EPA 550/9-75-023
FIRST REPORT ON STATUS AND PROGRESS
OF NOISE RESEARCH AND CONTROL PROGRAMS
IN THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT
JUNE 1975
VOLUME 1
REPORT ON STATUS AND PROGRESS
U. S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Washington, D. C. 20460
-------
EPA 550/9-75-023
FIRST REPORT ON STATUS AND PROGRESS
OF NOISE RESEARCH AND CONTROL PROGRAMS
IN THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT
JUNE 1975
VOLUME 1
REPORT ON STATUS AND PROGRESS
PREPARED BY
THE U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
OFFICE OF NOISE ABATEMENT AND CONTROL
This document has been approved for general availability. It does not
constitute a standard, specification, or regulation.
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Section Page
INTRODUCTION 1-1
2 OVERVIEW 2-1
EPA NOISE CONTROL PLANNING 2-1
REGULATORY ACTIONS 2-3
NONREGULATORY NOISE CONTROL PROGRAMS 2-5
RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT, AND DEMONSTRATION PROGRAMS 2-6
3 OVERALL EPA NOISE CONTROL PLANNING & FEDERAL INTER-
AGENCY RELATIONSHIPS 3-1
OVERALL CONCEPTS OF FEDERAL NOISE CONTROL ACTIVITY 3-I
AREAS OF FEDERAL AGENCY INTERACTION 3-6
4 STANDARDS AND REGULATIONS 4-1
IMPLEMENTATION OF THE NOISE CONTROL ACT OF 1972 4-1
DEPARTMENTAL AND AGENCY ACTIVITIES 4-15
STATUS OF RULE-MAKING IN FUNCTIONAL AREAS 4-15
5 NONREGULATORY NOISE CONTROL PROGRAMS 5-1
HEARING CONSERVATION PROGRAMS 5-2
NOISE ABATEMENT PROGRAMS 5-20
TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE 5-29
6 RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT, AND DEMONSTRATION PROGRAMS 6-1
RESEARCH AUTHORIZATIONS IN THE NCA 6-1
FEDERAL NOISE RESEARCH COORDINATION 6-2
FEDERAL NOISE EFFECTS RESEARCH 6-3
FEDERAL AIRCRAFT NOISE RD&D 6-6
FEDERAL SURFACE VEI-IICLE NOISE RD&D 6-10
FEDERAL MACHINERY NOISE RD&D 6-14
APPENDIX A - GUIDELINES FOR REPORTING FEDERAL PROGRAM A-I
INFORMATION
APPENDIX B - HEARING SURVEY QUESTIONNAIRE B-i
APPENDIX C - DESCRIPTION OF FEDERAL NOISE CONTROL C-i
PROGRAMS BY AGENCY
DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE (USDA) 0-2
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE (DOC) C-2
DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE (DOD) C-7
DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH, EDUCATION, AND WELFARE (HEW) C-26
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS (con’t)
Section Page
DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT (HUD) C-30
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR (DOl) C-34
DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE (DOJ) C-44
DEPARTMENT OF LABOR (DOL) C -45
DEPARTMENT OF STATE C-50
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION (DOT) C-SO
DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY C-57
ACTION C-62
ATOMIC ENERGY COMMISSION (AEC) C-62
CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION (CSC) C-63
CONSUMER PRODUCT SAFEtY COMMISSION (CPSC) C-64
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY (EPA) C-66
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION (FCC) C-89
FEDERAL DEPOSIT INSURANCE CORPORATION (FDIC) C-89
FEDERAL POWER COMMISSION (FPC) C-90
GENERAL SERVICES ADMINISTRATION (GSA) C-90
GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE (GPO) C-93
LIBRARY OF CONGRESS C-93
NATIONAL AERONAUTICS AND SPACE ADMINISTRATION (NASA) C-94
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD (NLRB) C-99
NATIONAL SCIENCE FOUNDATION (NSF) C -lOU
SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION (SEC) C- IOU
SELECTIVE SERVICE SYSTEM C-IOU
SMALL BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION (SBA) C- lOi
TENNESSEE VALLEY AUTHORITY (TVA) C-lOI
UNITED STATES POSTAL SERVICE C- lOS
VETERANS ADMINISTRATION (VA) C- 107
INTERNATIONAL ASPECTS OF NOISE-CONTROL RESEARCH
AND REGULATORY DEVELOPMENT C-i 09
U
-------
VOLUME 2
RESEARCH PANEL REPORTS
Appendix
D FEDERAL AIRCRAFT NOISE RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT,
AND DEMONSTRATION PROGRAMS: FY73—FY75, REPORT
EPA-600/2-7 5-003, PREPARED BY INTERAGENCY AIRCRAFT
NOISE RESEARCH PANEL, MARCH 1975
E FEDERAL SURFACE VEHICLE NOISE RESEARCH, DEVELOP-
MENT, AND DEMONSTRATION PROGRAMS: FY73—FY75,
REPORT EPA-600/2-75-002, PREPARED BY INTERAGENCY
SURFACE VEHICLE NOISE RESEARCH PANEL, MARCH 1975
F FEDERAL NOISE EFFECTS RESEARCH: FY73--FY7S, REPORT
EPA-600/ 1-75-001, PREPARED BY INTERAGENCY NOISE
EFFECTS RESEARCH PANEL, MARCH 1975
G FEDERAL MACHINERY NOISE RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT,
AND DEMONSTRATION FY73—FY75, REPORT EPA-600/2-75-008,
PREPARED BY INTERAGENCY MACHINERY NOISE RESEARCH
PANEL, MAY 1975
LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS
Figure Page
2-1 Summary of Federal Expenditures for Noise Research Categories 2-10
2-2 Trends in Federal Expenditures for Noise Research Categories—FY73—FY75 2-1 1
6-I Noise Effects Research Funding by Agency 6-4
6-2 Summary of Federal Agencies Resource Allocations for Aircraft Noise RD&D 6-9
6-3 Summary of Federal Expenditures by Agency for Surface Vehicle Noise
RD&D Programs 6-1 1
6-4 Summary of Federal Expenditures by Agency for Machinery Noise RD&D
Programs 6-15
C-I Noise Control Act of 1972; Regulatory Action Matrix for Sections 5, 6, and 8 C-72
111
-------
LIST OF TABLES
Table Page
2-1 Summary of Federal Agency Current Involvement in Noise Research 2-8
2-2 Summary of Federal Agency Expenditures for Noise Research 2-8
3-1 EPA Noise Program Resources FY 1972 — FY 1975 3-3
3-2 Summary of Noise Levels Identified as Requisite to Protect Public Health
and Welfare with an Adequate Margin of Safety 3-4
4-1 Provisions of the Noise Control Act of 1972, with Implementing Actions
and Action-Agency Identifications 4-2
4-2 Implementation of the Noise Control Act of 1972, by U.S. Government
Departments and Agencies 4-1 1
4-3 Status of Rule Making: Standards, Regulations, and Executive Orders 4-17
5-I Federal Agency Levels of Involvement in Hearing Conservation Activities 5-1 1
5-2 Summary of Federal Agency Programs Utilizing Noise Exposure Standards
or Program Applications More Stringent than OSHA Provisions 5-14
5-3 Summary of Reported Federal Agency Noise Abatement Programs 5-23
5-4 Summary of Reported Federal Agency Noise Abatement Funding 5-27
5-5 Federal Technical Assistance Programs 5-30
6-1 Structure of Research Panels 6-3
6-2 Current Agency Involvement in Research Categories 6-5
6-3 Noise Effects Research Funding by Category 6-7
6-4 Summary of Federal Aircraft Noise RD&D Activities and Resource
Allocations 6-8
6-5 Summary of the Federal Surface Vehicle Noise RD&D Programs 6-12
6-6 Summary by Area of Machinery Noise RD&D 6-16
6-7 Current Agency Involvement in Areas of Machinery Noise RD&D 6-17
C- 1 HUD External Noise Exposure Standards for New Construction Sites C-32
C-2 Bureau of Reclamation General Location and Equipment Exceeding 85 dBA
Noise Levels C-4 1
C-3 Summary of Significant Provisions of Occupational Noise Exposure
Standards C-47
C-4 Exposure to Outdoor Noise Levels: U.S. Population Exposed, by Types of
Noise C-69
C-S EPA Identification of Major Noise-Source Categories of Products C-70
C-6 Population Impacted by Various types of State and Local Noise Legislation C-83
C-7 GSA Construction Equipment Noise Emission Limits C-9 1
iv
-------
SECTION 1
INTRODUCTION
This report has been prepared in compliance with the Noise Control Act of 1972*,
which requires that EPA “. . . publish, from time to time, a report on the status and pro-
gress of Federal activities relating to noise research and control. This report shall discuss
the noise-control programs of each Federal agency and assess the contributions of those
programs to the Federal Government’s overall efforts to control noise.”** This is the first
of such reports.
