EPA 550/9-76-006
STATE AND MUNICIPAL
NOISE CONTROL ACTIVITIES
1973-1974
JANUARY 1976
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Washington, D.C. 20460
-------
EPA 550/9-76-006
STATE AND MUNICIPAL
NOISE CONTROL ACTIVITIES
1973-1974
January 1976
U. S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
OFFICE OF NOISE ABATEMENT AND CONTROL
Washington, D. C. 20460
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
FOREWORD i
1. INTRODUCTION 1
Survey Objectives 1
Survey Methodology 1
Survey Limitations 5
Report Organization and Approach 5
2. SUMMARY 9
Chapter 3 Noise Program Orientation 14
Chapter 4 Legislative Provisions 16
Chapter 5 Agencies Responsible for Noise Control Efforts 16
Chapter 6 Noise Budgetary Allocations 17
Chapter 7 Noise Program Personnel 17
Chapter 8 Instrumentation 18
Chapter 9 Enforcement 18
Chapter 10 Technical Assistance 18
Conclusions 19
Future EPA Plans 19
3. STATE AND MUNICIPAL NOISE PROGRAM ORIENTATION AND
STAGE OF DEVELOPMENT 21
Data Limitations and Analytical Constraints 24
Results and Discussion 25
Noteworthy Programs 31
4. LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS 37
Data Limitations and Analytical Constraints 40
Results and Discussion 41
Noteworthy Programs 46
Role of EPA 48
5. STATE AND MUNICIPAL AGENCIES RESPONSIBLE FOR NOISE
CONTROL EFFORTS 51
Data Limitations and Analytical Constraints 51
111
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued)
Page
Results and Discussion 52
Noteworthy Programs 57
Role of EPA 57
6. STATE AND MUNICIPAL NOISE BUDGETARY ALLOCATIONS 59
Data Limitations and Analytical Constraints 59
Results and Discussion 60
Noteworthy Programs 70
7. STATE AND MUNICIPAL NOISE PROGRAM PERSONNEL 73
Professional Positions 73
Support Positions 74
Data Limitations and Analytical Constraints 74
Results and Discussion 75
Noteworthy Programs 79
EPA'sRole 80
8. INSTRUMENTATION 81
Results and Discussion 83
Role of EPA 85
9. ENFORCEMENT 87
Enforcement Activities 87
Data Limitations and Analytical Constraints 88
Results and Discussion 89
Enforcement Program Areas 94
Data Limitations and Analytical Constraints 94
Results and Discussion 95
Noteworthy Programs 100
Role of EPA 101
10. TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE 103
State and Municipal Noise Control Needs 103
Data Limitations and Analytical Constraints 103
Results and Discussion 104
EPA Noise Technical Assistance Program 110
EPA Role HO
IV
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued)
Page
EPA Technical Assistance Objectives and Approach
Program Organization
Technical Assistance Activities
Legislation Development and Implementation
Model Legislation . .
Reports and Guidelines
11
12
12
12
15
Manpower Assessment and Education 115
Advice on Instrumentation and Monitoring Systems 116
Monitoring Program 116
Measurement of Stationary Noise Sources 116
Design Specifications for Sound Level Meter 117
Problem Identification and Assessment 117
Study of Interior Noise Levels for Transportation Systems 117
Noise Surveys of Selected Sites 117
Assessment of State and Municipal Noise Control Programs . . . . 117
Information Service 118
APPENDIX A 119
Cover Letter 120
State and Municipal Nonoccupational Noise Program Questionnaire . . . 121
APPENDIX B 129
List of State and Municipal Noise Program Contacts 130
-------
ILLUSTRATIONS
Figure Page
1 State population coverage as a function of the stage of program
development 12
2 Municipal population coverage as a function of the stage of program
development 13
3 Stage of development of state and municipal noise control efforts .... 14
4 Percentage of responding states and municipalities in each of the four
stages of program development 26
5 1973 level of state noise control activity as a function of the stage of
program development 27
6 1973 level of municipal noise control activity as a function of the
stage of program development 28
7 Statutory responsibilities of the Florida Department of Pollution
Control 33
8 1973 state and municipal per capita budgetary expenditures in noise
control 65
9 Projected 1974 state per capita budgetary expenditures in noise
control 66
10 Projected 1975 state per capital budgetary expenditures in noise
control 67
11 Major problem noise sources of states and municipalities 97
12 Surface transportation system problem noise sources 98
13 United States Environmental Protection Agency Regional Offices . . . . 113
14 EPA regional noise representatives 114
VI
-------
TABLES
Table Page
1 Breakdown of Survey Respondents 3
2 Summary of Reported 1973 State and Municipal Noise Control
Efforts 11
3 State Noise Control Legislation as a Function of the Stage of
Program Development 42
4 Municipal Noise Control Legislation as a Function of the Stage of
Program Development 43
5 Proposed Municipal Noise Control Legislation as a Function of the
Stage of Program Development 44
6 Performance Standards in the Chicago Noise Ordinance 47
7 State and Municipal Agencies Responsible for Noise Control Activities . . 53
8 Responsible State Agencies as a Function of Stage of Program
Development 53
9 Responsible Municipal Agencies as a Function of Stage of Program
Development 54
10 Budgetary Allocations from Responding States for Noise Control,
1973, and Projected 1974-1975 61
11 Budgetary Expenditures for Responding Municipalities in Noise
Control, 1973 and Projected 1974-1975 62
12 Proposed Budgetary Expenditures for Responding States and
Municipalities in 1974 and 1975 Without a Budget for Noise
Control in 1973 64
13 1973 State Personnel Affiliated with Noise Control Efforts 76
14 1973 Municipal Personnel Affiliated with Noise Control Efforts 77
15 State and Municipal Sound Measurement and Analysis Instrumentation
as a Function of the Stage of Development 84
16 Institution of Enforcement Actions by States in 1973 90
17 Municipalities Reporting Largest Number of 1973 Enforcement
Actions 91
18 1973 Municipal Areas of Enforcement Action 92
19 State and Municipal Enforcement Problem Areas 96
20 State Needs for Noise Control Programs 105
21 Municipal Needs for Noise Control Programs 106
22 State and Municipal Noise Control Needs 107
VII
-------
FOREWORD
Under the Noise Control Act of 1972, States and municipalities retain primary responsi-
bility for noise control. The Act authorizes the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to
provide technical assistance to States and municipalities to facilitate development and imple-
mentation of their environmental noise control programs. To assure that the EPA technical
assistance program is responsive to changing State and municipal requirements, EPA periodi-
cally assesses the status of State and municipal noise control efforts.
The results of the initial EPA assessment were summarized in the 1972 Report to the
President and Congress on Noise 1 and treated in greater depth in the EPA publication en-
titled State and Municipal Non-Occupational Noise Programs. 2 This assessment of State and
municipal 1971 noise control efforts was based on information obtained from 41 States and
territories and 114 municipalities with populations over 100,000. The overall finding was
that States and municipalities were only beginning to deal with noise in 1971, and, with few
exceptions, were in the exploratory stages of developing a noise control program. The 1971
survey was part of a comprehensive EPA study of noise and its effects which documented the
need for Federal noise control legislation.
This report presents an assessment of the status of State and municipal environment
noise control efforts in 1973. It is based on the results of an EPA survey conducted in early
1974 in which information was requested from 55 States and territories and 235 incorporated
municipalities with populations greater than 75,000. The survey results have been used by
EPA as a guide in the development of the present EPA technical assistance program. This
document has also been prepared as a planning and reference guide for public administrators
and other officials engaged in the development and implementation of environmental noise
control program.
Using the results of the 1974 survey as a baseline, EPA plans to undertake more com-
prehensive assessments of State and municipal noise control programs in the future. EPA
has a continuing need for information on the mechanisms, structures, and resources that
have been developed by States and municipalities if an integrated, nationwide noise control
program involving a coordinated approach by the varying levels of government is to be
developed.
^Report to the President and Congress on Noise, Senate 92-63 (February 1972).
and Municipal Non-Occupational Noise Programs, NTID 300.8 (December 1971).
-------
CHAPTER 1
INTRODUCTION
Presented are the results of an EPA survey of State and municipal environmental noise
control activities. It provides an assessment of the 1973 status of State and municipal noise
control efforts based on the survey data. Current information on the EPA technical assis-
tance program, authorized by Section 14(2) of the Noise Control Act, is also included.
SURVEY OBJECTIVES
The purposes of this EPA study were to:
1. Identify the requirements of State and municipal governments to establish and
operate noise control programs,
2. Gather information on State and municipal noise control approaches and dissemi-
nate the results to those involved in developing a noise control program,
3. Provide information necessary for the development of an EPA technical assistance
program responsive to identified State and municipal needs,
4. Gather data for use in EPA regulator activities,
5. Evaluate developments since the 1971 survey conducted in support of the Report
to the President and Congress on Noise,
6. Develop baseline data from which the status and progress of State and municipal
noise control efforts may be assessed in future years, and
7. Field test the questionnaire developed to gather data and evaluate its usefulness
in soliciting needed information.
SURVEY METHODOLOGY
The survey, conducted in early 1974, was directed to the 50 States, three U.S. territories,
the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, the District of Columbia, and 235 incorporated munici-
palities with populations equal to or greater than 75,000. The official 1970 census was used
-------
to determine which municipalities met the population criteria. A high population cutoff was
included (1) as noise problems are often a function of urbanization and population density,
and (2) to keep the sample size within reasonable bounds for in-depth analysis. The requests
for information were disseminated through the ten EPA regional offices. Followup contacts
were made to stimulate the greatest possible number of responses.
Survey Coverage
Table 1 provides a breakdown of the survey respondents and the population covered by
the States and municipalities that submitted information. A total of 229 questionnaires
were received from the 290 mailed. This constitutes an overall survey response rate of 79
percent. The percentage responding was considerably higher for the States and for those
municipalities with populations above 149,000. Eighty-nine percent of the U.S. population
was represented by the State survey respondents. Over 55 million persons were covered in
the municipal responses. The high survey response rate provides a relatively comprehensive
and nationwide information base. However, as the survey sample did not include either
county governments nor municipalities with populations less than 75,000, many of which
have implemented noise control programs, the results do not reflect the totality of environ-
mental noise control activities.
Survey Format
The request for information developed by EPA consisted of a cover letter explaining
the purpose of the survey, a questionnaire, and explanatory instructions. Copies of these
are contained in Appendix A. Although the questionnaire incorporated requests for specifc
types of data, the format provided sufficient latitude to allow States and municipalities to
properly characterize their noise control activities. Additionally, respondents were encour-
aged to elaborate upon any particular aspect of their noise control efforts. The questionnaire
consisted of seven broad areas designed to provide an overall perspective of the composition
and scope of noise control efforts. These seven areas are:
1. Organization and Orientation of Noise Control Efforts States and municipalities
were requested to (1) indicate the title of the organizational unit responsible for
the program, (2) list the name, title, address and telephone number of the official
directing noise activities, and (3) describe the orientation of program effort. The
first question in this area provides data on program structure and delegation of
authority. The second identifies a contact for future EPA technical assistance
activities. The third solicits information on both the objectives and elements
(e.g., public education, development of legislation) of State and municipal efforts.
Together, they allow a delineation of the noise control approaches adopted by
States and municipalities against which activities and resources described in other
questionnaire areas may be assessed.
-------
TABLE I
BREAKDOWN OF SURVEY RESPONDENTS
Survey categories
States
Territories and District of
Columbia, Puerto Rico
Municipalities
Municipal population3
breakdown :
75,000 - 149,000
150,000-249,000
250,000 - 499,000
Over 500,000
TOTAL
Total
number
surveyed
50
5
235
144
35
31
25
290
Number of
respondents
b43
C3
183
d!05
29
e25
*24
229
Percent
responding
86
60
78
73
83
81
96
79
Total
population
surveyed3
(1,000's)
202,455
3,643
62,568
14,499
6,356
10,712
31,001
Population
covered by
respondents3
(1,000's)
180,467
3,531
55,632
d!0,601
5,232
e8,949
f30,850
Percent of
population
covered by
respondents
89
97
89
73
82
84
99
3 Based on 1970 Census.
b The seven States which did not respond were Alaska, Minnesota, Missouri, North Dakota, Texas, Utah,
and Wyoming.
c District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, Virgin Islands.
d Includes Reno, Nev. (population - 73,000) which submitted a questionnaire although not part of the
survey sample.
e Includes response submitted by Hillsboro County, Fla. (population - 490,265) in place of Tampa, Fla.
(population - 278,000).
f Includes responses by two county governments: Nassau County, N.Y. (population - 1,428,000) and
Allegheny County Pa. (population - 1,605,000) in place of Pittsburgh (population - 520,000). The two
municipalities in this category which did not respond were San Francisco and Philadelphia.
-------
2. Enforcement - This area includes three elements: (1) designation of the
organization responsible for enforcement activities; (2) types and number of
enforcement actions instituted in 1973; and (3) enforcement problem areas.
Responses in this area provide data on the number of States and municipalities
involved in enforcement, the organization and coordination of enforcement efforts
with other program elements, and the level of enforcement activity. Additionally,
the most significant noise problem sources at the State and municipal level are
identified through information on the classes of noise sources most frequently in
violation of statutory provisions.
3. Budgetary Data - States and municipalities were asked to submit a functional
breakdown of budget allocations specifically designated for noise control. These
included projected outlays for 1974 and 1975 as well as 1973 expenditures. A
format was incorporated showing both manhours spent or projected as well as
overall program costs. The amount of funds allocated provides information on the
level of noise control activity and the relative priority assigned such efforts.
Projected budget figures wheri compared to the 1973 base indicate future plans
and expansion trends.
4. Personnel Information was requested on the job titles of 1973 personnel
affiliated with noise control activities. States and municipalities were also asked
to identify projected personnel levels and titles for 1974 and 1975.
5. Equipment Specific details were requested on the types, functions, and quantity
of noise measurement and analysis equipment available for noise program use.
Data on both 1973 instrumentation and planned equipment acquisitions for 1974
and 1975 were solicited.
6. Program Problems States and municipalities were asked to identify major
unresolved problem areas which lirhit the effectiveness of their noise control
efforts. Responses in this area indicate the requirements of States and munici-
palities, resources constraints, and program elements where improvement is
necessary.
7. Application of Technical Assistance - The EPA technical assistance role under
the Noise Control Act was explained in the questionnaire instructions. State and
municipalities were requested to identify areas where technical assistance was
needed. This question was designed to obtain State and municipal input for the
development of a technical assistance program which provides the maximum bene-
fits from EPA's limited authority and resources.
In addition to these specific areas, States and municipalities were asked to enclose copies
of their noise ordinances and legislation, enforcement procedures manual, and any other
relevant documentation. The types and provisions of State and municipal noise legislation
were necessary to place reported activities in the proper context.
-------
SURVEY LIMITATIONS
The following overall survey limitations have been identified and should be considered
in interpretation of survey results.
1. In some cases the questionnaire resulted in differing interpretations by States and
municipalities of what information was requested. This was due to the subjective
nature and lack of specificity of the questionnaire.
2. In several instances, respondents failed to adequately qualify submitted informa-
tion thereby requiring interpretive judgements. In other cases, there were contra-
dictions and inconsistencies within individual responses. Frequently, States and
municipalities did not address each questionnaire area. In some instances, infor-
mation was not provided on a specific activity (e.g., enforcement) or resource
area (e.g., budget) even though the overall response indicated that these were
present.
3. Within strict constraints, comparisons have been drawn between the 1971 and
1974 survey results. The two surveys differ significantly in sample size, percent-
age of responses received, information requested, and evaluation techniques.
Therefore, only changes in overall trends and conclusions have been identified
between the two surveys.
In addition to these general limitations, there were others which are applicable to specific
questionnaire areas. These have been clearly identified in the appropriate report chapters.
REPORT ORGANIZATION AND APPROACH
Chapter 2 summarizes the most significant findings of the survey. Each of the remain-
ing eight chapters provides an in-depth treatment of the results of one or more areas of the
survey questionnaire. Chapters 3 through 5 define the mechanisms, structures, and approaches
which have been developed by States and municipalities to deal with noise control problems.
Chapters 6 through 9 describe the constituent resource and activity elements necessary for
an effective program. Chapter 10 summarizes the needs of State and municipal governments
to develop noise control programs and indicates how the current EPA technical assistance
program addresses these requirements.
Chapters 3 through 10 each follow the same overall organization. To the extent appro-
priate to the survey area under consideration, the following approach has been used:
1. Discussion of the significance of the particular program aspect or activity to the
conduct of an effective noise control program.
2. Identification of the data limitations associated with the survey area.
-------
3. Presentation of the survey results. Summary tables based on a compilation of the
individual State and municipal responses are used and trends and relationships
discussed. Throughout the report, the responses of Puerto Rico, the Virgin Islands,
and the District of Columbia are incorporated in the State totals and descriptions.
4. Treatment of noteworthy programs. Individual State and municipal activities
which are characterized by comprehensive or innovative efforts in the various
survey areas are described to supplement the summary tabulations.
5. Discussion of the EPA role and technical assistance activities applicable to the
survey area.
The contents of each chapter and the questionnaire areas addressed are:
Chapter 3 State and Municipal Noise Program Orientation and Stage of
Development This chapter describes the level of State and municipal noise
control activity in 1973. It demonstrates the relationship between (1) program
orientation, and (2) the degree of program development. The first factor sum-
marizes State and municipal responses to the orientation question in the first
survey area. The second is based on an assessment of responses from all question-
naire areas. The categorization scheme presented provides the analytical base
for many of the observations and distinctions made in the following chapters.
Chapter 4 Legislative Provisions This contains a summary of the statutory
basis for State and municipal noise control activities. It defines the various types
of noise control legislation (e.g., enabling, nuisance, performance standards)
which States and municipalities have enacted. Based on the copies of legislation
submitted with the questionnaire responses and supplemental information
obtained by the EPA Office of Noise Abatement and Control on State legislation,
the number of States and municipalities adopting each type of legislative provision
is presented. This chapter also includes a summary of EPA's noise regulatory
activities.
Chapter 5 - State and Municipal Agencies Responsible for Noise Control Efforts -
The results of the organization question in the initial survey area are summarized.
The number of States and municipalities delegating authority for noise activities
to specific agencies is cited and a breakdown of the overall jurisdictions of these
agencies is provided. The impact of organizational arrangements on noise program
orientation and availability of expert personnel is also discussed.
Chapter 6 - State and Municipal Noise Budgetary Allocations - 1973 noise
expenditures and projected 1974 and 1975 budget allocations for each State and
municipality have been tabulated in terms of per capita expenditures (cents per
resident).
-------
Chapter 7 State and Municipal Noise Program Personnel Results have been
categorized into personnel job titles. Based on this categorization, the number
of States and municipalities reporting personnel affiliated with noise control
activities is indicated for each job title.
Chapter 8 Instrumentation Definition of nine types of sound measurement
and analysis instrumentation and their functions are described and the number of
instruments in-use are reported.
Chapter 9 Enforcement - This chapter consists of two sections. The first pro-
vides a tabulation and description of the enforcement actions instituted by States
and municipalities in 1973. The noise sources most frequently cited in violation
of noise statutes are described. The second section deals with enforcement prob-
lem areas.
Chapter 10 Technical Assistance The types of needs identified by responding
State and municipalities are related to a variety of program factors. An extensive
discussion of the current EPA technical assistance program and how it addresses
each category of identified State and municipal requirements is included in the
second section of this chapter.
There are two appendices to the report. Appendix A contains the survey questionnaire.
Appendix B is a list of the designated contact, title, and address of each agency involved in
noise activities as reported by State and municipal respondents.
-------
CHAPTER 2
SUMMARY
The survey results reflect the growing interest in noise abatement and control precipi-
tated in large part by passage of the Noise Control Act. In 1973, many States and munici-
palities had initiated efforts to increase the scope of their noise control activities, adopt
comprehensive legislation incorporating acoustical criteria, and allocate adequate resources
for program implementation and enforcement. Comparison with the 1971 survey results
demonstrates the growth in State and municipal involvement in noise control. This height-
ened level of State and municipal noise control activity may be attributable to:
1. The statutory apportionment of authority among the Federal, State, and local
government and the retention of primary responsibility for noise control at the
State and local levels,
2. The availability of scientific evidence of the hazardous effects of noise on the
public health and welfare,
3. The increased concern and public awareness of daily high-level exposures from
growing noise sources, and
4. The recognition that definitive performance standards offer an effective and
enforceable approach to the regulation and control of environmental noise
sources.
Within this overall expansion trend, significant variations were apparent in (1) the
approaches used by States and municipalities to achieve their noise control objectives, and
(2) progress made in implementing these differing noise control approaches. The survey data
was sufficient to allow a determination of the progress made by States and municipalities
in instituting noise control programs based on those reporting the constituent elements neces-
sary for an effective program. This determination is reflected in the categorization of 1973
State and municipal noise control efforts into one of four stages of program development.
The criteria used in this categorization are described in detail in Chapter 3 and summarized
below:
1. Established programs This category includes those States and municipalities that
had comprehensive legislation incorporating acoustical criteria in effect in 1973
and that conducted extensive and diversified noise control activities. These pro-
grams include the integration of noise activities into a structured organizational
framework, the allocation of personnel and funds, purchase of instrumentation,
and institution of enforcement actions.
-------
2. Limited programs While States and municipalities in this category were actively
engaged in expanding the scope of their noise control activities, one or more of the
elements which characterize established programs were absent. Structured State
and municipal programs based solely on the implementation and enforcement of
nuisance provisions; those directed at the control of noise from only one major
class of noise sources or that utilize only one type of legislative approach (zoning);
and comprehensive programs in the initial phases of development all fall within
this category.
3. Minimal activities - These are unstructured efforts primarily directed to investiga-
tion of complaints and limited enforcement of nuisance provisions.
4. No program effort This category includes those States and municipalities with
no noise control activities in 1973.
Based on this categorization scheme, Table 2 summarizes the number of responding
States and municipalities that reported each element necessary for an effective noise control
program and those citing areas where technical assistance was needed.
All of the States and municipalities that had established programs and a substantial
percentage of those with limited programs reported each 1973 resource area, noise activity,
and program component listed in Table 2. Survey respondents in these two development
categories had defined their noise control goals, established the statutory basis and organiza-
tional mechanisms for achieving these objectives, and were actively involved in implementing
and expanding their noise control programs. In contrast, many respondents that conducted
minimal activities had not allocated the resources necessary for sustained and comprehensive
noise control efforts. However, all of these States and municipalities had designated a respon-
sible agency, and with few exceptions, identified areas where technical assistance was needed.
The only 1973 element reported by a significant number of the respondents in the category
of no program effort was assistance needed for the initiation and establishment of noise con-
trol programs.
Figure 1 shows the distribution of State population among the four development cate-
gories. Figure 2 provides similar population breakdowns for municipal respondents. States
with limited or established programs in 1973 represented a total population of almost
100 million. Approximately 27 million people lived in municipalities with established or
limited noise control programs. Therefore, a significant percentage of the U.S. population
resided in jurisdictions that had initiated structured noise control efforts and allocated
resources to protect public health and welfare. However, the survey data did not provide
an adequate basis for evaluation of the extent of noise control protection for the affected
population. Although the largest number of reporting States and municipalities conducted
minimal activities, this category constituted only 26 percent and 36 percent of the respective
populations represented by State and municipal respondents. Approximately 38 million
people resided in States that had not initiated noise control activities in 1973 and less than
9 million in municipalities with no program effort.
10
-------
TABLE 2
SUMMARY OF REPORTED 1973 STATE AND MUNICIPAL NOISE CONTROL EFFORTS
Stage of program
development
State:
Established program
Limited program
Minimal activities
No program effort
Total
Percent of total
State respondents
Municipal :
Established program
Limited program
Minimal activities
No program effort
Total
Percent of total municipal
respondents
Number
in
category
3
9
20
14
46
100%
11
25
92
55
183
100%
Number reporting each 1973 element
Acoustical
legisla-
tiona
3
6
7
4
20
43%
bll
11
21
5
48
26%
Responsible
agency
3
9
20
-
32
70%
11
25
92
-
128
70%
Budget
3
5
8
-
16
35%
11
18
15
2
46
25%
Personnel
3
5
11
-
19
41%
11
20
26
2
59
32%
Instru-
mentation
3
8
15
6
32
70%
11
16
22
3
52
28%
Enforce-
ment
actions
3
3
3
-
9
20%
11
13
57
-
81
44%
Technical
assistance
needs
3
7
17
11
38
83%
11
21
74
40
146
80%
a Survey data in this area has been supplemented by information available to EPA from other sources.
Two municipalities with established programs did not provide copies of their legislation. However,
their responses indicated that they did have acoustical legislation in 1973.
-------
PERCENT OF POPULATION FROM TOTAL STATE
SURVEY (183,998,000) BY STAGE OF NOISE
PROGRAM DEVELOPMENT
STAGE OF PROGRAM
DEVELOPMENT
Established
Limited
Minimal activities
No program effort
Total
NUMBER IN
CATEGORY
3
9
20
14
46
POPULATION
COVERED
(IN THOUSANDS)
31,836
66,894
47,161
38,107
183,998
PERCENT OF TOTAL
POPULATION
17
36
26
21
100
Figure 1. State population coverage as a function of the
stage of program development
12
-------
LIMITED
PROGRAMS
18%
ESTABLISHED
PROGRAMS
30%
NO
PROGRAM
EFFORT
16%
MINIMAL
ACTIVITIES
36
PERCENT OF POPULATION FROM TOTAL MUNICIPAL
SURVEY RESPONDENTS (55,632,000) BY STAGE
OF NOISE PROGRAM DEVELOPMENT
STAGE OF
PROGRAM
DEVELOPMENT
Established
Limited
Minimal activities
No program effort
TOTAL
NUMBER IN
CATEGORY
11
25
92
55
183
RESPONDANTS IN POPULATION
CATEGORY
(POPULATION IN THOUSANDS)
75-149
4
10
53
38
105
1 50-249
1
3
17
8
29
250-499
1
6
12
6
25
500+
5
6
10
23
24
POPULATION
COVERED
16,539,000
10,239,000
19,869,000
8,985,000
55,632,000
PERCENT
OF
TOTAL
POPULATION
30
18
36
16
100
Figure 2. Municipal population coverage as a function
of the stage of program development
13
-------
Figure 3 depicts the geographic distribution of State and municipal noise control activ-
ities in relation to their varying stages of program development. Those States and munic-
ipalities not responding to the survey are also shown. The industrialized New England States,
the Mid-Atlantic area, and the West Coast were the regions with the largest number of struc-
tured State programs. Established and limited municipal programs were concentrated among
major urban areas and transportation centers. The figure reflects the tendency of noise con-
trol activities and regulations adopted by one jurisdiction to proliferate to contiguous areas
a pattern which offers opportunities for the development of coordinated regional approaches
to noise control. Figure 3 also exemplifies the interdependency of State noise control efforts
and those of municipalities within that State.
The most significant findings of the various survey areas are highlighted below with in-
depth discussion in the applicable chapters.
CHAPTER 3 - NOISE PROGRAM ORIENTATION
Program objectives and noise control approaches reported by States and municipalities
have been categorized into the following types of program orientation:
1. Revision I expansion of noise legislation All activities relating to the development
of noise control statutes and regulations.
2. Enforcement activities Investigations in response to complaints and enforcement
actions instituted to insure compliance with noise control regulations and
procedures.
3. Public education Dissemination of information to increase public awareness of
the effects of noise and of control techniques as well as to foster citizen partici-
pation in abatement efforts.
4. Monitoring/surveillance Surveys of specific noise sources, periodic ambient
monitoring, social surveys, and all other noise survey and monitoring functions.
5. Research Studies, investigations, and research to identify noise problems and
develop control measures.
Major findings in this area are:
There is a relationship between the stage of development of State and municipal noise
control efforts and program orientation.
Established programs were the most diversified and comprehensive in orientation
with a significant percentage of the States and municipalities in this category
reporting each type of orientation.
14
-------
NJ »* (l)a A (3)
(2) o (2)
(6)
STATES
Established programs [v^g
Limited programs DwQQol
Minimal activities 1 1 [ 1 { )
No program effort I-i^^j
No response [ |
MUNICIPALITIES8
Established programs
Limited programs
Minimal activities
No program effort
No response
»
A
O
Figures in parenthesis denote number
of municipalities in category
Figure 3. Stage of development of State and municipal noise control efforts
-------
Limited programs A substantial number of States and municipalities with limited
programs were involved in legislative revisions, enforcement, and noise monitoring
with public education and research activities reported less frequently.
Minimal activities Less structured and diversified than either established or
limited programs, these State and municipal efforts centered on development of
legislation and, for municipalities in this category, enforcement and complaint
activities based almost exclusively on nuisance provisions.
