EPA 550/9-76-011

                 OF OTHER NATIONS

                      VOLUME I

                      AUGUST 1976
              U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

                  Washington, D.C. 20460

                                  TECHNICAL REPORT DATA
                           (Please read Instructions on the reverse before completing)
                                                         3. RECIPIENT'S ACCESSIOI»NO.
             5. REPORT DATE
                August 1975
Carl Modig,  Ghalib Khouri, John Stepanchuk,  George
                                                         10. PROGRAM ELEMENT NO.
Informatics Inc.
6000 Executive Blvd.
Rockville,  MD 20852
             11. CONTRACT/GRANT NO.
 Office of Noise Abatement and Control
 Environmental Protection Agency
 Washington,  DC 20460
 Supplements:  "An Assessment of Noise Concerns of Other Nations" 1971.
 NTIS Nos:  PB-206721, PB-206722.
 A review of the noise abatement programs of countries around the world (except the
 U.S. ) including laws, reguations,  guidelines,  criteria, research, governmental
 organization,  plans, etc., with bibliography and contact addresses to facilitate
 further inquiry.  Also includes international organizations involved in noise control.
 Both environmental and occupational noise are covered.  Topics:  Community noise,
 airport,  aircraft,  surface transportation,  construction noise, occupational noise,
 noise from factories, noise in buildings.  A summary finds  that compared to a
 similar 1971 review, the U.S. has "caught  up",  information has  increased geomet-
 rically,  many nations now compensate citizens for noise from airports or roads,
 and noise limits in industry are becoming stricter.  Vol. II  contains  country-by-
 country reviews.
                               KEY WORDS AND DOCUMENT ANALYSIS
                                            b.lDENTIFIERS/OPEN ENDED TERMS
                          c. cos AT I Field/Group
 Noise Reduction,  Aircraft Noise, Environ-
 mental surveys, pollution,  foreign  gover-
 nment, public administration, international
 government, noise pollution,  foreign
 countries, noise abatement.
   I.C. A. Q. ,  L.S. O. ,
   W.H.O., E.E.C. ,
   Common Market,
   I. L.O.
19. SECURITY CLASS (ThisReport)
20. SECURITY CLASS (Thispage)
                                                                      22. PRICE
EPA Form 2220-1 (9-73)

                       WASHINGTON, D.C.  20460
November 10, 1976
8-2 — In Table 8-1 in the next to bottom line, it is erroneously stated
       that for the U.S.  the Proposed limit  "For later" is "85 dBA" and
       "For when" is "5 years".   The  "85  dBA" and the "5 years" should
       be deleted.

                                      EPA 550/9-76-011
               OF OTHER NATIONS

                     VOLUME I

                     AUGUST 1976
                       Prepared for:
            U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
            Office of Noise Abatement and Control
                 Washington, D.C.  20460

                 Under Contract 68-01-3115
           This report has been approved for general availability. The contents of this
           report reflect the views of the contractor, who is responsible for the facts
           and the accuracy of the data presented herein, and do not necessarily
           reflect the official views or policy of EPA. This report does not constitute
           a standard, specification, or regulation.

                        TABLE OF CONTENTS
Table of Contents
List of Tables
List of Figures

Fore ward
How to Use This Report

 CHAPTER  1.         SUMMARY

   Int'l Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO)    2-1
   Int'l Organization for Standardization (ISO) 2-15
   World Health Organization (WHO)          2-28
   Economic Commission for Europe (ECE)   2-31
   Association of  French Speaking Acousticians
   "Groupement des Acousticiens
   Langue Francaise" "GALF"                2-37
   Organization for Economic Co-operation
   and Development  (OECD)                 2-40
   International Labour Organization (ILO)    2-49
   The European Community (Common
   Market,  EEC)                             2-53
           3. 2.2.2
           3.4. 1

   What Is Community Noise?
   Decision Criteria
      Health Criteria
      Survey Results
        Comp'aints and Annoyance
        Noise Surveys
        Noise Standards
   Direct  Regulations
   Other Government Actions


Table of Contents   continued
            4. 1
            4. 1. 1

            4. 1.2
            4. 1.3

            4.2. 1


            4.3. 1

      Evaluation (Decision Criteria)
         Criteria For Evaluating The Effect Of
         Noise Around Airports
         Noise Monitoring Systems
         Estimates Of People Exposed  To Aircraft
         Operational Patterns (takeoff and pro-
         Banning or Limiting  Certain Types of
      Other Measures
         Noise Taxes Incorporated In Landing Fees
         Zoning Near Airports
         Purchase of  Houses to -Create  Buffer Zones
         and/or Subsidizing of "Soundproofing1'  of




5. 1
5. 1.
5. 1.
5. 1.
5. 1.
5. 1.
5. 1.
5. 1.

1. 1
2. 1
1. 1
Decision Criteria                              5-1
   Road Traffic                                5-1
      Assessing Noise Levels                   5-2
      Assessing Effects  of Noise On People     5-12
      Assessing Economic Impact               5-19
   Railroad and Rapid Transit                  5-20
      Assessing Noise Levels                   5-20
      Subjective Effects  of Noise Levels On
      People                                   5-23
Road Traffic--N6ise Control Actions            5-32
   Regulatory Activity'                         5-32
      Direct Regulations                        5-32
      Guidelines  and Proposals                 5-39

Table of Contents - Continued
CHAPTER  5.  (continued)






                        Other Actions Beside Regulatory Actions     5-44
                           Vehicle Noise Reduction                   5-44
                           Tire/Road Noise                          5-48
                           Noise Screening                           .5-53
                           Building Insulation Against Traffic Noise  '5-57
                           Planning and Zoning                       5-58
                     Railroad and Rapid Transit--Noise Control      5-61
                        Railroad                                     5-61
                           Regulations                               5-61
                           Guidelines                                .5-61
                           Non-Regulatory Actions                   5-62
                        Rapid Transit                                5-64

                     NOISE INSIDE BUILDINGS                      6-1

                     Introduction                                    6-1
                     Decision Criteria For Noise                     6-2
                     Regulations and Guidelines                      6-4
                        General                                     6-4
                        Australia                                    6-5
                        Netherlands                                  6-6
                        Belgium                                     6-8
                        Sweden                                      6-8
                        Denmark                                    6-8
                        West Germany                               6-9
                        United Kingdom                              6-11
                        Japan                                       6-13
                     Building Insulation Against Traffic Noise        6-18

Table of Contents - continued
           7.3. 1

EFFECTS ON THE COMMUNITY               7-1

Introduction                                   7-1
Noise from Factories                          7-1
   Decision Criteria                           7-1
   Industrial Noise - Regulations               7-6
Noise from Construction Sites                  7-19
   Decision Criteria for Construction           7-19
  -Direct Regulations                          7-21
           8. 1       Introduction
           8. 2       Direct Regulations
           8. 2. 1        Overview
           8.2.2        Notes On Countries
           10. 1

Federal Republic of Germany
United Kingdom


Table of Contents - continued
CHAPTER  10.  (continued)
           10.15     Italy                                         10-133
           10.16     Japan                                        10-135
           10.17     Norway                                      10rl52
           10.18     Poland                                       10-158
           10.19     Soviet Union                                  10-175
           10.20     Latin American Countries                     10-198
           10.21     South Africa                                  10-204
           10.22     Spain                                        10-207

                            LIST OF TABLES

                                 VOLUME I
 2-1        International Organizations Participating in ICAO
            Noise Activities                                        2-14

 2-2        Permissible Sound Emission Level                      2-56

 3-1        Division of Noise Control Activities between
            Government  Levels                                     3-2

 3-2        Percentage of Population Exposed to a Noise Level
            Equal to or in Excess of a Given Value                   3-8

 3-3        Sources of Noise Annoyance in England                  3-10

 3-4        Sources of Noise Annoyance in Norway                   3-11

 3-5        Noise Levels Identified by the U.S.  EPA as Requisite
            to Protect Public Health and Welfare                     3-13

 3-6        Comparative Table of Noise Emission Standard
            Values in Federal Republic of Germany and Selected
            European and Non-European Countries                   3-16

 4-1        Some National Aircraft  Noise Exposure Indices           4-4

 4-2        Noise Levels Time-zones at Osaka
            International Airport                                    4-7

 4-3        People Exposed to High Environmental Noise Levels      4-9

 4-4        Environmental Quality Standards  for Aircraft Noise      4-16

 4-5        Actual Results of Noise Insulation and  Compensation
            for Noises in the Vicinity of Aerodromes in Japan        4-19

 5-1        Results of Noise Measurements Carried Out on
            Stationary Vehicles                                     5-8

 5_2        Comparison of the Nuisance Due to Road Traffic Noise
            Found in a Danish Study                                 5-17

 5-3        Perceived Effects of Traffic Noise                       5-18

 5_4        Estimation of Costs of Noise Barriers and Building
            Insulation in the Federal Republic of  Germany           5-19

                      LIST OF TABLES (Continued)

Table                                                              Page

 5-5        Typical External Railway Noise Levels                  5-21

 5-6        Noise Level (avg. ) in Railway Stock                     5-22

 5-7        Relationship between Proportion of Positive Response
            to Each Item and Peak Level of Train Noise             5-24

 5-8        Comparison between Community Response to Aircraft
            Noise (Survey in UK) and to Train Noise in  NNI          5-25

 5-9        Directive Approved by the Council of the European
            Community on Motor Vehicles and Adopted  by
            Member States                                         5-33

 5-10       Vehicle Emission Regulations                           5-36

 5-11       Maximum Allowable Limit for Automobile Noise
            Article 16-1, Noise  Regulation Law (Japan)              5-35

 5-12       Environmental Quality Standards for Noise               5-38

 5-13       Recommended Noise Immission Limits in the
            Netherlands                                            5-39

 5-14       Criteria for Road Traffic Noise                         5-40

 5-15       Immission Standards Proposed in 1974                  5-41

 5-16       Noise Emission Standards Proposed in 1974             5-42

 5-17       Proposed Swedish Limits for Stationary Vehicles         5-43

 5-18       Noise Barriers  in Some  European Countries             5-54

 5-19       Reduction in Noise Level in dBA Caused by a Railway
            Cutting at Two Distances from the Track                5-63

 5-20       Summary of Reduction in Noise Levels Due to Houses    5-63

 5-21       Noise Levels in the Moscow Subway                     5-65

 5-22       Low-frequency-vibration Level's Measured  with
            Passing Train for Different Track Support Systems      5-66

                      LIST OF TABLES (Continued)

Table                                                              Page

 6-1        German Interior Noise1 Criteria (Guideline)              -6-10

 6-2        West German Norms Related to Noise in Residences      6-10

 6-3        Minimum Transmission Losses of 'Sound Insulation'
            Wall According to Japanese Law                        6-14

 6-4'        Boundary Values for-Airborne Noise and Impact
            Noise Insulation  Applicable in Switzerland               6-15

 7-1        Land Use in Special Industrial Zone,  Chiba
            Prefecture Project                                     7-19

 7-2        Financing of Chiba Anti-Pollution Projects               7-10

 7-3        Enforcement Standards for Industrial Noise Emission: •,
            Article 4-1,  Noise Regulation Law                       7-13

 7-4        Limits of Noise of Working Hours and Days and Criteria
            for the Specified  Construction Operation                 7-22

 7-5        Measured Sound Reduction Given by Types of
            Partial Enclosure                                      7-23

 8-1        Overview of Occupational Noise Laws                    8-2

 9-1        Information Centers on Noise                            9-2

                                 LIST OF TABLES
                                    VOLUME II
Table                                                               Page

10-1           Daily Noise Dose  Circulation Chart                    10-3

10-2           Maximum Permitted Noise Exposure at a Work Site      10-27

10-3           Maximum Permitted Noise Exposure at Worksite        10-28
10-4           New  Vehicle Limits in Czechoslovakia                   10-40

10-5           Maximum  Permissible Noise Limits Per Maximum
               Weekly Duration                                        10-57
10-6           Recommended Outdoor Noise  Exposure Limits
               (Immission Standards) in DBA                          10-76
10-7           Existing and Proposed Limit Values for Motor
               Vehicle Noise  (New Vehicles)                            10-78
10-8           Proposed  Limits for Residential Areas near Highways    10-80
10-9           West German Noise Zone Guidelines                     10-94
10-10          West German 1968 Planning Noise Zonal Limits          10-94

10-11           Estimate of Noise Abatement  Costs in Road Design
               and Construction in the Federal Republic of Germany
               from 1971  to 1985                                        10-102
10-12          Investments for Environmental Protection in the Federal
               Republic of Germany, 1970 - 1979                        10-108

10-13          Israeli Community Noise Law  (Other than Aircraft
               or Traffic Noise)                                        10-130
10-14          Target Schedule for Abating Noise from New and
               existing Shinkansen Express Railroad Lines              10-136
10-15          Noise standards for New Motor Vehicles                 10-137

10-16          Measures  to be taken at Specific Airports in Japan       10-138
10-17          Environmental Quality Criteria fcr Noise                 10-139

10-18           Special Environmental Quality Criteria for Noise
               (Roadside  Areas)                                        10-140

10-19           Restrictive Standards for bpecilic  Factories             10-140

                                 LIST OF TABLES

Table                                                                  Page

10-20          Enforcement Standards for Construction Noise Article    10-141
               14-1 & Article  15-1, Noise Regulation Law

10-21          Permissible Indoor Noise Levels in Residential Areas    10-164

10-22          Permissible Noise Levels in Worksites                   10-165

10-23          Polish Corrections to Noise Limits for Various Zones    10-166

10-24          Percentage of  Polish Workers Exposed to Noise and
               Vibration                                                10-167"

10-25          Polish Occupational Hearing Damage by Industry          10-168

10-26a         Noise Measurement on Worksites in Textile Plants        10-169

10-26b         Noise Measurement on Worksites in Mines                10-169

10-26c         Noise Measurements on Worksites in Thermal Power
               Plants                                                   10-170

10-26d         Noise Measurement on Worksites in Iron and Steel Work
               Works                                                   10-170

10-26e         Noise Measurement on Worksite  of Selected
               Engineering Plants                                      10-171

10-27          Work-Related  Soviet Norms on Noise                    10-176

10-28          I. S. O.  Curve NR 75                                      10-177

10-29          Adjustments to Regulation 1004-73 in Respect to Noise
               Exposures Less Than an Eight Hour Shift                 10-179

10-30          Noise Control  on Trains per Sanitary Norms 877-71       10-181

10-31          Maximum Allowable Noise Levels on Board Soviet Ships   10-182

10-32          Soviet Norms on Noise in Residences                     10-184

10-33          Maximum Industrial Noise Emissions to Neighboring
              Areas                                                  10-185

                                LIST OF TABLES
Tables                                                                 Page

10-34          Basic Norms of SN 535-65 (Before Adjustment)           10-188

10-35          SN 535-65:  Table of Adjustments for Determining the
               Norms for a Particular Residential Situation             10-189

10-36          City Council Act (Municipal Law) for Cordoba,
               Argentina: Maximum Vehicle Sound Levels               10-202

10-37          Community Noise Limits Inside Buildings for
               Cordoba City, Argentina                                 10-202

                             LIST OF FIGURES

Figure                         VOLUME I                          page

  3-1        Community Reaction to Intrusive Noises of Many Types   3-4

  3-2        Community Reaction to Intensive Noises of Many Types
             as a Function of the Normalized Outdoor Day/Night
             Sound Level of the Intruding Noise,  L,  in dB(A)         3-5

  3-3        Intercomparison of Various Measures of Individual
             Annoyance and Community Reaction as a Function  of
             the Day/Night Average Noise Level and Equivalent
             Energy Level                                           3-5

  3-4        Percentage of Population Exposed to an Outdoor
             Daytime Sound Level of or Above a  Specified Value       3-9

  4-1        Proposed and Existing Monitoring at Heathrow
             Airport, London                                        4-8

  4-2        Noise Zones in the Bucharest-Optopeni Airport,
             Romania                                                4-15

  5-1         Measuring Positions for  Measurement with
              Stationary Vehicles                                     5-3

  5-2         Percentage Distribution of Noise Levels for Service
              Buses in the Greater Stockholm Area                    5-5

  5-3         Sound Levels for  Cars, Measured During Design
              Inspections in 1972                                      5-6

  5-4         Sound Levels of Motorcycles,  Measured as per ISO R362
              During Design Inspection                                5-7

  5-5         Sound Levels of Mopeds, Measured During Design
              Inspection                                              5-7

  5-6         Relative Frequency of Seriously Disturbed
              Interview  Subjects                                      5-14

  5-7         "Acceptable" and "Intolerable" Responses vs
              Equivalent Noise  Level, with Np Corrections
              for Exposure or Attitude                                5-26

  5-8         Total Vehicle Noise and Coasting Noise                  5-49

  5-9         Relationships Between Texture Depth of Various
              Surfaces and Noise  from Light Vehicles                  5-51

                            LIST OF FIGURES

Figure                                                             Page

  5-10       Relationship Between Estimated BFC of Various
             Surfaces and Noise from Light Vehicles                 5-52

  5-11       Effect of Sound Absorption to Reduce Airborne
             Noise in the Station •                                   5-67

  6-1        Cumulative Frequency Curves  of Noise Level in 15
             Large-capacity Office Rooms                           6-3

  6-2        Integral Window Glazing - Ventilation Unit Being
             Investigated in Germany                                6-21

  7-1        Plan  of a Refuse-Treatment Plant                       7-18

  7-2        Social Survey Annoyance Rating                         7-19

  7-3        Acoustic Shed                                          7-23

                             LIST" OF FIGURES

                                VOLUME II
Figure                                                               Page
10-1           Dusseldorf Noise Zones                                 10-93

10-2           Procedures and Remedies for Noise Problems
               under Common Law and Statutory Law in the United
               Kingdom                                               10-125

10-3           Basic Provisions of Soviet Regulation 1004-73
               Concerning Maximum Levels of Noise in Occupational
               Settings                                                10-178

             Five years ago the United States Environmental Protection
Agency published the 1971 "Assessment of Noise Concerns of Other
Nations, " describing laws and noise control activities in many countries.
The present report updates and revises the old report, with the addition
of information on Occupational Noise and Noise Information Centers.

             The information was gathered from foreign contacts by
letter,  by a review of the world literature, and by direct contact with
persons at the International Conference of Noise Control Engineering
in Washington, D. C.  in  April 1976.

             It is contemplated that this survey report will be periodically
revised and updated.  Therefore,,  readers  are encouraged to send
corrections and new data to:
             Noise Control Requirements & Technology Staff
             Office  of Noise Abatement & Control
             U.  S. Environmental Protection Agency
             Washington,  D.  C. 20460

             The Informatics Inc. team performing the work of compiling
this report devoted many long hours to the task.  Principle  contributors
were: C.  Modig, Project leader;  G. Khouri,  G. Cerny, I. Meyer,  and
J. Stepanchuk.  S.  Ballon and L.  Jones provided much-appreciated help
with editing and the  French language.  Special credit is due to Mrs.  Terri
Miller and Agaes Furilla, who provided energetic and patient typing and
clerical support  and to Mrs.  Ruth Ness, Technical Director of Information
Analysis, who provided extra production resources when they were needed.
Credit  is due to the EPA task monitor,  John Schettino, for  providing
prompt feedback and guidance at  times  when they were needed and in the
interim,  providing the latitude and time for the project to  be completed
systematically.  Finally, the comments of Harvey Nozick  are -acknowledged
for their part in improving the section on Japan.

                         HOW TO USE THIS REPORT
             o     Readers interested in an overview of a country,
                   see Chapter 10 (Vol. II).
             o     Readers interested in an International Organization,
                   see Chapter 2.
             o     Readers interested in a particular subject,
                   see Chapters 3-8.
             o     Readers interested in obtaining more detailed
                   information,  see Chapter 9 and the lists of
                   addresses at the back of each Section of
                   Chapters 2 or 10.
             Noise Specialists -- This report has been designed to be
of use to the general reader and to the noise specialist as well.  However,
the noise  specialist •will find that it has frequently not been possible to
present all of the details in which he is interested.  It has not been
considered desirable to  do so both in the interest of space,  and because
such details are likely to become out  of date rapidly.  Therefore we hope
that the Specialist will use the report as  a means of undiscovering
developments or programs  related to  his particular interest, and will
contact the referenced authorities directly to get more information.

1.          SUMMARY
            General Impressions

            Let us look at some of the main conclusions of the 1971
Assessment of Noise Concerns of Other Nations.
            o   In noise control activities the U.S. was  behind other
                countries of the world,  particularly the  European
                countries, Japan and the USSR.

            o   There was already a considerable volume of world
                literature on noise, but the literature showed more
                research than recommendations and more recommen-
                dations than regulations.

            o   A trend toward establishing  unified ministries of the
                environment was underway in many countries,  and
                it was assumed that this would have  a positive effect
                on the development of better  noise control.

            o   The  role of international .organizations was minimal
                and in fact was not specifically emphasized in the
                1971 Report Summary.
            By 1976, the U.S. is no longer "behind" other countries in
noise control,  although it still has a long way to go.

            Whatever degree of noise abatement has been accomplished
by 1976, there has been no abatement in the production of literature on
noise.  In fact,  it has more than doubled.  A series of important inter-
national conferences from 1972 to 1975 ha« helped increase the folow of


            By 1976, the newly-formed unified environmental ministries

are already several years old,  but their initial regulatory achievements

have been less than spectacular.  It  remains to be seen what salutary

effects may eventually result.  Possibly it takes  several years for new

ministries to become productive in the  regulatory field,  and still more

time for the impact of the regulations to be felt.

            Impressions By Chapter

2.  International
International Organizations were not discussed
in the 1971 main summary and not emphasized in
the report itself.  Except for ICAO activity and
isolated studies by OECD and WHO,  there was
little activity.
By 1976 the international organizations had become
important forums for exchanging technical infor-
mation.  And the EEC (Common Market), in its
role as a customs union,  has an important influence
in developing and harmonizing the  new product noise
emissions regulations of its member countries.
 3.  Community
In 1971 the A-weighted decibel had been picked
independently in many places as the best metric of
environmental noise levels.

By 1976, this trend has reached near-consensus,
and the Leq is on the verge of becoming the best
accepted single-number evaluator of complex1
time patterns of exposure to environmental noise.
The additional social surveys which have been
done have largely substantiated earlier findings
about human reaction to noise.

More noise surveys have been done,  but there is not
yet enough comparative data published to indicate
whether worldwide noise levels are still rising, and
whether the size  of noise-impacted areas  is still

                      increasing.  However, based on the fact that most
                      noise control measures are only beginning to be
                      implemented,  and the fact that the number of noise
                      producing mechanisms continues to rise with the
                      world population, we conclude that in general,  the
                      impact of noise pollution continues to worsen almost
                      everywhere.   In order to establish measurement
                      baselines, most countries are doing  more noise
                      surveys,  especially in cities and around airports.
                      Denmark is taking a comprehensive noise survey
                      of the entire country.
4.  Aircraft Noise    In 1971, aircraft noise had become a major factor
                      limiting the expansion of airport facilities.  ICAO
                      had taken  action on noise  certification limits for
                      new aircraft types but had not acted on retrofitting
                      existing transport aircraft to quiet them.  Retrofit
                      was considered by many national ICAO representatives
                      to be too expensive.  In 1971, local authorities were
                      attempting to find other approaches that would work
                      around the lack of basically quiet aircraft.
                      By 1976 some new airport sites have been chosen
                      after great difficulty  (Healthrow,  Third Paris), while
                      others  are still being stalled or enjoined (3rd Tokyo).
                      Programs on the ground to alleviate the effects of the
                      noise are  in full swing, including landing taxes,
                      curfews, and quotas on numbers of operations at  a
                      airport.  Countries like West Germany, Japan,
                      France, and the United Kingdom have started programs
                      for subsidizing the  noise abatement treatment of houses
                      in high-noise zones near airports.  Their decision
                      to undertake such a relatively expensive measure
                      emphasizes the severity of the problem and the need
                      for better  use of  other options  such as  reduction  of
                      noise at the source and increased acceptance of
                      flight operational techniques for noise abatement.
                      Although ICAO continues to work on extension of  the
                      noise certification concept to other types of new
                      aircraft, it has avoided an active role in resolving
                      the retrofit question.   Only Japan has ordered retrofit
                      kits for some of the transport aircraft in its national
                      airline fleet.

5.  Surface Transpor-
    tation Noise
In 1971 noise from motor vehicles had been identified
everywhere as a key culprit, and most countries had
some laws dealing with it.  By 1976 laws have become
stricter and more  sophisticated.  Road traffic noise
is still the number one problem,  and still is the area
of greatest noise control activity.

Many countries are tending to adopt the same new-
vehicle limits as those mandatory in the Common
Market (EEC).  Both EEC and ECE panels of experts
are preparing new reduced noise limits for new
vehicles that will go into force in the 1980's.   The
idea of requiring noise-regulated vehicles to maintain
their quiet performance for some length of time after
sale (e.g., for the "useful  life" of the vehicle) is
still an idea for the future.  Only Czechoslovakia  has
such  a  requirement.  There existing vehicles may
exceed new vehicle noise levels by 2 dBA.
Computerized prediction of models and noise barrier
technology are two technologies that have seen rapid
6.  Noise Control in
The problem of noise inside buildings concerns both
noise coming from outside and noise generated within
the building.
In 1971 isolated measures for dealing with both
problems had been initiated,  including work on
developing better measurement methodologies.

By 1976,  work has continued not only on the noise-
specific measures,  but also on the braader front
of increased general standardization and harmonization
of building codes  in general,  both  within countries and
internationally.  Future noise abatement activity -will
take place increasingly in this context.
One of the main features of the last few years  has  been
increased use of national programs to protect  the
exterior shell of buildings from traffic and/or aircraft

                          One innovation of note was seen in France.
                          Exceptionally well built French housing is
                          eligible for the appellation "acoustic comfort
                          level, " which may be used in marketing the new
7.  Noise from Factories  In 1971 the problem was being approached with a
   and Construction Sites combination of solutions ranging from individual
                          source control to master planning and zoning.

                          By 1976 there has been no innovation in solutions,
                          although the number of countries  having national
                          noise zoning guidelines (including construction sites
                          and industry) had increased.

                          A major change has been the  increase in regulations
                          limiting noise from individual pieces of construction
                          equipment. W. Germany,  France, Austria, and
                          Switzerland are among the many countries with
                          such limits.  Some countries also are bearing
                          down hard on all existing construction equipment
                          noise.  For example,  Austrian provinces have such
                          regulations,  and in Switzerland a noise permit
                          must be applied for each time it is desired to use
                          an older, more noisy  piece of equipment,

                          West Germany has developed a means of rewarding
                          quieter construction equipment by permitting
                          equipment 5 dBA or more  quieter than the legal
                          limits to bear the label, "Superior Construction
                          Machinery. "

                          The ISO Draft Recommendation 1996, a method of
                          assessment of likelihood of community disturbance
                          from industrial noise, progressed to full-fleged
                          Recommendation status.
8. Occupational Noise
Since 1971 it has become increasingly recognized
that occupational and environmental noise must be
considered together in evaluating total exposure to

In the 1973-74 period an especially large number of
countries converted voluntary or "guideline" noise
limits to legally binding limits.  Most countries in
principle require engineering controls to be applied
as technically feasible, with hearing protectors as a
second line of defence.

                          However, some countries in practice tend to rely
                          on hearing protectors as a panacea.

                          In a potentially significant development,  W. Germany
                          has adopted the long-standing Soviet practice of
                          requiring much quieter environments for offices
                          than those allowed in factory work areas.

                          A few countries (Israel, Sweden, W.  Germany) have
                          used  work place noise signs as a low-cost measure
                          to reduce noise-induced hearing loss.  The  signs
                          posted at noisy work stations,  give the noise levels
                          and remind  the worker of the precautions he should
                          be taking.
9.  Information
Since 1971 several documentation centers have arisen
to help handle the "explosion" in noise literature.
However, regularly published statistics on funding,
enforcement activities, and measured reduction of
noise are as hard to come by as  ever.  It is to
be hoped that the contribution of  the international
organizations will be to stimulate the creation and
distribution of such information.
10.  Regulatory Trends
Many of the new environmental agencies which were
founded in the early 1970's have taken several years
to develop recommendations. Only then is some sort
of comprehensive act passed (like the West Germany
Act of 1974), which authorizes a series of regulations
to be developed and promulgated.   Whether the
environmental  agency is cast in the role of coordinator
among ministries (e. g. , Switzerland, W.  Germany) or
is mandated to issue and enforce regulations like
the U. S.  E. P. A. , (e.g.,  Japan,  France), it has the key
role of developing and recommending a comprehensive
regulatory approach.  Where such a basic comprehensive
act is missing, as  appears to be the case in the  U.K. ,
its absence is felt.

In any case, the influence of the environmental agency
is typically felt only gradually, because it does not
have  the unlimited  resource  to carry out all the
mandated actions immediately.  For the Common
Market Countries,  which must consult together, the
pace  may be further slowed.

Thus it would be a mistake to conclude from the lack
of dramatic results over the last four years that
important progress has not been made in the fight
against noise.

The next logical step everywhere in the world  is
increased programs of measurement of the
effect of the-noise control  measures already taken,
in terms of reduced community noise  levels.   Increased
efforts like that in Austria (where the reduction ih
noise from construction sites was measured) are to
be expected in all countries in the years ahead.
Hopefully,  more information -will also become available
on the number of government personnel and costs
required to implement the various noise control
programs.  From the present  reporting,  only  '
intriguing glimpses have been  obtained on this
topic  -- for example, the fact  that on  the national
level  France now has 58 vehicle noise inspection


 2.1         International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO)
            Since the late 1960's,  ICAO,  a Montreal-based affiliate of the
United Nations, whose main purpose is to serve as a forum for matters con-
cerning international civil aviation, has also been active in promoting unified
 action by all nations in standardizing measurement of aircraft noise
 levels and impact and setting corresponding noise limits.

 2.1.1      Organizational Summary
            ICAO interprets its  mandate to include being the forum
 for discussion of the impact of aviation on the environment.  At the
 working level, a committee of specialist advisors (CAN -• Committee on
 Aircraft Noise) presents recommendations to  the ICAO Council for
 adoption as Recommended Practices,  Standards,  Procedures  for Air
 Navigation Services,  or Guidance material. 'The Council members
 are representatives from agencies of  the various member governments.

            Comments on CAN recommendations  are made by member
 governments  and by the ICAO Air Navigation Commission before
 action is taken.  After a recommendation becomes an ICAO Standard,
 it must  still be incorporated in various national legislation before it
 goes into force for  that particular nation.  However, the process of
 incorporation -maybe complex  and ICAO member countries are
 obliged by treaty to notify ICAO when  an ICAO Standard will not be
 put into  effect or a different standard  fs  used.  ICAO Recommended
 Practices  are also often incorporated  into national legislation.

            CAN participants are either members or advisors.  One

 member  is nominated by each entity (country or international organ-

 ization).   The entity may also appoint several advisors, who may be

 either from government or industry.  CAN meets  approximately every

 other year.  Ad-hoc working groups continue to be active between

 CAN sessions, working  on various agenda items.  Sixteen nations and

 four international organizations participated in the latest


            All noise related ICAO  Guidelines, Standards, Recommended

 Practices, etc. are incorporated into Annex 16 of the "Chicago

 Convention",  which is the treaty instrument  binding ICAO members.

 (The formal title of the  Chicago Convention is the  "Convention on

 International Civil Aviation. ")

 Z.I.2      Background (ICAO work in the  1969-71 period)

            Measurement,  monitoring, abatement, and evaluation of noisy

 were the subjects of a month-long meeting of the ICAO in November and

 December 1969.  The signatories,  including all major air nations

 except the USSR*,  began to develop standard procedures for  (1)

 measuring noise for  aircraft design;  (Z) monitoring noise on and

 near airports;  (3) expressing the total noise exposure level produced

 by a succession of  aircraft; and  (4) reducing noise  through a variety

 of aircraft operating procedures  (2-4).

             A procedure for noise certification of aircraft was also

passed over  the strong objections of the Federal Republic  of Germany,

Ireland,  and the Netherlands,
     The USSR is now a signatory.


who contended that certain allowances for very heavy aircraft under-

mined the purpose of noise certification. (2-4)  On April 2,  1971,

ICAO published standards (2-3) for aircraft noise certification based

upon a scheme of three noise measuring points (lateral, flyover, and

approach) where the noise levels are dependent upon aircraft weight.

            The worldwide concern over aircraft noise, particularly

that from jets, came at a time when it was  estimated that the present

generation of aircraft would probably be in  use for at least 3 or 10

more years.* Accordingly, attention was directed to retrofitting

existing  jet engines to make them quieter.   The principal  impetus

came from the United States.  ICAO sponsored a retrofit meeting

in November 1971,  but there was  no rapid progress.  CAN members

asserted that the estimated retrofit cost (then $125, 000 to $250, 000

per engine or a minimum of $800,000 for a  four  engine transport)

was beyond the capability of most nations.
  Now, five years later, the estimate is  still over 8-10 years from 19751


           Although  accord was reached on a means of expressing

the total exposure to  aircraft noise suffered by persons on the ground

in the vicinity of airports, the discussion about development of

criteria and guidance related to the control of land use around airports

resulted only in a statement that a minimum of three zones

should be established for areas where development is prohibited,

restricted, and permitted.   There were two basic problems to be

overcome in this respect:   1) some countries have recommended

that a five-zone, land-use protocol be employed, to give greater

flexibility to planners;  and   2) there was disagreement over the

maximum permissible  levels within residential areas. (2-1)  The measures

that can be imposed by any national state are restricted to some  extent

by the economic effects of a given action or  standard.  The ICAO

recommendations at  the Montreal  meeting were adopted as attainable

norms; individual states  can always adopt  more stringent ones.

However, some traffic diversion can be anticipated if certain aircraft

or certain traffic densities are forbidden at  a given airport or within

a given nation.

           Action on abatement of run-up noise was limited to an

exchange of views.   The only  recommendation emerging from

this  exchange was that  the member states  submit results of studies

on new  or improved methods of reduction.

2.1.3       Recent Work     Last Several Years

            The following descriptions are derived from the results
of CAN's  most recent meeting in January-February, 1975 ("CAN/4") (2-2).

            The CAN goals are to formulate a noise certification
system for all short takeoff or landing (STOL) aircraft.  The immediate
goal is  to draft a Recommended Practice for propellor-driven STOL
airplanes (take-off distance less than 600 meters or 2000 feet).  As for
vertical take-off or landing (VTOL) aircraft,  it was considered not yet
feasible to set a date for completion of a final specification.

            A brief summary of current  CAN thinking  on STOL was
presented.  The V/STOL concept would  include aircraft capable at flying
in patterns similar to helicopters on the  one hand or like Conventional
Take-Off and Landing (CTOL) aircraft on the other hand.   Therefore,
any Y/STOL requirements must be compatible with planned or existing
helicopter and conventional light plane requirements.   The current
CTOL scheme of three measurement points  (flyover,  approach and lateral)
should be used for  STOL also,  but the points should be closet  in to the

            The Working Group for V/STOL was considering a
noise level limit in terms of effective perceived noise level (lEPNLi)
in units of EPNdB.  Also, to facilitate town  planning, measurement data should
be provided in terms of the  A-weighted level in units of AdB as well
as  EPNdB.  Operating  characteristics of the STOL, have also been
specified and the total package has been adopted as "Guidelines
for Noise Certification".  After more experience the Guidelines may be
ready to be upgraded to an ICAO Standard or Recommended Practice.

            A VTOL noise certification scheme is  far from corrp letion.
Principally affecting heLicopters,  this scheme still must solve  problems
such as  agreeing on a noise unit that will take low  frequency noise
and blade slap into account,  and finding a flight profile for noise measure-
ment that is meaningful in terms of actual VTOL. flight practices.

            Propeller Driven Airplanes

            There  is an existing noise certification scheme,  adopted as
a Recommended Practice, which was developed at a previous CAN
meeting. It only pertains to light aircraft (not exceeding 5,, 700 kg.)
and became effective August 1974.  It specifies  limits on flyovers
in level  flight at an altitude  of  300  m (1000 ft).

Some nations have already incorporated this ixecommended Practice

into their national legislation.  There are still problems concerning the

rigor with which certain operating characteristics are specified during
the test:

            o   A difference in power  setting of 25 rpm can cause a
                difference of up to  1 dB in measured noise.

            o   Propell er diameter ( 1 dB per 1. 5% variation).

            o   Temperature variations (1  dB per 10°C).

Nevertheless, the present Recommended Practice is under consideration

for upgrading to a Standard.

            In regard to heavy propeller-driven airplanes (over  7, 500
kg), CAN has decided to recommend the same measuring  scheme and

noise limits  as  it  would for subsonic turbojet aircraft  of the  same
weight.  Data on existing turbine-powered propellor-driven  aircraft

designed since 1950 indicate that almost all designs could have met

these requirements,  with  two contemporary designs below the require-

ment by 10-15 EPNdB.

           Tightening the Existing Noise Limits for New
           Subsonic Turbojet Aircraft
            The 1975 CAN/4 recommendations for reductions
are now under consideration (2-3).

            The certification scheme--a continuation of the existing
scheme—was adopted after discussion of alternatives that would
have made new permissible noise limits dependent on other factors
besides aircraft weight, such as on take off distance or aircraft
            Auxiliary Power Units (APU's)

            Based on information submitted at an earlier CAN meeting
the Recommended Practices have been proposed by CAN to apply to
existing units.  The scheme would apply noise limits at cargo and
passenger door locations and a specified distance from the aircraft
center line.  Since these limits might restrict use of some existing
APU's,  it is desirable that furure APU's, embody substantial noise
            The CAN position on existing SST's (Concorde &'TU-144)
 is to emphasize that more data on actual noise levels for subsonic
 flight should be supplied to CAN.

            In regard to future SST's,  there was a concern that future
 SST's might not be able to meet more  stringent limits proposed
 for subsonic aircraft.,  even though they might be designed to meet the
 limits now existing in Annex  16.  Therefore,  CAN recommended in
 1975 that the  presently existing limits for subsonic jet airplanes be
 used as  guidelines for  maximum noise from future SST's.  Guidelines
 would be printed in Annex 16 but have  less force than Standards or
 Recommended Practices.


          Retrofit as used by CAN refers to existing subsonic jet
airplanes still not "noise-certificated," i.e.,  not meeting the
existing Limits in Annex 16.  The third CAN meeting in 1973 made
retrofit recommendations to the ICAO Council which the Council
did not accept.  Instead,  the Council adopted recommendations
calling for more information from  aircraft manufacturing nations
on technical feasibility and cost data,  at the same time urging
that no state take unilateral action* on retrofit until an international
agreement applicable to all ICAO members had been reached through
ICAO.  In March 1974 the U.S. Federal Aviation Administration
proposed just such a retrofit requirement on all  planes operating
within or into the U. S. , whether domestic or foreign flag, to become
operative in July 1978.