Although the report provides descriptions of Federal agency noise research and con-
trol programs, it contains limited information with respect to the “assessment” referred
to in the Act. The Section 5 (a) (2) document, Informations on Levels of Environmental
Noise Requisite to Protect the Public Health and Welfare with an Adequate Margin of
Safety (hereafter called the “Levels Document”), was published by EPA in March 1974.
This document should facilitate future assessments of the noise-related activities of Federal
agencies, including goals and objectives. Future reviews of individual agency programs
shall be made in the context of their contributions in progressing toward the protective
levels set forth in the “Levels Document.” In this current report, assessments that are
made are confined to specific activities.
Section 3 of this report describes the progress of EPA planning actions to achieve a
comprehensive noise control plan. It provides some tentative long range goals that can be
used as the basis for further development of a plan. It also explains the interactions and
the mechanisms involved in achieving such a plan via interagency cooperation.
Section 4 provides a compilation of the various Federal activities pursuant to the
development and implementation of noise standards and regulations.
*p.L. 92-574, hereafter referred to also as NCA.
**NCA, Section 4 (c) (3)
1—1
-------
Section 5 covers several kinds of noise activities engaged in by Federal agencies:
• Hearing conservation programs, intended to prevent occupational hearing loss in
noisy Federal installations.
• Noise abatement programs, which are miscellaneous activities to reduce the noise
emissions associated with operations of Federal installations, primarily for reducing
noise impacts on surrounding communities.
• Technical assistance programs provided by Federal agencies to state and local
levels of government.
Section 6 contains a summary 01 the research and development activities of Federal
agencies. (Nonfederal work such as independently sponsored research programs of private
industry are excluded). This represents a large, diverse, and expensive set of Federal
activities. Descriptions of the programs within specific agencies and within specific noise
problem areas are provided as appendices.
Appendix A contains the guidelines distributed to Federal agencies for obtaining
information on noise related activities. The appendix also contains a list of 38 agencies to
which the guidelines were sent and a list of agency acronyms used in this report.
Appendix B consists of a questionnaire developed by EPA for surveying in the future
hearing conservation programs throughout the Federal Government. (The questionnaire
was not used to collect information on hearing conservation programs for this report.)
Appendix C provides summary descriptions of reported Federal regulatory and
nonregulatory (hearing conservation, noise abatement, and technical assistance) noise con-
trol programs. These descriptions are organized in alphabetical order by agency with the
Federal departments treated first. The appendix also contains a summary of international
noise research and control activities.
Appendices D, E, F, and G (Volume II) contain descriptions of Federal agency noise
research, development, and demonstration programs in the areas of surface vehicles,
aviation, noise effects, and machinery , respectively. The information in these appendices
was prepared jointly by the membership of four interagency research panels formed by
EPA in 1974. That is, these are not EPA-prepared reports but rather consensus reports of
the agency representatives on the panels.
1-2
-------
SECTION 2
OVERVIEW
This report describes the status and progress of Federal noise research and control
programs and reflects the initial EPA assessment of the overall Federal effort to control
noise. It is the first of such reports EPA is required to publish from time to time under
the Noise Control Act of 1972. Contributions made by individual Federal agencies
(including those authorized by other legislation) are summarized by functional areas in the
identified major sections of the report, with detailed agency descriptions provided in
Appendix C.
EPA NOISE CONTROL PLANNING (Section 3)
Early in 1973, EPA prepared an initial strategy for the noise program that delineated
as an interim goal a reduction in equivalent noise levels of 5 dB by 1985 at 18 community
sites studied in the Title IV Report of February 1972. This strategy included regulatory
actions by EPA and provision of technical assistance in controlling noise to state and local
governments through EPA regional offices.
The initial EPA strategy was revised in 1974 to incorporate the new information
developed in conjunction with the “Levels Document.” This document identified levels
of environmental noise in various areas and conditions requisite to protect the public health
and welfare with an adequate margin of safety. It also provided a basis for attempting a
uniform overall assessment of the national impact of noise and the relative contributions
from various product types to that impact.
In the “Levels Document,” EPA identified a level of Leq(24) = 70 dB (an energy
equivalent of 70 dBA over a 24 hour period) to protect against hearing loss with an ade-
quate margin of safety. An estimated 13 million people presently reside in areas in which
the Leq(24) exceeds this level. Further, an estimated 100 million people reside in areas
in which the Ldn (A-weighted day-night sound level) exceeds 55 dB, the identified level
with an adequate margin of safety at which undue interference with activity and annoyance
will not occur. Maj or factors in this blend of community noise are such sources as vehicular
traffic, aircraft operations, and construction site machinery.
2-1
-------
EPA program plan for FY76 allocates resources for regulatory development and
related activities to achieve, by 1992, a reduction from 13 million to less than 1 million
in the population exposed to urban noise levels above 70 dB Leq (24) and a reduction from
100 million to less than 40 million in the population exposed to urban noise levels above
55 dB Ldn.
The present strategy calls for both the application of present technology and the
utilization of results of current research. New product regulations which will cause new
technology to be applied, are to be completed by 1982. The estimated turnover time for
the majority of the nation’s truck population is approximately 10 years, and trucks are
the single most important source of urban noise. Therefore, the year 1992 was selected as
the target year for achieving the above stated goals. Attainment of these goals will neces-
sitate complementary activity by the Federal Aviation Administration to reduce aircraft
noise, as well as state and local regulatory and enforcement action requiring Federal tech-
nical assistance and focusing on in-use controls for products and land-use planning and
control. For the entire program to be fully effective, the in-use product controls must
complement the Federal standards for new products. EPA is currently assessing the needs
of state and local governments for Federal technical assistance.
To measure progress in achieving these long-term goals as a result of Federal regulatory
actions and state and local efforts, EPA strategy calls for a noise trend monitoring program.
As presently envisioned, the program will incorporate periodic nationwide site surveys,
coupled with selected monitoring evaluations and the application of prediction modeling
techniques.
A variety of procedures and organizational arrangements are used to discharge the
EPA legislative mandate to coordinate Federal agency noise control programs and actions.
EPA chairs four interagency noise research panels established in 1974 to facilitate exchange
of information and to coordinate Federal noise research activities.
The Environmental Impact Statement review process is used to ensure that noise and
its environmental effects are given adequate consideration in Federally sponsored activities.
Executive Order 11752 requires Federal facilities to comply with Federal, state, interstate,
and local noise regulations. EPA is charged with monitoring Federal agency observance of
E. 0. 11752, which, therefore, as a byproduct, provides a vehicle for the coordination of
Federal noise abatement projects designed to reduce noise impact from Federal facilities.
Finally, EPA has taken the initiative of establishing specific collaborative arrangements
between agencies. Some of these are informal, but others are designed as formal
Memoranda of Understanding (with the Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC),
2-2
-------
the Department of Transportation (DOT) (both still to be executed)) or Interagency
Agreements (for example with the Department of the Air Force, and the National Bureau
of Standards).
REGULATORY ACTIONS (Section 4)
At this time all basic or initial actions called for by NCA provisions (such as NCA
Section 5: Identification of Major Noise Sources; Noise Criteria and Control Technology)
have been initiated. All NCA mandates for rule making have received attention through
implementing actions. Some of these actions have reached the stage of proposed and final
rule-making by EPA; some—for aircraft noise and noise control in the work place—have
resulted in the publication by EPA of regulatory proposals. In other actions, products
being considered for possible regulations have been taken under active study.
