NTID300.8
STATE AND MUNICIPAL NON-OCCUPATIONAL
NOISE PROGRAMS
DECEMBER 31, 1971
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Washington, D.C. 20460
-------
NTID300.8
STATE AND MUNICIPAL NON-OCCUPATIONAL
NOISE PROGRAMS
DECEMBER 31, 1971
Prepared by
for the
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Noise Abatement and Control
Washington, D.C. 20460
-------
CONTENTS
Page
INTRODUCTION 1
SUMMARY 2
Current Programs 2
Research and Testing Facilities 3
Current Funding 3
Estimate of Potential Nationwide Budget of State and City
Non-Occupational Noise Programs 4
Potential Use of Federal Funds 6
CONCLUSIONS 7
RECOMMENDATIONS 8
CATEGORIZATION OF RESPONSES 9
Question 1 9
Question 2 9
Question 3 10
Question 4 10
Question 5 11
Question 6 11
Question 7 12
Question 8 13
Appendix A DEMOGRAPHIC DATA
Appendix B CITY RESPONSE SUMMARY CHART
Appendix C STATE RESPONSE SUMMARY CHART
111
-------
INTRODUCTION
This document is a report on state and municipal government non-
occupational noise abatement and control programs prepared from informa-
tion obtained in response to a questionnaire disseminated by the Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA). The questionnaire and a letter of inquiry were part
of a study to establish the national need for legislation and research concern-
ing noise abatement and control. They were forwarded by the EPA Adminis-
trator to the governors of each state (including Guam, Puerto Rico, the Virgin
Islands) and the mayors of the 153 cities having populations, as of 1970, of
100, 000 or more. The questionnaire requested information concerning the
level and scope of existing and planned noise abatement and control programs.
It furthermore solicited opinions on what additional support programs could
be developed by the Federal government. Described herein are the replies
of 114 mayors and of 41 governors.
The responses to each of eight questions have been categorized. The
results are first summarized and then discussed separately for each ques-
tion. Specific demographic data is presented in Appendix A. Because the
categorization process removes the identity of the respondents, appendices
B and C present the responses made by each city and state, respectively.
The numerical code representing specific cities or states corresponds to
their population rank number. Also included is a geographical map indicating
where noise abatement programs do and do not exist. Appendix D contains
the letter of inquiry and the actual responses of the various governments.
Because some of the information contained in the replies was non-specific,
every city or state that responded may .not be represented in each class of
categorization or may be represented in several categories.
1
-------
SUMMARY
Since only recently has noise abatement and control received broad
national attention, it is not surprising that approximately half of the states
and cities do not have an agency responsible for noise abatement programs.
Of those cities and states that did have a class of programs, responsibility
for these programs is fragmented throughout several agencies. With few
exceptions, these programs are effectuated by an on-demand, part-time
staff, often deficient in acoustical expertise and drawn from several agencies.
Perhaps as a function of the local nature of may noise- problems, a greater
percentage of the cities, as compared to the states, have specific noise pro-
grams and personnel assigned to them on a continuous basis. Thus, state and
city governments are only beginning to deal with noise and, with few excep-
tions, are in the exploratory stages of developing a program to deal with the
Current Programs
Most current programs are devoted to:
• Increased enforcement of existing nuisance ordinances.
• Establishment of governmental channels to respond to individual
complaints.
• Studies and surveys of noise related issues in order to develop en-
forceable model laws, regulations and ordinances that will include
specific criteria and noise level standards for facility and community
r equir em ents.
-------
The few exceptional situations in which specific noise standards and
regulations (as opposed to general nuisance ordinances) have been promul-
gated and enforced, include:
• Control of highway vehicular noise according to noise level standards.
• Restriction of the time of day during which scheduled airlines may
use airport facilities.
• Prohibition, in terms of both sales and use, of specific recreational
vehicles in wilderness areas.
Research and Testing Facilities
Those agencies carrying out noise related activities have equipment
ranging from a single sound level meter to several sets of equipment, including
a spectrum analyzer and several cars. As an exceptional example, the Cali-
fornia Highway Patrol is extensively equipped to monitor noise. During a
12-month period (1970-71), the noise levels of 1 million highway vehicles
were monitored.
Current Funding
In most cases, funding for non-occupational noise abatement is part of
the operational budget of several agencies within a government and not spe-
cifically allocated to a program of noise abatement. However, for five cities
allocating funds specifically for noise abatement programs, the cost of current
programs is approximately $. 02 to $. 04 per resident person per year as shown
in Table 1.
-------
Table 1
BUDGET OF CURRENT (1971) NOISE ABATEMENT
PROGRAMS IN FIVE CITIES
Program Cost
Approx, Pop. Per Resident
City (1,000,000) (cents)
New York, N. Y. 8. 0 4
Boston, Mass. 0.6 4
Columbia, S. C. 0. 1 2
Fremont, Calif.. 0. 1 2
Philadelphia, Pa. 1.9 1.6
Two states with noise abatement programs, Illinois and California, have
allocated respectively $. 01 and $. 025 per resident. Although a few local
governments have estimated future budgetary requirements (New York City
has $1 million budgeted for 1973. . . $. 12 to $. 15 per resident), most did
not have available an estimate of cost for noise abatement programs.