          Information submitted by CAN members at the 1975 meeting
showed that most countries considered that (1) retrofit solely by sound
absorption materials (SAM) rather then "Rafan" was the only practical
potential policy; and that  (2) the costs of retrofit were high and the
benefits minimal.  This position was expressed  In one form or
another by Italy,  the U.K., France, Netherlands,  and Sweden.
Japan was In the process of retrofitting seven B-797's, 2- B-727's
and  16 B-737's but was reserving judgement on DC-8's.   The USSR
said that "Sam" retrofit would enable several  of Its current production
aircraft types  to meet the existing noise limits but that the USSR
did not plan to make a decision to Implement retro/lt until tests
were completed by the end of 1975.  'Others warned that ICAO
failure to adopt a policy requiring  retrofit would lead  to multilateral
   Unilateral action here means the imposition of retrofit requirements
   by a State on foreign registered aeroplanes operating into its  territory.

or bilateral agreements outside of ICAO, unilateral decisions by States
and /or a further increase in the growing number of night flight restric
restrictions  at international airports.  IATA said it was not opposed to the
concept of retrofit but in fact opposed all existing retrofit proposals*

          CAN's recommendations (approved later  in 1975 by the

ICAO Council) were designed to avoid requiring all  states to retrofit

all non-certificated aircraft but to urge states to adopt retrofit on

a case by case basis, when modifications for a type

          "„ o o are  regarded by the State of manufacture to be
          technically feasible  and by the State of Registry to
          be  sufficiently effective and economically reasonable."
          (Recommendation 1)

Under the second recommendation, States were requested to make
such assessments for each type and state their retrofit intentions

by January 1976.

          Implementation of these recommendations may fail to

prevent incompatible requirements from arising between members

and thus is likely to satisfy no one.   Present and Future
          ICAO plans the next meeting of CAN ("CAN/5") for the

late fall of 1976 in Montreal.  The program and agenda

contain further work on all of the areas discussed above, with
decisive action perhaps furthes t, away on thrust reversers.
Compatibility of the noise certification schemes already

underway will certainly be discussed.  The CAN actions on

retrofit and future SST's will be influenced by any actions taken by

the U.S.  in the  first part of 1976.  ICAO presently finds itself in

a position where it is constrained by its members'  reluctance

to undertake expensive programs in a time of recession on one

hand, and fear that unilateral or  multilateral actions will

increasingly occur outside of the ICAO forum on the other hand,

unless progress under  ICAO is more rapid.

2. 1.. 4    Useful Data
2. 1.. 4. 1  Secretariat address and contacts

                  ICAO, Committee  on Aircraft Noise
                  1000 Sherbrook Street W.
                  Montreal, Canada
                  H3A  2pl
          Officers and Secretariat of 1975 CAN meeting (Jan. 27 -

Feb.  14,  1975).

          Mr- A. A. Maurits was elected Chairman and Mr.

M.  D. Dunn was elected Vice-Chairman of the meeting.

          The Secretary of the meeting was Mr. H. J. Gursahaney,

Technical Officer of the Operations/Airworthiness Section, who

was assisted by:

          Mr. S.O.  Fritsch            Chief, Accident Investigation
                                       and Prevention Section

          Mr. R.  Heitmeyer            Chief, Economics Section

          Mr. C.  Devasenapathy       Technical Officer, Aerodromes,
                                       Routes and Ground Aids

          Mr. G.  Finnsson             Economist, Economics Section

          Mr. J.  C.  Rigaud            Technical Officer, Accident
                                       Investigation and Prevention

          Mr. J.S.  Shephard           Technical Officer, Operations/
                                       Airworthiness  Section
          List of CAN Working Groups

       WGB.  VTOL/STOL, aircraft

       WGC.  Propeller driven airplanes

       WGD.  Subsonic jet airplanes - revision of existing requirements
              for new designs.

2.1.4.Z   Documentation

          ICAO discussions are conducted in English,  French and
Russian.  All Working Papers and Reports are issued  in English,

French and Russian.  There is  one final report published for each

CAN meeting.  Views expressed in CAN Reports should be taken

as advice of a body of experts to the Council but not as representing

the views of ICAO itself.  A later supplement to a Report indicates

the action taken on the Report by the Council of ICAO.

          Other ICAO publications include:
               International Standards and Recommended Practices
               adopted by the Council in accordance with Articles
               54,  37 and 90 of the Convention on International
               Civil Aviation and are designated, for  convenience,
               as Annexes to the Convention.  The uniform application
               by Contracting States of the specifications  contained
               in the International Standards is recognized as
               necessary for the safety or regularity  of international
               air  navigation while the uniform application of the
               specifications in the Recommended Practices is
               regarded  as desirable in the interest of safety,
               regularity or efficiency of international air navigation.
               In the event of non-compliance with an International
               Standard,  a State has an obligation under Article 38
               of the Convention, to notify the Council of any
               differences .

               Procedures for Air Navigation Services (PANS) are
               approved  by the Council for world-wide application.
               They contain, for the most part,  operating procedures
               regarded  as not yet having attained a sufficient degree
               of maturity for adoption as International Standards
               and Recommended Practices.

               There are also technical  manuals  and ICAO Circulars,
               prepared  by authority of the Secretary General in
               accordance with the principles and policies approved
               by the Council.   Relations with Other International Organizations

          The following other organizations designated people to

the CAN IV meeting in the capacity of observers, as listed in
Table 2-1.


      ISO                Int'l Organization          F. Ingerslev
                         for Standardization

      IATA              Int'l Air Transport        G.N. Goodman

      IFALPA*          Int'l Federation of         R. N.  Rockwell
                         Airline Pilots
       Table 2-1.  International Organizations Participating
       in ICAO Noise Activities.
Designated but did not participate in meeting.


2. 2          International Organization for Standardization (ISO)*

              The ISO is another important international organ-

ization doing work on measurement standards related to noise abatement

and  control.  Through its Technical Committee TC-43 and that committee's

two  sub-committees,  ISO International Standards are issued for  definition

of terms,  damage-risk  criteria, and measurement of traffic noise,

aircraft noise,  noise  from electrical machines,  sound insulation in,

housing, etc.

2. 2. I       Organizational Summary

             The International Organization for Standards  (ISO) was

founded in 1948.  The founders and the member bodies of ISO are the

national standards organizations.  The ISO Central Secretariat is responsible foi

the day-to-day planning and coordination of technical work of ISO.

ISO  technical work is undertaken by Technical Committees (TC) and

their Sub-Committees (SC) and Working Groups (WG).   Technical

Committees are numbered in  sequence in the order in which they are

established. The members of Technical  Committees are the Member

Bodies who have expressed their willingness  to participate actively

(P-members),  or their  desire to be kept  informed of the progress of

work (0-members).  Each Member Body has  the right to become a

member of any Technical Committee or Sub-Committee.  Each

Technical Committee  and Sub-Committee has a Secretariat appointed

among the  P-Member Bodies of that Committee, and chairmen of

Technical Committees may be appointed either for the duration
     Information included in this report about ISO has mainly been
     taken from the article  "Acoustics and International Standardization
     Current and Future Activities of TC 43" by Dr.  Fritz Ingerslev of the
     Technical University of Denmark published in the Inter Noise 76
     Proceedings page 399-404.

of one  meeting by decision of participants at that meeting, or for several
years by decision of the ISO Council.  A  Technical Committee may
establish Sub-Committees  charged with the study of one or more items
included in the Programme of Work of  the Technical Committee.  The
structure of  a Sub-Committee is  similar  to the structure of a Technical
Committee.   Technical  Committees and Subi-Committees may set up
Working Groups,  comprising a restricted number of individual specialists
appointed by the parent  Technical Committee or Sub^-Committee in the
nomination of parent members,  to prepare a particular part of the
Programme  of Work of  the parent  Committee.
              Technical  Committee 43 on acoustics has been dealing
with noise problems since its establishment in the early fifties.  Due to
the increasing public awareness  to environmental problems in the mid-
sixties, this  committee was reorganized .  Two Sub-Committees - SCI
for Noise  and SC2 for Building Acoustics were established in 1968.
              Most countries  of the world, including the USSR,  are
members  of the ISO and as such  are  entitled to vote for or against
accepting  the proposal of  a technical committee as an  official ISO

2.2.2        Background
              The International Standards prepared by  ISO Technical
Committee No. 43 on Acoustics,  during the first fifteen years of its
existence  were of great interest  to specialists in acoustics and to the
public.  These  standards  are included  in annex A of this ISO section.
Dj/euCi  01 International Standards are included in annex  B of this ISO

 2.2.3        Present and Future
              The object of ISO is to promote the development of

 standards in the world with a view to facilitating international exchange

 of goods  and services, and to  developing mutual cooperation in  the

 spheres of intellectual,  scientific,  technological and economic activity.

              In this respect the scope of the Technical Committee^S and

 its two Subcommittees involves standardization in the field of acoustics

and noise in all aspects.  This  scope includes,  in particular,  methods of

 measurements of noise and evaluation of its effect on man and environment.

              The ISO  endeavors to  meet this challenge by providing

 international standards related to noise.  At the present time,  for

 instance,  TC 43/SC 1  Noise is in the process of preparing and drafting

 the following series of basic documents for  the measurement of  noise from

various types of machinery.

             Work on  the following items has reached an advanced stage:

             ISO/DP 4870:  Acoustics   Recommended methods  for the
                            construction and calibration of speech intelligibility
                            intelligibility tests.

             ISO/DP 4871:  Acoustics   Noise classification and labelling of
                            equipment and machinery.

             See also Annex B.

             Also, TC43/SC2 is preparing a document on "Laboratory
tests on noise emission by appliances and equipment in water supply


2.2.4        Useful Data      Secretariat Address ;  Contact Person

             Central Secretariat of
             International Organization for Standardization (ISO)
             1 rue de Varembe
             CH-1211 Geneva  20, Switzerland

             Secretariat of ISO/TC 43 and ISO/TC 43/SC 1
             Dansk Standardiseringsrad
             Aurehojvej 12
             DK-2900, Hellerup

             Secretariat of ISO/TC 43/SC 2
             Fachnormenaus schuss Materialprufung
             Unter den Eichen 87
             D-1000  Berlin 45
             Germany      Information about Documentation Published by the Organization

             The following provides information about different ISO
documentation and standards.

1.   ISO 2204: Guide to the measurement of airborne acoustical
    noise and evaluation of its effects on man.  (1973).

    This International Standard described the general procedures
    for the measurement of noise and evaluation of its effects
    on man.  It is intended as an introduction to the more
    specialized intructions contained in acoustical test codes
    and interpretation procedures published by national and
    international standardization bodies.  This  document defines
    three types of measuring methods,  viz. :

          a)    The  survey method.  This method requires the
               least amount  of time and equipment.
          b)    The  engineering method.  In this method, the
               measurements of  sound level or sound pressure
               are supplemented by measurement of band
               pressure levels.
          c)    The  precision method.  This  method gives as
               thorough a description of the noise problem as
2.   ISO 1999:  Assessment of occupational noise exposure
    for hearing conservation purposes.  (1975).

    This  International Standard gives a practical relation
    between occupational noise exposure, expressed in
    terms of A-weighted sound pressure level in dB,  and duration
    within a normal working  week and the percentage  of
    the workers  that may be  expected to exhibit an increased
    threshold of  hearing amounting to 25  dB  or more
    averaged over the three frequencies 500, 1000,  and
    2000 Hz solely as a result of noise exposure.
    A revision to the International Standard ISO 1999 was
    proposed by  the United Kingdom on April 14, 1976 at
    the International Standards Organization meeting at  the
    National Bureau  of Standards, Gaithersburg, Md.  The
    proposal, which  would  change ISO 1999  to conform to
    the new British standard, will be discussed in a Study
    Group which will report at the next ISO/TC 43/SC 1-

3.   R  1996:  Assessment of noise with respect to community
    response.  (1971).
    This ISO Recommendation is intended as a guide to the '
    measurement of the acceptability of noise in communities.
    It  specifies a method for  the measurement of noise, the
    application of corrections to the measured levels (according
    to duration,  spectrum character and peak factor), and
    a comparison of the corrected levels with a noise criterion
    which takes account of  various environmental factors.

    The two last mentioned documents are widely used by
    national authorities as  a basis for establishment of npise
    criteria or limits.

4.   ISO 3740 - 3741   3742   3743   3744 - 3745   3746

    This series of documents  - partly published,  partly
    under preparation   is  a particularly significant series
    which establish the methods to be used to determine the
    sound power level  of a  noise source.  ISO has decided
    that sound power Level  - rather than somnd pressure
    level -  should be the primary measure of noise emission
    from stationary sound sources.  All the documents have
    the principal  title:  "Determination of sound power level
    of noise sources".
 5.   Noise test codes
     An important object of TC 43/SC 1 is to develop test
     codes for measurement of the noise emitted by various
     noise sources.   In order to make it possible to compare
     the noise emitted by various noise sources  this must be
     done on the basis of some common basic principles. .
     The task must be accomplished through collaboration
     with other Technical Committees within ISO or other
     organizations.  A test code includes two main parts,  one
     part describing the technique for  carrying out the
     acoustical measurement,  another part describing the
     conditions of operations of operation of the  machine or
     the equipment.  As examples of such documents the
     following can be mentioned:

          R    362:  Measurement of noise emitted by
                     vehicles.  (1964$
          ISO 3095:  Measurement of noise emitted by
                     railbound vehicles.  (1964)
          DIS 3381:  Measurement of noise inside railbound
          DIS 3481:  Measurement of airborne noise emitted
                     by pneumatic tools and machines.
                     Engineering method for determination
                     of sound power  levels.

6.   Building Acoustics

    In the fifties,  TC 43 elaborated ISO Recommendation R
    140: "Field and laboratory measurements of airborne
    and impact sound transmission".  This  important document
    is under revision,  and TC 43/SC 2 has prepared a revised
    Draft International Standard: "Measurement  of sound
    insulation  in buildings and of building elements" which
    has been circulated in 8 parts to  the ISO Member  Bodies
    for approval.
    ISO/R  717: "Rating of sound insulation for dwellings" is
    another important document under the jurisdiction of
    TC 43/SC  2.
    ISO 3382:  "Measurement of reverberation time in auditoria'
    has recently been adopted.   TC 43/SC 2 is preparing a
    document on "Laboratory tests on noise emission by
    appliances and equipment in water supply installations".

             7.   Aircraft Noise
                  TC 43/SC 1 has developed the following documents
                  related  to aircraft noise:
                            3891:  Procedure for  describing aircraft
                                  noise heard on the ground (revision
                                  of R 507 and R 1761).
                       ISO  2249:  Description and measurement of
                                  physical properties of sonic booms.
                                  (1973).     Relations with other International Organizations

             The ISO through tne Technical Committee. 43
has  established a close cooperation with many international organizations

such as:
             International Electrotechnical Commission (IEC)

             Economic Commission for Europe,  Transport Division

             International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO)

             Commission of the  European Communities  (CCE)
             International Labor Organization (IL.O)
             World Health Organization (WHO)

and also with other pertinent Technical Committees with ISO.

             It is possible through a proper  collaboration to ensure that
all cooperating organizations use the same test methods  and thus avoid

technical barriers to trade due to different test methods.  An  example
of such a close collaboration may be illustrative.

             In 1973 the Commission of the European Communities made
a request to  the Secretariat  of TC 43 to try to prepare documents which

the Communities could use under the principle "reference-to-standard" if
that would be possible.  As at that time the Communities started a

work on the measurement of noise within this field.  Civil engineering

equipment is material which is imported and exported all over the world

and therefore it is in the interest of international trade that different test
methods are not made legal in various parts of the world which e.g.  could

have the effect that the manufacturers have to prepare their equipment in

different ways for  the different regions of the world.  Naturally, it was not the
intention that TC 43 should work for the Commission,  but rather it should work

in the interest of international standardization and in the interest of inter-

national trade, and therefore the request from the Commission was discussed

at a meeting of Sub-Committee 1 in Paris in the autumn of 1974, and the

following resolution •was  passed:

              "The delegates present,  informed of the wish of the
              Commission of the European Communities to use the
              principle of strict reference to International Standards
              whenever possible, so as to avoid creation of technical
              barriers to trade, have authorized the Secretariat to
              respond to  requests from the Commission in the quickest
              possible way within ISO procedures. "

TC 43 is prepared to establish cooperation along the same lines with

other organizations.

                                 ANNEX  A
                               ISO/TC t+3 "ACOUSTICS"
             Survey of International ^tandards_and_ISO_Recoraraendations^
ISO     16  -  Acoustics - Standard tuning frequency (Standard musical pitch).
ISO/R  131  -  Expression of the physical and subjective magnitudes of sound or noise.
ISO/R  140  -  Field and laboratory measurements of airborne and impact sound trans-
ISO/R  226  -  Normal equal-loudness contours for pure tones and normal threshold of
               hearing under free field listening conditions.
               Acoustics - Preferred frequencies for measurements.
               Measurement of absorption coefficients in a reverberation room.
               Expression of the power and intensity levels of sound or noise.
               Measurement of noise emitted by vehicles.
ISO    266
ISO/R  354
ISO/R  357
ISO/R  362
ISO    389
               Acoustics - Standard reference zero for the calibration of pure-tone
ISO    454  -  Acoustics - Relation between sound pressure levels of narrow bands of
               noise in a diffuse field and in a frontally-incident free field for
               equal loudness.
ISO/R  495  -  General requirements for the preparation of test codes for measuring
               the noise emitted by machines.
ISO/R  507  -  Procedure for describing aircraft noise around an airport.
ISO    532  -  Acoustics - Method for calculating loudness level.
ISO/R  717  -  Rating of sound insulation for dwellings.
ISO/R 1680  -  Test code for the measurement of the airborne noise emitted by rotat-
               ing electrical machinery.
ISO/R 1761  -  Monitoring aircraft noise around an airport.
ISO/R 1996  -  Acoustics - Assessment of noise with respect to community response.
ISO   1999  -  Acoustics - Assessment of occupational noise exposure for hearing
               conservation purposes.
ISO   2204  -  Acoustics - Guide to the measurement of airborne acoustical noise, and
               evaluation of its effects on man.
ISO   2249  -  Acoustics - Description and measurement of physical properties of
               sonic booms.

 ISO    2922   -

 ISO    2923   -
 ISO    3095   -

 ISO/TR3352   -

 ISO    3381   -
 ISO    3382   -

 ISO    3741   -

 ISO    3742   -
 Acoustics  - Measurement of noise emitted by vessels on inland water-
 ways  and harbours.

 Acoustics  - Measurement of noise on board vessels.

 Acoustics  - Measurement of noise emitted by railbound vehicles.

 Acoustics  - Assessment of noise with respect to its effect on the
 intelligibility of  speech..

 Acoustics  - Measurement of noise inside railbound vehicles.

 Acoustics  - Measurement of reverberation time in auditoria.
 Acoustics  - Determination of sound power levels of noise sources -
 Precision  methods for broad-band sources in reverberation rooms.
 Acoustics  - Determination of sound power levels of noise sources -
 Precision  methods for discrete-frequency and narrow-band sources in
 reverberation rooms.
                             ANNEX  B
                               ISO/TC m "ACOUSTICS"

                     Survey of Draft l2ternational_Standards£
DRS  140.1 -
DRS  140.2 -
DRS  140.3 -
DRS  140.4 -
DRS  140.5 -
Acoustics - Measurement of sound insulation in buildings      36
and of building elements - Part 1: Requirements for labora-
Acoustics - Measurement of sound insulation in buildings      36
and of building elements - Part 2: Statement of precision
Acoustics - Measurement of sound insulation in buildings      36
and of building elements - Part 3: Laboratory measurements
of airborne sound insulation of building elements.

Acoustics - Measurement of sound insulation in buildings      .36
and of building elements - Part 4: Field measurements of
airborne sound insulation between rooms.
Acoustics - Measurement of sound insulation in buildings      36
and of building elements - Part- 5: Field measurements of
airborne sound insulation of facade elements and facades.

DRS  140.6 -

DRS  140.7 -

DRS  140.8 -

DRS  362

DIS 1683

DIS 3481

DIS 3740

DIS 3743

DIS 3744

DIS 3745

DIS 3746

DIS 3822.1 -

DIS 3891

DIS 3989

DIS 4869
Acoustics - Measurement of sound insulation in buildings      36
and of building elements - Part 6: Laboratory measurements
of impact sound insulation of floors.
Acoustics - Measurement of sound insulation in buildings      36
and of building elements - Part 7: Field measurements of
impact sound insulation of floors.
Acoustics - Measurement of sound insulation in buildings      36
and of building elements - Part 8: Laboratory measurements
of the reduction of transmitted impact noise by floor
coverings on a standard floor.
Acoustics - Measurement of noise emitted by road vehicles.    31

Acoustics - Preferred reference quantities for acoustic       31
Acoustics - Measurement of airborne noise emitted by pneu-    43
matic tools and machines - Engineering method for determin-
ation of sound power levels.
Acoustics - Determination of sound power levels of noise      31
sources - Guidelines for the use of basic standards and
for the preparation of noise test codes.
Acoustics - Determination of sound power levels of noise      41
sources - Engineering methods for special reverberation
test rooms.
Acoustics - Determination of sound power levels of noise      43
sources - Engineering methods for free-field conditions
over a reflecting plane.
Acoustics - Determination of sound power levels of noise      41
sources - Precision methods for anechoic and ^emi-anechoic

Acoustics - Determination of sound power levels of noise      31
sources - Survey method.
Acoustics - Laboratory tests on noise emission by appli-      36
ances and equipment used in water supply installations -
Part 1: Method of measurement.

Acoustics - Procedure for describing aircraft noise heard     41
on the ground  (Revision of ISO/R 507-1966 and ISO/R 1761-
Acoustics - Measurement of airborne noise emitted by          35
compressor units including primemovers - Engineering
method for determination of sound power levels.

Acoustics - Measurement of sound attenuation of hear-         31
ing protectors - Subjective method.

 DIS 4872   -  Acoustics - Measurement of airborne  noise  emitted  by          31
               construction equipment intended for  outdoor  use  -
               Method for checking compliance  with  noise  limits.
 DIS 5128   -  Acoustics - Method  of measurement  of noise inside  motor        31
 DIS 5129   -  Acoustics - Measurement of noise inside aircraft.              31

 DIS 5130   -  Acoustics - Survey  method  for the  measurement of noise emit-   31
               ted by stationary "motor vehicles.

 DIS 5131   -  Acoustics - Noise  level measurement  at the operator's          31
               workplace on agricultural  tractors and field machinery.
 DIS 5132   -  Acoustics - Noise  from earth moving  machinery - Meas-          31
               urement at operator's workplace.
 DIS 5133   -  Acoustics - Determination  of airborne noise  emitted  by         31
               earth moving machinery to  the surroundings - Survey
 DIS 5136   -  Acoustics - In-duct sound  power  measurement  procedure for      31
Advancement stage codes:
31  -  DIS being processed for submission to Member Bodies.
35  -  DIS submitted to P-members and Member Bodies for combined voting.
36  -  DIS submitted to Member Bodies for voting.
41  -  DIS the revised text of which will be prepared within a maximum of 3 months.
43  -  DIS for which the preparation of the revised text depends on further study
           of Member Bodies ' comments.

2. 3          World Health Organization (WHO)

             WHO is a United Nations Agency. With respect to noise, WHO
is concerned with the effects of noise  on people's health and well-being.
WHO defines health not only in terms  of "absence of disease or infirmity"
bat includes  a general  state of physical, mental and social well-being.
Therefore,  whenever noise interferes with the above criteria, WHO
seeks  vays to suppress or lower its harmful effects.  Noise is consequently
studied not only as an occupational hazard but also  as  a public nuisance.

2.3.1        Organizational Summary

             The long-term program  of WHO on noise control is intended:
to support appropriate institutions  in conducting studies  on psychosomatic
effects of noise;  to promote the  necessary health guides  and  tolerance
criteria; and to assist  in developing training  in noise abatement.

2.3.2        Background

             A major activity on noise, undertaken by WHO/Geneva
was to invite the Director of  the Division of Occupational Health, New
South Wales  Department of Public Health,  Sydney, Australia to study
noise  as an occupational hazard and a public  nuisance.  The  summary
of this study was published in the WHO Public Health Papers Series in
1966.  (2-7)     The WHO Regional Office  for Europe prepared its  first
program on  noise control  at its  19th session  in 1969.  A report was
issued in its final form in 1970.  (2-8)

2.3.3        Recent Work     Last Several Years

             A special working  group was established whose report on
noise control program was published in October 1971 and a set of

  recommendations was issued.  (2-9) Another draft document, prepared
  by the Study Group on Public Health Aspects of Community Noise,
  was published (in English) under the title "Environmental Health Criteria
  for Noise", November 1973.  (2-10)

2. 3. 3. 2     Present and Future
             The workplan of the WHO environmental health criteria
developed program indicates that a task force on noise will be convened
in the last quarter of  1976 to consider the draft document prepared last
year.  Publication of  a final noise criteria document is  planned for the
last quarter of 1977. (2-11)
             It is important to mention that the U.S. Enviro-nmental
Protection Agency has been designated as the first WHO Collaborating
Center for Environmental Pollution Control.  This new Center will
advise and assist WHO in planning, developing and implementing projects
in different areas one of which is assessment and control of community
noise. (2-12)
             In the area of traffic noise it has been agreed, under the
coordination of the European office,  to undertake several studies on urban
traffic noise in modern big cities by  the use of unified methodology. (2-13)

             Copenhagen - Regional Office for Europe
             At present  the Regional Office for Europe is finalizing a
chapter on noise control in building code's.  Other activities aiming at
assisting  member  countries in noise  control management and particularly
those aiming at improving noise control legislation are in progress.

-------      Address and Contact Persons  (2-14)


             World Health Organization (WHO)
             Division of Environmental Health
             20 Ave. Appia
             CH-1211 Geneva 27,  Switzerland
             Contact: Mr. G. Ozolins
                      Mr. Henk W. De Koning

             Regional Office of Europe

             World Health Organization (WHO)
             Regional Office for Europe
             8, Scherfigsvij
             DK   2100 Copenhagen $ - Denmark
             Contact: Dr. V. Krichagin      Information About Documentation Published By The

             See References.  These documents  are not for sale but are

distributed through the Regional Office in Copenhagen  or  the Headquarters
in Geneva.      Relations With Other International Organizations

             WHO officials maintain active  liaison with the OECD and
ECE Noise Task Forces.

2. 4            Economic Commission for Europe (ECE)

               ECE is a regional UN organization.  At its second
session, the Senior Advisors to ECE established a Special Task Force

on Noise (April 1974).  In October 1974, the following countries agreed

on participating in the ECE Task Force:  Federal Republic of Germany,

Italy, Poland,  Sweden, United Kingdom, United States of America,

and the Soviet  Union.  The United States agreed to assume respon-

sibilities  of the "lead country"  on the project.

2.4.1          Organization and Objectives

               The first meeting of the ECE Task Force on noise

was  held in June 1975 at  the Palais des Nations,  Geneva, to finalize

the noise  program and to develop a schedule and calendar of  events

for implementing the program.

               The purpose of the Task Force is to establish a viable

means of  exchange among the participating  countries  on  various

information and data in the areas of noise measurement, economic
and cost-benefit studies and any other aspect of better understanding

of environmental noise problems and methods for their control (2.4. 1).

               The major objective of the Task Force noise program

is a  two year study effort on  community noise, defined as follows:

               a.   Environmental,  or outside noise,  including that
                   generated by industry will be given the  major
                   emphasis.  Excluded from consideration is indoor
                   and/or •workplace noise.

               b.   Emphasis will be placed on assembling information
                   on the non-physiological annoyance effects of noise
                   and development of effects criteria.  Noise-induced
                   hearing loss and other physiological effects will
                   not be considered.

                   The product of the two-phase program will be a
                   report on the status  of current knowledge concerning
                   environmental noise effects and control measures.
                   Each participating country will develop a report based
                   upon the  environmental noise-related publications
                   and activities  in their country.  These reports are
                   scheduled for  submission to  the lead country (U.S.A. )
                   in March 1976.  They will be integrated by the
                   United States into a draft report which will become
                   the basis for the Phase I final report.  The target
                   date for producing a final report on the Phase I
                   activities of the program will be early 1977
2.4.2         Background

              The idea of the  Task Force on Noise was developed in
January  1974.  During  the fourth session of the ECE Working Party

on Air Pollution Problems held in Geneva from January 7-11,  1974,

the proposal was made for the Noise Task Force to be formed and to
function  under the Senior Advisors to ECE  Governments on Environ-
mental Problems.

2.4.3         Scope of Work

              Since the main objectives of the Task Force  is to

identify the current problems and then elaborate  on possible measures,
the scope of work for the Task Force is divided  into two phases.

Phase I will concentrate on the identification and collection of  infor-

mation in specified noise related areas from'participating nations.
Phase II will consist of an analysis  of the information obtained from
Phase I and will address  the goals  of the Task Force directly.

-------        Last Two Years (74-75)

               The proposed (in 1974) scope of work for Phase I  is to
be completed by the end of 1976.   Each participating country shall
describe its noise program in the following:

               1)   Assemble information and/or criteria describing
                   the impact of environmental noise on people,
                   structures, etc.

               2)   Assemble information and methods for identifying
                   major sources of environmental noise.  Included
                   will be the following:

                        a)  Descriptions  of methodologies and prediction
                           models used to identify and classify environ-
                           mental noise  sources.
                        b)  Classification of major environmental noise
                           sources, characteristics  and noise  levels
                           into the categories  of area and individual
                           noise sources.

               3)   Description of commercially available noise  control
                   technology including  costs  for application by  major
                   sources identified.

               4)   Description of noise  control standards,  regulations,
                   laws,  land use planning,  prevention techniques,
                   source substitution,  building codes, etc.  Also to
                   be included in  this task are descriptions of cost
                   benefit evaluation methods and analysis.

               5)   Description of measurement instrumentation,
                   methodologies, and monitoring systems for
                   characterizing noise pollution problems.

                        a)  Standard methods and/or  methodologies  of
                           noise measurements.
                       b) Monitoring systems.

                       c) Commercially available measurement equipment.

              6)   Description of noise research,  development,  and
                   demonstration activities in areas identified in Tasks
                   1  through 5.
                       a) Resource allocations   1971  through 1976.

                       b) Products expected and timetable.

                       c) Performing  organizations and country.

                       d) Prominent noise specialists  and experts.

                       e) Scientific and technical publications.
2. 4. 3. 2       Present and Future
              Phase II

              1)   Determine the magnitude and character of the
                   environmental noise pollution problem.

              2)   Identify the major problem areas in the character-
                   ization and/or control of environmental noise.

              3)   Develop recommended practices and methods for
                   identification and control of environmental noise.

              4)   Recommend areas of needed research on environ-
                   mental noise.
               The first meeting of the  Task Force was held in Geneva

in June 1975.  The program was finalized and Phase I  of the program

was  initiated.  The second and third meetings of the  Noise Task Force

are scheduled for September 1976.   The purposes of the meeting have

been tentatively established.   They are to develop a detailed Phase II

program including recommended plans  for--an international  symposium

and to update the calendar of events  for implementing the noise

               The plans for 1976-78 are tentatively set as follows:

               3/76    Task Force member reports on status of current
                       knowledge  of environmental noise submitted to
                       lead country.

               6/76    Lead country circulates first draft of Task Force
                       Report on Phase I for  comment.

               9/76    Second meeting  of ECE Noise Task Force held
                       to  finalize  Phase II program.

              11/76    Lead country finalized Phase I report for distribution.

               6/77    Third meeting of ECE  Noise Task Force held
                       to  review status of Phase II activities and td
                       develop preliminary plan for international
                       sympos ium.

               4/78    International symposium on Environmental Noise
                       held by ECE Noise Task Force.

               9/78    Lead country finalizes report on the ECE Noise
                       Task Force Program including  transactions from
                       the international symposium.
2. 4.4         Useful Data        Contact Persons
              From November 1,  1975 on Mr. R. M.  Marrazzo (EPA/USA)
has replaced Mr. E..E. Berkhau (EPA/USA) as Chairman of the Noise
Task Force.
              Economic Commission for Europe (ECE)
              Noise Task Force
              Palais des Nations
              1211 Geneva  10,  Switzerland
              Amasa Bishop; Jaek Janczak; Mr.  Louznetsov
              (Chairman: Rudolph M. Marazzo)

-------       Documentation
  . 4. 1)        UN Economic and Social Council.

              Economic Commission for Europe.

              Task Force on Noise,  Geneva, December 10,  1975.

2. 5          Association of French Speaking Acousticians  "Groupement
             Des Acousticiens De Langue Francaise" "GALF"

             Founded in 1948,  this non-profit association is set up to
facilitate the exchange of scientific and technical information among

different groups involved in all the disciplines  of acoustical sciences. (2-15)

2. 5. 1        Organizational Summary

             This association has a  membership of a_bout 800 specialists in

the physical and social sciences.  The following academic fields are

             Architecture           Electricity
             Physiology            Construction
             Physics               Commerce
             Biplpgy               Industry
             Linguistics            Transportation
             Music                 Mining
             Law                   Government
             Medicine              Universities

             Organization  and structure of  this association includes special
task groups to further its objectives.  These special groups as of 1974

were assigned to the following areas:

             Acoustic music
             Physiology and
             Spoken communication
             Architectural acoustics
             Acoustics  of aerodynamics
             Environmental and industrial  acoustics.

2.5.2        Background

2.5.3        Recent Work      Last Several Years

             GALF participated in organizing the "FASE colloquium No.  1:
             "Acoustics in Telecommunications" and "FASE 75 collequium

             No.  2: Machinery noise and environment" held in Paris from

             29th of September to the 4th of October 1975.  (2-15)     Present and Future

             This association functions mainly in the following areas:
             1)  Publishing a tri-monthly magazine since 1968: "La Revue
                 d'Acous tique"

             2)   Arranging for conferences on noise,  Thus,  between
                  1970 and 1974 this association convened thirty conferences
             3)   Teaching, advanced professional courses in coordination
                  with  the French Ministry of Education.  In 1°73, for
                  instance, this association conducted fourteen courses
                  with  an enrollment of 850  students.

             4)   Granting medals and research rewards to persons
                  involved in noise  activities.

2. 5.4       Useful Data
 2.5.4,1     Secretariat's address
             Department "Etudes et Techniques d"Acoustique"
             C.N.E.T. route de Tregastel   22301  LANNION

             Address of the journal of this associatioa:
             Revue d'Acoustique
             Editions 1. P. F. ,  12,  rue des Fosses - Saint Marcel
             75005 Paris, France

-------     Information About Documentation Published By The

             Since  1969,  a tri-monthly journal is published by this
organization.  This journal "La Revue d1 Acous tique" deals with current

research,  activities of various colloquia and specialized associations

as well as  bibliographies of current literature  about acoustics.  In
additon to  this journal GALF has produced the  six noise monographs

related to  the courses of  instruction sponsored by this  organization.     -Relations With Other International Organizations

             GALF has established contact with acoustical societies

in different countries such as Belgium, Italy, Great Britain, Germany,
Switzerland, Spain, Poland, United States,  and Latin American countries.

             International activities  of GALF include organizing joint

colloquia,   exchanging articles from national publications and inviting

foreign noise-specialists to present lectures.  In this manner also
GALF participated  in organizing the scientific  activities of the European
Federation of Acoustical  Societies.  Close cooperation exists in the same

manner with ICA (International Commission on Acoustics).

2. 6          Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development

             An intergovernmental organization mainly to formulate

policies in matters related to economics and development was established

in I960 with its headquarters located in Paris.  OECD  membership includes

the following countries: Australia, Austria, Belgium,  Canada,  Denmark.,

Finland, France, Germany,  Greece, Iceland,  Ireland, Italy, Japan,

Luxembourg, Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Portugal, Spain, Sweden,

Switzerland, Turkey, United Kingdom,  United States.

2. 6. 1        Organizational Summary

             The establishment of the Environment Committee by OECD

in 1970 marked the first significant step of this organization's involvement

in noise problems.  This position is reflected in the  scope of the task of

this  committee.  One of its tasks is  to help  member  governments in their

formulation and harmonization of noise  abatement policies.  (2-17)

2.6.2        Background

             The Organization's Member countries having expresed their

increasing concern and the need for  a more comprehensive approach to

environmental problems, OECD's  Council responded with this mandate

for the new Environment Committee:

                to investigate the problems of preserving or improving
                man's  environment with particular reference to their
                economic and trade  implications;

                to review and confront actions taken  or proposed in
                Member countries in the field of environment together
                with their economic and trade  implications;
*  This report about OECD has been largely based on the generous
   contribution of Dr. Ariel Alexander,  his memorandum OECD "Inter-
   national Organization", Paris: OECD, 22 April 1976  (Ref. 1).

               to propose solutions for environmental problems that
               would as far as possible take account of all relevant
               factors,  including cost effectiveness;

             -  to ensure that the results of environmental investigations
                can be effectively utilized in the wider framework of the
                Organization's work on economic policy and social

             The twenty-four Member countries of OECD produce more

than 60 per cent  of the world's wealth and enjoy the  highest incomes per

person of the world.  Its Members have the economic and scientific,
technological and technical capacity required to master the problems to
which  production gives rise. OEVD's  goal of qualitative  grwoth for the Seventies

Seventies   economic development coupled with and  defined by an improved

quality of life is  to be achieved through the cooperation of its Members.

             In early response to the need of Member countries for
mutually acceptable basic concepts for their environmental policies,  the

Environment Committee (in close consultation with OECD's Industry and

Trade  Committees) formulated a set of Guiding Principles, which have

been adopted by OECD's Council.  These  comprise:

                The Polluter Pays Principle.  As previously mentioned,
this is a principle of economic efficiency  establishing that the  costs

resulting from the impQasmentation of anti-pollution measures should be

allocated in such a way  that rational  use of scarce environmental resources

is encouraged and distortions in international trade  and investment are

avoided.  It means that  these costs should be borne  by the polluter,  i.e.

by the  producer in most cases, who may in turn modify his prices

accordingly, passing on the costs to  the consumer.  Thus the cost of

anti-pollution measures should be reflected in  the cost of goods and

services whose production or consumption causes the pollution. Sub-

sidies  for such measures  should therefore be avoided by public authorities.