EPA interactions with the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) concerning
aircraft-noise control have reached a significant stage. Several proposed regulations have
been submitted by EPA to the FAA, and the procedures for their consideration and
promulgation, as specified by NCA Section 7, are being implemented by the FAA. The
balance of regulatory actions to be proposed to the FAA, which were summarized in the
EPA Report to Congress on Aircraft/Airport Noise of July 1973, are expected to be com-
pleted during FY76.
Implementing actions for NCA provisions for enforcement of noise control regulations
are being prepared by EPA and initiated through appropriate arrangements in other agencies
to which enforcement tasks have been assigned. This includes the areas of import regula-
tions and preparatory work with the Department of the Treasury and the U.S. Customs
Service.
NCA Section 15 authorizes the Federal Government to allow economic incentives
for the procurement of low-noise-emission products. This authorization applies only to
new products for which standards have been promulgated under NCA Section 6. Imple-
mentation of the incentive provision must therefore be deferred until the Section 6 standards
become effective. The procedures to implement Section 15 have been published by EPA
in the Federal Register in February 1974.
Presently, the Federal regulatory programs address the control of noise in the follow-
ing areas (See Section 4 and Appendix C for more detail):
1. Aircraft and their operations
• FAA advisory circulars and regulations provide for noise abatement through
flight procedures (consistent with safety) at takeoff, and during approach and
2-3
-------
landing, and through specifications of minimum altitudes, and provide for
prevention or control of sonic boom. Aircraft type certification provisions
are being modified by FAA to include noise attenuating equipment through
retrofit of current aircraft and through new designs for categories of future
aircraft.
• For practically all of these regulatory areas, EPA is issuing regulatory proposals
to FAA. For airport noise control, a proposed set of regulations is currently
being field tested by EPA prior to issuance of formal notice for review.
2. Surface transportation
• DOT/FHWA has issued noise design standards for new and improved Federal-
aid highway construction and has proposed extension of such standards to
existing highways.
• EPA issued a noise emission standard for interstate motor carriers in October
1974 which will be enforced by DOT, as called for in the NCA. A noise
emission standard for interstate rail carriers has been proposed by EPA.
3. Commercial products
• Two proposed rule-making notices were issued by EPA in October 1974 for
new products identified as major noise sources: portable air compressors and
medium and heavy duty trucks.
• In November 1974, EPA proposed an Advanced Notice of Proposed Rule-
Making relating to hearing protectors that would provide for labels with
information on the effectiveness of the protectors in attenuating noise and
in protecting hearing.
• EPA has begun collaboration with the Consumer Product Safety Commission.
Initial action involved the Commission effort to include noise limits in the
proposed safety standard for power lawn mowers. That collaboration is now
being formalized and widened to address other products.
4. Housing
• The Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) specifies noise
control standards and techniques for HUD-assisted new housing construction.
5. Noise exposure in the work place
• The Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) in the Depart-
ment of Labor (DOL) has, with the assistance and counsel of the National
Institute for Occupational Safety and Health of the Department of Health,
Education, and Welfare (HEW), sought to improve and advance the protective
standard for noise control in the work place. Originally provided under the
Walsh-Healy Public Contracts Act, the standard now administered by OSHA
specifies a 90 c IBA, 8-hour exposure limit with a 5 dB time/intensity trading
ratio for steady-state noise. OSHA has published a proposed revision to the
standard, which requires initiation of a hearing conservation program beginning
at 85 dBA but still retains the original exposure limit.
• EPA did not consider the original standard sufficiently protective and had
advocated that an 85 dBA, 8-hour exposure limit with a 3 dB time/intensity
2-4
-------
trading ratio be formally adopted (to become effective within three years)
instead of the 90 dBA limit and 5 dB ratio required by OSHA. EPA used the
procedures of Section 4 (c) (2) of the Noise Control Act to request a formal
review.
• The current OSHA standard was originally adopted by the Department of the
Interior for coal mines in 1970 and 1971, and, more recently, by DOT for the
Vehicle Interior Noise Standard for interstate motor carriers, in October 1974.
EPA has advocated that DOT reexamine this standard, in view of EPA recom-
mendations on the proposed revision to the OSHA standard.
• By Federal Register notice in August 1974, EPA consented to application of
the extant OSHA standard to metal and non-metallic mines on the condition
that a more stringent standard be submitted by the Department of the
Interior, through the Federal Metal and Non-Metallic Mine Safety Advisory
Committee, for prompt consideration and approval.
NONREGULATORY NOISE CONTROL PROGRAMS (Section 5)
The nonregulatory noise control programs of Federal agencies are divided into
• Hearing conservation programs,
• Noise abatement programs, and
• Technical assistance to state and local governments.
The hearing conservation programs are designed to prevent loss of hearing among
personnel whose occupational duties expose them to potentially hazardous levels of noise.
In July 1974, EPA requested 38 Federal agencies to submit a headquarters level per-
spective of their noise exposure problems and of hearing conservation efforts instituted
to correct them. Of those 38 agencies, 24 reported hearing conservation activities. Among
those 24 agencies or their reporting components, 19 had initiated limited preventive
measures and 27 components had instituted formal hearing conservation measures. The
programs differed widely in scope and composition. Several agencies—the three military
departments, the Department of the Interior (DOl), the Tennessee Valley Authority, and
others—conduct fully operational programs that incorporate innovative techniques; sixteen
agencies and organizational components reported more stringent noise exposure standards
or program applications than the DOL requirements.
EPA conducted a pilot study to develop and field-test a questionnaire that may be
used in the future as a general survey instrument to evaluate the effectiveness of Federal
hearing conservation programs. The study included visits to 12 Federal installations in
order to observe at first hand the actual operation of their hearing conservation programs.
As a byproduct of the study, certain patterns and practices common to the 12 installations
2-5
-------
were observed. Although based on a limited sample, these observations may suggest areas
for further inquiry.
Federal noise abatement activities include measures to control noise generated by
Federal agency facilities and operations, primarily for the purpose of reducing noise impacts
on the surrounding communities. Further measures seek to reduce nonhazardous noise
levels to improve the working environments in Federal installations. Other efforts utilize
noise control techniques that are not only applicable to a particular agency’s operations
but to activities falling under that agency’s jurisdiction.
In the EPA survey, 17 agencies reported that they were conducting noise abatement
programs. The program activities differ widely, primarily due to varying noise problems,
and range from engineering measures to correct a specific noise problem to the Department
of Defense (DOD) program for Air Installation Compatible Use Zones (AICUZ). Tlüs
latter program is designed to ensure that the use of privately owned land near military air-
ports is compatible with both protection of the public and mission accomplishment The
magnitude of this program is indicated by the fact that 75 percent of the total Navy noise
abatement funding for FY73 through Post-FY77 ($445,626,000 of a total requirement of
$587,885,000) is for Navy AICUZ implementation.
Thirteen of the 17 agencies reporting programs submitted fiscal data for all or part of
their noise abatement activities. FY74 funding totaled over $10,000,000 for the 13 agencies
and FY75 funding approached $12,000,000. Several agencies did not submit fiscal data
on reported programs (e.g., Air Force implementation of the AICUZ program). Since some
of these latter noise abatement programs may also be important in volume and command
significant funding, the overall totals may be considered as lower bounds of Federal funding
for noise abatement.
Six Federal agencies and organizational Components reported technical assistance
programs to encourage the development of appropriate state and local noise control pro-
grams to complement those at the Federal level and facilitate state and local participation
in the implementation of Federal noise regulations and programs. Technical assistance is
furnished for the drafting of model legislation, for training programs, for guidance in the
selection and use of noise measuring and monitoring systems, and for information services.
RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT, AND DEMONSTRATION PROGRAMS (Section 6)
The Noise Control Act of 1972 makes it clear that EPA is to utilize through inter-
agency coordination the research and technology generated by other Federal agencies to
fulfill the provisions of the Act. In addition, EPA is required by Section 4 (c) (1) to
2-6
-------
coordinate all Federal programs relating to noise research and noise control. Accordingly,
EPA developed and implemented a plan in early 1974 to coordinate the Federally spon-
sored noise research, development, and demonstration (RD&D). The plan utilizes three
interacting bodies to effect interagency coordination:
1. An interagency noise research committee composed of high-level representatives
of agencies with major programs in noise RD&D.