No program effort Consistent with the absence of 1973 noise control activity
by these States and municipalities, the only program orientation reported was
that of drafting legislation and proposing a noise control program for future years.
Furthermore, 61 percent of the States and 38 percent of the municipalities reported
a 1973 program orientation of revision/expansion of legislation. This represents
a significant increase over the number of States and municipalities that were in-
volved in expanding and upgrading their noise control statutes in 1971 and demon-
strates the growth in State and municipal activity.
CHAPTER 4 - LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS
Two-thirds of the States and half of the municipalities were known to have noise
control legislation in effect in 1973.
Over 40 percent of the State respondents had legislation incorporating acoustical
criteria. With few exceptions, noise sources regulated at the State level were
recreational vehicles (primarily snowmobiles) and motor vehicles.
While nuisance oriented legislation was the most frequently cited provision by
municipalities, one-half of the municipalities that provided copies of their legis-
lation had enacted performance standards.
The types of performance standards most frequently adopted by municipalities
were applicable to land use/zoning, motor vehicles, construction activities, and
industrial noise sources.
CHAPTER 5 - AGENCIES RESPONSIBLE FOR NOISE CONTROL EFFORTS
The number of States and municipalities that had delegated a responsible agency
has significantly increased since 1971.
16
-------
With few exceptions, State noise control activities were the responsibility of either
the public health department or the environmental services agency. The types of
agencies most frequently identified by municipalities were the police department,
public health department, environmental services agency, and planning and develop-
ment agency.
There has been an increase in the relative prevalence of environmental services
agencies particularly for States and municipalities with structured programs since
1971.
CHAPTER 6 - NOISE BUDGETARY ALLOCATIONS
Thirty-five percent of the States and 25 percent of the municipalities responding
to the survey reported 1973 noise control expenditures. The total 1973 State and
municipal budget was approximately $ 15 million. Municipal spending accounted
for $2 million of this figure. However, excluding the State of California and its
municipalities that reported 1973 expenditures, State and municipal funding for
noise control totaled approximately $2 million in 1973.
Both the number of States and municipalities allocating funds for noise control
and the amount of program expenditures were projected to significantly increase
in 1974 and 1975.
The five States with 1973 per capita expenditures exceeding 1 cent had either
established or limited programs. Municipalities with established programs spent
an average per capita of 15 cents in 1973 while those with limited programs
averaged 8 cents.
CHAPTER 7 - NOISE PROGRAM PERSONNEL
Forty-one percent of the States and 32 percent of the municipalities reported at
least one, full or part time, noise personnel position.
The job category cited by the greatest number of States and municipalities was
that of environmental specialist. The largest number of personnel were environ-
mental technicians/inspectors primarily involved in noise monitoring and enforce-
ment/complaint activities.
17
-------
CHAPTER 8 - INSTRUMENTATION
Seventy percent of the States and 28 percent of the municipalities reported one or
more instruments and therefore had the potential to objectively quantify noise
levels.
In several cases, it appeared that available instrumentation was not being effec-
tively used due to a lack of trained manpower and/or quantitative standards.
CHAPTER 9 - ENFORCEMENT
Twenty percent of the State respondents and 44 percent of the municipal respon-
dents reported instituting noise enforcement actions in 1973.
A small percentage of respondents accounted for the overwhelming majority of
enforcement actions instituted.
In some cases, lack of quantitative noise standards, trained personnel, or appro-
priate instrumentation appeared to limit the effectiveness of reported State and
municipal enforcement efforts.
The enforcement problem areas cited by the greatest number of States and muni-
cipalities were surface transportation systems. The problem noise sources most
frequently identified in the surface transportation category were trucks,
motorcycles, and automobiles.
CHAPTER 10 - TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE
Approximately 80 percent of the State and municipal respondents identified one
or more problems limiting their noise control efforts or areas where technical
assistance was required. A substantial need therefore exists among States and
municipalities for an expanded EPA assistance program.
Model legislation was the most frequently cited State and municipal need.
Assistance with developing measurement methodologies and enforcement criteria
necessary for the effective implementation of noise control legislation was also
required by a substantial number of respondents.
Resources necessary to establish and operate noise control programs were often
identified and included personnel, instrumentation, and funding.
18
-------
The EPA technical assistance program (which is discussed in detail in Chapter 10)
is presently addressing each identified area of State and municipal noise control
requirements with the exception of funding.
CONCLUSIONS
There has been a significant increase in the overall level of State and municipal
noise control activity since the 1971 survey. A substantial percentage of States
and municipalities had completed the exploratory phases of initiating noise con-
trol activities and were implementing comprehensive noise control programs in
1973.
This increased involvement was particularly apparent at the State level. A larger
percentage of the State respondents reported 1973 noise control expenditures,
personnel allocations, instrumentation purchases, and adoption of legislation
incorporating acoustical criteria than did reporting municipalities.
An intense interest in developing noise control programs was expressed by many
of those States and municipalities that had not established structured noise con-
trol programs in 1973.
Many States and municipalities had initiated comprehensive program planning,
monitoring to identify and assess noise problems, and development of quantita-
tive noise regulations to insure that proposed noise control activities were based
on a technically sound, legally enforceable, and cost/effective approach.
While no attempt has been made to evaluate individual State and municipal noise
control activities, the survey results indicate that some State and municipal efforts
were limited by insufficient resources and inadequate legislative authority.
A comprehensive and expanded Federal assistance program is essential to satisfy
the identified requirements of State and municipal governments and to assure
that Federal, State and municipal noise control efforts are mutually supportive.
FUTURE EPA PLANS
The more recent EPA experience in providing technical assistance to States and munic-
ipalities confirms and substantiates the major findings of the 1974 survey. State and local
governments continue to enact legislation, develop organizational structures, and allocate
resources for noise control programs at an accelerated pace. As of November 1975, 14
States had promulgated revisions to noise control statutes that were in effect in 1973. A
comparable increase in activity is apparent at the municipal level which should be further
19
-------
stimulated by the recent completion of EPA's community model noise ordinance. The mag-
nitude of this projected growth in the number of States and municipalities initiating noise
control programs over a short period has significant implications for the EPA technical assis-
tance program.
One of the State and municipal requirements identified in the 1974 survey - additional
funding has become increasingly critical. The present economic situation and the competing
demands for limited State and municipal resources has forced some States and municipalities
to reduce noise control activities; others have deferred planned program expansion; and the
situation has also prevented several States and municipalities from initiating noise control efforts.
As part of a continuing critical assessment of the status of State and municipal environ-
mental noise control activities, EPA is in the process of designing a foliowup survey which
will differ in several respects from that conducted in 1974:
The survey sample will be larger encompassing all 50 States, incorporated munic-
ipalities with populations greater than 10,000 and approximately 500 counties,
A more specific and detailed questionnaire will be used to facilitate both State
and local responses and data analysis, and
The scope of the questionnaire will be expanded to cover all spheres of environ-
mental noise control.
Using the results of the present survey as a baseline from which to assess progress in
the establishment and operation of State and municipal noise control programs, it is antici-
pated that future surveys will continue to provide information necessary for both EPA's
technical assistance program and regulatory activities.
20
-------
CHAPTER 3
STATE AND MUNICIPAL NOISE PROGRAM ORIENTATION
AND STAGE OF DEVELOPMENT
This chapter describes the 1973 level of noise control activity reported by States and
municipalities. It traces the relationship between two factors (1) program orientation
and (2) stage of program development. Program orientation refers to the approaches adopted
by States and municipalities to fulfill their primary responsibility for noise control; the stage
of program development reflects the progress made by States and municipalities in imple-
menting these approaches. Together, these two factors provide a perspective on the types
and scope of noise control activities undertaken by States and municipalities, as well as the
framework for the EPA assessment of State and municipal 1973 noise control efforts.
In analyzing the survey results, State and municipal activities have been categorized
by both program orientation and stage of development. This categorization scheme:
Provides a means to compare reported State and municipal efforts,
Serves as the analytical base for many of the observations and distinctions made
in the following sections, and
Includes a measure against which developments in future years may be evaluated.
To obtain information on the orientation of noise control activities, surveyed States
and municipalities were asked to describe program objectives and components (e.g., ordinance
development, public education). Activities were evaluated using the following five categories
of program orientation:
1. Revision I Expansion of Noise Legislation This category encompasses all activities
relating to the redefinition of statutory provisions for noise control. Included are
all phases of the legislative process from preparation of initial studies and support
documentation, to drafting ordinance specifications, through giving testimony to
support adoption by the legislature.
The objectives of this program orientation are the enactment of technically sound
and enforceable noise control legislation, delegation of authority, and authoriza-
tion of resources necessary to mount an effective noise control program. State
and municipal efforts included are:
21
-------
Development of quantitative legislation to supplement an approach based
solely on nuisance provisions,
Promulgation of standards and regulations in compliance with previously
enacted enabling legislation,
Legislative revisions to include regulation of additional noise sources or
problems, and
State development of model ordinances for municipalities.
2. Enforcement I Complaint Activities The objective of this program orientation is
to achieve compliance with noise control regulations. Enforcement covers a broad
spectrum of activities. The types of enforcement techniques used by a specific
State or municipality are a function of the legislative authority on which the
State or municipal noise control program is based. Activities included in this
category are inspections and investigations in response to complaints, motor
vehicle compliance testing, permit issuance, required registration of sources, issu-
ance of citations, conferences and hearings to prepare legal actions, and conduct
of court cases.
3. Publication Education This program orientation involves the dissemination of
information to (1) increase public awareness of noise as an environmental prob-
lem, (2) stimulate citizen involvement in noise control efforts, and (3) inform the
public of noise control regulations and complaint procedures. In addition to
responding to citizen requests, this category includes information dissemination
through issuance of publications, television and radio interviews, newspaper
articles, lectures to citizen groups, and incorporation of noise control studies in
school curriculums.
4. Monitoring I Surveillance All noise survey and monitoring functions are included
in this category such as social attitudinal surveys, periodic ambient monitoring,
and surveys of specific noise problems. The comprehensiveness and objectives
of monitoring activities, as well as the types of noise instrumentation used, vary
widely among States and municipalities involved in this program orientation. The
purposes of State and municipal noise monitoring and surveillance activities
include:
Gathering data on noise problems and citizen attitudes to aid in the design
and development of a noise control program,
Obtaining technical data for use in the development of regulations and
measurement methodologies,
22
-------
Establishing an acoustical baseline data bank against which trends and
developments in future years may be measured, and
Providing noise data necessary for the preparation of Environmental Impact
Statements.
5. Research This category encompasses studies, investigations, and research directed
at the identification of noise problems and the design of control measures. State
and municipal efforts falling within this program orientation include:
Preparation of strategies and conduct of supporting studies (cost/benefit
analyses) necessary for program planning,
Compilation of data on noise effects, noise control technology, and noise
control approaches and regulations adopted by other States and
municipalities.
Development of mathematical predictive models,
Development of design and construction specifications for noise abatement
measures (e.g., barriers),
Establishment of noise criteria for application in land use planning, equipment
procurement, building construction, and transportation planning, and
Development of training programs, noise education requirements, and speci-
fications for noise instrumentation and its use.
Reported State and municipal noise control efforts have also been categorized into one
of four stages of program development. Unlike other survey areas, no quantitative measure
exists on which to base an evaluation of progress made by States and municipalities in
achieving their noise control objectives. Therefore, indirect indices have been used to estimate
the total level of program activity. These indices are: (1) the types and provisions of noise
control legislation; (2) the existence of a responsible agency for noise control activities;
(3) the amount of funds budgeted for noise control; (4) the number of personnel involved
and their areas of expertise; (5) the number and types of noise instrumentation available for
program use; and (6) the number of enforcement actions instituted. The criteria used to
categorize the stage of State and municipal program development are as follows:
1. Established Programs States and municipalities in this category have adopted a
comprehensive approach to noise control based on the implementation of legis-
lation incorporating acoustical criteria. Characterized by a high level of noise con-
trol activity and integration of program elements into a structured, functional
relationship, these programs have personnel, funding, instrumentation, and include
enforcement activities.
23
-------
2. Limited Programs The absence of one or more of the program elements char-
acterizing an established program is the primary criteria for placing a State or
municipal program in this structured category. However, both a moderate degree
of noise control activity and a demonstrated interest in abating noise problems
are present. Limited programs fall into three subcategories:
(a) Programs based solely on the implementation and enforcement of nuisance
provisions. Despite the absence of performance standards and noise measure-
ment instrumentation, noise control efforts are actively pursued.
(b) Programs directed at the control of noise from only one major class of noise
sources (e.g., motor vehicles) or that utilize only one noise control approach
(e.g., zoning). Although structured programs with legislation, funding, per-
sonnel, instrumentation, and enforcement, these efforts lack the comprehen-
sive orientation of established programs.
(c) Comprehensive programs in the initial phases of development. Typically,
these are structured programs in their first or second year of existence. The
primary thrust of activities is the development of standards and criteria to
implement enabling legislation. As a result, no enforcement actions have
been instituted.
3. Minimal Activities States and municipalities in this category do not have a struc-
tured noise control program. Efforts usually consist of investigation of complaints
and limited enforcement of nuisance provisions. Resources (personnel, funds,
instrumentation) are drawn from other programs and applied on an as needed
basis.
4. No Program Effort - This category is composed of those States and municipalities
that did not conduct noise control activities in 1973. Although nuisance pro-
visions may exist, they are neither implemented nor enforced with respect to
noise control.
The above categorization reflects the status of State and municipal efforts as of 1973.
However, some States and municipalities, that in 1973 conducted minimal activities or
that made no program effort, were in the process of proposing a comprehensive noise con-
trol program based on legislation incorporating acoustical criteria. The discussion of the
survey results has been qualified to include these future plans.
DATA LIMITATIONS AND ANALYTICAL CONSTRAINTS
Analysis of the level of State and municipal noise control activity required a great
degree of interpretation and evaluation of responses to all survey areas. Inferences and
24
-------
assumptions drawn are clearly identified and qualified in the discussion. The following
limitations should be taken into account:
Each of the survey areas (e.g., budget, personnel) used in categorizing the stage
of development of State and municipal activities are subject to specific data
limitations.
Several States and municipalities in defining their program orientation appear to
have described activities they would like to initiate if resources and legislation were
available rather than what was actually occurring in 1973.
No assessment has been made of long-term program goals in the few instances
where States and municipalities provided this information. Neither has an evalua-
tion of the success of reported State and municipal noise control efforts been
made. In future years, especially for States and municipalities conducting base-
line community noise surveys to be followed up by periodic monitoring, an eval-
uation of program success should be possible.
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
Based on the categorization scheme described above, Figures 4, 5, and 6 depict the
1973 level of State and municipal noise control activity. Figure 4 indicates the percentage
of responding States and municipalities in each of the four stages of program development.
Figure 5 shows the percentage breakdown of the program orientations reported by the 46
responding States and territories as a function of the stage of development. Figure 6 pre-
sents similar information for the 183 municipal survey respondents.
The survey results support two overall conclusions in this area:
1. There is a definite relationship between the stage of development and the program
orientation of State and municipal noise control efforts.
2. There has been a significant increase in the level of State and municipal noise con-
trol activity since the 1971 survey.
The first conclusion is substantiated by a discussion of the program orientations
which characterize the four categories of program development.
25
-------
60
50
S 40
z
2
52
GC
O
LU
O
i
LU
O
cc
LU
Q.
30
20
10
1
MUNICIPALITIES
ESTABLISHED LIMITED MINIMAL NO
PROGRAM PROGRAM ACTIVITY PROGRAM
STAGE OF PROGRAM DEVELOPMENT
Figure 4. Percentage of responding States and municipalities in
each of the four stages of program development
26
-------
100
W)
O
.
q <
' cc
I W
O D
< O
§1
w cc
"- 9
o&
LU DC
Z O
LU O
O UJ
oc jr
LU <
Q. O
80
60
40
20
/,
1
I
MINIMAL
ACTIVITY
LIMITED
PROGRAM
NO
PROGRAM
REVISION - EXPANSION
OF
NOISE LEGISLATION
ENFORCEMENT-
COMPLAINT
ACTIVITIES
PUBLIC
EDUCATION
MONITORING
SURVEILLANCE
RESEARCH
STATE PROGRAM ORIENTATIONS
Figure 5. 1913 \e\el of State noise control activity as a function
of the stage of program development
-------
to
co
> cc
LLJ O
Q.
CO c/)
^ O
t 2
-J CE
< <
9: >
o (j
z z
ii
u. O
80
60
40
20
-
-
r
^
-I
_i
_
-
i
88
m
I
i
_
i
i
i
1
I
1
i
\\
^
1
1
_
:i
'
1
1
i
I
s\\
^
1
i
u_.
\\\
i
1
1
1
p
i
\\^
^
I
i
i
W^
ESTABLISHED L
PROGRAM p
MINIMAL
ACTIVITY
^
^
I,
1.--
IMITED
ROGRAM
|
NO
PROGRAM
"1
REVISION - EXPANSION
OF
NOISE LEGISLATION
ENFORCEMENT
COMPLAINT
ACTIVITIES
PUBLIC
EDUCATION
MONITORING
SURVEILLANCE
RESEARCH
MUNICIPAL PROGRAM ORIENTATIONS
Figure 6. 1973 level of municipal noise control activity as a
function of the program stage of development
-------
Established programs
Three States and 11 municipalities fall in this category. As a group, these programs
were the most comprehensive and diversified in orientation of any category of program
development. With the exception of Hawaii, which did not conduct monitoring/surveillance
activities in 1973, the three States (California, Hawaii, and Illinois) with established programs
reported involvement in all five areas of program orientation. The category of established
programs was the municipal stage of development with the highest percentage involvement
in all program orientations except that of revision/expansion of ordinance. In contrast to
established State programs, only 27 percent of the municipalities with established programs
reported this orientation. This may reflect differing approaches at the State and municipal
level. Very often, States adopt enabling legislation and subsequently promulgate specific
source regulations over several years. In contrast, many municipalities adopt comprehensive
noise control ordinances which include a number of acoustical noise control standards and
regulations. Subsequent municipal legislative revisions encompass authorization to regulate
additional noise sources or changes in the standards contained in the original ordinance.
A second distinction in program orientation between States and municipalities with
established programs is the greater State involvement in noise control research. This may be
indicative of (1) the differing approaches and types of noise problems dealt with at the State
and municipal levels and (2) the greater resources available at the State level and the conse-
quent municipal reliance on the results of Federal and State noise research efforts.
Limited programs
This category includes nine States and 25 municipalities. While not as comprehensive
nor marked by the same level of noise control activity as were established efforts, programs
in this group often included legislative revisions, enforcement and noise monitoring activities.
To a lesser extent, public education and research studies were also conducted. Over 75 per-
cent of the States with limited programs reported efforts to revise or expand their legislation.
This orientation often reflected (1) the development of standards and criteria to implement
recently enacted enabling legislation, and (2) proposals to expand legislative coverage to
regulate additional noise sources or to authorize alternative noise control approaches. A
similar percentage of States with limited programs were involved in monitoring and sur-
veillance activities. These efforts were frequently performed to gather technical data for
use in revising legislation or developing source regulations.
Enforcement/complaint activities was the program orientation cited most frequently
by municipalities with limited programs. This municipal stage of development was that
with the highest percentage involvement in legislative revisions. In some instances, enforce-
ment activities may have pointed out statutory inadequacies and contributed to efforts to
upgrade existing noise control ordinances.
29
-------
Minimal activities
The greatest number of reporting States and municipalities fall into this category
20 States and 92 municipalities. These State and municipal efforts are far less structured
and diversified than either established or limited programs. The program orientations most
frequently reported by States and municipalities in this category were enforcement complaint
activities and revision/expansion of legislation. Research, monitoring/surveillance, and public
education activities received less program emphasis.
The most frequently reported orientation among States in this development category
involved efforts to revise noise control legislation and expand the structure and scope of
noise control activities. In contrast, a majority of the municipalities conducted enforcement/
complaint activities, reflecting an exercise of police power at the municipal level to abate
noise as a nuisance. The survey results suggest that in the initial phases of noise program
development, State efforts are directed towards the establishment of an adequate legislative
base while municipalities often undertake increased enforcement of existing nuisance codes
to control noise problems. To a lesser extent, States and municipalities conducting minimal
activities had initiated monitoring and surveillance. Most frequently, community noise
levels and citizen attitudes were analyzed for the purpose of planning and developing a noise
control program.
No program effort
This category includes 14 States and 55 municipalities. Consistent with the absence
of noise control activity, the only program orientation reported was that of developing
legislation. Six States and 21 municipalities that did not have a noise control program in
1973 were in the process of drafting legislation and proposing a noise control program for
future years.
The second overall observation in this area relates to the growing State and municipal
involvement in noise control. This increased involvement is reflected in the differences
between the 1971 and 1973 levels of State and municipal noise control activity. The find-
ings of the 1971 survey which are applicable to the activity level of State and municipal
efforts are:
States and municipalities, with few exceptions, were only beginning to deal with
noise control.
A greater percentage of the municipalities surveyed, as compared to the States,
had noise control programs.
Only eight of the responding 41 States and 11 of the reporting municipalities
were involved in developing noise control legislation.
30
-------
By 1973, a significant increase is apparent in both the prevalence of State and municipal
noise control efforts and the number of States and municipalities which had instituted struc-
tured noise control programs. Twenty-six percent of the States and 20 percent of the munic-
ipalities responding to the survey had either established or limited programs. Less than a
third of the reporting States and municipalities had not initiated noise control activities in
1973. Further, a significant number of the States and municipalities included in the category
of no program effort were in the process of developing noise control legislation. The increase
in activity is particularly marked at the State level. As shown in Figure 4, a slightly greater
percentage of the States had structured programs than did the municipalities.
The best indicator of the growth of State and municipal noise control involvement over
the 2-year period is the number of States and municipalities reporting a 1973 program
orientation of revision/expansion of legislation. Sixty-one percent of the States and 38 per-
cent of the municipalities reported this orientation. For States and municipalities with estab-
lished or limited programs, these activites involved the expansion and upgrading of existing
noise control statutes. For those conducting minimal activities or no program effort, this
orientation involved the development of adequate legislative authority from which to estab-
lish an effective noise control program. The large-scale increase in these efforts over 1971
is consistent with the demonstrated interest in noise control at the State and municipal
level.
NOTEWORTHY PROGRAMS
Many of the States and municipalities responding to the survey had instituted innova-
tive techniques and comprehensive approaches to deal with their noise problems. The 1973
orientation of effort of several States and municipalities with established or limited programs
is discussed below.
State of Florida Noise control activities encompass all five classes of program
orientation. The evolution of the Florida program during the period 1971-1973
is characterized by a large increase in public and legislative interest in all aspects
of noise control and a shift in emphasis from initial concentration on motor
vehicle noise to more comprehensive noise abatement efforts. In 1971, the
Florida Department of Pollution Control (FDPR) was delegated responsibility
for noise, but no funding was allocated. In 1972, a low level of noise control
activity was authorized and legislation enacted that require the FDPC to develop
noise control standards and tests for measuring motor vehicle exhaust system noise
at Florida's Official Inspection Stations. In 1973, major legislative interest centered
around education and roadbuilding issues, increased resources were allocated for
noise control, and a statewide program was initiated. In 1973, the need for im-
mediate action and the amount of available funds precluded the establishment of
a large-scale program based on the development of noise control regulations
enforced by the State.
31
-------
The primary objective of 1973 noise control activities was to achieve the maximum
degree of community noise reduction at a minimum cost. Extensive planning and
feasibility studies were carried out to define the approaches which would best
meet this objectives. The scope of the Florida program is delineated in Figure 7
which indicates the noise-related functions of the FDPC. Noteworthy features of
Florida's 1973 noise control activities include:
Development of a strong, mutual working relationship between the FDPC and the
academic community to make available the acoustical expertise, facilities, and
instrumentation of the State universities,
Coordination of the noise activities of the 11 State agencies with noise control
responsibilities to minimize overlaps and gaps in effort,
Provision of technical assistance to local governments to help them develop their
noise ordinances,
Development of an overall motor vehicle noise control plan which will evaluate
all possible noise control techniques,
Provision of support to the legislature in the drafting and analysis of proposed
noise control legislation, and
Preparation of preliminary design and feasibility data to allow development of
total noise control systems using advanced sound level acquisition and evaluation
techniques.
Los Angeles, California This municipality, with a 1970 census population of
2,816,000, had an established noise control program in 1973. Program orientation
included enforcement, public education, monitoring/surveillance, and research
activities. The City's noise control ordinance includes both nuisance provisions
and acoustical zoning criteria. The most noteworthy aspects of the Los Angeles
program orientation involve methods designed to prevent the growth and con-
centration of noise sources and problem areas as well as techniques to predict and
evaluate community noise levels. These efforts include:
Provision of assistance to various City departments in the preparation of Environ-
mental Impact Reports (EIR) and Statements (EIS) including field noise surveys,
and predictions of future significant noise impact of public and private projects,
Review of Community Plan EIR's to assess the adequacy of acoustic analysis
and mitigating measures to protect the health and welfare of citizens,
32
-------
STUDIES,
INVESTIGATIONS
AND RESEARCH
1. Noise effect data
compilation
2. Scope of Florida noise
problems (area, effects,
sources)
3. Status of noise regu-
lation and laws in
other States
4. Noise control tech-
nology state of the
art
5. Special investigations
in high priority fields
(e.g., motor vehicle
noise, etc.)
6. Study enforcement
needs and capabilities
NOISE
CONTROL PROGRAM
FLORIDA DEPARTMENT
OF
POLLUTION CONTROL
PLANS,
STANDARDS
AND
REGULATIONS
B
1. Long range plan
preparation through
1980
2. Suggested rules and
regulations (e.g.,
equipment operation
restrictions, etc.)
3. Priorities for noise
regulation areas
4. Recommendation
of standards (e.g.,
building noise codes,
noise inputs to
environmental
impact statements
etc.)
5. Planning support
for local areas
ADMINISTRATION
AND
ENFORCEMENT
OF LAWS
1. Execute noise level
enforcement program
2. Execute noise level
surveillance
program
COORDINATION
WITH OTHER
AGENCIES AND
GROUPS
1. Identify State, local
and academic com-
munity interest and
responsibilities in
noise fields
2. Investigate and coordi-
nate with Federal
agencies as to pending
legislation, budgets,
etc.
3. Coordinate with State
agencies such as
DHRS, FHP, DOT
and DOA
4. Provide data on
noise programs as
required to other
State and local
agencies
EDUCATION
AND
TRAINING
1. Develop overall
and statewide noise
education require-
ments
2. Assist local areas
and other State
agencies
3. Compile data on
training of equipment
operators, use of
noise measurement
equipment, etc.
4. Assist in develop-
ment of training
programs
Figure 7. Statutory responsibilities of the Florida Department of Pollution Control
-------
Establishment of an acoustical baseline data bank for future city wide use through
field noise surveys,
Development of mathematical models to predict noise levels from various kinds
and numbers of sources,
Assistance in the acoustical analysis and design of public and private projects, and
Provision of advice on noise control methods including land use management
techniques, environmental zoning, building codes, and noise ordinances and
regulations.
St. Petersburg, Florida - St. Petersburg is predominately a retirement but growth-
oriented municipality with a 1970 census population of 216,000. This established
program was comprehensive in nature encompassing all five categories of program
orientation. Monitoring and surveillance activities were conducted for a variety of
reasons: to determine ordinance violations for enforcement, to evaluate community
noise levels, and to provide data for the development of predictive models to
estimate noise levels from future traffic patterns. Dependent on funding avail-
ability, additional noise control activities and projects were planned including a
comprehensive community noise assessment project.
Inglewood, California This municipality, with a population of 90,000 is an
acknowledged leader in noise control. Proximity to the Los Angeles International
Airport has been a major factor in shaping the orientation of Inglewood's estab-
lished program. The major elements of Inglewood's 1973 noise control activities
were:
Aircraft noise abatement research and advocacy The extensive nature of these
efforts was reflected in a list of 23 reports prepared by the Environmental
Standards Division of the city dealing with all aspects of aircraft noise and recom-
mended abatement techniques.
Community noise monitoring - The City has approximately $50,000 invested in
four remotely operated aircraft noise monitoring stations and one mobile acoustics
laboratory. These facilities are used to measure and evaluate community noise
levels and to provide technical data for enforcement, environmental impact state-
ment preparation, and a variety of other specialized noise control activities.
Noise ordinance development and enforcement - The City's noise code includes
nuisance provisions and land use regulations based on acoustical criteria. Addi-
tional legislation was being proposed including an acoustical treatment (sound-
proofing) ordinance for aircraft noise zones in Inglewood.