Estimate of Potential Nationwide Budget of State and City Non-Occupational
Noise Programs
The 1970 census shows that cities of 100, 000 population and over contain
a total of 52 million people. If it is assumed that the governments of such
areas will be concerned with noise control programs and that the estimate of
program cost is $0.02 to $0. 15 cents per person, then a crude estimate of a
nationwide budget for non-occupational noise control of local governments of
cities of 100, 000 or over is 1 to $7. 8 million per year. When the fact is con-
sidered that urbanized areas of the U. S. (cities of 50, 000 or over plus the
densely settled adjoining areas) contain 118 million people, an estimate of this
-------
budget increases to $2 to $17 million per year. Based on an estimate of
$. 01 and $. 025 per person, the state contributed budget throughout the
country could be $2 to $5.5 million.
Thus, based on the existing budgets of state and local governments
already actively addressing the noise problem and by extrapolating this in-
formation to the population throughout the country, a crude estimate of the
possible state and local government budget that would be devoted to the initial
stages of noise abatement and control could range from $3 to $22. 5 million
per year, as summarized in Table 2.
Table 2
CRUDE ESTIMATE OF POTENTIAL NATIONWIDE BUDGET OF
STATE AND CITY NON-OCCUPATIONAL NOISE CONTROL
PROGRAMS
Nationwide
Bases of Estimate Budget/person ,/^f * .
(dollar) ($ million)
Population*
Type of Area (million)
Cities over 100,000 52 . 02 - . 15 1 *-' 7.8
Urbanized areas (which 118 .02 - . 15 2 ^-' 17.0
include cities 100,000
& over)
13)
States 203 .01 - . 025 2 - 5.5
Total range 3 - 22. 5
(D-K2)
* 1970 census
It would appear, however, from the general fragmented nature of the
existing state and local noise programs, coupled with the generally reported
opinion that effectiveness of programs could not be evaluated, that the estimate
-------
of a potential state and local budget ranging from $3 to $22. 5 million is less
than the lower bound needed to achieve comprehensive and effective programs.
Potential Use of Federal Funds
Because of the difficulty of enforcing nuisance laws, most city and state
governments would prefer Federal funds be used to develop criteria based
on such issues as land use and human response to noise. This would allow
those governments to develop and implement meaningful programs in 3 to 5
years.
6
-------
CONCLUSIONS
Over half of the states and half of the cities have no agency assigned
the responsibility for noise abatement.
Of those local governments that did have some class of programs,
responsibility is fragmented throughout several agencies.
Reflecting the local nature of many noise problems, a greater
percentage of the cities as compared to the states have specific noise
programs and personnel assigned to them on a continuous basis.
The broad power given to the courts under the general category of
nuisance laws has had limited success in reducing noise. However,
most local governments feel that if noise criteria, involving such
issues as land use and human response to noise were available in
measurable terms, they could develop and implement more mean-
ingful programs regarding local requirements within 3 to 5 years.
Those governments having active programs have noted that Federal
funds would be used to improve staffs and facilities and to enlarge
the scale of activities.
Reflecting the recent concern for noise problems, local programs have
been initiated within the last 1 to 2 years. Their success has not been
evaluated as yet. It should be noted that in a 12-month period during
1970 and 1971, California, having promulgated noise standards for
road vehicles, measured the sound level of 1 million highway vehicles.
-------
RECOMMENDATIONS
Criteria for the effects of noise should be established.
Model ordinances that may be adapted by local governments for their
own requirements should be developed.
An accessible channel for exchange of information between govern-
ments that have undertaken programs and those just beginning should
be established and continued.on a cooperative basis.
A program of technical information assistance and education should
be established.
8
-------
CATEGORIZATION OF RESPONSES
Question 1: What agency, bureau, or commission is responsible for
establishing noise abatement and control programs and budget requirements,
their implementation and monitoring?
Table 1
RESPONSIBLE AGENCIES
Response
None
Health Dept.
Public Works:
Bldg. Inspection
and Safety
Environmental
Noise Abatement
General City or
State Govt.
Cities
61
21
19
10
2
4
States
23
12
8
-
1
Table 1 shows that over half the respondent have no agency assigned the
responsibility of a noise abatement program. Of those cities and states having
programs, responsibility is often fragmented throughout several agencies.
Question 2; What is the total number and classification of personnel con-
tinuously employed (in noise abatement)?
With few exceptions, noise programs are staffed with individuals drawn
part time or on-demand from the responsible agencies and are provided
-------
little administrative assistance. The professional fields of such personnel
range from air pollution control aides and building inspectors to industrial
hygienists, with few trained in acoustics.
Question 3: What special facilities and equipment have been or are being
purchased? For what purpose and at what cost?
The nature of the replies indicates that little equipment is known to be
available and that it is used only periodically and not on a program basis.
Table 2
EQUIPMENT
Response
None (not stated)
Sound level meter
Meter with octave
band analyzer
More than above
Cost
($100)
2-4
12-15
20-185
Cities
37 (?)
11
3
13
States
12 (9)
4
2
5
Question 4: What is the current total annual operating budget for the
responsible agency, bureau or commission? If possible, indicate past 3 to 5
years expenditures and future planned annual expenditures (for noise programs).
The replies to this question reflect the recent nature of concern with solv-
ing noise abatement and control problems. As a result, although funds may
be available through the operating budgets of the responsible agencies, few
cities or states have funds allocated specifically to noise programs.
10
-------
Question 5: What is the nature of programs undertaken (e. g. noise level
monitoring, noise abatement and control, etc.)? Indicate objectives.