2. Four interagency noise research panels for aircraft, surface vehicles, stationary
machinery, and noise effects.
3. Ad-hoc working groups to address specific problem areas.
The initial task of the interagency noise research panels was to generate reports on the
Federal noise RD&D programs and activities. This information was requested by EPA and
will provide data for assessing the contributions of these programs to the Federal govern-
ment’s overall efforts to control noise. It will also provide information for identifying gaps
in current programs that need to be addressed to successfully implement the Act. In addi-
tion, the information will be used by EPA to report, from time to time, on the status and
progress of the Federal activities relating to noise research and noise control. The panel
reports are contained in Appendices D, E, F, and G. Summaries are provided in the follow-
big overview and in Section 6 of this report.
Eleven Federal agencies or departments sponsor noise RD&D: NASA, DOT, HEW,
DOD, NSF, DO!, DOC/NBS, USDA, CPSC, HUD, and EPA. Their noise RD&D activities
can be classified into four areas corresponding to the four interagency panels:
1. Noise effects
2. Aircraft noise
3. Surface vehicle noise
4. Stationary machinery noise.
Table 2-1 summarizes the RD&D currently being addressed by each Federal agency.
Most of the agencies sponsor research in more than one category. However, only DOD and
EPA have activities in all four noise RD&D areas. Noise effects research is being sponsored
by nine Federal agencies and is the category having the greatest number of Federal partici-
pants. Stationary machinery noise RD&D is being considered by eight Federal agencies.
Aircraft noise RD&D is currently being sponsored by NASA, DOT, DOD, and EPA, while
DOT, DOD, EPA, NSF, and USDA all support surface vehicle noise RD&D.
The total resources allocated to noise RD&D by the Federal agencies are summarized
in Table 2-2 for FY73, FY74 and FY75. NASA, DOT, and DOD allocated the major
portion of the Federal resources for noise RD&D, but their allocations have steadily
2-7
-------
TABLE 2-1
SUMMARY OF FEDERAL AGENCY CURRENT INVOLVEMENT IN NOISE RESEARCH
Area of Involvement
Agency
Noise
Effects
Aircraft
Surface
Vehicles
Stationary
Machinery
NASA
X
X
DOT
X
X
X
HEW
X
X
DOD
X
X
X
X
NSF
X
X
X
DO!
X
X
DOC/NBS
X
X
USDA
X
X
CPSC
x
HUD
X
EPA
X
X
X
X
TABLE 2-2
SUMMARY OF FEDERAL AGENCY EXPENDITURES FOR NOISE RESEARCH
Fiscal Year Funding ($1000)
Agency
1973
1974
1975
NASA
46,407
47,232
28,504
DOT
13,767
5,269
3,467
HEW
1 090
1,613
2,015
DOD
3,897
4,621
3,063
NSF
263
658
—
DO!
409
551
730
DOCINBS
236
381
407
USDA
4
93
131
CPSC
—
70
—
HUD
117
638
460
EPA
453
1,189
490
TOTALS
66,643
62,315
39,186
2-S
-------
decreased since FY73. The result is that total Federal resources for noise RD&D have
steadily decreased since FY73, with the major decrease from FY74 to FY75. The latter
is primarily due to the decrease in the NASA noise RD&D allocations. HEW, DOl,
DOCINBS, and USDA show steady increases in resource allocations for noise RD&D
during the FY73 through FY75 time period.
Of the noise research categories shown in Figure 2-1 only Federal expenditures for
noise effects research steadily increased during the FY73 to FY75 time period. Federal
allocations for RD&D to control aircraft noise decreased rapidly from $58,894,000 in
FY73 to $31,054,000 in FY75 and are related directly to the decrease in aircraft noise
control RD&D sponsored by NASA, DOT, and DOD. The major element in this reduction
is the scheduled completion during this period of two expensive technology development
and demonstration programs for retrofit to existing aircraft—the FAA Sound Absorbent
Material (SAM) nacelle program and the NASA JT8D REFAN program. However, Federal
allocations for aircraft noise control RD&D still account for 80 to 90 percent of the total
Federal noise RD&D allocations during the FY73 to FY75 time period. Federal resources
for both surface vehicle and stationary machinery noise RD&D peak in FY74. Although
a number of Federal agencies sponsor work in these categories, they receive the least
emphasis based on resource allocations.
Total Federal noise RD&D expenditures have been steadily declining since passage of
the Act. This trend in the Federal noise RD&D funding is illustrated in Figure 2-2.
To some extent, the decrease reflects the technology to affect near-term reductions in
noise has been demonstrated in some cases (e.g., aircraft and trucks) and is available
for incorporation into standards and regulations. However, if public health and welfare
are to be assured, an adequate Federal noise RD&D effort must be maintained.
EPA is presently analyzing and assessing the available information (principally that
contained in the Interagency Panel Reports) on the Federal Noise Research activities to
determine the contributions of those RD&D activities in controlling harmful noise through
regulations and in identifying gaps and areas requiring additional emphasis. A report
detailing the EPA findings of this evaluation is in preparation. A general conclusion from
the analysis to date is that the contribution of the Federal noise RD&D programs in
providing control technology to support EPA regulatory activities varies between noise
source categories. Specifically:
• There is a large amount of Federal noise RD&D on transportation systems, partic-
ularly aircraft, trucks, buses, and future mass transit. While the current level of
2-9
-------
Fiscal Year Funding ($1000)
Category
1973
1974
1975
Noise Effects
3,566
5,006
5,228
Aircraft
58,894
51,751
31,054
Surface Vehicle
3,211
3,374
1,334
Machinery
972
2,184
1,570
TOTALS
66,643
62,315
39,186
TOTAL REPORTED FY74 EXPENDITURES — $62,336,000
Figure 2-1. Summary of Federal Expenditures for Noise Research Categories
2-10
-------
LEGEND
TOTAL (ALL CATEGORIES) D—D
AIRCRAFT
NOISE EFFECTS
MACHINERY
SURFACE VEHICLE
SUMMARY OF FEDERAL EXPENDITURES
FOR NOISE RESEARCH CATEGORIES
FISCAL YEAR FUNDING ($1,000 )
AIRCRAFT
NOISE EFFECTS
MACHINERY
SURFACE VEHICLE
1973
58,894
3,566
972
3,211
TOTAL 66.643
1974
51,751
6,006
2,184
3,374
1975
31,054
5,228
1,570
1,334
62,315 39,186
FISCAL YEAR
C ’,
z
0
-J
-J
z
b9
z
z
U-
LU
I-
ct
0
C-
LU
73 74 75
Figure 2-2. Trends in Federal Expenditures for Noise Research Categories—FY73—FY75
-------
RD&D effort in this area appears to be adequate, a complete and in-depth analysis
of these programs has not been possible.
• The current Federal RD&D activities on nontransportation noise sources, particu-
larly stationary industrial and construction machinery appear to be inadequate and
fragmented. They address only a few of the hundreds of serious noise sources to
which workers and the general public are exposed. There is a need for a concerted
Federal noise control RD&D effort for these sources, which are most associated
with the principal noise health effect, noise-induced hearing loss.
• Many of the known effects of noise are being addressed by current Federal research.
However, several critical areas are receiving inadequate attention. These include
nonauditory health effects and community response.
• While there is a great deal of emphasis on noise measurement and measurement
methodologies, the current efforts are fragmented and will require effective coordi-
nation to provide adequate support for EPA regulatory activities.
In general the EPA analysis reveals that the available noise control technology and tech-
niques and the current Federal RD&D efforts appear to be adequate for the initial regula-
tions being proposed and considered by EPA.
In the future, the Federal agencies involved in noise research will be requested by
EPA to perform, through the present interagency coordination mechanism, an assessment
of the overall Federal RD&D effort. This assessment is expected to yield specific recom-
mendations on current and future noise RD&D objectives and funding requirements and a
national RD&D plan to guide the overall Federal noise RD&D effort. Principal areas of
activity will be in performing an in-depth analysis of all Federal noise RD&D activities,
determining requirements for future noise reduction technology, and conducting evalua-
tions of associated socioeconomic impacts.