                 Environmental Standards.  While acknowledging differences
in environmental policies according  to varying national conditions and
goals, governments should seek more stringent anti-pollution measures,
together with a high degree of international harmonization on both their
scope and their  timing.  Measures to protect the environment should be
framed as far as possible so as to avoid the creation of non-tariff barriers
to trade.  In cases where products which may cause pollution enter into
international trade, governments should seek common product  standards.
             -  Other Guiding Principles.   In conformity with the provisions
of the GATT,  these principles aim at avoiding discrimination stemming from
environmental considerations against imported products, and to exclude the
introduction of compensating import levies,  export rebates or other equivalent
measures designed to offset the cost effects of differing environment policies.
As stated in the Recommendation of  OECD's Council:  "Effective implementation
of the Guiding Principles. . .will make it unnecessary and undesirable to
report to such measures".
             OECD's Environment Committee will continue to survey the
effective implementation of these Principles, proposing appropriate notification
and consultation mechanisms to this end.  The practical, as well as the ideal,
solution lies in international agreements reached, as in the past, in the
forum of the Committee most concerned.

2-6.3         Recent Work       Last Several Years

              A first report on noise was issued in 1971, entitled "Urban
 Traffic Noise  Strategy for an Improved Environment".  This report
 contains a technical review of the problem,  a detailed description of
 national Legislative practices in the field of noise abatement and eight
 recommendations to governments which were endorsed by the OECD

             In 1971 72, an Ad Hoc Group on Motor Vehicles created

by the Environment Committee undertook an extensive study of the

economic, social,  and environmental implications of abating air pollution

and noise caused by motor vehicles.  The part of the study dealing with

noise included a forecast of urban noise until 1985 and an assessment

of the costs of reducing motor vehicle noise emissions at source.

             In 1973-1974, the Group on the Urban Environment (a sub-

group of the Environment  Committee) undertook a broad assessment of

existing policies and practices  concerning urban noise abatement in

OEGD countries.   Twelve case studies  were presented.  A synthesis

was published  in 1975, which included for the first time proposals to

adopt economic incentives for improving the efficiency of noise  abatement

policies,  namely noise charges and compensation for noise exposure.

             At the same  time, the Group on the Urban Environment

studied the environmental, urban,  and economic implications of airport

siting or expansion.  The  Group concluded that various options were

available  to governments,  and that the creation of huge airports was  no

longer the best solution.   It suggested four alternative strategies to

expensive new  investments:  expanding  the capacity of existing airports,

improving the  efficiency of existing facilities,  developing a regional

airport network, or even a standstill policy.

             The Group also discussed in detail the social cost  of

aircraft noise  expressed in monetary terms  and made a comprehensive

survey of all technical, administrative  and economic  instruments which

are or could be made available for abating aircraft noise exposure.

             The results of the  Group's study are contained in an

OECD publication issued in 1975 entitled "Airports and the Environment".

             In 1974, the Ministers of the Environment of OECD member
countries met in Paris for the first time.  At the meeting,  the OECD

Council adopted  ten recommendations among which a very important one

concerning noise abatement.  The text of this recommendation is as


             1.   That member  governments strengthen their  noise
                  prevention and abatement  efforts through advance
                  planning and through the application of the best avail
                  able technology,  taking into account the cost of

             2.   That these efforts include  the following elements:

                  a)   The promulgation of noise  emission standards
                      for products which are major sources of noise,
                      and  in particular, transportation equipment,
                      •construction equipment, and internal combustion
                      engines of all kinds.

                  b)   The requirement to consider the impact of noise
                      and  the desirability of reducing existing noise
                      levels and of avoiding  the  creation  of new noise
                      conditions in the planning,  design,  approval,
                      construction and operation of all major  facilities
                      including  housing,  highways,  public transportation
                      systems,  airports,  industrial developments, etc.

                  c)   Adequate  education programs and information
                      campaigns designed to make the public more aware
                      of the need to behave  in such a manner as to avoid
                      producing unnecessary noise.

2. 6. 3. 2      Present and Future
             As a result of this recommendation, a two-year Ad Hoc
Group on Noise Abatement Policies was set up at the end of 1975.

The mandate of this new group is as follows:

             1.  On the basis of available evidence regarding the
                 impact of noise on populations,  the Ad Hoc Group
                 shall undertake a systematic study of instruments
                 and policies for preventing and abating noise with
                 particular reference to the instructions of the  Council
                 Recommendation on Noise Prevention and Abatement'.
                 Taking into account the administrative structure  of
                 countries, such a study shall in particular  concentrate
                 on an  analysis of the various instruments,  their
                 respective advantages and drawbacks, possible useful
                 combinations, an evaluation of the cost and  effectiveness
                 of the different alternatives,  as well as the  conditions
                 for implementing them in the framework  of  policies
                 for improving the environment. '
                 This study shall be based both  on case studies and a
                 systematic analysis of possible strategies,  and it shall
                 attempt to identify the essential components of an
                 integrated and effective policy for noise prevention
                 and abatement, including those which can be implemented
                 at low cost.

             2.  The Ad Hoc  Group shall identify priorities  and essential
                 steps  for gradually strengthening the emission standards
                 applicable to the principal noise sources, taking  into
                 consideration technical and economic constraints.

             3.  In order to avoid non-tariff barriers to trade,  as well
                 as  trans-frontier pollution problems associated with
                 noise,  and to reinforce international cooperation, the
                 Ad Hoc Group shall, in consultation with appropriate
                 international organizations:

                 i)   establish the basis for harmonizing standards
                     applicable to products which are sources of
                     noise disturbance, in particular those which
                     form a significant part of inter national, trade;

                 ii)  establish the basis for harmonizing technical
                     and economic criteria necessary to introduce
                     noise control incentives  - such as economic
                      instruments and noise labelling of products;

                 iii) study various methods and indices  for noise

             4.   In carrying out this mandate, the Ad Hoc Group will
                 focus its attention on major noise problems such as
                 transportation and  construction of noise.

             5.   The Ad Hoc Group  shall develop a procedure in order
                 to report to the Environment  Committee on the action
                 taken by member governments pursuant to the  Council
                 Recommendation on Noise Prevention and Abatement.

             6.   If necessary,  the Ad Hoc Group  shall present proposals
                 for international cooperation  with regard to specific
                 problems likely to  necessitate concerted policy and

             7-   The Ad Hoc Group  shall submit its conclusions to the
                 Environment Committee within a maximum period of
                 two years.
             This Ad Hoc Group, chaired by Mr.  J. Schettino (U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency),  decided to carry out its work in

three separate panels:  panel 1  on decision criteria, panel 2 on economic

instruments and land use, panel 3 on direct regulations and low-cost

improvements  of the ambient noise  levels.  Fifteen countries and three
international organizations are  participating in this program.,   'the
results  of which should be completed by the end of 1977.

2. 6.4        Useful Data      Secretariat Address ; Contact Per sons

          o  Dr. Ariel Alexandre
          o  Dr. Jean-Philippe Barde
          o  Mme  Francoise Feypell

             OECD Environment Directorate
             2, rue Andre-Pascal
             75016 Paris, France

             This  international organization maintains a branch office

in the United States located at the following address:
             1750  Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W.
             Suite  1207
             Washington,  D. C. Z0006      Information about Documentation Published by the Organization.

             OECD produced the following reports, documents and


             -  "Urban Traffic Noise",  publication, 1971.

                "Airports and  the Environment", publication, 1975.

                "Environmental Implications of Options in Urban Mobility",
                report, 1973.
                "Social Cost of Noise",  document,  1975.

                "Strategies  for Urban Noise Abatement", report,  1975.
                "Evaluation of Aircraft Noise Annoyance",  document,  1975.

                "Tentative Assessment of the Number of People Exposed
                to  varying Noise Levels in Seven OECD Countries",
                document, 1975.
                "Charging for Noise", document, 1976.

                "Noise Reduction and Energy SavingPolicies, document,


                "Decision Criteria for Noise Abatement Policies",

                document, 1976.     Relationship With Other International Organizations.

             Relationships are established with the European Community

(Brussels), with the UN Economic Commission for Europe (Geneva),

with WHO, with ICAO, with IATA, with the  Council of Europe,  with

UNEP.  All these organizations send observers to the meetings  of the

OECD Ad Hoc Group on noise. (2-18)

2. 7        International Labour Organization (IL.P)

           The ILiO» a United Nations organization, deals with the

general problems of labour and of the working conditions and environment

in particular.  It aims at promoting improvements with regard to

protecting the worker  against physical injuries,  atmospheric pollutants,

noise and vibration, etc. and to working out appropriate standards.


2. 7. 1      Organizational Summary

           At the 191st (November 1973)  session of the governing body,

the employers'  group and workers'  group  agreed that the agenda of the

6lst (1976) session of the conference  should include  an item concerning

the "working environment:  (i) atmospheric pollution; and  (ii)  noise,and

vibration".  At its 193rd (May-June 1974) session,  the governing body

placed the item concerning working environment on  the agenda of the

61st session of the conference; it subsequently confirmed,  at its 194th

(November 1974) session,that discussion of the item would be confined to

the two aspects referred to above, namely:  (a)  atmospheric pollution,

and  (b) noise and vibration.

            The governing body of the International Labour  Office (of

the International Labour Organization) decides on agendas  and arranges

meetings of experts on particular subjects.  As  far  as noise and vibrations

are concerned,  the first meeting of experts  took place in December 1974.

2.7.2      Background

           The protection of workers against hazards caused  by exposure

to  harmful factors in the working environment has been the subject  of

numerous studies and publications by the  office,  which may be said to

have been dealing with this question, in different forms,  since its

foundation.  The subject has also been raised on many occasions  by

various ILO industrial committees.

           Several ILO Conventions and Recommendations contain

general provisions concerning Noise and Vibration,  such as Convention

and Recommendation No.  120 (1964) concerning hygiene in commerce

and offices and Recommendation No. 97 concerning  the protection of

health of workers in place of employment.

           More specific provisions on noise are contained in the

ILO Code of Practice  on Safety and Health in Building and Civil Engineering

Work, the Code of Practice on Safety and Health in Shipbuilding and Ship

Repairing and the Code of Practice on  Safe Construction and Use  of


2. 7. 3     Recent Work
            At the meeting of experts on Noise and Vibration which took

place on 2-10 December 1974 in Turin and which was attended by represent-

atives of eleven countries  (plus official delegates of the ILO),  it was

agreed that noise and vibration in the working environment constituted a

serious human, social, and  economic problem.

            The experts emphasized the need for noise assessment and

for exposure standards following the health criteria of WHO and the

international standards issued by the ISO (R-1999 and others) and the


            The experts considered it appropriate to establish detailed

recommendations in a code of practice including noise limit levels.

This code  should not be compulsory, but should provide  guidance on

noise and vibration control.  They stated that for prevention purposes,

correction information and training are of prime  importance.

2. 7. 3. 1    Last Several Years
            The International Occupational Safety and Health Information

Center (CIS) systematically collects and analyzes scientific and technical

literature from all over the world and the results of this work have been

made available to users in the form of index cards  and data sheets

(including an information sheet on noise in industry).  From 1974 on,

the CIS issues  a single computer-produced abstract bulletin -  CIS

Abstracts - where literature relating to noise and vibration is selectively


            The International Labour Review has articles concerning

noise and vibration:  "Protecting Workers Against Noise and Vibration"

(Vol. 105, No.  2, February 1972; and "Occupational Noise  and Vibration

Protection in the Federal Republic of Germany" (Vol.  105,  No. 2, May


            Information on noise and vibration is contained  in several

ILO publications relating to occupational safety and health,  especially:

(i) the ILO Encyclopaedia on Occupational Health and Safety;  (ii) various

publications of the Occupational Safety and Health Series, such as:

"Ergonomics in Machine Design" (OSH No. 14);  and "Ergonomics and

Physical Environmental Factors"  (OSH No. 21).

2. 7. 3. 2     Present and Future
            The committee on Working Environment of the International

Labour Conference (1976, 6lst session) had a first  discussion on a

proposed international convention and supplementary recommendation

on the working environment:  air pollution,  noise and vibration.

Reports VI(1) and VI(2) to the 6lst session of the ILC contain infor-

mation on law and practices concerning the prevention  of air pollution,

noise and vibration.

            The ILO Code of  Practice on the Protection of Workers
Against Noise and Vibration will be published by the end of 1976 as well

as another publication in the  Occupational Safety and Health Series,

which will contain the report and the working papers of  the meeting ofr

experts on Noise and  Vibration (Turin,  2-10 December  ^974).

2. i. 4. 1    Addresses and Contact Persons
            International Labour Organization (ILO)
            CH  1211 Geneva 22,  Switzerland
            Mr. E.  Hellen,  Chief, Occupational Safety and
            Health Branch, Working Conditions and Environment
2. 7- 4. 2     Documentation

            ILO "Working Environment",  Report VI for the International
Labour Conference, 6lst Session, 1976.

            ILO "Report on the Meeting of Experts on Noise and

Vibration in the Working  Environment",  at Turin,  10  December 1974,

21 pages.

2.8.           .The European Community "Common Market"

               The European Community is  an association of nine West
  European countries working together to improve their peoples' Living
  and working conditions by eliminating as many national barriers  as
  possible    The founding members were Belgium,  France,  Germany,
  Italy, Luxemberg, and the Netherlands.  The United Kingdom, Ireland,
  and Denmark became members on January 1, 1973.   (2-20)

2.8.1.         Organizational Summary

               The role that the EEC is playing in the problem of reducing
  and suppressing certain categories of noise can best be understood by brie
  briefly  studying certain provisions of the Treaty of Rome .  Article  100
  of this treaty states  that the Council, acting by means ot an unanimous
  vote on a proposal of the, Commis sion,  shall issue directives for the
  approximation of such legislative and administrative provisions of the
  member states  as have  a directive incidence on the establishment  on
  functioning of the Common Market. (2-21)   Continuing further in  this
  vein, Article 189 states that directives shall bind any member state  to
  which they are addressed,  as to  the result to be achieved, while leaving
  to domestic  agencies a competence as to form and means.  It is  in this
  legal framework that preparation of certain noise-related directives has
  been  started. (2-22)

2.8.2          Background

2.8.3          Recent Work

2. 8. 3. 1        Last Several Years
               In the coarse of the Last few years the Commission proposed

  a series of directives concerning noise nuisances.  Only the directive of

  February 6, 1970 relating to motor vehicles,  published in the Official

  Journal L-42 (2-23-1970), has been approved by the Council.  This

  directive applies to all motor vehicles intended for  use on the road,

  having at least four wheels, with the exception of agricultural tractors

  and machinery and civil engineering equipment.  This directive,  however,

  is presently under revision. (2-23)

2. 8. 3. 2       Present and Future
                The EEC is in the process  of determining environmental

   noise criteria as  required by the Community's environment program

   approved by the Council on November 22, 1973.  The objective to be

   achieved in this regard is determing at what levels of noise various

   psychological and physiological effects become apparent.  The principal

   concern is with such areas as interference with sleep,  speech inter-

   ference  and annoyance.

                On the basis of this program,  various activities have

   been undertaken in the following areas:  (2-24)

                    determination of noise  nuisance criteria;

                    action on sources;

                    research into noise nuisance.

             1.   Determination of Noise Nuisance Criteria

                 A resolution is being drafted,  the aim of which is to
determine the relationship between the exposure of a target to a noise

nuisance and the risk and extent of the resulting adverse effect.

             2.   Action On Sources
                 Directives presented to the Council.

                 a)   Driver perceived noise  level of agricultural tractors.
                      The proposal is for a limit of 90 dB(A) measured
                      by the OECD method.
                 b)   Revision of Directive 70/157/EEC  of February 6,
                      1970 on the noise emitted by motor vehicles.
                      The proposal calls for a reduction  of 2 to 4 dB(A),
                      depending on the vehicle category,  on the levels
                      laid down in the Directive of February 6, 1970.
                      The measurement remains the same.
                 c)   Civil engineering equipment
                      Method for the measurement of noise  emitted by
                      civil engineering  equipment.  The aim of the method
                      is to classify such equipment according to their
                      sound power and directivity under typical working
                      conditions and on an acoustically defined site.

                 d)   Jackhamrners
                      This Directive lays down sound power emission levels.
                      It also contains the method of measurement which
                      specifies where and how the jackhammer is to be
                      set up and used as well as the method for calculating
                      the sound power level.
                 e)   Tower cranes and power generators
                      The main source  of noise on building sites  are from
                      tower cranes and power  generators.   The Commission
                      has presented a proposal to the Council for  a two-
                      stage reduction in permissible sound emission levels.
                      The levels proposed for  the first state (ending on
                      June 30,  1980) reflect the best existing technology.
                      (2-25)   Those proposed for the first stage are

           on laboratory trials and hence call for considerable
           progress  in this area.  If the European Commission's
           proposal is adopted,  noise from building  site
           equipment will have to be kept within the  following
           limits contained in table (2-2).

Table 2-2.  Permissible Sound Emission Level
Tower cranes
Current" generators
for welding:
200 A or less
more than 200 A
Current generators
for power supply:
8 kW or less
8 kW to 60 kW
60 kW to 240 kH
more than 240 kW
up to 30 June 1980


as from 1 July 1980


102 j
       f)   Motorcycles
           Noise emission limits are presently being proposed to
           the Council based on measurement methods.  A
           directive has been drafted to fix sound emission levels
           A method of measurement based on engine  speed lays
           down the motorcycle's operating conditions during
           the test.  Measurements are carried out under static

       g)  Measurement of airborne noises emitted in open
           area upon a reflective area.
           A general directive specifying  in particular the
           method for  measurement of airborne noises emitted
           in open area upon a reflective area, has  been

               2.   Directives  being drafted by the Commission

                    a)   Four-wheeled vehicles
                        A panel of experts  has been given the task of devising
                        a method of measuring the noise  emitted by motor
                        vehicles as a function of the nuisance caused.
                        The panel has not progressed sufficiently for  any
                        conclusions to be drawn.   Several member states
                        are at  present studying this problem.

                    b)   Domestic appliances
                        The Commission hopes that it will soon be in  a
                        position to draw up, -with the help of national
                        experts, outline criteria for the measurement of
                        noise from these appliances with the aim  of
                        producing a test code.

                    c)   Labelling
                        This is planned for various equipment,  especially
                        jackhammers  and pneumatic drills.  The  level
                        shown  on the label  •will be the one guaranteed  by
                        the manufacturer.

               3.   Research
                    Preparations are in hand for an epidemiological survey

  of the effects of noise on sleep.

2. 8.4          Useful Data        Address and Contact Persons
               Commission Des Communautes  Europeenes Service
               de I1 environnement et de protection des  consommateurs
               Rue de la Loi 200, B-1040,  Brussels, Belgium.
               Contact:  Mr. M. Carpentier (Director)

-------        Information About Documentation Published by the Organization

               1)  Reference (2-16)..   This report was produced in response
                   to a recommendation made by the first meeting of national
                   experts on noise organized within the framework of the
                   Commission of the European Communities at Luxembourg
                   November 28-30, 1973.  At that meeting a group of
                   rapporteurs were requested to prepare a joint report
                   on the most significant effects  of noise on man.  Con
                   Consequently,  the group met in Brussels and agreed
                   to undertake the production of this report.  This report
                   stands as a scientific background  and support to document
                   number V/F/2949/74

               2)  Reference  (2-26)   was prepared  by the Secretariat in
2-8.4.3        Relations with International Organizations

               In principle the Common Market has agreed that it is  desirable
  to incorporate1 ISO measurement methods in EEC directives involving
  noise.  In practice the EEC noise measurement committees and ISO
  committees continue to have their differences in recommendations
  concerning noise measurement methodology.

                      References for  2. 1
 2-1        U.S.  Environmental Protection Agency.  Assessment
            of noise concern in other nations.   December 1971.

 2-2        ICAO.  Report on fourth meeting of the Committee
            on Aircraft Noise. ICAO 9133, CAN/4.  1975.

2-3          "Aircraft Noise:  Annex 16 to the Convention of
             International Civil Aviation", International Civil Aviation
             Organization (ICAO),  First Edition, August 1971,
             Amendment 1, April 1973, Amendment 2,  April 1974,
             Amendment 3, June 1976.

 2-4        ICAO.  Report of the special  meeting on aircraft noise
            in the vicinity of airports, Nov. 25  - Dec.  17, 1969.

 2-5        Ingerslev, G.  Acoustics and  international  standardization
            current and future activities of TC 43.  In Proceedings;
            InterNoise 76,  Washington, DC, April 5-7,  1976. p.  399-404.

 2-6        Noise Control Report, (51 ):A-14,  April 26,  1976.

 2-7        Bell,  A.  Noise. WHO Paper  No.  30. Geneva, World
            Health Organization,  1966.

 2-8        Lang, J. and G. Jansen.  The environmental health
            aspects of noise research and noise control. EURO 2631.
            Copenhagen, World Health Organization,  1970.

 2-9        World Health Organization.  Longterm programme in
            environmental pollution control in Europe,  development of
            the noise control programme. Report prepared by the
            Working Group for the Regional Office for Europe,  WHO,
            The Hague, October 5-8, 1971.


2-10       World Health Organization.  Environmental health
           criteria for noise; draft.  Paper prepared for Study-
           Group on Public Health Aspects of Community Noise,
           WHO, Geneva,  November 5-9,  1973.

2-11       Memo.  F. Green, U.S.  Environmental Protection
           Agency to W. K.  Talley, R.  Strelow, and A.  W.
           Breidenbach, EPA/ONAC, April 29, 1976.

2-12       Memo.  E. A. Cottsworth, U.S. Environmental
           Protection Agency Office of Intl. Activities,  to J.
           Schettino and R. Marrazzo, EPA/ONAC,
           February 26, 1976.

2-13       Personal communication.  World Health Organization,
           Regional Office for Europe,  Copenhagen, to Informatics
           Inc., June. 3, 1976.

2-14       Personal communication.  World Health Organization,
           Div.  of Environmental Health, Geneva, to Informatics
           Inc., June 3, 1976.

2-15         Personal communication.  Groupement des Acousticiens
             de Langue Franeaise (GALF), Department Etudes et
             Techniques d'Acoustique, CNET, to Informatics Inc.,
             June 9, 1976.

2-16         (Reference 2-16 is placed at the end of the Reference  List. )
2_17        Alexandre, A.  International organizations; unpublished
            memorandum.  Paris, OECD,  April 22, 1976.

 2-18       Personal communication.  OECD, Administrator,
            to Informatics Inc., May 24, 1976.

 2-19       Personal communication.  International Labour Office
            (ILO), Occupational Safety and Health Branch,  Working
            Conditions and Environment Department, to Informatics
            Inc., July 21, 1976.

 2-20        Manhattan Publishing Company.  Questions  and answers about
             the European community.  Washington, European Community
             Information  Service, 1973.  p.  1.

 2-21        Hay, B.  International legislation on external industrial noise.
             Applied Acoustics, 8: 133-140,  1975.

 2-22        Noel, E.  How the European community's institutions work.
             London, Commission of European Communities,  April 1973.
             12 p.

 2-23        Personal communication.  Commission of European Communities,
             Director of Service de 1'Environnement et de  la Protection
             des Consommateurs,  to Informatics Inc., January 30, 1976.

 2-24        Commission of European Communities.  Activities of the
             Commission of the European Communities concerning noise
             nuisance.  ENV/338/75-E.  1975.

 2-25        Commission of European Communities.  Europe day by day.
             Eurotorum,  4/76: 5, January 27, 1976.

2-26        Commission of the European Communities.  Elements for
             inclusion in a document on criteria and guide-levels for
             noise.   V/F/2949/74.  1974.

2-16         Bastenier, H. , W.  Klosterkoetter,  and J. B.  Large.  Damage
             and annoyance caused by noise.   Luxembourg, Commission
             of European Communities,  1974.  83 p.

3.             COMMUNITY NOISE

3. 1            What Is Community Noise?

               The environmental noise problem is a complex one

because in any setting, many different sources of noise are interacting.

For  example, a family in its living room may be exposed to its  own

noise, noise from the next apartment, and many external sources:

road traffic, aircraft overflight,  the  railroad  yard,  the air conditioner

on the next building,  and so forth.  It is  the sum of all of these external

sources that we call  community noise.  Community noise is the noise

in our outside environment, wherever that may be, and of course,

the problem  of this noise is usually worse in urban areas where  sources

are more densely packed.  Many countries have detailed programs for

dealing with  the various external sources, and we  cover these activities

source by source in the chapters that follow.   In this chapter we look

at programs that tie  noise  control of  all  of the sources into an integrated

program.  This is  usually done at the local level.  OECD experts believe

it is  done best at that level.  (3-1, p  30)  Historically such action has been

initiated at the community level,  usually  in highly  urbanized areas.

Most of the foreign communities  began their campaigns in the late

fifties or  early sixties.  However, although we focus on  situations

on the community level, there  has been a growing  trend  to recognize

that  actions at the national level are  essential  inputs to local success,

and there is  a trend for national governments,  even in federally

organized countries like the U.S., Switzerland, and Australia,

to accent more noise control responsibility.

               In general, limitations on new products and standard

road designs are best done nationally or even internationally (3-1,  p. 10)

But each locality has its  own unique noise features  and its own wishes

about how much effort it  thinks noise control is worth.  Specific programs for

community noise can proceed at both the national and local levels
(Table 3-1),  in addition to national new product limits  and the like.
           National                                     Local

National surveys of problem.                A noise  survey.

National criteria newly developed.           Integrated local plan development

National model ordinances for local use.     Regulations.

Nationally developed standard community    Organizations and funding.
noise survey methods.
                                             Monitoring of results.
          Table 3-1.  Division of Noise Control Activities between
                      Government Levels.  (Examples)
3. 2            Decision Criteria
               In this section,  the various factors affecting decisions
on community noise  regulations are discussed.  These include:

1. )  general health cause  and effect criteria; 2.)  survey results showing
degree of the local problem; and 3. ) noise standards, which are
authoritative published guidelines on noise  limits which may be
either recommendations or mandatory.

               Noise Indices

               Implicit in any statement of noise criteria or standards

is an assumption concerning  the proper noise metric or unit of


               For an additional community noise measurement,

excluding the measurement of aircraft noise,  use of the A-weighted

decibel has become standard in most countries,  although some of

Japan's regulations still  use  the phon*.

               For telescoping a time series of noise level  fluctuations

data into a single meaningful indicator for the period, the L,   **

(equivalent continuous noise level) incorporates the A-weighted

decibel and is  at present the  best candidate for a standard unit,

although the L,   ("noise  pollution level",  developed in the United

Kingdom is an alternative. (3-1,  p  7)  At present there  are still other

units being used for special situations or in various countries

(PNdB, NNI, TNI,  CNR,  L,exp, AI)  (3-4).  Although it is often

possible to convert one unit to another, such comparisons are

sometimes difficult.   Therefore,  it has been suggested that from

now on, noise  measurements be taken everywhere  in Lieq as well

as whatever other  metrics are prescribed.  (3-1,  p 24)  The following
graphics have  been included in a report issued by the Commission of

the European Communities to indicate the extent of the community reaction

to noise.
    Japanese Phon A are  usually comparable with dBA for most
    environmental noises.

    The equivalent noise level,  L,  ,  (also called the average sound

    level) is the level of a constant sound which,  in a given situation
    and time period, has  the same sound energy as does the square
    A-weighted sound pressure,  over a time period  that must be

                    COMMUNITY REACTION
                 Vigorous community action
Several threats of legal action, or
strong appeols to local officials
to stop noise
                 Widespread complaints or single
                 threat of legal action
                 Sporadic complaints
                 No reaction, although noise is
                 generally noticeable
                                     D Day
                                     A Evening
                                     B Night
Residential Urban Residual Noise
Some Prior Exposure
Windows Partially Open
No Pure Tone or Impulses
                                  - 1 - 1 - 1 - T - 1 - 1 - 1
                                45      50      55      60      65      70      75      80
                                            NORMALIZED EQUIVALENT NOISE LEVEL IN dB(A)
                              Figure 3-1.  Community Reaction to Intrusive iNoises of Many Types.
                                Source:  (3-4 page 66)


Vigorous community action     A-
Several threats of legal action,or
strong appoals to local officials
to stop noise
Widespread complaints or single  r
threat of legal action
Sporadic complaints
No reaction, although noise is    r
generally noticeable
                               DATA NORMALIZED TO:

                             Residential Urban Residual Noise

                             Some Prior Exposure

                             Windows Partially Open

                             No Pure Tone or Impulses
                                                            • •
                                      • •
                            40         50        60         70        80         90

         Figure 3-2. Community Reaction to Intensive Noises  of Many Types

                        as  a Function of the Normalized Outdoor Day/Night
                        Sound Level of the Intruding Noise,  Ln   in dB(A).

             Q 60-

             I 40-
                                 195% confidence interval
                                 jai Mean
-20 ,

-15 3

-10 o


-5  i

~2  5

                    —T	1	1	1	r
                 50        60        70        80        90
                    DAY/NIGHT AVERAGE NOISE LEVEL. Ldn IN dB(A)
                                                                  COMMUNITY REACTION

                                                                   - Vigoro js act ion
                                                                   _ Compi jints of threats
                                                                    of IGOJ! action
                                                                   - None
                     |	1	1	1	1	1	1	1
                    50        60        70        80

                       EQUIVALENT ENERGY LEVEL. Leq INdB(A)
      Figure  3-3.
                        Intercomparison  of  Various  Measures of Individual

                        Annoyance and Community Reaction  as a Function

                        of the  Day/Night  Average Noise  Level,  L ,   in dB(A)

                        and Equivalent Energy  Level, L    indB(A).

                        (3-4).            3_5

3. 2. 1         Health Criteria
              Many countries have nationally-issued positions on the

cause and effect relationships between levels of environmental noise

and adverse effects on people*.  One of the better-known ones is

the "Criteria Document"  issued by the U.S. EPA in 1973.  (3-2)

              Other  countries have similar works or have incorporated

assumptions into noise standards.

              A recent OECD study summarized the environmental

noise effects as follows:

              "Effects of Noise
               It was said that noise at the levels at which it normally
               occurs in the urban environment does not usually lead
               to any identifiable  (or significant) direct physiological
               harm.  The current medical evidence is that non-
               impulsive noise at levels below 75 dBA (Leq^ probably
               causes no lasting direct physiological damage to the
               human body.  Work by the United States Environmental
               Protection  Agency suggests there may be some very
               slight hearing loss to normal adults  in industrial  noise
               situations after ten years exposure to daily 8-hour
               continuous  levels of 75 dBA (L,eq), although a British
               Government code of practice accepts that exposures
               of up to 90  dBA over an 8-hour working day limits the
               risk of "significant"  hearing loss to  a very small
               proportion  of the exposed persons and some  experts
               do not regard traffic noise  of this level as a  risk  to
               hearing (because traffic noise does not contain very
               loud peaks).  According to  a survey  carried  out for
               the United States Environmental Protection Agency
               fewer than  10,000 people in the United States are
               exposed in  their  residential surroundings to  outdoor
               day/night average  sound levels above about 86  dBA
               (Ldn), and  fewer than 500,000  to levels above 80  dBA
   The same holds true for occupational noise,  but these criteria
   are covered in Chapter 8 on "Occupational Noise".

                 ).  Allowing for the noise attenuation provided by
             house structures, it can perhaps be  inferred that the risk
             that urban dwellers may suffer hearing damage due to
             noise exposure outside their occupational surroundings
             is probably very small, although complacency in the
             present state of knowledge could not be justified.

             Apart from direct hearing damage, noise may have
             indirect physiological and psychological effects.  Inter-
             ference with sleep typically begins to occur at levels of
             about 35  dBA.  It is not clearly established how far this
             interference, which need not  amount to prevention of or
             arousal from sleep, affects the subsequent well-being and
             performance of the sleeper.   Interference with normal
             speech communication is present  at  about 55 dBA and
             this aspect of noise intrusion contributes both to
             subjective annoyance and loss of performance.  There
             is the easily entertained suspicion that  feelings of
             severe annoyance aroused by noise may contribute to
             overall "stress" and so to stress-related conditions
             such as heart disease or mental disorders.  In this
             case direct "sound  arousal" effects are less likely
             to be more significant than subjective responses to  the
             source of the noise, e.g. feelings  that the noise could
             be more  efficiently controlled or even,  in the  case of
             aircraft noise,  fear of aircraft crashing.  "Significant"
             noises  such as  human voices  or music may be  subject-
             ively just as annoying as much louder noises of an
             inanimate kind.  It  is worth noting that, conversely,
             actual hearing  damage may result  from noise  to which
             people  voluntarily expose themselves.   Thus,  it has
             been found that industrial •workers are sometimes
             reluctant  to take measures to protect themselves
             against very severe occupational noise, and one may
             also mention the suggestion that some  amplified pop
             music may perhap's cause hearing  damage. " (3-l» P  4)
             As to the extent of the noise problem and its intensity on the
people in different countries the  same OECD reported in October  1975 the

following figures as contained in table (3-2) and figure (3-4).

!Toise T-evel
Ld in dB(A)
of Germany
United '
                                  Table 3-2 .   Percentage of Population Exposed to a Noise Level Equal to
                                               or in Excess of a Given Value.
                                  Source:  (3-4)

               , Ader Go/lowoy rl o/ / I/ : USA
                   i Cal/awa)- ct al (!) . Elotl-Unti
                      50              60
                    Outdoor Dorlime Sound L«vcf • Niwav so
Survey Results
3. 2. 2. 1      Complaints and Annoyance

             English General Community Survey (The Wilson Report)

             Virtually every survey ranked noise from surface traffic

as the most prominent single factor in the urban noise environment.

However, the figures from a 1968 British  survey (Table 3-3) show that

surface traffic  is by no means the only  source of annoyance:
Description of Noise
Road traffic
Industry/construction work
1 Dome stic /Light appliances
Neighbors' impact noise
(knocking, walking, etc. )
Adult voices
Radio /TV
Bells /alarms
Number of People 1
Annoyed Per 100 Questioned j
When at Home
When Outdoors
When at Work '
      Table 3-3.  Sources of Noise Annoyance in England.
       Source: (3-7)

              While the absolute percentages vary from community

to community,  the foregoing list is fairly typical.  The same noise

sources appear  repeatedly, augmented from time to time by sources

of particular concern in certain localities:  river boat whistles on

the Danube, motor boat exhausts  on Swiss lakes,  radios in Russian

apartment complexes,  etc.  On the question of urban vs. rural

disturbances, a clue is given by data from a poll of 1600 people

in Norway (Table  3-4).
Type of Noise
A. Noise from motor vehicles
B. Noise from aircraft
C. Noise from railroads
D. Noise from neighbors
Number of People Annoyed
Per 100 Questioned
All Questioned
Urban Rural
20 11
4 1
5 1
6 3
    Table 3-4.  Sources  of Noise Annoyance in Norway.

     Source:  (3-8)

               More recent surveys continue to confirm that road

traffic noise is the chief  factor in community annoyance (3-1, p. 8).

               The Swedish-Italian study

               The percentage of people annoyed by the same noises is

likely to vary as a function of national life style.  It is true that the

train noise annoyance studies already described coincided well for

the United Kingdom,  Japan and France.  On the other hand there is

the now-famous Swedish-Italian study.

               This comparative study with a sample population (matched

in terms of age, social, and occupational status) of 200 people in Stockholm

and 166 people in Ferrara, Italy,  came up with a statistically significant

difference -- 92% in Stockholm  versus 63% in Ferrara spontaneously

mentioned traffic noise, and 61% in Stockholm versus 43% 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.  (3-9)   See also the Japanese

and the French Train Noise Surveys in Chapter 5,  "Surface Noise" of

this report.        Noise Surveys        Noise Standards
               Besides investigating criteria, many countries have

gone one step further  and issued suggested levels of noise that

should not be exceeded if the public health and welfare  (including

freedom from annoyance for most of the population) are to be

preserved.   We shall  refer to  such levels as "environmental noise

standards" whether they are national laws or merely suggested


              Generalized desirable noise levels

              One way to express desirable levels is  in terms  of

total exposure of an observer in various  settings.   For example,

Table 3- 5 shows  desirable levels identified by the U.S. Environmental

Protection Agency, where annoyance is assessed on the basis of

speech interference.
 Table 3-5.  Noise Levels Identified by the U.S.  EPA as Requisite
             to Protect Public Health and Welfare
Hearing loss
Outdoor activity
interference and
Indoor activity
interference and
L (24) 70 dB*
L , 55 dB
L 55 dB
L , 45 dB
L 45 dB
All areas
Outdoors in residential
areas and other places
where quiet is a basis
for1 use
Outdoor areas where
people spend limited
time, e. g. playgrounds
Indoor residential
Other indoor areas
such as schools
 *On the basis of annual energy averages of daily level over
  40 years; this level makes allowance for occupational
  exposure of up to 75 dB L   (8 hours).

              A recent French compilation showed that in general,

long range target standards adopted by other countries did not disagree

with U.S. levels in Table  3-5.  At the same time,  typical existing

outdoor standards of some countries were now about 10 dBA less

stringent (equivalent to about L,eq - 65 dBA) than the long term goals,
and it was recommended that the various  existing, country standards

could and should be "standardized"  at L,,>n  = 67 dBA outdoors  and
47 dBA  indoors:
               "In the United Kingdom,  the following limits are
               prescribed: 50 NNI for airplane noise and 68  dBA
               for ground traffic noise.  The indoor noise shall not
               exceed 50 dBA,  if construction is forced in a very
               noisy zone.

               In Japan,  the limits are:  65 Leq dBA during  the
               daytime, evenings and mornings,  60 at night  for
               ground traffic noise and 70 WECPNL for aerial

               In France, N = 84 threshold is retained for aerial
               traffic and L,eq = 65 dBA ( 8:00 a.m. to 8:00 p.m.)
               threshold for ground traffic.

               Taking into account  the fact that L-eq,  LJQ and NNI
               are closely related, the  cited limits can be assumed
               identical within  2 dB error.  We propose to retain
               67 Leq in dBA as the outdoor noise level limit above
               which construction of dwellings  can be authorized
               only under special safeguards.  The indoor noise
               level indwellings should not exceed Liea = 47  dBA  "
               (3-3  p. 26  + 27)                       4

               One International Criterion

               ISO passed Recommendation 1996 in 1971.  R 1996

uses a different decision criterion for identification of noise problems

requiring action,  a criterion based on prevention of annoyance and

complaints  due to a particular source rather  than all  of the noise

sources  acting together.  The R 1996 principle has been incorporated

in some  national standards and thus passed on to localities.  Although

it  suggests  a "basic criterion"  of 35 to 45 dBA (Leq) outdoors in

residential  areas,  in essence,  its principle is that if  a contemplated

new source will not produce noise more than  10 dB greater than  the

sum of all the  existing sources, widespread complaintR are not to

be expected in spite of what the new level may be.   (3-11,  p. 8)  It is

clear that while this method is  useful for complaint prediction, it is

not suitable as a noise standard,  for  if this principle  alone was

used without any absolute limits in addition, there would be nothing

to prohibit  community  noise levels  from increasing indefinitely.

