). This prescription applies both prior
to sale of the product to the ultimate purchaser and
during its term of use.
Paragraph 8 (a) (4) forbids any manufacturer to
sell a product manufactured after the effective date of
labeling regulations promulgated under section 7 that
apply to the product, unless the product conforms to
such regulations. Paragraph 8 (a)(5) forbids any person,
prior to sale of a product to the ultimate purchaser,
to remove a notice affixed to the product or its con-
tainer pursuant to regulations promulgated under
section 7. Paragraph 8(a)(6) forbids the importation
into the United States of any products in violation of
regulations under section 13, discussed below, relating
to imports. Paragraph 8 (a)(7) forbids any person to
fail to comply with the provisions of section 9, discussed
below, respecting access to required records and reports.
Subsection 8(b) creates two exceptions to the
prohibitions in paragraphs 8(a)(l), (2), (4), and (6).
First, the Administrator is authorized to exempt any
new product from those prohibitions, upon such terms
and conditions as he may find necessary to protect the
B-19
-------
466 LEGAL COMPILATION—NOISE
public health or welfare, for the purpose of research,
investigations, studies, demonstrations, or training, or
for reasons of national security. Second, subsection
8(b) provides that a product produced solely for export,
and visibly labeled or tagged to that effect, is exempted
from the prohibitions of paragraphs 8(a)(1), (2)
and (4).
Section 9 requires every manufacturer of a
product covered by noise regulation or labeling
regulations under subsection 6(a) or section 7 to
maintain such records, make such reports, and provide
such information as the Administrator may reasonably
require to enable him to determine whether the manu-
facturer has acted or is acting in compliance with the
proposed act. This may include the availability of
products coming off the assembly line for testing by
the Administrator. The manufacturer shall, on request,
permit a representative of the Administrator to view
and copy such records. Any information obtained by
the Administrator or his representatives pursuant to
section 9, if it contains or relates to a matter
referred to as confidential in section 1905 of title
18 of the United States Code, shall be protected from
disclosure as provided in that section, except that
it may be disclosed to other Federal employees or when
relevant in any proceeding under the proposed act.
Disclosure to other Federal employees or in a pro-
ceeding under the proposed act will not terminate the
confidential status of the information.
Section 10 authorizes and directs all Federal
agencies to administer the programs within their control
in such a manner as to further the policy of the proposed
Act, to the fullest extent consistent with the agencies'
existing authority.
Section 11 authorizes the Administrator of EPA,
in furtherance of his responsibilities under the proposed
act, to conduct and assist noise research, to provide
technical assistance to State and local governments, and
to disseminate to the public information on noise. The
enumeration in section 11 of particular activities within
these categories is not intended to exclude other
activities but only to stress the importance of those
enumerated. However, it is not intended that the
activities of the Administrator under section 11 will
B-20
-------
GUIDELINES AND REPORTS 467
duplicate activities carried on in other agencies.
Section 12 provides for enforcement of the pro-
hibitions in subsection 8(a) of the proposed act. Sub-
section 12(a) establishes a civil penalty of not more
than $25,000 for each violation of subsection 8(a), and
provides for imposition of this fine either by the
Administrator or by a court in a proceeding authorized
by subsection 12(b) or (c), discussed below. Sub-
section 12(a) further provides that in any administra-
tive proceeding for imposition of such a civil penalty
by the Administrator the person charged must be given
notice and an opportunity for a hearing, and the
Administrator must, in determining the penalty or the
amount accepted in compromise, consider the gravity of
the violation and the efforts of the person charged to
achieve rapid compliance after notice of the violation.
If the offending party fails to pay any penalty
assessed, the Administrator may request the Attorney
General to sue in the appropriate district court for
appropriate relief. For the purpose of imposing
cumulative penalties, the commission of any act
prohibited by paragraph 8 (a) (1), (2), (3), (4), (5),
or (6) will be a separate violation for each day or
product involved. For example, sale of 10 identical
products in violation of noise-generation or labeling
regulations would constitute 10 violations, punishable
by a maximum cumulative fine of $250,000.
Subsection 12 (b) gives jurisdiction to the
Federal district courts to entertain actions brought
by and in the name of the United States to restrain
violations of the proposed act or to enforce civil
penalties authorized by it. This provision will allow
the Administrator of EPA, by recommending that the
Attorney General bring suit, to seek equitable relief
or judicial imposition of a civil penalty, or both,
as an alternative to the administratively imposed fine
also authorized by section 12.
Section 12 (c) enables the Administrator to enlist
the aid of state or local governments in the enforcement
of the proposed act. While neither the executive nor the
judicial bodies of any State will be required to
participate, they may do so where this is authorized
by State law and also by the Administrator of EPA in
an agreement with the appropriate State authorities.
B-21
-------
468 LEGAL COMPILATION—NOISE
Under this provision the Administrator may authorize
State personnel to sue in State court both to restrain
violations and to impose civil penalties; he may not
authorize State personnel to impose fines admin-
istratively. Any civil penalty imposed under the
proposed act by a State court in a suit under sub-
section 12(c) will be payable one-half to the
appropriate State authorities and one-half to the
United States Treasury.
Section 13 directs the Administrator and the
Secretary of the Treasury to issue regulations to
apply to imports the same general standards and
labeling requirements that are applied to like domestic
products.
Section 14 authorizes the appropriation for
Fiscal Year 1972 and for each fiscal year thereafter
such sums as are necessary to carry out the proposed
act.
Section 15 amends the Clean Air Act by deleting
the requirement that there by an Office of Noise Abate-
ment and Control in the Environmental Protection Agency.
B-22
-------
GUIDELINES AND REPORTS 469
Appendix C
PUBLIC HEARINGS ON NOISE — TITLE IV PL 91-604
Noise in Construction
Atlanta, Ga., July 8-9, 1971
PANEL:
Dr. Alvin F. Meyer, Jr., Office of Noise Abatement and Control, EPA,
Washington, D.C.
Dr. Erich Bender, Bolt, Beranek & Newman
Dr. D. Lyons, Clemson University
Mr. R.A. Baron, Citizens for a Quieter City
Mr. Gerald P. McCarthy, Governor's Council on the Environment, State
of Virginia
Dr. Daniel A. Okun, University of North Carolina
ATTENDEES:
K.S. Kronoveter, National Institute for Occupational Safety & Health
George Allgood, FAA (Atlanta Airport)
James Rickard, FAA
Lutz Kohnagel, Engineer
Dr. Alvin F. Meyer, Jr.
Alice Suter, National Association of Hearing and Speech Agencies
Earl EUwood, United States Gypsum Company
Frank H. Walk, Professional Engineer, Walk, Haydel & Associates, Inc.,
New Or leans, Louisiana
George Diehl, Ingersoll-Rand Research, Inc.
Captain David H. Riley, Training Division, Atlanta Police Department
Edwin Jackson, Executive Vice President, Delta P Incorporated
Roger D. Wellington, Staff Engineer, Testing and Development, Detroit
Diesel Allison Division, General Motors Corporation
Charles L. Skinner, Managing Director, Georgia Motor Trucking Associa-
tion, Inc.
John Palazzi, The Associated General Contractors of America
Lyle G. Munson, Director of Engineering, Colt Industries, Quincy Com-
pressor Division
R.F. Ringham, Vice President, Engineering, Chassis Test Construction
Equipment Division, Internal Harvester Company
J.R. Prosek, Chief Engineer, Chassis Test Construction Equipment Division,
International Harvester Company
Jack Hasten, Manager, Products Control Department, Caterpillar Tractor
Company
Lester Bergsten, Staff Research Engineer, Caterpillar Tractor Company
J.B. Codlin, Manager, Special Engineering Assignments, Construction
Machinery Division, Allis-Chalmers Corporation
William Hansell, Director of Environmental Health, Georgia Public Health
Department
C-l
-------
470 LEGAL COMPILATION—NOISE
ATTENDEES (Cont'd.):
R.L. Smelley, Southeast Regional Director, N.O.I.S.E.