2-1 2
-------
SECTION 3
OVERALL EPA NOISE CONTROL PLANNING
& FEDERAL INTERAGENCY RELATIONSHIPS
OVERALL CONCEPTS OF FEDERAL NOISE CONTROL ACTIVITY
The Noise Control Act of 1972 recognized that many other Federal agencies had and
would continue to have major roles and statutory functions. The coordinating responsi-
bility assigned to EPA in Section 4 of the Act was designed to ensure that actions of the
various agencies would be integrated into a comprehensive effort.
This Section begins with a brief discussion of the actions taken by EPA to develop its
plans for implementation of the Noise Control Act. This is followed by a more detailed
treatment of the interrelationships of the various Federal agency activities (which are
categorized and summarized in the subsequent major Sections of the report with detailed
agency descriptions provided in the appendices.)
EPA Planning Actions
Strategic planning for the noise program has evolved from an initial strategy for
implementation of the Noise Control Act to the present strategy developed for the Agency
FY76 program plan. During 1971 and 1972 the EPA Office of Noise Abatement and
Control conducted an extensive study of the requirements for full-scale implementation
of the then pending Noise Control Act of 1972. This included resource estimates and set
the stage for carrying forward a continuing Federal-EPA noise control effort. Early in
1973, a formalized strategy was developed as part of the Agency FY74 program develop-
ment activity. This strategy delineated as a “surrogate” for a more definite goal, an
interim goal of a reduction in equivalent noise levels, e.g. of 5 dB by 1985 at the 18 com-
munity sites studied in the Title IV Report, Report to the President and Congress on
Noise, February 1972.
The 1973 strategy also identified programmatic objectives and prescribed a noise
control system approach. Under the approach, aviation noise control and interstate motor
carrier noise control regulatory actions by Headquarters EPA were emphasized. This
3-1
-------
approach also prescribed a phase-in of regulatory action on surface transportation noise
sources from the interstate motor carrier regulations as well as a phased sequence of addi-
tional new product noise control regulations after FY75. Although the 1973 strategic
plan emphasized regulatory actions by Headquarters EPA, the plan also prescribed alloca-
tions of limited funds to provide a minimal capability in the EPA Regional Offices to
establish a base for regional operations for technical assistance to state and local govern-
ments, trend monitoring, and noise regulation enforcement. The 1973 plan provided the
flexibility to expand to meet program requirements, presented an approach to Federal-
state partnership efforts, and described a potential for reducing environmental noise levels
by Federal action. This plan provided the base for FY74 accomplishments and the Agency
FY75 noise program budget. A summary of the resources committed by EPA to imple-
mentation of the Noise Control Act from FY72 to date is provided in Table 3-1.
In 1974, the 1973 strategy was updated for the FY75 noise program plan to incorpor-
ate the new information provided by the “Levels Document.” This document identifies
the levels of environmental noise in various areas and conditions requisite to protect the
public health and welfare with an adequate margin of safety. EPA believes that the levels
identified in this document are based on data representing the best available evidence on
the effects of noise. The “Levels Document” was exhaustively reviewed by other Federal
agencies and the scientific community, and the specified levels and the methodology used
to identify them have been endorsed by a subcommittee of the Committee on Hearing,
Bioacoustics and Biomechanjcs (CHABA) of the National Academy of Sciences—National
Research Council.
In identifying the levels of environmental noise requisite to protect the public health
and welfare, EPA selected a methodology that incorporates two primary measures of
acoustic energy appropriate for quantifying long term cumulative noise exposure that can
be related to human response. This methodology for expressing environmental noise is
described as Leq/Ldn. The Leq stands for equivalent A-weighted sound level over a given
interval. Thus, Leq (8) represents such a level over an 8-hour period. Ldn represents
day-night sound level—the 24-hour, A-weighted equivalent sound level with a 10-decibel
penalty applied to nighttime levels. Using this methodology, EPA identified noise levels
that would protect virtually the entire population against a hearing loss of 5 dB or more
at the most sensitive frequency (4000Hz) for a 40-year exposure. Also, day-night sound
levels were identified that minimize community annoyance from outdoor noise over a long
range period of time. Similarly, day-night sound levels were identified that protect against
speech interference indoors. These levels are shown in Table 3-2.
3-2
-------
TABLE 3-1
EPA NOISE PROGRAM RESOURCES
FY 1972—FY 1975
ACTIVITY
FY72
(thousands
FY73
of dollars)
FY74
FY75
NOISE STANDARD SETFING:
Includes: Aircraft-Airport Regulations;
Surface Transportation; New Product Standards;
Labeling
752.7
2332.0
2268.3
3467.6
TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE & OPERATIONS (HQ)
Technical Assistance
Federal Activities
70.0
851.1
955.8
955.8
ONAC PROGRAM MANAGEMENT
59.0
26.4
214.6
220.6
RESEARCH & DEVELOPMENT
366.0
280.8
498.4
544.9
ENFORCEMENT
—
—
20.6
21.3
REGIONAL ACTIVITIES
—
—
267.2
465.6
AGENCY & REGIONAL MANAGEMENT/NOISE
TOTAL
—
1247.7
—
3490.3
6.0
4230.9
39.9
5715.7
-------
TABLE 3-2
SUMMARY OF NOISE LEVELS iDENTIFiED AS REQUISITE TO PROTECT
PUBLIC HEALTH AND WELFARE WITH AN ADEQUATE MARGIN OF SAFETY
Human Response
Leq
Ldn
Hearing Loss* (8 hours per day)**
75
Hearing loss* (24 hours per day)
70
Outdoor Annoyance
Indoor Annoyance, speech ‘loss
45
*Based on exposure over 40 years.
As long as the exposure over the remaining 16 hours per day is low enough to
result in a negligible contribution to the 24 hour average.
As emphasized in the “Levels Document,” these specified levels of environmental
noise are based solely on considerations protective of public health and welfare. The levels
do not take into account either cost or technology, and, thus, do not in any way constitute
a standard, regulation, or specification. However, the information contained in the docu-
ment provides the scientific basis for the conduct of EPA noise activities and a means by
which the health and welfare implications of other Federal agency actions may be assessed.
The “Levels Document” was the necessary precursor for initiation of the EPA noise regula-
tory development process, and it plays a key role in fulfillment of EPA responsibilities to
coordinate all Federal noise research and control programs.
A level of 70 dBA Leq (24) is identified (Table 3-2) to protect against hearing loss with
an adequate margin of safety. This level is related to the cumulative noise exposure
experienced by an individual irrespective of location and exposure situation (e.g. in the
work place, in the home, during travel, and in various recreational and hobby/maintenance
pursuits). It is estimated that about 13 million people presently reside in areas where
Leq (24) exceeds 70 dBA. Furthermore, passengers in, and operators of, most common
modes of transportation are exposed to noise substantially above 70 dBA, as is a substan-
tial portion of the working population.
Approximately 100 million people reside in areas where the Ldn exceeds 55 dBA, the
identified level with an adequate margin of safety at which undue interference with activity
and annoyance will not occur. While this level of community noise results from a blending
of all types of sOurces, noise from vehicular traffic, aircraft operations, and construction
sites are major factors in the sustained levels.
3-4
-------
The following presently conceived noise program goals are reflected in the Agency
FY76 program plan; they represent the basis for EPA regulatory and other program activity
resource allocations.
• Reduce the urban noise levels above 70 c IBA Leq(24) so that less than I million of
the estimated 13 million population residing in such areas remain exposed to such
high community levels by 1992.
• Reduce urban noise levels above 55 c IBA Ldn so that less than 40 million of the
estimated 100 million population residing in such areas remain exposed to such
community levels by 1992.
The general strategy for achieving these goals calls for the application of available
technology or technology anticipated from on-going research. New product regulations,
which will cause new technology to be applied, are to be completed by 1982. Since truck
noise is the single most important source of urban noise, and an approximate 10-year turn-
over time is a relevant estimate for the nation’s truck fleet, the year 1992 was selected as
the target date to achieve the above stated goals. The attainment of these goals also requires
complementary state and local regulatory and enforcement action allowed by the Federal
legislation. This requires appropriate Federal EPA technical assistance (and that of other
appropriate agencies), primarily through Regional programs, with focus on product in use
control and land use planning and control.