34
-------
Noise control for city vehicles Activities in this category included a study for the
assessment of the environmental impact of route alignment alternatives for a pro-
posed interstate highway.
Noise studies for city planning programs These included work carried out in
support of the development of a noise element for the municipal general plan
required by California statutes.
Lakewood, Colorado - Lakewood had a 1970 census population of 83,000. This
was an established program with an orientation encompassing the areas of enforce-
ment, public education, and monitoring/surveillance activities. A comprehensive
noise control ordinance was enacted in 1973 which incorporated nuisance provi-
sions and acoustical criteria covering motor vehicles, light residential equipment,
land use, and industrial zoning. The aggressive nature of the program is reflected
in the fact that Lakewood projected the highest per capita expenditure for 1974
of any reporting State or municipality. The underlying philosophy and thrust of
the program is voluntary compliance through public education. Noise control
activities are directed by an autonomous unit in the municipal department of
community development authorized with enforcement and development review
powers. Public involvement is stimulated through a citizen focal organization
which is empowered to review the education and enforcement activities of the
program.. Lakewood's noise control efforts are based on three primary program
elements:
Ordinance activities Implementation of the ordinance provisions consists of
public education, information, vehicular enforcement, complaint response, and
permit issuance.
Development review This element involves the review of all rezoning submittals
to pinpoint potential noise problems and to correct such situations by interaction
with the developer and his engineer. The noise criteria used to evaluate community
noise impact are the Housing and Urban Development Noise Assessment Guide-
lines and the district levels specified in the Lakewood ordinance.
Subprograms Six activities were underway in 1973. These included city vehicle
compliance testing, building code modifications for internal structural noise
control, specifications for equipment purchases by the City, and exploration of
current vehicle noise problems on existing major highways.
These programs exemplify the variety of noise control approaches developed by States
and municipalities, many of which have applications to other jurisdictions.
35
-------
CHAPTER 4
LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS
One of the purposes of the survey was to determine the extent to which the demonstrated
interest among citizens and legislators in noise control had been translated into the adoption
of appropriate legislation. Adequate statutory authority is essential for the establishment of
an effective noise control program and should include the following components:
Delineation of the objectives and purposes of noise control efforts, delegation of
the authority necessary to attain those objectives, clear definition of the respon-
sibilities and powers of the agency or agencies involved, and authorization of
funding appropriations;
Regulation of noise sources and their impact using performance standards. Selection
of sound level limits should be based on (1) protection of the public health and
welfare, (2) local conditions, (3) economic reasonableness, and (4) technical
practicality; and
Enforcement provisions which may be upheld in court, which allow for uniform
determination of violation of noise regulations and procedural requirements, which
will generate citizen support, and which are consistent with Federal preemptive
provisions.
While Federal authority to control noise derives from the Commerce Clause of the
United States Constitution, the traditional police power provides the basic formal authority
for noise control measures by State and municipal governments. The State and local regula-
tion of environmental noise may be based on the police power in one or more of three sub-
categories: (1) protection of the public health and welfare; (2) abatement of noise as a
nuisance; and (3) preservation of the public peace and tranquility. With documented scien-
tific evidence of the hazardous effects of noise now available, States and municipalities are
turning to performance standardsthe major legal basis for which is the protection of the
public health and welfare.
Within the legal constraints imposed by the preemptive provisions of Federal law, States
and municipalities may utilize a variety of techniques in exercising the police power to
control environmental noise. These include establishment of ambient noise levels, promul-
gation of zoning laws and building codes incorporating acoustical criteria, setting of use and
operational limits on products, and promulgation of noise emission standards for new products
not regulated by the Federal Government.
37
-------
The types of legislative provisions which States and municipalities have enacted to
exercise their authority to control noise are:
Enabling legislation This is a declaration of policy by the legislature describing
the need for noise control, outlining program goals and objectives, and establishing
the organizational framework to carry out noise control activities. Enabling
legislation is typically the initial step towards formulation of a noise control pro-
gram and reflects a recognition of noise as a serious environmental problem. It
includes delegation of authority to a specific agency or agencies and stipulation
of those agencies' functions and powers. At the municipal level, enabling pro-
visions are usually incorporated within a comprehensive noise control ordinance.
At the State level, enabling legislation usually defines the scope of noise control
efforts, the types of specific noise criteria, standards, and regulations to be
promulgated, the regulatory development process, and often the timetable for
development.
Nonquantitative legislation Such statutes are more commonly referred to as
nuisance ordinances. They are based on the common law approach to noise
control designed to prevent noise causing public annoyance or menace to the
public comfort or safety. Under nuisance provisions, it is unlawful to emit un-
reasonably loud, disturbing, or unnecessary sounds. The following examples are
common nuisance provisions found in municipal ordinances.
1. Unreasonable sounds by machines and construction equipment are illegal
during certain hours.
2. It shall be unlawful to sound any horn or signaling device except in an
emergency.
3. It shall be unlawful to play any radio, phonograph, musical instrument, or
operate outdoor amplifying equipment during the nighttime hours (10 pm-
7 am) so as to disturb any persons.
4. Mufflers may not be in poor working order emitting unusually loud noises.
5. The creation of excessive noise adjacent to a school, hospital, or church
which may interfere with ongoing activities is prohibited.
6. Animals shall not cause frequent or long continued noise.
In all of these examples, the determination of violation is based on subjective
assessment thereby precluding the scientific verification of the disturbing
qualities of noise sources in a court of law. The potential for issuance of
sustainable enforcement actions based on nuisance provisions is often in doubt.
38
-------
However, nuisance criteria are useful for control of general noise sources and
many activities associated with excessive noise in the community (e.g. street
sales) for which quantitative regulations are not feasible. Further, they
provide additional flexibility in controlling the less definable and infrequently
occurring noise sources.
Quantitative legislation Noise regulations incorporating acoustical criteria are
referred to as performance standards. Such standards specify permissable sound
levels which if exceeded are in violation of the regulations and subject to enforce-
ment action. Performance standards have been included in the following types
of legislative provisions:
Source regulation These regulations are directed at the control of noise from
specific problem noise sources or classes of products such as motor vehicles,
construction equipment, and recreational vehicles. Often performance standards
are promulgated for both the sale and operation of sources. The first type, which
may be subject to preemption by Federal regulations, is enforceable at the point
of sale and requires manufacturer compliance. The second type is designed to
control noise emissions by the product in-use. The following is an example of
in-use regulations applicable to motor vehicles:
No person shall operate a motor vehicle on the public right of way
within the speed limits specified in this regulation at any time or
under any condition of grade, load acceleration or deceleration in
such a manner as to exceed the following noise levels for the
category of motor vehicles ...
These vehicular regulations are supported by well defined measurement methodol-
ogies usually placing the microphone at a point of 50 feet from the center of the
lane of travel to be measured. The acoustical criteria specified vary according to
the spded of the vehicle with higher maximum permissable levels for speeds greater
than 35 mph.
Land-use/zoning provisions Incorporation of performance standards in land-use
planning provisions may be used to ensure that no new residences, institutions,
or recreational areas are constructed in high noise areas. Conversely, these provi-
sions may be used to ensure that no new noise producing structures, such as
industrial and manufacturing plants, airports, and highways may be constructed
in noise sensitive zones.
In some instances, municipal officials instituting land-use controls may recommend
the placement of an environmental buffer zone if it is determined that resultant
ambient levels will exceed sound level limits and therefore be deleterious to the
health and welfare of citizens within existing developments. The buffer zone
39
-------
may serve as a means of noise attenuation by increasing distance between the
noise source and the receiver. Therefore, it is often necessary to land-use planners
to have a basic understanding of acoustics and its associated terminology. Many
municipal zoning laws designate noise sensitive zones and require noise analyses
prior to zoning approvals.
Within zoning provisions, maximum sound values are specified for the regulation
of noise crossing property lines. Sound levels are usually measured at the bound-
aries of the property lot. In districts zoned for manufacturing, noise is measured
at district boundaries. Decibel limits are often specified in octave bands for the
various types of districts with correction factors for the intermittency of the
noise, impulse noises, pure tones, and the time of day. The most common
performance criteria used is dB(A), measured on the "A" weighting of a sound
level meter.
In controlling property line noise it is important to determine whether the
existing land-use/zoning code accurately reflects the actual use of the land. If
there are numerous discrepancies between the way the land is zoned and the
way it is actually used (e.g. commercial establishments in a residential zone), or
if there are large tracts of unzoned land, then greater protection for impacted
properties is provided by property line limits based on land-use.
Building codes Inclusion of acoustical criteria in building codes is designed to
prevent the intrusion of exterior noise sources beyond prescribed levels into noise
sensitive structures. In some cases, performance regulations establishing uniform
minimum noise insulation standards are promulgated which may be enforced
through issuance of building permits.
To determine the types of legislative provisions which provided the statutory basis
for State and municipal noise control activities, survey respondents were requested to
enclose a copy of their noise control legislation.
DATA LIMITATIONS AND ANALYTICAL CONSTRAINTS
A significant percentage of the States and many municipal respondents did not
provide copies of their legislation. In order to gain a perspective of the types of
State noise control statutes in effect in 1973, it was necessary to supplement the
survey information with data available to EPA from other sources. However,
the number of municipalities with noise control ordinances are under-represented
in the results presented.
Although the types of legislative provisions adopted by States and municipalities
were analyzed for this report, the types of acoustical criteria used, the sound
level limits specified, and the measurement methodologies associated with State
and municipal noise control legislation are not described in detail. However, a
detailed summary of State and local noise source regulations stipulating specific
40
-------
decibel levels is compiled in the EPA document, Noise Source Regulation in State
and Local Noise Ordinances. 1
While not specifically requested in the survey questionnaire, three States and 14
municipalities provided copies of proposed noise control legislation. These pro-
posed statutes are discussed in the survey results. However, they represent only
a limited sample of the legislation which was being proposed in 1973 by States
and municipal governments.
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
Table 3 summarizes the types of State noise control legislation enacted prior to January
1, 1974. The number of States that had adopted each type of legislative provision is shown
as a function of the stage of program development. Table 4 uses a similar format to describe
the noise control legislation submitted by responding municipalities. Table 5 delineates
the types of legislative provisions proposed by municipalities in 1973.
The survey results support the following overall observations:
Approximately two-thirds of the State respondents had enacted noise control
legislation. Thirty-one of the 46 States that responded to the survey had legisla-
tion which incorporated noise related provisions. Fourteen States had enabling
legislation in effect in 1973 which delegated the authority necessary to initiate
a noise control program. Five of these States had enacted general environmental
statutes in which noise was listed as one among many pollutants. Nine had
specific enabling legislation for noise often providing a clearer and more immediate
mandate for the initiation of noise control activities than did more general enabling
statutes.
While 20 States had adopted legislation including acoustical criteria, most fre-
quently, such provisions were directed at the control of noise emission from one
category of noise sources rather than emphasizing a comprehensive noise control
approach. Recreational vehicles (almost exclusively snowmobiles) and motor
vehicles (including all categories) were the sources most often regulated at the
State level. In-use performance standards for motor vehicles had been promul-
gated with greater frequency than those applicable to the sale of such sources.
Acoustical criteria relating to land-use/zoning controls had been adopted by only
three States, two with established noise control programs. This is consistent
with the local nature of zoning determinations. The only other legislative area
where a significant number of States had included noise considerations was
related to the maintenance and operation of motor vehicle exhaust systems.
\Noise Source Regulation in State and Local Noise Ordinances, EPA Document 550/9-75-020
(February 1975).
41
-------
TABLES
STATE NOISE CONTROL LEGISLATION AS A FUNCTION
OF THE STAGE OF DEVELOPMENT3
Type of legislative provisions
Enabling legislation
General environmental
statutes
Specific noise statutes
Legislation including
acoustical criteria
Motor vehicle
Sale
Operation
Accessory equipment
(sirens, exhaust)
Recreational vehicles
Sale
Operation
Land use, zoning
Otherb
Legislation not including
acoustical criteria
Motor vehicle exhaust
systems
Other0
Number with noise control
legislation
Total number of State
respondents
Percent of respondents
with legislation
Number of States with each type of provision
Stage of program development
Established
program
3
0
3
3
2
1
2
1
2
1
2
2
2
2
2
0
3
3
100%
Limited
program
5
3
2
6
4
1
3
1
3
2
3
0
0
2
1
1
8
9
89%
Minimal
activities
6
2
4
7
3
1
3
0
4
3
1
1
1
4
3
1
13
20
65%
No program
effort
0
0
0
4
1
1
1
0
3
2
1
0
0
6
5
1
7
14
50%
Total
14
5
9
20
10
4
9
2
12
8
7
3
3
14
11
3
31
46
67%
a The legislative provisions cited are those which had been enacted prior to January 1, 1974
Copies of legislation submitted by States responding to the survey have been supplemented
by information available to EPA from a variety of other sources.
" Includes aircraft/airports, farm/industrial vehicles, and wilderness areas regulations.
c Includes general nuisance regulation, anti-pollution projects act, and tax exemption provi-
sions for property to reduce noise.
42
-------
TABLE 4
MUNICIPAL NOISE CONTROL LEGISLATION AS A FUNCTION
OF THE STAGE OF DEVELOPMENT3
Type of legislative provisions
Nuisance legislation
Legislation including
acoustical criteria
Land use, zoning
Motor vehicle
Construction equipment
Industrial equipment
Otherb
Number providing copies
of legislation
Percent of above with
acoustical legislation
Number of municipalities with each type of provision
Stage of program development
Established
program
7
9
8
6
4
4
6
9
100%
Limited
program
11
11
10
2
2
0
3
14
79%
Minimal
activities
49
21
16
2
0
2
3
55
38%
No program
effort
10
5
4
0
0
0
2
13
38%
Total
77
46
38
10
6
6
14
91
51%
a The legislative provisions cited are those which had been enacted prior to January 1,
1974.
k Includes snowmobiles, recreational vehicles, aircraft operations, refuse compactor
vehicles, watercraft, sound reproduction and amplification equipment, and agricultural
equipment.
As shown in Table 3, the relative percentage of States with noise control legislation
increased as the stage of program development became more advanced. However,
of the 46 State Respondents, over 60 percent reported a program orientation
which included revision or expansion of noise control statutes encompassing States
from all development categories. With few exceptions, States that had enabling
legislation in effect in 1973 reported this program orientation and were moving
to promulgate regulations covering additional noise sources. These findings are
consistent with the heightened level of State noise control activity noteable in
other survey areas.
At least two-thirds of the responding municipalities had noise control legislation
in effect in 1973. Fifty percent of the municipal respondents provided copies of
their noise legislation. An additional 15 percent made reference in their question-
naire response to noise regulations that were in effect within their respective
43
-------
TABLE 5
PROPOSED MUNICIPAL NOISE CONTROL LEGISLATION
AS A FUNCTION OF THE STAGE OF DEVELOPMENT3
Type of legislative provision
Nuisance legislation
Legislation including acoustical criteria
Land use, zoning
Motor vehicle
Construction equipment
Industrial equipment
Other
Number providing copies of proposed
legislation
Number of municipalities proposing
each type of provision
Stage of program development
Limited
program
1
2
2
1
1
2
2
3
Minimal
activities
1
6
5
4
2
1
3
5
No program
effort
4
4
4
4
2
1
4
5
Total
6
12
11
9
5
4
9
14
a The legislative provisions cited above were being proposed by municipalities
in 1973. Only those municipalities which provided copies of proposed legisla-
tion are included.
municipal codes or zoning laws. While it could not be conclusively determined
whether or not the remaining municipalities had legislation which included noise
considerations, it is probable that most of these had nuisance statutes. The number
of municipalities cited below with the various types of legislative provisions is
based solely on those that submitted copies of their statutes.
Nusiance criteria is the predominate type of legislative provision at the municipal
level. Over 80 percent of the municipalities that provided copies of their legisla-
tion had nuisance provisions. While nonquantitative regulations are extremely
difficult to enforce, they are useful as a supplement to performance standards and
in the control of less definable noise sources and activities. However, the degree
to which noise control efforts based exclusively on a nuisance approach are
effective in protecting public health and welfare is dependent upon other parameters
of a noise control program such as public education, training, and enforcement.
As shown in Table 4, almost 80 percent of the municipalities with structured
programs that provided copies of legislation included nuisance criteria within
their noise control ordinances. With few exceptions, municipalities with established
44
-------
or limited programs used nuisance provisions to supplement performance
standards. However, 62 percent of those municipalities that conducted minimal
activities and included copies of their statutes relied exclusively on nuisance
criteria to abate noise. The degree of enforcement was therefore limited since
enforcement was dependent upon subjective interpretation as to what constituted
excessive or disturbing noise. Ten municipalities with no program effort in 1973
had nuisance provisions within their city codes. Even though these municipalities
had specified noise control legislation, enforcement actions were not instituted
since funds were not budgeted for noise control activities.
Memphis, Tennessee provides an example of an effective enforcement program
based on nuisance criteria which prohibits horn blowing and noisy mufflers.
However, the Chicago Department of Environmental Control has had difficulty
upholding nuisance provisions in court due to a lack of sufficient evidence.
Land-use I zoning codes incorporating performance standards were the most
frequently cited types of legislative provisions containing acoustical criteria.
Thirty-eight of the 46 municipalities with legislation including quantitative regula-
tions had land-use/zoning controls. The relative prevalence of this type of noise
control legislation at the municipal level reflects the fact that zoning has tra-
ditionally been a local function. Further, such legislation provides an effective
planning technique to limit further concentration of noise sources and impact
on the population. Noise responsive land-use planning is a major facet of the
California noise control program. This is reflected in the fact that all of the 10
California municipalities with quantitative legislation in 1973 had adopted
performance standards for land-use/zoning controls.
Further, all but two of those municipalities with established or limited programs
and that provided copies of their legislation had enacted land-use/zoning provisions.
Sixteen municipalities that carried out minimal activities in 1973 and four that
had instituted no program efforts had promulgated this type of legislative provision
on which to base expanded noise control activities.
A significant number of municipalities had adopted source regulations in 1973.
Motor vehicle noise control regulations were the most often cited noise source legis-
lative provisions in municipal ordinances followed by regulation of construction
equipment and industrial noise sources. Ten municipalities were known to have
adopted performance standards for motor vehicles. Noise emissions of auto-
mobiles, trucks, buses, and motorcycles affect the greatest number of people in
the urban and suburban environment due to the proximity of residences to
streets and highways. Six municipalities had promulgated regulations for con-
struction equipment and six had adopted performance standards for industrial
noise sources. Cited regulations had been instituted for the most part in the
larger metropolitan areas where large industrial complexes and construction activ-
ities were widespread. The most frequently identified industrial noise regulation
45
-------
was applicable to commercial air conditioners. Regulation of construction equip-
ment and activities at the municipal level contrasted sharply with State involvement.
In 1973, there were no State regulations in effect for this category of noise sources.
The largest percentage of noise source regulations had been adopted by those
municipalities with established or limited programs. Municipalities in these stages
of program development also had the most comprehensive noise control ordinances
including regulations of such additional sources as recreational vehicles, refuse
compactor vehicles, watercraft, and sound reproduction and amplification equipment.
Many municipalities were proposing expanded and comprehensive noise control
ordinances in 1973. Although Table 5 includes only those municipalities that
submitted copies of proposed legislation, it indicates that a substantial number of
municipalities without quantitative standards in 1973 were drafting noise control
statutes. Further, most of the proposed ordinances were extremely comprehensive
including not only land-use/zoning provisions but regulations for a variety of
noise sources.
NOTEWORTHY PROGRAM
The City Council of Chicago passed a comprehensive noise control ordinan.ee in
March 1971. In support of the new ordinance, public hearings were conducted by the
Environmental Committee of the Chicago City Council. Testimony was provided by
representatives from industry, conservation groups, environmental organizations, medical
authorities and interested citizens. The ordinance incorporated recommendations by
acoustical consultants in a report for the city on urban noise.
The Chicago ordinance is among the most comprehensive in the United States and has
served as a model for numerous other States and municipalities. Manufacturers must
certify that identified products sold in Chicago comply with the sound level limits specified
in the ordinance. The user of the product must maintain it so as not to exceed manufacturers
certified levels. Thus, any modifications to the regulated product which results in an in-
crease in noise emissions are prohibited.
Table 6 lists regulations specifying dB(A) limits included in the Chicago ordinance.
Noise from regulated products is measured in dB(A) at a distance of 50 feet. The compliance
date in the listing is only for products manufactured after January 1, 1975, even though
other compliance dates from 1971 through 1980 are frequently specified with decreasing
levels for later dates. The following sound level limits should not be construed to represent
EPA recommendations. They are cited as examples of performance standards adopted by
one municipality in response to local conditions.
46
-------
TABLE 6
PERFORMANCE STANDARDS IN THE CHICAGO NOISE ORDINANCE
Noise source
Noise limit by dB(A)
Motorcycles
Vehicles with gross weight over 8,000 Ibs.
Cars, other motor vehicles
Construction and industrial equipment (including
tractors, bulldozers, drills, loaders, power shovels,
cranes, derricks, motor graders, paving machines,
off highway trucks, ditchers, trenchers, com-
pactors, scrapers, wagons, pavement breakers,
compressors and pneumatic powered equipment)
Agricultural tractors and equipment
Powered commercial equipment 20 horsepower or
less (for occasional use in residential areas)
Powered equipment in residential areas (for repeated
use)
Snowmobiles
Dune buggies, all terrain vehicles, mini-bikes
Engine-powered boats
84
84
80
86
86
84
70
73
73
76
In terms of land use and zoning regulations, noises from building in the following
districts are to be measured at the boundary of the lot and not-to-exceed the
following limits:
Zoning areas
Noise limit by dB(A)
Business and commercial districts
Residential areas
Manufacturing districts
Where manufacturing zoning boundaries meet
business and commercial zoning boundaries
62
55
Limitations range from
55 to 61 dB(A)
Range from 62 to 66 dB(A)
Vibrations that can be felt beyond the property line in any district is in violation
of the ordinance.
47
-------
The Chicago noise ordinance also includes nuisance provisions. Monetary as well as
possible jail penalties for violations in terms of first offense and subsequent offenses in any
180 day period are specified.
ROLE OF EPA
The extensive technical assistance activities in the area of model legislation and
enforcement guidance provided by EPA to States and municipalities are discussed in
detail in Chapter 10. This section discusses EPA's noise regulatory authority and imple-
menting actions.
While reasserting the primacy of State and local responsibility in the Noise Control
Act, Congress determined that Federal action was essential to deal uniformly with major
noise sources and other products distributed in commerce. Accordingly, under the Act,
EPA was authorized to (1) establish noise emission standards for new products, (2) recom-
mend aircraft noise measurement and emission regulations to the Federal Aviation
Administration based on adequate protection of the public health and welfare, (3) label
products on the basis of their noise attenuation or emission characteristics, and (4) pro-
mulgate noise emission regulations for rail and motor carriers engaged in interstate commerce.
The degree of Federal preemption of State and local authority varies among each type of
regulatory authority. However, States and municipalities may continue to adopt and enforce
noise regulations not in conflict with those promulgated by EPA. States and their political
subdivisions retain the authority (except in the case of interstate rail and motor carriers)
to control environmental noise through regulating the use, operation, or movement of
products.
Under Subsection 5(b) of the Noise Control Act, EPA was directed to identify
products (or classes of products) that the Administrator judged to be major sources of
noise and to report on the technology, cost, and alternative methods to control the noise
emissions from these major sources. Identification of major noise sources is based on
determination of the extensity of impact (number of people impacted) and the intensity or
severity of individual impact (measured in terms of the environmental noise levels.) The
first "Identification of Major Sources of Noise" report was published in the Federal Register
on June 21, 1974. New medium and heavy duty trucks and portable air compressors were
identified as major noise sources. The second identification document was published on
May 28, 1975 and identified motorcycles, buses, wheel and truck loaders and wheel and
track dozers, truck transport refrigeration units, and truck mounted solid-waste compactors
as major noise sources. Additionally, technical and cost data is being studied for light trucks,
motorboats, chain saws, tires, pneumatic and hydraulic tools, pile drivers, lawn care equip-
ment, and other special auxiliary equipment on trucks.
Following identification of a major noise source, EPA is required to promulgate
regulations incorporating noise emission standards applicable to the sale of the product if
standards are feasible or require labelling of the product's noise emission characteristics to
48
-------
provide information for the purchaser. Section 6 of the Noise Control Act identifies four
primary categories of new products to be considered for regulation. These are construction
equipment, transportation equipment, any motor or engine, and electrical or elctronic
equipment. Section 6 regulations are to be based on protection of the public health and
welfare, the degree of noise reduction achievable through application of the best available
technology, and the cost of compliance.
The EPA regulation for portable air compressors were issued in early 1976. It is
anticipated that proposed regulations for previously identified major noise sources will be
forthcoming. Once these regulations become effective, the manufacturer must conform
to their provisions at the time of sale. Further, the responsibility for testing to determine
compliance rests with the manufacturer. However, EPA enforcement officials may observe
required tests, and inspect records and production facilities to insure that established stan-
dards are met. An EPA testing facility in Sandusky, Ohio has been established for the study
of noise emissions by new products and determination of appropriate regulatory actions and
testing procedures.
State and local laws which regulate the noise levels of an EPA-regulated new product
and which, at any time, impact the manufacturer of the product are preempted. However,
States and municipalities may regulate the product noise impact through regulations enforce-
able against the owner or operator of the product, for example, by providing maximum noise
levels for operation, curfews on operation, prohibition of use in a residential neighborhood
or hospital zone, or requirements for periodic inspection and licensing of the product. To
achieve the maximum benefits of EPA regulatory actions, complementary State and local
in-use regulatory and enforcement actions are essential.
Under Sections 17 and 18 of the Act, EPA was required to promulgate regulations for
surface carriers engaged in interstate commerce. These regulations were to incorporate noise
emission standards based on best available technology taking into account the cost of com-
pliance. Federal regulations for the operation of interstate motor carriers were issued in
October, 1974 and became effective on October 15, 1975. Regulations for interstate rail
carriers were issued in early 1976 and will become effective 12 months after issuance.
Responsibility for enforcement of the interstate carrier regulations rests with the Bureau of
Motor Carrier Safety under the Department of Transportation.
The preemptive coverage of the interstate carrier regulations is broader than that of
new product regulations. After the effective date of an EPA regulation applicable to noise
emissions from interstate rail or motor carriers, no State or local government may adopt or
enforce any standard applicable to the same noise source unless such standard is identical to
the Federal standard unless necessitated by special local conditions. However, determination
that a local law is necessitated by special local conditions must be made by the EPA Admin-
istrator, after consultation with the Secretary of the Department of Transportation, and such
local law must not be in conflict with the EPA regulations. EPA encourages State and local
jurisdictions employing identical standards to act as independent enforcement agencies to
attain the full benefits from the interstate carrier regulations as well as all new product
regulations.
49
-------
CHAPTERS
STATE AND MUNICIPAL AGENCIES RESPONSIBLE FOR
NOISE CONTROL EFFORTS
The designation by a State or municipality of an agency as the responsible organization
for noise control connotes, at the very least, a recognition of noise as a significant problem.
For States and municipalities that have initiated minimal activities, the identification of a
responsible organizational unit provides a focal point where complaints may be made and a
nucleus from which to develop a comprehensive noise control program. To a larger extent,
the jurisdiction of the responsible agency determines the overall orientation of noise related
activities. Further, the agency's principal functions affect the types of expertise applied to
the solution of noise problems.
Where more than one State or municipal agency is involved, responsibility either may
be fragmented or functionally divided. A fragmented approach is characterized by ill-defined
spheres of responsibility and inadequate coordination among participating agencies. Under a
functional approach, authority for various facets of the noise program is allocated (usually
by statute) among agencies with related responsibilities. For example, development of noise
criteria and standards may be the province of the Environmental Services Department,
enforcement of vehicular noise regulations assigned to the Highway Patrol, and consideration
of the noise impact of land-use controls undertaken by the agency responsible for planning
and development activities. To be fully effective, a functional approach must incorporate
coordination and consultation mechanisms. Fragmentation of authority undermines noise
control efforts; program effectiveness may be enhanced under a functional arrangement.
States and municipalities were requested to indicate the title of the organizational unit
responsible for their noise program.
DATE LIMITATIONS AND ANALYTICAL CONSTRAINTS
The survey data may not present a true picture of the number of agencies involved due
to the following considerations:
Several State and municipalities appear to have listed only those organizational
units with primary responsibility for noise control efforts.
51
-------
In some cases, the questionnaire was completed by the administrative office of
the State or municipal government rather than the organizational unit which
conducts noise activities. This was particularly true for those States and munic-
ipalities that did not have structured noise control programs. Therefore, some
participating agencies may not have been canvassed by the respondent.