Mrs. Wirt Jones, Sierra Club
George H. Grindley, Audiologtst, Administrator of Doctors Memorial Hospital
Hearing and Speech Center, Atlanta, Georgia, on behalf of S.A.V.E.
Thomas Muehlenbeck, City Manager, College Park, Georgia
William J. Doughorty, North Georgia Chapter, American Institute of
Architects
J.M. Benson, College Park, Georgia
James Rickard, Air Traffic Division, Southern Region, Federal Aviation
Administration
Glenn E. Bennett, Executive Director, Atlanta Region Metropolitan Planning
Commission
Mrs. Adele G. Northrup, Morningside-Lenox Park Community, Atlanta,
Georgia
John Glenn, Citizens for Clean Air
Peter Chanin and George Lipton, LCL Corporation, Atlanta, Georgia
L.E. Abernathy, Atlanta Area Association of Senior Citizens Clubs
Ruby Ballard Zumbrook, Decatur Civic Association
W.E. Joyner, Decatur Civic Association
Stephanie Coffin, Great Speckled Bird, Newspaper
Maura Enright, Crisis Center, Atlanta, Georgia
Mrs. Charles Holman, Private Citizen
Edwin Eckles, Mingledorffs, Inc.
Corwin Robertson, Carrier Air Conditioning
William Hansell, Georgia Public Health Department Director
Wilson Smith, City of Atlanta Department of Planning
B.J. Dasher, Georgia Institute of Technology
W.E. Blount, Georgia Power Company
Dan Shepherd, Shepherd Construction Company
C-2
-------
GUIDELINES AND REPORTS 471
Manufacturing and Transportation Noise
Chicago, HI., July 28-29, 1971
PANEL:
Dr. AMn F. Meyer, Jr., Director, Office of Noise Abatement and Control,
Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, D.C.
Dr. Mel Whitcomb, Executive Director, Committee on Hearing, Bioacoustics,
and Biodynamics, National Research Council-National Academy of
Sciences, Washington, D.C.
Professor Sheldon J. Plager, University of Illinois, School of Law,
Champaign-Urbana, Illinois
Mr. Henry Martin, Manager, Resource Development, Society of Automotive
Engineers, New York City, New York
Mr. Lloyd Hinton, Executive Director, Metropolitan Aircraft Noise Abate-
ment Council, Minneapolis, Minn.
Professor John Kerrebrock, Professor of Aerospace, Massachusetts Insti-
tute of Technology, Cambridge, Mass.
ATTENDEES:
Hon. Roman Pucinskl, Member of Congress, llth District, Illinois
Dr. Edward Herman
Commissioner Herbert W. Poston, Department of Environmental Control,
Chicago, 111.
Mr. Franklin Kolk, Vice President, American Airlines, New York City,
New York
Mr, William Becker, Vice President, Air Transport Association of America,
Washington, D.C.
Mr. A.M. McPike, McDonnell-Douglas Corp., Long Beach, Calif.
Mr. John Cornell, General Electric Co., Lockland, Ohio
Mr. J.J. Corbett, U.S. Airport Operators Council International, Washington,
D.C.
Congressman Abner Mikva, 2nd Congressional District of Illinois
Captain Richard Heller, Airline Pilots Association, Chicago, Illinois
Mr. Lewis Goodfriend, Goodfriend-Ostergaard Associates, Cedar Knolls,
New Jersey
Mr. Harter Rupert, Federal Highway Administration, Washington, D.C.
Mr. William Carey, Executive Director, Highway Research Board, National
Research Council, Washington, D.C.
Dr. Ernest Starkman, Vice President for Engineering, General Motors Corp.,
Warren, Mich.
C-3
-------
472 LEGAL COMPILATION—NOISE
ATTENDEES (Cont'd.)
John Damian, Ford Motor Co., Detroit, Mich.
TedShreves, Ford Motor Co., Detroit, Mich.
Mr. Lee Hench, Chrysler Corp., Detroit, Mich.
Richard Kolb, Heavy Truck Manufacturer's Association, Washington, D.C.
Mr. Roger Ringham, International Harvester, Chicago, Illinois
Mr. Jack Hasten, Caterpillar Tractor, Inc., Peoria, 111.
Mr. Joseph Kigin, Rubber Manufacturer's Association, Washington, D.C.
S.J. Lippmann, Rubber Manufacturer's Association, Washington, D.C.
Mr. Sheldon Samuels, AFL-CIO, Washington, D.C.
Laura Fermi, American Association of University Women
Jo Ann Horowitz, American Association of University Women
Omar Marcus
Ted Decca
Richard Blomberg
Warren Edwards
John Kerrigan
Wendell P. Berwick
Dr. Richard Marcus
Noah Roberts
Al Romeo, Jr.
Alfred Etter
John D. Harper
Herbert G. Poertner
Henry Karplus
Samuel Peskin
Carl Carlson
Richard Young
George J. Franks
William Singer
Fred H. Tabak
John Watts
Cleveland Walcutt
Glenna Alevizos
Janice Del Calzo
John Desmond
John Varble, Representative, National Organization to Insure a Sound-
Controlled Environment
Herman Spahr
George Dayiantls
Elizabeth Lewis
C-4
-------
GUIDELINES AND REPORTS 473
Urban Planning and Noise; Architectural Design and Noise;
Noise in the Home
Dallas, Texas, August 18-19, 1971
PANEL:
Dr. Alvin F. Meyer, Jr., Director, Office of Noise Abatement and Control,
Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, B.C.
Theodore Borland, President, Citizens Against Noise (Author: The Fight
for Quiet). Chicago, Illinois
Professor Leon Cole, Department of Urban Planning, University of Texas,
Austin, Texas
Dr. Aram Glorig, Director, Callier Hearing and Speech Institute, Dallas,
Texas
Dr. Robert Newman, Bolt, Beranek, and Newman, Cambridge, Mass.
Dr. W. Dixon Ward, Hearing Research Institute, University of Minnesota,
Minneapolis, Minnesota
Dr. Jack Westman, Department of Psychiatry, University of Wisconsin,
Madison, Wisconsin
ATTENDEES:
WesWise, Mayor, Dallas, Texas
Mr. Edward C. Fritz, Air Quality Coalition of North Texas, Dallas, Texas
Dr. Hal Watson, Jr., Southern Methodist University, Dallas, Texas
Mrs. Roger C. Fletcher, Arlington Conservation Council, Arlington, Texas
Mrs. Franklyn Wright, Conservationist, Dallas, Texas
Mrs. Robert Sapp, American Association of University Women, Dallas, Tex.
Mrs. Richardson, Private Citizen, Dallas, Texas
Dr. Robert Finch, University of Houston, Houston, Texas
Mr. J.W. Joiner, Joinei-, Pelton, and Rose, Inc., Dallas, Texas
Mr. J.A. Shirley, Private Citizen, Dallas, Texas
Mr. Rod Rylander, Texoma Outdoor Club, Sherman, Texas
Mrs. Sharon Stewart, Citizen:!1 Survival Committee, Lake Jackson, Texas
Mr. Tom Maddocks, Chairman, North Texas Group of the Lone Star Chapter,
Sierra Club, Dallas, Texas
Mr. Dan DeGrassi, Conservationist, Dallas, Texas
Mr. Joe Allen, Texas House of Representatives, Baytown, Texas
Mr. Bob Johnston, Environmental Action Center, Dallas, Texas
Cecil Sparks, Southwest Research Institute, San Antonio, Texas
BartSpano, Polysemies, Inc., Washington, D.C.
C-5
-------
474 LEGAL COMPILATION-—NOISE
ATTENDEES (Cont'd.):
Charles Parrott, Director, Redevelopment Authority, La Crosse, Wisconsin
Bailus Walker, Department of Environmental Services, Cleveland, Ohio
Robert Wegner, American Institute of Planners, Arlington, Texas
Gene Schrickel, American Society of Landscape Architects, Arlington, Texas
John Burdis, Environistics Division, Instrument Systems Corp., Jerico,
New York
David McCandless, McCandless Associates, Visiting Professor of Architecture,
University of Texas, Austin, Texas
Dr. Elmer Hixon, Department of Electrical Engineering, University of Texas,
Austin, Texas
Herbert Phillips, Association of Home Appliance Manufacturers, Chicago, 111.