Also required is the adoption by local governments of in-use regulations prescribing
the same noise levels as Federal regulations and protecting against unlawful tampering and
modification in accordance with restrictions placed on the user of a Federally regulated
noise product. Local governments are encouraged to enact other operational controls such
as land use restrictions, zoning, licensing, and permits to effect noise reduction in selected
locations during sensitive time periods. In view of the essential role of state and local
governments, EPA is studying their needs.
EPA is in the process of refining predictions relative to changes in environmental
noise that can be expected as a result of Federal regulatory actions, coordination of
Federal programs, and the partnership with states and localities. These predictions, along
with periodic nationwide site surveys such as the 100-site survey conducted in 1973, will
provide information to measure actual progress against planned objectives and goals.
The FY76 strategy also:
• Calls for complementary regulatory action by the FAA in reducing aircraft and
airport noise.
• Calls for a reduction in surface transportation interior noise either by direct regula-
tion or by Federal impact on equipment standards through support of mass transit
programs.
3-5
-------
• Envisions active, cooperative working relationships with DOT, FAA, Consumer
Product Safety Commission, and OSHA in addition to state and local agencies in
carrying out abatement and control and enforcement programs.
• Prescribes full use of research and development programs conducted by the above
agencies and DOD, NASA and the private sector.
• Provides for continuation of the EPA coordinating function with respect to Federal
noise control, research and development, and regulatory actions.
Work is continuing on the development of a comprehensive long range EPA plan and
strategy for future programs that meshes strategies for various EPA regulatory actions with
technical assistance, research and development, and enforcement strategies. The plan also
provides a framework for Federal noise program plans under the partnership approach
with states and localities. It also recognizes the Federal interagency roles and the require-
ment for coordinated action, as discussed in the following paragraphs.
AREAS OF FEDERAL AGENCY INTERACTION
The following discussion delineates specific areas of Federal agency interaction that
have been identified as requiring sustained coordination. This is followed by a discussion
of the mechanisms used to assure consistency and integration of Federal noise control
activities.
Areas Requiring Federal Agency Interaction
In carrying out its coordination responsibilities, particularly in consulting with other
agencies involved in prescribing standards or regulations, EPA has identified both existing
and potential areas requiring positive Federal agency interaction. Information available to
EPA headquarters in this matter has been supplemented by reports prepared by EPA
regional offices on implementation of regional Federal agency noise policies and programs.
Jurisdictional Issues
Coordination is required
• When one agency’s jurisdiction overlaps with that of another.
• If one agency’s enabling legislation specifically assigns another a functional imple-
mentation responsibility (i.e., a division of regulatory responsibility).
• In less clearcut instances, in which several agencies, in furtherance of their legislative
mandates, have instituted programs that incorporate interrelated features.
For example, in the first category, EPA authority under Section 6 of the Noise Control
Act to promulgate noise emission standards for new products overlaps in some instances
3-6
-------
with Consumer Product Safety Commission authority to develop standards to reduce
unreasonable risks of injury associated with the use of consumer products. In the second
category is the Department of Transportation responsibility for the enforcement of the
EPA-developed noise emission regulation for interstate rail and motor carriers.
Several examples will illustrate the third category. The Department of Housing and
Urban Development reported that its policy of fostering noise responsive land utilization
patterns necessitates coordination of policies with agencies having influence over the loca-
tion of noise generators. The Federal Highway Administration, for example, has noise
standards that restrict the location of Federally aided highways. Restrictions apply princi-
pally to exposures over existing developments, and this ensures that the acoustical quality
of HUD sponsored developments will not be undermined by adverse highway locations.
In cases in which the nature of future development has not been firmly established, Federal
Highway Administration noise policy is directed toward sound land use planning and land
use controls, which is itself an important focus of HUD policy. Community land use
planning and control is also an integral part of the Air Installation Compatible Use Zone
(AICUZ) policy adopted by DOD. HUD is therefore attempting to accommodate this
policy in anticipated revisions of Circular 1390.2 and to ensure that planning guidelines
issued by HUD and DOD (including the armed services) are consistent and mutually
supportive.
Of equal importance to the identification of areas of agency jurisdiction overlap, is a
delineation of deficiencies and gaps in statutory authorities as these relate to Federal noise
control efforts. For example, EPA Region IV pointed out that reduction of complaints
regarding railroad noise may be complicated by the fact that individual railroads rather
than the Federal Railway Administration own rights-of-way adjacent to railroad lines.
Implementation of Noise Regulation or Programs
In this area, coordination is required
• To prevent two or more agencies from implementing noise standards or guidelines
that directly conflict.
• To capitalize on opportunities for furthering Federal noise control efforts.
• To permit successful implementation of noise control when such activities by one
agency are dependent upon the cooperation of another.
In the first category, the Federal Government attempt to incorporate noise abatement
planning into Federal housing has resulted in differing requirements by HUD and the
Veterans Administration. HUD requires the filing of environmental impact statements
3-7
-------
by applicants for HUD assistance and may withhold financial assistance if the housing sites
are exposed to unacceptable noise. To date, VA mortgage loans have been available with-
out detailed environmental studies, so the possibility exists for developers to seek VA loans
instead of HUD financing if noise problems are severe.
Capital grants under the Urban Mass Transportation Act of 1964 offer a good example
of an unexploited opportunity for furthering Federal noise control objectives. Although
noise must be addressed in general terms to obtain a capital grant under the Act, no noise
emission standards for mass transportation vehicles are stipulated. Important strides have
been made in developing and applying low noise technology for progressively quieter
systems, e.g. BART, METRO.* Finally, interagency dependency is evident between the
Forest Service (Department of Agriculture) and the U.S. Military since a large number of
military reservations are located in national forests.
Mechanisms to Achieve Consistency and Integration of Federal Efforts
While various mechanisms are available to EPA to facilitate coordination of Federal
efforts, the effectiveness of these mechanisms would be enhanced through the adoption of
a uniform Federal approach to controlling environmental noise. Such a uniform approach
might incorporate both a common methodology for describing environmental noise and
the identification of public health and welfare requirements to serve as the basis for
assessing Federal noise related activities. The EPA view is that this need has been satisfied
by the publication of the “Levels Document,” which plays a significant role in EPA
reviews of other agency noise regulations, in sponsorship of the use of common systems,
and in evaluation of Environmental Impact Statements in which noise is a factor.
The levels of environmental noise that are to be embodied in any Federal regulatory
action will, of course, vary according to the statutory mandate under which the regulation
is proposed and promulgated and according to various requirements of cost and technology.
However, as a matter of coordinating and reviewing all Federal noise research and control
programs as required by the Noise Control Act, EPA believes it is essential that such
Federal programs use the same environmental noise descriptor.** The Administrator of
June 1974, EPA published a report on NOiSE IN RAIL TRANSIT CARS:
INCREMENTAL COSTS OF QUIETER CARS.
**In the “Levels Document,” EPA compared the Leq/Ldn methodology to other
measures used by Federal agencies (e.g., Composite Noise Rating (CNR), Noise Exposure
Forecast (NEF), and Community Noise Equivalent Level (CNEL) for airport noise as well
as the HUD Guideline Interim Standards and the Federal Highway Administration Stan-
dards) and illustrated the translation of these measures to Leq/Ldn.
3-8
-------
EPA has recommended that all Federal agencies take immediate action to use the Leq/Ldn
environmental noise descriptor.
There are four existing mechanisms employed by EPA for interagency coordination:
1. Interagency research panels
2. Environmental Impact Statement Review Process
3. Executive Order 11752
4. Assistance between and among Federal agencies.
Interagency Noise Research Panels
In 1974, four interagency noise research panels were formed to facilitate coordination
among Federal agencies involved in noise research and development activities. The areas
covered by the panels, which are chaired by EPA are: aviation noise, surface vehicle noise,
noise effects, and machinery noise. During the first year, the panels have functioned
primarily to provide information on agency activities, with virtually no consideration of
long range planning. EPA is presently working to expand the scope of consideration
undertaken by the panels so that long range planning may be addressed as discussed in
Section 6.
Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) Review Process
This discussion covers matters related to the EIS review process and EPA responsi-
bilities in that regard.
Legislative Mandates
Section 102 (2)(C) of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA)
requires that all Federal agencies proposing major actions significantly affecting the
quality of the human environment prepare a detailed statement of these environmental
effects. Federal agencies are also required to consult with other agencies having legal
jurisdiction or special expertise.