Most respondents, with some form of noise program, are at the level of
assessing the problem, in the form of surveys and studies and are providing
governmental channels for responding to individual complaints, while attempt-
ing to develop noise criteria and enforceable laws, regulations, and ordinances.
Several cities have begun to enforce existing land use zoning noise ordinances,
while metropolitan agencies dealing with aircraft noise have begun programs
of limiting the time of day for scheduled airport use. Some states have begun
to prohibit the use of specific recreational vehicles in wilderness areas and
to enforce recently promulgated state laws having vehicular noise level stand-
ards.
Table 3
PROGRAMS
Response
Complaint answer
Survey /monitoring
Developing ordinance
Enforcing ordinance
Research (Training)
Public Education
Cities
22
15
11
11
14(1)
3
States
3
3
8
3
6
5
Question 6; What success have you had with your programs? Which have
been successful? Which have not had anticipated benefits? On what basis is
success or failure evaluated, i.e., what criteria are used?
The criteria of success cited were: lowering of noise levels, compli-
ance, and citations held up in court. Most of the difficulty in achieving some
11
-------
measure of success was the qualitative phraseology of nuisance ordinances,
whereby enforcement is based on subjective opinion rather than on standard
measurement based on specific noise level criteria for various land use con-
texts. It should be noted, however, that nuisance law phraseology allows
broad powers to be used at the discretion of the court.
Table 4
PROGRAM SUCCESS
Response
Successful
Unsuccessful
Undetermined
Cities
15
7
47
States
6
1
25
Question 7: By what authority are noise abatement and control programs
funded and undertaken?
The authority is disparate. It is, however, oriented toward existing
ordinance enforcement within the cities and toward the development of model
laws within the states that would allow existing agencies to function on the
basis of objective standards.
Table 5
FUNDING AUTHORITY FOR CITIES
Response
Cities
City Council
Nuisance ordinances
Noise ordinances
Air pollution code
State
Administrative budget
14
16
3
1
9
6
12
-------
Table 6
FUNDING AUTHORITY FOR STATES
Response
Agency Statues:
Health, Sanitary
Engineering,
Public Works
Air & Water Pollution
Control Board
Environmental Legisla-
tion
Bureau of Air Quality
& Noise
Cities
19
Question 8; How might additional funds furnished by the Federal Govern-
ment be employed to abate and control noise? What results could be expected
and in what time period?
Federal funds could be used for personnel, research, equipment, and
public education and in general support of existing ordinance enforcement and
development of model ordinances. Although a time scale of 3 to 5 years was
often mentioned, no clear estimates of the level of results as a function of
available funds and personnel was presented.
13
-------
Table 7
POTENTIAL USE OF FEDERAL FUNDS BY CITIES
Response
Research
Equipment
Personnel (Hire)
Personnel (Train)
Matching funds
Other (e. g. , public
education)
No proposal
Cities
With
Programs
17
24
20
8
2
27
1
Without
Programs
8
7
5
4
1
17
33
Table 8
POTENTIAL USE OF FEDERAL FUNDS BY STATES
Response
Research
Equipment
Personnel (Hire)
Personnel (Train)
Monitoring
Establish Control Program
EPA Demonstration for
Model Law
Prepare Statutes
Matching Funds
Public Education
Other
No Proposal
States
With Program
5
8
7
3
2
4
1
1
-
2
3
8
Without Program
3
1
1
-
1
2
—
5
2
2
4
13
14
-------
Appendix A
DEMOGRAPHIC DATA
-------
Table A-l
RESPONSIBLE CITY AGENCIES & PROGRAM CLASSIFICATION*
Responsible
Agency
Number of Cities
Nature of Program
O
Population
(in 1, 000)
100-200
200-300
300-400
400-500
500-600
600-700
700-800
800-900
Total
Number
of Cities
90
15
17
5
8
5
5
2
(D
d
o
37
7
3
2
5
4
2
_
3
a
9)
ffi
9
-
5
1
2
-
1
2
d
o
:d
0
/I)
tv
/•^
f-H
M
5
•
bO
T3
rH
fl
14
1
1
*-
2
-
-
1
S d
_i 0)
rt d d
-u C G
d o d
(D +-> tj
nvironmi
oise Aba
ity Gove:
W 2 0
212
2-1
3-1
- - 1
- - -
1 - -
1 - -
_ _ _
Answer
^
•i-i
rt
i— i
A
a
o
U
11
3
3
-
1
-
1
1
nitoring
o
s
">^
£
*•<
0
CQ
5
-
3
-
1
-
1
i
Ordinani
00
d
U
0
r-H
0
>
(U
Q
3
1
2
-
2
1
-
_
Drdinanci
nforcing
W
7
1
1
1
-
1
-
_
Training^
*"~^
e search
«
6(1)
2
2
2
1
-
-
_
.cation
3
TJ
H
o
X
•§
ft
-
1
-
-
-
-
-
_
more 1,000 6
Total 153
_i JL _1 _L I -
61 22 19 10 2 5
-L -i -L _1 J: _i
22 15 11 11 14(1) 2
*Of a possible total of 153 cities whose population is over 100, 000, this
table is based on information from 114 cities.