Where the involvement of two or more agencies was cited by a State or
municipality, a description of the mechanisms for and the extend of coordination
among involved organizations was not usually included. However, in most cases,
the overall context of the response allowed a determination of whether responsi-
bility was fragmented or functionally divided among participating agencies.
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
Table 7 lists in rank order the types of responsible agencies most frequently cited by
responding States and municipalities. A more detailed agency breakdown by the stage of
program development is shown for States in Table 8 and for municipalities in Table 9.
The figures include the responsible agencies reported by the 32 States and 128 municipalities
with established or limited programs, or that carried out minimal activities. Several States
and municipalities with no noise program efforts in 1973 nonetheless identified responsible
agencies. These have not been included in the tables as agency involvement was usually
limited to responding to information requests, and, in several cases, to initial planning and
design of a proposed noise control program. The tabulated figures include two or more
entries for the three States and six municipalities that reported the participation of more
than one agency. Appendix B provides a list of the designated contact, title, and address of
each agency involved in noise activities as specified by responding States and municipalities.
The survey results support the following observations:
An increasing number of States and municipalities have a designated agency
responsible for noise control activities. All of the responding States and munici-
palities with established or limited programs, or that carried out minimal activities,
had delegated authority to an agency to conduct noise control efforts. This con-
stitutes 70 percent of the total number of survey respondents. Of the remaining
14 States and 55 municipalities reporting no program efforts in 1973, seven
States and 25 municipalities had proposed programs slated for 1974 including
designation of an agency.
In contrast, approximately one-half of the States and municipalities surveyed in
1971 did not have an agency responsible for noise programs. The Report to the
President and Congress on Noise concluded that "Of those cities and States that
do have some type of program, responsibility for these programs is fragmented
throughout several agencies." This increase over a 2-year period reflects the
growing awareness of noise as a significant environmental problem by States and
municipalities.
52
-------
TABLE 7
STATE AND MUNICIPAL AGENCIES RESPONSIBLE FOR
NOISE CONTROL ACTIVITIES
Responsible agency
Public Health Department
Environmental Services
Police Department
Planning and Development
Building Department
General State or municipal government
Othera
State
17
14
3
1
2
Municipal
27
24
31
19
12
10
11
Total
44
38
34
20
12
10
13
a Other responsible agencies:
State Department of Transportation
Municipal Departments of Safety, Engineering, Public Works/
Services, and Zoning
TABLES
RESPONSIBLE STATE AGENCIES AS A FUNCTION OF
STAGE OF PROGRAM DEVELOPMENT3
Responsible agency
Public Health
Environmental Services
Police Department^
Transportation
Planning and Development
Stage of program development
Established
2
1
1
1
Limited
2
8
1
1
Minimal
activities
13
5
1
1
Total
17
14
3
2
1
a Figures include two or more entries for following States:
California Health, Transportation, Police Departments
Connecticut Environmental Services, Transportation
Departments
Michigan Environmental Services, Health, Police
Departments
° Category includes Highway Patrol, Department of Motor Vehicles.
53
-------
TABLE 9
RESPONSIBLE MUNICIPAL AGENCIES AS A FUNCTION OF
STAGE OF PROGRAM DEVELOPMENT3
Responsible agency
Police Department
Public Health Department
Environmental Services
Planning and Development
Building Department
General Municipal Government
Public Works/Services
Safety Department
Zoning Department
Engineering Department
Stage of program development
Established
1
1
7
2
1
1
Limited
7
6
8
2
1
1
Minimal
activities
30
19
11
9
9
9
4
2
2
1
Total
31
27
24
19
12
10
4
3
2
2
a Figures include two or more entries for following municipalities:
Los Angeles, California - Environmental Services, Police, Building
Departments
Phoenix, Arizona Police, Building Departments
Atlanta, Georgia - Police, Building Departments
Tulsa, Oklahoma - Health, Police Departments
Pawtucket, Rhode Island - Engineering, Police Departments
El Paso, Texas - Health, Police Departments
54
-------
With few exceptions, State noise control activities are the responsibility of either
the public health department or the environmental services agency. Forty-six
percent of the identified State agencies were public health departments while a
slightly smaller percentage were environmental services agencies. Of the six agen-
cies which did not fall into these two categories, four were reported by States
with functionally structured noise programs which included involvement by
either the health or environmental services agencies.
The allocation of responsible agencies among municipalities is more varied. As
shown in Table 9, the municipal mix of agencies was comprised of 10 categories.
The police department was the responsible agency most frequently cited by
responding municipalities. However, with one exception, municipalities reporting
the participation of the police department undertook minimal activities. For
those municipalities with established or limited programs, responsibility was most
frequently designated to the environmental services department, the planning and
development agency, and the public health department. Six municipalities
reported the involvement of more than one agency. Based on the stage of pro-
gram development, the majority of these municipalities had fragmented rather
than functionally divided agency responsibilities.
The greater diversity at the municipal level may be attributable to institutional
arrangements which differ between the State and local levels of government. The
degree of program development also appears to be a factor. The responsible
agencies reported by municipalities that conducted minimal activities in 1973
encompassed all 10 categories. Most frequently, responsibility was assigned to the
police department or administratively delegated to various municipal offices
staffed by personnel who often lacked acoustical training but who have worked
in some related area (e.g., engineering, safety, industrial hygiene). The responsible
agencies of those municipalities with more structured programs were often defined
by statute and were concentrated in three categories.
The health department was the agency most often identified by the total number
of State and municipal respondents. Where responsibility for environmental noise
control is lodged with the health department, this often reflects a determination
that noise poses a hazard to the public health and welfare. This placement may
also be attributable to prior involvement in occupational noise control, thereby
allowing application of personnel with some degree of training or expertise in
acoustics. The greatest number of States and municipalities identifying the health
department as the responsible agency for noise activities were those that conducted
minimal activities.
A comparison with the 1971 survey indicates an increase in the relative prevalence
of environmental services agencies as opposed to health departments. This trend
is more discernible at the municipal level than at the State. The majority of States
55
-------
and municipalities citing the environmental services agency fall into the structured
categories of established and limited noise programs. Many of these (e.g., New York,
Illinois, New Jersey, New York City, Chicago) had enabling legislation which
specifically defined the powers and duties of the environmental services agency. The
environmental orientation of many State and municipal noise control efforts is not
fully reflected in the tables as some States and muncipalities carry out environ-
mental programs under the aegis of the health department. It appears that in many
instances noise program organization is based on the prior placement of other
environmental areas (e.g., air quality). The inclusion of noise within the overall
environmental framework facilitates intermedia pollution treatment and may
result in greater consideration of noise as a result of the environmental impact
statement process. Additionally, it may foster the application of highly skilled
personnel with related areas of expertise to noise problems.
Where authority for the administrative and technical aspects of the noise control
program is vested in either the health department or the environmental services
agency, complementary enforcement actions instituted under structured programs
may be the responsibility of either the same agency or a separate enforcement
organization. The latter case is exemplified in noise programs where enforcement
functions are carried out by the police department or highway patrol. Separation
of the technical and enforcement components of a noise control program may
result from legal and constitutional requirements unless specific authority is dele-
gated by the legislature to carry out such enforcement activities as inspections and
issuance of violations. However, if technical and enforcement functions are divided
among agencies, a sustained level of coordination is necessary and training of en-
forcement personnel in noise measurement techniques is required to assure program
effectiveness.
There is a relationship between theJype of responsible agency and noise control
approach and orientation. For instance, 14 municipalities reported involvement
by either the building or zoning department. Ten of these municipalities submitted
copies of their noise control legislation, nine of which had adopted zoning pro-
visions incorporating acoustical provisions. The exception was Atlanta, Georgia,
where noise control activities of both the Police and Building Departments were
based on implementation of nuisance legislation.
Of the 25 municipalities where noise control efforts were the responsibility of the
police department alone, 16 made reference to or provided copies of their noise
statutes. All of these operated under nuisance legislation except Madison,
Wisconsin, which had acoustical zoning provisions and a proposed comprehensive
noise control ordinance in 1973. It seems reasonable to infer that the remaining
nine municipalities also had non-quantitative statutes. There program orientation
primarily involved investigation of noise complaints and limited enforcement
activity.
56
-------
Half of the municipalities where noise control was the function of the general
municipal government reported program efforts which included development or
expansion of noise control legislation. This is consistent with the administrative
and policy-making orientation of these organizations.
Over 50 percent of the responding California municipalities conducted noise
related activities under the aegis of agencies charged with the land-use planning
and development functions (zoning, development, planning and inspection
agencies). This appears to reflect the impact of State planning law.
NOTEWORTHY PROGRAMS
Several States and municipalities have established separate noise divisions as their noise
control efforts have expanded. A total of nine States and six municipalities reported the
existence of separate noise offices or divisions responsible for their noise control programs.
The States of Pennsylvania, Illinois, New Jersey, New York, Florida, and Oregon have sepa-
rate noise divisions within the State department of environmental services while the noise
offices of California, Hawaii, and South Carolina are under the jurisdiction of the public
health department. New York City, Los Angeles, San Diego, and Chicago have separate
noise offices housed within the municipal environmental services agency. Baltimore and
Nassau County, New York have similar organizational arrangements within the health
department.
The involvement of numerous organizational units in California represents a sophisti-
cated functional division of responsibility and appears to facilitate the application of expert
personnel to appropriate aspects of the California program. The Office of Noise Control
under the California Department of Health is charged with providing assistance to State and
local agencies under the California Noise Control Act of 1973. The State Department of
Transportation (Highways) conducts the multimillion dollar school noise attenuation pro-
gram as well as research on transportation noise and preparation of environmental impact
statements. The Division of Aeronautics under the Department of Transportation admin-
isters "Noise Standards for California Airports." The Department of Highway Patrol is
responsible for the enforcement of noise standards for vehicles operating on highways and
new vehicles for sale.
ROLE OF EPA
The fact that the majority of States and municipalities responding to the survey have
designated a responsible agency for noise control should facilitate the delivery of EPA tech-
nical assistance and information and provide a basis for expanded interaction on the Federal,
State, and municipal levels. Designation of a responsible agency and the delegation to that
agency of the authority necessary to implement and enforce noise control legislation is a
57
-------
prerequisite to the establishment of an effective program. The model community noise
control ordinance and model State enabling legislation developed by EPA include detailed
provisions enumerating the powers and duties of the designated noise control agency.
58
-------
CHAPTER 6
STATE AND MUNICIPAL NOISE BUDGETARY ALLOCATIONS
Adequate funding is crucial to the development and implementation of an effective
noise control program. Without initial appropriations to get a new program off the ground
once legislation is enacted, and without a sustained level of funding to operate the program
once initial standards, criteria, and administrative procedures have been established, noise
control efforts will be undermined. The amount of funds required to mount an effective
noise control program varies depending upon (1) the size of the jurisdiction, (2) the types
and magnitude of noise problems, and (3) the comprehensiveness of program orientation.
Given limited State and municipal resources and competing demands for funds, noise
budget allocations are indicative of State and municipal awareness of noise as a serious
environmental problem.
For the 1974 survey, States and municipalities were requested to provide a breakdown
of budget allocations specifically designated for noise control. Both calendar year 1973
expenditures and projections for 1974 and 1975 were included. The questionnaire incor-
porated a budgetary data format under which man hours and total program cost for each
of the 3 years were to be broken down into six functional areas. These were supervisory,
engineering, technical, enforcement, legal, and clerical. However, States and municipalities
were encouraged to use an alternative format if this would provide more meaningful data.
DATA LIMITATIONS AND ANALYTICAL CONSTRAINTS
Comparisons of reported budget data are restricted by the following factors:
Cost accounting procedures differ, and in many instances, responding States and
municipalities did not adequately qualify and identify fiscal data, thereby making
interpretation of the figures difficult.
In several cases, States and municipalities in their responses to other questions
indicated that they carried out noise control activities but did not provide
budgetary data. Very often, noise was not a separately funded budget element.
Therefore, the figures were difficult to breakdown. As a result, the aggregate
reported budgetary allocations may constitute a lower bound of State and
municipal noise control funding.
59
-------
Reported budgetary data did not always provide a realistic picture of the extent
of noise control efforts. States and municipalities that undertook minimal activ-
ities in some instances reported expenditures comparable to those with established
or limited programs.
Another imprecision in the data results from the calculation of budget figures on
the basis of the percentage of time spent by personnel on noise related activities.
In particular, 1974 and 1975 projections calculated by this method are somewhat
tenuous as the actual time spent by part-time personnel may vary significantly
from year to year depending upon the number of noise complaints received, the
priority attached to noise in relation to other functions for which the individual
is responsible, and a number of other considerations.
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
Budget information for 1973 was provided by 16 States and 46 municipalities. This
constitutes respectively 35 percent and 25 percent of responding States and municipalities.
Projections of anticipated appropriations for noise control were received from 18 States and
46 municipalities for 1974, and from 16 States and 40 municipalities for 1975. A total of
20 States and 53 municipalities submitted budgetary data for one or more years. As some
of the States and municipalities did not report budget information for all 3 years, the com-
position of States and municipalities providing data differs for each year.
Table 10 lists in rank order by per capita expenditures those 16 States that provided
information on 1973 noise control funding. Per capita expenditure in cents is based on 1970
census figures and is used as a comparative indice as it is standardized for population. Where
fiscal data was submitted, projected 1974 and 1975 per capita expenditures and associated
rank orders are shown to indicate changes over the 3-year reporting period. Similar infor-
mation is presented in Table 11 for those 46 municipalities reporting 1973 expenditures
for noise activities. Three States, the Virgin Islands, and seven municipalities reported no
budget in 1973 but submitted projected allocations for 1974 and/or 1975. These figures
are shown in Table 12. In several instances, the data represent estimates of needs for pro-
posed noise control activities the appropriation of which is dependent upon a number of
political and economic factors.
Figures 8, 9 and 10 use per capita expenditures to depict the distribution of reported
funding for noise control across the nation. Figure 8 includes expenditures for 1973 reported
by both States and municipalities. Figures 9 and 10 respectively portray projected 1974 and
1975 State per capita allocations. In those instances where 1974 or 1975 State projections
were not provided, the per capita figures shown in Figures 9 and 10 assume the same level
of funding as that for the latest year for which data was reported.
60
-------
TABLE 10
BUDGETARY ALLOCATIONS FROM RESPONDING STATES FOR NOISE
CONTROL, 1973, AND PROJECTED 1974-1975
States
California
Hawaii
Oregon
Illinois
New Jersey
New York
Florida
South Carolina
Massachusetts
Montana
North Carolina
Louisiana
Kansas
Arizona
Oklahoma
Nevada
1970
Population
19,953,134
769,913
2,091,325
11,113,976
7,168,164
18,241,266
6,789,443
2,590,516
5,689,170
694,409
5,082,059
3,643,180
2,249,071
1,772,482
2,559,253
488,738
1973
Total
expenditures
12,348,797
56,491
44,300
200,000
89,879
147,763
45,000
16,800
23,800
2,000
7,000
4,650
1,925
1,500
1,000
127
Per capita
expenditures
(in cents)
61.89
7.34
2.12
1.80
1.25
.81
.66
.65
.42
.29
.14
.13
.09
.08
.04
.03
Rank
order
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
1974
Per capita
expenditures
(projected)
68.20
7.66
2.61
3.02
.97
.98
.91
2.62
.88
NA
.43
.34
.09
.08
.04
1.46
Rank
order
1
2
5
3
8
7
9
4
10
NA
11
12
13
14
15
6
1975
Per capita
expenditures
(projected)
NA
9.01
4.86
3.67
1.98
NA
1.68
4.92
1.79
NA
1.08
1.19
4.62
3.39
.04
1.46
Rank
order
NA
1
3
5
7
NA
9
2
8
NA
12
11
4
6
13
10
o\
NA, not available.
-------
TABLE 11
BUDGETARY EXPENDITURES FOR RESPONDING MUNICIPALITIES IN NOISE
CONTROL, 1973 AND PROJECTED 1974-1975
Cities
Ala: Montgomery
Calif: Downey
Fresno
Garden Grove
Hayward
Ingle wood
Lake wood
Los Angeles
Oakland
Pasadena
Santa Monica
Torrance
Colo: Aurora
Colorado
Springs
Lakewood
Conn: Bridgeport
Fla: Miami
Jacksonville
St. Petersburg
Tampa
111: Chicago
Ind: Indianapolis
Mass: Boston
1970
population
133,000
88,000
166,000
123,000
93,000
90,000
83,000
2,816,000
362,000
113,000
88,000
135,000
75,000
135,000
93,000
157,000
335,000
529,000
216,000
278,000
3,36X000
745,000
641,000
1973
Total
expenditures
560
3,240
3,480
2,180
296
51,400
3,774
92,500
110
1,277
13,750
23,478
39,030
,
41,000
31,042
2,275
1,200
1,015
1,713
2,746
206,500
3,800
31,000
Per capita
expenditures
(in cents)
0.4
3.7
2.1
1.8
.3
57.1
4.6
3.3
.03
1.1
15'.6
17.3
52.0
30.4
33.4
1.5
.4
.2
.8
1.0
6.1
.5
4.8
Rank
orders
36
16
21
23
41
1
14
17
46
27
7
6
2
5
4
26
39
42
32
28
11
35
13
1974
Total
expenditures
3,060
35,200
4,980
19,800
13,352
51,400
1,415
97,200
5,824
3,795
7,880
23,478
43,700
50,000
68,677
NA
1,400
NA
6,770
2,746
143,600
NA
36,938
Per capita
expenditures
(in cents)
2.2
40.0
3.0
16.1
14.4
57.1
1.7
3.5
1.6
3.4
9.0
17.3
58.3
37.0
73.9
NA
.4
NA
3.1
1.0
4.3
NA
5.8
Rank
orders
26
4
23
8
10
3
29
19
30
21
14
7
2
5
1
37
22
33
17
16
1975
Total
expenditures
3,000
55,500
6,330
44,100
NA
51,400
1,198
97,200
NA
3,930
22,770
52,400
59,450
65,000
NA
NA
1,600
NA
7,120
NA
157,950
NA
NA
Per capita
expenditures
(in cents)
2.2
63.0
3.8
35.9
N/
57.1
1.4
3.5
NA
3.5
25.9
38.8
79.3
48.1
NA
NA
.5
NA
3.3
NA
4.7
NA
NA
Rank
orders
26
T
18
6
3
29
21
20
8
5
1
4
31
22
16
to
-------
TABLE 11
BUDGETARY EXPENDITURES FOR RESPONDING MUNICIPALITIES IN NOISE
CONTROL, 1973 AND PROJECTED 1974-1975continued
Cities
Mich: Flint
Grand Rapids
Kalamazoo
Saginaw
Warren
Minn : Minneapolis
N.Y.: Nassau County
New York City
N.C.: Charlotte
Ohio: Cincinnati
Okla: Oklahoma^City
Tulsa >?
Ore: Portland
Pa: Pittsburgh
S.C.: Columbia
Tex: Austin
Houston
Pasadena
San Antonio
Va: Norfolk
Wise: Kenosha
Milwaukee
Wash: Seattle
1970
population
193,000
197,000
86,000
92,000
179,000
434,000
1 ,428,080
7,895,000
241,000
452,000
366,000
332,000
383,000
520,000
114,000
25 1 ,000
1,233,000
89,000
654,000
308,000
79,000
434,000
531,000
1973
Total
expenditures
160
10,000
440
1,520
85
10,319
41,290
950,000
75
1,515
17,279
2,920
167,500
42,000
2,120
3,750
10,450
354
4,018
1,200
700
12,298
66,000
Per capita
expenditures
0.08
5.0
.5
1.6
.05
2.4
3.0
12.0
.03
.3
4.7
.9
43.7
8.0
1.9
1.5
.9
.4
.6
.4
.9
2.8
12.4
Rank
orders
43
12
34
24
44
20
18
9
45.
40
15
30
3
10
22
25
31
37
33
38
29
19
8
1974
Total
expenditures
26,200
20,000
2,950
1,700
114
11,503
41,829
NA
75
3,375
NA
3,480
70,000
74,000
2,120
15,100
14,770
373
4,765
NA
NA
16,315
80,22 la
Per capita
expenditures
13.6
10.2
3.4
1.9
.06
2.7
3.0
NA
.03
.8
NA
1.0
18.2
14.2
1.9
6.0
1.2
.4
.7
NA
NA
3.8
15.1
Rank
orders
12
13
20
28
38
25
24
NA
39
35
32
6
11
27
15
31
36
34
18
9
1975
Total
expenditures
21,300
40,000
2,150
3,475
220
13,000
109,401
NA
75
12,171a
NA
4,800
70,000
76,000
2,120
19,090
28,570
392
4,170
NA
NA
1 8,000
161,179a
Per capita
expenditures
11.0
20.3
2.5
3.8
.1
3.0
7.7
NA
.03
16.0
NA
1.5
18.2
14.6
1.9
7.6
2.3
.4
.6
NA
NA
4.3
30.4
Rank
orders
13
9
24
19
33
23
14
34
11
28
10
12
27
15
25
32
30
17
7
OJ
aDependent upon passage of noise proposal.
NA, not available.
-------
TABLE 12
PROPOSED BUDGETARY EXPENDITURES FOR RESPONDING STATES AND
MUNICIPALITIES IN 1974 AND 1975 WITHOUT A BUDGET
FOR NOISE CONTROL IN 1973
Respondents
States:
Indiana
Kentucky
Ohio
Virgin Islands
Municipalities:
Stockton, Calif.
Gary, Ind.
Baltimore, Md.
Kansas City, Mo.
Lincoln, Nebr.
New Rochelle, N.Y.
Cleveland, Ohio
1970
population
5,193,669
3,219,311
10,652,017
62,468
109,963
175,415
905,759
507,330
149,518
75,385
750,879
1974
Projected
expenditures
NA
20,000
1,844
1,840
26,488
20,775
57,957
65,000
5,000
759
71,351
Per capita
expenditures
(in cents)
NA
.62
0.02
2.94
24.08
11.8
6.4
12.8
3.3
1.0
9.5
1975
Projected
expenditures
23,000
20,000
NA
4,571
27,816
56,700
81,128
70,000
10,000
555
174,145
Per capita
expenditures
(in cents)
0.44
.62
NA
7.31
25.29
32.3
9.0
13.8
6.7
0.7
23.2
NA, not available.
-------
o\
Santa Los
Monica Angeles
State per Capita
jjjjgaj 0.01 - 0.49 cents
.5 - .99 cents
1 - 4.99 cents
5 49 cents
Municipalities
B 0.01 -0.99 cents
1f 1 - 4.9 cents
(§> 5 - 9 cents
't 10 -39 cents
A 40-60 cents
Figure 8. 1973 State and municipal per capita budgetary expenditures in noise control
-------
OS
State per Capita
0.01 -0.49 cents
.5 - .99 cents
1 - 4.99 cents
5 - 49 cents
50 - 100 cents
VIRGIN ISLANDS
Figure 9. Projected 1974 State per capita budgetary expenditures in noise control
-------
ON
-J
State per Capita
0.01 - 0.49 cents
.5 - .99 cents
1 - 4.99 cents
5 - 49 cents
50 -100 cents
VIRGIN ISLANDS
Figure 10. Projected 1975 State per capita budgetary expenditures in noise control
-------
The survey results support the following observations:
Significant resources have been allocated by many States and municipalities for
noise control activities. The total reported State and municipal budget for noise
control efforts and programs in 1973 was $14,907,834. Reported municipal
spending accounted for $1,904,099 of this total while reported State expenditures
were $13,003,735. However, if the State of California and its municipalities that
reported 1973 expenditures are not included, the 19 73 State and municipal
budget is $2,324,522. The allocation of scarce resources by many States and
municipalities indicates a commitment to fulfill their primary responsibility for
noise control.
There is an overall growth pattern in State and municipal noise control funding.
The survey results substantiate not only an increase in the number of States and
municipalities allocating funds for noise control but also a growth in the amount
of program expenditures. In 1973, only five States had per capita expenditures
which exceeded 1.0 cent. In 1975, 15 States projected per capita allocations
greater than 1.0 cent. Of the 39 municipalities that reported both 1973 expendi-
tures and projections for one or more years, 82 percent anticipated increased
noise funding over the 1973 level. The projected budgets of 19 municipalities
had more than doubled.
As shown in the tables, there is a distinction in budgetary allocations between
established programs and those of States and municipalities proposing expanded
noise control efforts. Generally, well-developed programs reflect a steady pro-
gression of funding allocations for the operation and refinement of existing noise
control activities. Other States and municipalities without established programs
in 1973 but proposing an expanded and structured effort, show a large scale
increase in funding levels. This is exemplified by Seattle, Washington. In many
cases, the large budgetary increases are contingent upon the enactment of legis-
lation and the appropriation of concomitant funds. The 1975 projected budget
submitted by Cincinnati, Ohio of $72,171, from the 1973 level of $1,515, is an
example of allocations dependent upon the passage of legislation. This same
funding trend is often discernable among States and municipalities with limited
programs in 1973 and involved in increasing the scope and orientation of their
noise control efforts (Grand Rapids, Michigan; Nassau County, New York).
Although the budget data gathered for the Report to the President and Congress
on Noise was extremely limited, a comparison between the 1971 and 1974 sur-
veys substantiates the trend of increased State and municipal noise control fund-
ing. The earlier survey indicated that for five municipalities allocating funds
specifically for noise, the cost of current programs (1971) varied from approxi-
mately 2 cents to 4 cents per resident per year. For the 1974 survey, 17 munici-
palities projected 1975 budget allocations that were greater than 4 cents per capita.
68
-------
For example, New York City reported spending approximately 4 cents per resident
in 1971; New York City per capita expenditures for 1973 were 12 cents.
The only two States submitting budget data for the 1971 survey were California
and Illinois with respective 1971 allocations of 1 cent and 2.5 cents per capita.
California reported a 1973 per capita expenditure of 61.89 cents and even a greater
projected per capita figure in 1974 a tremendous upsurge in funding over the
1971 level. Reported Illinois 1973 per capita expenditures and projected 1974 and
1975 allocations were 1.8 cents, 3.02 cents, and 3.67 cents reflecting a steady infusion
of funds to operate and refine the established Illinois program.
Although many States and municipalities have budgeted funds for noise control
activities, reported resources were concentrated among major urban centers. The
distribution of budgeted activities is best shown in Figures 8, 9 and 10. Five of
the seven States with the largest 1973 per capita expenditures ranked among the
ten most populated States. Three of the four U.S. municipalities with 1970 cen-
sus populations over two million reported large 1973 noise control expenditures.
New York City, Chicago, and Los Angeles spent respectively $950,000, $206,500
and $92,500 for their noise control programs in 1973. (The fourth municipality
in this category, Philadelphia, did not respond to the survey). This relationship
between population concentration and the amount of funds allocated for noise
control is a function of the magnitude and extent of noise problems. A large,
industrialized metropolis and transportation center has more serious and per-
vasive noise problems than does a rural community. For example, eight of the
11 California municipalities that reported 1973 expenditures are located in
Southern California in the Los Angeles metropolitan area. The prevalence of
budgeted programs in this area is an outgrowth of the concentration of vehicular
transportation sources, airports, and industrial construction activity in this region.
There is a relation between the stage of program development and the amount of
funds budgeted for noise control activities. Eight of the nine States with per
capita 1973 expenditures greater than .4 cent had either established or limited
programs. The ninth, South Carolina, was developing a proposed program in 1973.
The other seven States that reported 1973 expenditures conducted minimal acti-
vities. Accordingly, their per capita expenditures, which ranged from .29 cent to
.03 cent in 1973, were significantly less than those of States with more structured
programs.
There was also a large variation in budgeted funds and per capita expenditures
among reporting municipalities, reflecting differing stages of program development.
Inglewood, California had the highest per capita expenditure for 1973 with 57.1
cents. New York City ranked first in terms of total dollars spent. Both these
municipalities had established programs in 1973. At the other end of the spending
scale was Charlotte, North Carolina that undertook minimal activities and reported
a 1973 per capita figure of .03 cent.
69
-------
Municipalities with established programs spent an average of 15 cents per capita
in 1973; those with limited programs averaged 8 cents per capita. The survey
results suggest that 15 cents per capita may be a sufficient funding level for imple-
mentation of a comprehensive municipal noise control program. However,
several municipalities with established programs have allocated substantially less;
others considerably more. The amount of funding required must be determined
on the basis of local needs and conditions, the severity of noise problems, and
the extent of citizen commitment to noise control and abatement.