Section 309 of the Clean Air Act, as amended, authorizes EPA to review and comment
in writing on the environmental impact of
• Legislation proposed by a Federal department or agency.
• Newly authorized Federal construction projects to which Section 102 (2) (C) of
NEPA applies.
• Proposed regulations published by a department or agency of the Federal
Government.
3-9
-------
Such written comment must be made public at the conclusion of any review. In the
event such legislation, action, or regulation is determined to be unsatisfactory from the
standpoint of public health, welfare, or environmental quality, the determination is pub-
lished, and the matter referred to the Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ).
EPA US Policies and Procedures
EPA has consolidated its NEPA review and Section 309 review into a single advisory
review of draft environmental impact statements. EPA also reviews the final EIS to ascer-
tain whether the proposed project is unsatisfactory and should be referred to the Council
on Environmental Quality. The EPA Manual, Review of FederalActions Impacting the
Environment, of March 1, 1975, establishes the policies and procedures for reviewing and
commenting on proposed actions of Federal agencies which will have an impact on the
environment. It places management of this program in the EPA Office of Federal Activities
(OFA), establishes a decentralized principal reviewer system for the review of these actions,
and sets forth a system for rating draft EISs as to both the environmental impact of the
proposed action and the adequacy of the impact statement. OFA also develops substantive
guidelines for various categories of projects to aid principal reviewers in the preparation of
their written comments on EISs.
EPA reviews and comments on approximately 1500 draft and 500 final EISs annually,
with the majority of this effort being performed in the regional offices. EPA emphasizes
•the importance of conducting timely and effective reviews. An important means of
this objective is presubmission liaison between EPA and the other agencies. Each region
was provided I extra man-year for FY74 to improve EIS review performance, particularly
to facilitate interaction with Federal agencies at the pre-EIS stage. Presubmission liaison
encompasses review of an applicant’s environmental report or predraft EIS, attendance at
Federal agency meetings in which the action is described, substantive discussion with the
Federal agency of a proposed action, provision of background materials for use by a Fed-
eral agency in developing an EIS, and review of former EPA program files on a proposed
action.
EPA also maintains followup liaison between submission of EPA comments on the
draft EIS and submission of the final EIS. The goal is to assure that all projects rated “EU”
(environmentally unsatisfactory) or “ER” (environmental reservations) and all statements
rated “3” (inadequate information) at the draft stage are changed enough by the final stage
so that they are environmentally acceptable. Depending on the significance of the environ-
mental problems that EPA raised in its draft EIS comments, follow-up may consist of
reviewing the final FIS on a project. On the other hand, it may involve meeting with the
3-10
-------
originating agency and other concerned organizations pplying data, interpreting
environmental regulations or supplying other technical assistance to the originating
agency, attending public hearings and making site visits, and reviewing and comment-
ing informally on preliminary parts on the final EIS.
If liaison and assistance fail to improve project planning and design sufficiently, EPA
must express its concerns again at the final EIS stage. Both projects about which EPA has
environmental reservations or which EPA determines are environmentally unsatisfactory
are referred to CEQ, although referral procedures differ for the two categories. Criteria for
making an environmentally unsatisfactory determination include whether the proposed
action would result in a probable violation of environmental standards or regulations or
whether serious environmental damage would result when mitigating alternatives are readily
available.
In addition to evaluating the environmental impact of proposed Federal projects, EPA
reviews proposed Federal agency regulations and proposed Federal permits and licenses
together with preparing EISs on certain EPA activities. Since April 1973, EPA has system-
atically engaged in the review of proposed Federal agency regulations impacting the environ-
ment, including those regulations for which an EIS has not been prepared. Although EPA
has not had the resources to conduct in-depth studies of Federal permit practices, the
ENPA process has induced agencies to write programmatic EISs on their land management
and permitting programs.
EPA prepares environmental impact statements on certain of its own activities such as
wastewater treatment works and new source discharge permits. In addition, as of October
15, 1974, EPA voluntarily prepares EISs on certain of its environmental regulatory activities,
including noise emission regulations for new products under the Noise Control Act.
Noise Input to EIS Review Process
The EPA Office of Noise Abatement and Control, in conjunction with the EPA
regional offices, participates in the review of EISs in which noise is a factor within the
agency framework and procedures just described. The regional offices review the majority
of draft statements concerning high-noise impact projects, with headquarters providing
guidance and technical assistance as required.
The Committee on Hearing, Bioacoustics, and Biomechanics (CHABA) of the
National Academy of Sciences is developing specific guidelines for the preparation and
evaluation of environmental impact statements in which noise is a factor. These guidelines
3-11
-------
will supplement those being issued by OFA, which treat all environmental pollutants for
various categories of projects.
The environmental impact statement review process provides an excellent vehicle for
EPA to further its noise control objectives and to assure that Federal agencies adopt a uni-
form approach in controlling environmental noise. As mentioned, on August 16, 1974,
the Administrator of EPA wrote the heads of other Federal agencies recommending that
they adopt the Leq/Ldn methodology described in the EPA “Levels Document” as the
uniform methodology for describing environmental noise. A Department of Defense
instruction* outlines interim actions for the application of the L q/L methodology to
the DOD on-going “Air Installations Compatible Use Zones” (AICUZ) program. In addition,
because many different kinds of projects are partially financed by Federal monies, EPA
can assure that state and local governments consider the noise implications of their actions
through the EIS review process.
Executive Order 11752
The range of Federal agency noise activities covered under Executive Order 11752,
“Prevention, Control and Abatement of Environmental Pollution at Federal Facilities,”
is not as inclusive as those subject to the EIS review process. The Order provides for
Federal leadership in the prevention of environmental pollution by requiring Federal
facilities to comply fully with applicable environmental standards. Heads of Federal
agencies are to ensure that all facilities under their jurisdiction are designed, constructed,
managed, operated, and maintained so as to conform to Federal noise emission standards
for products adopted in accordance with provisions of the Noise Control Act of 1972
and state, interstate, and local standards for control and abatement of environmental
noise. In light of the sovereign immunity principle, Federal facilities are not required to
comply with state or local administrative procedures.
E. 0. 11752 requires EPA to review and facilitate the compliance of all other Federal
agencies with applicable environmental pollution standards. In consultation with 0MB
and other Federal agencies, EPA is to develop a coordinated strategy incorporating common
procedures for an integrated approach for Federal facility compliance and is authorized to
issue implementing regulations and guidelines. EPA is further authorized to provide liaison
to assure that actions taken by Federal agencies are coordinated with state, interstate, and
*October 1, 1974, Memorandum of the Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense (Installa-
tions and Housing).
3-12
-------
local environmental control programs and to mediate conflicts between Federal agencies
and state, interstate, or local agencies. In the absence of environmental pollution standards
for a particular geographic area or class of Federal facilities, EPA may establish standards
in consultation with appropriate Federal, state, interstate, and local agencies.
The EPA Office of Federal Activities (OFA) manages the Agency Federal facilities
program designed to discharge EPA responsibilities under Executive Order 11752. Prior
to E. 0. 11752, the EPA Federal facility program encompassed only the air and water
programs, but it now has the additional dimensions of noise, solid waste, marine sanctuaries,
radiations, and pesticides. EPA strategy calls for the utilization of an integrated, multi-
media approach to Federal facility compliance in which data systems, procedures, and
criteria developed for the air and water media will be expanded and refined to incorporate
other programs. The strategy as presently structured encompasses:
• The development of a summary environmental inventory to provide baseline data
and to enable identification of those Federal facilities that are either existing or
potential polluters.
• Evaluation of Federal facility projects to provide recommendations to 0MB for
funding priorities.
• Monitoring of agency actions to meet established compliance plans and schedules
through reviews and site visits conducted by the regional offices.
To implement this strategy, OFA chairs a working group composed of representatives
from each program office, selected regional offices and other EPA components, which will
determine what implementing guidelines are needed and will assign responsibility for
development. All guidelines will be developed in consultation with the other Federal agencies
and must have 0MB concurrence before they are issued. In FY 75, guidelines relating to
land management and operator training will be completed, and development of guidelines
on monitoring and testing, multimedia approach to facility clean-ups, and technology
transfer will be initiated.