-------
Table A-2
RESPONSIBLE AGENCIES AND INDIVIDUALS TO CONTACT
Rank City
1 New York, N. Y.
2 Chicago, 111.
3 Los Angeles, Gal.
4 Philadelphia, Pa.
5 Detroit, Mich.
6 Houston, Tex.
7 Baltimore, Md.
8 Dallas, Tex.
9 Washington, D. C.
10 Cleveland, Ohio
11 Indianapolis, Ind.
12 Milwaukee, Wise.
13 San Francisco, Cal.
14 San Diego Cal.
Responsible Agency
Bureau of Noise Abatement
Dept. of Air Resources
Department of Environmental
Control
Occupational & Radiological Health Sec,
Dept. Public Health
(Air Pollution Control Division
Wayne County Dept. of Health)
Public Health Engineering Div.
City of Houston Health Dept.
*
Baltimore City Health Dept.
Dallas City Health Dept.
Dept. of Environmental Services
Environ. Health Administration
Cleveland Div. of Health, Environmental
Health Services
(Police Dept. - Dept. Public Safety)
?
(Dept. Public Works)
None
Individual to Contact
Robert S. Bennin
Director
H. W. Poston
Commissioner
Norman R. Ingraham, M.D.
Commis s ioner
(Morton Sterling
Director)
Gerald E. Hord
Director
George W. Schucker, Asst.
Commissioner of Health
Hal J. Dewlett, M.D.
Director
Malcolm C. Hope, Director
Environmental Health
Bailus Walker, Jr. , Deputy
Health Commissioner for
Environmental Health
-------
Table A-2 (Contd. )
Rank City
15 San Antonio, Tex.
16 Boston, Mass.
17 Memphi s, T enn.
18 Sf. Louis, Mo.
19 New Orleans, La.
20 Phoenix, Ariz.
21 Columbus, Ohio
22 Seattle, Wash.
23 Jacksonville, Fla.
24 Pittsburgh, Pa.
25 Denver, Colo.
26 Kansas City, Mo.
27 Atlanta, Ga.
28 Buffalo, N. Y.
29 Cincinnati, Ohio
30 Nashville, Tenn.
31 San Jose, Cal.
32 Minneapolis, Minn.
Responsible Agency
None
Air Pollution Control Commission
(Police Dept. )
None
Dept. of Safety & Permits
(Police, Building & Safety & Health Depts)
(Police)
(Police, Engineering, Health Depts. )
None
Allegheny Co. Health Dept.
None
None
City Board of Aldermen
(Common Council, Police)
?
None
Santa Clara Col Health Dept.
(Air Pollution Control Div. of Dept. of
Inspections)
Individual to Contact
David Standley, Exec. Director
George S. Lovejoy, Dir.
Health Dept,
Bernard B. Levy, Chief Admin.
Officer - New Orleans
Steve Carter - Admin. Asst.
Charles R. DeVoss, Chief Air
Pollution Control Engineer
Frank B. Clark, Director
Mac Baggett, Director
T. W. Fletcher, City Manager
(Robert L. Lines, Supervisor)
-------
Table A-2 (Contd.)
Rank City
33 Ft. Worth, Tex.
34 Toledo, Ohio
35 Portland, Oregon
Responsible Agency
Health Dept.
Pollution Control Agency
Portland City Council
36 Newark, N. J. None
37 Oklahoma City, Okla. Health Dept.
38 Oakland, Cal. Alameda Co. Health Dept.
39 Louisville, Ky.
40 Long Beach, Cal.
41 Omaha, Nebraska
42 Miami, Fla.
43 Tulsa, Okla.
44 Honolulu, Hawaii
45 El Paso, Tex.
46 St. Paul, Minn.
47 Norfolk, Va.
48 Birmingham, Ala.
49 Rochester, N. Y.
None
?
Health Dept.
Dept. of Health (State)
Health Dept.
None
None
(Dept. of Environmental Health)
(Air Pollution Control Program
Monroe Co. Dept. of Health)
Individual to Contact
W. V. Bradshaw, Jr. , Director
Public Health
Ronald A. Buel, Administrative
Assistant
Ben H. Mathews, Chief Environ-
mental Services
Albert C. Zane, Director & Chief
Engineer, Dept. Public Works
John Morrison, -Sanitary Engineer
Robert R. Bouley P.E.
-------
Table A-2 (Contd.)
Rank City
50 Tampa, Fla.
51 Wichita, Kansas
52 Akron, Ohio
53 Tucson, Ariz.
• I :. '
54 Jersey City, N. J.
55 Sacramento, Cal.
56 Austin, Tex.
57 Richmond, Va.
58 Albuquerque, N. M.
59 Dayton, Ohio
60 Charlotte, N. C.
6l St. Petersburg, Fla.
62 Corpus Christi, Tex.
63 Yonkers, N. Y.
64 Des Moines, Iowa
65 Grand Rapids, Mich.
66 Syracuse, N. Y.
Resonsible Aency
Individual to Contact
None
City Manager's Office
?
None
None
Air Pollution Control Bureau in Dept. of
Safety
Dept. of Environ. Health
None
None
None
None
Bureau of Environmental Protection
Dept. of Development
None
• •*
?
None
Thomas E, Doran, Admin.
Asst. - Research & Evalua.
Jack Fulton, Director, Public
Safety
Victor R. Bickel, Director
-------
Table A-2 (Contd.)
Rank City
67 Flint, Mich.
68 Mobile, Ala.
69 Shreveport, La.
70 Warren, Mich.
71 Providence, R.I.
72 Ft. Wayne, Ind.
73 Worcester, Mass.
74 Salt Lake City, Utah
75 Gary, Indiana
76 Knoxville, Tenn.
77 Madison, Wise.
78 Virginia Beach, Va.
79 Spokane, Wash.
80 Kansas City, Kansas
81 Anaheim, Cal.
82 Fresno, Cal.
83 Baton Rouge, La.
84 Springfield, Mass.
Responsible Agency
(Dept. Public Works)
(Inspection Service Dept.)