A  creeping  (gradually increasing) background level would be possible.
3. 3            Direct Regulations
3.3.1          National
               Some national land zoning schemes have legal force.

See Table 3-5.

               Finally,  source emissions regulations imposed at the

national level (or for Common Market countries,  potentially the

international level),  may be a contribution to community noise

programs on the one hand and a limitation on the  other.  There

                                                           TABLE 3_6
                     Comparative Table of Noise Emission Standard Values in Federal Republic of Germany
                                     and Selected European and Non-European Countries
                        Note:    As of now -we have no specific laws for Belgium, Denmark, France, Holland and Norway,
                                though noise abatement provisions are available in these countries  at local levels,
                                i.e. police regulations)
Existing laws and
regulations, in force since:
Federal Republic (L )

BIm Sch G (formerly
Gewerleordnung) 1974
TA noise 1968
VDI 2058 - 1960/73
AW constr. noise 1970
(emission like TA noise)
Great Britain (L )
BS 4142 (1967)
Industry: in preparation,
similar to BS 4142
Austria (L )
OAL directive 3
Bl. 1 - 1972
95% of OAL dlr. 3
Bl. 1 - 1972
Industrial Area


, 70







Mixed Area









Residential Area








40 rural
50 urban


Criteria for establishing a
standard or issuing a regulation

1. Avoidance and local acceptance
versus noise.
2. Existing level of technology.
3. Exceeding the level up to 20 dBA.
4. No regulation on zoning; traffic
noise and sound propagation are
not taken into account.

1. Consideration for traffic.

2. Older workshops have noise
levels higher by 10 dBA
(85/75 dBA)
1. Consideration for traffic.
2. Indoor values are lower by 5 dBA
with open windows, by 15 dBA
with close windows (3 and 4)

OJ .

                                                       Table 3-6 (Continued)

Existing laws and
regulations, in force since!
Sweden ( L )
Environmental Protection
Law 1969
Switzerland (L )
Laws (Industry):
SN norm 1956
205-56 ff
SN norm 1965
USA - New Jersey only (L )
Noit>e Contrul Law for
Industry & Construction 1968
Note: Japanese limits are nc
and high levels (> 50 d


1 Area

Mixed Area
Day Night


;ntial Area

"sanitary safety
zone" : day = fc>0;
night = 50

>t exact c(
BA) phon
50 rural
60 urban
day = b 5
junterpar t
(A) and B

night = 55
o5-t>0 55-50
s tor dBA limitt
A are roughly e^.

but to
35 suburb
60 rural
50 urban

r mode rale

Criteria for establishing a
standard or issuing a regulation
Rules laid down from case to case
(level of technology).
1. Consideration for traffic.
2. Permissible day/night peaks, in
certain cur cums tances, higher
by 10 dBA
1. Mrict zoning.
2. Sanitary zones around industrial
complexes .
3. Following the ISO TC-43.
4. Ruling from case to case (level
of technology).
5. Consideration for traffic.
ii. i'urnussible peaks higher by 25 dBA
Only OIK.' level for 1 lie day and one
for the night time.
1 . Strut zoning .
2. Consideration for traffic.


                                                         Table 3-6  (Continued)
Existing laws and
regulations, in force since:
ISO (L, )
ISO R1996



il Area








ential Area


Criteria for establishing a
standard or issuing a regulation
1. Consideration for traffic.
2. Departs from basic values of
35 or 45 dBA allowing for traffic
and industrial noise and deducing
10-15 dBA for night time.
3. For noise levels lasting less than
56 percent of the total, lower
limits are proposed.
4. Noise peaks may exceed not more
than 30 dBA.

may be a limitation if they prempt localities who desire  to enforce
source noise limits stricter than the national ones.

3.4            Other Government Actions
3. 4. 1          National
               One example of non-regulatory contributions from the
national government to community noise programs is the criterion
developed on the national level for local use.  This topic has been
covered in a preceding section.  There are  also other national
non-regulatory actions.

               Model building codes
               Model ordinances
               Helping •with measurement methods for enforcement
               Environmental Impacts Statement Process.


3-1          OECD,  Environment Directorate.  Strategies for urban
             noise abatement:  an overview.  Paris, OECD,  1975.  35 p.

3-2          U.S.  Environmental Protection Agency.  Public health
             and welfare criteria for noise.   July 1973.

3-3          Decision criteria.  Draft paper prepared by the French
             delegation to the Ad Hoc Group on Noise Abatement Policies,
             OECD,  Paris,  February 1976.

3-4          Commins, D. E.  and L. J. Schreiber.  Tentative assessment
             of the number of people exposed to varying noise levels
             in seven OECD countries.  OECD Environment  Committee
             Ad Hoc  Group on Noise Abatement Policies,  Paris, October 1,

3-5          Dominique, A.  Enquete acoustique et sociologique
             permettant de definir une  echelle de la gene  eprouvee
             par 1'homme dans son logement du fait des bruits de train
             (Acoustic and sociological survey to define a scale of
             annoyance felt by people in their homes due to train noise).
             BEN/TIE 88.  Paris,  Centre Scientific et Technique du
             Batiment,  June  1973.

3-6          Schultz, T. J.   Community noise ratings.  London,
             Applied Science Publishers Ltd. , 1972.

3-7          Wilson,  A. ,  ed.  Noise; final report of the Committee on
             the Problem of Noise.  London, Her Majesty's  Stationary
             Office,  1963.

3-8          Aftenposten, Oslo, July 22,  1968.

3-9          Jonsson, E. ,  A.  Kajland, and S.  Sorensen.  Annoyance
             reactions to traffic noise in Italy  and Sweden; a comparative
             study.   Archives of Environmental Health, 19(11):  692-699,

3-10         U.S. Enviornmental Protection Agency.  Information
             on levels of environment noise requisite to protect public
             health  and welfare.  March 1974.

3-11         International Standards Organization.  ISO recommendation
             1996 for assessment of noise with respect to community
             response.  May 1971.

3-12         Easterner, H. , W.  Klosterkoetter,  and J.  B. Large.
             Damage and annoyance caused by noise.  Luxembourg,
             Commission of European Communities, 1974,,  83 p.


            This section deals with noise control approaches other than

source reduction of the  noise from aircraft itself, which  is presently

being addressed chiefly at the international level by ICAO (see Section

2. 1).

            This section will cover such abatement topics strategies
            4. 1    Evaluation (Decision Criteria)

            4. 1. 1  Criteria for  evaluating the effect of noise around

            4. 1.2  Noise monitoring systems for airports

            4.1.3  Estimates of numbers of people exposed

            4. 2    Regulations

            4.2. 1  Operational patterns (takeoff and landing procedures).

            4. 2. 2  Curfews

            4.2.3  Banning or limiting certain types

            4. 3    Other Measures

            4.3. 1  Noise taxes incorporated  in landing fees.

            4.3.2  Zoning  near  airports.

            4.3.3  Purchase of  houses to create


            Aircraft noise poses a major environmental problem primarily

near major airports. The most impact is felt in residential communities

exposed to aircraft flyovers during takeoff and landing operations.  The

implications of this phenomenon are extremely complex especially in

industrial  countries with heavy air transport.

            In their attempt to control or decrease  the effect of aircraft

noise near airports different countries have taken different approaches

and measures ranging from operational to zoning plans.  It is  the purpose

of this  section of the report to examine the extent of this  noise problem

and to explore the different measures and plans  undertaken by various

countries to deal with this  issue.

4. 1         Evaluation (Decision Criteria)

4. 1. 1      Criteria For Evaluating The Effect Of Noise Around Airports

            Criteria for evaluating the effect of noise around airports

has been made according to certain circumstances  which are  consequently

different.   To present an overview of various approaches to aircraft

noise assessment,  some criteria are  presented.  In Sweden,  for instance,

(4-1)   the Swedish criteria for airport noise was presented in 1961  by

a governmental investigation named "Flygbuller som samhallsproblem"

(Aircraft noise as a social problem).  The criteria given in this investigation

is called "critical noise limit",  CNL.

            In the Netherlands (4-2.)  the extent of the aircraft noise

problem is assessed by computing the noise contours around all existing

airfields for various noise-load values and by subsequently computing the

number of houses, schools, hospitals,  etc. within these contours.  The

noise-load contours are expressed in so called Kosten-Units (KE);


these units were developed during a 6-year study in the mid-sixties
and are closely related to the Noise and Number Index, used in the UK.
Input data for the computations are based on the results of monitoring
stations around the main airfields and a recent investigation of the noise
characteristics of the military aircraft in use as well as on the flight
           More than 5% of the total land area is subjected to  a noise
load of 40 KE or more (corresponding with an Ldn 60 dBA), which is
considered to be the maximum allowable noise load for new housing
           The impact of aircraft noise  on people is assessed by using
the results of aircraft noise surveys.  The main survey was performed
around Schiphol airport  in 1963 but additional  surveys  and checks are
regularly being made.
           In Romania aircraft noise is  determined by the effective
perceived noise level  (EPNL) in units of  EPNdB.  In the United Kingdom
noise standards take  into account any  pure tones and also  the length of
time for which the highest noise levels are experienced.   Accordingly
they also are expressed in terms  of EPNL.  Meanwhile social  surveys
around Heathrow have shown that the daytime  annoyance caused by air
traffic depends on both the maximum perceived noise level (PNL) in units
of PNdB and  also the number of aircraft  heard during a given period.  The
so-called  noise and number  index (NNI) combines both these quantities.
Where traffic at  a particular civil airport is busy enough for the setting
up of an insulation grant-aid scheme covering nearby dwellings,  the
entitlement under it corresponds generally with the 55 NNI contour.

           In Switzerland, aircraft noise is generally evaluated with
the NNI.   NNI curves have been developed for the large civil airports in
the cities  of  Zurich, Geneva and Basel.   About 4, 000 people were inter-
viewed during 1971 and 1972 on the subject of  noise annoyance  in the
airport regions of Zurich, Basel and Geneva and valuable results were
made out of that  survey.  South Africa, through the South African Bureau
of Standards  (SABS) has  developed its own national  standard codes of
practice for measurement and assessment of aircraft noise at  airports.

               Table 4-1  gives an overview of the different criteria and
assessment measures of aircraft  noise at airports  in different countries.
Noise and number
Indices de
Annoyance index
Noisiness index
Noise exposure
exposure level
Wx* 15 10g N - *
d/«0 log d/T) rT 10" Q(t)-dt
Ep,rm - 16 + 10 log (N/960)
^max + 5 log £
10 log 2 10 L™Da*/1°
10 log £{K2 (t/T)lO A ]
L /15
20 log 2(k.10 ) - 106
10 log SlO^™71^ 10



               Table  4-1.    Some National Aircraft Noise Exposure Indices,

              Source (4-34)
1.  The value of °^ and the choice of the measure Q (t) are  left free
   but in practice the former is take to be 1/13.3 and the latter to be
               2.   C, is the annual  average runway utilization factor.

               3.  K  is a time-of-day factor,  1 from 08.00 to 18.00 hrs.

               4.  k is a time-of-day factor, the same as K2 in the South African

4.1.2       Noise Monitoring Systems

            The act of monitoring automatically constrains the aircraft
into  some kind of maneuver in order  to comply. Microphones are
stationed at certain distances from the end of the runways  representative
of community/airport interface regions.  The purpose of the microphones
is to monitor the aircraft noise on take-off,  since  it is considered to be
the main source of noise disturbance.  To achieve the noise  level standard
most aircraft have to reduce engine thrust over the monitoring positions
which also means thai a re-application of power is necessary some time
later.   Of course, variations in the perceived effects of noise levels
exist according to day, evening,  and night take-offs.  Monitoring was
first used at London and New York.
            The second approach, and the  one adopted, at most major
European airports,  is based upon the estimated performance of a
particular  aircraft type or class  of airplanes.  Noise levels  are set
from this performance data, and the  monitoring positions measure and
record  the actual levels.
            The third system, is one just being initiated by  the State of
California.   This is  the most comprehensive,  and consequently the
most complex to implement, and includes  the concept of single flight
monitoring,  and the  monitoring of a noise  impact boundary-   (4-5)

            Presently, there are a number of monitoring systems in

operation around the world.  Most systems are  automatic  and

computerized.  When an aircraft exceeds  the threshold noise  level,

it is identified and data is presented through  an automatic print-out

of the results which gives the maximum level of noise.  In this respect

besides mentioned cities, a short survey of countries seems necessary.

            Aircraft  noise monitoring exists  at the following airports

in France:  Orly,  Charles de Gaulle, Nice-Cote d'Azur,  Bordeaux-

Merignac and Toulouse-Blagnac.

            Swiss airports have noise monitoring systems to assure

that individual aircraft do not make excessive noise.   The noise limits

are based upon statistical distribution of typical flyovers.  Warnings

are issued to violators,  and if an aircraft is  repeatedly noisy,  the

airport authorities confer with the respective airlines.  Geneva and

Zurich use  monitoring installations of the Hewlett-Packard type.


            In West Germany  all the international airports  are required

to maintain monitoring systems.  Frankfort is the  only airpott which

assesses a  penalty against the airline that violates the noise standard.

            A monitoring system for  aircraft noise is working at

Arlanda,  Sweden, and a  similar  system will  be installed  at Landvetter,

the  new airport in Gothenberg, which will be  opened in 1977.  Regular

monitoring  of aircraft noise is also carried out at fixed and mobile


            Mobile noise measurement vans are operated in Canada

in the vicinity of the  Toronto and Montreal airports.  In other regions

inspectors take isolated  readings  with portable meters. (4-7)

Mobile  and fixed monitoring systems are also carried out at major

airports in Australia.

            Japan's experiment with aircraft noise monitoring systems

is rather interesting since it operates according to a time zoning.

With two and five noise' monitoring towers installed in the vicinity of

Tokyo and Osaka International  Airport,  respectively, aerodrome

officials in charge work at the  central observation station at each of

the aerodrome to supervise the enforcement of various sorts of control

measures  for noise reduction and also record the data on noises.

            At Osaka International Airport,  under the above-mentioned

noise supervision system, regulated noise  levels of the noise volume

classified by the time zone •were  established in February, 1970 on the

basis of noise  levels measured at the  noise  monitoring tower installed

in the Kushiro Primary School located about 2. 4 kilometers northwest

of the airport.  The airport authority has taken measures to prohibit such

flights that threaten to cause the  noise above the established, regulated

noise levels as shown in Table 4-2.
Time zone       6:30-7:00    7:00-2:00   20:00-22:30   22:30-6:30

Noise intensity      100       107       100 (107 in        75
(phons)                                  the case of
 Table 4-2.  Noise Levels time - zones at Osaka International Airport.
             Source:  (4-8)

            As a result of the enforcement of these measures,  aircraft

 for international service departing from this aerodrome have become

 subject to limitations on their "takeoff" weights and so,  they have

 now been restricted by flying distance  (4-8).

             Concerning the noise monitoring system, of the Heathrow
 airport in London, the following diagram gives an idea of the present
 and the proposed monitoring positions around  that airport.

 Figure 4-1.  Proposed and Existing Monitoring at Heathrow Airport,
                     Existing monitors.
                     Proposed monftorir
                   A Alternative at 5 mi les.
* Proposed monitoring positions at 7 miles.
             Source:  (4-8,  p.  15)

 4.1.3      Estimates of People Exposed to Aircraft Noise
            Although  aircraft noise  is not the largest source  of noise
 nuisance,  it affects a significant proportion of  the population.  The
following table 4-3 gives a general estimation of number of people affected
by sources of noise among which aircraft noise-

112 million
5 million
74 million
(intermittent exposure)
-not known yet-
Percent Population

Table 4-3.  People Exposed to High Environmental Noise Levels
Note:  High Environmental Noise Level is not defined in the source.

Source:  (4-10)

4. 2. 1       Operational Patterns (takeoff and landing procedures)

            An important element in noise control is to reduce the noise
output of an airplane during a takeoff or landing maneuver, particularly
over areas  of high population density.  In an attempt to minimize the
effect  of aircraft noise, a variety of operational procedures,  in this
respect, have been introduced around the world.  Different measures
and regulations have been made corresponding to certain elements
existing at each particular airport.  An overview of the different
approaches some countries have made is presented.
            Japan has  taken  different operational countermeasures to
combat against aircraft noise.  At Tokyo International Airport for
instance, a measure was  put forth to make all aircraft takeoff and land
on the side of the sea between 10 a.m. and 7 p.m.  Additionally,
other  countermeasures for improvement of aircraft operation systems
are now in effect.   The noise reduction climbing system (the cutback

system) is designed to make  the aircraft restrict its engine
power over densely-populated areas.   This system is now in

effect at Osaka International  Airport.  (4-8,  p  7)
            Preferential runways for takeoff or landing of aircraft are

specified to make aircraft takeoff or landing in areas less  affected by

aircraft noise.  This system is presently in effect at Tokyo and Osaka

International Airport and Matsuyama Airport .  (4-8, p  S)

            The Canadian Minister of Transport has specified noise

abatement procedures for the operation of aircraft in the vicinity of

the international airports at Vancouver, Edmonton, Winnipeg,  Toronto,

Ottawa,  Montreal/Dorval.
            London Heathrow has the so-called minimum noise routes

for aircraft taking off.  There are  also preferential runway systems in
operation in Zurich,  Switzerland and Amsterdam (Schiphol), Netherlands.

Canadian Ministry of Transport is  considering the possibility of

restriction of specified runways at some airports for usage only by
quieter aircraft.   (4-7, p  2-4)

            As for Switzerland,  a special instruction was issued on
March 27, 1975,  concerning  "low drag-low power"  technique of landing
in order to reduce noise nuisance in the approach zones  of airports.
The text reads:

            During descent on IFR  and VFR approaches an optimum clean
            configuration "low drag-low power" should be maintained
            as long as  possible, i.e., landing gear,  flaps, etc. should
            be extended as  late as possible.

            Furthermore,  cruising rmp should be maintained as  long as
            possible  in the  case of  aircraft equipped with variable pitch
            propellers .

            Daring ILS approaches  the speed should be reduced on
            glidepath by extending gear and setting flaps  gradually;
            however, when passing "Outer Marker" at the latest
            (in VMC at 500 FT AGL at the latest),  landing configuration
            and proper approach speed should be established.

            During visual approaches the final approach should be
            carried out at an angle  of not less than 3° .  (4-6 p  2)
            This "low drag-low power" policy was introduced for the

Swiss airports in compliance with the International Civil Aviation

Organization (ICAO)  recommendations (AN 1/54.3 - 73/2ZO)  of January
11, 1974,  (4-15)
            The Swiss government intends to  re-examine the existing

regulations on noise  abatement for piston-engine aircraft with a takeoff

weight of up to 5, 700 kg             For aircraft with a heavier take-
off weight, the standards established by the ICAO have been applied

since 1972 .   (4-9, p  2)

4. 2. 2       Curfews
            Countermeasures against civil aircraft noise in some  airports

are in the form of curfews aimed at prohibiting the takeoff and landing of
airplanes during certain hours  (usually at night).
            The Japanese  government has taken a measure towards

"prohibiting takeoff and landing of jet aircraft betweeen 11 p.m. and

6 a.m." at Tokyo International Airport in effect from December of

1962, and at Osaka International Airport in effect from November of

1965.  Concerning Osaka International Airport the government took

action to prohibit takeoff and landing of all aircraft,  except for

propeller-driven "midnight" mail planes between 10  p.m.  and 7 a.m.
(4-8,  p  6)


            In Germany,  the airports have a partial curfew generally

between 10  or 11 p.m.  and 6 a.m.  Swiss airports maintain restrictions

from 10 p.m. to 6 a.m.  When granting authorization for  takeoff and

landings of  power-driven aircraft between 10 p.m. and 6 a.m. ,  utmost

restraint will be exercised regardless of  the number of movements.

Non-schedule commercial flights are restricted for movement at

Zurich  between the hours of 10 p.m.  and  12:30, and for landings between

10 p.m. and 12 midnight.   (4-6, p  3)

4. 2. 3      Banning or Limiting Certain Types of Airplanes

            Certain types of airplanes are either banned completely from

operation or are operated only on a limited basis  determined by time,

zones,  or other factors.  Due  mainly to the noise effect on the environ-

ment many  countries enacted regulations  to prohibit planes flying sonic

or supersonic flights.

            Jet aircraft has been prohibited from  landing or taking  off

between 11  p.m.. and 6 a.m. at Tokyo International Airport since

December 1962, and at Osaka  International Airport since  November

1965.  (4-6, p. 6)

            Supersonic flights  are forbidden over  Swiss air space,

pursuant to Paragraph 14 of the Federal Law On Air  Navigation,  as

of January  1, 1974.  Federal regulation also forbids  flying the SST

in Switzerland and  it is not certain that SST aircraft would ever  be

permitted to land in Switzerland even at subsonic  speed.

            In Canada pursuant to regulations issued  on September  13

and  October 1972,  no person can operate  a  civil aircraft in sonic or

supersonic  flight unless authorization has been received from the

Minister of Transport.  (4-7,  p. 2-4)

           Swedish authorities, for noise consideration,  do not allow

certain airplane models to land at Swedish airports.  Also,  for the

same reason SST's are not allowed to fly at supersonic  speed over

Swedish territory.   (4-11).        The same negative attitude against

supersonic flights also prevails  in the  Netherlands.

4. 3         Other Measures
4. 3. 1       Noise Taxes  Incorporated In Landing Fees

            Some countries  impose taxes on aircraft taking certain

routes in landing or taking off.  An example of this measure presently

exists at Charles de Gaulle  and Orly Airports in France.   According to

the Decree of February 13,  1973, a tax was imposed  on air transport

companies which was passed over to travellers using these routes.  It

was easier to collect taxes this way than to tax  companies  in direct

proportion to the decibel level produced by their planes.   Taxation by

decibel level per company is being studied.  (4-12)

4.3.2       Zoning Near  Airports

            Noise zones have been established in the vicinity of airports

in many countries.  In each zone, the land use is specifically prescribed

in certain regulations and the noise  level to each zone is usually

determined by different surveys.  The following survey of  some countries

will give an overview to what is being done  in the area of noise zoning

around airports.


           Based on the NNI-Curves,  noise zones have been established
in the vicinity of the national airports.  In each zone, the land use is
specifically prescribed in a federal regulation.  The respective NNI
limits were confirmed by a large-scale sociological survey undertaken
in Switzerland .   (4-9)

           Federal Republic of Germany

           In order to protect  the public  against the effects of jet-
aircraft noise, the Gesetz zum Schutz  gegen Fluglaerm (Air Traffic
Noise Control Act) has been enacted in April 1971.  As a result, two
zones of noise around jet airports (civil as well as military ones) have
been specified.  In zone 1 the equivalent noise  level (L  ) is higher than 75 dBA
while in zone 2 the noise level is between 75 dBA and 67 dBA.  Noise at
night is judged more serious than during the day.  The zones are being.
calculated using complex procedures which include,  among other factors, the
types of aircraft using the airport and the routes.  The zoning is based
upon the estimated traffic result in 1981.  There are several  regulations
as to these zones:  no homes or apartment buildings can be built in
zone 1.  People who already live there can get up to 100  DM per m^
(approximately 3. 5  $/ft ) of  their home for measures to protect them
against noise (improved windows, doors, etc.  ).  In zone 2 all newly
constructed buildings have to be specially modified to protect against
noise.   No hospitals,  schools,  homes  for the elderly, or the like  are
allowed to be built there.  So far about half of  the jet airports have
officially been assigned noise zones  of this nature .   (4-13)


           1)   The Bucharest-Optopeni Airport region was zoned

as a function of the value of the weighted equivalent continuous  perceived

noise level (WECPNL) in the  following manner:

           --   zone  I   WEPNL >  90

           --   zone  II  80    <  WECPNL  <  90

           --   zone  III WECPNL <  80

           2)   All inhabited  regions  in the  vicinity of Bucharest-Otopeni

Airport are located in acoustic protection zone III .  (Figure 4-2)
           Figure 4-2.  Noise zones in the Bucharest-Optopeni
                        Airport, Romania.

           Source:  (4-14)


            The Prime Minister's circular from July 30, 1973 establishes

the principles of housing development in the area of airports.   The  idea

is to restrict the construction of dwellings  in zones which are, or will

be in the near future,  exposed to excessive noise levels. Of particular

concern are  wayside and riverside communities  near Charles de Gaulle and

Orly Airports.   (4-12)
             Pursuant to Article 9 of the Basic Law for Environmental

 Pollution Control Measures, Environment Agency Notification of  December

 27,  1973 was issued establishing the following measures to control noise

 around Japanese airports according to the following standards and within

 this time schedule   contained i-i the following Table  (4-4).
 Table 4-4.  Environmental Quality Standards for Aircraft
              Based on Article  9,  Basic Law for Environmental
              Pollution Control Measures.
              Environment Agency Notification, December 27,
              Category of Area

Standard Value (in WECPNL)

       70 or less dB
       75 or less
             	I. J_|. I    I  - - IT	~-	'	      -- • •• -•• I — -n. . -... — ..	  	' ~~  .   --,--_
              Note; Prefectural governor shall designate the category of area
                   Area category I stands for the area for  exclusively
                   residential use and area category  II for other area where
                   normal living conditions should be reserved.
                   WECPNL = dB(A) + 10  log •
                                       i o
     - 27
                   Note:  dB(A) stands for energy means of all peak level of
                   any one day,  and K stands for a value calculated by the
                   following equation:  N   KZ + 3X3 + 10(Ni + XL), where Nj
                   is the number of aircraft between 0:00 a.m. and 7:00 a.m.,
                   N3 the number between 7:00 p.m. and 10:00 p.m., and Ni, Che
                   number between 10:00 p.m. and 12:00 p.m..
                   "N~ is the  number between 7:00 am and 7:00 pm"

                	Target for  performance of standards
   Airport Categories
Target Dates^
Inprovement Goals
   Airport  to be built
   in future

   Existing Airports
     Third  clo.»» and
     equivalent airport
     Second calss airports
     except Fukuoka Airport (A)
     d.o.   (B)
     New Tokyo  International
     First c|«»5 airports
     (excepting New Tokyo
     International Airport)
     and Fukuoka Airport


Within five years

Within yen years

As soon as  possible
within ten  years or
Within five years to attain
less than  85 WECPNL (or 65
WECPNL or  less indoors in areas
exceeding  85 SECPNL)
   Within  five years to attain
   less  85 WECPNL (or 65 WECPNL
   or less indoors in areas
   exceeding 85 WECPNL)

   Within  ten years to attain
   less  than 75 WECPNL (or 60
   WECPNL  or less indoors in
   areas exceeding 75 WECPNL)
   1.  "Existing'1 airports are those existing on the  date of establishment of the en-
      vironmental quality standards.
   2.  Airports of category B of  second class are those where there are regular corcner-
      cial  landings and take-offs  of aircrafts equiped with turbo-jet engines, and
      category A mean the other.
   3.  The dates indicated in Table 2 are to be counted from the date of establishment
      of  the  environmental quality standards.
                        Source:  (4-15)
              The Minister of Transport has calculated NEF contours for

Canadian airports.   These  are used by the Central Mortgage and Housing

Corporation to determine whether or not proposed dwellings  near  airports

may be financed  under the National Housing Act .   (4-7)

4.3.3      Purchase of Houses to Create Buffer Zones and/or
            Subsidizing of "Soundproofing" of Homes

            Countermeasures against civil aircraft noise were first taken

in the form of measures to regulate aircraft operation such as the

prohibition of midnight takeoff and landing.  However,  with the heavy

increase  in aircraft transportation and with the introduction of new

aircraft such types of jets, it became  necessary to take further measures

to install soundproofing to homes in the vicinity of an airport or even to
purchase them.

            In Japan  (4-8,  p   9) pursuant  to the Aircraft Noise Prevention

Law, the Minister of Transport embarked on legislation regarding measures

to compensate for troubles caused by the  aircraft noise and in August,

1967, the Aircraft Noise Prevention Law  was established and put in  force.

           Actual results  of  these compensation measures and the

budget is  included in Table  (4-5)

           In the Netherlands a pilot-soundproofing project involving

some 500 houses is now being carried out in the Schiphol Airport area

in connection with social surveys before and after  the installation of  an

additional sound insulation  (4-lu)    User changes are forseen to finance
soundproofing and rehabilitations.







>^_ Fiscal
_ ,- 	 year
Type of ^^-^_'
tarect ^ ~-^
(l) Noise insulation
School, number

Hospital, number

Public utilization

Private houses

(2)Measures for TV
reception, number
of households

[3) Compensation for

Land, ha.

.Structure, number

¥100 million
l)Noise insulation
School, number
Hospital, number
Public utilization
Private house,
2) Compensation for
Land, ha.
Structure, number
¥100 million
1967 1968 1969 1970 1971 1972 1973"' Total
v •

14 17 29 51 57 91 117 376
(7) (14) (26) (40) (49) (70) (84) (290)
1 12 4
(1) ( 1) ( 2) ( 4)
2 2 5 11 13 20 31 84
(2) (2) (5) (11) (13) (19) ( 27) ( 79)

400 400
(300) (300)
- 107,300139,300246,600
(85, 000X85,000) (170,000) .

- 0.59 1-3 4.53 5.59 12-01
(0.59) (1.3) (4. 53) (2. 84) ( 9-26)
- 6 70 2 110 188
( 6) (70) ( 2) (100) (178 )

3.0 5.3 10.0 18.0 30.8 58.1 110.3 235.5
(2.4) (4.1) ( 7.5)(14.4) (27.8) (50.8) (88.1) (195.1)

3 9 6 10 28
1 1
4 6 10

76 252 380 708

42.7 49-4 50.6 32.7 50 225.4
1 - 37 44 61 48 50 240
7.1 11.1 17.5 14.0 27.7 77.4

Notes:  (1)* 1983's figures arc estimated ones
       (2)  Figures in paranthcsco for specific aerodromes provided by the
           Government are those for environs of Osaka International Airport.

       (3)  One million Yen (¥) is approximately equal to $3333  U.S.

                                Table 4-5

          Actual Results of Noise Insulation and Compensation
           For Noises in the  Vicinity of Aerodromes in Japan
                               Source:  (4-8,  p.  23)


4.4         Helicopters

            Helicopter aircraft noise has received attention in some

countries while others have already taken measures to control  it.

            Thus, in Switzerland,  since September 19, 1975, a special

working  group has been  studying the problem of noise emission standard-

ization for helicopters,  following the policies of an overall reduction of

aircraft  noise for every type of aircraft.  Although helicopter noise has

presented no specific noise problem, Switzerland already has strict

rules on helicopter traffic in residential zones.   These permit landings

only for  emergency  delivery of patients to hospitals.

            In the Netherlands, no specific rules for helicopter noise
exist.  However, helicopter noise  is  a growing concern,  especially in

view of the rapid industrial development in the North Sea area where

helicopters  perform an important transport and  communication role.

            In South Africa, helicopter operations  are

tentatively controlled and restricted where necessary  pending the

development of accurate techniques for noise zoning.  (4-4)


4-1          Blomberg, G. Arlanda Airport,  noise situation now and in
             the future.  Bromma, Aeronautical Research Institute of Sweden,
             October 1972.

4-2          Personal communication.  Ministerie Volksgezonheid en
             Milieuhygiene, Netherlands, to Informatics Inc., December 30,
             1975.  Response to questionnaire.

4-3          United Kingdom contribution.  Paper prepared by the United
             Kingdom delegation to the  Ad Hoc Group on Noise Abatement
             Policies,  OECD, Paris, Nov.  3,  1975.  8 p.

4-4          Personal communication.  National Mechanical Engineering
             Research Institute  of South African Council for Scientific
             Industrial Research,  to Informatics Inc., January 28, 1976.

4-5          Large, J.  B.  Ground monitoring of aircraft noise.  Southampton,
             Institute of Sound and Vibration Research,  Univ.  of Southampton.

4-6          Office Federal de  1'Air.  Noise abatement  by means of  a special
             approach procedure.   Aeronautical Information Circular,
             March 27,  1975.

4-7          Canada Ministry of the Environment, Environmental Protection
             Service.   Canadian environmental noise control.  Ottawa,
             Ontario,  Oct. 1975.

4-8          Report on countermeasures against civil aircraft noises.
             Ministry of Transport, Noise Abatement Division,  Civil
             Aviation Bureau,  Japan, September 1973.   p. 6-7.

4-9          Personal communication. Luftamt,  Bern,
             to Informatics Inc., February 13, 1976.

4-10         Large,  J. B.  Aircraft Noise Generation and Seduction.
             In_ Lecture Series No. 77, Institute of Sound and Vibration
             Research, Univ.  of Southampton.

4-11         Personal communication.  Swedish Environmental Protection
             Agency, to Informatics Inc.,  February 1976.

4-12         Noise abatement  policies in France.  Paper prepared by
             French delegation to the Ad Hoc Group on Noise Abatement
             Policies, OECD,  Paris, November 4, 1975.  14 p.

4-13         Noise abatement  policy in Federal Republic of  Germany.
             Paper prepared by the German delegation to the Ad Hoc Group
             on Noise Abatement Policies, OECD,  Paris,  November 5,
             1975.  11 p.

4-14         Costescu, M. ,  C. Gherghel,  and A. Curtoglu.  Aircraft noise
             in the region of the Bucharest-Ogopeni Airport. Bucharest,
             ICSPM and Tarom.

4-15         Hasimoto, M.  Present status of noise regulations and control
             in Japan.  In_ Proceedings; InterNoise 75, Sendai,  Japan,
             August 27-29, 1975.   p. 10.

4-16         Personal communication.  Ministry Van Volksgezonheid  en
             Milieuhygiene, to Informatics Inc., February 1976.

4-17         Easterner,  H. , W.  Klosterkoetter  and J. B. Large.  Damage
             and annoyance caused by noise.  Luxembourg,  Commission
             of the European Communities, 1975.  p. 59. '


             The disturbing effects of transportation noise have become

a major environmental problem.  The intensity of the problem  is more

noticeable in urbanized areas where the rapid growth of different types

of transportation has resulted in traffic noise  as a social problem.

             Man, in his struggle against this  problem, has used different

ways  and  means to assess  the extent of  its detrimental effects on human

health and also  has utilized different measures in an attempt to reduce,

abate or control noise  and  its consequences on the human environment.

The purpose of  this chapter is to explore the methodologies  used by other

countries to develop  criteria for the noise problem and to assess various

technical  measures,  actions,  remedies, laws, or regulations undertaken

to bring noise limits to a reasonable level.

5. 1          Decision  Criteria
5. 1. 1        Decision Criteria - Road Traffic

             As the foundation of any regulatory action, it is critical that

legislative bodies of governments be provided with information regarding

the quantitative basis of traffic noise regulation, required noise standards,

noise reduction levels and technical and economical feasibility of such

noise control actions.

-------      Assessing Noise Levels

             Assessing Single Vehicles - Measurement

             To assess noise levels of single vehicles, a number of

countries have used different means to develop several scales for assessing

noise emitted by motor vehicles.  In the process, many elements have

been taken into  consideration such as environmental,  technological  and

economical feasibility.  Other factors  relating to the  size, weight,  speed,

structure, and type of  vehicle are also weighed.   Together with surveys,

research and tests, correlations have  been established to assess and

determine the extent and limit of noise from single motor vehicles.

             The ISO standard for measurement of noise has been widely

adopted by many countries.  With the exception of one Swiss stationary

test, virtually all foreign regulations use the ISO reference test ISO R-362,

adopted in February 1964, as  a measurement standard.  This method

is designed to measure noise from all  types  of motor  vehicles.  The

acceleration test, at full throttle from a stated running condition,  is designed

to measure the  "highest noise level consistent  with normal driving".

The principle difference between ISO-362 and the U.S. SAE standards is

that the SAE measuring distance  is double that of the ISO distance.

(R-362 is 7.5 m or about 25 ft. and SAE is 50  ft. from the center line

of travel of the vehicle).

             Among  the other differences, the most important is the

way the running condition is stated:  A condition of SAE J-366 is speed

at the end point  of the measurement area,  whereas the ISO R-362 method

limits the initial speed before acceleration to a maximum of 50 km/hr.

(31 mph), but sets no explicit limit on  speed at the end point of the

measurement area.  However,  in practice, the selection of an intermediate
 There is also a stationary test.  See next page.

                                 —) ~~ L-i

gear speed makes it unlikely that the final speed would ever be in the

range where tire noise would become significant.

             Another  difference is  that whereas J-366 specifically is

designed to  produce maximum noise by insuring that acceleration while

the vehicle is in the measurement area proceeds  to maximum rated

engine rpm, the ISO method will not get the engine  to maximum rated

rpm in every case.  ISO R-362 is due to be revised soon.  However, the

basic procedure will not be changed;  only the wording  of various sections

will be clarified.

             ISO Stationary Test.  -- Appendix Al of ISO R-362 contains

a stationary test method which is not presently used in any national regulations.

Noise is  measured at four points each located diagonally 7 m away from

a corner of the vehicle.
                 Test area
   Figure 5-1   Measuring Positions for Measurement wit?,. Stationary Vehicles.

The engine is run either  1)  at three quarters of its maximum hp rpm,
if it has no speed governor;  or  Z) at maximum  governed speed, if it
has a speed governor.
             There doesn't appear to be good correlation" between ISO
Reference Test results and ISO Stationary Test results.
             The Swiss have been using a similar  stationary test.  This
test also does not exactly correlate with results of the ISO Reference
             Some European countries  feel that there exists  sufficient
correlation between the two  tests so that the Stationary Test  could be
made an alternative to the Reference Test.   However,  the  general view
is that the Stationary Test should only be  used for  preliminary screening
of vehicles in use.

             Single Vehicles Data Sample - Sweden

              Vehicle  noise is measured individually in Sweden in  connection
with the approval of new designs  but not as yet  in connection  with  the
inspection required of every single vehicle as part of the registration
procedure.  Consequently, no thorough review  is made of  the sound
levels of new trucks,  the overwhelming majority  of which are inspected
according to the latter procedure.  Noise from trucks  and cars in the
urban environment has been determined,  however, in  a number of field
surveys.  In one study the difference between the maximum sound level
of trucks  and that of  cars was found to be 8-10  dBA.   The truck is the
individual noise source for which silencing measures are most urgently

             Buses  of earlier models are about as noisy as trucks,

Figure 5-2  shows the results of measurements  carried out on buses in

regular service in the Stockholm area.  Modern town buses are often

far more silent running.  For example, there is a Swedish built "silent1

bus which does not emit sound levels higher than 77 dBB,  measured

as per ISO R362.