John Dorn, Frigidaire Division, General Motors Corp., Dayton, Ohio
J.E. Duff, Hoover Corp. Research Laboratory, North Canton, Ohio
E.B. Thompson, W.G. Martin, in, Home Ventilating Institute, Chicago, 111.
Arthur Meling, Scott Bayless, Air Conditioning and Refrigeration Institute,
Arlington, Virginia
C-6
-------
GUIDELINES AND REPORTS 475
Standards,Measurement Methods, Legislation and Enforcement Problems
San Francisco, Calif., September 27-29, 1971
PANEL:
Dr. Alvin F. Meyer, Jr., Director, Office of Noise Abatement and Control,
Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, D.C.
Robert Alexander Baron, Citizens For A Quieter City, New York, N.Y.
Dr. Charles Dietrich, Bolt, Beranek & Newman, Cambridge, Mass.
James L. Hildebrand (Editor: Noise Pollution and the Law). Tokyo, Japan
Prof. Sheldon Plager, Univ. of Illinois Law School, Urbana, Illinois
Henry Martin, American Society of Automotive Engineers, New York, N.Y.
ATTENDEES:
Ellen Stern Harris, Council for Planning & Conservation, Los Angeles, Calif.
Robert Watkins, California Division of Highways, Sacramento, Calif.
Glendon Craig, Inspector, California State Highway Patrol, Sacremento,
Calif.
Raymond Lucia, Motorcycle Industry Council, Washington, D.C.
Stephen Mayne, Dinkelspeil, Stefel, Levitt, Weiss, & Donovan, San Francisco,
Calif.
James Taylor, Research Development Associates, Los Angeles, Calif.
John Parnell, Environmental Acoustics, Palos Verdes, Calif.
Thomas Young, Executive Director, Engine Manufacturer's Association,
Chicago, 111.
Jonathan Howe, Legal Council, Engine Manufacturer's Association
Arthur Snyder, City Council, Los Angeles, Calif.
Louis Beliczky, AFL-CIO, Akron, Ohio
Erin Fenton, Automotive Parts and Accessories Association, Gardena, Calif.
H.T. Larmore, Construction Industry Manufacturer's Association, Milwaukee,
Wisconsin
John J. Bucholtz, Plaster Information Center, San Jose, Calif.
G.F. Hohn and Associate, American National Standards Institute, New York,
N.Y.
Bruce Jett, Acoustical Sciences Instrumentation Data Systems, Arlington, Va.
Carol Tanner, Hydrospace Research, San Diego, Calif.
William Burtis, Dr. Marjorie Evans, California Society of Professional En-
gineers, Los Altos Hills, Calif.
Roger Ringham, International Harvester, Inc., Chicago, 111.
Richard Staadt, Truck Division, International Harvester, Inc., Chicago, 111.
Dr. George Steinbruegge, University of Nebraska, Lincoln, Neb.
Ralph Hillqulst, General Motors, Detroit, Mich.
C-7
-------
476 LEGAL COMPILATION—NOISE
ATTENDEES (Cont'd.):
Ralph Van Demark, Motor and Equipment Manufacturer's Association, New
York, N.Y.
Seymour Lippmann, Rubber Manufacturer's Association, Washington, D.C.
Arthur Meling, Air Conditioning and Refrigeration Institute, Arlington, Va.
G.B. Ribnick, Institute of Heating and Air Conditioning Industries, Los
Angeles, Calif.
Pat Russell, City Council, Los Angeles, Calif.
Dr. Hayes, President, Save Our Valley, Santa Clara, Calif.
Nicholas Yost, Deputy Attorney General, California, Sacramento, Calif.
Albert Cooper, California Highway Patrol, Sacramento, Calif.
Randall L. Hurlburt, City of Inglewood, California
Dale Hoge, Director of Standards in the R & D Department Automotive Parts
and Accessories Association
William Scott, Chairman, Vehicle Sound Level Committee, Society of Auto-
motive Engineers
Bobby J. Greer, Computer Sciences Corporation
Meyer S. Bogost, Environmental Engineer, Hawaii State Office of Environ-
mental Quality Control
Richard Dyer, State of California Business and Transportation Agency,
Department of Aeronautics
Inspector Glendon Craig, California Highway Patrol, Sacramento, Calif.
Bob Smith (representing himself)
John Sutter, Oakland City Council and Bay Anti-Noise Group
Donald A. Belt, Audiologist
Gary Compton, Northern California Auto Dismantlers Association, et al
David S. Lawyer, Walnut Creek, Calif.
Steven R. Skale, San Mateo, Calif.
Bradley Collins, Seattle, Wash.
Douglas T. Corbin, Richmond, Calif.
Donald W. Baldra, Walnut Creek, Calif.
T. D. Harriman, Fairfax, Calif.
Joseph J. Hillner, Walnut Creek, Calif.
Peter B. Jansen, Berkeley, Calif.
Mrs. Mitchell Madison, Los Altos, Calif.
Joseph Heizer, San Francisco, Calif.
W. C. Reynolds, Stanford, Calif.
Antionette Riley, Redwood City, Calif.
David Parker
Mrs. Dennis G. Drake, San Rafael, Calif.
Joseph E. Cornish, Redwood City, Calif.
John L. Burton, California State Assemblyman, San Francisco, Calif.
Milan Dostal, City Councilman, Newport Beach, Calif.
Dobie Jenkins, Northern California Field Representative for U. S. Senator
Alan Cranston of California
Wes Uhlman, Mayor, City of Seattle, Wash.
Diane Feinstein, President, San Francisco Board of Supervisors
Warren Boggess, Supervisor, Contra Costa County, Representing Regional
Airport Systems Study of the Association of Bay Area Governments
Co
-O
-------
GUIDELINES AND REPORTS 477
ATTENDEES (Cont'd.):
Richard Nagel, City Councilman, El Segundo, California, Representing the
League of California Cities
Alba Ely, City Councilwoman, Palmdale, Calif.
A. M. Man, Barrio Planners, Los Angeles, Calif.
Mrs. Thomas Souza, Walnut Creek, Calif.
Donald Miller, Los Altos Noise Abatement Committee
Pat Russell, Councilwoman, Los Angeles, Calif.
James K. Carr, Director of Airports, City and County of San Francisco
Thomas L. Geers, Chairman, Portola Valley Noise Abatement Committee,
Coordinator of the Peninsula Noise Abatement League
Kenneth Scheidig, Assistant City Attorney, Walnut Creek, Calif.
Michael Berger, Attorney for Fadem & Tanner, Los Angeles, Calif.
lone Maxwell, Point Richmond, Calif.
Dr. C. Michael Hogan, Environmental Systems Laboratory, Sunnyvale, Calif.
Dor Hesselgrave, Palo Alto, Calif.
Ann Fiblsh, San Francisco, Calif.
Charles Christman, San Francisco, Calif.
Robert Shaw, Sunnyvale, Calif.
Raymond Carrington, Vacaville, Calif.
MarkTarses, Berkeley, Calif.
Lloyd Krause, Stanford Research Institute
Jay Beckerman
Ronald Pelosi, Supervisor, San Francisco, Calif.
Jim Knott, President, San Francisco Tomorrow
Storm Goranson, Oakland, Calif.
Col. John Reagan, Foster City, Calif.
Dr. R. W. Procunier, Stanford Committee for Environmental Information
Michael Moriarty, Oakland, Calif.
Mrs. Fallie Davison, Airport Cities Action Committee, Playa Del Rey, Calif.
Loretta Fontechio, North Runway Residents, Los Angeles, Calif.
Janice Cruikshank, Watchful Eye Women's Gouncil for Community Preserva-
tion, Los Angeles, Calif.
Marian Rubin, San Francisco, Calif.
C-9
-------
478 LEGAL COMPILATION—NOISE
Agricultural and Recreational Noise
Denver, Colo., Sept. 30-Oct. 1, 1971
PANEL:
Alvin F. Meyer, Jr., Director, Office of Noise Abatement and Control,
Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, D.C.