?
(Div. Bldgs. & Safety Engineering)
(Dept. Bldg. Inspection)
None
Div. Air Pollution Control
Dept. Public Health
?
(Police)
(Police)
(Police)
(Police)
(Police)
None
(Bldg. Safety, Zoning & Planning Div.)
City Council
(Dept. Public Works)
(Planning, Bldg. , Police, Public Health)
Individual to Contact
Paul Van Den Braden, Director,
Dept. Public Services
Francis J. McGrath, City
Manager
Ted-C. Wills, Mayor
Stephen H. Pitkin, Planning
Director
-------
Table A-2 (Contd.)
.Rank City
85 Hartford, Conn.
86 Santa Ana, Cal.
87 Bridgeport, Conn.
*>
88 Tacoma, Wash.
89 Columbus, Ga.
90 Jackson, Miss.
91 Lincoln, Neb.
92 Lubbock, Tex.
93 Rockford, 111.
94 Greensboro, N. C.
95 Paterson, N. J.
96 Riverside, Cal.
97 Youngstown, Ohio
98 Fort Lauderdale, Fla.
99 Evans ville, Ind.
100 Newport News, Va.
101 Hunts ville, Ala.
102 New Haven, Conn.
Responsible Agency
(City Council, Police)
None
(Mayor's Environ. Council)
(Police & Planning)
(State Health Dept.)
None
(Police, Bldg. Inspections)
(City Council)
None
None
Board of Health
None
None
Committee on Noise Control
Air Pollution Control Dept.
?
None
Individual to Contact
Jack McCarthy, Admin. &
Director - Air Pollution
Control
Dr. Allen Yager, Director
James L. Leavitt, Mayor
John E. Clausheide, Chief
(Mr. Deglas - Office of Air
Pollution)
-------
Table A-2 (Contd. )
Rank City
103 Colorado Springs, Colo.
104 Tor ranee, Cal.
105 Montgomery, Ala.
106 Winston-Salem, N. C.
107 Glendale, Cal.
108 Little Rock, Ark.
109 Lansing, Mich.
110 Erie, Pa.
Ill Amarillo, Tex.
112 Peoria, 111.
113 Las Vegas, Nev.
i
114 South Bend, Ind.
115 Topeka, Kansas
116 Garden Grove, Cal.
117 Macon, Ga.
118 Raleigh, N. C.
119 Hampton, Va.
120 Springfield, Mo.
Responsible Agency
Individual to Contact
None
None
None
(Environmental Development Dept. )
Clark Co. District Health Dept.
Pollution Control Board
None
Urban Development Office (under City
Manager)
(City Council/ Bldg. Inspect. Dept.)
None
City -Co. Health Dept.
-------
Table A-2 (Contd.)
Rank
121 Chattanooga, Tenn.
122 Savannah, Ga.
123 Berkeley, Cal.
124 Huntington Beach, Cal.
125 Beaumont, Tex.
126 Albany, N. Y.
127 Columbia, S. C.
128 Pasadena, Cal.
129 Elizabeth, N. J.
130 Independence, Mo.
131 Portsmouth, Va.
132 Alexandria, Va.
133 Cedar Rapids, Iowa
134 Livonia, Mich.
135 Canton, Ohio
136 Allentown, Pa.
137 Stamford, Conn.
138 Lexington, Ky.
139 Waterbury, Conn.
140 Hammond, Ind.
141 Stockton, Cal.
Responsible Agency
None
None
None
?
None
?
(Dept. Bldg. & Inspect. )
?
None
None
None
(Dept. Health, Environ. Control Div. )
None
Bureau of Inspect. - -Dept. Public Works
Individual to Contact
Health Dept.
None
?
(Health Dept. )
None
-------
Table A-2 (Contd. )
Rank City
141 Stockton, Cal.
142 Hollywood, Fla.
143 Trenton, N. J.
144 San Bernardino, Cal.
145 Dearborn, Mich.
146 Scranton, Pa.
147 Camden, N. J.
148 Hialeah, Fla.
149 New Bedford, Mass.
150 Fremont, Cal.
151 Duluth, Minn.
152 Cambridge, Mass.
153 Parma, Ohio
Responsible Agency
None
City Commission
?
None
None
None
(Environmental Quality Control Council)
Community Development Dept.
(under City Manager)
Individual to Contact
Robert L. Buschman
Public Works Director
-------
Table A-3
RESPONSIBLE STATE AGENCIES & PROGRAM CLASSIFICATION*
Responsible
Agency Nature of Program
Population
(in 1, 000)
300-900
900-1,000
1, 000-2,000
2, 000-3,000
3,000-4,000
4,000-6,000
6,000-11, 000
11,000-19,000
Total
Number
of States
11
2
6
7
8
7
4
5
50
d
0
6
2
3
3
2
4
2
1
23
ti Dept.