, . r


in r
                     82 83 84 85 86 87 83 89 90 91 92 93 94 dB !A)
            Figure  5-2 Percentage  Distribution of Noise Levels for
             Service Buses in the Greater Stockholm Area    (200 DIN HP)
             Measured as per ISO R362 for Moving  Vehicles.

           Source:  (5-1,  p.  18)

             The  sound levels of new cars are checked during the

inspection of new  models and designs. Figure 5-3 shows the result of

measurements carried out on about 300 vehicles in  1972 by the National

Road Safety Board,  which is  responsible for the inspection of  vehicle

designs .






                      No. cars
                            73 74 75 76 77 78 79 60 81  82 83 84 dB (A)
              Figure 5-3.  Sound Levels for Cars, Measured During Design
             Inspections in 1972.

             Note:  Noise was measured as per ISO R362 with the
             vehicles in motion.  It should be noted that 84 dB(A)
             the maximum permissible noise  level for the approval
             of the  silencing arrangements of the vehicles inspected.

             Source:  (5-1,  p.  18)

             The majority of motorcycles  are submitted to registration inspection,

which means that at present their  noise emission is not measured though

the law stipulates that they must be provided with efficient silencing


              Figure 5-4 shows the sound levels of 52 motorcycles

 undergoing design  inspection.  Corresponding data for mopeds are given

 in Figure  5-5.





         77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 65 85 87 88 89 90 dB'A)
Figure 5-4.  Sound  Levels of Motorcycles, Measured as
per ISO R362  During Design  Inspection.

Note: It should be observed that the applied maximum
limit is 86  dBA.

Source:  (5-1)

L- 	 T



— |
• 	 1

73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 dB(A)
Figure 5-5.  Sound Levels of Mopeds, Measured During
 Design Inspection.

Note:  The mopeds were driven in top gear and at top
speed,  i. e. 30km per hour.

Source:  (5-1)

            Measurements of stationary vehicles were undertaken in
Sweden.  Table  5-1  shows the  results of these measurements, which

included both new and second-hand vehicles.

Type of vsMcic
Motorcyc i es
Front 'engine
Rear engine
^ 200 DiN HP
> 200 DIN HP
Sat isf story exhaust syst


M i n .


Max .


Me an


Defect i ve


M i n .


exh . syst .
Max .




           Table 5-1.  Results of Noise Measurements Carried Out on
           Stationary Vehicles.

           Note: The method of measurement involved placing the
           microphone  50 cm. from the end of the exhaust pipe,
           whereupon the engine speed was raised from idling to
           a certain  constant speed.

           Source: (5-1)

             Assessing Traffic Noise

             Surveys,  research studies and experiments have been

initiated by many countries for assessing and predicting traffic noise

along roads and highways.  In determining traffic noise levels,  various

approaches and formulas have been developed.  In this section traffic

noise estimation and prediction in some countries  are discussed.

             In Japan road traffic noise is assessed by  the following


             In March 1975, the Technical Committee  of the Acoustical

Society of Japan published a report on the method for estimation of

road traffic noise.  This method is applied to free flowing traffic,  for

example the case of a free motorway or equal road. Here,  starting

from the equal interval traffic model, a calculating formula was derived

for sound level L,  •  In Japan, Lr_ is now used for the evaluation of.
                 50              bU

road traffic noise in environmental standards and other regulations.

A-weighted sound power level and its relation with vehicle velocity

were determined by the field investigations.  Vehicles were divided into

three kinds: heavy vehicles,  light vehicles and passenger cars.  Effects

of the road constructions on the traffic noise  propagation were also

included in this method by considering the diffraction at the edge of

the road.  Excess attenuations  due to the ground surface absorption and

air absorption were not included explicitly, but correction terms  due

to these and other factors were applied in a lump, by comparing the

results of this calculation with those  of field investigations.  (5-3)

             In order to improve the  accuracy of estimation, many
basic research works have been carried oat in Japan.  As to the
calculating formula,  other  traffic models were introduced, for  example,
exponential distribution of Vehicle intervals and pound power level of
each vehicle.  In these studies, the calculating formula was derived
not only for L   but for other evaluation values such as L,  ,  L.
       y      50                                         eq   10

             Scale model experiments have been widely used  for the
evaluation of road traffic noise,  especially in cases of complicated
road constructions,   roadside  geographical positions and urban streets.
Incoherent line sources or  moving point sources are used for the sound
source in these experiments.  Hybrid simulation methods (combining
the scale  model experiments and computer calculations) were also
applied to these investigations.  Also, the  effect of meteorological
conditions on the sound propagation are now being investigated by the
scale model experiments and field investigations. (5-3)

            In the Netherlands the following formula has  been developed,
based  on  previous investigations, from which the traffic noise produced by
motorways  can be approximately calculated: (5-5)

L         = L^ 5 + 10 log N - 10 log V - 10 log A  -  7,5 - D

in which
L         = the equivalent sound level in dB(A)
!)„ g.      s= the sound level of motor-vehicles measured  at a distance of
            7»5 tn from  the source, in dB(A)
N         = the number  of vehicles per hour
V         8 the speed of vehicles in ksi/hour
A         = the distance to the road in m
D         = a term in which the local conditions influencing anon5 .other
            things sound absorption and proofing,  are taken into account

From this investigation it has further appeared that on an average for
            passenger  cars              L9e- = ^3   + 0,16  V
            trucks                      £    = 72   + 0,16  V
            trucks with  trailers       L_ ^ = 7^,5 + Otl6  v .
               In Denmark traffic noise is measured and calculated on
   the basis of L  , dBA  ,  24 hours average.
               Norway has developed one graphical and one computerized
   method for the calculation of noise levels.  These methods also take
   into consideration the effect of structural devices to reduce noise.
   A simple method by which noise levels in streets can be calculated
   is being developed.  (5-6)

             In Sweden several studies have been carried out to determine
the disturbing effect of traffic noise.  A government report on measurement
of traffic noise has proposed a combination between several
different measuring actions which comprises noise origin and diffusion c
conditions (5-7)
             A prediction model for traffic noise has been established
for local conditions in South Africa for annoyance and impact of traffic
noise, Lir) is being used  to qualify complaints and to establish guide-
lines for new roads.  The South African Bureau of Standards document
SABS 097-1975 "The Measurement of  Noise Emitted by Motor Vehicles"
 (5-8) is the method used  to assess noise emissions from individual
vehicles and is based on  ECE practice.      Assessing Effects  of Noise On People
             Because of the rapidly increasing number  of motor vehicles
on roads and streets, more  than ever people  are subject to the effects of noise
exposure.  Repeated daily exposure to traffic noise over many years
may cause various adverse effects  ranging from permanent hearing loss,
to sleep disturbance,  and other health problems to interference with
conversation.  To assess the extent of problems associated with various
noise levels, studies,  research, and surveys have been undertaken by
many countries.  This section will  present sample results of some

             In Sweden,  two recent studies were conducted  as follows:

             1.   Study of the Impact of Traffic Noise in the Municipality

                 of Stockholm, 1975.

             This study was carried out in eight housing areas with various

traffic volumes (800-2, 800 vehicles per day) and various proportions of

heavy traffic (3-17%).   Some 85 persons were  interviewed in each area.

Disturbances were  evaluated by calculating the mean reaction in each

area as the percentage of persons who were "seriously disturbed

Exposure was measured by the equivalent sound level, L,   ,  the level

in dB(A) exceeded for  1% of the time (L.  ), and the average maximum

noise level in dBA  from individual passing vehicles.

             Analysis  of the relation between exposure and disturbance

showed that there was  a relatively good correlation between the L,

value and disturbances (r   = 0.77).  The covariance  between the

disturbances and L   was of the same order of magnitude (r    = 0.78).
                  01                                     xy

Closer analysis  revealed,  however, that  disturbances  were mainly

determined by the frequency of heavy traffic.  Thus it  could be established

a growing proportion of heavy traffic produced a wider diffusion of

disturbance up to 1,200 heavy vehicles per day.  On the other hand

a further increase  of heavy vehicular traffic up to 2, 800 per  day

did not lead to a corresponding increase  in disturbances.  (Figure 5-6)

         %  seriously  disturbed
         20 -
                                               ^T  lorries  per day
             Figure  5-6.   Relative Frequency of Seriously Disturbed
            I nterview Subjects as a Function of Exposure Expressed
             in Terms of the Number of Trucks Emitting a Maximum
             of 80  dBA approx.
             Source:  (5-1)

             So far this  study has covered a relatively limited selection

of experimental areas, and additional areas  with different types of noise

exposure will have to be investigated before  any general conclusions

can be drawn.  These  further investigations  were carried out during

             2.   The Effect of Traffic Noise on Sleep,  1976.

             In this study, EEC, EOG, EMG and EGG recordings

were used to investigate the effect of traffic noise on sleep disturbance.

             Introductory pilot experiments, which have been

conducted in laboratory conditions,  have  shown that  the disturbance

of sleep tends to  vary depending on whether the subject is exposed to

noise from randomized truck  passages with a peak level of 55 dBA

or to steady  traffic noise of the same  equivalent level.  The  total of


waking periods was found to rise by 7 per cent during nights with
passing trucks,   compared with reference nights characterized by
"silent" conditions (27 dBA),  but exposure to steady traffic noise at
the same equivalent level (5 dB difference between minimum and
maximum levels) resulted in an increase of only 3 percent.

             Light orthosomnia increased by  5% in relation
to the reference  night during nights when there were lorries passing
by.  This occurred at the expense  of deep orthosomnia
and REM or parasomnia, each of which declined by 3%.

             During nights of 40 truck passages, waking effects of
various kinds were obtained in up to 70 percent of all passages; these
effects varied from brief ECG and EMG changes to transitions between
depths of sleep.  Up to 18% of the passages  caused the subjects to become
completely awake.

             The project is  being continued in 1976 with a field study
of an experimental group living in  an environment where there is
nocturnal traffic  noise.  The aim of the project is to determine the
long-term effects of traffic noise on sleep.

             In Denmark, the following results concerning nuisance
due to  traffic noise in Copenhagen  were reported. (5-10)

             Nine hundred sixty persons living in 28 different residential
areas were interviewed.  Half of the areas have an energy-equivalent,
constant, A-weighted sound pressure level L   (24) determined on a 24
hour-a-day-basis which is within the range  0f 46-58 dBA.  For
other half have a level which is within the range of 46-58  dBA.  For
reasons of simplicity these two groups will  be described  as areas
with high noise exposure  and areas with moderate noise exposure
respectively.  In the former group the  noise exposure was determined

by road traffic noise, whereas the road traffic noise was only a more

or less determining factor for the noise exposure in the latter group.

             The areas were paired in such a manner that one area.

with a high noise exposure and one area with a moderate noise exposure

were as equal as possible in other respects,  i. e. :

             a)   For the buildings: age,  general look,  size, and   if
                 relevant -  the flats,  price level, etc.
             b)   For the residents:  age, matrimonial status, school
                 education,  social status,  number of children living
                 at home, etc.
(only women were interviewed) who indicated that they were disturbed

by traffic noise was 83% in the areas with a high noise exposure, whereas

the percentage in the areas with moderate noise exposure was 13%

              A detailed analysis of the situation in two corresponding

 (paired) areas, one in the group with a high noise exposure and the

 other  in the group with a  moderate noise exposure,  is shown in
 Table 5-2.
              Percentage of  interviewed
              who indicated nuisance
              due to road traffic noise

              having a high degree of
              physic well-being

              who used sedatives

              who consulted a doctor
              due to psychic problems

              having interference problems
              when using the telephone

              having interference problems
              when reading

              who did not open windows
              (often or occasionally) due
              to road traffic noise





       56 dBA





            Table 5-2.   Comparison of the Nuisance Due to Rc-ad
            Traffic Noise Found in a Danish Study,    :      "^

            Source:  (5-10)
            In England a pilot study was  carried out at three of the
Greater London Council housing estates  to see what remedial measures
can be undertaken regarding environmental conditions for residents
when motorways or new major roads are constructed nearby.
Table 5-3  shows the answers to a specific series  of questions about
perceived effects of traffic noise.  (5-11)  It should be noted that the
answers give no indication of either frequency or degree  of annoyance
experienced,  but they do illustrate clearly the effect of proximity to the


Perceived effect of noise

Startle you/make you
Keep you from going to
Wake you up
Stop ycur children from
going to sleep •
Interfere with listening to
TV, radio or records
Interfere with
Make TV pictures flicker
Make the house vibrate
or shake
Make you close doors
or windows
Bother, annoy or disturb
you in any other way
Total number of
Study area
Area A









Area B







• 27



A -r B









Control areas >
Area C

Area O
to j (quiet


















         •This question was asked only of housewives with children under
         the age of 16. There were so few in this category m each area that
         the answers are not sigmficsnt. However, os with otner el'-jcts th
5.1. 1.3
Assess ing Economic Impact
             Information relating to costs of noise abatement and control

in foreign countries has been limited and in most instances not available.

Information regarding these costs  is not precise.  However; the following

gives an overview of some aspects  of noise control costs in foreign


             In the Federal Republic of Germany,  the Federal  Ministry of

of Transport prepared the following cost estimates for noise barrier

construction and sound insulation along newly proposed Federal aid

highways.  (5-12)

Noise Impact

Threshold V
Day E^vening
Estimated Costs (1975)

3 Billion DM (I . '2 Billion dollars)
S Billion DM |3.4 Billion dollars)
IS Billion DM (7. li Billion dollars)
Noise Tiovol Reduction
Ix;T 10 dBA
I^T - 20 dBA
LJ..J. :!0 dBA
Cost/Kilometer of New Mtrr Highways
1.7 Million DM/kilonu-ti-r (1.2 Million dollary/milc)
5.0 Million DM/kilomrt(-[- (:). 1 Million dollars/mile)
20 Million DM/kilonu-tcr (12.3 Million dollars/mile)
            Table  5-4.  Estimation of Costs of Noise Barriers and
            Building Insulation in the  Federal Republic  of Germany.
            (a) Total costs for various degrees of quieting
            (b) Costs  per kilometer of new highway
            Source:  (5-12, p. 640)

             In Sweden, the State Committee on traffic noise estimated

the costs of implementing the Committee proposals (5-13) during the

first 10-year period, up to 1985, at Sw.  Cr.  500-700 million per year

(about $111-$117 million per year)  of which approximately half comprises

costs for noise reduction measures to vehicles, and half the cost for

abatement measures in zones between noise  sources and auditors

(barriers, replacement of windows, etc.).  It is anticipated that the

costs for  the latter  measures will be  incurred from  1976 onwards,

while the  costs for emission limiting  measures will first be felt at the

end of the  1970's.  On  the basis of  information received from the motor

industry, the implementation of the first stage of the emission norms,

covering vehicle models  dating from  1979 onwards,  has been calculated

to increase the price of a private car by an average  of Sw. Cr.  1. 000

(about $222) and the price of a truck approximately Sw. Cr. 4, 000

(about $866) with unchanged performance in  other respects.

             In the United Kingdom,  the cost of implementation of

British legislation for  highway noise  compensation has been high.  The

sum involved for 4.4 million homes subject  to excessive noise would

be currently some L3, 300 million (6. 6 billion dollars)

5.1.2       Railroad and Rapid Transit

5. 1. 2. 1     Assessing Noise Levels

             In order  to reach acceptable noise levels emitted by trains

and rapid transit systems,  many countries have conducted surveys  and

initiated studies.  These surveys and studies have been mainly concerned

with the impact of such noise on exposed_population  living in areas

affected by these means  of transportation.   This section attempts to


provide a representative sample of this Information.

           Federal Republic of Germany

           The Following sample data was obtained for  external and

Internal railway noise.









Type 01 rail-
way vehicle
Gernan reaeraj.
Passenger and
Freight trains

Rapid transit
underground, on '
open air lirie
Elevated rail-


Type of track
C2.__as~c oea, wooc.en s^.ee-
ballast bed, concrete
ballast-free , concrete slabs
ballast-free, metal bridge
ballast bed, metal bridge
ballast-free ,truos bridge
ballast-free, reinforced
concrete bridge
ballast bed, reinforced
concrete bridge
ballast bed, wooden slee-
ballast bed, wooden slee-
ballast-free, concrete
ballast bed, wooden slee-
asphalt street
ballast bed, reinforced
concrete bridre









- $,J ' '








a UW









M '
1 CO









            Table 5-5.   Typical External Railway Noise Levels

            Noise level of railway vehicles at a distance of 25 m
            from the centre of the track, measuring height 3,5m
            above the top of rail.  Free propagation of sound.
            Faultless rail surface and wheel tread.

            Source:  (5-2)

                       Sample Internal Railway NoLse Data
                       Railway vehicle
                                                      Noise Level dBA
                                                    opeea ^Kiu/
                                                    60 I   120 £00
Semi-fast, slow  train,  2nd class
Fast train,  1st/2nd  class
Inter-city train,  open  saloon,  1st class
Inter-city train,  compartments, 1st class
Inter-city train,  dining car
Fast train,  couchette coach, 2nd class
Fast train,  sleeping car,  1st class
Rapid transit  system, 2nd  class, in the open air
Underground  railway  in  the open air
Rapid transit  system, underground inside tunnel
Diesel locomotive, inside  driving csb
Electric locomotive,	inside driving cab
             Table 5-6.  Noise Level (avg. ) in Railway Stock.
             Ballast track.  Faultless Rail Surface and Wheel

             Source: (5-2)

-------      Subjective Effects of Noise Levels on People

             Japanese  Train Noise  Survey

             A Japanese  survey was made in 1971 to determine the

effects of high-speed train noise on people living between 10 and 200

meters from the tracks.  Noise measurements and interviews were

conducted along both the Tokaido  Line  and the new Sanyo Line.  At

a maximum noise level of 70 dBA near the Tokaido Line,  about 13

percent were disturbed in conversation and on  the telephone,  but  55

percent were disturbed listening to  television or  radio.  Near the Sanyo

Line, more than twice  as many were distrubed in conversation and

listening on the telephone but the  interference with television and radio

was  about the same as  on the Tokaido Line.  At the maximum level

of 70 dBA, 40 percent of  the people near the Tokaido Line and 52 percent

near the Sanyo Line rated train noise above the middle of the seven-

point noisiness scale.  Other results are shown on Tables 5-7 and 5-8.

             French Train Noise Survey

             A combination of social survey and  physical noise

measurement survey was done near Paris in 1973 (5-15).   A questionnaire

was  designed and administered to 350 subjects  living in different

locations where the train noise was prevalent.   Noise data  included rate

of increase  of noise level, maximum noise level  during train passage,

(L    ), duration of audible train noise; duration  of the maximum
level  "L     , Fate of decrease of noise level,  ambient noise level,
and equivalent  noise level L   over 24 hours.
     ^                     eq

             The  best prediction of annoyance, tested on noise alone

was  L    whose value increased when  either the  number of trains or
the noise of the train increased (correlation coefficient = 0.33).

A w vu*

Interferonca with sleep
Disturbance of hearing
Disturbance of chil-
dren's life (43,44)
Startle (35)

Disturbanco of falling
in sloop (30)
Atreking froa oleop
Interference vith tolo-
phone (32)
Interference vrith lis-
tening to TV or radio
Interference* with con-
versation (36)
Bothering children (43)'

Dioturbance of chil- .
dren's study (44)

Positive Response! in %
60 50 40 30 20 10
80 78 75 72 69 66
87 84 82 79 76 74
75 72 69 66 63 60
78 76 73 70 68 65
82 80 77 74 7T 69
89 87 84 82 79 76
84 81 77 74 71 68
88 85 83 80 77 75
82 78 75 71 67 —
87 84 82 80 77 75
80 77 74 71 69 66
87 85 82 79 76 73
79 76 73 70 69 64
81 79 77 74 72 69
71 67 64 61 — —
72 68 65 62 — —
77 74 72 70 67 65
80 77 75 73 71 69
79 75 71 69 62 58
87 84 81 79 75 72
82 79 76 74 71 68
88 86 84 81 79 77
PC -i nt of
t T
Table  5-7.  Relationship between Proportion of Positive
Response to Each Item and Peak  Level of Train Noise

(N.S.L. : New Sanyo Line)
(N.T.L.: New Tokaido Line)

Source:  (5-21)

Disturbance of
falling in sleep
Awaiting from sleep
Interference with
liotening to TV
Interference with
NNI 30
A ~S T
% % %
23 24 0
41 20 0
43 53 34
36 26 0
43 10 0 |
NNI 35
% % %
27 38 0
47 39 0
51 70 49
45 49 7
48 28 0
NNI 45
% % %
33 66 28
60 76 30
72 TOO 81
68 94 56
58 64 25
I mn 50
A S ,T
% % %
47 80 43
65 95 43
75 100 83
73 100 80
59 81 44
irr.'i 55 ^
% % %
57 — 72
70 — 67
79 — 92
78 — ICO
61 — 64
* Values in Table 5-8 were obtained after comparing community
responses to train and aircraft noise in NNI (Noise and Number

           Table  5-8.   Comparison between Community
           Response to  Aircraft Noise (Survey in UK) and
           to Train Noise in NNI

           (A: Aircraft Noise,  S: Sanyo Line, T: Tokaido Line)
           Source:  (5-21)

             The criteria according to L    is shown in this figure
and interpreted as follows:
            "It is seen that the proportion of favorable responses
            drops sharply and the proportion of unfavorable
            responses rises sharply as the value of Leq increases
            above 72-75  dBA.  At this  exposure, 36. 5% of the
            people responded with  annoyance above the middle
            of the scale of overall  annoyance.  Accordingly,  it
            was  concluded by the French researchers that Leq
            of 72 dBA represents a   maximum acceptable exposure
            to train noise"
         •RESPONSES  I. 2, AND 3
            « 'ACCEPTABLE"
                            EQUIVALENT NOISE LEVEL [d8(A>]

           Figure 5-7.  "Acceptable" and "Intolerable"
           Responses vs Equivalent Noise Level, with No
           Corrections for Exposure or Attitude.

            Source:  (5-16)

             A predictive model was built that included non-

noise variables like the  number of rooms of the dwelling facing the

track, attitude toward noise in general,  attitude toward trains in general,

and attitude toward the neighborhood.  Use  of these non-noise variables

as well as  the L,   nearly doubled the ability to predict annoyance

(correlation coefficient  = 0.64).

             The results of the French,  Japanese, and also an English

study suggest that the life styles of the countries agree sufficiently to

allow conclusions  drawn for one country to  be applied to another, insofar

as scaling  of annoyance  is concerned.  (5-16)

             Another result was that train noise  does not produce as

much annoyance as other equally intense environmental noise sources,

possibly because of  habituation to train noise, the fact that the railroads

were often there before  the adjacent occupants,  and a positive

attitude toward trains.

             Japanese Laboratory Study

             A laboratory study of the noisiness of trains was conducted

in Japan parallell  with  the Japanese social survey.  The purpose of

the study was  to define how the perceived noisiness (as opposed to

expressed  annoyance	though presumably there must be  some

relation between noisiness and annoyance) depends  on various parameters

of the noise pattern  during train passage (5-18).   The study as reported

by Schultz  included tests carried out by presenting  to  trained observers

a series  of simulated and recorded train noises,  having a variety of

different peak levels, peak durations, rise and decay  times, etc.

These signals were  alternated with a "Comparison Noise" whose level

could be  adjusted until the test noise and the comparison noise sounded


equally loud.

             It turned out that a satisfactory rating for the noisiness

of train passages depends only on the maximum A-level during the

train passage and the duration of the passage, thus lending support to

the results of the survey. (However, despite the authors' claim that

the noisiness  is best predicted by the total energy in  the noise of the

passage,  it is not;  indeed, this  claim is somewhat difficult to under-

stand,  since they state:   "The rate of noisiness  change,  however,

differs  according as (sic) the energy change is caused by a change of

peak level of noise  or by a change of its duration,  even if the energy

changes are equal in both cases.

             The formula that successfully predicted the judged noisiness

         N -  r       i \   max
where L.      is the maximum A-weighted sound level during the train


pass age and T  is the time during which the noise level is within 10 dB

of its maximum value.   The duration dependence thus depends on the

peak  level,  a relationship that hardly supports the claim that the

noisiness of the train passage corresponds to the total sound energy

in the event.

             There is enough scatter  in all survey results that this

rather subtle dependence would likely be impossible to discover

outside the  laboratory".  (5-16)

             The general conclusion from these  studies as far as  the

train noise is concerned and as stated by Shultz ". . . the best correlation

with expressed annoyance is achieved when both  the maximum noise

level during train passages as well as  the train traffic  volume are

taken into account; this  can be done either explicitly, with separate

terms  for each variable (the NNI is an example,  but not the best!),

or bv the use of L   , which embodies both variables.   The prediction
    y            eq

of annoyance is  equally  good either way".  (5-1 6)

             Swedish Survey

             In Sweden, a study of the impact of train noise on exposed

population groups is now in progress.  So far two test studies have been

carried out in order to formulate and test a questionnaire concerning

train noise.  During the spring of 1976, in an initial phase of the real

study,  interviews were conducted on some 400 persons living in four

areas close to  railways.  These areas were selected in such a way

that all respondents are exposed to  the noise of about 100 passing  trains

per day, while the maximum sound  level varies.  The housing areas

to be investigated are of relatively recent vintage.  In a second phase,

studies of areas  are planned where  traffic intensity is different and

where  the buildings are older,  the aim being to investigate the occurance

of or habituation effects related to train noise.

             The first test study showed that the respondents  did not

experience specific noise characteristics. Instead annoyance seemed

to result from  the general noise emitted by the trains.  Vibrations

were a  relatively common cause of  annoyance.  In  the second  investigation,

50 persons living next to a railway line were interviewed.   Exposure

varied between 62 to 80 dBA   expressed as peak sound level,  giving

an equivalent sound level of  44-62 dBA.    Twenty-five percent stated

that they were  greatly disturbed.  These results correspond to those

obtained in studies of  the annoyance  caused by  aircraft noise»  (5-1)

             English Survey

             A *tudy was conducted in 1968 in England to evaluate

annoyance to surrounding residents caused by the noise of the high-speed

electric trains.  The preliminary results as reported byShultz

suggested (to no one's surprise!) that people's annoyance decreases

as their distance from the tracks increases, though the dependence

was neither strong nor consistent.  (As an example  of this

inconsistency,  people living at 70 m distance expressed more

annoyance than those at  45 m, according to one  set of interviews.)

There was  a suggestion  that people  living in high background noise from

other sources (children, dogs,  etc.) are more sensitive to the railway

noise than people in quieter  Locales, contrary to our usual expectations !

This implies, perhaps,  that in  conditions of persistent noisiness,

people experience an increased, rather than reduced,  sensitivity to

the occasional extra noise of the railroad.  A similar  trend was  found

in a French survey.

             The British study very tenatatively concluded that the

external noise level must exceed 95 dB(A)  during train passages before

serious annoyance becomes  evident: this implies houses  within 30

meters  of the track.  (5-16)

5.2         Noise Control Actions
5.Z.I       Regulatory Activity

5.Z.1.1     Direct Regulations

            Proposed emission standards or norms do not have  true

practical value until  they are established by legislation that can be

enforced.  Legislation  has been enacted in various countries pre-

scribing maximum levels of noise and methodology for monitoring

these limits.

            Source Emission Limits for New Vehicles

            Members of The European community (Belgium,  Germany,

Italy,  Luxemburg, France,  The United Kingdom,  Ireland and Denmark)

have adopted emission  limits in the Directive approved by the Council of

the European Community of February 6, 1970.  Limits are shown in

Table  5-9-

            Since 1966 all new types  of motor vehicles  in the  Federal

Republic of Germany have had to be  tested by licensed institutions for

their noise emission and whether they meet certain noise specifications.

There are many  technical details for measurements,  depending  upon the

type of vehicle.  Technical details are similar to the ones of ISO R 362 .


            Noise level standards for motor vehicals have been  established

in the  Netherlands.   Every new  type of  motor vehical intended for use on

the public highway must satisfy  the required noise  levels.  Measurement

methodology and instrumentation are established by law.  The method of

measurement was originally established by means  of ISO Recommendation

R 362-1964.  Later,  in 1971, EEC Directive No. 70/157 on the permissible

noise level of motor  vehicles was introduced into Dutch Law. (5-25)


                       Vehicle category                expressed
1.1.1       Vehicles intended for the carriage of              82
           passengers and comprising not more than
           nine seats including the driver's  seat

1.1.2       Vehicles intended for the carriage of              84
           passengers, comprising more than nine
           seats including  the driver's seat, and having
           a permissible maximum weight not exceeding
           3. 5 metric tons

1.1.3       Vehicles intended for the carriage of goods and     84
           having a permissible maximum weight not
           exceeding 3. 5 metric tons

1.1.4       Vehicles intended for the carriage of              89
           passengers, comprising more than nine seats
           including the driver's  seat, and having a
           permissible maximum weight exceeding 315
           metric tons

1.1.5       Vehicles intended for the carriage of goods,        89
           and having a permissible maximum weight
           exceeding 3.5 metric tons

1.1.6       Vehicles intended for the carriage of              91
           passengers, comprising more than nine seat
           including the driver's  seat, and having an
           engine power equal to  or  exceeding 
            Noise emission from individual vehicles  in the United Kingdom
was  controlled through the 1973 Motor Vehicles (Construction and Use)
Regulations.  These regulations specified an acceleration test, with the
maximum allowable level being 89 dBA for  trucks and 84 dBA for auto-
mobiles, both measurements being made at 715 meters.  The same
Regulations provided also for roadside testing of in-use vehicles.
Maximum levels for the roadside test,  measured at no less than 5.2m.
from the curb,  are 89 dBA for automobiles and 92 dBA for trucks. (5-12 )
The  present maximum noise limits for new vehicles  are the EEC limits:
and 84 dBA for  trucks up to  3. 5 metric tons, 89 dBA for trucks 3. 5-12
metric  tons,  91 dBA for trucks greater than 12 metric tons and 200 HP,
etc. , all at 7. 5 meters.  Manufacturers are required to certify that pro-
duction models  are similar to the prototype submitted for the type  approval
test.  For in-use vehicle noise control through policing actions,  stationary
vehicle noise tests have been legally adopted.  The law provides  that the
noise level of the vehicle being tested must be no more than 5 dBA over
the maximum value allowed in its type approval test.  (5-12)
            The Federal Ministry of Transport of Canada  has regulations
limiting the noise emission properties at the time of importation or manu-
facture of  new motor vehicles.  Noise limits are specified in terms of  the
U.S.  Society of Automotive Engineers recommended practices and standards
and in terms  of procedures of the United Nations Economic Commission for
Europe (ECE).  Accordingly, the permissible  noise levels, measured at
15. 2 meters are 86 dBA for  light vehicles and  88 dBA and 83 dBA for
light and heavy  vehicles respectively. (5-28)
            In Norway, regulations in connection with the  Road Traffic
Act for permissible noise levels are effective  for motor vehicles certified
for the  first time after January 1,  1972.   Norway participates in ECE's
work in this field and the regulations are in accordance with ECE recom-
mendations . (5-'6 )  However, there are no emmission limits for road

traffic noise in Norway,  and no decision has  so far been made to introduce

legally binding regulations.  As alternative to the latter is the introduction
of guidelines for various areas and situations.

            Other nations with source emission regulation based on the

ECE or Common Market (EEC) recommendations are listed in Table  5-10.

Japanese maximum allowable limits for automobile noise has been laid

down in Article 16-1, Noise Regulation Law as presented in the following
Table 5-11.




Classes of Motor Vehicle

Medium, small and mini cars, and motor bicycles
Medium, small and mini cars (except motor
bicycles and passenger cars with a. capacity of
less than 10 persons) :
3.5 tons or more and 200 HP or more
3.5 tons or more and 200 HP or less
3.5 tons or less
Passenger cars with a capacity of less than 10
Two-wheeled small cars
Two-wheeled mini cars
Class 1 motor bicycles
Class 2 motor bicycles
Allowable Limits




Accel e-

rat ion


           Table 5-11 Maximum Allowable Limit for Automobile
           Noise0  Article 16-1, Noise Regulation Law  (Japan).

           Source: (5-29)
                                        Table 5-10 "Follows on next page"


                                                 (Continuation of Table 5-10)
."'.: thc.-ir./Xjivc
' Sweden
Date Passed

Czech. 1971

/Design rule
11 Mar.

Data :o be, in

MU.-.S. Sin.
1973 ISO

1972 "
Gas -power



BS 3425
1 Jan
I ;
Adopting E. C. E. Reg. 9. SIS025131
equivalent to R-362.
CSN 300512 equivalent to ISO
R-362. Adopting the old E. C. E.
Reg. 9.
Adopting the old E. C. E. Reg. 9.
Will change to new Reg. 9.
E. C. E. Reg. 9

Voluntarily adopted by
all states except Tasmania


             Zone-Type Regulations  on Road Traffic Noise

             The Japanese  environmental quality standard relating to

noise level was  established on the basis of the Basic  Law for Environ

mental Pollution Control and was approved by the Cabinet (May 25,

          (a)  General Area

Category of Area

Division of Hours
Not more than
Morning &
Not more than
Night Time
Not more than
         Note: AA - Areas which require particular quite.   For  instance, areas
                 where medical ficilities are concentrated.
               A- Primarily residential  areas.
               B - Areas in which a substantial number of residences are located
                 among shops and factories.
         (b)  Areas Bordering on Roads

Categories of Areas

Type A areas bordering on
a two-lane road
Type A areas bordering on
a more-than-two-lane road
Type B areas bordering on
a not-more-than-two-lane road
Type B areas bordering on
a more-than-two-lane road
Division of Hours
Not more than
Morning &
Not more than
Night Time
Not more than
           Note: Standard values vary depending on  the area type.   There-
                fore, classification of areas is left to  the discretion of
                prefectural governors.

              Table 5-12 Environmental Quality'Standards for Noise
              Cabinet Decision on 25 May,  Based on Article 9,  Basic
              Law for Environmental Pollution Control Measures,

              Source: 5-29

(1)    In the Netherlands, in anticipation of the realization of the Noise
      Act and the standards to be incorporated in due course, provision-
      al limit values have been applied for some time.  Thus,  the immis-
      sion recommendations for dwelling areas along motorways to be
      applied for the time being were set up in interdepartmental consul-
      tation in 1973. (5-31)
\^ Limits
Situation \.

"new situations"

Basic limit values to be applied provisionally
to dwelling areas alongside motorv:ays
L in dB A





partly opened



• 50
Night .


extra front
insulation and
closed window




            Table 5-13. Recommended Noise Immis sion Limits
            in the Netherlands

            Source: (5-31)
     In this table, a distinction is made between "new" and "transitional"
     situations.  Besides there are "existing"  situations.  In "new"
     situations, the design, construction  and the planning of the motorway,

     the residential quarter or both can reasonably still be modified
     in such a way that without extraordinary measures the recom-
     mended limit values can be met (e. g.  a new development plan
     in which a residential quarter is projected close to a motorway).

     In "transitional" situations the motorway or the residential
     quarter is already present and the design, construction or
     planning of the residential quarter along the motorway are al-
     ready in such an advanced state that it cannot reasonably be
     expected  that the modifications  or provisions, necessary from
     an acoustic point of view, be fully met at short notice (e. g.  a
     residential quarter under construction close to an existing motor-

     In "existing"  situations  both the motorway and the residential
     quarter are present.

     Widening of existing motorways in the middle of residential areas
     is considered to be a "transitional" situation.

(2)   In Denmark, limits of Danish guidelines with respect to  evaluation
     of road traffic noise are shown in the following Table 5-14.

Urban area
Rural residential and recreatio-
nal areas
Suburban residential areas. Re-
creational areas in urban and
suburban zones. Hospital zones
City areas with business, admi-
nistration, etc.
Industrial areas for trade and
lighter industry
Industrial areas for heavy
in case
LA,eq(24) *

40 dB

45 dB

50 dB

55 dB

70 dB
in case
LA,eq(24) ~

50 dB

55 dB

60 dB

65 dB

80 dB
              Table 5-14.  Criteria for Road Traffic Noise.

              Note:  The table states when the environment can be
              considered satisfactory or unsatisfactory using L
              on a 24 hours-a-day basis as a. measure of the quarity
              of the environment.

              Source:  (5-10)

(3)    The Swedish Traffic Noise Committee proposed in August 1974
      specific emission standards as well as immission  standards.
      The immission limits are given in the following table.  (5-15).
      As this table makes clear, the standards give one  general, long
      term goal:  desirable limits of 30 dBA indoors and 45 dBA to
      55 dBA outside windows and in other outdoor areas.

      The norms and standards proposed by the Committee can be
      considered as a specification of future legislation,  and should as
      such facilitate the practical application of such legislation con-
      siderably.   The Committee believes that this link can best be
      established  by issuing the norms as recommendations and direc-
      tives pertaining to the legislation.  In this way,  the rigidity
      desired in their application will be achieved, without the admini-
      strative procedures involved in considering exemptions  and so on,
      which  would result from legally binding norms issued as injunctions
      to the  legislation (5-13).
Locality Limits
Indoor premises Indoors Outude
Dwelling. 30 55
Health and
premises 30 55
premises type
mdiiorium 25 —
premises for
}uict activities 40 65
Outdoor areas Outdoor lad
facilities near all
categories of
^remises in urban
ircas. e.g. pai ks
and plajgi omuls 55
Areas and JOMCS
or recreational
activities 45
Exception I
New area near
major routes
tridihirs Outside
30 65(55)*

30 65

25 —

40 —
Outdoor level


Exception II Exception III Exception IV Exception for
New route in Upgrading of Rede\ clopment i Existing
existing area exi^tinij route of existing area
Indnur* OulMdr Indoor* Oiil'i'li- lnl Ji IIMM lull "I'tlu- M«.niv in ;i clhnt;

     Table  5-15-  Immission Standards Proposed in 1974
     Immission Limits  in Equivalent 24-hour Sound Levels (dBA)

     Source:  (5-13)

Proposed Swedish Emission Limits for Moving Vehicles

The Swedish Committee proposes  that vehicles tested by the
proposed method of measurement  for moving vehicles should
not be allowed to emit noise exceeding the following levels:

Measuring distance 7.5 m
Private car
Truck or bus with gross weight
not exceeding 3500 kg
Truck with gross u eight
exceeding 3500 kg
=£200 DIN hp
> 200 DIN lip
Bus not covered below with
fross weight exceeding
=£200 DIN hp
> 200 DIN hp
Bus with gross weight
exceeding 3500 kg used for
scheduled sen ices on routes
; passing mainly through
urban areas
;Two-whcel motorcycle
with engine capacity:
not exceeding 50 cc
greater than 50 cc
but not exceeding 125 cc
greater than 125 cc
but not exceeding 490 cc
greater than 490 cc
Three-wheel motor cycle
Cross-country scooter
Cross-country vehicle

., „
Vehicle of
model dating
from 1978 or







brought into
made before
1 July 1978
Vehicle of
model dating
from 1979 or







brought into
made 1 July
1978 or later
a proposed
further det rease
ol allouc







d levels


88 •






      Table 5-16    Noise Emission Standards
      Proposed in 1974

      Source:  (5-13)

As can be seen from the table,  the norms have been differentiated
by category of vehicle.  The  division is motivated first and fore-
most by the fact that the technical and economic feasibility of re-
ducing noise varies  considerably for different types of vehicles.
This division was based,  among other things, on surveys and on
emission norms in other  countries.