Dr. Clyde Berry, University of Iowa, Iowa City, Iowa
James Botsford, Bethlehem Steel Corp., Bethlehem, Penn.
Dr. John Fletcher, Memphis State University, Memphis, Tenn.
Boyd Norton, Friends of the Earth, Denver, Colorado
Sheldon Plager, University of Illinois Law School, Urbana, Illinois
Richard Strunk, Bolt, Beranek & Newman, Chicago, 111.
ATTENDEES:
John A. Green, Regional Administrator, Environmental Protection Agency,
Rocky Mountain-Prairie Region, Denver, Colo.
Dr. Steven Williams, Planned Boulder Commission, Boulder, Colo.
Prof. Olwin Olpin, University of Utah, Salt Lake City, Utah
Hal Weber, Colorado Dept. Public Health, Denver, Colo.
Jim Monaghan, CSU Environmental Corps, Fort Collins, Colo.
John Green, Boulder, Colo.
Bob Michener, Denver, Colo.
Dr. James Wright & Representatives, Balarat Center for Environmental
Studies, Denver, Colo.
Donald Ahrenholtz, Colorado Farm Bureau, Denver, Colo.
Tom Logan, Bureau of Reclamation, Denver, Colo.
Robert Million, Environmental Control Group — Technical Service Co,,
Denver, Colo.
Howard McGregor, Engineering Dynamics, Denver, Colo.
Nicholas Pohlit, National Environmental Health Association, Denver, Colo.
Ralph Hill, Colorado Wildlife Federation, Denver, Colo.
Bernie Goetze, Wildlife Conservation Office, Colorado Division Game, Fish,
& Parks, Denver, Colo.
Mrs. W.H. McAnally, Lakewood, Colo.
Al Hine and Representatives, Colorado Motorcycle Dealers Association,
Denver, Colo.
Bernie Bovee, Denver Colo.
Tom Martin, Noise Control Officer, Boulder, Colo.
Dr. Donald Billings, Director, Astro-Physics, University of Colorado,
Boulder, Colo.
C-10
-------
GUIDELINES AND REPORTS 479
ATTENDEES (Cont'd.):
Dr. Robert Chanaud, Civil Engineering, University of Colorado, Boulder, Colo.
John Cooper, Rocky Mountain Cycle Shop, Boulder, Colo.
Donald V. Glenn, Boulder, Colo.
Cecil Sparks, Southwest Research Institute, San Antonio, Tex.
Leo Lechtenberg, Briggs-Stratton Co., Milwaukee, Wis.
Jack Williford, Colorado State University, Fort Collins, Colo.
Roger Fooger, University of Illinois, Urbana, 111.
Dr. Glen Peterson, Memphis State University, Memphis, Tenn.
Anthony Wayne Smith, National Parks and Conservation Association, Wash-
ington, D.C.
Robin Harrison, Sierra Club, San Dimas, Calif.
David Beach, Boating Industry Association, Chicago, 111.
Dick Lincoln, Outboard Marine Corp., Milwaukee, Wis.
Hans Von Barby, National Wildlife Federation, Evergreen, Colo.
John Nesbitt, International Snowmobile Industry Association, Minneapolis, Minn.
Robert Turner, Audubon Society, Boulder, Colo.
Newton Sacks, Deere and Co., Moline, 111.
R.W. Randt, Farm and Industrial Equipment Institute, Chicago, Hi.
Arnold Skarjune, White Farm Equipment Co., Hopkins, Minn.
Roger Ringham, International Harvester, Chicago, 111.
R.T. Bennett, Farm Equipment Division, International Harvester
Dr. Ed Simpson, University of Nebraska, Lincoln, Neb.
Professor David Cook, University of Nebraska, Lincoln, Neb.
Dr. William Gatley, Society of Professional Engineers, University of Missouri
Rolla, Mo.
Dr. William Splinter, University of Nebraska, Lincoln, Neb.
Dr. IrwinDeshayes, University of Nebraska, Lincoln, Neb.
C-ll
-------
480 LEGAL COMPILATION—NOISE
Transportation, Urban Noise and Social Behavior
New York, N.Y., October 21-22, 1971
PANEL:
Dr. Alvin F. Meyer, Jr., Director, Office of Noise Abatement and Control,
Environmental Protection Agency
JohnBurdis, Environistlcs, Inc., Jericho, New York
Cyril Harris, Columbia University
Albert Rosenthal, Columbia University School of Law
Lloyd Hinton, Metropolitan Aircraft, Sound Abatement Council
George Wilson, Wilson, Ihrig Acoustical Consultants
Dr. Phyllis Gildston, Chairman, Subcommittee on Noise, New York Scientists'
for Public Information
ATTENDEES:
Robert Rickles, Commissioner, New York City Department of Air Resources,
New York City Environmental Protection Administration
William Bentley, New York State Department of Environmental Conservation
Honorable William F. Ryan, U.S. House of Representatives
Miss Anne MacNaughton, New York State Department of Highways
Richard Rosenthal, Lincoln Square Community Council
Mrs. Betty Little, Coordinator, Citizens for Conservation of Bernard's
Township, N.J.
Councilman Theodore Weiss, New York City Council
Arlene Weltman, Consumer Action Now
Paul Housberg, Environmental Control Class, Roslyn High School
Thomas E. Carroll, Asst. Administrator for Planning and Management,
Environmental Protection Agency
Mr. Stanley Welgman, Brooklyn School of Pharmacy
Edward T. Hall, Northwestern University
Robert Alex Baron, Citizens for a Quieter City, New York, N. Y.
Abraham Cohen, Environistics Division, Instrument Systems Data Corp.
Dr. Ernest Zelnick, Noise Pollution Consultants, Inc.
William Harris, Association of American Railroads, Washington, D.C.
Kenneth Knight, Chairman, Institute for Rapid Transit Noise Control,
Washington, D.C.
George Wilson, Wilson, Ihrig & Associates, Berkeley, Calif.
Anthony Paolillo, Engineer, New York City Transit Authority, Division of
Noise and Vibration Control
Honorable John W. Wydler, U.S. House of Representatives
Francis Purcell, Presiding Supervisor, Town of Hempstead, New York
Honorable Norman F. Lent, U.S. House of Representatives
C-12
-------
GUIDELINES AND REPORTS 481
ATTENDEES (Cont'd.):
Herbert McCollum, Hearing Conservation Center, Lancaster, Penn.
Robert Cusumano, Chief of Air Pollution Control, Nassau County Health
Department
Honorable Lester L. Wolff, U.S. House of Representatives
Ernest Litsohauer, Town of Greenwich, Northwest Greenwich Association
Lewis Rotendo, Conney Hill Associates, Armonck, New York
Clifford Deeds, Town Village Aircraft, Safety and Noise Abatement Com-
mission, Lawrence, New York
Richard Carlson, President, CRASH (Citizens Reaction Against Sudden
Holocausts);, Halbrook, N.Y.
Robert Check, President, Metro-Suburban Air-Noise Association, Inc.,
In wood, N.J.
William Webster, New York State Department of Environmental Conserva-
tion
Jack Marshall, Port of New York Authority
Arthur Podwall, M.D., Director, Syossett Hearing and Speech Center,
Syossett, New York
James Rogers, Jet Sonics, Inc., Hauppage, New York
Clifford Bragdon, Associate Professor of City Planning, Georgia Institute
of Technology, Atlanta, Ga.
Fred Roberts, Sierra Club, Princeton, New Jersey
David London, Citizen
C-13
-------
482 LEGAL COMPILATION—NOISE
Physiological and Psychological Effects
Boston, Mass., October 27-28, 1971
PANEL:
Dr. Alvin Meyer, Jr., Director, Office of Noise Abatement and Control,
EPA, Washington, D.C.
Dr. James Botsford, Senior Noise Control Engineer, Bethlehem Steel Cor-
poration, Bethlehem, Pa.
Dr. Donald Elderedge, Central Institute of the Deaf, Washington, D.C.
Dr. Sanford Fidell, Bolt, Beranek & Newman, Cambridge, Mass.