Inspection
*Tj ^
•-J bO
CO rrH
a) ^
ffi ffl
3 -
-
-
-
4 -
3 -
-
1 -
11 0
onmental
Abatement
Government
?H 0)
." 03 0)
> -H -*-1
d o jj
H a CQ
_
_
2 - -
1 - 1
2 - -
- - -
1 - -
2 - -
8 0 1
laint Answer
fj.m
a
o
0
-
-
1
-
-
-
-
1
2
bO
d
•i-i
o
HA
o
a)
CQ
-
-
1
-
-
1
-
1
3
.oping Ordinance
i— i
S
(U
P
2
-
-
2
-
1
2
1
8
cing Ordinance
J^
o
'S
H
-
-
-
-
-
2
-
1
3
'bO
d
d
• H
EH
o
rri
TO
(U
co
(U
1
-
-
2
1
-
1
1
6
t.|
0)
6
-
-
i
3
1
-
-
-
"5
*Of a possible total of 53 states and territories, this table is based on
information from 41 states.
-------
Table A-4
RESPONSIBLE AGENCIES AND INDIVIDUALS TO CONTACT
Rank State
1 California
2 New York
3 Pennsylvania
4 Texas
5 Illinois
6 Ohio
T? Michigan
8 New Jersey
9 Florida
10 Mas sachusetts
11 Indiana
12 North Carolina
13 Missouri
Responsible Agency
(Dept. Public Health)
Bureau of Air Quality & Noise Control
Dept. of Environmental Resources
None
Illinois Environmental Protection Agency
Division of Noise Pollution Control
None at present time
(Dept. of Environmental Protection
Div. of Environmental Quality)
Dept. of Air & Water Pollution Control
Bureau of Air Use Management, Div. of
Environmental Health, Dept. Public Health
(State Board of Health)
None
(Air Conservation Commission)
Individual to Contact
John M. Heslep, Ph.D., Deputy
Director for Environmental
Health & Consumer Protection
Victor H. Sussman, Director
John S. Moore, Div. Manager
Grant F. Walton, Director
Vincent D. Patton, Director
E. M. Comproni, Air Pollution
Control Engineer
Perry E. Miller, Asst. Com-
missioner for Environ. Health
Frederick W. Ott, Air Pollution
Control Engineer
-------
Table A-4 (Contd.)
Rank State
14 Virginia
15 Georgia
16 Wisconsin
17 Tennessee
18 Maryland
19 Minnesota
20 Louisiana
21 Alabama
^
22 Washington
2 3 Kentucky
24 Connecticut
25 Iowa
26 South Carolina
27 Oklahoma
Responsible Agency
(Health Dept.)
(Dept. Public Health)
None
None
Bureau of Consumer Health Protection
State Dept. Health & Mental Hygiene
Minn. Pollution Control Agency
Bureau of Health
None
?
(Dept. of Health)
Dept. of Environmental Protection
None
None
Dept. of Health
Individual to Contact
Gerald P. McCarthy, Exec.
Director, Council on the
Environ.
Neil Solomon, M. D. , Ph.D.
Sec. Health & Men. Hyg.
Edward M. Wiik, Director,
Div. Air Quality
Commissioner hasn't been
appointed
Lloyd F. Pummill, Deputy
Commissioner for Environ.
Services
-------
Table A-4 (Contd.)
Rank State
28 Kansas
29 Mississippi
30 Colorado
31 Oregon
32 Arkansas
33 Arizona
34 West Virginia
35 Nebraska
36 Utah
37 New Mexico
38 Maine
39 Rhode Island
40 Hawaii
41 New Hampshire
42 Idaho
43 Montana
44 South Dakota
45 North Dakota
Responsible Agency
?
None
None
Environ. Quality Commission
None
None
None
None
?
Environmental Improvement Agency
None
None
Dept. of Health
Div. Public Health
None
None
?
Dept. of Health
Individual to Contact
Larry J. Gordon, Director
W. Van Heuvelen, Chief Environ.
Health 8t Engineering Services
-------
Table A-4 (Contd. )
Rank State Responsible Agency Individual to Contact
46 Delaware None
47 Nevada None
48 Vermont None at present
49 Wyoming None
50 Alaska ?
-------
FIGURE A-1. NOISE ABATEMENT & CONTROL PROGRAMS FOR STATES & CITIES GREATER THAN 100,000
-------
Appendix B
CITY RESPONSE SUMMARY CHART
-------
CITY SUMMARY
POPULATION RANK
Agency Responsible for Noise Program
Health Dept.
Public Works: Bldq. Inspection & Safetv
Environmental
Noise Abatement
City Government
Personnel
Allocated to Responsible Agency
Allocated Specifically to Noise
Equipment { in S 100)
Sound Level Meter (2-4)
Meter with Octave Band Analyzer (12-15)
More than above (20-185)
Budget (in $1000)
For Responsible Agency
1968
1969
1970
1971
1972
Specifically for Noise
1968
1969
1970
1971
1972
Nature of Program
Complaint Answer
Survey/ monitoring
Developing ordinance
Enforcing ordinance
Research (Training)
Public Education
Other
PioyieNi Success
Successful
Unsuccessful
Undetermined
By What Authority Program Undertaken
City Council
Nuisance ordinances
Noise ordinances
Air Pollution Code
State
Administrative budget
Potential Un of Federal Funds
by Cities (With Program)
Research
Equipment
Personnel (hire)
Personnel (train)
Matching funds
Other (B.B.. public educ.)
No proposal
Potential U«e of Federal Funds
by Crocs (without Program)
Research
Equipment
Personnel (hire)
Personnel (train)
Matching funds
Other (e.q.. public educ.)
No proposal
s
\
•
•
25
ro cti
ft!
531S
--
•
PM
15 y^
5 '
• •
5 1
5
-ff^J^ 14
*f lj~ 26
*
•
•
•
•
•
•
r 2?