Regarding these norms, it is proposed that the first stage should
apply to vehicle models dating from 1979.  The norms for this
stage should become obligatory by statutory processes  and give
limiting values which  are  approximately 5  dBA lower than those
currently applicable in the EEC countries.

Proposed Swedish Emission Limits for Stationary Vehicles

The  Swedish Committee proposed that the noise level from
stationary vehicles, measured  according to the methods proposed
by the Committee,  should not exceed  the following values:
Vehicle of model
dating from 1978
or earlier
'rivate car Front-engined
Truck or bus with gross
veight nol exceeding
) 500 kg

Truck with gross weight
ixceeding 3 500 kg
<200 DIN h.p.
>200DIN p.h.
Two-wheel motor cycle
Three-wheel motor cycle
Cross-country scooter




Vehicle brought
into operation
following inspec-
tion made before
1st July 1978

Vehicle of model
dating from 1979
or later

For models jJ.iting from
1979 onward1;, and vehic-
les not classifiable as
any annual model, brought
into operation following
an inspi tion made
1 st July 197S or later, a
normal value in dli(A)
shall be set in conjunc-
tion with the type, re-
gistration or moped
The value should not be
set at a level which
exceeds by more than
2 dB(A) the value
measured at Ihe approval.
For a vehicle to be
approved, in the annual
.safely inspection or
any other subsequent
inspection, the noise
level may not exceexl
the normal value thus
set by--more than
The normal value shall
be stamped on a plate
which slull be moun-
ted on a readily-
observable p':iCC.
   Table 5-17   Proposed Swedish Limits for Stationary
   Source:  (5-13)

 5.2.2       Other Actions Beside Regulatory Actions      Vehicle Noise Reduction
             Noise control technology  aiming at reducing noise emission
 at the source has recently received more attention by motor vehicle manu-
 facturers.  A great deal of effort, research and funds are assigned for.
 technical measures  that would bring  about more noise reduction as  illu-
 strated by the following examples from two representative countries.
             The Swedish motor manufacturers Volvo and SAAB have
 furnished particulars concerning the level to which noise emission can be
 reduced without altering the basic design  of the various vehicles, and
 also concerning the  costs involved in reductions to certain levels.
             SAAB believes a reduction to 79  dBA measured as per
 ISO R 362 is possible.  This will require the  fitting of new, improved
 intake and exhaust silencers as well  as screening  off the noise generated
 in the engine compartment (encapsulation, sound-absorbent material).
 Volvo believes that a reduction to 78  dBA  is attainable,  which, given the
 variation occurring in mass production, means that the mean value  for
 production will have to be  reduced below 77 dBA.  In addition to the above
 measures, Volvo refers to reduction of engine noise emission by stuffer-
 ing the oil sump and the cam-shaft -  transmission cover.
             The  Volvo and SAAB estimate that it  will cost an additional
 Sw. cr.  200-250  (about $44-55) to bring the noise level  of mass produced
 cars down to 80 dBA assuming that the  same limit  is applied in most
 other European countries.  To this figure must be  added increased service
 costs when replacing the exhaust system,  as well as a marginal rise in
fuel costs. (5-13 )

             The two motor manufacturing firms believe  that the sound

  level of lorries can be reduced to 86 and 84      ,  measured as per

  ISO R 362, for heavy lorries  (3, 500 kg) with engine ratings of more than

  200 HP and less than 200 HP  respectively, without any laterations to

  the existing basic designs.  To accomplish this,  the following  measures
  are necessary:

             o    introduction of a thermostatically cooled radiator fan

             o    screening devices  along both sides of the engine
                 compartment,  with special extensions forwards and

             o    sound-absorbent material together with oil protection
                 and mechanical protection in the greater part of the
                 engine compartment
             o    a tight-fitting  and soundproof but easily fitted cover
                 beneath the engine and radiator fan and parts of the
                 clutch housing
             o    more  efficient and much larger or double exhaust  silencers

             o    more  efficient intake silencers

             o    far more efficient water and oil cooling  systems.

            SAAB and Volvo    state that if these measures were taken for

 the Swedish market only,  the price of each vehicle would increase  by about

 $881    (Sw. cr. 4,000).  This increase will be halved if the same restric-

 tions are introduced in their other markets.

             Reference has already been made to a "silent bus, " the CR HIM,

manufacture red by SAAB.   This model can keep within a maximum noise emi-

ssion of 77 dBA.  The requisite adjustments add  about $1,444 (Sw.  cr.  6, 500)

to the price of the vehicle and 350 kg to its weight.


             Work is currently in progress in Sweden on the

development  of the Stirling  engine .  This project is being conducted by a

specially formed company,  United Stirling (Sweden) AB, under license from

Philips of Holland.  One of the advantages of the Stirling engine is its low
sound level.  A 150 kW engine is estimated to have a sound level of 80 dB(A)
or more. In a vehicle fitted with a Stirling engine,  the engine itself becomes
a subordinate noise factor.  Instead most of the noise that is generated
comes from the radiator fan and tires.  A particular problem in this respect
is posed by the fan compartment,  since the Stirling engine transfers more
heat  to the  cooling water than a dies el engine operating with the same  out-
put.  United Stirling AB    expects to have solved the problems connected
with the Stirling engine by 1978, when mass production is planned to begin,,
(5-13  )

             United Kingdom

            In the  United Kingdom  the Transport and Road Research Labora-
tory (TRRL) is currently involved  in a 5-year quiet vehicle program designed
to demonstrate the technical and commercial feasibility of quiet heavy  traffic.
The objective  of the program is to produce two demonstration  trucks, one 250
BHP and one 350 BHP, with noise  levels of 80   dBA or less.  The program
is progressing in  two  stages.  The first stage involves a coordinated effort
among the TRRL,  the  Institute of Sound and Vibration Research, and the
Motor Industry Research Association.
            The Institute of Sound and Vibration Research has been investi-
gating methods to  reduce engine noise ( to  77  dBA, gearbox noise  (to
77  dBA and    intake noise (to    69 dBA .   Engine noise reduction is being
pursued along two lines: increasing structural stiffness and damping.
Methods being evaluated to  increase structural stiffness include using
stiff   vertical crankshaft supports and incorporating an internal bearing
beam in the crankcase frame.  Increased  structural damping is being in-
vestigated through the use  of dampened cylinder block wall panels and a
dampened sump fixed  to the lower deck of the  cylinder block.

           The Motor Industry Research Association has been conducting

research to reduce exhaust system noise ( to  69  dBA) and internal truck

cab noise ( to  75  dBA  in order to reduce user exposure.

           Stage two of this 5-year program, to be carried out by industry

consists  of the actual development and testing of commercially viable

vehicles.  (5-12)

-------     Tire/Road Noise
           Rolling noise has been indentified as a major source of annoyance
to people living in the vicinity of high-speed roads.  In an attempt to deal
with this problem the extent and nature of rolling noise  as a component of
vehicle noise is being explored  and studied in many countries.
           The National Swedish Road and Traffic Research Institute has
been engaged in this area of traffic noise problem through several
projects:  "Tire Noise Screening;" "Tire Noise--Influence of Tire and
Road Surface;" "Tire Noise  Recommendation Regarding  a Measurement
Method, " and "Analysis of Vehicle Noise from Coarse Texture Pavements".
(5-9 )   Another project presently in progress in Sweden is regarding tire
noise measurement methods.  The objective of this project is to obtain
reporducible measurements of tire noise, to study the influence of different
parameters on sound generation and to develop vehicle screens  to prevent
the diffusion of tire noise.  The project is located in Stockholm  and is
being financed by the National Board for Technical Development.  (5-  1 )
           The Federal Institute of Road Affairs in West Germany has
been active in  tire noise generation research.  Their research  has
revealed that car radial and bias-ply tire noise has a dependency on the
fourth power of vehicle speed while truck tires fall in the range  between the
third and fourth power of vehicle  speed.  Additionally, the empirical
studies indicate that noise levels  are related to tire footprint width,  noise
spectra are independent of speed, worn tires without profile tend to  be
2-3  dBA quieter, and  rayon is quieter than nylon when  used in  tire
construction.  (5-12)
           The Transport and Road Research Laboratory of the Department
of the  Environment of the United Kingdom has been concerned with research
on tire noise and road surface effects on noise generation.  The Laboratory
reported the  following results in the area of rolling noise. (Figure 5-8)

               • Urban shopping slrttts
                                            Motorway - stow Ian*
eo  so
1  70
                                — Heavy vehicles total noise
                              Heavy vehicles coasting
                                   -Light vehklts total noise
                              Light vehicles coasting
                             30     40    SO   60  70  80 90 100
                             Vehicle speed (km/h)
              Figure 5-tf. Total Vehicle iNoise ana Coasting Noise
                   Source:  (5-17)
                Figure  5-8 shows for an average light vehicle,  up to 1.5 t,  and
    an average heavy vehicle, over 1.5 t, how rolling noise and  total noise
V   vary under motorway conditions and in urban streets.  For heavy vehicles
    in urban streets rolling noise is so much quieter than the total vehicle
    noise that it is unlikely to be noticeable.   For light vehicles in urban streets
    and heavy vehicles  on motorways rolling noise is  about 7  dBA below total
    vehicle  noise.   This difference suggests  that although rolling noise may not
    be  the predominant source of vehicle noise, its  contribution  is not insignifi-
    cant and changes of rolling noise will cause similar but smaller changes in
    total noise.   For light vehicles running on motorways, rolling noise is only
    2 dBA  less  than total noise and is clearly predominant.  For this combina-
    tion of vehicle  and road any small change in rolling noise will cause an almost
    identical change in  total vehicle noise.

             In the U.K. , annoyance from rolling noise  is assessed by
determining the level of LIQ (18 hours).  The derivation of levels on this
scale from a knowledge  of vehicle level and speed is not simple but the
necessary computation has been accomplished using the Laboratory's com-
puter model of traffic noise.  The provision of a complete specification of
L}Q  (18 hours) will require the derivation of predictive relations for the
range of road surfaces typically encountered in the United Kingdom.  An
investigation to measure the basic vehicle noise data and to assess  the
safety as well as other aspects of road surfaces is presently part of a
joint program with the Materials Division.
           In the area of effects of road surface texture on noise the
Transport and Road Research Laboratory has reported their findings. A
coarse texture is incorporated into the surface of roads to provide drain-
age paths or channels which allow the dispersal of water in much the same
•way as the tread pattern on a tire.  Provision of sufficient texture enables the
skidding resistance of a surface to be maintained at high speed at a level
similar to that available to low-speed traffic.
            In the search for improved levels of high-speed skid-resistance
 it has become increasingly necessary also to consider  the noise produced
 by traffic using the textured surfaces.  A survey was therefore initiated in
 1974,  and subsequently extended, to  provide information on the relation
 between noise and the effectiveness of surface  texture in sustaining skidding
 resistance at high speeds.
            Initial results have established that the noise from light vehicles
 increases with increasing texture both on bituminous and concrete surfaces
 although the relationship is different for the two types of construction (Fig. 5-,9).
 With heavy vehicles, the tire/road noise is  masked by  the higher engine and
 transmission noise; they are not therefore discussed in this leaflet.


"5 CD





/ *J

n ••
0 X
O -y'
O Plastic-grooved concrete
0 Sawn- grooved concrete
D Flail- grooved concrete
A Brushed concrete
• Rolled asphalt
• Asphaltic concrete
A Surface dressing
T Open textured macadam

• O
A / ^
— ^r A ^
'/ ^__— ' -
X ° • • ^~~-"~"^
- A X" A -^-^*" 	 T
/v'* ^- -^^ " * A
- ,/J, 	 -"""•
-X* • T
- A A
1 1 1 1 1 1 1
                                     1-5      2-0
                                  Texture depth  ( mm )
            Figure 5-V.  Kelationships  .between Texture Jjeptn
            of Various Surfaces and Noise  From Light Vehicles
                           Source :  (5-17)
            The effectiveness of texture in sustaining skidding resistance

as speed increases has been found to differ  according to whether the surface
is concrete  or bituminous.  This is because texture on concrete is basically

provided in  a transverse  manner whereas,  on bituminous surfaces, texture

is more random due to the distribution  of chippings.  By utilising established

relationships the noise levels have been related to the effectiveness of the

various surface textures  in providing high-speed skid-resistance as defined

by "the percentage change in BFC  from 50 to 130 km/h. "  The resulting
relationship (Fig.  5-10 demonstrates that,  for light vechicles, the noise emanat-

ing from a road surface,  of whatever type,  is proportional to  the effective-

ness of that  surface in maintaining the skidding resistance properties at

higher speeds.
            Further studies are being made to  evaluate alternative forms of

coarse texture  in concrete surfaces and to distinguish between tire/road

noise and mechanical noise from heavy vehicles-  (5-19)

-40    -20      0    +20    +40    +60    +80    +100
    Estimated percentage change in B FC from 50 to 130 km/h
Figure 5-10.  Relationship Between Zstimatec  B±j C of Various
Surfaces and Noise From Light Vehicles

Source:  (5-17)

-------     Noise Screening
            Noise screening is an effective measure in traffic
noise abatement.  Noise barriers  have been constructed by many countries
as a means of protecting inhabitants from noise.  These barriers have
different types of designs and  are  used for different noise abatement pur-
poses.  In their function they may be experimental, noise-absorbing or
noise-reflecting.  Their substance may include different materials such
as wood,  steel, plastics, concrete,  earth or a combination of these and other
materials.  Performance of noise barriers reportedly varies.
            Japan seems  to be one of the most advanced countries in using
noise barriers as a  means of fighting traffic noise  along highways.  Presently
in Japan,  acoustic barriers  are most widely applied to the road construction
itself as noise  control procedures.  Many types of  wall constructions  have
been developed and applied.  Most of them are the  panel type  having  neces-
sary sound insulation characteristics and also having  sound absorption on one
side of the panel. Until the  end of March 1976, the total length of barrier walls
applied to the road bythe Japan Highway Corporation amounbed to about 85
kilometers.  Many types  of barriers have been used resulting in some prob-
lems in the maintenance of the wall.  So,  Japan Highway  Corporation  is now
preparing a standard type of barrier wall construction.  In the case of import-
ant areas, acoustic  shelters were applied to the road.  In this case,  of
course, noise problems are solved except for noise radiation from the opening
of the shelter as  in the case of a. tunnel.  Here, the sound absorption treat-
ments of the inner surface of the  shelter or tunnel  would  play an important
role for the control  of noise radiated from the opening-   (5-  3 )
            The following table provides  a general  overview  of traffic noise
barriers and their performance in reducing noise along traffic routes in
European countries. (Table 5-18)

United Kingdom



Noise Barrier Site
Noise Barrier-
Site (HE
Noise Barrier-
Site HIE
Noise Barrier-
Site #131
Noise Barrier-
Site #2SI
Noise Barrier-
Site #3SI
Noise Shelter-
Site #IF
Noise Barrier-
Site H2F

al Huston
(near London)
South of Bern
South of Bern
South of Bern
South of Paris
^aris Beltway
-South of Pans

V my 1 supported
in a rneLal frame-
work with sealed
Wood supported
by concrete
Combination of
Corten steel
shells separated
by thick layer of
glass wool
Concrete 8t steel


700 m
no m

Varies from
2-7 meters
lo 3-3
meter 8
average 3
(8 feet)
3-3. 6 m
(1D-1Z ft)
1.8-2.. 4 m
(6-8 ft)

4-5 meter t

Noise Attenuation
Noise reductions 3 dB(A)
at first floor; 4 dB(A) at
ground floor. House
located at a distance of
20 meters from motorway
Between 5-8 dU(A) aver-
aged over an 18-hour
pe riod
Not available
Not available
Not available
10 dB(A) during the day
15 dB(A) during the night

Other Relevant Information
This is an experimental noise barrier
erected in 1970 on a road tarrying
about 73,000 vehicles (30% heavy
vehicles) in an 18 hour period.

This type of barrier construction is
claimed to be very practical, esthet-
ically acceptable, durable and
appeared to require little maintenance

Constructed to protect single family
residences. This barrier, it has beer.
claimed, very effectively attenuated
traffic noise, particularly since it
would be designed for low, horizontal
truck exhaust system.
This noise shelter design covers the
highway and achieved very satisfactor ,
noise abatement results.
Lxiicrii,Tv,!-ii ,-\' >,•-,<• Jnrriir (>r oji-i. '. ; !
lias given the French valuaolo Held
information. Another noise barrier is
being constructed in the same area and
would be about 900 meters long. 9
meters high; estimated cost: 10.000
francs/meter (i, 500$7yaru).
Table  5-18.  Noise Barriers in Some European Countries

           Table 5-18  (continued)

Federal Republic of
(Samples )

oiac Barrier Site
Noise Barrier-
Site #2SE

Noise Barrier-
Site #3SE

Noise Barrier-
Site #4SE

Noise Barrier-
Site #1G

Noise Barrier-
Site #2G

Noise Barrier-
Site #3G


outheast of

outheast of

ieumar, east
of Koln


near Duieburg

Combination of
%vood and earth

Wood and earth

A series of:
earth barriers,
earth & wood,
and absorbing
plastic barriers.

Painted steel

1,100 m

1000 m

1,000 m

2-3 m

2 meters

8-9 meters

average 4

2-5 meters

Noise Attenuation
10-20 db(A)

Other Relevant Information

This barrier is constructed by the
city on top of an access controlled
highway cut section. It is meant to
protect lower level and outside area
of adjacent apartment buildings. It
represents a combination of a highway
cut, a barrier, and noise insulation.
This barrier is also a combination of
a highway cut, earth mound and wood
noise barrier constructed mainly to
protect apartment building from noise
Experimental project; constructed
between 1970-79 to field test effective-
ness, durability, esthetic qualities,
weathering properties and other
features of interest.
This wall barrier combination will
mainly attenuate ramp noise from
trucks accelerating up the ramp grade
to enter highway. It was constructed
to protect apartment houses from
traffic noise and vehicle headlight
This barrier was constructed along
one side of the highway 10 protect
adjacent single fdrnily homes.
                                  Noise  Barriers in Some European Countries

          Table  5-18  (continued)
Federal Republic
of Gerhiany
( Continued)

Noise Barrier Site
Noise Barrier-
Site #7G

East of


1, 650 m

1.8-3.6 m
(6-12 ft)

Noise Attenuation

Other Relevant Information
Finished in 1975; constructed along
one aide of the highway on cut and
fill sections and vacant land planned
for noise sensitive development. The
front faces of the steel barrier panels
were perforated with holes and the
absorbing interior was filled with
shredded rubber held in by a wire
mesh and the back is solid.
Source:  Information in this table has been based mainly on a report by Behrens, F. A. and Burry, T. M. ,
"European Experiences in Highway Noise, " Report No.  FHWA-RD-123, November 1975,  pp. 657-667.

Note:       1.    In column 6 (Noise Attenuation Estimation) the distance from/to highway is not specified.
                However,  we assume that it is of the order of 100 meters and at ground level.

           2.    The attenuation at ground floor was less than that at first floor because  ground
                floor had already been partially shielded by the roadway elevation.
                                               Noise  Barriers  in Some European Countries

5.2.Z.4      Building Insulation Against Traffic Noise

              The U. K. is the only country  now actively com-

              pensating residents  near highways for damage

              from road traffic  noise.  The payments are useable

              by the  householder to partially pay for installing

              acoustic materials in the exterior shell of affected

              hours  to alternate road traffic noise.

              For further information on other aspects of this

              problem, see Chapter 6, "Noise in Buildings."

5.Z.Z.5     Planning and Zoning

            In planning new roads in Japan, noise control procedures

are now  included as a design factor.  Thus,  in designing new roads,

estimationsof noise around roadside areas are  derived from

the traffic volume, mixture  of heavy vehicles, average velocity and other

factors,  and the results of the estimation are compared with the EnvironmEntal

Standards  adopted for that area.  If the estimated value is above the stand-

ard, several noise control procedures are applied in the  design, such as

alteration  of road constructions,  application of acoustic barriers ,

and institution of neutral green zones along the road.  (5- 3)

            In the Federal Republic of Germany where traffic noise is the

most widely distributed source of noise,  18 cities have so far worked out

the distribution of noise within their municipality, in the form of more or

less complete noise mapping.  This has been done on a purely voluntary

basis.  The   maps usually indicate the various  levels of noise  using a

bandwidth of 4 to 5  dBA.  However,  procedures  for the  technicalities

have  not yet been standardized.   The purpose of  these noise maps is to

supply data for  city planning.  The  Federal Government intends to make

regulations for  traffic noise similar to  those for  aircraft noise.

The noise  level along streets and highways yet to  be constructed will

be calculated based upon the estimated traffic result.  (5-Z4)

            In dealing with noise  emitted by trucks, certain routes  and

time  restrictions were designated for these type of vehicles.

In this regard the city of Stockholm, Sweden     implemented the following

regulations specifically to reduce traffic noise:

            1.   No heavy trucks  (3^ tons or  over) were allowed at night
                (10 p.m.  to 6 a.m.).

            2.   Long trucks  (1Z meters in length  or greater) were
                restricted to use only designated highways and streets.


           3.   Heavy trucks were restricted to use designated truck
           Two specific  cases are worthy of mention concerning the use of
truck restriction to control highway noise in West Germany.  All trucks
over 7. 5 tons   are   restricted from using a main highway between
Bonn and Koblenz during  the hours  of 10:00 p.m. to  6:00 a.m.
Secondly,  trucks are  restricted from using a Local trunk road
to bypass  steep  grades on a section of autobahn  near Alsfeld in the State
of Hessen.
           In England, the British government,  all counties,  and the
Greater London Council are working  on plans for a  national and local
system of truck routes.   In connection with this  overall plan, the GLC
is working on establishing designated heavy truck routes in the London
area in an attempt to regulate  the traffic   of heavy  trucks  on London
streets by channeling them off of the most unsuitable streets and onto a net-
work of main roads.  At the same time,  local areas needing special relief
can   be protected by banning trucks from entering unless they are
needed to  collect or to deliver goods.   (5-12 )
           In some new French towns, Cergy-Pontoise about fifteen miles
outside Paris is a case in point,  a  system of zoning is applied.  Along-
side motorways  no housing is allowed on a belt 30 meters wide from the
edge of the carriageway and apartments between 30m and   80m
from the edge of the carriageway have to be soundproofed.  Along other
roads housing construction is not permitted within thirteen  meters from
the edge of the carriageway.
           But  the most  noteworthy examples of protection against
traffic noise  in new towns are  in Great Britain.   In Stevenage, for example,
a new town of some 100, 000 inhabitants,  road traffic, cyclists and pedest-
rians are  entirely segregated.  Transit traffic has to take a circular route


and traffic to the town itself ends up in parking lots outside the housing
estates.   Cycle and footpaths are the only routes passing through the
residential areas.  Thus, apart from increased safety and a better
environment for play and for walking, traffic noise is considerably
reduced.  Motor traffic is being  prohibited on an increasing scale in
some of the older quarters  of towns throughout Europe.  In Rouen, France,
two streets  in the center  have been closed to vehicles and a broad pedest-
rian precinct is planned.  Vehicle-free zones  have been  set up in Norwich
in Great Britain,  Copenhagen in  Denmark,  Essen in Germany,  Bern  in
Switzerland, Vienna in Austria,  and elsewhere.  Other towns will be
introducing the  same restrictions.  (5--20)
            In Switzerland,  a dozen streets in Zurich are closed to mopeds
and motorcycles between  10:00  p. m.and  7:00 a.m. in order to
protect the local hospitals and residential areas from noise, and since
1959 vehicles passing through Lausanne have had to go around the city
during the night-time.  It is important  to mention here that heavy vehicles
are not allowed to run anywhere  in the  country during the night with the
exception of buses, fire  engines  and trucks carrying certain perishable
goods.  Also,  in the Federal Capital of Switzerland, the public  decided
not to spend money on buses but  to extend the  trolley-bus routes which
cause less pollution and  noise.  This has influenced other Swiss cities  to
do the same thing. Bern  thus provides a perfect example of a combination
of traffic  noise abatement--a ban on trucks, vehicle-free zones and near-
silent public transport.  (5-20)

  5. 3         Railroad and Rapid Transit

  5. 3.1       Railroad
             Railways were originally supposed to involve far less of a
noise  problem than roads and airports.  However,  this view is beginning
to change,  especially with the introduction of high speed trains.  More
countries are paying attention to this problem.  Some  countries have
already introduced legal measures to control noise from trains.      Regulations

             Environmental quality standards concerning noise from the
Shinkansen Railway in Japan have been established.  Noise  standards for
this type of super-express train were issued by the Environmental Agency
of Japan on 29 July 1975.  According to the Ministerial order, the regulation
level for Area 1 (mainly residential areas) is 70 dBA  and for Area II
(commercial and industrial areas) 75 dBA ,  It also shows  the target
fulfillment  period.  These levels have  been established from the  results
of a survey on community response to  noise.  As for ordinary train
noise,  there  is at present no statutory control in  Japan.  (5-Z2) (5-23)     Guidelines
              The Japanese train noise standards have been set at 70 dBA
  or below in areas used primarily for residential purposes and at 75  dBA
  or below in other areas which should be still similarly protected from
  noise pollution in the residents' daily lives.  These standards  must be
  attained as  soon as new railroads  have  been constructed and put into
  service.  In the case of existing railroads they must be achieved with the
  least practical delay.   (5-22) These standards  have been adopted by the
  Tokyo Metropolitan Government 1974 Plan to Protect Citizens of Tokyo
  from Environmental Pollution.

          Compliance with these standards is determined as

follows:  "Train noise shall be measured at points one meter

from each residential structure and this  should be done with respect to

trains  that pass through the spot in one hour.  The maximum noise level

is recorded for each train, then the arithmetic mean taken from the higher

half of the maximum noise levels thus  recorded shall be the  representative

value for  checking the compliance.  The  measuring device to be used shall

be either  the sound level meter specified in JIS C1502 of Japan Industrial

Standards or the precision level meter in International Electrotechnical

Commission (IEC)   publication 179" (5-22)     Non-Regulatory Actions

            Noise from railroads is being attacked in various ways  in

the Federal Republic of  Germany. The first project is to design cars

and engines which do not produce much noise.  Additionally,  there is a

trend towards  concrete bridges rather than steel bridges, and there

is a nationwide program to polish the  rails of the main connections  at

a rate  of 5000 km per year (approximately 3100 miles/year),  in order

to get rid of the micro-ripples.    The latter procedure reduces

noise emission by an average of 5 dBA.   The rail segments of the  main

connections are already welded together  in order to reduce noise

and vibration-  (5-^3)

            In the United Kingdom, the following tables relating to

reduction in noise level  caused by a railway cutting and reduction in noise

levels  due to houses have been provided by a recent investigation.

   Table 5-19  Reduction in Noise Level in dBA Caused by a
   Railway Cutting at Two  Distances from  the  Track.

Cut depth
difference (m)
(re: 1m)
Distance (m)
Reduction in Noise level (dB(A))
A. 67
           Source (5-26)
   Taole 5-20  auriij.j-xo.ry of Reduction in Noise
   L^evels  Due to Houses
Type of House
Number of rows
Number of sites
Number of trains
Excess attenu-
ation dB(A)
Standard Devi-
ation (dB1!
Terraces approx.
150m long
7 (6)*
30 (24)
11.9 (12.9)
3.06 (1.69)
Terraces approx.
300m long
*0rr.its data for reduction at one site that was  much less  than
expected compared  to the other sites.
Note:  (1) Gap in terrace can reduce effect by 3dB(A) in region of
gap (2) High banks reduce effect considerably (by about 4 or
5dB(A))and can effectively reduce the number of rows of houses
(3) All  train types appear to be affected in the same way.
       Source:  (5-26)

5.3.2      Rapid Transit
           Subways constitute a critical element in the urban transportation
system, while streetcars are vanishing from the scene.  A section on
surface traffic noise would not be complete without at least a brief review
of noise control measures or activities aimed at reducing noise from
           Foreign subways, such as Toronto,  Hamburg or Berlin,  are
reputed to be quieter than those in the United States.  A brief review of
examples of subway noise  reduction may be  of interest.
           In Japan, a noise measurement survey was conducted through
a test run of a subway train over a straight section of the Ginza line, and
an acoustical treatment on the side walls and ceiling of the tunnel was
employed for noise reduction purposes.  The sound-absorbing material
consisted of flannel, asbestos spray and  mineral wool spray. It was found
that the noise  level in the car could be  reduced by 5-8 dB over the entire
frequency spectrum from 100-4000 HZ.  (5-27)
           In the design of the Toronto subway, noise control was an
important consideration.   The source of  the subway noise, broadly speaking,
is the subway car itself.  In modern cars with properly designed suspen-
sions,  couplings and drive mechanisms,  the principle remaining noise is
that produced by the rolling contact of metal wheels on rails. The vibra-
tions thus set up in wheels and rails are  radiated directly as airborne
noise within the subway enclosure  and are greatly accentuated by tunnel
reverberation.  (5-30)
           One of the factors contributing to noise on older  subway lines
is the series of  impacts produced by open rail joints.  The modern prac-
tice of welding rail joints has eliminated this problem.  Experiments
were undertaken on the Paris Metro to eliminate the metal-to-metal con-
tact by using rubber tires.  Airborne noise in the  subway enclosure may
be controlled by applying sound-absorbing material as close to the sound

source as possible.  In the Toronto subway, a 4-foot-wide strip of highly

absorbent material was mounted along the tunnel walls at wheel level.

Noise at various  stations in the Moscow subway  network was measured
over a frequency range of 25 to 1600 Hz.  Table  5-21 shows high and low
readings for each octave  band.
Center Frequency, Hz
Sound pressure level, dB
Low: 78
High: 94
Table 5-21 Noise Levels in the Moscow Subway.   Source:  (5-55)

            Typical escalator and train operating compartment readings

were 84 dB and 90 dBA.   (5-33)
            The construction of the Vienna subway, a twenty year  project

begun in 1969  and expected to open in 1980, will run through a vicinity of

noise-sensitive areas where concert halls,  the State Opera Building,

hotels and residential buildings are located. Judith Lang,  in a paper

given during the Inter-Noise '76 Conference, described the noise  control

measures and their effectiveness in dealing with noise problems >

associated with the Vienna subway:
            "From sound level measurements carried out  in
            buildings near  the Viennese municipal rail system
            and from the results of measurements in different
            European cities as reported in the  literature,  it
            can be seen that the noise from underground trains
            passing by can usually be detected  inside buildings
            as far  as 20 m from the tunnels.  The sound levels
            range from 50-70   dBA  near  the tunnel to 20-40  dBA
            at greater  distances.

           Noise control measures,  therefore, had to be found.
           In order  to design these in a most effective and economic
           manner we had to gather the following data:

               the vibration levels of the subway structure
               the influence of different track support systems on it
               the attenuation in the ground
               a possible  attenuation from the tunnel into the
               ground and from the ground into the building
               the propagation of the sound within the building.

           The work on the design of sound insulation measures
           started in 1968  by order of the Viennese Transport
           and Municipal Legal Authorities."  (5-32)

           Data on vibration and the  effect-of sound absorption of airborne

noise on the Vienna subway is provided in the following table and graphs.

track support system

wooden sleeners on 20 cm ballast
wooden sleepers on 90 cz^ b.illast
polvur ethane sleepers in concrete
polv-Lrethane sleepers in concrete
on T-iober mat
polrvre thine sleeoers encased in rubber
enve.ooe in concrete
pol-.-irethane sleeoers encased in rubber
envelooe in concrete on rubber mat
polv-irethane sleepers encased in rubber
envelooe in concrete on aineral wool slab
wooden sleeoers encased in rubber
enve.aoe in concrete
wooden siegers encased in rubber
envelope in" concrete on mineral wool slab
Biun of octaveband vibration levels
31,5, 63, 125 Hz
concrete ground-plate










pile 7,5 m






1J After construction; Stadtbahn-train, speed 40 km/h.
2) Subway-train, speed 80 lun/h.

1,0 - 2.2







      Table 5-22 Low-frequency-vibration Levels Measured with
      Passing Train for Different Track Support Systems  - Vienna Subway.
           Source (5-32)

                                    (T... 50/n sound
                                    absorbing ceiling in the tunnel

                                                 a) reverberation time
                                7000    2000   4000
                                   frequency  Hz
                                                 b) reduction of
                                                   maximum level of
                                                   the outgoing train
WOO    2000   iOOO	~    tdBIA)
    frequency  Hz  	—T-S   SdBIM
c)  70 dBlAl down-time of the incoming
  15:	1	'	'	
 tec                                 100
                     effective noise level of the
                     outgoing train
                                              sound absorbing measure
           sound absorbing measure
  — platform near tunnel     	platform. 50m from tunnel
  — platform, 20m from tunnel	near end of platform

         Figure  5-11.   Effect of Sound Absorption to
         Reduce Airborne  Noise in the Station.

         Source:   (5-32)


5-1        National Swedish Environment Protection Board.
           ECE noise task force, phase I - national Swedish
           report.  May 21,  1975.  p. 17-21.

5-2        Stuber, C.  Airborne and  structure-borne noise in

5-3        Personal communication.  Kobayasi Institute of
           Physical Research, to Informatics Inc. ,
           February 5, 1976.

5-4        Modig, C.  A survey of foreign regulation on noise
           from new trucks.   Washington, U.S. Environmental
           Protection Agency,  July 23, 1974.

5-5        Survey of Noise Immission Recommendations  (1973/74).
           Netherlands Ministerie Van Volksgezondheid en
           Milieuhygiene.  Unpublished paper.  December 30, 1975.

5-6        Personal communication.  Statens Forurensningstilsyn,
           to Informatics Inc. , January 27,  1976.  Response to

5-7        Personal communication.  Swedish Employer's
           Confederation,  Stockholm, to Informatics Inc. ,
           January 22,  1976.

5-8        South African Bureau of Standards.  Code'of practice
           for the measurement of noise emitted by motor vehicles.
           SAB 097-1975.

5-9        Personal communication.  National Swedish Road and
           Traffic Research  Institute, Information Scientist, to
           Informaitcs Inc. ,  February 1976.


5-10        Ingerslev,  F.  Fight the noise--an insidious poison.
            In_ Proceedings; InterNolse 75, Sendai, August 27-29,
            1975,  p.  731-739.

5-11        Parker, J. , M.  Meyers, R.  Satnsbury, and G. Vulkan.
            Motorways environmental reinstatement: a pilot study.
            Great London Intelligence Quarterly, (27): 25-30,
            June 1974.

5-12        Behrens,  F. A.  and T. M. Barry.  European  experiences
            in highway noise.  Report No. FHWA-75-123.  Washington,
            Federal Highway  Administration,  November 1975.

5-13        Swedish State Committee On  Traffic Noise.   Summary
            of the committee's proposal for road-traffic noise
            standards. SOU  1975:60.  1975.   p. 357.

5-14        Allen, W. , J.  Charles,  P. Dickinson,  and L.  Ginsburg.
            The operation of brltish  legislation for highway noise
            compensation.  _In_ Proceedings; InterNolse 76,
            Washington, DC,  April 5-7,  1976.  p.  344.

5-15        Aubree, D.  Enquete acoustlque et sociologique per
            mettant de definir une  echelle de la gene eprouvee par
            1'homme dans son logement du fait des  bruits de train
            (Acoustical and sociological survey to  define a scale of
            annoyance felt by people  In their homes due to  the noise
            of railroad trains).  BBN/TIR 88.  Centre Scientlflque
            et Technique du Batiment,  Paris,  June 1973.

5-16        Schultz,  T.  Development of an acoustic rating scale
            for assessing annoyance  caused by wheel/rail noise
            In urban mass transit.  Report No. UMTA-MA-C6-0025-
            74-2.  Springfield, Va, NTIS, 1974.


5-17       United Kingdom Department of the Environment,
           Transport and Road Research Laboratory.   Road
           surface and traffic noise. Leaflet 542.  Crowthorne,
           Berkshire, United Kingdom, April 1975.

5-18       Shunichi,  K. , T.  Sone and T. Nimura.  A study on
           noisiness of train noise.  Journal of the Acoustic
           Society of Japan,  29(4): 225^ April 1973.

5-19       United Kindgom Department of the Environment,
           Transport and Road Research Lab.  Road Surface
           Texture and Noise.  Leaflet 577.  Crowthrone,
           Berkshire, United Kingdom, May 1975.

5-20       Alexandre, A. European efforts to reduce the impact
           of traffic  noise.  In Proceedings;  InterNoise 72,
           Washington, DC  October 4-6,  1972.  p.  208.

5-21       Kono,  S., T.  Nimura, T. Sone.   Effects of a rapid
           transit train noise on the community along a railway.
           Tohoku University,  Japan,  1973.

5-22       Mochizuki, T. ,  K. Kanno, and Kobayashi.  Effects
           of train noise on residents and train noise standards.
           In Annual Report of the Tokyo Metropolitan Research
           Institute For Environmental Protection,  1976.  p. 71-85.

5-23       Nimura,  T.,  M. Ebata,  and T.  Takahishi.   Estimation
           and consideration of the  shinkansen noise for a newly-
           newly-established line.  Ln_ Proceedings; InterNoise
           76, Washington,  DC, April  5-7,  1976. p. 197.

5-24       Umweltbundesamt, Larmbereich.  On the situation
           of noise,  noise abatement,  and noise  control in the
           Federal Republic of Germany.  Berlin,  January 1976.
           p. 5-6.

5-25       Working paper prepared by the Netherlands delegation
           ro rhwAd Hoc Group on Noise Abatement Policies,
           OECD. Paris,  January 8,  1976.

5-26       Fields, J. M. ,  J.  G.  Walker, and J.  B. Lange.
           Designing a national study of railway  noise in
           Great  Britain. _Ln Proceedings; InterNoise 76,
           Washington,  DC, April 5-7, 1976.  p. 206.

5-27       Ishii,  K.  Study on noise reduction in  the vehicle
           ground railway by acoustical treatment on the wall
           of tunnel.  Paper presented at the 6th International
           Congress on Acoustics,  Tokyo, 1968.

5-28       Canadian Department  of the Environment, Environmental
           Protection Service. Canadian environmental noise
           control; Draft.  Ottawa, Ontario,  Canada, October 1975.
           p. 3.