Dr. Henning vonGierke, Aerospace Medical Laboratory, Wright-Patterson
Air Force Base, Dayton, Ohio
Dr. Milton Whitcomb, National Academy of Science, Washington, D.C.
ATTENDEES:
Fred Salvucci, Representative, Mayor's Office, Boston, Mass.
Guy D. Rosmarin, Assistant Transportation Secretary, Boston, Mass.
The Honorable Ralph E. Sirlanni, Jr., Massachusetts State Representative,
Boston, Mass.
Statement of The Honorable Edward M. Kennedy, U. S. Senator, State of
Massachusetts, Washington, D. C.
Dr. Robert J. Cunitz, Psychologist, National Bureau of Standards, Gaithers-
burg, Md.
T. Jack Kelley, Commission Member, City of Pittsfield Noise Control
Commission, Pittsfield, Mass.
Mr. David Standley, Executive Director, City of Boston Air Pollution Control
Commission
Dr. Aram Glorig, Collier Hearing and Speech Institute, Dallas, Tex.
Dr. Bruce Welsh, Friends Medical Science Research Institute, Baltimore, Md.
Mr. Tom Callahan, Assistant to the Executive Director, Massachusetts Port
Authority
Monsignor Minnie Pitaro, State Senator, East Boston
Mr. Charles Schmid, Private Citizen discussing noise on Cape Cod
Mr. Desmond McCarthy, representing Sierra Club and Friends of the Earth
Mr. Jerry Falbo, Massachusetts Air Pollution Noise Abatement Committee
(MAPNAC)
Mr. Allen Morgan, Executive Secretary, Massachusetts Audubon Society
Mr. John Reagan, Chairman, Faculty Senate, Barnes Junior High School,
East Boston
Dr. John Dougherty, School of Public Health, Harvard University, Cambridge,
Mass.
Dr. Jerome Carr, Environmental Specialist, Pollution Control Division,
Lowell Technological Institute Research Foundation, Lowell, Mass.
C-14
-------
GUIDELINES AND REPORTS 483
ATTENDEES (Cont'd.):
Dr. Arthur Sackler, M.D., and Dr. Stanley Waltman, M.D., Laboratory for
Therapeutic Research, Brooklyn College of Pharmacy, Long Island
University, Brooklyn, N.Y.
Dr. Michael Baron, Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Dr. Edwin Newman, Psychological Lab, Harvard University
Dr. Robert Grinell, Institute of Psychiatry and Human Behavior, University
of Maryland, Baltimore, Maryland
Dr. W. Dixon Ward, Hearing Research Laboratory, University of Minnesota,
Minneapolis, Minn.
Dr. Glen Jones, Bolt, Beranek & Newman, Cambridge, Mass.
Dr. Paul Borsky, Department of Environmental Hygiene, Columbia University,
New York, N.Y.
Stanley Weltman, Ph. D.
Dr. John Dougherty
Michaels. Bararn, Ph.D.
C-15
-------
484 LEGAL COMPILATION—NOISE
Technology and Economics of Noise Control; National Programs
and the Relations with State and Local Programs
Washington, D.C., November 9-12, 1971
PANEL:
Dr. AMn F. Meyer, Jr., Director, Office of Noise Abatement and Control
John Johnson, Acoustical Society of America, State College, Pennsylvania
Theodore Berland, President, Citizens Against Noise (Author: The Fight
for Quiet), Chicago, 111.
Leo Beranek, Bolt, Beranek & Newman, Cambridge, Mass.
Henry Martin, Society of Automotive Engineers, New York, N.Y.
Wes Wise, Mayor, Dallas, Tex.
Ken Eldred, Wyle Labs, Los Angeles, Calif.
Charles Dietrich, Bolt, Beranek & Newman, Cambridge, Mass.
ATTENDEES:
Prof. Richard Bolt, Acoustical Society of America
Dr. Keith Lumsden, Dept. of Business Administration, Stanford University
Emerson Rhyner, California State Dept. of Public Works, Sacramento, Calif.
Dr. C. Kenneth Or ski, Head, Division of Urban Affairs Environmental
Directorate, OECD, Paris
Terry Trumbull, Institute of Public Administration, Washington, D.C.
Robert Smith, Council of Economic Priorities, New York, N.Y.
Ray Leonard, U.S. Forest Service, Syracuse, New York
C.A. Wold, Corporative Noise Control Consultant, Boise Cascade Corp.,
Boise, Idaho
Dorn McGrath, American Institute of Planners
Dan Hanson and Hay Crowe, American Society of Road Builders, Washington,
D.C.
Representative of the Homebuilders of America, Washington, D.C.
Representative from the International Association for Pollution Control
Allan Surosky, General Testing Labs, Arlington, Va.
Roger Ringham, International Harvester, Chicago, 111.
David Wulfhorst, Cummins Engine, Co., Columbus, Indiana
Franklyn Kreml, Automobile Manufacturers Association, Washington, D.C.
Representative of the Transportation Association of America, Washington, D.C.
C-16
-------
GUIDELINES AND REPORTS 485
ATTENDEES (Cont'd.):
Jerbis Kester, Pratt and Whitney Aircraft, Hartford, Conn.
Representative of Boeing Aircraft, Washington, D.C.
G.F. Dilabio, Northrop Aircraft, Los Angeles, Calif.
Franklin Kolk, American Airlines, New York, N.Y.
Dr. Louis Mayo, George Washington University, Washington, D.C.
Thomas Young and Jonathan Howe, Engine Manufacturers of America,
Chicago, 111.
John Lentz, Washington Metropolitan Council of Governors, Washington, D.C.
Representative of the Conference of States, Washington, D.C.
Wes Gilbertson, Conference of State Sanitary Engineers, Harrisburg, Pa.
John Moore, Bureau of Noise Pollution Control, Illinois State EPA
Don Scheisswohl and David Scott, Florida State Department of Air & Water
Pollution Control, Tallahassee, Florida
Representative of the Texas State Dept. of Health
Dwight Metzler, New York State Dept. of Environmental Conservation,
Albany, N.Y.
Representative of the Conference of Mayors, Washington, D.C.
Robert Benin, New York City Environmental Protection Administration,
New York, N.Y.
Representative of Los Angeles Mayor's Council on Environmental Management
Mrs. Betty Little, Citizens for Conservation of Bernard's Township, Basking
Ridge, N.J.
Robert Cusamano, Nassau County Bureau of Air Pollution, Nassau County,
Long Island, New York
Joseph Kigin, Rubber Manufacturers Association, Washington, D.C.
N. Larmore, Construction Industry Manufacturers Association, Chicago, 111.
George Washnis, Center for Governmental Studies, Washington, D.C.
Herschel Griffin, Dean of the University of Pittsburgh School of Public Healtlr
Mrs. Ann Button, Burgundy Hill Farm School, Alexandria, Va.
John Winder, President, Metropolitan Washington Air Quality Coalition,
Washington, D.C.
George Coling, Executive Director, Ecology Center Communications Council,
Washington, D.C.
C-17
-------
486 LEGAL COMPILATION—NOISE
GLOSSARY
The following explanations of terms are provided to assist the reader in under-
standing terms commonly encountered in the literature of "noise pollution" as well as
terms commonly employed in this report.
ABSORPTION — Absorption is a property of materials that reduces the amount of
sound energy reflected. Thus, the introduction of an "absorbent" into the surfaces
of a room will reduce the sound pressure level in that room by virtue of the fact
that sound energy striking the room surfaces will not be totally reflected. It
should be mentioned that this is an entirely different process from that of trans-
mission loss through a material, which determines how much sound gets into the
room via the walls, ceiling, and floor. The effect of absorption merely reduces
the resultant sound level in the room produced by energy which has already entered
the room.
ABSORPTION COEFFICIENT — The Sound-absorbing ability of a surface is given in
terms of a sound-absorption coefficient. This coefficient is defined as the frac-
tion of incident sound energy absorbed or otherwise not reflected by the surface.
Unless otherwise specified, a diffuse sound field is assumed. The values of
sound-absorption coefficient usually range from about 0. 01 for marble slate to
about 1. 0 for long absorbing wedges such as are used in anechoic chambers.