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
§
•
• •
U o ?
| 1 rfff !
• • * •
•
•
Some
PI ,faiv>
/ * -*|i
• • • • •
19
18
20
22 -&M
7
• • •
• • •
• •
• • •
•
•
1 • • •
• O
9 •
•
2 Milwaukee, Wise.
3 San Francisco, Calif.
4 San Diego, Calif.
5 San Antonio, Tex.
Pin
3 Par™
•
4
> • •
c
1 "1
I ill
Ssffi
•
3
Pwt
"*3
•
25
25
38
•
•
•
•
*
•
•
•
•
fO
c £
§11
1 °
Z f.
*
82
j
'
•
•
•
I
f)
4
I
»
O
ji
II
(J l/)
__
*
""•
7 •*
4
•
•
•
•j
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
3 Jacksonville, Fla. 1
4 Pittsburgh, Pa. 1
•
^
•
<*
'1
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
5 Denver, Colo. I
i Kansas City, Mo.
•
•
•
4
7 Atlanta, Ga.
CN
7
j?
•
•
•
4
9 Cincinnati, Ohio I
) Nashville-Davidson, Tenn. I
2b
•
•
•
•
31 San Jose, Calif. 1
32 Minneapolis, Minn. 1
__
•
9
•
242-
300
X
^~i
j
^
_ ix
~i
•
•
•
•
•
•
• •
V
•
•
•
L
—
4
4
0
•
3
.
•
1
1
S
1
1
•J
U
of t
1
1
f
•
»
»
•
»
•
•
•
»
V
•
14
•
•
*
•
•
•
0
0
D
D
o
S
7
4
•^
'
40 Long Beach, Calif. 1
<
-14
7I200
y
•$
*
«
•
•
f
tT
s
ro"
to
E
0
U.
1
i
N
UU|
AAJ
•
ra
O
a"
-
•
41
•
•
•
•
4 Honolulu, Hawaii 1
•*<
i
0
— \ -
Bl-
•
s
10
•
•
9
•
s
"1"
U5
§
»
1
ED
"o
r
0
Z
*
+
.
2
9
•
»
»
•
•
3
•
48 Birmingham, Ala. I
a
»
•
i
. (0 «
Z*
a|
« j
o «-
in it
1
.0
1
LA
•
53 Tucson, Ariz. 1
•
"•
•
•
•
•
•
*
54 Jersey City, NJ. 1
SB Sacramento, Calif. |
*
•
•
56 Austin, Tex. 1
•
57 Richmond, Va. 1
aj
*
41
•
•
58 Albuquerque, N. Mex. ]
«
r^
jf
A
•
•
•
•
•
•
O
6
c"
0
Q
S
I**
60 Charlotte, N.C. 1
61 St. Petersburg, Fla. 1
>9S
lf-
f"
•
•
x
u
U
VI
5
o
s
•
c
o
s
•
•
•
•
•
•
64 DesMoines, Iowa |
•
J
£
(i
ss
•
•
-------
68 Mobile, Ala. I
69 Shreveport, La. |
•
•
•
•
„
70 Warren, Mich. |
e
•
•
71 Providence, R.I. |
•
X
•
I
N
•
i
w
^
A
•
49
53
57
•
•
•
74 Salt Lake City, Utah 1
5-
C
O
A
/3
•
76 Knoxville, Tenn. ]
•
77 Madison, Wise. 1
0
•
•
•
1
TO
o>
a.
S
e
•
•
•
•
85 Hartford, Conn. |
J*
•
•
•
86 Santa Ana, Calif. |
1
•
87 Bridgeport, Conn. I
•
88 Tacoma, Wash. 1
••
89 Columbus, Ga. I
•
8
5
1
1
§
•
i
c
•
9
•
•
•
92 Lubbock, Tex. 1
•
93 Rocklord, III. 1
•
•
•
•
94 Greensboro, N.C. 1
•
z
1
1
to
O
~i
Jf
0
•
•
•
9
•
I
•c
1
S
V
•
97 Youngstown, Ohio |
n«
•
•
98 Ft. Lauderdale, Fla. 1
•
•
•
•
•
•
99 Evansville, Ind. 1
•
4
4C
4O
•
9
•
•
•
100 Newport News, Va. |
01 Huntsville, Ala. 1
•
•
•
•
•
•
02 New Haven, Conn. 1
03 Colorado Springs, Colo. 1
3
ra
O
S
•
•
41
•)
•
•
c
I
s
S
*
la
:c
08 Little Rock, Ark. 1
•
•s
i
I
C
_
S
£
S
UJ
o
s
0
E
ra
1
•>!
«
2
^
TO
•
*
*
*
•
si
i
v
114 South Bend, Ind.
3
c
Q
O
A
\jw
*
*
•
«
•
•
•
7
f
•
•
9
116 Garden Grove, Calif. I
c2
c
i
6
z
*
cc
OD
19 Hampton, Vd. |
20 "Springriefd7Mo. J
TT ^hattanooqa. term. "" "~1
22 Savannah, Ga. J
23 " "Berkeley, cTJTf" 1
2^ HuntinyTon B'each.CalYf
25 Beaumont, Tex.
26 "Afbanv, N.Y7
J :r
a: c
11
J!0-
z
30 Independence. Mo. "1
3 V "T'octlmouth" *Va".
"g:
*'
i i
I '
i ' i
0
•
•
•
-•
.