The distribution of reported noise control funding reflects the complex relation-
ship between State noise control efforts and those of municipalities within that
State. Of the 16 States that reported 1973 noise control expenditures, six States
did not have any municipalities within their jurisdictions that reported 1973
budgets. Conversely, 12 States that did not provide information on 1973 noise
funding had one or more municipalities reporting funded 1973 noise control
activities. In several instances, a strong municipal program has apparently acted
as a stimulus for State action (Chicago-Illinois). In others, States have required
municipalities to initiate noise control efforts. For example, California State
planning law requires municipalities to include a noise element in the municipal
general plan. Implementation of this requirement is reflected by the fact that
11 California municipalities reported expenditures for noise control in 1973. In
contrast, New Jersey did not have any municipalities reporting either 1973
expenditures or 1974 and 1975 projected allocations. This may reflect a tendency
by the municipalities to await State guidance. The 1973 emphasis of the New
Jersey program was on the development of noise criteria and standards, promul-
gation of procedural rules and regulations, and planning to integrate municipal
actions within the overall State effort.
NOTEWORTHY PROGRAMS
Among the States and municipalities reporting budgetary data, several were particularly
significant either with respect to the total amounts of resources allocated for noise control
activities or due to large increases in funding levels over the 3-year reporting period.
California ranked first among reporting States both in overall and per capita expendi-
tures. The largest element in the California noise budget for the period July 1, 1973 through
June 30, 1974 was an expenditure of $11,942,000 for a school noise attenuation program.
Eleven million dollars of this figure represented constructions costs for noise barriers and
noise attenuation systems of schools. Conducted by the State Department of Transporta-
tion (Highways), this program was estimated to cost approximately $66,000,000 over
several years. Noise control expenditures for 1973 were reported by three other California
agencies: the Office of Noise Control under the Department of Health spent $26,500 for
70
-------
manpower expenses; the Department of Highway Patrol reported a total 1973 manpower
cost of $317,297 for motor vehicle enforcement activities; and, the Division of Aeronautics
under the Department of Transportation reported funding of $63,000.
Hawaii ranked second to California in per capita expenditures for noise control with
the 1973 per capita figure of 7.34 cents projected to rise to 9.01 cents in 1975. The Hawaii
program encompassed implementation of comprehensive enabling legislation, enforcement
of vehicular noise regulations, and educational efforts. The reported FY 1973-74 expendi-
ture of $56,491 represents $40,712 in manpower costs, $10,179 for operating expenses,
and $5,600 for equipment.
South Carolina reported the largest increase in State per capita expenditures from
.65 cent in 1973 to a projected 4.92 cents in 1975. Although a noise control division was
established in August 1973, South Carolina did not at that time have enabling legislation.
The budgetary data submitted by South Carolina was a rough estimate of the funding neces-
sary to carry out the minimum requirements of a proposed Noise Control Act.
Among reporting municipalities, New York City and Chicago, with respective 1973
expenditures of $950,000 and $206,500, ranked first and second in total dollars spent.
Enforcement related expenditures constituted 68 percent of total Chicago 1973 noise fund-
ing and 37 percent of New York City allocations.
Inglewood, California ranked first among reporting municipalities with the largest 1973
per capita expenditure (57.1 cents). Lakewood, Colorado, where a noise control ordinance
was enacted in July 1973, projected the highest per capita expenditure (73.9 cents) for 1974
of any reporting State or municipality. The projected 1974 allocation increase to $68,677
over a 1973 level of $31,042 reflects the aggressive nature of the Lakewood program which
uses an approach of voluntary compliance through public education.
Downey, California projected the largest increase in municipal per capita expenditures
from a 1973 level of 3.7 cents to an estimated 63.0 cents in 1975. The projections are
based on funding requirements arising from the anticipated completion of a noise ordinance
and a noise element in the Downey general plan which were under development in 1973.
Seattle, Washington, with projected noise expenditures for 1975 over two times those of
1973, reported the largest increase in dollar expenditures. Seattle projections were con-
tingent upon the enactment of a comprehensive noise ordinance before the City Council
in 1973.
These noteworthy programs demonstrate that many States and municipalities have
attached priority to noise control efforts. However, inadequate funds remain a critical and
pervasive problem. In responding to the questionnaire, 13 States and 37 municipalities
specifically cited insufficient funds as a problem limiting program effectiveness or as an area
where EPA could provide assistance. The large number of States and municipalities identi-
fying funding as a need is particularly significant in that the questionnaire referred only to
71
-------
technical assistance. EPA's more recent experience in evaluating State and municipal
requirements substantiates this survey finding.
Under the Noise Control Act, EPA does not have authority to provide grants to States
and municipalities either for the establishment of noise control programs nor for the mainte-
nance and operation of existing programs. However, EPA is continuing to analyze and
document the needs of State and municipal governments in this area in order to frame
appropriate recommendations for providing additional support.
72
-------
CHAPTER 7
STATE AND MUNICIPAL NOISE PROGRAM PERSONNEL
Trained personnel, with acoustical expertise and able to devote a substantial portion of
time to noise control activities, are essential for the effective administration and enforcement
of a noise control program. The increasing number of States and municipalities that have
adopted quantitative regulations and initiated comprehensive noise control efforts requires
a corresponding increase in the availability of expert manpower. One of the purposes of the
1974 survey and future EPA evaluations is to determine both the number and expertise of
personnel associated with State and municipal noise control activities.
States and municipalities were requested to list both existing 1973 and projected
(1974 and 1975) personnel affiliated with their noise programs, categorized by job titles
and by numbers of individuals within each job category. Specific information on the formal
training or acoustical background of personnel was not included. To the extent that this
data was available or could be inferred from the general context of the response, it was used
to categorize reported personnel based on the following use of job titles.
PROFESSIONAL POSITIONS
Engineer, Environmental Specialist These two job categories include a variety of
professional job titles identified by responding States and municipalities. Among these
were mechanical engineer, acoustical engineer, environmental health engineer, and air,
noise, and environmental pollution specialist. Engineers and environmental specialists
deal with the technical aspects of the noise program (e.g., standards setting, measurement
methodologies, noise control engineering). They are presumed to have the greatest
degree of expertise in acoustics and environmental noise. However, in many cases,
these personnel do not have formal training in acoustics, instead applying their training
in related disciplines such as environmental sciences.
Public Health Sanitarian, Industrial Hygienist - In most instances, personnel in these
job categories are employed by State and municipal health departments. Although
specialized positions, the primary area of expertise is not environmental noise. In
several cases, personnel in these categories are also involved in occupational noise exposure.
Planners/Land-Use Analysts, Administrators, Attorneys- These professional personnel
are generally involved in specific facets of noise programs related to their area of
73
-------
expertise (planners - noise aspects of zoning, noise responsive land-use planning;
administrators - program management, resource allocations; attorneys - legislation
development, court actions). Their skills are usually applied to the noise program on
an as-needed-basis.
SUPPORT POSITIONS
Environmental Technician/Inspector, Police, Building Inspector These personnel are
primarily engaged in enforcement actions, complaint investigations, and noise monitor-
ing. As a general rule, the environmental technician/inspector is deemed to have greater
expertise and training in noise measurement techniques than either of the other
positions.
Clerical (self-explanatory functions). In most instances, these personnel are not
applied full-time to noise activities.
Other This is a miscellaneous category which includes an animal control officer,
student interns, and a mechanic.
DATA LIMITATIONS AND ANALYTICAL CONSTRAINTS
In interpreting reported State and municipal personnel figures, the following factors
should be considered.
The tabulated data reflects personnel levels as of 1973. Projected 1974 and 1975
figures are not included as the information provided was often incomplete. Addi-
tionally, budget projections were felt to supply a more accurate picture of changes
in program status and potential manpower allocations.
Frequently, a State or municipal agency may have been identified as the responsible
organization for noise activities without specific assignments of personnel to ful-
fill these functions. A greater number of personnel therefore are associated with
noise control efforts nationwide than the results indicate.
In many instances, States and municipalities did not report the percentage of
time devoted by identified personnel to noise control. Therefore, both full-time
and part-time manpower are included in the tabulated personnel figures.
The use of job titles differs to a great extent among State and municipal govern-
ments. For example, an individual concerned with the environmental impact of
74
-------
land-use planning may be classified by one jurisdiction as a land-use analyst and
by another as an environmental specialist. Therefore, while the primary basis for
categorizing personnel was the job titles used by States and municipalities, the
functions and duties assigned to identified staff as well as program orientation
were taken into account.
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
Nineteen States and 59 municipalities reported 1973 personnel associated with noise
control activities. Table 13 lists in rank order by job categories the aggregate number of 1973
personnel reported by responding States. The number of States with personnel in each job
category are shown in parentheses as a function of the stage of program development. Table
14 presents reported municipal personnel figures using the same format.
Based on the personnel categorization described earlier, the survey results support the
following observations:
A significant number of States and municipalities have personnel affiliated with
noise control activities. In 1973, 41 percent of the States and 32 percent of the
municipalities responding to the survey had at least one, full or part-time, noise
personnel position. The remaining respondents either did not have noise personnel
or in a few cases did not provide this information as personnel from other areas
were applied to noise activities on a limited basis.
There has been a marked increase in both the number of State and municipal
noise control personnel and the relative level of expertise since 1971. One of the
major findings of the earlier survey was that, with few exceptions, State and munic-
ipal programs were staffed by on demand, part-time personnel, often having no
acoustical background and drawn from various agencies. In 1973, a total of 105
State personnel and 260 municipal personnel were involved in noise control efforts.
Further, the professional categories of engineer and environmental specialist to-
gether with the supporting positions of environmental technician/inspector
accounted for 65 percent and 53 percent of the respective State and municipal
personnel totals. These three job categories include reported manpower with
training and expertise in noise measurement and control techniques.
Reported State and municipal staff size and expertise varied with the stage of
program development. This result reflects the fact that noise control efforts
directed to the development and initiation of a program have differing personnel
requirements than those where primary involvement is on standards development
to implement enabling legislation or those of established programs where em-
phasis is on compliance monitoring, enforcement, and public education.
75
-------
TABLE 13
1973 STATE PERSONNEL AFFILIATED WITH NOISE CONTROL EFFORTS
Job categories by rank order
1 ) Environmental Technician/
Inspector
2) Engineer
3) Police
4) Environmental Specialist
5) Clerical
6) Industrial Hygienist
7) Public Health Sanitarian
8) Planners/Land-Use Analysts
9) Other0
Total
Number of States reporting 1 973
personnel
Number in development category
Percent reporting personnel
Number of 1973 State personnel3
Stage of program development
Established
program
30(l)b
9(2)
13(l)b
8(4)
4(3)
64
3
3
100%
Limited
program
2(2)
6(3)
4(3)
4(4)
16
5
9
56%
Minimal
activities
3(2)
3(1)
3(1)
3(3)
3(3)
5(2)
2(2)
KD
2(2)
25
11
20
55%
Total
35 (5)
18 (6)
16 (2)
15(10)
11(10)
5 (2)
2 (2)
11 (1)
2 (2)
105
19
32
59%
a Numbers in parentheses represent number of States reporting personnel in
each category.
" Personnel reported by California.
c Includes administrative personnel.
76
-------
TABLE 14
1973 MUNICIPAL PERSONNEL AFFILIATED WITH NOISE CONTROL EFFORTS
Job categories by rank order
1) Environmental Technician/
Inspector
2) Engineer
3) Environmental Specialist
4) Public Health Sanitarian
5) Clerical
6) Police
7) Planners/Land Use Analysts
8) Industrial Hygienist
9) Building Inspector
1 0) Administrators
11) Otherb
12) Attorney
Total
Number of municipalities
reporting 1973 personnel
Number in development
category
Percent reporting personnel
Number of 1973 municipal personnel2
Stage of program development
Established
program
39(7)
27(6)
17(8)
11(8)
KD
KD
9(1)
2(1)
2(2)
3(2)
2(2)
114
11
11
100%
Limited
program
3(2)
5(4)
7(6)
6(4)
5(5)
KD
11(9)
6(2)
9(4)
KD
54
20
25
80%
Minimal
activities
32(8)
3(3)
5(4)
14(9)
4(3)
16(5)
2(2)
4(4)
4(4)
3(2)
3(2)
90
26
92
28%
No program
effort
2(2)
2
2
55
4%
Total
74(17)
35(13)
29(18)
20(13)
20(16)
18 (7)
16(14)
15 (3)
15 (9)
7 (7)
6 (4)
5 (4)
260
59
183
32%
a Numbers in parentheses represent number of municipalities reporting personnel
in each category.
b Miscellaneous category which includes an animal control officer, student interns,
and a mechanic.
77
-------
All of the States and municipalities with established programs reported 1973 per-
sonnel. Sixty-one percent of the State personnel and 44 percent of the municipal
personnel were affiliated with established programs. Further, over two-thirds of
the staffs of those States and municipalities with established programs were either
engineers, environmental specialists, or environmental technicians/inspectors. The
distribution of job categories among established programs appears designed to
match specific program elements with associated personnel expertise. For example,
the substantial enforcement activities undertaken in the Chicago program are
reflected in a professional and support staff composition of two engineers and
nine environmental technicians. The multifaceted nature of the Los Angeles pro-
gram is complemented by staff members including one engineer, three environ-
mental specialists, one police officer, two building inspectors, and one planner/
land-use analyst.
The more expert job categories also accounted for a significant number of the per-
sonnel reported by States and municipalities with limited programs. However, the
average staff size of these efforts was significantly less than that of States and
municipalities with established programs.
Approximately 30 percent of both States and municipalities had only one, full or
part-time, personnel position affiliated with noise control. The majority of States
and municipalities that reported the involvement of only one individual carried
out minimal activities. Very often, where only one staff member had been assigned
noise related responsibilities, the primary program orientation involved responding
to complaints and requests for information. In other cases, the individual was
charged with initial planning leading to the development of legislation and a com-
prehensive noise control program. The types of personnel reported by respondents
conducting minimal activities were far more varied than those of either established
or limited programs. The job category cited most frequently by municipalities in
this stage of program development was public health sanitarian, reflecting the desig-
nation of the health department as the responsible agency for noise control.
There is a relationship between the types of job categories reported and the legis-
lative orientation of noise control efforts. A nuisance oriented program has differ-
ing personnel needs than a program based on comprehensive legislation incorpo-
rating acoustical criteria. This relationship is exemplified by the fact that 50 per-
cent of the municipal personnel in the planner/land-use analyst job category were
from California where State law requires the inclusion of a noise element in the
municipal general plan.
The allocation of job categories differs between States and municipalities. As
indicated in Table 13, when the 30 environmental technician/inspector positions
reported by California are not included, the specialized professional categories of
engineer and environmental specialist account for the highest percentage of State
78
-------
noise program personnel. The prevalency of these two categories within many
State programs may be attributable to the application of manpower from other
environmental areas (e.g., air and water pollution programs) to noise control
efforts. Secondly, it appears to reflect the State emphasis on development of regu-
lations to implement enabling legislation as well as on the provisions of expert
guidance to municipalities.
The types of personnel involved in municipal noise control activities were more
varied. This finding may result from (1) the part-time use of personnel from a
number of municipal offices, (2) differing noise control approaches (e.g., zoning),
and (3) the greater variation among municipalities in the types of responsible
agencies.
The largest number of reported personnel were environmental technicians/
inspectors. Thirty-three percent of reported State positions and 28 percent of
reported municipal positions fall into this category. In established programs, these
personnel are primarily involved in compliance monitoring and enforcement
actions. In less developed programs their responsibilities are directed to complaint
investigation and source or ambient monitoring in support of program develop-
ment. These personnel are frequently involved in monitoring other environmental
pollutants (e.g., water samples) and complaint response deriving from various areas
of environmental concern.
The job category cited by the greatest number of States and municipalities was
that of environmental specialist. Ten States and 18 municipalities reported per-
sonnel in this category. This demonstrates the increasing expertise and environ-
mental orientation which characterize many State and municipal noise control
efforts.
NOTEWORTHY PROGRAMS
Among the States, California reported the largest number of personnel involved in
noise control 50 staff members representing 48 percent of the total number of reported
State personnel. The majority of California noise personnel were associated with vehicular
noise control.
Illinois, with 10 noise program staff members, had the second largest number of per-
sonnel affiliated with noise control efforts. Reflecting the 1973 emphasis of the Illinois
program on the development of regulations to implement enabling legislation, eight of the
reported 10 personnel were in the expert professional categories of engineer and environ-
mental specialist.
79
-------
New York City with a total of 45 noise personnel ranked first among the municipalities.
This total includes 18 engineers and physicists responsible for the administrative and technical
aspects of the program and 23 environmental inspectors involved in the enforcement of the
New York City noise code.
EPA'S ROLE
Although there appears to have been significant increases in both the number and exper-
tise of personnel associated with State and municipal noise control activities since the 1971
survey, lack of trained manpower continues to limit State and municipal efforts. A large
number of State and municipal survey respondents cited the need for additional trained man-
power (either by hiring new personnel or through upgrade training of existing staff) as one
of the problems limiting their program and/or as an area where EPA could provide technical
assistance.
In response to this requirement, EPA, both at the headquarters and regional levels,
provides guidance on the selection and training of personnel to various State and municipal
governments. EPA also sponsors regional noise workshops and seminars for State and munici-
pal officials. EPA has recently published a report entitled Guidelines for Developing a
Training Program in Noise Survey Techniques. 1 It provides recommendations on the content,
format, organization, and administration of a training program for noise survey technicians.
The report outlines material for a 4J/2 day training course. As the EPA noise program ex-
pands, emphasis will be placed on assisting States and municipalities with their varying man-
power needs.
Guidelines for Developing a Training Program in Noise Survey Techniques EPA Document
550/9-75-021 (July 1975).
80
-------
CHAPTER 8
INSTRUMENTATION
Adequate sound measurement and analysis instrumentation is necessary both for noise
monitoring and for the effective enforcement of noise control ordinances and regulations
which incorporate acoustical criteria. These criteria appear most often in the form of numer-
ical sound levels measured in accordance with a specified methodology.
One of the purposes of the survey was to identify the number and types of instrumenta-
tion in use in State and municipal environmental noise control efforts. Each questionnaire
recipient was asked to list by manufacturer name and model number the sound measurement
and analysis instruments on hand. States and municipalities were further requested to pro-
ject instrument purchases for 1974 and 1975. However, these projections have not been
included in the results as so few survey respondents provided this information.
State and municipal noise analysis instruments have been classified into nine distinct
categories. These categories are defined below.
1. Sound Level Meter An instrument consisting of a microphone, an amplifier, an
attenuator, a frequency weighting network, and a display used to measure sound
levels in decibels. The frequency weighting network is employed to measure A,
B, or C-weighted sound levels.
2. Microphone Calibrator An instrument capable of emitting one or more precise
tones that is used to calibrate instrument systems employing microphones (e.g.,
sound level meters). When in calibration, a sound measuring instrument will yield
the sound levels stated on the instrument. If out of calibration, the measurements
are inaccurate to the degree the sound measurement instrument is out of
calibration.
3. Sound Spectrum Analyzer An instrument that is used to determine the frequency
characteristics of a sound. With this instrument, an operator can measure the
sound pressure level in any of a series of specified frequency bands covering the
range of the sound spectrum. Octave band, 1/3 octave band, and narrow band
analyzers are examples of this type of instrument.
For the purposes of this report, octave band and 1/3 octave band filter sets which
are designed to be used in conjunction with sound level meters are accounted for
as sound spectrum analyzers.
81
-------
4. Graphic Level Recorder An instrument which creates a permanent, reproducible
record of the results of a measurement by means of scribing a line on a moving
paper tape. As an accessory to sound and vibration instruments, it can be used to
record sound or vibration levels over periods of time. In conjunction with sound
spectrum analysis instruments, some graphic level recorders may be used to plot
the frequency spectrum of a noise or a vibrating object.
5. Magnetic Tape Recorder An instrument which can be used to create a permanent
reproducible record of a measurement by means of recording an electrical signal
on a moving magnetic tape. As an accessory to sound and vibration instruments,
it can be used to record sound or vibration phenomena over periods of time.
For purposes of this report, only highly accurate, precision magnetic tape recorders
have been accounted for under the heading Magnetic Tape Recorders. General
purpose magnetic tape recorders (such as inexpensive cassette recorders) have been
excluded from this category because of their limited capability for application in
the accurate measurement and analysis of sound.
6. Sound Level Amplitude Analyzer An instrument which measures, for a group of
specified sound level amplitude ranges, that portion of the total measurement time
during which the level of a sound dwells within each range. The resultant time-in-
level data can be used to create a histogram of the amplitude distribution of the
sound. Sound level amplitude analyzers are often used to assess noise exposure.
7. Vibration Meter An instrument which is capable of measuring one or more of
the following three parameters of a vibrating body: its acceleration, velocity, or
displacement. Some sound level meters are capable of measuring vibration when
the microphone is replaced by an accelerometer.
For the purposes of this report, accelerometers which are designed to be used in
conjunction with sound level meters are accounted for as vibration meters.
8. Real-Time Analyzer An instrument which is capable of analyzing sound, vibra-
tion, or other phenomena in real-time (i.e., as it occurs). Real-time analyzers
earned their name for their speed of operation. Complete octave, 1/3 octave, or
narrow band frequency analyses may be performed by a real-time analyzer on a
continuous basis.
9. Computer/Programmable Calculator - Used in the statistical analysis of noise
levels.
82
-------
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
Table 15 identifies the types and quantities of instrumentation reported by States and
municipalities. Instrumentation on hand is shown as a function of the stage of program
development. The survey results support the following observations:
The sound level meter was the most frequently cited piece of instrumentation.
Each State and municipality reporting noise program instruments had at least
one sound level meter. In total, 288 sound level meters were listed by the respon-
dents. Thus in 1973, 32 States and 52 municipalities were able to objectively
quantify the overall noise levels in their environment, provided personnel were
available and trained for this purpose. Measurements obtained were used for
such purposes as monitoring environmental levels, enforcement, and land use
planning.
It is interesting to note that less than one-half of the respondents with sound level
meters reported microphone calibrators. Forty-three respondents listing one or
more sound level meters did not identify microphone calibrators. It is possible
that there are sound level meters being used in noise control activities that are out
of calibration because of the unavailability of microphone calibrators. This would
have a serious effect on the validity of ensuing measurements. However, calibrators
may have been overlooked by the respondents or implied when sound level meters
were listed.
There is a strong relationship between the stage of noise program development
and the types and number of noise analysis instrumentation utilized. The three
States with established programs accounted for 52 percent of the reported State
instruments. Similarly, the 10 established municipal programs for which instru-
ments were specified represented 49 percent of the total number of reported
municipal noise analysis instruments. As indicated in Table 15, where in general
instruments are listed in increasing order of technical sophistication, States with
established or limited programs such as California, Hawaii, Florida, Illinois, and
New York have sophisticated equipment including graphic level recorders, octave
band filters, amplitude distribution analyzers and real time analyzers. These
instruments enable noise sources to be statistically analyzed in terms of frequency
components and time varying levels. Detailed analysis is necessary where noise
regulations specify statistical breakdown of levels such as Mo, L50> Leq, or octave
band level limits. A parallel may be drawn with strong municipal noise programs
such as Inglewood, Chicago, New York City, St. Petersburg, and Los Angeles.
None of the respondents listed any of the new digital noise monitoring systems
in their instrument inventories. One explanation for this might be that few, if any,
of these systems were commercially available in 1973. Such systems are extremely
useful for monitoring over an extended period of time (24 hours) without attendant
83
-------
oo
TABLE 15
STATE AND MUNICIPAL SOUND MEASUREMENT AND ANALYSIS
INSTRUMENTATION AS A FUNCTION OF THE STAGE OF DEVELOPMENT
Type of instrument
Stage of development
Established
Number
Equip-
ment
Limited3
Number
Equip-
ment
Minimal
Number
Equip-
ment
No program
Number
Equip-
ment
Total
number of
instruments
STATE RESPONDENTS
Sound level meters
Microphone calibrators
Sound spectrum analyzers
Graphic level recorders
Magnetic tape recorders
Amplitude distribution
analyzers
Vibration meters
Real-time analyzers
Computers/programmable
calculators
Total
3
2
3
2
3
2
1
1
1
86
37
10
19
14
14
1
1
1
183
7
4
6
3
3
3
2
1
1
34
11
12
4
5
4
2
1
1
74
15
8
6
1
2
1
49
15
10
2
2
1
79
6
3
1
11
7
1
19
180
70
33
25
19
20
4
2
2
355
MUNICIPAL RESPONDENTS
Sound level meters
Microphone calibrators
Sound spectrum analyzers
Graphic level recorders
Magnetic tape recorders
Amplitude distribution
analyzers
Vibration meters
Real-time analyzers
Computers/programmable
calculators
Total
10
7
5
5
4
4
2
2
2
49
23
8
6
11
4
3
2
2
108
16
8
6
3
3
1
1
24
10
9
3
4
1
1
52
22
6
5
3
2
3
1
32
8
6
3
2
3
1
55
3
1
3
1
4
108
42
23
12
17
8
5
2
2
219
a The State of Michigan which is categorized as a limited program reported instrumentation but did not specify
the quantities and is therefore not included in the above figures.
° Lakewood, Colorado with an established program reported $4,100 of unspecified monitoring equipment in
addition to a van which are not included in the above figures.
-------
personnel since they can accumulate and analyze large quantities of data. It is
expected that digital systems will be incorporated into comprehensive programs
undertaking monitoring in the future.
In several instances, States and municipalities did not fully utilize their instrumen-
tation capabilities. Four respondents reported sizable inventories of noise analysis
and monitoring instruments which seemed to be incompatible with program orien-
tation and level of activity. There was limited use of the instruments either due a
lack of quantitative standards, manpower or acoustical expertise. Therefore, the
amount of equipment available is not always an accurate indicator of program
comprehensiveness, since a simple Type II sound level meter is all the analysis
instrumentation needed for some noise control activities. The nucleus and objec-
tives of a noise control program should be firmly established before equipment is
purchased. Six States and three municipalities that had at least one sound level
meter had not instituted any noise control efforts in 1973 due to a lack of
manpower.
A significant number of States and municipalities that instituted enforcement
actions in 1973 did not have sound measurement and analysis instrumentation.
Even though many respondents used instrumentation as an integral part of their
noise control efforts, 32 municipalities enforcing noise regulations did not report
noise measuring and analysis capabilities. This is discouraging since enforcement
actions in these cases must depend on subjective interpretation by the enforcer
(i.e., police, inspector) as to what constitutes a nuisance or ordinance violation.
For instance, 18 of the 25 municipalities that reported the police department as
the primary responsible agency for noise control, did not have noise measurement
capabilities. This places the burden on police officers to assess noise as a nuisance.
Many respondents addressed this shortcoming, stating that noise control efforts
without specified acoustical criteria and noise measuring instruments had partic-
ular difficulty instituting and upholding enforcement actions in court.
Few States and municipalities indicated that measurement methodologies had been
specified for noise monitoring. Their absence may result in a lack of precision
and repeatability in the measurement of specific noise sources. This question
will be directly addressed in future EPA surveys.
ROLE OF EPA
The Noise Control Act authorizes EPA to provide technical assistance to States and
municipalities on the selection and operation of noise instrumentation. Additionally, EPA
is authorized to conduct and finance research to develop improved methods and standards
for the measurement and monitoring of noise, in cooperation with the National Bureau of
Standards, Department of Commerce.
85
-------
Responses to the technical assistance area of the questionnaire substantiated and con-
firmed the need for continued EPA efforts in noise measurement assistance. The third and
fourth most frequently cited areas where technical assistance as required by States and munici-
palities were development of measurement methodologies and instrumentation needs.
EPA technical assistance projects in these areas include:
Development of an enforcement workbook containing measurement methodologies
for community noise sources.
The National Bureau of Standards is conducting a study under an Interagency
Agreement with EPA on the performance of various microphone types as a function
of temperature and relative humidity. This study is valuable in that the one element
in a noise monitoring system which must be exposed to the outdoor environment
is the microphone.
Although EPA is not authorized to provide funding or grants for State and munici-
pal governments to purchase needed instruments, through the 10 EPA regional
offices, analysis instruments are loaned on a limited basis in support of many State
and municipal noise monitoring efforts.
Workshops are provided by EPA regional noise representatives to familiarize State
and municipal officials with the noise analysis instruments presently available and
their correct implementation in noise surveys and enforcement activities.
As additional types of sound measurement and monitoring equipment are becoming
commercially available, EPA continues to evaluate the reliability and applications
of such instrumentation to meet State and municipal program requirements.
86
-------
CHAPTER 9
ENFORCEMENT
An active enforcement program is the most direct and effective means to achieve
compliance with noise control regulations and procedural requirements. The degree to
which legislation is enforced and the amount of resources allocated for enforcement often
determine the success or failure of noise control efforts. The types of enforcement actions
instituted are dependent upon program orientation and the authority conferred by statute.