ACCELEROMETER (ACCELERATION PICKUP) - An electroacoustic transducer that
responds to the acceleration of the surface to which the transducer is attached,
and delivers essentially equivalent electric waves.
ACOUSTICAL POWER - See sound power.
ACOUSTICS — (1) The science of sound, including the generation, transmission, and
effects of sound waves, both audible and inaudible. (2) The acoustics of an audi-
torium or of a room, the totality of those physical qualities (such as size, shape,
amount of sound absorption, and amount of noise) which determine the audibility
and perception of speech and music.
AIRBORNE SOUND — Sound that reaches the point of interest by propagation through
air.
G-l
-------
GUIDELINES AND REPORTS 487
AMBIENT NOISE LEVEL — The ambient noise level, for purposes of this report,
follows the usage of the word "ambient" throughout the environmental sciences
(except acoustics). That is, the ambient noise level is that level which exists at
any instant, regardless of source.
ANALYSIS — The analysis of a noise generally refers to the composition of the noise
into various frequency bands, such as octaves, third-octaves, etc.
ANECHOIC ROOM — An anechoic room is one whose boundaries have been designed
(with acoustically absorbent materials) to absorb nearly all the sound incident on
its boundaries, thereby affording a test room essentially free from reflected
sound.
ARTICULATION INDEX (At) — A numerically calculated measure of the intelligibility
of transmitted or processed speech. It takes into account the limitations of the
transmission path and the background noise. The articulation index can range in
magnitude between 0 and 1. 0. If the AI is less than 0. 1, speech intelligibility is
generally low. If it is above 0. 6, speech intelligibility is generally high.
AUDIO FREQUENCY — The frequency of oscillation of an audible sine-wave of sound;
any frequency between 20 and 20,000 hertz. See also frequency.
AURAL — Of or pertaining to the ear or hearing.
AUDIOGRAM — A graph showing hearing loss as a function of frequency.
AUDIOMETER — An instrument for measuring hearing sensitivity or hearing loss.
A-WEIGHTED SOUND LEVEL — The ear does not respond equally to sounds of all
frequencies, but is less efficient at low and high frequencies than it is at medium
or speech range frequencies. Thus, to obtain a single number representing the
sound level of a noise containing a wide range of frequencies in a manner repre-
sentative of the ear's response, it is necessary to reduce, or weight, the effects
of the low and high frequencies with respect to the medium frequencies. The re-
sultant sound level is said to be A-weighted, and the units are dB. A popular
method of indicating the units, dBA, is frequently used in this report. The A-
weighted sound level is also called the noise level. Sound level meters have an
A-weighting network for measuring A-weighted sound level.
BACKGROUND NOISE — The total of all noise in a system or situation, independent
of the presence of the desired signal. In acoustical measurements, strictly
speaking, the term "background noise" means electrical noise in the measure-
ment system. However, in popular usage the term "background noise" is also
used with the same meaning as "residual noise. "
BAFFLE — A baffle is a shielding structure or series of partitions used to increase
the effective length of the external transmission path between two points in an
acoustic system. For example, baffles may be used in sound traps (as in air
conditioning ducts) or in automotive mufflers to decrease the sound transmitted
while affording a path for air flow.
, G-2
-------
488 LEGAL COMPILATION—NOISE
BAND CENTEK FREQUENCY - The designated (geometric) mean frequency of a band
of noise or other signal. For example, 1000 Hz Is the band center frequency for
the octave band that extends from 707 Hz to 1414 Hz, or for the third-octave band
that extends from 891 Hz to 1123 Hz.
BAND PRESSURE (OR POWER) LEVEL - The pressure (or power) level for the
sound contained within a specified frequency band. The band may be specified
either by its lower and upper cut-off frequencies, or by its geometric center
frequency. The width of the band is often indicated by a prefatory modifier; e. g. ,
octave band, third-octave band, 10-Hz band.
COMMUNITY NOISE EQUIVALENT LEVEL - Community Noise Equivalent Level
(CNEL) is a scale which takes account of all the A-weighted acoustic energy re-
ceived at a point, from all noise events causing noise levels above some pre-
scribed value. Weighting factors are included which place greater importance
upon noise events occurring during the evening hours (7:00 p. m. to 10:00 p. m.)
and even greater importance upon noise events at night (10:00 p. m. to 6:00 a. m.).
COMPOSITE NOISE RATING — Composite noise rating (CNR) Is a scale which takes
account of the totality of all aircraft operations at an airport in quantifying the
total aircraft noise environment. It was the earliest method for evaluating com-
patible land use around airports and is still in wide use by the Department of
Defense in predicting noise environments around military airfields.
Basically, to calculate a CNR value one begins with a measure of the maxi-
mum noise magnitude from each aircraft flyby and adds weighting factors which
sum the cumulative effect of all flights. The scale used to describe individual
noise events is perceived noise level (in PNdB), the term accounting for number
of flights is 10 log10N (where N is the number of flight operations), and each
night operation counts as much as 10 daytime operations. Very approximately,
the noise exposure level at a point expressed in the CNR scale will be numerically
35-37 dB higher than if expressed in the CNEL scale.
CONTINUOUS SOUND SPECTRUM - A continuous sound spectrum is comprised of
components which are continuously distributed over a frequency region.
C-WEIGHTED SOUND LEVEL (dBC) - A quantity, in decibels, read from a standard
sound-level meter that is switched to the weighting network labeled "C". The C-
weighting network weights the frequencies between 70 Hz and 4000 Hz uniformly,
but below and above these limits frequencies are slightly discriminated against.
Generally, C-weighted measurements are essentially the same as overall sound-
pressure levels, which require no discrimination at any frequency.
CYCLES PER SECOND — See frequency.
DAMAGE-RISK CRITERIA (HEARING-CONSERVATION CRITERIA) - Recommended
maximum noise levels that for a given pattern of exposure times should, if not
exceeded, minimize the risk of damage to the ears of persons exposed to the
noise.
G-3
-------
GUIDELINES AND REPORTS 489
DAMPING — The dissipation of energy with time or distance. The term is generally
applied to the attenuation of sound in a structure owing to the internal sound-dis-
sipative properties of the structure or owing to the addition of sound-dissipative
materials.
DECIBEL — The decibel (abbreviated "dB") is a measure, on a logarithmic scale, of
the magnitude of a particular .quantity (such as sound pressure, sound power,
intensity, etc.) with respect to a standard reference value.
DIFFUSE SOUND FIELD — The presence of many reflected waves (echoes) in a room
(or auditorium) having a very small amount of sound absorption, arising from re-
peated reflections of sound in various directions.
DIRECTIVITY INDEX — In a given direction from a sound source, the difference in
decibels between (a) the sound-pressure level produced by the source in that di-
rection, and (b) the space-average sound-pressure level of that source, measured
at the same distance.
DUCT LINING OR WRAPPING — Usually a sheet of porous material placed on the inner
or outer wall(s) of a duct to introduce sound attenuation and heat insulation. It is
often used in air conditioning systems. Linings are more effective in attenuating
sound that travels inside along the length of a duct, while wrappings are more
effective in preventing sound from being radiated from the duct sidewalls into sur-
rounding spaces.
EFFECTIVE PERCEIVED NOISE LEVEL (EPNL) - A physical measure designed to
estimate the effective "noisiness" of a single noise event, usually an aircraft fly-
over; it is derived from instantaneous Perceived Noise Level (PNL) values by
applying corrections for pure tones and for the duration of the noise.
ELECTROACOUSTICS — The science and technology of transforming sound waves into
currents in electrical circuits (and vice versa), by means of microphones, loud-
speakers, and electronic amplifiers and filters.
FAR FIELD — Consider any sound source in free space. At a sufficient distance from
the source, the sound pressure level obeys the inverse-square law, and the sound
particle velocity is in phase with the sound pressure. This region is called the
far field of the sound source. Regions closer to the source, where these two con-
ditions do not hold, constitute the near field. Now consider a sound source within
an enclosure. It is also sometimes possible to satisfy the far-field conditions
over a limited region between the near field and the reverberant field, if the ab-
sorption within the enclosure is not too small so that the near field and the rever-
berant field merge.