5-29       Hashimoto,  M.  Present status of noise regulations and
           control in Japan. _In Proceedings: InterNoise 75, Sendai,
           August 27-29, 1975.   p. 725.

5-30       Paterson, W. H. and  T.  D. Northwood.  Noise control
           in Toronto's new subway.  Noise Control, 2(5): 1956.

5-31       Interdepartmental Committee on Noise Nuisance.  Survey
           of noise immission recommendations  1973/74.   Nether-
           lands,  1974.


5-32       Lang,  J.  Measures against airborne and structure-
           borne noise in the Vienna subway.  In Proceedings;
           InterNoise 76, Washington, DC, April 5-7, 1976.
           p. 309-314.

5-33       Matveyev,  P.  N.  Noise levels at sites  in the Moscow
           subway.  Gigiena truda i Professionalnyye Zabolovaniya,
           (6): 58-61, 1966.


6. 1        Introduction

           The design and construction of buildings  are governed by

a wide range of laws,  regulations and codes  to ensure that new buildings

meet basic requirements for safety,  health and comfort.  In recent

years the responsibility for  building regulations  has, in most European

countries,  been extended to  the national level, thus abandoning the

practice  of leaving the supervision  to local authorities.   In ECE countries

attempts have been made to  extend  such regulations to  the international


           The first step toward an international building code was

made  in 1970.  The  Committee on Housing, Building and Planning

requested its Working Party to undertake a comprehensive study of

the existing building regulations in  force in ECE countries.   The

first draft was prepared in January 1973 and  has subsequently been

revised and supplemented by additional data  submitted  by the  govern-

ments and international organizations concerned-  (6-4 p. 1)

           Altogether, twenty two  ECE countries participated in the

program, which resulted in  the publication of "Building Regulations

in  ECE Countries" (New York, 1974).  The compilation includes

building regulations, official building authorities and other bodies

concerned with the legislative framework of  construction, the means

of  control and procedures for  approval  of buildings and  building

projects, and the scientific research pertaining thereto.  The

participating countries include Austria,  Belgium,-'Bulgaria,  Cyprus,

Czechoslovakia, Denmark, Finland,  France, FRG, Ireland, Italy,

The Netherlands,  Norway, Poland,  Romania, Spain, Sweden,

Switzerland,  United Kingdom, U.S.A., U.S.S.R., Yugoslavia.

           Among other measures  promoting a better cooperation
among ECE countries,  one in particular  deserved attention.  At the
Fourth ECE Seminar on the Building Industry,  held in London in
October  1973, agreement was reached on a  series of measures to
be taken on the national and international levels to remove technical
obstacles to international trade in the building field .   (6-4 p. 4)

6-2        Decision Criteria For Noise
            Fifteen large-capacity office rooms in Switzerland were
investigated for noise levels; 591 employees were interviewed,  mostly
males  between 20 and 40.  Noise was  measured in several spots more
than once.  The noise level prevailing 50 percent of the time and
fluctuating between 47 and 52 dBA was designated as mean level and
set at L.50.  At this level,  there was no  interference with intelligibility
of speech.  Noise values that exceeded the  acceptable level by 1 percent
of the time were designated as frequent  peaks LI.  This boundary
value ranged from 57  to 65 dBA .  (6-1 p. 274)
            Employees interviewed on their reactions to noise in
fifteeen office rooms  have generally complained about excessive
noise levels despite the fact that the measurements showed that noise
levels  were relatively low. Altogether 35 percent, mainly managers
and college graduates, declared that they felt annoyed by noise.
(  6-1 p 275)        Percentage-wise, the  sources of annoyance were
pointed out as follows: 45%, conversation;  25%, office machinery*
20%, telephone;  8%, loafers around the office? 2%, outdoor noise.



            Interviews  conducted with the employees of the fifteen

large-capacity offices have proven that large offices have better

acoustic qualities than small offices with the same amount of employees

per specific area  (6-1 p 278)        since in a larger room the noise

distribution patterns is  more uniform than in a smaller room (although

the mean noise level L^Q was found to be almost equal in both types

of offices).

6. 3         Regulations and Guidelines

6.3.1       General

            Building regulations in ECE countries are valid for all

types of building activity and all types of buildings and structures.

            In most countries,  there  is a difference between building

regulations and technical standards.  Standards usually state  dimensions

and properties of material,  whereas building regulations  refer mainly

to requirements  such as structural safety, fire security,  indoor

climate,  sound insulation,  etc.  Above all,  building regulations state

that a building permit must be obtained before a building  is constructed,

the basic aim being to ensure health and safety.

            It is  possible to discern a certain general structure in

the system of building regulations in most ECE countries.  This

structure usually consists of building laws,  regulations supplementary

to the law,  and finally regulatory documents also comprising  technical


            In the USA,  FRG,  or Switzerland, there are as yet no

regulations that are mandatory for the whole country, although basic

construction regulations have,  as  a rule, a nationwide validity.

           At the national conference on noise abatement in Varna,

a paper was delivered on low-noise machinery operating inside

residential buildings in East Germany (6   8)     According to the

existing regulations in force in East Germany (Landeskulturgesetz),

the maximum permissible noise in dwellings  is set at 40 dB  by day

and 30 dB by night.   This  makes it imperative to limit the noise level

of machinery  such as elevators, ventilators,  water-pressure raising

facilities, etc. in multi-story residential houses.

6.3.Z      Australia

           The Australian Environment Council  (AEC) recently (1975)

commissioned studies on the noise levels of household appliances

consequently, standards are expected to be issued some time in 1976

following the availability of results from the above studies and tests-


           The recently published Australian Draft Standard DR75136

for "Ambient  sound  levels for areas of occupancy within buildings"

is evidently not yet  in force- ( 6 - 18 )

           The Department of Environment and Conservation of

South Australia plans to introduce a Noise Control Act (presumably

in 1976) which would establish acceptable noise levels and noise

specifications for domestic noise sources  such as air conditioners,

lawn mowers,  swimming pool pumps, filters, etc.  (6-12)

6.3.3       Netherlands
            In the last two years (1974 and 1975) the Department of

Public Health and Environmental Protection (Volksgezondheid en

Milieuhygiene) of the Netherlands has carried out a preliminary noise

abatement program,  which was formulated in 1972, and which included

a section on town building.  In 1976 the proposed Noise Abatement Bill

will be debated in the Dutch Parliament, discussing the problem of

new regulations, a better application of existing regulations and the

avoidance of new noise problems when planning and designing industrial

facilties, houses and roads.

            In the Netherlands, the design standard for noise insulation

in dwellings (NEN-1070) dates back to  1962.  The present study aims

at updating and expanding the text.  (Measuring methods employed are

in agreement with ISO/R 140-1960.  The assessment-procedures laid

down in NEN-1070,  however, are different from those  in ISO/R 717-


            In the Netherlands, the only existing legal regulations

in the field of noise inside buildings  are to be found in the municipal

by-law regarding building.  They consist  of building codes,  partially

derived from NEN 1070.  However,  these codes are hardly supplied

and there is no enforcement or performance  testing at  all.  Thus in

the Netherlands, with its large building programs after World War II,

a large number of houses is known to have insufficient  noise insulation

with respect to adjacent houses.  The booming developments in hi-fi

and other electro-acoustical equipment have  led to a  serious noise

problem, the appearance of which was triggered in particular when

the Noise Abatement Bill was presented to Parliament.

            The Bill contains under Section 17 an Amendment of the
Housing Act, which will make it possible for  the Ministers of Housing
and of Public Health and Environmental Protection together to set
noise standards for new houses and to introduce a compulsory perfor-
mance testing system for  housing designs and finished buildings.
            At present some pilot projects are undertaken to apply
existing know-how to new  housing projects and to existing houses
(renovation and rehabilitation) in connection with other improvements.
            In some Dutch cities,  municipal building authorites took
the initiative to set up noise insulation programs in close cooperation
with the building industry  (Middelburg) or to use their authority to
get better results from building participants (Eindhoven).
            For noise sensitive buildings no legal actions have been
taken so far.  However^ these are foreseen in the Noise Abatement
            In the construction of these types  of buildings,  usually
attention is  being paid to the noise aspects and acoustical consultants
are frequently involved.
            For 1976 more insulation projects are foreseen in the
Netherlands and it is expected that with the new NEN-1070 in force,
as well as a new directive of the Minister for Housing with regard
to subsidized housing,  the projects will ensure housing will have
better insulation.  The implementation problems for the building
industry will necessitate a gradual introduction of the new regulations.
            Consumer organizations in the Netherlands  have been very
active over  the past three  years with the  noise problems of home
appliances  and show test results in their  comparative consumer reports
in addition  to surveys  of traffic noise and building noise  problems.

            The Government is preparing public awareness campaigns
with respect to the use of less noisy equipment for household and
hobby purposes.  In 1976 a major campaign is foreseen in this field.
The Noise Abatement Bill includes sections on standards and labeling
of such appliances.

6.3.4       Belgium

            In Belgium, there is one general noise pollution law,
dated July 18,  1973.  This law empowers the King to take the necessary
measures for controlling noise including the prohibition  of production
or  sale of high-noise machinery and imposition of standards for noise
reduction devices.  (6 - 15 p. 9)

6.3.5       Sweden
            In Sweden,  noise inside buildings is handled by the National
Board of Urban Planning,  in cooperation with the National Board of
Health and Welfare, both in Stockholm.   Noise  from household
appliances and lawn care equipment is handled  by the National Board
for Consumer Policies.  ( 6 - 16)

6. 3. 6       Denmark

            In Denmark, within the last two years  (1974 and  1975),
the standard  for sound insulation in buildings ISO/R 140 has been
revised.  The finalized test should appear in 1976,  together  with the
revised ISO/R  717.  In 1976, work is  planned on a standardized
procedure for the measurement of sound insulation of suspended
ceilings.  (  6-17)      Noise inside buildings is regulated by  the
building regulation (Bygnings-reglement) of 1972,  but there  are no
programs on household appliances and law care equipment.  Such
programs are presently under study by  the EEC commission on noise.

6.3.7      West Germany

           There are no national regulations in FRG (as of January 1976)
on noise originating inside the building, but there are guidelines issued
by the DIN and VDI, dealing with noise from the heating system, house-
hold appliances,  elevators,  air conditioners, etc.  (6 - 19 p. 9)
The DIN 4109,  the most important guideline,  deals with insulation
against  noise effects inside the building.  These recommendations
have been incorporated in laws of some of the German  states (Laender).
As a rule,  hospitals and schools must get improved sound insulation
during construction.  Some DIN and VDI recommendations refer the
sound insulation of the outer walls of  buildings and their windows.
           Filter measurements of airborne and impact noise of
structural parts are done  according to frequency, as stated in DIN
52210 (Nos. 1, 3 and 4),  issued as a draft between January 1971 and
December 1974.  They are generally  in agreement with the ISO
recommendation  ISO/R717 (1968).  The finalized version was expected
to be put in force some time after April 30,  1975,  the deadline for
comments on the proposed standards.
           The Council of Experts for Environment Problems
(Ref.  6.23,  p.  xi) in FRG recommended a stricter control over
residential construction with respect  to noise abatement, as well
as general lowering of noise limits inside dwellings.  Table °-l
( 6-23  p 80)  lists the mean and maximal noise levels in dBA,
according to the existing VDI guidelines (VDI Richtlinie 2729),
for dwellings.

                              Table  6-1
            German. Interior Noise Criteria (Guideline)
       Type of Room
Mean Level
 in dBA
Mean Maximal
Level in dBA
         1) in residential/hospital/
            recreational areas

         2) in other areas

       Living rooms

         1) in residential/hospital/
            recreational areas

         2) in other areas


Source:  (6-Z2 p 153)

       The guidelines for assessing noise in apartments, according to
the existing West German norms (as  of December  1974) are presented
in Table 6-2.

                             Table 6-2
                West German Norms Related  to Noise in Residences
Norm* and
VDI 2058 -
VDI 2565 -
VDI 2569 -
VDI 2719 -
DIN 4109 -
TA noise -
ISO R 1996-
Maximum A Noise Mean Level ( a criterion
year Level in dB for assessment) in dB


*  VDI 2058   assessment of working noise;  VDI 2565   assessment of
   of noise inside apartments; VDI Z569  - assessment of traffic noise;
   VDI 2719   noise attenuation by windows;  DIN 4109   noise protection
   in construction of buildings; TA law (see section on West Germany);
   ISO R 1996 - assessment of noise with respect to community reaction.

           A draft of a norm for measuring airborne sound insulation
outer walls and windows, to be commented on until April 30,  1975,  is
given in DIN  52210 (Dec.  '74).
           Certain design characteristics of walls, partitions and
ceilings could reduce  the noise level by about 10 dB-   (6-20 p. 46)
Walls partitions between  apartments should be about  350  to 500 kg/m2
in thickness and should have an additional noise-attenuating skin of  40 mm
thick mineral wool plus a 12. 5 mm gypsium  cardboard plastering.
Ceilings between apartments should be 350 to 500 kg/m2  with "floating"
floor finish on a 20 mm fiberboard.
           Flanking  (facade) outer walls  should have a minimum weight
of 350 kg/m  with a noise-attenuating skin of 80 mm  mineral wool and
12.5 mm gypsium cardboard plaster.  Additional modifications are
available.  (6-21 p. 129)
           As far as  household appliances and  lawn mowers are  concerned,
there are no  national noise  emission limits  in FRG.  The EEC commission
on noise is currently (Jan.  '76) working on establishing uniform noise
limits for these types of  machinery.  (6 - 19 p.  9)      With respect to
lawn mowers,  there is a  variety of local regulations,  usually calling
for night-time, noon,  and Sunday curfews.

6.3.8      United Kingdom
           There are a great  number  of standards in the United
Kingdom relating to the design of structures to  achieve various
acoustical properties  of transmission loss and addition
to specialized recommendations for hospitals and schools.  Recently
there has been an  increasing usage of ISO practices and no doubt
EEC will produce  its  own standards, particularly if the recommendations
listed in the following document are accepted (H.  Bastenier,

W.  Klosterkoetter and J. B.  Large "Damage and annoyance caused

by noise" EEC Eur.  5398e.   1975).
            Interior noise in  the United Kingdom is  usually measured

in terms of peak dBA.  But it is usual to specify an exterior  environ-

ment with the inference that the indoor noise levels will then be

acceptable.  For example,  an NNI of 35 is usually considered an

acceptable external environment, whereas an NNI of 55 requires the

application of soundproofing^
            The Building Research Establishment in the United
Kingdom carried out research to as certain what acoustic, thermal,

and ventilation specifications were required  to insure that proper

interior noise environments could be attained.  Much of this work

had previously been completed  in solving the Heathrow Airport noise

problem.   In their studies, the BRE evaluated structural mass

requirements, enclosure continuity, and optimum wall structures

with special consideration of  double  leaf constructions.  As  a result

of this research a noise insulation implementation package was

developed.  (6-9)
            The specific  requirements of the insulation package appear
in the Noise Insulation Regulations.  Applying only to eligible buildings,
the insulation package  consists of:

            1.   Replacement or conversion of existing single pane
                windows. For a given pane  thickness the regulations
                specify the air space between the windows.   This is  to
                assure adequate transmission loss.  All gaps are
                required to be  sealed with compressible resiliant
                strips. Also,  it is required Chat both windows must
                be openable for direct ventilation and cleaning.

            2.   For  control of  solar heat the insulation package requires
                that  Venetian blinds  be fitted between the panes  of  the
                double windows.  The blinds must be white or near white
                with a slot width to spacing ratio of between 1. 15:1 and

           3.  For control of ventilation, the package includes a
               noise attenuating ventilator incorporating a variable
               speed fan.  The regulation specifies that the ventilation
               rates must range from at least 37 liters per second
               (l-/s.) at a back  pressure of 10  Newtons/square meter
               to 10 1,1 s. at zero back pressure.

               At its maximum ventilation rate, the unit must have-
               a noise  output of less than 40 dBA.  At the rate of
               31 L/s. with 10 N/m  backpressure,  the sound level
               must be less than 31 dBA.  In  these determinations
               the measured noise levels must be adjusted to account
               for room absorption by subtracting a  term involving
               LiOg,QA, where A is the  measured room absorption.

               So that transmission of noises from the exterior
               through the ventilator  unit into the room may be
               minimized, the  regulations specify minimum 1/3
               octave  transmission loss figures from 10 Hz (30 dB)
               to 3150  Hz  (53 dB).

           4.  The regulations also call for a permanent vent to be
               installed in each eligible room.  The vent  must be of
               the sound attenuating type with the same transmission
               loss shown in Table III.   Minimum and maximum
               effective air path areas  are also specified.
6. 3. 9      Japan

           Japanese,law, article 22-2, item 2, no. 1, states  that a

sound-insulating wall should have a planar density of over 110 kg/sq m.

Double-wall structures should be at least 35 mm thick at the inter-

mediate air seam and have more than 60 kg/sq m total planar  density.

Table 6-3 shows transmission losses  of a sound insulating wall,
according to the new amended standard in force since  197L  (  6-2) and


                               Table 6-3
   Minimum Transmission Losses  of 'Sound Insulation1 Wall according to
                           Japanese  Law
           Octave Band (Hz)
Transmission Loss (dB)
 Source:   (6-2), (6-6)
            The level of transmission loss in windows is found by
measuring the difference between average acoustic levels for  two
rooms with an intermediate window-  (6-2)
            The Level of transmission loss in windows due to the  sash
was defined as  above 18 dB in 1970 (in Japan) when the KJ-11-type
aluminum sash was authorized.   In 1972  a   sound-insulating sash
with more  than 25 dB level of transmission loss even after 10, 000
times of opening and closing  was designed.  (6-2)
            Modern soundproof walls for  traffic and factory noises
(in Japan) are both sound-insulating and sound-absorbing (Ref. 6.2).
            Table  6-4 shows the  boundary values for airborne
noise and impact noise  insulation (A:  minimum requirements;
B:  desirable requirements)  applicable to Switzerland.

                        Table 6-4
 The Boundary Values for Airborne Noise and Impact Noise
        Insulation Applicable in Switzerland
Airborne Noise
Index I (dB)
A* B*
School Premises (EMPA guidelines)
1. Partition walls between classrooms 45 55
2. Partition walls between classrooms
and corridors 35 45
3. Ceilings between classrooms 50 55
4. Partition walls and ceilings bet-
ween music rooms (classes in
singing) and adjacent rooms -- 55
5. Partition walls and ceilings
between music training rooms -- 55
Hotel Rooms (EMPA guidelines)
1. Partition walls and ceilings between
guest rooms 50 55
2. Partition walls between guest rooms
and corridors 45 50
3. Partition walls and ceilings between
guest rooms and restaurant, kitchen,
etc. premises 55 60
4. Insulation between guest rooms and
bowling alleys 55 65
Impact Noise
Index I; (dB)

65 55
55 45
55 45
65 55
55 45
25 25
A:  Minimum Requirements
B:  Desirable Requirements

                               Table 6-4
                                          Airborne Noise
                                          Index I  (dB)
Dwellings (SIA recommendations)

1.   Wall partitions,  staircase walls,
    ceiling partitions

2.   Arcade
3.  Partition walls and ceilings between
    flats and businesses,  such as work-
    shops,  restaurants,  etc.                60     65

4.  Apartment and house  doors
       a)  opening inwardly                  20     25
       b)  opening outwardly                 --     25

5.  Windows and glass doors                20     30
                  Impact Noise
                  Index I; (dB)
65     55

65     55

50     45
Business  Premises (EMPA guidelines)

1.  Partition walls and ceilings between
    various enterprises                     45     55

2.  Partition walls and ceilings between
    premises of the same enterprise        35     45

3.  Partition walls and ceilings between
    premises with machinery and office
    rooms                                  55     60

4.  Partition walls and ceilings of
    manager's rooms, conference rooms,
    etc.                                    45     55

                        Table 6-4  (Continued)
                                           Airborne Noise    Impact Noise
                                           Insulation          Insulation
                                           Index Ia (dB)       Index I; (dB)
Hospital Rooms (EMPA guidelines)
1.   Partition walls  and ceilings between
    sick rooms                           45       55

Z.   Partition walls  between sick rooms
    and corridors                         45       50

3.   Partition wall'  between sick rooms
    and rooms su ;h as kitchens, offices,
    etc.                                   55       60
Source: (6-3)

6. 4          Building Insulation Against Traffic Noise

             The placement of houses  and buildings on sites near traffic

routes and highways introduced a major environmental annoyance problem

caused by the continuous flow of traffic.  This problem was severely
experienced especially in areas where preplanning or zoning was never

made.  To reduce noise levels to compatible limits inside houses and
buildings,  some countries took different measures to insulate  from  traffic

noise.  Sound absorbing materials have been used for building noise control

in  several ways.  Experimental sites have been constructed to develop the

most effective  means  and guidelines to deal with this problem.  However, it

is  fair to say that insulation of buildings is considered to be the least

desirable measure in fighting  noise due to its costs and also due to the fact
that it has no effect on external noise levels  in such areas as private and

public open space.

             In the United Kingdom the DOE Building Research  Establishment
(BRE), besides  achieving the mentioned noise insulation implementation
package,  has been engaged in  other noise insulation experiments. A pilot
noise insulation project has  been  carried out on a flat 30 meters from the

edge  of a motorway in Douglas House apartments adjacent to the Midland
section of the M6  motorway  near  Birmingham.  Behrens and Barry  in their

report "European Experience  in the  Highway Noise"  describe  the experiment
and its  results as follows:

             "This experiment was carried out to study the  attenuation
             effects of sound insulating a dwelling  from heavy traffic
             noise 821 dB(A) and to  develop  and evaluate special ventilation
             and solar heat  gain control methods.  Insulation  treatment
             on the living room and  bedroom consisted of installing
             double windows with white Venetian blinds between the  window
             panges,  a double french door leading  to a patio,  and a  sound
             insulated mechanical ventilation system.  Existing windows
             were fitted internally with additional glass panes spaced
             20 mm from the  existing  panes, and white Venetian blinds,

            operable from within the rooms, were fitted within the
            sound absorbing, fiber lined cavity to assist m solar heat
            control.  Means of ventilation were provided by a ventilator
            fan unit which drew air into the rooms and a separate
            permanent vent which reduced high back pressures,
            installed on .external walls.

            This  experiment was carried out concurrently with England's
            preparation of specifications  covering sound insulating,
            ventilating and solar heat gain control measures  to be taken
            in dwellings qualifying for treatment under their  1973
            (Building and Buildings) Noise Insulation Regulations, and
            provided the basis for insulation measures presently being
            employed under  these regulations.

            The overall measured sound reduction, outside to inside,
            was 35 dB(A), compared with 10-15 dB(A) for the original
            windows partly opened for ventilation.  External  noise levels
            of about 80 dB(A) were reduced to  approximately 47 dBA.
            When writing about noise insulation in Sweden the authors of

the mentioned report state that:

            "Generally local city planning and zoning regulations and
            related building codes would require builders of new homes,
            apartment buildings,  offices, etc. to  insulate for  traffic
            noise as well as for heat if a traffic noise impact  existed
            or was anticipated.  In cases involving traffic noise impacts
            on existing buildings,  either due to existing or anticipated
            traffic as a result of new highway  construction,  the local
            governments were obligated to take the necessary remedial
            noise abatement measures which could include noise
            insulation work.
            Such noise  insulation work normally consisted of  installing
            special openable,  window units.   One common type of
            special window unit used had three window panes; 2 panes
            about 3 cm. apart to act as thermopanes for heat insulation
            and  a third pane 8-10  cm. apart for sound  insulation.
            Ventilation systems were provided if  needed, in multiple
            residential buildings (apartments, etc.) and office buildings.
            Such systems were certified to meet adopted air  circulation

             To assist in the determination as to whether traffic  and
             other existing noise warranted special noise insulation
             consideration, the City of Stockholm had prepared a map
             (completed in 1973) which indicated the noise situation for
             the entire Stockholm area.  Map preparation involved the
             measurement of existing noise at about 250 different sites
             around  the city between 1968 to  1973.   This noise data
             was  supplemented by noise prediction modeling calculations
             to obtain noise information for map areas not measured.
             All major  streets on the map  had been color coded into
             the following five  daytime noise impact catagories:  75 dBA,
             70-75 dBA,  65-70 dBA,  60-65 dBA and 60 dBA.

             From this map, which is updated periodically,  it is  possible
             to judge what necessary noise impact  precautions wouldr
             have  to be taken to fulfill interior noise requirements.
             Only  where noise  levels were below 60 dBA  would ordinary
             window construction and planning of homes be possible.
             For  levels up to 70 dBA,   noise reducing windows would
             be necessary along with requirements concerning the  orientation
             of rooms  in the dwelling buildings and the orientation  and design
             of the buildings themselves.   For levels above 70 dBA,
             additional  precautions would be  needed such as exterior abate-
             ment measures,  traffic or vehicle  restrictions etc."
             No traffic noise insulation  has been carried out in France and

there seems to  be no immediate plans to do any.  Also there has not been

any building insulation carried out.for the  specific purpose of reducing

traffic noise impact in Switzerland.   Noise insulation measures have been

carried out in at least two places in Germany.  Windows above  three

meters in residential  dwellings 40-50 meters off a highway were insulated

for traffic  noise in Hannover and in  the city oi Munich.   The  Noise Group

of the Federal Institute of Road Affairs has been conducting research on
special window  units which are claimed  to achieve 30 dBA  reduction of

outside traffic noise level.   This system involved an integral glazing-

ventilation unit.  Built into each double window unit is a  small ventilator

fan with a sufficient rate to meet room air change requirements.  A

  diagram  of this  window unit appears below.
                                                         mit Splegelglas

                                                         mit Spiegel- oder
gedampf ter Ventilator
(auf Wunsch mit Helzung)
                                Figure 6-2

Integral Window Glazing - Ventilation Unit Being Investigated in Germany

                             Source:  (6-24 p 676)


6-1          Nemecek, J.  Laermwirkungen in Bueroraeumen (Effects of
             noise in offices).  Zurich, Institut Fuer Hygiene und Arbeits-

6-2          Koyasu, M.   Recent trends in sound-absorbing and insulating
             materials.  Journal of the Acoustical Society of Japan,
             29:  579-584,  1973.  (English abstract).

6-3          EMPA (Swiss Federal Materials Testing and Experiment
             Station).   Table; Grenzwerte Fuer Die Luftschall und Trittschall
             Isolation (Boundary values for  airborne noise and impact noise
             insulation).   Switzerland.  1 p.

6-4          Economic Commission for Europe.  Building regulations in
             ECE countries.  New York, 1974. 17 p.

6-5          Traffic Noise and Overheating  in Offices.  Building Research
             Establishment (ERE) Digest, February 1974,  4 p.

6-6          Ishii, K.  Review of recent architectural acoustics.  Journal
             of the Acoustical Society of Japan,  29(9): 559-563, 1973.
             (English abstract)

6-7          Sadowski, J.  Akustyka w Urbanistyce, Architekturze i
             Budownictwie  (Acoustics in town building, architecture and
             construction industry).  Warsaw, Arkady, 1971,  867 p.

6-8          Meltzer, G.  Laermarme Installation Haustechnischer Anlagen
             (Low noise equipment inside buildings).   In_ Proceedings;
             Second National Conference on Noise Abatement,  Varna
             Oct.  30-November 1,  1971. p. 51-57.

6-9          Behrens,  F.  A. and T. M. Barry.  European experience in
             highway noise, June 1975.   Washington, Federal Highway
             Administration, 1975.

6-10         Verein Deutscher Ingenieure.  Laermarm Konstruieren
             (Low noise construction).   VDI-Berichte No. 239.  Dusseldorf,
             1975.  247 p.

6-11         Personal communication.  Australian Department of Environ-
             ment, to Informatics Inc.,  December 18, 1975.

6-12         Personal communication.  South Australian Department of
             Public Health,  to Informatics Inc.,  December 5,  1975.

6-13         Personal communication.  Ministerie Van Volksgezondheid
             en Milieuhygiene, to Informatics Inc., December 1975.

6-14         U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.  Background paper
             on Luxemburg.  Washington,  January 28,  1976.  17 p.

6-15         U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.  Background paper
             on Belgium.  Washington,  February 16, 1976.  21 p.

6-16         Personal communication.  Swedish  Environmental Protection
             Agency, to Informatics Inc. ,  December 1975.

6-17         Dansk Standardiseringsrad.  Information on Noise Control
             Activities in Denmark.  December 1975.

6-18         Personal communication.  Standards Association of Australia,
             to Informatics Inc. ,  January 22, 1976.

6-19         Umweltbundesamt, Laermbereich.  On the situation of  noise,
             noise abatement and noise control in the Federal Republic of
             Germany.  Berlin, January 1976. 18 p.

6-20         Schwartz, K. G.  Hoher Schallschutz Bei Wohngebaeunden
             (A better noise insulation for residential houses).  Kampf
             Dem Laerm, 21(2):  39-46, 1974.

6-21         Goesele, K.  Schallschutz von Wohnungen (Noise protection
             of apartments).  Kampf Dem Laerm,  21(5): 126-130, 1974.

6-22         Finke,  H. O. and E. Martin.  Innengeraeusche im
             Schallpegelbereich unter 30  dB (Indoor noise within the level
             of under 30 dB).  Kampf Dem Laerm, 21(6): 149-153,  1974.

6-23         Hansmeyer, K. H.  ed.  Umweltgutachten 1974 (Expert opinions
             on environment).  Stuttgart, Verlag W-  Kohlhammer GMBH,
             March  1974.  p. 77-97.

6-24         Behrens, F.  A. and T.  M. Barry.  European experiences in
             highway noise.  Report No.  FHWA-RD-75-123.  Federal
             Highway Admin. , November 1975.  p. 658.

              ON THE COMMUNITY
7. 1           Introduction
              Generally,  noise from industry (including construction

projects) has not been the most annoying source of nuisance in foreign

experience;  that honor is reserved for airports (where the annoyance

experienced by a small number of victims has been more intense) and for

vehicular traffic (a far more pervasive noise source) (7-20).  This

continues the ranking that was born out by earlier data such as the

incidence of complaints  in Germany (7-1); Japan, where noise around

aircraft has been a particular problem (7-2); and the United Kingdom,

where noise from factories was fourth-ranked (19% of those surveyed)

and construction noise sixth-ranked (5%) in the Wilson Report.

              While neither factories  nor  construction projects are

major sources of annoyance, a given level of construction noise is more

annoying than an equal level of traffic  noise,  according to recent

studies (7-18).

7.2.          Noise from Factories
7.2.1          Decision Criteria
              Because industrial noise emissions to the community

is basically a problem of nuisance and a quality-of-life  issue, a

fundamental difficulty is the psychological aspects of the problem:

what kind and level of duration of sound from industry should be

considered as undesirable when it intrudes into various kinds  of

sur rounding s ?

              It should not be thought that only heavy industry is
responsible; light service industries scattered throughout urban regions
contribute their share of  noise annoyance,  especially steam laundries,
and reports on light industrial noise problems  have been received
from countries as varied as the U.K. , Israel (7-12),  and the USSR.
              In 1973, the Verein Deutscher Ingeniere proposed
that  the rating of industrial noise in the community be determined
from the loudness and duration of the noise.  By altering the method
of measurement, account was  taken of noise  containing bothersome
tones or impulses and/or occurring at certain  times of the day (7-3).
              Here national differences  in culture and life style
become crucial.  For example, it is easy to  see the impossibility of
determining one measure of industrial disturbance that would be
adequate both for the Scandinavians, whose buildings are usually fitted
with double glazed windows for protection against the  severe climate,
and the Israelis, who have an "open window" life style.  Or as
another example,  one might consider the difference between  some
parts of Paris, where a certain amount of evening noise is said to
be considered desirable for the ambiance (7-4), and Zurich,  where
quiet is highly valued and municipal ordinances against excessive
noise are strictly enforced.  The European Economic Commission
(EEC) is now in the  process of proposing noise guidelines dealing
with annoyance,  sleep, and speech interference which will be
applicable to all member states.  Similar work being  carried out
by the World Health Organization may result in a  set of internationally
acceptable environmental noise criteria (7-5).

              Several factors are important in preventing noise

              a.   Prevention of complaints.   The British system
                   based on BS 4142, for example,  uses a standard
                   measurement to predict complaints,  which is  highly
                   useful for design and planning and also as a
                   standard for  determining whether a given complaint
                   is reasonable.

              b.   Existing land  use adjacent to the factory  or
                   construction  site.  The German concept is
                   (Ortsublichkeit)--"suitability to the locale".
                   The British consider that noises 10 dBA  above
                   the local background level are likely to cause
                   complaints, and if the noise contains unusual
                   frequency distributions, such as shrill or pure
                   tones,  5 dBA  above  background level will suffice
                   (BS 4142).* The same concept enters the  Swiss
                   system in the assignment of appropriate  noise
                   climates for  various zones  of land use, to which
                   is added maximum additional emissions desirable
                   from sources like industry  or construction.

              c.   Technical feasibility. Of course, what this really
                   means  is the question of how much can be done while
                   holding costs  to a given level, because nearly any
                   degree of abatement is possible if one  is ready to
                   pay for it.  A typical scheme for  dealing with  this
                   problem envisages  standards that would be reviewed
                   periodically and were applicable  on  all units.   One
                   expert  has  alternatively proposed a standard whose
                   language would stipulate that the noise level emitted
                   by X%  of a  class  of machines would constitute the
                   standard.  As more and more of the older existing
                   equipment  is replaced with new "noise-treated"
                   equipment, the standard would have  a built-in
                   tendency to become  stricter (7-7).

               A major economic consideration in international noise

control policies is the  development of industrial policies which are

less polluting, but which, at the same time, make full use of present

technology.  The integration of new methods of pollution control will

inevitably impose cost burdens on firms and may contribute to slow
rates of increase in Gross National Product.   The initial costs of

investment in industrial noise pollution control will be high, but once

prescribed standards have been reached, only additional units of

output will require incremental investment. Among European Economic

Commission (Common Market) countries,  only Denmark has referred

to the costs of implementing anti-pollution  measures in  its noise

legislation, but since 1974 the OECD has undertaken econometric

studies of the impact of pollution control policies (7-8).

               A useful tool for planning is  a method by  which  the
noise nuisance of a proposed new industrial installation  can be
estimated in terms of probability of complaints.  The British have

developed such a tool in British Standard 4142.  Two of  the men who

have  been most active  in developing and using this standard, R.  J.

Stephenson and G.  H. Vulkan, describe  the way in which it is used:

               "This method calls for the establishment of a criterion
               for  the area in which the  factory is,  or will be, situated,
               and then determining whether the noise or estimated
               noise  from the factory will comply with this criterion,
               after having been corrected  according to  the circum-
               stances .

               "The basic criterion of 50 dBA is first corrected, if
               necessary, by the addition of 5 or 10  dBA depending on
               the  degree to which the particular factory fits into the
               character of the surrounding area and whether people
               are used to this  type of factory.   A further correction
               is then made for the type of  area itself, ranging from
               minus 5 dBA for a ruraL area, to plus 20 dBA for  a
               predominantly industrial  area with few dwellings.  If

              the factory will operate only on weekdays between 8 a.m.
              and 6p.m.,  a further  5 dBA is added,  and if at night-time
              5 dBA are subtracted.   The estimated noise from the
              factory,  as heard outside the nearest dwelling or building
              where complaints are likely to arise,  is also corrected
              for its tonal character, its  impulsive character,  if any,
              and for the intermittency  and duration for  which it will

              "The two figures,  that is,  the  corrected criterion and
              the estimated corrected noise  level, are then compared.
              If the noise level is greater than  the criterion by more
              than 10 dBA, complaints can be expected.   If the two
              levels are within 5 .dBA of each other,  the position is
              marginal, and if the expected noise is 10 dBA less than
              the criterion,  complaints would definitely  not be expected.
              The above summary only  gives an indication of  the
              procedure and if this method of assessment is to be used
              it is, of course, necessary to  refer to the Standard itself
              for the details  " (7-8).
              The development of this method dates back to the early

1960's and from the beginning was aimed at finding  criteria that would

not necessarily be the most desirable levels,  but the levels which

forstall complaints.  Tests were made in over 60 cases including a

number where complaints had previously been made; the method

"gave a good prediction of the actual happenings  in about 90% of the

cases."  The reader is referred to ISO Recommendation 1996 for

the latest version of this  approach, as the ISO Resolution is closely

patterned on BS  4142.  In British practice there  are no fixed limits,
but if calculations based  on BS 4142 showed that  a proposed site

would probably bring noise nuisance complaints,  permission to

build would  probably not  be granted (7-8).

7- 2. 2         Industrial Noise - Regulations

              In actual noise  abatement practice,  common methods

are used everywhere which reduce themselves to two types:  distance

from the source at which abatement is applied,  and control over the

time when noise is created.

              Distances range from inside the equipment itself

(quieter engines and moving parts);  outside but still part of the

machinery (sound insulation layers, exhaust mufflers);  near the

machinery (complete enclosures or  shields); in the case of factories,

an intermediate distance (factory building construction, siting of

installations inside the factory site); and finally, specifying the total

distance between industrial noise sources and areas to be protected--

the basis  of the zoning  concept — is  another widespread noise control

approach  appropriate for factories.

              Varying the time dimension of the noise emission,  on the

other hand, is a matter of either regulating operating hours or

limiting total duration (for example, the total length of time a construction

project may operate before it  is considered a permanent rather than

a "temporary" noise source.)

              It may be expected that there will be a trend toward

setting international standards limiting noise from certain machines

like air compressors,  blowers, ventilators.  One  source of impetus

for this trend is similar to the OECD's motivation for setting

standards for another kind of machinery,  motor vehicles:  the

damage to international trade  that would result if manufacturers

were faced with a patchwork quilt of differing national limits that  is

likely to grow with time.

              One aspect of factory noise regulation repeatedly

stressed in the literature is the difficulty presented by the backlog

of existing "noisy" factories that are prohibitively expensive to

abate on the one hand, and too closely located to housing and other

noise-sensitive areas on the other.  "The most obvious way to

diminish the risk of annoyance  to residents by noise, fumes, or

dirt from factories is at the town-planning stage, where residential

and industrial zones can be separated"  (7-8).  But even if good noise

planning  was  done on new industrial sites, the backlog of existing

sites would remain.  A basic policy of land-use planning worked out

by the Greater London Council  for noise nuisance prevention is

concentration of all noisy  sites  in one area,  on the principle  that

adding  together two equal noise sources only  causes a small  increase

in total noise  level (3 dB),  whereas one noisy site in a generally quiet

area can set the noise climate for that entire area. The Soviets

are also using this principle in Moscow by systematically moving

certain noisy factories out of mixed residential areas in Moscow.

