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 standards—the 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 1974-1975—continued
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 section—Enforcement 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
           City—County 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 City—County 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 Christi—Nueces 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

-------