FILTER — A device that transmits certain frequency components of the signal (sound
or electrical) incident upon it, and rejects other frequency components of the inci-
dent signal.
FREE SOUND FIELD (FREE FIELD) - A sound field in which the effects of obstacles
or boundaries on sound propagated in that field are negligible.
G-4
-------
490 LEGAL COMPILATION—NOISE
FREQUENCY — The number of oscillations per second (a) of a sine-wave of sound,
and (b) of a vibrating solid object; now expressed in hertz (abbreviation Hz),
formerly in cycles per second (abbreviation cps).
HEARING DISABILITY — An actual or presumed inability, due to hearing impairment,
to remain employed at full wages.
HEARING HANDICAP — The disadvantage imposed by a hearing impairment sufficient
to affect one's efficiency in the situation of everyday living.
HEARING IMPAIRMENT — A deviation or change for the worse in either hearing
structure or function, usually outside the normal range; see hearing loss.
HEARING LOSS — At a specified frequency, an amount, in decibels, by which the
threshold of audibility for that ear exceeds a certain specified audiometric thresh-
old, that is to say, the amount by which a person's hearing is worse than some
selected norm. The norm may be the threshold established at some earlier time
for that ear, or the average threshold for some large population, or the threshold
selected by some standards body for audiometric measurements.
HEARING LOSS FOR SPEECH — The difference in decibels between the speech levels
at which the "average normal" ear and a defective ear, respectively, reach the
same intelligibility, often arbitrarily set at 50%.
HERTZ — See frequency.
IMPACT — (1) An impact is a single collision of one mass in motion with a second
mass which may be either in motion or at rest. (2) Impact is a word used to ex-
press the extent or severity of an environmental problem; e.g. , the number of
persons exposed to a given noise environment.
IMPACT INSULATION CLASS (JBC) - A single-figure rating which is intended to per-
mit the comparison of the impact sound insulating merits of floor-ceiling assem-
blies in terms of a reference contour,
IMPACT SOUND — The sound arising from the impact of a solid object on an interior
surface (wall, floor, or ceiling) of a building. Typical sources are footsteps,
dropped objects, etc.
INVERSE-SQUARE LAW — The inverse-square law describes that acoustic situation
where the mean-square sound pressure changes in inverse proportion to the
square of the distance from the source. Under this condition the sound-pressure
level decreases 6 decibels with each doubling of distance from the source. See
also spherical divergence.
ISOLATION - See vibration isolator.
LEVEL — The level of an acoustical quantity (e.g. , sound power), in decibels, is 10
times the logarithm (base 10) of the ratio of the quantity to a reference quantity
of the same physical kind.
G-5
-------
GUIDELINES AND REPORTS 491
LINE SPECTRUM — The spectrum of a sound whose components occur at a number of
discrete frequencies.
LOUDNESS — Loudness is the intensive attribute of an auditory sensation, in terms
of which sounds may be ordered on a scale extending from soft to loud. Loudness
depends primarily upon the sound pressure of the stimulus, but is also depends
upon the frequency and wave form of the stimulus.
LOUDNESS LEVEL — The loudness level of a sound, in phons, is numerically equal
to the median sound pressure level, in decibels, relative to 0. 0002 microbar, of
a free progressive wave of frequency 1000 Hz presented to listeners facing the
source, which in a number of trials is judged by the listeners to be equally loud.
MACH NUMBER — The ratio of a speed of a moving element to the speed of sound in
the surrounding medium.
MASKING — The action of bringing one sound (audible when heard alone) to inaudibility
or to unintelligibility by the introduction of another, usually louder, sound. See
masking noise.
MASKING NOISE — A noise which is intense enough to render inaudible or unintellibi-
ble another sound which is simultaneously present.
MICROPHONE — An electroacoustic transducer that responds to sound waves and
delivers essentially equivalent electric waves.
NEAR FIELD - See far field.
NOISE — Any sound which is undesirable because it interferes with speech and hearing,
or is intense enough to damage hearing, or is otherwise annoying.
NOISE CRITERION (NC) CURVES - Any of several versions (SC, NC, NCA, PNC) of
criteria used for rating the acceptability of continuous indoor noise levels, such
as produced by air-handling systems.
NOISE EXPOSURE FORECAST — Noise exposure forecast (NEF) is a scale (analogous
to CNEL and CNR) which has been used by the federal government in land use
planning guides for use in connection with airports.
In the NEF scale, the basic measure of magnitude for individual noise events
is the effective perceived noise level (EPNL), in units of EPNdB. This magnitude
measure includes the effect of duration per event. The terms accounting for num-
ber of flights and for weighting by time period are the same as in the CNR scale.
Very approximately, the noise exposure level at a point expressed in the NEF
scale will be numerically about 33 dB lower than if expressed in the CNEL scale.
NOISE INSULATION — See sound insulation.
NOISE ISOLATION CLASS (NIC) — A single number rating derived in a prescribed
manner from the measured values of noise reduction. It provides an evaluation
of the sound isolation between two enclosed spaces that are acoustically connected
by one or more paths.
G-6
-------
492 LEGAL COMPILATION—NOISE
NOISE LEVEL — See sound level.
NOISE AND NUMBER INDEX (NNI) - A measure based on Perceived Notse Level,
and with weighting factors added to account for the number of noise events, and
used (in some European countries) for rating the noise environment near airports.
NOISE POLLUTION LEVEL (Ljjp or NPL) — A measure of the total community noise,
postulated to be applicable to both traffic noise and aircraft noise. It is computed
from the "energy average" of the noise level and the standard deviation of the
time-varying noise level.
NOISE REDUCTION (NR) — The noise reduction between two areas or rooms is the
numerical difference, in decibels, of the average sound pressure levels in those
areas or rooms. A measurement of "noise reduction" combines the effect of the
transmission loss performance of structures separating the two areas or rooms,
plus the effect of acoustic absorption present in the receiving room.
NOISE REDUCTION COEFFICIENT (NRC) - A measure of the acoustical absorption
performance of a material, calculated by the averaging its sound absorption coef-
ficients at 250, 500, 1000, and 2000 Hz, expressed to the nearest integral multi-
ple of 0. 05.
NOYS — A unit used in the calculation of perceived noise level.
OCTAVE — An octave is the interval between two sounds having a basic frequency ratio
of two. For example, there are 8 octaves on the keyboard of a standard piano.
OCTAVE BAND — All of the components, in a sound spectrum, whose frequencies are
between two sine wave components separated by an octave.
OCTAVE-BAND SOUND PRESSURE LEVEL - The integrated sound pressure level of
only those sine-wave components in a specified octave band, for a noise or sound
having a wide spectrum.
OSCILLATION — The variation with time, alternately increasing and decreasing, (a) of
some feature of an audible sound, such as the sound pressure, or (b) of some fea-
ture of a vibrating solid object, such as the displacement of its surface.
PEAK SOUND PRESSURE — The maximum instantaneous sound pressure (a) for a tran-
sient or impulsive sound of short duration, or (b) in a specified time interval for
a sound of long duration.
PERCEIVED NOISE LEVEL (PNL) - A quantity expressed in decibels that provides a
subjective assessment of the perceived "noisiness" of aircraft noise. The units
of Perceived Noise Level are Perceived Noise Decibels, PNdB.
PHASE — For a particular value of the independent variable, the fractional part of a
period through which the independent variable has advanced, measured from an
arbitrary reference.
G-7
-------
-------
-------
GUIDELINES AND REPORTS 493
PHON — The unit of measurement for loudness level.
PITCH — A listener's perception of the frequency of a pure tone; the higher the fre-
quency, the higher the pitch.
PRESBYCUSIS — The decline in hearing acuity that normally occurs as a person grows
older.
PURE TONE — A sound wave whose waveform is that of a sine-wave.
RANDOM INCIDENCE — If an object is in a diffuse sound field, the sound waves that
comprise the sound field are said to strike the object from all angles of incidence
at random.
RA N'DOM NOISE — An oscillation whose instantaneous magnitude is not specified for
any given instant of time. It can be described in a statistical sense by probability
distribution functions giving the fraction of the total time that the magnitude of the
noise lies within a specified range.