Frequently, if enforcement actions are to be upheld in court, they must be supported by
demonstrated proof of violation of quantitative noise regulations. Such proof is based
on measurements of noise emissions taken by trained personnel using appropriate sound
measurement and analysis instrumentation.
States and municipalities were requested to provide information on (1) the agency
responsible for enforcement activities, (2) the types and number of enforcement actions
instituted in 1973, and (3) enforcement problem areas. Responses to the first two questions
in this survey area provided data on the number of States and municipalities involved in
enforcement, the organization and coordination of enforcement efforts with other program
elements, and the level of enforcement activity. These results are discussed in the first section
of this chapter. State and municipal response identifying the most significant enforcement problem
areas not only indicate the classes of noise sources most frequently in violation of noise regula-
tions but also provide data for use in establishing Federal regulatory priorities. This informa-
tion is presented in the second sectionEnforcement Problem Areas.
ENFORCEMENT ACTIVITIES
State and municipal enforcement efforts fall into two major categories: (1) complaint
activities and investigations, and (2) enforcement actions. Complaints aid in the initial identi-
fication of problem noise sources or areas. Complaint response and associated investigations
not only increase public awareness and interest in noise control but are often the first step
towards instituting enforcement actions. Therefore, States and municipalities that have
instituted some type of enforcement proceedings against violators of statutory provisions
are necessarily involved in complaint activities.
The second category (enforcement actions) encompasses a variety of specific actions
used to insure compliance with noise control requirements. These include: arrests, cease
and desist orders, citations, court proceedings and actions, inspections, notices, summonses,
tickets, verbal and written requests, violations and warning letters.
87
-------
DATA LIMITATIONS AND ANALYTICAL CONSTRAINTS
Frequently, responding States and municipalities did not provide specific data in this
survey area. This may be attributable to (1) the generality of the question or (2) the fact
that precise records of noise enforcement activities were not maintained or separable from
other actions. Therefore, a large degree of interpretation and inference was used in analyzing
reported State and municipal enforcement activity. The following data limitations should
be recognized in considering the survey results.
In analyzing the responses, it was not always possible to differentiate between
complaint activities and enforcement actions. Further, the overall level of com-
plaint activity reported was extremely low especially as this facet of enforcement
probably involves a greater number of States and municipalities than any other.
This lack of data may be due to unavailability of statistics on complaints and
investigations. The importance of such activities in enforcement also may not have
been taken into account by many respondents and so mention omitted in the
reply. Therefore, the results presented deal only with enforcement actions.
In some cases, the number of enforcement actions were not reported. States and
municipalities that did not provide this information have been included in the
tables as enforcers, although they made no contribution to the total number of
actions cited.
No meaningful breakdown of the types of enforcement actions (e.g., arrests,
warning letters) instituted could be made due to the non-specific nature of the
responses.
A significant number of the States and municipalities that reported 1973 enforce-
ment actions did not specify the noise sources instigating these actions. These
data appear in the tables in the category "Unspecified Noise Areas." Therefore,
the number of actions shown in specific enforcement areas may significantly
under-represent the actual level of activity.
The outcome of those enforcement activities that were instituted could not be
determined from the questionnaire responses. Information on the number of
actions resolved by voluntary compliance as opposed to those requiring legal
proceedings and the results of legal actions would have been valuable in assessing
the effectiveness of enforcement efforts.
88
-------
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
Table 16 provides a breakdown of the areas of enforcement activity and number of
actions instituted (where data is available) for those nine States reporting 1973 enforce-
ment actions. The stage of development, type of legislative provisions, and availability
of instrumentation are also identified as these three factors have implications for the
effectiveness of enforcement efforts. Table 17 presents similar information for the six
municipalities reporting the largest number of 1973 enforcement actions. A summary of
reported 1973 municipal enforcement actions is shown in Table 18.
Despite the data limitations mentioned earlier, the survey results substantiate the
following general observations:
There has been a significant increase in the level of State and municipal enforce-
ment activity since 1971. Only three of the 41 States and 11 of the 114
municipalities responding to the 1971 survey had instituted enforcement
actions. In contrast, nine States and 81 municipalities reported enforcement
actions in 1973. In some instances, this reflects the adoption of quantitative
noise regulations providing a definitive and consistent basis for enforcement
activities.
Municipal enforcement activity was appreciably greater than the State level.
Forty-four percent of the responding municipalities had instituted enforcement
actions in 1973. All of the municipalities with established programs and over
one-half of those with limited programs or those conducting minimal
activities reported enforcement efforts. The greater degree of municipal involve-
ment in enforcement reflects the local nature of many noise problems (e.g.
construction sites, paging systems, air conditioners, domestic animals), as well
as the greater accessibility of municipal officials to deal with these problems.
Both the types of noise sources regulated and the noise control approches (zon-
ing, restrictions on hours of operation) adopted by municipalities are often
more directly applicable to enforcement actions than are State efforts. State
surface transportation regulations are important exceptions to this observa-
tion. However, municipal actions in this area are also widespread. Additionally,
several States apparently have directed their noise control efforts toward
development of regulations, research, and provision of assistance to munici-
palities while encouraging their political subdivisions to undertake enforcement
activities.
89
-------
TABLE 16
INSTITUTION OF ENFORCEMENT ACTIONS BY STATES IN 1973
State
California
Puerto Rico
Hawaii
Pennsylvania
Illinois
Massachusetts
Nevada
Connecticut
Washington, D.C.
Stage of development
Established program
Minimal activities
Established program
Limited program
Established program
Limited program
Minimal activities
Limited program
Minimal activities
Types of legislative
provisions
Motor vehicle (A)a
Land use (A)
Recreational
vehicles (A)
Aircraft (A)
Not reported
Vehicular (A)
Motor vehicle (A)
Land use (A)
Snowmobile (A)
Motor vehicle (A)
(proposed)
Motor vehicle (A)
Snowmobile (A)
Not reported
Enforcement area
Surface transporta-
tion systems
Unspecified
Surface transporta-
tion systems
Unspecified
Unspecified
Unspecified
Surface transporta-
tion systems
Surface transporta-
tion systems
Unspecified
1
Number of
actions
10,385
6,154
1,410
48
20
20
2
Unspecified
Unspecified
Instrumentation
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Not reported
Yes
a (A) denotes inclusion of acoustical criteria in legislation.
-------
TABLE 17
MUNICIPALITIES REPORTING LARGEST NUMBER OF 1973 ENFORCEMENT ACTIONS
Municipality
New York City
Oklahoma City
Corpus Christi
Phoenix
Columbus, Ga.
Chicago
Stage of development
Established program
Limited program
Minimal activities
Minimal activities
Minimal activities
Established program
Legislative provisions
Nuisance; (A)a motor
vehicle, construc-
tion equipment,
other
Nuisance
Nuisance
Nuisance; other (A)
Nuisance
(A) Land use, motor
vehicle, construc-
tion, industrial,
other
Enforcement areas
Unspecified
Machinery and
equipment
Unspecified
Surface transporta-
tion systems
Unspecified
Surface transporta-
tion systems
Surface transporta-
tion systems
Surface transporta-
tion systems
Unspecified
Number of
actions
5,700
3,600
9,300
100
3,000
3,100
862
1,142
2,004
1,905
989
944
Instrumentation
Yes
Yes
Not reported
Not reported
Not reported
Yes
a (A) denotes inclusion of acoustical criteria in legislation.
-------
TABLE 18
1973 MUNICIPAL AREAS OF ENFORCEMENT ACTION
Areas of enforcement action
Enforcement actions instituted
Unspecified noise areas
Surface transportation
systems
Machinery /equipment
Air conditioners
Number
of
enforcers
81
61
26
6
1
Municipalities
specifying
number of
actions
50
34
17
4
1
Number
of
actions
22,057
8,772
9,400
3,877
8
Number of
actions by
5 most active
municipalities
19,444
8,011
7,833
( 3,600)b
Number of
enforcers
with acoustical
legislation
29a
Number of
enforcers with
instrumentation
32
VO
a This may slightly underrepresent the number of municipal enforcers with acoustical legislation as copies of
ordinances were not always available.
" Represents enforcement actions by New York City only.
-------
Of those States and municipalities involved in enforcement activities, a small per
centage account for the overwhelming majority of activities report. Seven
States specified the number of enforcement actions instituted in 1973. Three
of these States accounted for 99.5 percent of the total number of State actions
reported. Eighty-three percent of the total number of enforcement actions
specified by 50 municipalities were instituted by the six municipalities listed in
Table 17. Forty-two percent were reported by New York City alone. The majority
of reported enforcement actions were carried out by States and municipalities
with established programs. The skewed distribution of activity among enforcers
indicates that some programs are strongly oriented towards enforcement as
an effective means to attain desired noise levels, while the emphasis of others
is on such elements as public education or research.
The effectiveness of many municipal enforcement efforts appeared to be
limited by the absence of acoustical criteria and instrumentation capabilities.
Only 36 percent of those municipalities reporting enforcement actions were known
to have quantitative noise regulations in 1973. Forty percent of the 81 munici-
pal enforcers had instrumentation. However, when measured by the number
of actions instituted, some municipalities had established workable enforce-
ment programs based on nuisance provisions.
The greatest number of enforcement actions were carried out in the area of
surface transportation systems. Noise sources in this category include trucks,
motorcycles, automobiles, railroads, and buses. This was the only enforce-
ment area specified by responding States. Sixty-five percent of all State
enforcement actions involved surface transportation systems. California and
Hawaii directed all enforcement efforts against such noise sources.
Thirty-four percent of the municipalities instituting actions did so in the
area of surface transportation noise, and 43 percent of the total number of
actions carried out were in this area. Oklahoma City, Phoenix, and Corpus
Christi, were the leaders in actions taken against surface transportation
systems.
93
-------
The large number of enforcement actions instituted against surface transportation
systems may reflect (1) the extent of the population exposed to these sources,
(2) the fact that performance standards for vehicular noise sources were one of
the most prevalent types of acoustical legislation in effect in 1973, and (3) efforts
to control motor vehicle exhaust systems. Surface transportation was also the
class of noise sources most frequently cited as an enforcement problem area by the
questionnaire respondents, indicating its prominent position as a target for control
and regulation at all levels of government.
The only other specific enforcement areas identified by municipal respondents
were machinery/equipment and air conditioners. However, enforcement actions in
these areas were extremely limited. Six municipalities instituted actions against
machinery and equipment. Ninety-three percent of these actions were reported
by New York City - the majority of which dealt with sound reproduction devices
and construction equipment. Only one municipality reported enforcement actions
against air conditioners.
ENFORCEMENT PROGRAM AREAS
Survey respondents were also requested to identify the classes of noise sources account-
ing for the majority of enforcement actions. State and municipal recognition of enforcement
problem areas is essential for ordinance revision and expansion, development of enforcement
measurement methodologies and procedures, and determination of enforcement resource
allocations. At the Federal level, knowledge of the difficulties encountered by States and
municipalities in instituting enforcement actions assists in (1) identifying major noise
sources for EPA regulatory consideration, and (2) defining the types of EPA guidance
necessary to foster complementary State and local in-use regulatory and enforcement actions.
DATA LIMITATIONS AND ANALYTICAL CONSTRAINTS
A wide variety of problem noise sources were cited by the survey respondents ranging
from aircraft to domestic animals. In interpreting which sources constitute the most serious
State and municipal enforcement problems, the following factors should be taken into
account:
The respondents' interpretation of what data was being requested varied. In many
cases, problems identified referred only to those areas in which enforcement
actions had been instituted or where specific enforcement capabilities existed. In
other instances, responses were broader in scope, including all problem noise
sources even though no control or enforcement measures had been initiated.
94
-------
States and municipalities did not rank problem noise sources in their order of
importance. Therefore, the number of respondents citing each area is the
basis for identifying the most significant problems.
The data often did not indicate why specific noise sources were considered
enforcement problems.
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
Sixteen States and 102 municipalities specified one or more enforcement problem
areas. This constitutes, respectively, 35 percent and 56 percent of the States and
municipalities responding to the survey. Table 19 lists the number of respondents
identifying the five most often cited classes of noise sources and indicates the percentage
these represent of the States and municipalities that addressed the question. Other
identified noise sources are specified in a footnote to the table. Figure 11 depicts the
frequency with which the five major classes of noise sources were identified. A breakdown
of the specific sources included in the surface transportation category is shown in Figure
12.
The data presented in these Figures and Table 19 provide the basis for the following
observations.
The enforcement problem area identified by the greatest number of States
and municipalities was the category of surface transportation systems. Four-
teen States and 75 municipalities specified one or more types of surface
transportation as enforcement problems. Seventy-five percent of the States and
58 percent of the municipalities which responded to this survey question
identified motor vehicles in general as a major problem. When the type of
vehicle was cited, trucks, motorcycles, autos, trains, and buses, in that order,
were the surface transportation noise sources most frequently reported as
enforcement problems.
States and municipalities in all stages of noise program development identified
surface transportation systems as a significant problem area due to a number
of reasons. For example, the California Highway Patrol reported that
modified exhaust systems presented a problem for vehicular enforcement
activities. Those States and municipalities where enforcement was based on sub-
jective interpretation of nuisance provisions had difficulty in upholding citations
against motor vehicles in court. Those States and municipalities which had not
95
-------
TABLE 19
STATE AND MUNICIPAL ENFORCEMENT PROBLEM AREAS
Problem areas
Surface transportation
systems
Industrial
Construction
Airports
Air conditioners
Otherb
States
Number
citing
problem
14
9
8
7
3
8
Percenta
of States
citing
problem
88
56
50
44
19
50
Municipalities
Number
citing
problem
75
30
29
33
28
44
Percent of a
municipalities
citing
problem
74
29
28
32
27
43
a Percentages shown are based on the number of States and municipalities
which specified one or more enforcement problem areas.
b This category includes six problem areas identified by both States and
municipalities. These areas and the total number of States and municipalities
citing each are: residential noise sources (12), commercial noise sources (10),
freeways (9), motorcycle racetracks (3), emergency vehicles (3), and public
entertainment places (3). One State listed recreational vehicles as an enforce-
ment problem. Also included are five noise sources mentioned only by
municipalities: domestic animals (13), paging systems (9), generators (4),
carwashes (3), and swimming pool equipment (3).
96
-------
100
80
CO
LLJ
CO
O
w 60
O
cc
LU
CO
40
20
MUNICIPALITIES
SURFACE INDUSTRIAL CONSTRUCTION AIRCRAFT AIR
TRANSPORTATION CONDITIONING
Figure 11. Major problem noise sources of States and municipalities
-------
oo
25
20
in
LU
ta
cc
cc
UJ
00
15
10
MUNICIPALITIES
TRUCKS MOTORCYCLES AUTOMOBILES RAILROADS
BUSES
Figure 12. Surface transportation system problem noise sources
-------
initiated any vehicular enforcement activities identified surface transportation
systems as a problem due to the large number of (1) vehicles in use, (2) people
impacted, and (3) complaints received.
Noise generated by industrial and construction activities is a major problem. Over
50 percent of the States and almost 30 percent of the municipalities which speci-
fied one or more areas identified industrial and construction noise as enforcement
problems. Despite this, only six municipalities reported instituting enforcement
actions against such sources in 1973. Lack of enforcement effort therefore does
not seem to be a result of lack of awareness of the problem. A primary deterrant
to enforcement action in this area may be inadequate legislative support. Nuisance
ordinances often do not provide the specific criteria necessary for effective control.
Of the 91 municipalities that submitted copies of their noise legislation, six had
performance standards for construction equipment and six had performance
standards covering industrial equipment. New York City, instituting the largest
reported number of enforcement actions against construction equipment, had
enacted performance standards for both the operation and sale of air compressors
and paving breakers as well as provisions regulating the hours of operation of
construction activities. Performance standards specifying permissable sound levels
at the property line from construction activities can offer an effective means to
control these sources.
Airports and aircraft operations were frequently identified as problem noise sources.
Seven States and 33 municipalities cited aircraft operations as a problem area.
However, preemption places responsibility for regulating noise emissions from air-
craft at the Federal level. If States and municipal governments are airport proprie-
tors, they may make changes in airport operations to minimize noise on the basis
of their right as property owners to defend themselves from liability and to keep
their air terminal systems viable. States and municipalities also have the power to
control exposure to aircraft through land use control and building design.
The problem of aircraft noise is greatest in those areas immediately surrounding
airports, causing interference with conversation, disruption of sleep, and annoy-
ance. These factors have contributed to the identification of aircraft as a major
problem noise source.
Air conditioners, both commercial and residential, have become a major problem
noise source. Three States and 28 municipalities identified noise generated by air
conditioning units as an enforcement problem area. Dependency on nuisance
provisions probably contributes to this finding. Several municipalities have
regulated noise from air conditioners through specifying sound level limits mea-
sured at the property line. The only municipality that reported the number of
enforcement actions instituted against air conditioners in 1973 had this type of
regulation.
99
-------
NOTEWORTHY PROGRAMS
The activities reported by California and Chicago demonstrate the relationship between
an active enforcement effort and a successful noise control program.
California had the most comprehensive State noise control program in 1973. Enforce-
ment actions against motor vehicles were instituted by the California Highway Patrol.
Based on performance standards and a well-defined measurement methodology, a trained
Noise Team conducted monitoring along highways. Citations were issued to operators of
vehicles in violation. The activities were concerted and extensive: 232,096 heavy trucks,
8,138 motorcycles, and 656,405 passenger cars and light trucks were tested. Of these,
0.9 percent of the heavy trucks, 13.4 percent of the motorcycles, and 1.5 percent of the
passenger cars were found to exceed the noise emission standards specified by the Vehicle
Code, and notices of violation were issued to insure compliance.
The established program of Chicago provides an example of active enforcement on the
municipal level. The City's comprehensive noise control ordinance was enacted in 1971.
Enforcement activities are carried out by teams of trained personnel from the Enforcement
Division of the Department of Environmental Control. Performance standards for motor
vehicles were enforced through monitoring at selected measurement sites and issuance of
citations to violators.
Actions were also instituted against stationary noise sources. Many complaints were
received concerning air conditioner noise. Investigations by the Department were made
and voluntary compliance with recommendations for abatement sought. If needed, cita-
tions or order letters were issued. In all cases, a solution to the reported problem, was
found.
Complaints play a major role in enforcement in Chicago both in the identification of
problems and in increasing the incidence of voluntary compliance. Further, violators of
the Chicago ordinance are subject to fines ranging from $5 to $300 for a first offense,
and $50 to $500 or six months in the county jail or both for a second or subsequent
offense within 180 days. These penalties are strong inducements for voluntary compliance.
Both the City of Chicago and the State of California have instituted successful enforce-
ment programs. This appears to be attributable to a combination of performance standards,
defined measurement methodologies and enforcement procedures, trained personnel, appro-
priate sound measurement and analysis instrumentation, and public awareness that noise
regulations were being actively enforced.
100
-------
ROLE OF EPA
The enforcement aspects of the EPA regulatory activities are discussed in detail in
Chapter 4, and the EPA technical assistance efforts relating to enforcement in Chapter 10.
These include development of a code of recommended enforcement practices to supple-
ment the model community noise control ordinance as well as determination of measure-
ment methodologies appropriate for State and municipal enforcement activities. In June
1975, a workshop dealing solely with enforcement was held with municipal officials at
the National Bureau of Standards in Gaithersburg, Maryland. More workshops of this
type may be conducted in the future to provide aid in this vital aspect of noise control.
101
-------
CHAPTER 10
TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE
One of the major objectives of the survey was to determine the requirements of State
and municipal governments to establish and implement noise control programs. A fundamental
conclusion drawn from the 1971 survey results was that States and municipalities preferred
primary Federal emphasis on the development of noise criteria. This finding was instrumental
in determining the EPA position not to advocate the inclusion of a grant provision in the
Noise Control Act and in drafting the technical assistance provision of the statute. Passage
of the Act not only precipitated an intense interest in noise control but stimulated a
heightened level of State and municipal noise control activity.
In view of these developments, the 1974 survey was designed to evaluate how State
and municipal noise control needs had changed and whether or not a concensus existed
at the State and municipal level as to how Federal funds for noise programs should be
applied. Information obtained on State and municipal needs has been used to develop an
EPA technical assistance program responsive to identified requirements and to aid in framing
EPA noise program priorities. Current EPA assistance activities are discussed in detail in the
second section of this chapter.
STATE AND MUNICIPAL NOISE CONTROL NEEDS
The questionnaire instructions included an explanation of the EPA technical assistance
role under the Noise Control Act. Based on this understanding, surveyed States and munici-
palities were requested to identify areas where technical assistance was desired. States and
municipalities were also asked to describe major unresolved problems limiting the effective-
ness of noise control efforts. Additionally, comments made in covering letters and in
responses to other survey questions providing insight into State and municipal requirements.
These have been taken into consideration in the analysis of State and municipal noise control
needs.
DATA LIMITATIONS AND ANALYTICAL CONSTRAINTS
Open-ended questions were used to allow respondents greater flexibility and latitude
in defining their program requirements and problems. Several of the data limitations cited
below are attributable to the general nature of the questions.
103
-------
Several respondents requested assistance without specifying the types required.
This often reflected noise control efforts which had not advanced to the stage
where limitations could be evaluated. Without exception, States and municipali-
ties that did not identify definite assistance areas conducted minimal activities or
reported no program efforts. These requests for assistance are included in Tables
20, 21, and 22 in the category "unspecified" needs.
States and municipalities did not rank program problems or assistance require-
ments in their order of importance. Therefore, priority needs are those identified
by the greatest number of respondents.
The questionnaire referred only to technical assistance; no mention of funding
was made. Additionally, many State and municipal respondents were aware that
EPA had no authority to provide grants for State and municipal noise control
programs. Despite this, a substantial number of respondents identified the need
for Federal funds. This requirement was therefore greatly underestimated in
the survey results.
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
Thirty-eight States and 146 municipalities responding to the survey identified one or
more problem areas or assistance requirements. Table 20 shows the percentage of these 38
States citing each of nine categories of need, as a function of the stage of program develop-
ment. Table 21 presents similar information for the 146 municipalities identifying noise
control requirements. The number of States and municipalities citing each category is
indicated in Table 22. This table lists needs by the frequency with which they were reported
and includes a breakdown by municipal population size.
The survey results support the following conclusions.
A substantial need and desire exists on the part of States and municipalities for
a comprehensive and in-depth Federal assistance program. Eighty-three percent
of the States and 80 percent of the municipalities responding to the survey
identified one or more requirements for the establishment or operation of noise
control programs. Further, a majority of these respondents identified numerous
areas where assistance was necessary if their noise control objectives were to be
attained. The number of States and municipalities that provided extremely
specific lists of their program requirements and problems reflects the extensive
consideration and planning that has been given to noise, its effects and control,
at the State and municipal level.
The types of assistance required are directed towards increasing the scope of
noise control activities, adoption of quantitative legislation, and the commitment
104
-------
TABLE 20
STATE NEEDS FOR NOISE CONTROL PROGRAMS
Stage of
program
development
Established
Limited
Minimal
No program
effort
Total
Number in
development
category
3
9
20
14
46
Number
identifying one
or more
assistance areas
3
7
17
11
38
Percent of
States
listing
needs
100
78
85
79
83
Percentage of States identifying assistance areas3
Unspec-
ifiedb
-
-
6
45
16
Model
legis-
lation
33
100
76
45
68
Personnel
100
57
59
36
55
Instru-
mentation
67
29
35
27
34
Measure-
ment
method-
ology
67
57
53
18
45
Enforce-
ment
criteria
-
29
41
18
29
Funding
33
57
29
27
34
Data
Bank
-
-
12
9
8
Otherc
33
-
59
9
32
a Percentages shown are based on the number of States in each development category which identified either noise program problem areas
or technical assistance requirements.
" Includes those States which required assistance and guidance to develop a noise control program without identifying specific assistance areas.
c Includes requests for dissemination of information on Federal noise control regulations and activities, guidance in developing public awareness
programs, and consultation and assistance in specific noise program facets.
-------
TABLE 21
MUNICIPAL NEEDS FOR NOISE CONTROL PROGRAMS
Stage of
program
development
Established
Limited
Minimal
activities
No program
effort
Total
Number in
development
category
11
25
92
55
183
Number
identifying one
or more
assistance areas
11
21
74
40
146
Percentage
identifying
needs or
problem areas
100
84
80
73
80
Percentage of municipalities identifying assistance areas8
Unspec-
ifiedb
-
-
22
43
23
Model
legis-
lation
55
71
57
40
55
Personnel
82
81
43
33
49
Instru-
mentation
27
57
39
28
38
Measure-
ment
method-
ology
45
57
35
30
38
Enforce-
ment
criteria
45
48
28
23
31
Funding
55
29
27
13
25
Data
bank
27
19
5
3
8
Otherc
36
33
12
5
15
o
0\
a Percentages shown are based on the number of municipalities in each development category which identified either noise program problem areas
or technical assistance requirements.
b Includes those municipalities which required assistance and guidance to develop a noise control program without identifying specific assistance
areas.
c Includes requests for dissemination of information on Federal noise control regulations and activities, guidance in developing public awareness
programs, and consultation and assistance in specific noise program facets.
-------
TABLE 22
MUNICIPAL NOISE CONTROL NEEDS BY POPULATION CATEGORY
Noise control needs
Municipalities in population
category
Identification of one or more
areas of need by population
Rank order of need :
1 . Model legislation
2. Personnel
3. Measurement methodology
4. Instrumentation
5. Enforcement criteria
6. Funding
7. Unspecified3
8. Otherb
9. Data bank
Population (in 1 ,000s)
75-149
105
82
43
33
31
30
23
15
24
7
7
150-240
29
22
10
7
5
3
7
4
6
4
0
250-499
25
20
12
15
9
10
5
8
3
4
2
500+
24
22
16
16
10
12
10
10
0
7
3
Total
183
146
81
71
55
55
45
37
33
22
12
a Includes those respondents which required assistance and guidance to develop a
noise control program without identifying specific assistance areas.
b Includes requests for dissemination of information on Federal noise control regu-
lations and activities, guidance in developing public awareness programs, and consultation
and assistance in specific noise program facets.
107
-------
of sufficient resources for implementation and enforcement. This constitutes a
significant shift in emphasis from 1971 requirements. In part, this may be
attributable to passage of the Noise Control Act and the associated apportionment
of authority and responsibility for noise control among the Federal, State and
local government sectors. Secondly, EPA's implementation of the Act has
resulted in the development of criteria indicating the effects of noise on the pub-
lic health and welfare, information on levels of environmental noise, and a
methodology for quantifying long term cumulative noise exposure which together
provide a basis for regulatory actions.
Model legislation was the most frequently cited State and municipal requirement.
This category includes not only development of recommended legislation but
requests for technical and legal review of proposed regulations and ordinances.
Twenty-six States and 81 municipalities identified inadequate legislative provi-
sions as a factor limiting their noise control efforts or requested assistance in this
area. This is consistent with the large number of survey respondents whose pro-
gram orientation included activities related to the revision or expansion of legisla-
tion, as well as the trend towards adoption of performance standards to supplement
difficult to enforce nuisance provisions.
Two areas associated with the implementation and enforcement of noise regula-
tions and ordinances were also identified by a substantial number of respondents.
The category of measurement methodology was cited by 17 States and 55 munici-
palities representing the third greatest area of need. This category includes
requests for advice on the development of measurement procedures, general guide-
lines on how to take valid measurements and conduct noise surveys, guidance on
techniques applicable to specific noise sources, and assistance with sound reduction
techniques. Eleven States and 45 municipalities identified requirements in the
area of enforcement criteria. Guidance was needed on how to (1) establish an
effective enforcement program, (2) generate public support for enforcement
activities and increase the incidence of voluntary compliance, and (3) determine
sound level values appropriate to varying configurations of noise sources and
their impact.
Inadequate resources frequently limited State and municipal efforts and were
identified as major assistance requirements. The greatest resource need was addi-
tional trained personnel required by 55 percent of the States and 49 percent of the
municipalities that identified assistance areas. Requests in this category encom-
passed advice on upgrade training of existing staff, EPA training courses, guide-
lines for the selection and hiring of personnel, and provision of supplementary
personnel on an as needed basis to increase the level of program expertise.
Sound measurement and analysis instrumentation, needed by 13 States and 55
municipalities, was the fourth most frequently cited requirement. This category
108
-------
includes not only the acquisition of instruments but EPA guidance on the types
and proper use of instrumentation appropriate for varying State and municipal
noise control activities. Several respondents indicated that lack of sufficient
instrumentation limited enforcement activities; others that unavailability of
monitoring instruments precluded gathering data on noise sources and problems
necessary for the design and development of a noise control program.