              The Swedes  have published guidelines for external noise

emission  on certain types of areas, particularly residential  and

recreational areas (7-13).

              The subject of industrial noise nuisance prevention

by zoning overlaps the more general  subject of town-planning.

Two sub-categories may be distinguished here in foreign practice:

the slow improvement of an existing unsatisfactory pattern, and the

easier  case where a new industrial site may be shielded at the outset

by requiring it to have a buffer  zone.  Working the former situation

is expensive,  as the following case study from Japan illustrates.

               In 1969 more than 500 industrial firms were operating
in the Chiba prefecture,  and one of its six cities, Ichihara City,
is considered to be the industrial center of the area.
               The main industry operating in the area  is iron and
steel, electric power (4, 200, 000 kw) and oil refining (460, 000
barrels per day).  Pollution (noise,  water, air) had been a major
problem for Ichihara City.
               To fight the pollution, Ichihara City  passed city
zoning laws in 1965 based on Basic Construction Law (National  Law,
Article  52).  There were three categories of zones: 4,463 acres
of industrial area along the reclaimed land; 5,079 acres of residential
area; and 642 acres of  neutral area.  To further the zoning  goals
of Ichihara  City, the  Prefecture established in 1966 the "Construction
Codes for the Chiba Prefecture Special Industrial Zone." The
feature  of the Codes  is that they will prohibit construction of such
public or private noise-sensitive institutions as schools,  hospitals,
workhouses, day nurseries, homes for the aged,  residences, rooming
houses,  and hotels or inns in the area,  and will oblige various parties
to help  in the financing of the project.
               Based on national law, the "Government  Work Agency
for Pollution Prevention" (GWA) was set up as an administrative body
designed especially for industrial pollution prevention.  Its  role is
to achieve liaison between interested government and private
institutions  in a particular area to fight pollution.   Its staff is
composed almost entirely of government employees temporarily
assigned to  work on the local GWA.
               The land utilization designated as "Special Industrial
Zone" (SIZ) comprises an area of about 653 acres.  A breakdown
of the total  area is given in Table 7-1.

Type of Land
jt Public Land
A. Green Belt
a. Athletic Facilities
b. Seedbed
c. No. 1 Green Belt
d. No. 2 Green Belt
e. Green Belt for river
bank and shore
f. Park
g. Green Belt roads
B. Streets
a. Boulevard
b. Zoning streets
II. Private Land
A. Existing Residential
B. Warehouse
C. Driver's school
D. High voltage
E. Light Industry
F. River sites

Total I. & II.
Area (Acres)

24. 5

6. 5
135. 5

33. 5

14. 5
427. 6

652. 8

Table 7-1.  Land Use in Special Industrial Zone,
            Chiba Prefecture Project

Source:  7-14


              The budget for the Green Belt and Park in June 1966
was estimated at $6, 722, 222 (Y 2, 186, 000, 000).
              It is noteworthy that when polluting industries  agreed to
bear one-third of the total costs,  they agreed under the condition that
no increase in their burden would occur over a three-year period
(1966-1969).  A breakdown of the contributions of industries, Chiba
Prefecture,  and Ichihara City is given in  Table  7-2.


Source of Financing
1. Electrical power industry
2. Oil refinery
3. Petrochemicals industry
4. Shipbuilding, iron fU steel ind.
5. Others

Prefectural Government
Ichihara City



$2, 240, 744

$2,240, 744
$2, 240, 744
     Table 7-2.  Financing of Chiba Anti-Pollution Projects,
     Source:  (7- 14)
               The way each company was allocated their share of the
 total industrial one-third of total cost was based on: 1. ) the number of
 employees in each firm; 2. ) area of the factory; 3. ) oil consumption;
 and 4. ) value of annual production.

              By the time the work started,  the total cost had increased
by 1.7 million dollars.   Because of the condition caused by polluting
industries, the prefecture and the city each bore a half of the increased
cost, except that a very small amount was  borne by new industries which
moved into the area  after the work was started.
              Land  purchase for Light Industrial Zones concerned
land with existing residences located in the SIZ that had to be cleared
and consolidated to make room for light industry.  For 277. 7 acres
of Light Industrial Zones,  a ten year plan (1966-1976) for acquisition
and clearing has been in operation.  The  plan has been carried out
by the Chiba Prefecture Development Foundation, totally financed by
the prefectural government, and as of 1968,  one third  of the  estimated
55.0 acres has already been purchased from  private land owners by
the Foundation.
              Several problems have arisen  in the course of the
project.  First,  the  city had a plan  for another 20 m wide
green belt between residential and  special industrial areas.  This
green belt was not the one that the  GWA planned. By law,  the
national government can only subsidize one-fourth of the total cost
and the city must bear more than one-fourth  of the cost in order
for the city to get a national subsidy.  The  city doesn't have  enough funds
to implement this at the present time.
              Second,  residences  existing in the special industrial
zone before the plan was made still are a problem.  At the present
time,  it is almost impossible to remove  them because of the budget
limitations.   The governments of all levels and people are making
practical solutions to the problem of existing residences, which are
scattered in an area of about 90 acres.

               Third,  the heavy industries assumed their role

reluctantly, and only in the end cooperated.  During the initial period

of negotiation, the industries complained about the size of their total

contribution and also about the formula by which the contributions of

individual firms would be calculated, i.e., number of employees,

area occupied by the factory, quantity of oil consumed,  and value

of annual production.  At that time  the industries failed to come up

with an alternative proposal for a formula, and the final compromise

reached between government and  industry  was  that one mentioned

earlier: the industries would pay their share,  but nothing toward

any extra unbudgeted costs that might arise.  This proved advantageous

to them, as they did not have to pay any of the  $1.7 million budget

increase caused by inflation during the  first three years of the


               Despite all of the problems, Japanese national,  pre-

fectural and city governments and Japanese public opinion all praise

the Chiba prefecture plan, which  has been the first in Japan to carry

out coordinated pollution prevention measures  (7-14).  They  are

hoping that such an example will inspire other  cities, prefectures,

airports, railroads, etc. to carry out similar  plans.  In fact, two

other cities,  Akaho City and Tokuyama City have already  started

similar projects  for industrial zones with  special green belts

surrounding them.  Their 1969 annual budgets  together totalled about

$690,000 (Y 215, 000, 000).

               Efforts for noise abatement in areas where industry

and housing are already mixed, such as the SIZ described in the

Chiba Prefecture  projects, are likely to give only partial  success

at best.  This point can also be illustrated by another case

pertaining to the Ruhr/Rhine area of Germany.  Some success

was  achieved,  but  the  conclusion was that noise emanating from

large-scale plants such as iron and steel works  "does, however,

present an  overall problem which  in the long run can only be solved

if all these measures are backed up by proper town  and country

planning" (7-1).

                Japan and the  Soviet Union have adopted strict zoning

laws which specify noise levels for specific categories of districts.

The  Japanese enforcement standards for industrial noise emission

in district categories are listed in Table 7. 3.  Consideration

is given to  noise emissions at  three daily "time  zones":

              Table 7-4.  Enforcement Standards for Industrial
              Noise Emission:  Article 4-1, Noise Regulation
Time Zone
1st category
45 phon to
less than
50 phon
40 phon to
less than
45 phon
40 phon to
less than
45 phon
2nd category
50 phon to
less than
60 phon
45 phon to
less than
50 phon
40 phon to
less than
50 phon
3rd category
60 phon to
less than
65 phon
55 phon to
less than
65 phon
50 phon to
less than
55 phon
4th category
65 phon to
less than
70 phon
60 phon to
less than
70 phon
55 phon to
less than
65 phon
         Note; 1; Phon   Metric Law, Article 5, No. 44
              2; measurement;   noise meter, JIS C1502, C1503,  IESC Pub.179
                instrument     Use A feature
              3; Measurement method; provisionally, JIS Z 8731
              4; 1st category district; good residential area,  with special
                                     caln conservation efforts
                2nd category district; residential area
                3rd category district; residential use with commercial and
                                     industrial use. Noise control efforts
                                     are requested.
                4th category district; mainly industrial use,  but noise control
                                     efforts are requested.
              5; District designation for 4 categories of districts should be
                done by prefectural governor.
           Source:  (7-15)

               The Soviet Union has  created "sanitary safety zones"

around rural, suburban and urban areas.  Noise levels in rural areas

do not exceed 50 dBA during the day and 40 dBA at night.  In urban

areas, noise levels are 60  dBA and 50 dBA respectively, and in

suburban areas the day/night variation is 45 dBA and 35 dBA (7-15).

               The Soviet Union's Sanitary Norms of 1956 and 1963

require buffer  zones of various widths up to 1000 meters in some

cases, for 'dirty1 industries whose emissions include gases and

particulates .  Furthermore,  in siting  such factories, it is  required

to take account of prevailing winds and locate the factory downwind of

populated areas (7-16).  These provisions almost automatically

insure that these particular factories will not cause noise nuisance,

and if the real  estate is relatively inexpensive,  the environmental

protection costs will be relatively inexpensive.   Furthermore,  noise

nuisance is being increasingly taken into  account in deciding which

factories require such  zoning.

               The Soviets  have also begun to move light industrial

enterprises located in Soviet apartment houses  to specified  industrial

zones.  In Riga, 50 enterprises were moved to  industrial zones

outside  the city.  If their industries  are not relocated, plant officials

are compelled  to maintain strict compliance of  noise norms.  Public

health officials  in Riga have closed enterprises  which emit noise

above the norms (7-17).

               There are no industrial zoning laws under the Dutch

"Nuisance by-law", but firms are required to obtain permits granted by

municipal authorities in order to begin operation.  The authorities

must take into  account  the potential "danger- damage, or hindrance

to the neighboring  community, which  Is caused by new industrial

firms."  Permission to  operate  may be withdrawn if the industrial

establishment does not comply with the noise standards of ISO R1996
(7-5).  Similar building permit procedures have been implemented
in the West German "lander" of Boremen,  Bader -Wurttemberg,
Bavaria, Lower Saxony,  and North Rhine areas  (7-3).   Article 16
of the Federal Republic of Germany's Industrial Code permits
authorities to modify the premises or change the operating procedures
of new industrial installations in order to enforce noise emission
standards (7-5).
              The Belgium noise  law of 1973 permits the King to
create protection zones corresponding to residential areas, industrial
zones, recreational areas,  and those  areas where quiet is particularly
required (7-5).  This  law has only been applied to  the vicinity of
motor racing tracks,  but may subsequently be used in regulating
the  Location of industrial establishments.
              In the United Kingdom, local authorities  may designate
noise abatement zones according to registers kept of levels of noise
emitted from premises within the  zone (7-5). The  control of noise
from Industry In London is the responsibility of  the 32 Borough govern-
ments and upon  complaint,  are handled by public health inspectors.
Inmost cases,  action takes the form of "freindly discussions  with
offending firms  and the giving of advice on methods of reducing noise. " (7-18)
              Australian state and regional planners have incorporated
environmental and  noise controls with development projects in the
areas of industry and  public works (7-5).  As in the United Kingdom,
Australian local authorities are empowered to control and regulate
industrial premises for noise pollution'.

               As a final example,  it may be possible to improve the

sound insulation of the building if lighter construction techniques

allow the replacement of load-bearing members with components

combining both structural properties and sound-silencing proper ti-es

at no additional cost in weight.  For some  time VDI guidelines in

Germany (Richtlinie 2058 of I960) had set out desirable goals for

sound-insulation properties of industrial buildings.  There was  little

problem in meeting desired attenuation of 40 dB (average for all

frequencies) in the walls if they were constructed of heavy brickwork.

But the minimum density of 100 kg per  square  meter requirement lor

silencing presented real problems in roofing construction, particularly

where wide open spans inside  the building were essential.  German

specialists therefore devised a roof design using plates of wall

asbestos  cement that reduced  the density required to a more practical

37 kg per square meter, and even less  if the sound insulation

requirements were  not so severe.  An additional point of interest

in this example is the way the  Richtlinie, even though it was  only

a guideline,  stimulated  research toward a  standard that might

otherwise not have been achieved.

               The Danish Environmental Protection Act of 1973

contains a clause concerning noise transmitted through building

constructions, although  it does not make recommendations as to

how  to improve the  sound insulation of the building.  Maximum

levels of  30 dBA by day and early  evening and 25 dBA at night are

suggested (7-5).

               The Greater London Council will use "zoning"

within the industrial site in its construction of  a series of

government-owned industrial plants,  including large scale

incinerators,  pulverizers,  compactors, transfer  stations,

and other similar projects.  In the course of its design work on

refuse treatment plant,  it has published design guidelines illustrating

how a hypothetical plant might be planned (see Figure 7-1).

               A number of abatement techniques are illustrated

here.  First, noisy processes are concentrated within a  building with

walls as imperforate as possible  and with adequate acoustic insulation.

Windows are minimal in area, on the  side of the building away from

noise-sensitive areas adjacent to the site only,  and sealed.  Second,

noisy processes are located within the site in such a way as to

minimize their emissions in a particular direction, in  this case,

in the direction of a hospital to the southeast.  Other buildings act

as shields,  and one retaining wall and earth bank is provided to

shield the :ioise from extensive activity by dump trucks coming and


               The London refuse treatment plan (Figure  7-1)

illustrates noise control through proper internal siting  and design

rather than  abatement at the source, i.e.  near-field  quieting of

the machinery  itself.  This  is an entirely viable approach where

a new site is developed.  But there are far more cases where

abatement efforts must be concentrated  on the machinery in existing


                   \ \ } I//X
   Retaining Wall
   and Earth Ba
                       ng Apron

                  Bunkers 95dB(A)
 Residuals Building
                              ti  ii   ii
                           Turbine Hall
Offices and
                            r,   •  •r^^       ^
 Figure 7-1.  Plan of a Refuse-Treatment PLant
 Designed In Accor ".ance v/Lth Gi eater London
 Ccur.cll Ilclce A 'tater^.ent Guidelines.

Source:  (7-23)


Noise from Construction Sites
Decision Criteria for Construction
               Decision criteria for reducing construction noise varies

according  to the standard setting activities of individual nations.  The

British approach  tests community reaction to  construction noise.

A test conducted by the University of Southampton's Institute  of Sound

and Vibration Research in North West London proved it necessary

to gather data on exposure and reaction to noise from other sources

as well.  It was possible,  however,  to  directly compare reaction in

terms of annoyance and other  attitudinal factors due to exposure to

noise from the construction site, road  traffic,  and other sources


               The average reported annoyance for construction noise

turned out to be significantly higher than that recorded for  traffic

noise (7-18).
                NOT AT ALL

                              TRAFFIC NCI5E
                        _l	I	I   1	I	JL
                        45  50  55  60  li  -0
                                                4i  10
                                                        6J 65  70
                               NCISE EXPOSURE - Leq dB (A)
               Fig. 7-2.  Social Survey Annoyance Rating
               Source:  (7-18)

               The University of Southampton's team suggests that:

               "The two most significant results of this study are the
               indications concerning the  relative degrees  of annoyance
               caused by given levels of construction and traffic noise
               and the apparent lack of dependence of annoyance on
               background noise level.  It is instructive to examine
               construction noise according to some common  method-
               ologies for rating industrial or community noise such
               as ISO 1996,  British Standard 4142  and the California
               Community Noise Equivalent Level  methodology.  In
               most cases construction noise  exposure would  be
               allowed to exceed a given criterion  by 5 dBA because
               it is a temporary phenomenon.  On  the other hand,
               most construction noise is, at  a given location, a
               novel  stimulus and it frequently contains impulse
               noise.  These factors together might  result in  a
               -10 dBA penalty being applied to construction noise.
               The resulting  penalty of -5 dBA in terms of accept-
               ability criteria would generally a.gree with  the
               results shown in Figure 7-4.  If nothing else it is
               possible to say that the  construction noise appeared
               less acceptable than traffic noise" (7-18).
               Teams of Danish scientists and technical specialists

have been working since 1970 to develop comprehensive proposals

for environmental protection.   A sub-group formed May 28,  1970

to study construction noise had to resolve two  controversial

problems:  the formation of th« ideal construction noise regulation
and the economic feasibility of  strong regulation.  Concerning

the kind of regulation needed, they concluded from a survey of

existing laws  in neighboring European countries  (Table  7^.4)

that one reason existing regulations  were not being  enforced  was

that many of the regulations were complex, with differentiated
noise level limits and adjustment for duration  of noise,  tonal

aspects of noise, etc.  Therefore, the simplest regulation possible
is the best regulation.

7.3.2         Direct Regulations

              The Japanese Noise  Control Law (Law No.  135,  1970)
has approached the problem of decision criteria by limiting noise,
working hours and days,  as shown in Table 7.4.   A unique feature
is  that while  the regulation does-not limit noise from certain equipment
specifically,  the zone  limits depend on the type of equipment.
              Automatic reductions in new product noise  limits
without further negotiation can greatly improve the effectiveness  of
the standards.  An escape clause which covers a  situation in which
it proved to be technically impossible to meet a certain standard
would provide the  necessary flexibility to the "dynamic standards".
This concept is an extension of the  familiar principle of "lead time".
An example of this approach is provided by the Federal Republic  of
Germany's regulations for noise from construction equipment.
Another approach  to improving the  effectiveness  of standards is
foreseen in Switzerland where a dual system of standards  is  being
devised for construction equipment.  A special permit  is required
each time use is made  of a machine emitting noise in excess of a
lower ("relative") standard, while an upper ("absolute") standard
provides a limit which  may never be  exceeded (7-20/14).
              Besides direct  regulatlonsjsome countries have developed
codes of practice  for noise control  on construction and demolition sites.
The British Standards Institution has produced a detailed code
(BS 5228: 1975) which prescribes different measures and methods to
control noise from construction.  An acoustic shed design and
performance characteristics contained In the mentioned code are
presented In Figure 7-3 and Table 7-5.

Table 7-4   Limits of Noise of Working Hours and Days and Criteria for the
Specified Construction Operation.
~---.^ Sppcified con-'
^--^^ struct,! on
Items ^^--^^ operations
of ^^--^
criteria ~~~-^^_^
Noise level at a point
30m from the boundary of
working site
Period during which noise
is prohibited
Period in a day within
which noise is permitted
Number of days noise is

Days during which noise
is prohibited
Operations using
pi]e drivers, pile
extractors, etc.
85 dB(A)

7 pm - 7 am

No t mo r e th an
10 hrs/day
Not more than
6 consecutive
Sundays and
other holidays
Operations using
80 dB(A)

7 pm - 7 am

Not more than
10 hrs/day
Not more than
6 consecutive
Sundays and
other holidays
Operations using
rock drills
75 dB(A)

9 pm - 6 am

Not more than
10 hrs/day
Not more than
6 consecutive
Sundays and
other holidays
Operations using
air compressors
75 dB(A)

9 pm - 6 am

Not more than
10 hrs/day
Not more than
1 continuous
Sundays and
other holidays
Operations u&inA
concrete plant*
or asphalt plants
75 dB(A)

9 pm - 6 pm

Not more than
10 hrs/day
Not n>ore than
1 continuous
Sundays and
other holidays
                                                Source:  (7-19)

  Acoustic screen
  2 m wide
  2.7 m high
Acoustic shed
2 in square
2.7 m high
     Figure '7-3•   Acoustic Shed
 Source 7-19

Type of enclosure (see figure 6)

Open-sided shed lined with absorbent:
no screen
Open-sided shed lined with absorbent; with
reflecting screen in front
Open-sided shed lined with absorbent; with
absorbent screen in front

Facing the










rear of



Table  7-5 »  Measured Sound Reduction Given by Types
             of Partial Enclosure                 Source (7-9)


7-1          Gorgen,  R.  A study of conditions and problems in the
             metal industry.  Paper presented at the ECE Conference
             on Problems Relating to the Environment, Prague,  1971.

7-2          Metropolitan Research Institute for Environmental
             Protection.  Kogai to Tokyo (Pollution in Tokyo).  Daiichi
             Printing Co., Tokyo, 1970.

7-3          Verein Deutscher Ingenieure.   Recommendations for rating
             industrial noise in the neighborhood.  VDI 2058. June 1973.
             26 p.

7-4          Lang, J. and G.  Jansen.   The Environmental health aspects
             of noise research and  noise control.   EURO 2631.  Copenhage
             World Health Organization,  1970.

7-5          Hay, B.  International legislation on external industrial
             noise.  Applied Acoustics, 8:133-147, 1975.

7-6          Arvidson,  O. ,  K.  Berglund, M.  Berlin et al.  Building noise
             as a social problem.  National Swedish Building Research
             Summaries, Appendix 10 R21: 2, 1971.

7-7          British Standards Institution.   Standard no. 4142; method  of
             rating industrial noise affecting mixed  residential and  industrij
             areas.  London,  1967.

7-8          Stephenson,  R. J. and G.  H. Vulkan.   Noise from industry,
             Official Architecture and  Planning, July 1971.

7-9          Purkis,  H. J.  The practical assessment and control of
             industrial  noise.  Sanitarian,  71(3): 211-217,  1962.

7.10         Lippert, W-  K. R.  The problem of noise from a mechanical
            plant.   Ln_ Proceedings; Fourth International Congress on
            Acoustics, Copenhagen,  1962.

7-11         Spasite nashi ushi (Save our ears).   Izvestiya, September 17,

7_12         Marvino, U. and J. Gale.  ed. The environment in Israel.
            Israeli National Committee on Biosphere and Environment,
            Jerusalem, March 1971.

7-13         Royal  Swedish Ministry for Foreign Affairs.  Environmental
            planning in Sweden.  1973.  p. 2.

7-14         Sato,  A. and M.  Nishihara.  Koogai to taisaka (Pollution
            and abatement measures).  1969.

7-15         Foreign noise  laws.  Umwelt  2/75:26, 1975.

7-16         Simons, D.  Tekhnika  besopastnosti i proizvodctvennaya
            Sanitariya (Safety techniques and industrial hygiene).
            Moscow, 1964.

7-17         Sadekov,  B.   As quiet  as in Riga.  Nedelya 21: 1, 1974.

7-18         Vulkan,  G.  H.  Planning against noise in London.  Paper
            presented at the Seventh International Conference on
            Acoustics, Budapest, 1971.

7-19         British Standards Institute.  Code of practice for noise control
            on construction and demolition sites.  BS 5288: 1975.  London.

7-20         OECD Economic Directorate.   Strategies for urban  .noise
              abatement:  an overview.  Paris,  OECD, 1975.  35  p.

7-21         Large,  J.  B.  and J.  E.  Ludlow.  Community reaction to
             construction noise.  In Proceedings; InterNoise 1975, Sendai,
             Japan, August 27-29.  p. 1-8.

7-22         Mochojuki,  T.  On noise limits of construction equipment.
             Tokyo, Metropolitan  Research Institute for Environmental
             Protection, 1974.  17 p.

7-23         U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.  An Assessment of
             Noise Concern in Other Nations, Vol. 1, December 31,  197;.
             ^.  2 ! 0.


g, 1           Introduction

              It is now widely realized that exposure to noise has

a negative influence on the health of the exposed,  in particular on

persons exposed to high levels of noise on a regular basis,  such

as  in occupational settings.

              The working environment in which the workers spend

a large part of their lives has a decisive influence on their health

and safety, and also on their physical,  mental and social well-being.

The working environment is a complex set  of interacting factors,

of  which noise is  one,  affecting individuals.

8. 2           Direct Regulations

8. 2. 1         Overview
              The national laws  and regulations of some countries

contain provisions  that afford some  degree of protection against the

effects of noise which are dealt with in more detail in Chapter  10

of this report under the individual country sections. In addition,

many codes of practice, guides,  and recommendations have been

published by various institutions  in many countries either to

illustrate the application of legislative provisions or to set up

standards to prevent hazards not covered by the laws.   A summary

of known details is given in Table 8-1.

              The scope of these tests an-d whether they are

binding to the employers vary considerably.  In some countries,

mainly socialistic countries, standards are prepared by an official

body and are obligatory.  In other countries, (e.g.  the United States]

Law or
Australia G
Austria L (1974)
D elgium
Canada L.
Dinmark G (1974)
Finland L(1974)
Franc* L(1975)

W. Germany L (1970)
Netherlands G
Uriel G
Italy L(1956)
Japan G
Norway Nona:
S. A(ric. L
Sweden G
Switzerland G
United Kingdom G
U.S. L
Y.«o.Uria L(I»7I)
(•ting 8 - h
ir linn
M .1 x .





T raHmR
3 dU





Kor now
90 dBA


85 dBA»
In prep.


ropotcd lin
For later
85 dBA


By w. hen
5 years

In effect
May 1976

5 y«an

Audiometrlc testing

If > 85 dBA, each 3 yr«.

If > 88 dBA. every 3 yr».
If > 100 dBA. every 1 yr.

Yes (details not known)

OS t





.ar protectors



If L> 85 dBA
Yes (details not

U L>85 dBA*

U L>90 dBA


                              Table 8-1.  Overview of Occupational Noise Laws»Source:  (8-1)

                                                        Continuation of Table 8-1
[ AuJlrah*
PC nmar^
If inland,
J£. Germany
\V- Germany
1 Isr»e[
' Italy
1 S. Africa
1 Sweden
S<* Uzerland
United Kingdom
ba sed on
R 1999?

Veg offhAghef* peak + 5 dBAJ





impulsive noise limits0

Yes - ac|d 10 dB to highest
"""\00 U-ia-dBA peaK^/day

Leq oflhighest peak + 10 dsX1

Leq of[highest peak + 10 d&A

140 dDA pcaklpuideline)

Yci*. b'jill into regular liruu.

All assume 5 day, 40 hour week;
dBA trading ratio 11 the "Equal
Energy Principle"

* 85 dBA. e.g. in Alberta

* New factories (since 1974) only
Warning sign, m work areas >85 dBA

* 90 for tough cases. Applies (.0 n«w
factories only.

Law (19-46) - 100 dBC limit.

6 -day week., 40-50 dBA in office*.
* Only requirement is ear protestor* over 35- dBA
» Avi. table ta marker.

SO-t*^ 'Ib A. Ln vArt-tiuS- type* af oliiv.^*.

the regulations are based on or refer to standards laid out by
specialized bodies,  or by other organizations (e.g.  in the Federal
Republic of Germany).  Some of the regulations refer to international
standards (e.g. ISO) or to national standards of other countries
which have been widely accepted (8-1 p 15)
               Many countries have regulations on the compensation
of occupationally induced hearing loss or  deafness.  There are also
regulations and/or measures relating to medical, audiometric,
and laboratory tests.
               In most cases,  the technical measures  to be taken
for dealing with noise are only mentioned  in national laws  and
regulations and are of a general nature.   They are confined to
stating the principle  that noise should be reduced as low as possible.

8.2.2          Notes On Countries
               These notes clarify Table 8-1 and add more than
space permits  in Chapter  10.

               This  country submitted a draft hearing conservation
regulation approved by the National Health and Medical Research
Council of Australia.  It is not known when this draft regulation
will  come into effect.
               This  draft regulation is partly based on an Australian
standard (Standards Association of Australia Document 72084) and
on the ISO Recommendation R 1999.

               Legislation for  90 dBA/8 hours a day maximum

noise exposure with the provision to reduce the maximum to 85 dBA/

8 hours a day in five years time is proposed.  This is considered

to provide a time scale for the introduction of a desirable long-

term standard.  In addition, industry is supposed to make every

effort to design machinery to meet this lower  standard and that

new premises should be  designed to meet this standard.  The proposed

legislation also contains recommendations that attempts should be

made to monitor  achievements in these regards in order  to aid

legislation in  determining further long-term policies toward a more

ideal situation.

               Occupational noise exposure is regulated within the

Occupational Law: Z:6l. 021/ 10-6/1974,  March 13,  1974.  This law

regulates the use  of workers for certain types  of jobs.   The workers'

health has to be examined to determine their physical suitability for,

e. g. , jobs with high noise level.  If their health allows them to work

in such jobs further periodic health examinations have to be conducted,

e. g. , audiometric testing every three years.

               The Guideline No. 3  (part 2) of the Austrian Working

Group for Noise Abatement  serves as a basis for the determination

of dangerous noise levels at places  of work. Noise  levels over 85

dBA are considered dangerous regarding damage to hearing.

               The law does not  give a definition of the  term

"excessive noise level" but  only says that workers  have to be

tested audiometrically if  the noise level  at their job exceeds

85 dBA.  The employer also has to  supply the workers  with

"proper" hearing  protection and instruct them  as to their  use.

The employees have the duty to undergo the health examination and

to contribute to the protection of their hearing.   Theoretically,

therefore,  a worker's hearing is tested before he would start on

a job having "excessively noisy" (over 85 dBA) conditions.  If his

hearing is  "normal", he would be allowed to work on that particular

job for three years.  If some change in his audiometer test would

show up after that time, he would not be permitted to continue the

job.  However, the workers'  physician could order an examination

at any time during the three-year period if deemed necessary.  Also,

the safety inspectors (employed by the Austrian Department of Labor)

can order examinations at any time if it seems warranted.


               This country had an occupational safety regulation

including provisions to protect workers against the effects of noise

since 1972.  Maximum permitted noise levels are set at 90 dBA.

               There is a Federal Noise Control Regulation which

limits the noise exposure of employees to 90 dBA/8 hours with an

overriding limit of 115 dBA.  In addition, state laws are in effect,

which also regulate noise exposure of  workers.  All states allow

noise exposure of workers up to 90 dBA, with the exception of

Alberta, where the maximum is set at 85 dBA/8 hours.  Alberta

also sets the impulse peak at 140 dBA.

               The Federal law permits  exposure to 90 dBA or

more where hearing protection reduces the level to less than 90 dBA

or where a test establishes no hearing impairment for employees

exposed to 90 to 95 dBA,  and regular tests are  conducted.

              Warning signs are mandatory at entrances to work

sites where there are dangerous sound levels. Hearing loss from

industrial noise is generally recognized  in Canada and is usually

compensable relative to the degree of  impairment.


              The regulations  in force at this time (promulgated

in 19^7) give detailed instructions to the producer  of machines and

to the employer on how to attempt to meet the maximum permissible

noise limit.

              In case these conditions cannot be met due to

technical reasons,  the workers have to be supplied with and have

to wear hearing protectors with adequate attenuation.  If •workers

have to wear hearing protectors at all times during their shift,

breaks have to be allowed at regular intervals (not specified) in

a quiet environment.  Further measures can be ordered by the

government working  inspection.  Only workers deemed physically

suitable for work in a noisy environment by  a medical examination

may be used.

              A new regulation for the protection of workers

against the effects of noise will be promulgated in 1976.  No

mention was made as to possible changes the new regulation

may bring.


              The Danish regulation is based on the criteria put

forward in ISO R 1999, and the Danish Ministry of Labor Publication

No. 38, 1972 "Noise in the Workplace."  The latter gives basic

information about noise measurement  methods, how to reduce noise

in factories, and audiometric testing of  workers.


               The Finnish regulation sets a limit of 85 dBA for places

of work.  In addition,  manufacturers, importers, installers of equipment,

and dealers are held responsible for  the purchase and proper installation

of new equipment to fulfill the 85'dBA noise emission limit.  New and

existing machines with higher noise emission and equipment generating

vibrations have to be put in separate  facilities and be fully enclosed.

In cases where the noise level cannot be reduced to  85  dBA for technical

reasons,  personnel has to be supplied with effective and officially

approved ear protectors.

               Warning  signs have to  be posted to designate areas where

the  noise  level exceeds  85 dBA.   In cases of fluctuating noise, warning

devices have to be installed to indicate whenever 85 dBA is  exceeded.

               This regulation came into effect on October 1,  1974

and is valid for all facilities coming into operation since then.  The

authorities will determine transition periods for  existing facilities so

that the necessary changes can be executed  smoothly.

             From a secondary source,  it is  understood that France

has had a regulation since 1970.  (8-3)

             The standard AFNOR S31-013 of 1969 uses  the ISO

R 1999 method for the calculation of the  equivalent continuous

noise level using partial noise exposure  indices and for the

estimation of the risk of hearing impairment.

               German Federal Republic

               On December 1,  1974,  the regulation "Accident

Prevention Noise" came into force.

               The subject of this regulation is the prevention of

hearing loss or damage and of  accidents partly or solely due to

noise.  Non-auditory effects of noise are not  regulated at this time.

               Noise emissions over 85 dBA are considered

dangerous to hearing which takes  into consideration (verbatim)

"that the  risk of hearing damage due to long-term exposure to

noise in case of sensitive persons commences at 85 dBA, particularly

if the noise is high frequency or impulsive.  Otologists  are of the

opinion that the danger limit has to be set as  low as 80 dBA. "

               The use of personal hearing protection is only

considered if it has been proven that no other means could help to

reduce  the noise level to 85-90 dBA.  The employer has the duty to

designate so-called "noise areas" in the plant and employees have

to be offered the opportunity to use hearing protection in areas of

levels below 85 dBA  if they so desire.  It is the legal duty of the

employees to wear hearing protectors in designated "noise areas",

regardless  of how long they remain in these areas.

              Another important aspect of this regulation is the

matter of the prevention of accidents directly attributable to noise.

The  conclusion  derived from the review of work accident reports

was  that in many cases accidents happened owing to unsafe behavior,

erroneous or slow reactions, or human failure directly attributable

to noise.  To give examples: masking of warning signals by noise,

startle reactions due to  sudden impulses or bursts of noise.

               Part 5 of the law gives  methods for the prevention of
these types of  accidents.  However, experience  has to be gamed
since this  area is a fairly novel one.
               Extensive provisions are also given for audiometric
testing:  1) to determine the suitability of a person for a job under
noisy conditions;  2)  to test the hearing of workers  after one year on
a noisy job; and  3) repeat audiometric tests every  three years there-
after.   The employer has  to arrange for these examinations and bear
the costs.  Results have to be filed by the  employer in a so-caUed
health file, which also contains any other information and workers'
anamnestic data.
               An extensive description of the law outlined above
is given in a series of articles published in the journal  Arbeitsschutz
1:(1975).   Discussions of  the quality of the law and  its impacts  are

               Another law is  in draft  stage: "Work Place Ordinance,
draft 684174".  It is  proposed in this draft  that the noise level  in
places of work should be kept  as low as  technically  feasible and
should also depend on the  nature of the •work performed, e. g. ,  for
intellectual work 55 dBA,  simple office work 70  dBA,  and  85 dBA
for all other kinds of work if technically feasible; if not, this level
may be exceeded by 5 dBA.


               The only existing regulation is  "The Industrial Safety

Act" (July 1934   Bulletin of Acts, Orders, and Decrees,  35Z).   It

gives rules for industrial safety and health.  The Act (Sections 7,  9,

11, and 20a) gives powers to draw up  rules relating to the prevention

or restriction of harmful and  annoying noise and  to the time during

which workers are allowed to remain  in a location with harmful


               Provisions  to support these  rules are  in preparation

for various individual sectors.

               In  the "Industrial Safety Decree" for factories and

workshops, there is a regulation  concerning the wearing of earplugs

(no description obtained).

               Under  the "Dangerous Instruments Act",  it is possible

to set noise emission standards for certain categories of machines

in the interest of  the health of the users.


8-1      Meyer, Ingrid.  Occupational noise exposure, the standards
         and regulations in major industrial countries; draft.  Rockville,
         Informatics,  June 10, 1975.

8-2      South African Bureau of Standards. Code of practice for the
         assessment of noise   exposure during work for hearing con-
         servation purposes.  SABS 083-1970.  Pretoria, South Africa.
         15 p.

8-3      Hay, B.  International legislation on external industrial noise.
         Applied Acoustics, 8:133-140, 1975.

8-4      Canada Department of Labour.    1973 industrial noise;
         legislation  concerning industrial noise in Canada.  April 1974.
         30 p.

8-5      Australian  Department of Labour and Industry.  Industrialized
         safety code regulations under the industrial safety, health and
         welfare act,  1972; regulation 49, noise levels and protection
         from noise.  Government Gazette, June 26, 1975.


            The object of this short section is to identify some of the
organizations that are  systematically gathering and processing reports
and documents on noise pollution and its abatement and control (Table 9-1).
These organizations  in general do not exist only to  serve the general
public, but often may provide outside users  some king of access on
a case by case basis.  Forms which such access might take include:
receiving periodic publications, use in person of a  library facility,
computer literature  searches, limited document services, referral
to other sources of documents or information, etc.

            For Japan, the reader  is referred to a  tabulation  of Japanese
information sources  in Section 16 of Chapter 10 (Vol. II, p. 10-151).

            For information on noise measurement standards, the
reader is referred the information on ISO in Chapter 2.

            It is to be  hoped that as time passes,  one or more information
centers may develop more extensive and publicized programs for supplying
documentation and other forms of information to the general public.

                                  TABLE 9-1.   INFORMATION CENTERS ON NOISE
  User Terms
                                                                                                     Contact for Use
   Noise Information
   Program, U. S.
 Washington, D. C.
W. Germany
   Centre de Formation
   et de Documentation
   sur Les nuisance
 Largest info center in the
 •world dedicated solely
 noise  documentation.
 1) 20,  000+ documents.
 2) 6,000+ abstracts in the
 "CIS"  on-line  com-
   puterized information
   retrieval system.
 3) Publishes numerous
   directories, etc.
 4) Literature search

 Umbrella environmental
 info system sponsored
 by W.  German Environ-
 mental Ministry (Umwelt-
 ant), formerly by Ministry
 of the  Interior (Bundes-
 ministerium des Innen).

 Center for industrial
 environmental infor-
 mation (occupational
 health, occupational
noise).  Answers queries
by telephone or mail.
By permission of
Public users
terms not
                                                 Available to
                                                 public as well
                                                 as  official users
 Dr.  Kurt Askin
 Office of Noise Abatement
 Washington, D. C. 20460
Dr. Wolfgang Kitschler
Dept. of the Interior
Rheindorferstr asse 198
53 Bonn,  W. Germany
                    11 bis, rue Leon Jouhaux
                    Paris 10e France
                    Attn:  R. Ridre,  Information

                                                   User Terms
                                                     Contact for Use

   Bibliographic Refer-
   ence System on Noise
   Documentation- steLLe
Institute of Sound
& Vibration,

Ottawa,  Canada
Society of
German Engineers
Noise document library.
Vibration abstracts
Data base consists of
bibliographic references
to noise documents,
stored in computer
and with batch-mode
1) Noise document
2) Monthly bibliography
   in German,  from
   worldwide sources.
Public user terms
not known.
Available to
Public user
terms not
Ms. Mavis Bull, Librarian
University of Southampton

Dr.  Robert Tackl
Noise Control Environment
Environmental Protection
Environment Canada
Ottawa,  Canada
Herr Karl Neumann
Verein Deutscher Inginieure
4 Dusseldorf 1
Postfach 1139
West Germany