RESIDUAL NOISE LEVEL — For purposes of this report, the term "residual noise"
has been adopted to mean the noise wh'ch exists at a point as a result of the com-
bination of many distant sources, individually indistinguishable. In statistical
terms, it is the level exceeded 90 percent of the time. (Acousticians should
note it means the same level to which they have customarily applied the term
"ambient. ")
RESONANCE — The relatively large effects produced, e.g. , amplitude of vibration,
when repetitive sound pressure or force is in approximate synchronism with a free
(unforced) vibration of a component or a system.
RETROFIT — The retroactive modification of an existing building or machine. In
current usage, the most common application of the word "retrofit" is to the
question of modification of existing jet aircraft engines for noise abatement
purposes.
REVERBERATION — The persistence of sound in an enclosed space, as a result of
multiple reflections, after the sound source has stopped.
REVERBERATION ROOM — A room having a long reverberation time, especially de-
signed to make the sound field inside it as diffuse (homogeneous) as possible.
REVERBERATION TIME (RT) — The reverberation time of a room is the time taken
for the sound pressure level (or sound intensity) to decrease to one-millionth
(60 dB) of its steady state value when the source of sound energy is suddenly
interrupted. It is a measure of the persistence of an impulsive sound in a room
and of the amount of acoustical absorption present inside the room.
ROOT-MEAN-SQUARE (RMS) — The root-mean-square value of a quantity that is
varying as a function of time is obtained by squaring the function at each instant,
obtaining the average of the squared values over the interval of interest, and
taking the square root of this average.
Gn
-O
-------
494 LEGAL COMPILATION—NOISE
SINE-WAVE — A sound wave, audible as a pure tone, in which the sound pressure is
a sinusoidal function of time; sound pressure-sine of (2W x frequency x time).
SONE — The unit of measurement for loudness.
SONIC BOOM — The pressure transient produced at an observing point by a vehicle
that is moving past (or over) it faster than the speed of sound.
SOUND — See acoustics (1).
SOUND INSULATION — (1) The use of structures and materials designed to reduce the
transmission of sound from one room or area to another or from the exterior to
the interior of a building. (2) The degree by which sound transmission is reduced
by means of sound insulating structures and materials.
SOUND LEVEL (NOISE LEVEL) - The weighted sound pressure level obtained by use
of a sound level meter having a standard frequency-filter for attenuating part of
the sound spectrum.
SOUND LEVEL METER — An instrument, comprising a microphone, an amplifier, an
output meter, and frequency-weighting networks, that is used for the measurement
of noise and sound levels in a specified manner.
SOUND POWER — Of a source of sound, the total amount of acoustical energy radiated
into the atmospheric air per unit time.
SOUND POWER LEVEL — The level of sound power, averaged over a period of time,
the reference being 10~12 watts.
SOUND PRESSURE — (1) The minute fluctuations in atmospheric pressure which ac-
company the passage of a sound wave; the pressure fluctuations on the tympanic
membrane are transmitted to the inner ear and give rise to the sensation of
audible sound. (2) For a steady sound, the value of the sound pressure averaged
over a period of time. (3) Sound pressure is usually measured (a) in dynes per
square centimeter (dyn/cm2), or (b) in newtons per square meter (N/m2).
1 N/m2 = 10 dyn/cm2 = 10~>> times the atmospheric pressure.
SOUND PRESSURE LEVEL — The level of sound pressure; squared and averaged over
a period of time, the reference being the square of 2 x 10'5 newtons per square
meter.
SOUND TRANSMISSION CLASS (STC) — The preferred single figure rating system
designed to give an estimate of the sound insulation properties of a partition or a
rank ordering of a series of partitions. It is intended for use primarily when
speech and office noise constitute the principal noise problem.
SOUND TRANSMISSION COEFFICIENT — The fraction of incident sound energy trans-
mitted through a structural configuration.
G-9
-------
GUIDELINES AND REPORTS 495
SOUND TRANSMISSION LOSS (TRANSMISSION LOSS) (TL) - A measure of sound insu-
lation provided by a structural configuration. Expressed in decibels, it is 10
times the logarithm to the base 10 of the reciprocal of the sound transmission
coefficient of the configuration.
SPECTRUM — Of a sound wave, the description of its resolution into components,
each of different frequency and (usually) different amplitude and phase.
SPEECH-INTERFERENCE LEVEL (SIL) — A calculated quantity providing a guide to
the interfering effect of a noise on reception of speech communication. The speech-
interference level is the arithmetic average of the octave-band sound-pressure
levels of the interfering noise in the most important part of the speech frequency
range. The levels in the three octave-frequency bands centered at 500, 1000, and
2000 Hz are commonly averaged to determine the speech-interference level.
Numerically, the magnitudes of aircraft sounds in the Speech-Interference Level
scale are approximately 18 to 22 dB less than the same sounds in the Perceived
Noise Level scale in PNdB, depending on the spectrum of the sound.
SPEED (VELOCITY) OF SOUND IN AIR - The speed of sound in air is 344 m/sec or
1128 ft/sec at 78°F.
SPHERICAL DIVERGENCE — Spherical divergence is the condition of propagation of
spherical waves that relates to the regular decrease in intensity of a spherical
sound wave at progressively greater distances from the source. Under this con-
dition the sound-pressure level decreases 6 decibels with each doubling of dis-
tance from the source.
SPHERICAL WAVE — A sound wave in which the surfaces of constant phase are con-
centric spheres. A small (point) source radiating into an open space produces a
free sound field of spherical waves.
STANDING WAVE — A periodic sound wave having a fixed distribution in space, the
result of interference of traveling sound waves of the same frequency and kind.
Such sound waves are characterized by the existence of nodes, or partial nodes,
and antinodes that are fixed in space.
STEADY-STATE SOUNDS — Sounds whose average characteristics remain constant
in time. Examples of steady-state sounds are a stationary siren, an air-condi-
tioning unit, and an aircraft running up on the ground.
STRUCTUREBORNE SOUND — Sound that reaches the point of interest, over at least
part of its path, by vibrations of a solid structure.
THIRD-OCTAVE BAND — A frequency band whose cut-off frequencies have a ratio of
2 to the one-third power, which is approximately 1. 26. The cut-off frequencies
of 891 Hz and 1123 Hz define a third-octave band in common use. See also band
center frequency.
THRESHOLD OF AUDIBILITY (THRESHOLD OF DETECTABILITY) - For a specified
signal, the minimum sound-pressure level of the signal that is capable of evoking
an auditory sensation in a specified fraction of the trials.
G-10
-------
496 LEGAL COMPILATION—NOISE
THRESHOLD SHIFT — An increase in a hearing threshold level that results from ex-
posure to noise.
TRAFFIC NOISE INDEX (TNT) — A measure of the noise environment created by ve-
hicular traffic on highways; it is computed from measured values of the noise
levels exceeded 10 percent and 90 percent of the time.
TRANSDUCER — A device capable of being actuated by waves from one or more trans-
mission systems or media and supplying related waves to one or more other trans-
mission systems or media. Examples are microphones, accelerometers, and
loudspeakers.
TRANSIENT SOUNDS — Sounds whose average properties do not remain constant in
time. Examples are an aircraft flyover, a passing truck, a sonic boom.
TRANSMISSION LOSS (TL) — See sound transmission loss.
VIBRATION ISOLATOR — A resilient support for machinery and other equipment that
might be a source of vibration, designed to reduce the amount of vibration trans-
mitted to the building structure.
WAVEFORM — A presentation of some feature of a sound wave, e.g. , the sound pres-
sure, as a graph showing the moment-by-moment variation of sound pressure
with time.
WAVEFRONT — The front surface of a sound wave on its way through the atmosphere.
WAVELENGTH — For a periodic wave (such as sound in air), the perpendicular dis-
tance between analogous points on any two successive waves. The wavelength of
sound in air or in water is inversely proportional to the frequency of the sound.
Thus the lower the frequency, the longer the wavelength.
o
G-ll
* U. S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE • 1973 O - 469-410
------- |