Thirteen States and 37 municipalities specifically cited inadequate funds as a factor
limiting their noise control efforts or as an area where assistance was necessary.
Due to the data limitations mentioned earlier, this significantly underrepresents
the extent of State and municipal needs for financial assistance. Further, fulfill-
ment of many of the other identified requirements (e.g., additional personnel,
purchase of instrumentation) is based upon the availability of additional monies.
For those States and municipalities which had not initiated noise control activities,
funding was the major barrier to establishment of a program.
The third overall category of need identified by States and municipalities con-
cerned information requirements. Three States and 12 municipalities desired
access to Federal technical and research data relating to noise abatement and
control. Other respondents requested that EPA disseminate information on
Federal noise control regulations and activities and provide guidance in the devel-
opment of public education and awareness programs to stimulate citizen support
for noise control efforts.
There is a relationship between the types of assistance required and the stage of
program development. All of the States and municipalities that had established
programs in 1973 requested assistance in one or more areas. These respondents
were in a position to critically assess their noise control programs and identify
areas where additional efforts were necessary. Personnel was the most frequently
cited need by States and municipalities in this development category reflecting
program expansion and operation. Municipalities with established programs also
attached high priority to model legislation and funding both of which were
requested by 55 percent of the municipalities in this category. State respondents
needed additional instrumentation and guidance on measurement methodologies
to assist in increased enforcement activities and aid in the ongoing promulgation
of regulations to implement comprehensive enabling legislation.
Seventy-eight percent of the States and 84 percent of the municipalities that had
limited programs in 1973 identified one or more requirements. All of the States
in this development category needed model legislation, and 57 percent required
additional funding, personnel, and assistance in measurement procedures. The
most pressing need for municipalities with limited programs was trained personnel
although all other need categories were frequently identified. The high proportion
requesting assistance and the comprehensiveness of the types of needs identified
109
-------
is consistent with the growth orientation of limited programs. Typically, these
States and municipalities have defined their noise control objectives, established
the structures and statutory basis for attaining these goals, and were actively
moving to implement and administer noise control programs.
Although over 80 percent of the States and municipalities that conducted
minimal activities cited problems limiting their efforts or areas where EPA could
provide assistance, identified needs were neither as specific nor comprehensive
as those reported by States and municipalities with more structured programs.
To a greater extent, this was true of States and municipalities which reported no
program efforts in 1973. Respondents in these two development categories
identified model legislation as their first priority to replace nuisance provisions
and to provide the statutory authority to enable development of a noise control
program.
Identified noise control needs varied with the size of the municipality. While in
all population categories requirements for model legislation and trained personnel
ranked first and second, the comprehensiveness and specificity of identified
needs were nost pronounced in municipalities with populations greater than
250,000. Requests for funding were proportionately greater in these population
groups than among municipalities with fewer inhabitants. All need categories
associated with the adoption and implementation of legislation as well as resource
allocations were consistently cited by municipalities with populations over
500,000. The unspecified category was mentioned with decreasing frequency as
municipal population size increased. These findings reflect the concentration of
noise sources in urban centers, the associated extent of population impacted, and
the resulting need for noise control measures.
EPA NOISE TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE PROGRAM
This section describes the statutory basis, approach, organization, and current activities
of EPA's technical assistance program. It demonstrates the extent to which identified State
and municipal requirements for noise control programs are being addressed.
EPA Role
Under the Noise Control Act, State and local governments retain primary responsibility
for the control of noise. However, the Act neither imposes specific requirements for States
and municipalities to fulfill this responsibility nor does it establish a comprehensive Federal
assistance role for support of State and municipal programs. Under Section 14(2) of the
Act, EPA's authority is limited to the provision of technical assistance to State and local
110
-------
governments to facilitate their development and enforcement of ambient noise standards,
including:
Advice on training of noise control personnel and on selection and operation of
noise-abatement equipment; and
Preparation of model State or local legislation for noise control.
There is no explicit statutory authority for EPA to provide funding to State and municipal
governments either for the establishment of noise control programs nor for the maintenance
and operation of existing programs.
EPA Technical Assistance Objectives and Approach
In furtherance of this authority, the EPA technical assistance program has three basic
objectives:
1. To increase the number of State and local governments establishing effective
noise control programs which complement Federal regulatory actions;
2. To increase, public knowledge and awareness of the effects of environmental
noise on health and welfare and what noise control measures may be initiated;
and
3. To implement a national environmental noise monitoring and assessment program
to establish baseline data from which to evaluate the impact on public health and
welfare and excessive future trends.
To accomplish these objectives and in keeping with limited statutory authority, EPA's
assistance efforts have primarily involved the development and dissemination of standard-
ized guidelines, model legislation, and technical information, supplemented by in-depth
Regional assistance to State and municipal governments. In addition, considerable effort
has been directed to the design and field testing of an environmental noise monitoring
system including a standardized measurement methodology.
PROGRAM ORGANIZATION
The Technical Assistance Branch of the Technical Assistance and Operations Division,
one of the two major divisions of the EPA Office of Noise Abatement and Control (ONAC),
in conjunction with the 10 EPA Regional Offices, is responsible for implementing Section
14(2) of the Noise Control Act. The Regional Offices are the focal point for interaction
between EPA and States and municipalities. The States included in each Regional Office's
111
-------
jurisdiction are shown in Figure 13. Each Regional Office has one or more noise
representatives, and EPA anticipates that this manpower level will increase in future years.
Figure 14 lists the name, address, and telephone number of EPA's Regional noise representa-
tives. To augment Regional noise capabilities, EPA has held noise training courses, provided
contractual technical acoustical services to the Regions, and used IPA personnel to supple-
ment its permanent work force. The Intergovernmental Personnel Act (IPA) of 1970
permits the temporary assignment of personnel among the Federal Government and State
and local governments and institutions of higher education to perform assignments mutually
beneficial to the organizations involved.
TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE ACTIVITIES
The EPA technical assistance program may be divided into five areas: legislation develop-
ment and implementation; manpower assessment and education; advice on instrumentation
and monitoring systems; problem identification and assessment; and information services.
LEGISLATION DEVELOPMENT AND IMPLEMENTATION
EPA, both at the headquarters and regional levels, directly assists State and municipal
governments in the technical and legal review of proposed noise legislation. EPA seeks to
channel the rapidly growing interest in noise control among States and municipalities into
their adoption of quantitative legislation that is technically sound and legally enforceable.
Efforts include the development of model legislation , supplementary reports and
guidelines.
Model Legislation
lii cooperation with the Council of State Governments, EPA developed model State
enabling legislation for noise control. The model law was published in the Council's 1974
handbook of suggested State legislation, and its provisions have been adopted either in
their entirety or in part by several State legislatures.
In September 1975, EPA published a model community noise control ordinance in
conjunction with the National Institute of Municipal Law Officers. ^ The model legislation
is intended to be a basic tool that communities can use to construct noise control ordinances
suited to local needs and conditions. The model ordinance includes both nuisance and perfor-
mance provisions and covers stationary arid mobile noise sources, together with land use planning.
The preamble contains an extensive discussion on Federal preemption in addition to other
Model Community Noise Ordinance, EPA Document 55019-76-003 (September 1975).
112
-------
r\
MAINE
J. New York City
'hiladelphia
PUERTO
RICO
Figure 13. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Regional Offices
-------
EPA
REGION
1
II
III
IV
V
VI
VII
VIM
XI
X
STATES
Maine, N.H., Vt.,
Mass., R.I., Conn.
N.Y., N.J., P.P.,
V.I.
Pa., Md., Del.,
W.Va., Va.
N.C., S.C., Tenn.,
Ky., Miss., Ga.,
Fla., Alaska
Wise., III., Mich.,
Ohio, Ind.
N.Mex., Qkla.,
Ark., La., Tex.
Nebr., Kans., Iowa,
Mo.
Mont., N.Dak.,
S.Dak., Wyo.,
Utah, Colo.
Calif., Nev., Ariz.
Wash., Oreg.,
Idaho
ADDRESS
JFK Building
Room 21 13
Boston, MA 02203
26 Federal Plaza
Room 907G
New York, NY 10007
Curtis Building
Room 225
6th & Walnut Streets
Philadelphia, PA 19106
1421 Peachtree St., NE
Room 109
Atlanta, GA 30309
230 S. Dearborn
Chicago, ILL 60604
1 600 Patterson Street
Room 1107
Dallas, TEX 75201
1 735 Baltimore Street
Kansas City, MO 64108
1860 Lincoln Street
Suite 900
Denver, CO 80203
100 California Street
San Francisco, CA
94111
1200 Sixth Avenue
Room 11C
Seattle, WA 98101
NOISE
REPRESENTATIVES
Mr. Al Hicks
Mr. Emilio Escaladas
Mr. Tom O'Hare
Mr. Patrick Anderson
Dr. David Langford
Dr. Kent Williams
Mr. Horst Witschonke
Mr. Robert Labreche
Mr. Mike Mendias
Mr. Vincent Smith
Mr. Robert Simmons
Dr. Richard Procunier
Ms. Deborah Humphrey
TELEPHONE
617/223-5708
212/264-2110
215/597-9118
215/597-8115
404/285-3067
312/353-7270
214/749-7601
816/374-3307
303/837-2221
415/556-4606
206/442-1253
Figure 14. EPA regional noise representatives
114
-------
explanatory material. EPA is preparing a model code of recommended practices for proper
enforcement of the ordinance.
EPA has also completed a literature search and assessment of design criteria in terms
of related human response that have been incorporated in building codes throughout the
world. This is the first step towards development of a comprehensive model building code
including noise specifications with an enforceable methodology.
Reports and Guidelines
To increase the utility of the model ordinance to municipalities, EPA has under devel-
opment a workbook on community noise abatement and control which is scheduled for
publication in the near future. The workbook will contain the model ordinance (perhaps
with discussions of a number of alternative provisions) and is planned to include chapters
on the legal basis for community action, noise effects on health and welfare, a code of
recommended practices, various enforcement approaches, and procedures to establish and
maintain a local noise control program.
In February 1975, EPA published an updated edition of "Noise Source Regulation in
State and Local Noise Ordinances." This document summarizes the provisions of those
State and local regulations stipulating specific performance standards.
MANPOWER ASSESSMENT AND EDUCATION
The primary EPA activity in this area is sponsoring regional noise workshops and
seminars for State and municipal officials. Initiated by a 2-day national pilot workshop held
in September 1972, in Kansas City, EPA has conducted approximately 30 additional work-
shops at various locations throughout the country. The educational workshops held during
1972 and 1973 were aimed at stimulating awareness of the noise problem through presenta-
tions on health effects, measurement techniques and instrumentation, and the EPA role.
The program has now moved into its second phase, that of dissemination of specific data on
the formulation and enforcement of noise legislation. Although tailored to the particular
audience, these seminars are more technically oriented and typically include laboratory
measurement exercises, field trips to monitor specific noise sources, and enforcement
techniques.
In July 1975, EPA published guidelines for developing a training program in noise
survey techniques. The report is intended to assist States and municipalities in training
technicians to make reliable measurements of simple noise problems encountered in the
community for ordinance enforcement and complaint investigation. EPA is also working
with other Federal agencies to encourage programs (e.g., training projects, application of
volunteers) designed to assist States and municipalities in meeting their environmental man-
power requirements.
115
-------
ADVICE ON INSTRUMENTATION AND MONITORING SYSTEMS
EPA responds to requests from State and municipal governments for technical advice
on the types and uses of sound measurement and analysis instruments. Through EPA'S
Regional Offices, instrumentation is loaned on a limited basis for support of State and
municipal monitoring activities. EPA has also undertaken three additional projects in this
area.
Monitoring Program
EPA has initiated an extensive noise monitoring effort which has two primary facets
- environmental trend monitoring and specific source monitoring. As presently planned,
both the trend and source specific monitoring will be carried out at national and local levels.
At each level, the environment (geographic location) and personal exposure will be examined
through physical noise measurements and social surveys. EPA anticipates that the trend
monitoring effort will (1) establish a baseline from which to assess changes in the noise
environment, (2) determine the population at risk, (3) establish standard methods and pro-
cedures for quality assurance and comparability of data, and (4) provide assistance to
States and municipalities in assessing the success of their noise control programs. Source
specific monitoring is primarily designed to support the EPA regulatory development
process.
A broad measurement methodology for environmental trend monitoring is expected to
be completed by June 1976. It should include recommendations on sampling techniques
(spatial, temporal), source identification determination, collection of accessory data (e.g.,
meteorological parameters, traffic flow), instrumentation requirements, and questionnaire
development for social surveys. During FY 76 it is estimated that approximately three or
four specific sources will also be monitored. The initial emphasis of this program will be on
the examination of the environment rather than personal exposure for trend monitoring
due to instrumentation limitations. In the future, emphasis may shift to personal dosimetry
and automated monitoring techniques.
Measurement of Stationary Noise Sources
EPA has recently conducted a study to determine an accurate statistical/manual sampling
technique to be used for the measurement of stationary noise sources. The objective is to
recommend measurement methodologies, procedures and instrumentation suitable for
enforcement of various types of ordinance provisions. This study will also be used in
support of the model code of recommended enforcement practices mentioned earlier.
116
-------
Design Specifications for Sound Level Meter
This project was intended to stimulate the availability of low cost instrumentation.
The design concept and construction specifications were developed by the Air Force
Academy under an Interagency Agreement with EPA.
PROBLEM IDENTIFICATION AND ASSESSMENT
In addition to providing in-depth technical assistance to various State and municipal
governments, EPA conducts three other activities in this area.
Study of Interior Noise Levels for Transportation Systems
To determine the extent to which noise environments of enclosed transportation sys-
tems represent a risk to passenger health, an analysis was made of information collected by
past transportation studies as well as new data gathered for this project. The analysis con-
sisted of identifying trends among various transportation modes, noting areas of data
deficiency, calculating the effect of noise exposure on health under various assumptions of
travel duration and workplace noise exposure levels, and assessing measurement method-
ologies. EPA anticipates that the recently published study results 1 will assist State and
municipal agencies in setting noise specifications for the purchase of transportation equip-
ment. Data developed in this study will be one element in assessing the impact of com-
munity noise on individuals over a 24-hour period. In addition, the study has led to two
future projects. The first is using personal dosimetry techniques to determine if noise
exposure values may be inferred from sound level readings. The second is the development
of a methodology to measure the interior noise levels of aircraft.
Noise Surveys of Selected Sites
To test measurement procedures and instrumentation and to gather data on environ-
mental noise levels for use by State or local agencies, EPA has participated in various noise
surveys. One such survey was the assessment of environmental noise levels in the Waco,
Texas metropolitan area to assist local planners.
Assessment of State and Municipal Noise Control Programs
EPA is designing a survey directed to all 50 States, incorporated municipalities with
populations greater than 10,000, and approximately 500 counties. The results of the 1974
^Passenger Noise Environments of Enclosed Transportation Systems, EPA Document
550/9-75-025 (June 1975).
117
-------
survey will be used as a baseline from which to assess progress in all spheres of environmental
noise control. The survey, which will be conducted in the spring of 1976, should provide
data both for EPA's technical assistance program and regulatory activities.
INFORMATION SERVICES
EPA has established a library of technical information, which has been given an
important assist through the introduction of a computerized information retrieval system
containing abstracted noise data and articles. This data bank, with terminals at head-
quarters and regional offices, is used in part to reply to State and municipal information
requirements. Inputs to the data management system, based on EPA program priorities,
include information on specific noise sources, control technology, and other abatement
techniques available or under development, measurement methodologies, and noise laws
and regulations. Copies of EPA reports and documents may be obtained from the
regional offices. An audio-visual library is being developed where material will be available
for loan to State and municipal governments for training purposes.
As EPA regulations are promulgated, enforcement and regulatory guidance will be
provided to States and municipalities. For example, EPA developed a Cooperative Noise
Reduction Program which was designed to encourage early and voluntary compliance with
the Interstate Motor Carrier Noise Regulation which became effective October 15, 1975.
Within the constraints imposed by existing legislative authority and limited resources,
EPA's noise technical assistance program is presently addressing each area of State and
municipal needs identified in the survey with the exception of funding. This omission is
particularly acute in view of the current economic situation as States and municipalities
are hard-pressed to maintain existing services let alone initiate new programs. Further the
recent completion of the community model noise ordinance will, in itself, stimulate addi-
tional municipal resource requirements for its adoption and implementation.
118
-------
APPENDIX A
This appendix contains the cover letter, explanatory instructions, and survey
questionnaire distributed to 50 States, four territories, the District of Columbia, and
235 municipalities to obtain information on their environmental noise control
activities.
119
-------
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
LOGO WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460
Dear
The Environmental Protection Agency's Office of Noise Abatement and Control is
undertaking a survey of the non-occupational noise control activities of all State govern-
ments and some selected local governments. (By "non-occupational" noise control
activities, EPA means those activities that are not directly concerned with the Occupational
Safety and Health Act, i.e., OSHA programs.) Your State or municipality, whichever the
case may be, has been selected by EPA to be included in this survey.
Please complete the enclosed questionnaire and return within 30 days of the date of
this letter to:
It is important that this questionnaire be completed and returned promptly since
EPA plans to use the results of this survey as a guide for developing a State and local
government technical assistance program.
If you have any questions regarding this survey, please contact the EPA regional
noise office representative whose name appears above.
Your cooperation and assistance in this matter are sincerely appreciated.
Sincerely yours,
Alvin F. Meyer, Jr.
Deputy Assistant Administrator
for Noise Control Programs
Office of Noise Abatement and Control
120
-------
THIS SPACE IS FOR THE USE OF THE
EPA REGIONAL OFFICE ADMINISTER-
ING THE QUESTIONNAIRE
Region #
Program: (Check One)
[ ] State
[ ] Municipal
Category #_
Name of State or Municipab'ty:
STATE AND MUNICIPAL NONOCCUPATIONAL
NOISE PROGRAM QUESTIONNAIRE
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
OFFICE OF NOISE ABATEMENT AND CONTROL
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460
121
-------
Space has been provided on this questionnaire for answering each question. You may
use this space if you wish or you may answer on a separate answer sheet. If you have some
or all of the information that is being sought already tabulated, you may simply enclose a
copy of this tabulated data with the questionnaire when you return it.
Please feel free to elaborate upon any particular aspect of your noise program that
you feel deserves attention. Also, please enclose a copy of your noise ordinance, law, or
statute, your noise program enabling legislation, your noise program enforcement manual,
and any other material that would help to describe your noise program more fully.
Instructions for completing each question of the questionnaire are provided on the
following page. Please read the instructions before attempting to complete the questions
to insure that you provide the proper information.
122
-------
INSTRUCTIONS FOR COMPLETING THE STATE AND MUNICIPAL
NONOCCUPATIONAL NOISE PROGRAM QUESTIONNAIRE
I. NOISE PROGRAM
A. Organizational unit responsible for program.
Indicate the title of the organizational unit responsible for the program (e.g.,
Office of Environmental Quality, Department of Public Health, etc.).
B. Name, title, address, and telephone number of official directing the noise program.
Self explanatory.
C. Orientation of program effort.
Indicate what the program is designed for (e.g., survey/monitoring, ordinance
development, public education, etc.). Enclose the mission statement of the program
if available, otherwise, elaborate as much as possible.
II. ENFORCEMENT EFFORT
A. Organizational unit responsible for enforcement actions.
Indicate the title of the organizational unit that is responsible for enforcing
your noise ordinance, law, or statute (e.g., State or City police, Department of
Public Health, etc.). If the same unit that administers the program enforces the
program, answer, "Same as I.A."
B. Enforcement actions instituted in 1973.
Indicate the number of citations, warrants, cease and desist orders, etc.,
issued in 1973, the number of these citations that resulted in fines, and the number
of these warrants that resulted in prosecution, etc.
C. Enforcement problem areas.
Which classes of noise sources (motor vehicles, aircraft, construction equip-
ment, etc.) are most often in violation of your noise ordinance, law, or statute and
account for the majority of your enforcement actions.
123
-------
III. BUDGETARY DATA
Please provide a functional breakdown of your budgetary data for 1973, and projected
budgetary data for 1974 and 1975. You may use a format other than the one provided if
you feel that it would be more descriptive.
IV. PERSONNEL
Under Job title, list the present (1973) and projected future (1974 and 1975) job
titles of the personnel in your noise program. Under Personnel level, indicate the present
(1973) and projected future (1974 and 1975) number of individuals to which each job
title is assigned. Each of the three vertical columns under Personnel level should add up
to the total present or total projected future number of personnel in the noise program.
V. EQUIPMENT
Under Equipment, list by manufacturer, model number, and function, the noise
measurement and analysis equipment that you have now (1973) and that which you
intend to acquire in the future (1974 and 1975).
Under Quantity, indicate the number of pieces of each piece of equipment that you
have now (1973) and that which you intend to acquire in the future (1974 and 1975).
VI. PROGRAM PROBLEMS
Self explanatory.
VH. APPLICATION OF TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE
The Noise Control Act of 1972 directs the Administrator of the Environmental
Protection Agency to "provide technical assistance to State and local governments to
facilitate their development and enforcement of ambient noise standards." This technical
assistance is to include, but is not to be limited to, advice on training of noise-control
personnel, advice on selection and operation of noise-abatement equipment, and prepara-
tion of model State and local legislation for noise control. List those areas of your program
where you desire assistance.
124
-------
Form Approved
O.M.B. 158-R-0099
STATE AND MUNICIPAL NONOCCUPATIONAL
NOISE PROGRAM QUESTIONNAIRE
I. NOISE PROGRAM
A. Organizational unit responsible for program.
B. Name, title, address, and telephone number of official directing the
Noise program.
C. Orientation of program effort.
125
-------
Form Approved
O.M.B. 158-R-0099
H. ENFORCEMENT EFFORT
A. Organizational unit responsible for enforcement actions.
B. Enforcement actions instituted in 1973.
C. Enforcement problem areas.
126
-------
to
-J
III. BUDGETARY DATA
Budget data for 1973, and projected budget data for 1974 and 1975.
Supervisory Engineering Technical Enforcement Legal Clerical
1973 Man hours
1973 Cost
1974 Man hours
1974 Cost
1975 Man hours
1975 Cost
58 >
O
O
MD
-------
IV. PERSONNEL
Job Title
V. EQUIPMENT
Equipment
Form Approved
O.M.B. 158-R-0099
Personnel level
1973 19741975
Totals:
1973
Quantity
1974 1975
128
-------
Form Approved
O.M.B. 158-R-0099
VI. PROGRAM PROBLEMS
Major unresolved problem areas of your noise program.
YD. APPLICATION OF TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE
Areas where EPA could provide assistance to your noise program.
129
-------
APPENDIX B
This appendix provides a list of the designated contact, title, and address of each
agency involved in noise activities as reported by State and municipal survey respondents.
131
-------
STATE AND MUNICIPAL ENVIRONMENTAL NOISE CONTROL
OFFICIALS: NAMES, ADDRESSES, TELEPHONE NUMBERS
(Compiled for all States and all municipalities
with populations of 75,000 or more.)
**********ALABAMA
L.G. Linn, Jr. PHONE: 205/832-5847
Department of Public Health
Environmental Health Administration Lab
State Office Building
Montgomery, Alabama 36104
HUNTSVILLE
Charles H. Younger PHONE: 205/539-9612
City Attorney
P.O. Box 308
Huntsville, Alabama 35804
MONTGOMERY
J. Aronstein, Jr., Director PHONE: 205/262-4421
Department of Planning & Development
P.O.Box 1111
Montgomery, Alabama 36102
**********ARIZONA
John H. Beck, Director
Division of Sanitation
Arizona State Department of Health
1740 E.Adams
Phoenix, Arizona 85007
132
-------
PHOENIX
Norman Y. Cravens
Deputy City Manager
251 N.Washington
Phoenix, Arizona 85003
Mr. L. Bethel
Building and Housing Safety Department
Zoning Enforcement
Phoenix, Arizona 85003
Lt. Diming
Inspector Services Bureau
Police Department
Phoenix, Arizona
TUCSON
James A. Betts PHONE: 602/791-4371
Assistant Director of Transportation
P. O. Box 5547
Tucson, Arizona 85703
********* *CALIFORNIA
A. E. Lowe, Chief PHONE: 415/843-7900
Office of Noise Control
State Department of Health
2151 Berkeley Way
Berkeley, California 94704
Lt. J. D. De Luca PHONE: 916/445-6345
California Highway Patrol Field Program
2611 -26th Street
Sacramento, California 95818
Comm. Warren M. Heath PHONE: 916/445-1865
California Highway Patrol
New Vehicles Program
2611 -26th Street
Sacramento, California 95818
W. R. Green PHONE: 916/445-4400
Design and Engineering
California Department of Transportation
1120N.Street
Sacramento, California 95814
133
-------
J.L.Beaton PHONE: 916/445^712
Technical and Research
California Department of Transportation
5900 Folsom Blvd.
Sacramento, California 95819
Richard G. Dyer PHONE: 916/445-2582
Airport Environmental Specialist
Sacramento Airport
Sacramento, California 95834
Gregory Harding PHONE: 916/445-1114
Local Assistance Officer
Council of Inter-Governmental Relations
1400- 10th Street
Sacramento, California 95814
ANAHEIM
Robert J. Kelley, Assistant Planner PHONE: 714/533-5711
Development Services Department
P. O. Box 3222
Anaheim, California 92803
BURBANK
William J. Watterson PHONE: 213/846-2141
Building Department Supt.