» i
!_, j_
TJ
-I
o'"S
|s
ll
ro'cn
1
o
1
;c
o
»
37 Stamford, Conn. J
38 ~L e x m qt on' Kv ~ \
39 Waterbury, Conn,
40 Hammond, Ind.
41 "Stock ton7Calif.
42 Hollywood, PlaT
43 Trenton. N.J.
44 San Bernardino, Calif.
45 Dearborn, Mich.
46 Scranton, Pa.
: ! i
*. .1
» r"
i »
-I--K
! • : • ' ' P
0
•
•
*
^
•
•
•
*
•
•
•
• •
| !
!»i ;
i :
*
•
•
H~
i
•
i
__| 18
5
E
4
1
»
I
»
!
0
-?—
/
>
«
•
•
•
•
^*
r-4-T
•
i
;
• i
i
•
•
*
•
j
•
•
•
:.
: ! ;
5.^ . «
u x z u. Q oa-
1*- CJ.Ol'o «- fN <*)
1 !
...,,, , .i | j
_ . «4_r -, .
i , ! | !
I
I I
•
/ I -,
if ^
*
|
I
•
~]
--U-
I
i : '
ot
: !
___•!•„
1
I
•
•
1 j
I 1 , !
1 • I
1 ' '
i :
|
%
•
•
1
•
•
•
•
i ' i
' i '
1 .
•--Hn
I i
i i
1
1
!
1.5
I.G
3
*
•
•
i
• •
*
I
! ;
!
ft
9
•
-------
Appendix C
STATE RESPONSE SUMMARY CHART
-------
STATE SUMMARY
POPULATION RANK
Agencv Responsible for Noise Program
Health Dept.
Public Works: Bldg. Inspection & Safety
Environmental
Noise Abatement
State Government
Personnel
Allocated to Responsible Agencv
Allocated Specifically to Noise
Equipment (in $100)
None (not stated)
Sound Level Meter (2-4)
Meter with Octave Band Analyzer (12-15)
More than above (20-185)
Budget (in 31 000)
For Responsible Agency
1968
1969
1970
1971
1972
Specifically for Noise
1968
1969
1970
1971
1972
Nature of Program
Complaint answer
Survey/monitoring
Developing ordinance
Enforcing ordinance
Research (Training)
Public Education
Other
Program Success
Successful
.—
u
•
^kj
•
500
•
•
2 New York . 1
3 Pennsylvania 1
•
8-10
?
•
•
•
to
X
0}
•
1
in
•
A
•
o
.c
O
(O
h
,-E
_F
i
u
s
fs.
6
+3
lor
nd
Y
72
w
I
165
•
!
•
•
i ;
CU
-»
Z
00
•
1
CO
•g
e>
•
•
•
0 Massachusetts 1
•
•
^
•
•
2
|
•
•
/
•
s
I
c.
e
o
'Z.
1.0
' ' : ' i
Unsuccessful '
Undetermined
By What Authority Program Undertaken
Agency Statutes: Health, Sanitary
Engineering, Public Works
Air & Water Pollution Control Board
Environmental Legislation
Bureau of Air Quality & Noise
Potential Use of Federal Funds
by States (With Program)
Research
Equipment
Personnel (hire)
Personnel (train)
Monitoring
Establish Control Program
EPA Demonstration for Model Law
Prepare Statutes
Matching Funds
Public Education
Other
No Proposal
Potential Use of Federal Funds
by States (Without Program)
Research
Equipment
Personnel (hire)
Personnel (train)
Monitoring
Establish Control Program
EPA Demonstration for Model Law
Prepare Statutes
Matching Funds
Public Education
Other
No Proposal
• •
» ; • t • •
I
*
•
' • ; *
— '*-
•
•
, >' , !
•
!
I
I
•
•
•
•
0
I
•
•
•
L_
•
1_
.?-
1
•
•
•
i
I
M
n
s
c
5>
[•{
n
O
10
,'
1
•
*J
6 Wisconsin 1
•
v
17 Tennessee 1
N
.11
.12
jq
I
1
£
CO
•
*
q
7
q
_| J45
2
19 Minnesota 1
•
•
M
'
•
i
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
I*
•
•
•
•
•
•
20 Louisiana I
•
i
m
•
to
<
«
1
1
SI
•
9
•
j
u
S3
,
9
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
24 Connecticut 1
e
•
ra
8
A
~f\
J'*'
•
•
•
•
•
•
26 South Carolina |
•
»
)3E
n
0
N
,
I*
•
•
•
•
1
S
,
29 Mississippi 1
30 Colorado 1
•
•'
i
0
e
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
<
8
§
9
•
s
o
<
8
1
>
1
s
{•j
m
1
.0
V
'Z.
8
2
Z)
S
T
O
1
i
z
£
•
0
ull
ilTM
•
(U
c
5
8
T3
C
fO
1
cr
%
^~
•
1
0
"i"
n
•
41 New Hampshire [
•
4
tf
•
•
O
.C
ra
TJ
S
+ <
or
ut
7f
£
s
1
3
o-
44 South Dakota |
45 North Dakota |
•
^
•
1
a
§
P
=>T
i
[ ,
75'
>
j : !
i
?1 1 7 ,
i i . :
•
•
•
•
•
•
1
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
32
84
80
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
CD
•2.
p-.
1
art
0}
>
§
ime
(•'
(.
i
•
•
•
•
•
D)
C
3
§
CO
•s
to
S
i ,
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
i
•
* U. S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE : 1972 O - 453-'481
------- |