275 E. Olive Avenue
Burbank, California 91502
-DOWNEY
ErvinSpindel PHONE: 213/861-0361
Director, Department of Community Development
City Hall
8425 Second Street
Downey, California 90241
FREMONT
Don Driggs, City Manager PHONE: 415/796-3438
City Government Building
Fremont, California 94538
134
-------
FRESNO
George A. Kerber PHONE: 209/266-8031
Director of Planning & Inspection
2326 Fresno Street
Fresno, California 93721
FULLERTON
William F. Cornett PHONE: 714/525-7171
City Administrator
303 W. Commonwealth Avenue
Fullerton, California 92632
GARDEN GROVE
Doug La Belle PHONE: 714/638-6851
Development Agency Director
11391 Acacia Parkway
Garden Grove, California 90240
HAYWARD
Bruce P. Allred, Planning Director PHONE: 415/581-2345
City of Hay ward
22300 Foothill Blvd.
Hay ward, California 94541
INGLEWOOD
P. Patrick Mann PHONE: 213/674-7111
Environmental Standards Supervisor
City of Inglewood
1 Manchester Blvd.
Inglewood, California 90301
LAKEWOOD
Charles Chivetta, Director PHONE: 213/866-9771
Community Development Department
City of Lakewood
P.O. Box 158
Lakewood, California 90714
135
-------
LOS ANGELES
Jack Green, General Manager
Department of Environmental Quality
Room 550
City Hall East
Los Angeles, California 90012
Albert W. Optician, Noise Pollution Specialist
Head of Acoustics Division
Department of Environmental Quality
Room 550, City Hall East
Los Angeles, California 90012
R. J. Williams
Superintendent of Building
Room 411, City Hall
Los Angeles, California 90012
OAKLAND
Cecil Riley, City Manager PHONE: 415/273-3301
City Hall
Oakland, California 94612
ORANGE
John Lane, Administrator PHONE: 714/532-0466
Advanced Planning
300 E. Chapman Avenue
Orange, California 92666
John R. Philp, M.D. PHONE: 714/834-3131
Health Officer
Orange County Health Department
645 North Ross Street
Santa Ana, California 92702
PASADENA
Murray Cooper PHONE: 213/577-4390
Environmental Health Director
City Hall
lOON.Garfield
Pasadena, California 91109
136
-------
POMONA
Jerrold R. Gonce
City Administrator
City Hall
Pomona, California 91769
RIVERSIDE
Merle G. Gardner PHONE: 714/787-7371
Planning Director
City Hall
Riverside, California 92501
SACRAMENTO
R. H. Parker
City Engineer
Room 207, City Hall
Sacramento, California 95814
SAN BERNARDINO
Salvatore F. Catalano, Secretary
Environmental Review Committee
300 North D Street
San Bernardino, California 92418
SAN DIEGO
James E. Dukes PHONE: 714/236-6088
Noise Abatement and Control Administrator
Environmental Quality Department
City Administration Building,
202 C Street
San Diego, California 92101
SAN JOSE
Eldon A. Erickson PHONE: 408/277-4000
Environmental Coordinator
801 North First Street
San Jose, California 95110
137
-------
SAN MATED
Jack Watt, BuUding Official PHONE: 415/574-6750
Housing Advisory and Appeal Board
330 W. 20th Avenue
San Mateo, California 94403
SANTA CLARA
Santa Clara Police Department
SANTA MONICA
Clyde V. Fitzgerald PHONE: 213/397-0980
Airport Director
Santa Monica Municipal Airport
Santa Monica, California
STOCKTON
Elder Gunter, City Manager PHONE: 209/944-8212
City Hall
Stockton, California 95202
TORRANCE
Glen K. Godfrey PHONE: 213/328-5310
Supervisor, Environmental Quality Division
3031 Torrance Boulevard
Torrance, California 90503
**********COLORADO
Harold J. Weber, Principal Audiologist
Noise Pollution Control Officer
4210E. llth Avenue
Denver, Colorado 80220
AURORA
John Arney, Director PHONE: 303/341-7500
Department of Planning
& Community Development
1470 Emporia Street
Aurora, Colorado 80010
138
-------
COLORADO SPRINGS
Thomas A. Martin PHONE: 303/471-6610
Noise Abatement Officer
Safety Department
P.O.Box 1575
Colorado Springs, Colorado 80902
DENVER
Thomas I. Peabody, P. E. PHONE: 303/893-6241
Chief, Public Health Engineering Department
Department of Health & Hospitals, Unit 4
W 6th Avenue & Cherokee
Denver, Colorado 80204
LAKEWOOD
Donald Y. Shanfelt PHONE: 303/232-2209
Environmental Control Officer
Department of Community Development
15 80 Yarrow Street
Lake wood, Colorado 80215
******** "CONNECTICUT
Warren Thurnauer PHONE: 203/566-2390
Motor Vehicle Safety Coordinator
Connecticut State Motor Vehicle Department
60 State Street
Wethersfield, Connecticut 06109
Robert Gabala PHONE: 203/566-5360
Environmental Section
Connecticut State Department of Transportation
24 Wolcott Hill Road
Wethersfield, Connecticut 06109
Paul Norton, Air Pollution Control Engineer PHONE: 203/566-2690
Connecticut Street, Department of
Environmental Protection
Air Compliance Unit
165 Capital Avenue
Hartford, Connecticut 06115
139
-------
BRIDGEPORT
Joseph R. Tedesco, Air Pollution Inspector
Bridgeport Air Pollution Department
Department of Humane Affairs
835 Washington Avenue
Bridgeport, Connecticut 06604
HARTFORD
H. A. Bourne, Director
Environmental Health
Health Department
550 Main Street
Hartford, Connecticut 06103
NEW HAVEN
Orlando Silvestri, Director PHONE: 203/562-0151
Building Department
Hall of Records, Room 502
200 Orange Street
New Haven, Connecticut 06510
NORWALK
Francis J. Kalaman, M.D. PHONE: 203/838-7531
M.P.H. Director
137-139 East Avenue
Norwalk, Connecticut 06851
**********FLORIDA
Jesse O. Borthwick PHONE: 904/488-1345
Noise Control Program Manager
Department of Environmental Regulations
2562 Executive Center Circle, East
Tallahassee, Florida 32301
FORT LAUDERDALE
William Bennett PHONE: 305/527-2121
Chief Code Compliance Officer
City of Fort Lauderdale
P.O. Drawer 1181
Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33302
140
-------
HIALIAH
Hialiah Police Department
Hialiah, Florida 33011
HOLLYWOOD
Hollywood City Commission
Hollywood, Florida 33020
JACKSONVILLE
Walter W. Honour PHONE: 904/633-3479
Division Chief
Bio-Environmental Services Division
515 West Sixth Street
Jacksonville, Florida 32206
MIAMI
R. E. Ferencik, Director PHONE: 305/445^711
Building Department
Box No. 708
Miami, Florida 33101
ORLANDO
James Fowler PHONE: 305/849-2129
Assistant City Attorney
City of Orlando
400 South Orange Avenue
Orlando, Florida 32801
ST. PETERSBURG
Emil D. Hicks, Jr. PHONE: 813/894-2111
Director, Department of Pollution Control
P. O. Box 2842
St. Petersburg, Florida 33731
TAMPA
Robert M. Jones, Director, Noise Programs PHONE: 813/223-1311
Hillsborough County Environmental
Protection Commission
Stovall Professional Building
305 N. Morgan Street, Sixth Floor
Tampa, Florida 33602
141
-------
**********GEORGIA
Charles A. Head, III PHONE: 404/656-4871
Chief, Special Operations Unit
Georgia Department of Human Resources
47 Trinity Avenue, S.W.
Atlanta, Georgia 30334
ATLANTA
W. A. Hewes, Assistant Building Official
Office of Inspector of Buildings
800 City Hall
Atlanta, Georgia 30303
COLUMBUS
Curtiss E. McClung PHONE: 404/324-0211
Chief of Police
P.O.Box 1340
Columbus, Georgia 31902
MACON
John Wilbahks PHONE: 912/746-9656
Macon-Bibb County Planning & Zoning
Commission
P. O. Box 247, Room 305
City Hall
Macon, Georgia 31202
SAVANNAH
Arthur A. Mensonsa PHONE: 912/233-9321
City Manager
City of Savannah
P.O.Box 1027
Savannah, Georgia 31402
**********HAWAII
Sadamoto Iwashita PHONE: 808/548-3075
Chief, Noise & Radiation Branch
State Department of Health
P. O. Box 3378
Honolulu, Hawaii 96801
142
-------
HONOLULU
Herbert Muraoka PHONE: 808/546-7651
City and County of Honolulu
Building Department
Honolulu Hale, Honolulu, Hawaii 96813
******** **IDAHO
Vaughn Anderson PHONE: 208/384-2390
Director-Categorical Programs
Department Environmental and Community
Services, Statehouse
Boise, Idaho 83720
BOISE
James L. Morris, City Engineer PHONE: 208/342-4621
Department of Public Works
City Hall
P. O. Box 500
Boise, Idaho 83701
**********ILLINOIS
JohnS. Moore PHONE: 217/786-6758
Manager, Division of Noise Pollution Control
Environmental Protection Agency
2200 Churchill Road
Springfield, Illinois 62706
CHICAGO
H. W. Poston, Commissioner PHONE: 312/744-4080
Department of Environmental Control
320 N. Clark Street, Room 402
Chicago, Illinois 60610
JOLIET
Joliet Police Department
Joliet, Illinois 60431
ROCKFORD
Frank Osinski PHONE: 815/987-2575
City-County Health Department
Winnebego County Courthouse
Rockford, Illinois 61101
143
-------
**********INDIANA
Ralph C. Pickard PHONE: 317/633-4420
Indiana State Board of Health
Environmental Management Board
1330 West Michigan Street
Indianapolis, Indiana 46206
EVANSVILLE
Jesse C. Crooks, Director PHONE: 812/426-5595
Environmental Protection Agency
Room 207, Administration Building
Civic Center Complex
Evansville, Indiana 47708
FORT WAYNE
Dr. Oliver Kaiser
Board of Public Health
Fort Wayne, Indiana 46802
GARY
Joel Johnson, Director PHONE: 219/944-6795
Gary Health Department
3600 W. 3rd Avenue
Gary, Indiana 46406
HAMMOND
Ronald L. Novak, Chief
Hammond Air Pollution Control
5925 Calumet Avenue
Hammond, Indiana 46320
INDIANAPOLIS
Harold J. Egenes PHONE: 317/633-3198
Director, Department of Metropolitan
Development
1860 City-County Building
Indianapolis, Indiana 46204
SOUTH BEND
Capt. James R. Sweitzer PHONE: 219/284-9306
South Bend Police Department
701 W. Sample
South Bend, Indiana 46621
144
-------
********** IOWA
Bryce E. Harthoorn, Director PHONE: 515/265-8134
Department of Environmental Quality
Air Quality Management Division
3920 Delaware Avenue, P. O. Box 3326
Des Moines, Iowa 50306
KANSAS
Melville W. Gray, Director PHONE: 913/296-3821
Division of Environmental Health
Kansas State Department of Health
535 Kansas Avenue
Topeka, Kansas 66603
**********KENTUCKY
Fred Waters, Environmental Supervisor PHONE: 502/564-7274
Department of Natural Resources &
Environmental Protection
Division of Special Programs
Capital Plaza Building
Frankfort, Kentucky 40601
**********LOUISIANA
Vernon C. Parker, Head PHONE: 504/527-5115
Division Air Control & Occupational Health
Bureau of Environmental Health
325 Loyola Avenue
P. O. Box 60630
New Orleans, Louisiana 70160
BATON ROUGE
Baton Rouge Police Department
Baton Rouge, Louisiana 70801
NEW ORLEANS
C. Curtis Mann, Chief Mechanical Inspector PHONE: 504/586^455
Department of Safety and Permits
Room 7E04, City Hall
1300 Perdido Street
New Orleans, Louisiana 70112
145
-------
SHREVEPORT
L. Calhoun, Jr. PHONE: 504/424-4171
Mayor, City of Shreveport
1234 Texas Avenue
Shreveport, Louisiana 71101
**********MAINE
Donald C. Hoxie PHONE: 207/289-3826
Director, Health Engineering
Maine Department of Health & Welfare
Augusta, Maine 04330
********* 'MARYLAND
Thomas A. Towers, Sanitarian PHONE: 301/383-2776
Bureau of Air Quality and Noise Control
Environmental Health Administration
201 West Preston Street
Baltimore, Maryland 20201
BALTIMORE
David T. Lewis, Director PHONE: 301/396-4428
Bureau of Environmental Noise Control
Health Department
602 American Building
Baltimore & South Streets
Baltimore, Maryland 21202
********* *MASSACHUSETTS
Mr. Gilbert T. Joly, Director
Bureau of Air Quality Control
Massachusetts Department Public Health
Springfield, Massachusetts 01101
BOSTON
David Standly, Executive Director PHONE: 617/722-4100
Noise Control
Air Pollution Control Commission
31 State Street, 4th Floor
Boston, Massachusetts 02109
146
-------
LYNN
William Liss PHONE: 617/592-7900
Director, Environmental Control Office
Lynn City Hall
Lynn, Massachusetts 01904
NEW BEDFORD
Joseph A. Pelletier
Police Chief
Police Department
Spring Street
New Bedford, Massachusetts 02740
**********MICHIGAN
James Barrett, Deputy Chief PHONE: 517/373-1410
Bureau of Industrial Health
Michigan Department of Public Health
3500 N. Logan Street
Lansing, Michigan 48912
John Plants, Director PHONE: 517/332-2521
Department of State
714 S.Harrison Road
E. Lansing, Michigan 48933
LeeJager PHONE: 517/373-7573
Air Pollution Control Division
Department of Natural Resources
Mason Building
Lansing, Michigan 48926
DETROIT
Dr. William Clexton PHONE: 313/224-3803
Director of Public Health
Detroit Health Department
CityCounty Building
Detroit, Michigan 48226
John S. Stock, Acting Director PHONE: 313/274-2800
Wayne County Health Department
Merriman Road
Eloise, Michigan 48132
147
-------
P. Tannian, Commissioner PHONE: 313/224-4400
Detroit Police Department
1300 Beaubien
Detroit, Michigan 48226
GRAND RAPIDS
James A. Biener, Director PHONE: 616/456-3206
Environmental Protection Department
509 Wealthy, S. W.
Grand Rapids, Michigan 49503
KALAMAZOO
Bruce C. Brown PHONE: 616/381-5500
Director of City Planning
241 W. South Street
Kalamazoo, Michigan 49006
LIVONIA
Frank A. Kerby PHONE: 313/421-2000
Chief Inspector
Bureau of Inspection
15200 Farmington Road
Livonia, Michigan 48154
PONTIAC
Robert M. Gerds, Administrator
Inspection Services Division
Community Development Department
City of Pontiac
Pontiac, Michigan 48053
SAGINAW
Roger Waltha, Federal Projects Engineer PHONE: 517/753-5411
Traffic Engineering Division
Department of Public Works and Engineering
City Hall
Saginaw, Michigan 48601
FLINT
A. W. DeBlaise
Director
Department Public Works
Flint, Michigan 48502
148
-------
WARREN
George Bruggerman, Director PHONE: 313/573-9500
Division of Buildings & Safety Engineering
Department of Public Services
29500 Van Dyke
Warren, Michigan 48093
********* *MINNESOTA
DULUTH
Duluth City Attorney
Duluth, Minnesota 55802
Robert L. Lines, Supervisor PHONE: 612/348-2637
Pollution Control Division
Department of Inspections
220 Grain Exchange
Minneapolis, Minnesota 5 5415
SAINT PAUL
Ken Dzugan, Director PHONE: 612/298-5521
City of St. Paul
Pollution Control Service
100 East 10th Street
St. Paul, Minnesota 55101
********* *MISSISSIPPI
JACKSON
Volney J. Cissna, Jr. AIP PHONE: 601/354-2336
Assistant Planning Director
210 South President
P. O. Box 22568
Jackson, Mississippi 39205
**********MISSOURI
INDEPENDENCE
William Stepp PHONE: 816/836-8300
Director of Health
103 N. Main Street
Independence, Missouri 64050
149
-------
KANSAS CITY
Glen J. Hopkins PHONE: 816/274-2474
Spedal Assistant to City Manager
29th Floor, City Hall
Kansas City, Missouri 64106
SPRINGFIELD
Joe Allen, Chief PHONE: 417/865-1611
Air Pollution Control Authority
City Hall, 800 Boonville Avenue
Springfield, Missouri 65802
ST. LOUIS
John S. Schilling
Assistant Health Commissioner
Bureau of Environmental Health Services
St. Louis, Missouri 63103
**********MONTANA
Larry L. Lloyd, Chief
Occupational Health Bureau
Department of Health & Environmental Sciences
Cogswell Building
Helena, Montana 59621
***** NEBRASKA
J. L. Higgins, Director PHONE: 402/471-2186
Department of Environmental Control
P. O. Box 94653, St House Station
Lincoln, Nebraska 68509
LINCOLN
Gary L. Walsh, Chief PHONE: 402/475-6221
Air Pollution Control Section
2200 St. Marys Avenue
Lincoln, Nebraska 68502
150
-------
**********NEVADA
Lt. Col. Bernard Dehl PHONE: 702/882-7351
Assistant Chief Nevada Highway Patrol
555 Wright Way
Carson City, Nevada 89701
LAS VEGAS
Robert C. Clemmer PHONE: 702/386-6011
Supervisor of Zoning
Department of Community Development
400 E. Stewart Avenue
Las Vegas, Nevada 89101
RENO
Brian Wright, Acting Director PHONE: 702/785-4246
Division of Environmental Protection
Washoe County District Health Department
lOKirman Avenue
Reno, Nevada 89502
**********NEW HAMPSHIRE
Forrest Bumford, Director PHONE: 603/271-2281
Occupational Health
State Laboratory Building
Hazen Drive
Concord, New Hampshire 03301
**********NEW JERSEY
Edward J. Di Polvere PHONE: 609/292-7695
Supervisor of Noise Control Office
Department of Environmental Protection
Box 2807
Trenton, New Jersey 08625
CLIFTON
Stuart B. Palfrey man
Health Officer
Health Department
Clifton Health Department
Clifton, New Jersey 07011
151
-------
NEWARK
James Buford, Director
Department of Health & Welfare
City Hall, Room 210
Newark, New Jersey 07102
**********NEW MEXICO
L.Garcia PHONE: 505/827-5273
Environmental Scientist
Occupational/Radiation Division
Environmental Improvement Division
P. O. Box 2348
Sante Fe, New Mexico 87501
**********NEW YORK
Dr. Fred G. Haag, Director PHONE: 518/457-1005
Noise Bureau
Environmental Conservation Department
50 Wolf Road
Albany, New York 12201
Peter Mancuso, Director
Division of Noise Enforcement
Environmental Protection Administration
120 Wall Street
New York, New York 10005
NASSAU COUNTY
Michael G. Mavleos PHONE: 516/535-3232
Noise Control Unit
Department of Health
Nassau County
240 Old County Road
Mineola,N. Y. 11501
NEW ROCHELLE
Sgt. Frederic J. Welsh PHONE: 914/632-2021
Police Department
90 Beaufort Place
New Rochelle, N. Y. 10801
152-
-------
Peter Mancuso
Division of Noise Enforcement
120 Wall Street
New York, N. Y. 10005
NIAGARA FALLS
Niagara Falls Police Department
Niagara Falls, N. Y. 14302
SCHENECTADY
John E. Matthews PHONE: 518/393-6661
Schenectady County Planning Department
620 State Street
Schenectady, N. Y. 12307
YONKERS
Richard Paccione, PE
Bureau of Environmental Protection
87 Nepperman Avenue
Yonkers, N. Y. 10701
**********NORTH CAROLINA
Roy Paul
Environmental Planner
Office of State Planning
116 West Jones Street
Raleigh, North Carolina 27603
CHARLOTTE
Dale W. Long, Chief PHONE: 704/374-2271
Zoning Inspector
Inspection Department
City of Charlotte
City Hall, 600 East Trade Street
Charlotte, North Carolina 28202
DURHAM
T. L. McPherson
Administrative Assistant, City Hall
City of Durham
Durham, North Carolina 27702
153
-------
GREENSBORO
Greensboro Police Department
Greensboro, North Carolina 27402
RALEIGH
Robert Goodwin PHONE: 919/755-6370
Chief of Police
P. O. Box 590
Raleigh, North Carolina 27602
WINSTON-SALEM
Orville W. Powell
City Manager
City of Winston-Salem
Winston-Salem, North Carolina 27102
********* *OHIO
Dr. Ira L. Whitman PHONE: 614/469-3543
Ohio Environmental Protection Agency
Box 1049
450 E. Town Street
Columbus, Ohio 43216
AKRON
John D. Morley, M.D.
Director of Health
Department of Public Health
177 S. Broadway
Akron, Ohio 44308
CINCINNATI
Charles H. Lenzer, Acting Assistant Comm. PHONE: 513/352-3158
Environmental Control Consumer Protection
Cincinnati Health Department
3101 Burnet Avenue
Cincinnati, Ohio 45229
CLEVELAND
BoydT. Marsh PHONE: 216/694-2304
Deputy Health Commissioner
for Environmental Health
1925 St. Clair Avenue
Cleveland, Ohio 44114
154
-------
COLUMBUS
George K. Hodge PHONE: 614/461-7433
Superintendent
Department of Public Safety
181 S. Washington Boulevard
Columbus, Ohio 43215
DAYTON
Francis G. Cash PHONE: 513/225-5126
Zoning Administrator
City of Dayton
101 W. Third Street
Dayton, Ohio 45402
PARMA
Envor S. Kerr, Jr. PHONE: 216/886-2323
Director of Public Safety
6611 Ridge Road
Parma, Ohio 44129
SPRINGFIELD
Springfield Police Department
Springfield, Ohio 45501
TOLEDO
Paul D. Findlay, Director PHONE: 419/255-1500
Pollution Control Agency
26 Main Street
Toledo, Ohio 43605
YOUNGSTOWN
Fred P. Vicarel PHONE: 216/744-8989
Chief of Sanitary Police
Board of Health
City Hall
Youngstown, Ohio 44503
155
-------
** ***OKLAHOMA
Dale McHard, Chief PHONE: 405/271-5221
Occupational Rad Health Services
State Department of Health
Northeast 10th & Stonewall
Oklahoma,City, Oklahoma 73105
LAWTON
Francis P. Pondrom PHONE: 405/357-6100
Community Development
Lawton, Oklahoma 73501
OKLAHOMA CITY
Ivan B. Smith, Chief PHONE: 405/427-8651
Occupational Rad Health Section
Oklahoma CityCounty Health Department
Box 53445, 921 N.E. 23
Oklahoma City, Oklahoma 73105
TULSA
George W. Prothro, M.D.
Director
Tulsa City-County Health Department
P. O. Box 4650
Tulsa, Oklahoma 74104
**********OREGON
John Hector, Chief PHONE: 503/229-5284
Noise Pollution Control Section
Department of Environmental Quality
1234 S.W. Morrison Street
Portland, Oregon 97205
EUGENE
Police Department
Dale Allen, Chief
Eugene, Oregon 97401
156
-------
PORTLAND
Dr. Paul Herman PHONE: 503/248-4465
Acoustical Project Manager
Bureau of Neighborhood Environment
2040 S.E. Powell Boulevard
Portland, Oregon 97202
**********PENNSYLVANIA
Clark L. Gaulding, Director PHONE: 717/787-9702
Bureau Air Quality & Noise Control
Department of Environmental Resources
Box Number 2063
Harrisburg, Pennsylvania 17120
ALLENTOWN
George S. Smith, M.D. PHONE: 215/437-7759
Medical Director
Bi-City Health Bureau
435 Hamilton Street
Allentown, Pennsylvania 18101
PITTSBURGH
Richard J. Goff PHONE: 412/355-4030
Noise Control Specialist
Allegheny County Health Department
649 City-County Building
Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania 15219
READING
Reading Police Department
Reading, Pennsylvania 19601
SCRANTON
Richard L. Huber, M.D.
Director of Public Health
Scranton, Pennsylvania 18503
157
-------
**********RHODE ISLAND
James E. Hickey
Department of Health
Davis Street
Providence, Rhode Island 02908
PAWTUCKET
Eugene J. Jeffers, P. E. PHONE: 401/728-0500
City Engineer
Engineering Department
137 Roosevelt Avenue
Pawtucket, Rhode Island 02860
PROVIDENCE
Vincent Di Mase, P. E.
Director, Department of Building Inspection
112 Union Street
Providence, Rhode Island 02903
WARWICK
William Costello, Building Inspector PHONE: 401/737-2211
Department Building Inspection
City Hall
Warwick, Rhode Island 02886
**********SOUTH CAROLINA
Johnnie W. Smith, Director PHONE: 803/758-8950
Division of Noise Control
Department of Health & Environmental
Control
2600 Bull Street
Columbia, South Carolina 29201
COLUMBIA
James M. Norton PHONE: 803/765-1041
Pollution Control Official
P.O.Box 147
Columbia, South Carolina 29217
158
-------
***********TENNESSEE
Joel Barnett, Engineer PHONE: 615/741-3651
Air Pollution Control Division
Department of Public Health
C2-212 Cordell Hull Building
Nashville, Tennessee 37219
***********TEXAS
ABILENE
Abilene Police Department
Abilene, Texas 79604
AMARILLO
Amarillo City Building Office
Amarillo, Texas 79101
AUSTIN
Stuart Henry, Director PHONE: 512/472-6981
Office of Environmental Resource
Management
P.O.Box 1088
Austin, Texas 78767
CORPUS CHRISTI
W. R. Metzger, M. D. M.P.H.
Director, Corpus ChristiNueces County
Department of Public Health & Welfare
P. O. Box 49
Corpus Christi, Texas 78403
DALLAS
Larry J. Freeman, Deputy Director PHONE: 214/638-7670
Environmental Conservation Division
Public Health Department
193 6 Amelia Court
Dallas, Texas 75235
EL PASO
J. M. Shoults, P.E.
El Paso City County Health Department
El Paso, Texas 79901
R. E. Minnie
Chief of Police
El Paso, Texas 79901
159
-------
FORT WORTH
Fort Worth Police Department
HOUSTON
John V. Combi, Acting Director PHONE: 713/222-4305
Occupational Health & Radiation Control
Houston Health Department
1115N. MacGregor
Houston, Texas 77025
LUBBOCK
Jim Newsome
City Managers Office
P. O. Box 2000
Lubbock, Texas 79549
PASADENA
E. J. Wheeler PHONE: 713/477-1511
Assistant City Attorney
P. O. Box 672
1221 E. Sbuthmore
Pasadena, Texas 77501
SAN ANTONIO
City Planning Commission
Building and Planning Administration
Department
San Antonio, Texas
**********VIRGINIA
Bryce P. Schofield, Director PHONE: 804/770-6285
Bureau of Industrial Hygiene
Department of Health
109 Governor Street
Richmond, Virginia 23219
ARLINGTON
Joseph S. Wholey, Chairman
Arlington County Board
Court House
Arlington, Virginia 22201
160
-------
HAMPTON
P. C. Minetti PHONE: 804/722-2535
Chief of Police
City Hall
Hampton, Virginia 23369
NORFOLK
Donald W. Mathias PHONE: 804/441-2821
Environmental Monitor
Department of Community Improvement
City Hall
Norfolk, Virginia 23501
VIRGINIA BEACH
Charles C. Carrington
Planning Director
Administration Building
Virginia Beach, Virginia 23456
**********WASHINGTON
Larry Ikenberry PHONE: 206/753-6867
Department of Ecology
Olympia, Washington 98504
TACOMA
Russell C. Buehler PHONE: 206/593-4170
Director of Planning
Room 335, County-City Building
930 Tacoma Avenue South
Tacoma, Washington 98402
SEATTLE
Mike Ruby, P.E.
Department Community Development
Police Department
306 Cherry Street
Seattle, Washington 98104
SPOKANE
F. S. Fulwiler, City Manager
Room 602, City Hall
Spokane, Washington 99201
161
-------
**********WEST VIRGINIA
Harvey J. Roberts, Director PHONE: 304/348-3526
Bureau of Industrial Hygiene
W. Va. Department of Health
7800 E. Washington Street
Charleston, West Virginia 25305
********* *WISCONSIN
Brooks Becker, Director
Bureau of Air Pollution Control
Solid Waste Management
Department Natural Resources, Box 450
Madison, Wisconsin 53701
KENOSHA
O. Fred Nelson, General Manager PHONE: 414/658-13 74
Kenosha Water Utility
Kenosha Municipal Building
625 - 52nd Street
Kenosha, Wisconsin 53140
MADISON
David C. Couper PHONE: 608/266-4275
Chief of Police
211 S. Carroll Street
P.O.Box 1188
Madison, Wisconsin 53703
MILWAUKEE
George A. Kupfer, Superintendent PHONE: 414/278-3676
Bureau of Consumer Protection and
Environmental Health
Room 105, Municipal Building
841 N. Broadway
Milwaukee, Wisconsin 53202
RACINE
Dr. Ferrazdano PHONE: 414/636-9204
Racine Health Department
Racine, Wisconsin, 53203
162
-------
**********DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA PHONE: 202/629-2128
David N. Staples, Chief
Industrial Hygiene Division
Department of Environmental Services
801 North Capitol Street
Room 773
Washington, D.C. 20002
**********PUERTO RICO
Santos Rohena, Jr.
Assoc., Director Solid Waste
Environmental Quality Board
c/o Office of the Governor
Commonwealth of Puerto Rico
San Juan, Puerto Rico 06901
***********VIRGIN ISLANDS
Donald C. Francois PHONE: 809/774-3411
Assistant Director
Environmental Health
P. O. Box 1442
St. Thomas, Virgin Islands 00801
163
-------
TECHNICAL REPORT DATA
(Please read Instructions on the reverse before completing)
1. REPORT NO.
FPA ^n/Q_75-nQ6
2.
4. TITLE AND SUBTITLE
State and Municipal Noise Control Activities,
1Q71-1Q74
7. AUTHOR(S)
Office of Noise Abatement and Control
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
9. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION NAME AND ADDRESS
12. SPONSORING AGENCY NAME AND ADDRESS
3. RECIPIENT'S ACCESSION-NO.
5. REPORT DATE
January TQ7fi
6. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION CODE
8. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION REPORT NO.
10. PROGRAM ELEMENT NO.
11. CONTRACT/GRANT NO.
13. TYPE OF REPORT AND PERIOD COVERED
14. SPONSORING AGENCY CODE
15. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES
16. ABSTRACT
Presented is an assessment of 1973-1974 State and municipal environment noise
control efforts based on an EPA survey of States and municipalities with population
greater than 75,000. This assessment is designed to provide an overall perspective
of the composition and scope of noise control efforts. Areas covered are:
organization and orientation of noise control efforts, enforcement, budgetary data,
personnel, equipment, program problems and application of technical assistance.
The survey results have been used by EPA/ONAC as a guide in the present
technical assistance program. This document has been perpared primarily as a
planning and reference guide for public administrators and other officials engaged
in the development and implementation of environmental noise control programs.
17.
KEY WORDS AND DOCUMENT ANALYSIS
DESCRIPTORS
b.lDENTIFIERS/OPEN ENDED TERMS
c. COS AT I Field/Group
Budget, enforcement, equipment, legislat"
municipalities, noise control, organiza-
tion, personnel, programs, States,
technical assistance
on
18. DISTRIBUTION STATEMENT
19. SECURITY CLASS (ThisReport)
21. NO. OF PAGES
20. SECURITY CLASS (Thispnge)
114-
22. PRICE
EPA Form 2220-1 (9-73)
U. S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE : 1976 622-582/406
------- |