0MB Circular A-106, which was issued in December 1974, established general
procedures to be followed by Federal agencies in the control of environmental pollution
from existing Federal facilities and incorporated additional requirements of E. 0. 11752.
In January 1975, EPA issued procedural guidelines that contained standard reporting forms
to be used by agencies. Prior to the issuance of A-l06 and the EPA procedural guidelines,
0MB had directed Federal agencies to submit information to EPA, using a prescribed
format, on their on-going and planned environmental control projects, including noise
abatement projects. At this time, only the U.S. Navy and Air Force have used this format
to identify specific noise abatement projects to abate over-the-fence noise from their
3-13
-------
installations. The Navy has 21 noise abatement projects requiring total funding of
$23,960,000 in FY76, and the Air Force has one FY76 project at $81,000 (See Section 5).
In keeping with its responsibilities under E. 0. 11752, EPA has assigned priorities to the
identified noise abatement projects for FY 76 and has submitted its recommendations to
0MB.
In addition to participating in the development of Agency administrative guidelines
for E. 0. 11752, ONAC is formulating technical guidelines designed to assist Federal facili-
ties in complying with Federal, state and local noise regulations. As presently structured,
the guidelines will provide information on acoustic terminology, noise criteria, measuring
equipment and techniques, noise levels of major noise sources, noise abatement techniques,
and Federal, state, and local noise regulations and ordinances. The guidelines will also
include a summary of Federal agency responses to a recent EPA request for information
on current and anticipated noise problems at Federal facilities. One outgrowth of EPA
technical assistance efforts to formulate and encourage the adoption of model noise
legislation will be increased uniformity in the state and local regulations with which Federal
facilities must comply.
Assistance Between Agencies
The final mechanisms that may be used to facilitate the integration of Federal noise
programs is the provision of technical assistance by one Federal agency to another. A lack
of acoustic expertise and access to specialized facilities has created difficulties for the suc-
cessful coordination of Federal programs, especially at the regional level. Federal agencies
and their Constituent offices, which are involved only peripherally in noise-related activities,
are understandably hesitant to allocate scarce resources to such efforts. To mitigate this
deficiency, various agencies have utilized a variety of techniques that include advisory
committees, Interagency Agreements, and ad-hoc arrangements among regional offices.
In the first category, EPA, the U.S. Army, Navy and Air Force, FAA, NASA, the Public
Health Service, and the National Institute of Neurological Diseases and Stroke provide
financial support to the Committee on Hearing, Bioacoustics and Biomechanics (CHABA)
of the National Academy of Sciences. CHABA, composed of scientists from government,
industrial laboratories, and universities, assists supporting agencies in applying available
scientific information to solving operational problems and in research planning, exchange
of research information, and encouraging research in identified areas.
To obtain specialized support EPA has entered into Interagency Agreements with
components of other Federal agencies possessing specialized technical skills and facilities.
3-14
-------
Those agencies include the U.S. Air Force Aerospace Medical Research Laboratory, for
support in noise health effects research as well as the U.S. Army Construction Engineering
Research Laboratory, and the National Bureau of Standards for support in noise instrumen-
tation and monitoring systems.
At the regional level, EPA both provides and receives technical assistance from field
offices of other Federal agencies. For example, the EPA Boston Regional office provided
equipment, manpower, and data reduction facilities to the HUD regional office in conducting
an ambient noise survey for a proposed housing project.
3-15
-------
SECTION 4
STANDARDS AND REGULATIONS
Noise standards and regulations promulgated by Federal agencies under their respec-
tive statutory authorizations are important elements in the Federal Government efforts in
achieving overall noise control objectives. This section summarizes the standards and
regulations through which Federal agencies have implemented the statutory mandates.
The section begins with an overview of the entire field of Federal regulations to con-
trol noise and summarizes the legislative mandates, action-agency identifications, and
regulatory coverage in convenient tabular presentations. More detailed agency-by-agency
review is provided in Appendix C. The description of each agency’s regulatory program is
preceded by a brief description of the enabling legislation on which the regulatory programs
are based.
An overview of Federal standards and regulations to control noise must respond to
three questions. The tables that follow address each of these questions in sequence:
1. “What regulatory sections of the NCA have been implemented, and by what
actions?” (Table 4-1)
2. “What agencies have been involved in what manner in implementing the NCA?”
(Table 4-2)
3. “What are the principal areas of regulatory coverage with respect to noise
control to date?” (Table 4-3)
IMPLEMENTATION OF THE NOISE CONTROL ACT OF 1972
Table 4-1 relates principal NCA rule-making sections (with the applicable language or
a synopsis of the particular statutory provision) to the implementing actions taken to date
and cities the action agency or agencies involved. Perusal of the table shows that:
• All NCA sections providing for rule-making have received attention through
implementing actions.
• All basic (or initial) action sections (such as NCA Section 5) have been fully
implemented.
4-1
-------
TABLE 4-1
PROVISIONS OF THE NOISE CONTROL ACT OF 1972,
WITH IMPLEMENTING ACTIONS AND ACTION-AGENCY IDENTIFICATIONS
NCA SECTION
COVERAGE
IMPLEMENTING ACTIONS
ACTION A GENCIES
FEDERAL PROGRAMS
Federal agencies to implement
noise control policies to fullest
extent
Each Federal agency to comply
with Federal, State, interstate,
and local requirements re control
and abatement of environmental noise
EPA Administrator shall coordinate
all FederaMgency noise research
and control programs
Each Federal agency to consult with
EPA Administrator in prescribing
standards or regulations respecting
noise. If agency standards considered
inadequate EPA Administrator may
request review and report on advisa-
bility of revision.
EPA Administrator shall publish
status and progress report(s) on
Federal noise research and control
activities; report shall describe the
noise control programs of each
Federal agency and assess their contri-
bution to overall Federal noise control.
Individual Agency Noise Control Programs;
Executive Orders 11612, July 28, 1971, and
11807, September 28, 1974, Occupational Health
and Safety Programs for Federal Employees,
directed fullest application of OSHA Act provisions
in Federal agencies, Executive Order 11752 December
17, 1973, Prevention, Control and Abatement of En-
vironmental Pollution at Federal Facilities, specifically
included compliance with product standards issued
under NCA 72 and State, interstate, and local environ-
mental noise standards. 0MB issued Circular A-I 06 in
January 1975.
EPA has established and chairs 4 interagency panels
to coordinate Federal-agency noise research
Basis for EPA review of, and comment on panels to
coordinate Federal-agency noise research
Purpose of this report is to comply with this
requirement
Federal departments and
agencies
0MB — EPAJFederal
department and agencies
EPA and other Federal
departments and agencies as
concerned
EPA
t
t,,)
4
4(a)
4(b)
4(cXI)
4(c)(2)
4(cX3)
EPA
-------
TABLE 4-i (Cont’d)
PROVISIONS OF THE NOISE CONTROL ACT OF 1972,
WITH IMPLEMENTING ACTIONS AND ACTION-AGENCY IDENTIFICATIONS
ZDENTIFICATION OF MAJOR NOiSE
SOURCES; NOISE CRITERIA AND
CONTROL TECHNOLOGY
EPA Administrator to develop and
publish criteria with respect to noises
indicating all identifiable effects on the
public health and welfare from differing
quantities and qualities of noise
EPA Administrator to publish informa-
tion on levels of environmental noise
requisite to protect public health and
welfare with adequate margin of
safety
EPA Administrator to identify products
or classes of products which are major
sources of noise
Published EPA Document 550/9-73-002, Public Health
and Welfare Criteria for Noise, July 27, 1973.
Published EPA Document 550/9-74-004, Information
on Levels of Envfron mental Noise Requisite to Protect
Public Health and Welfare with an Adequate Margin of
Safety. March, 1974; also EPA Document 550/9-74-009,
Population Distribution of the United States as a Func-
tion of Outdoor Noise Level. June, 1974
“Identification of Products as Major Sources of Noise”,
notice of publication of report in Federal Register, Vol.
39, pp. 22 297-9, June 21, 1974; identifies first two
products, and specifies action under way for next identi-
fication set: nine categories of transportation and thir-
teen categories of construction equipment for further
consideration.
NOt SECTION
CO VERA GE
IMPLEMENTING ACTIONS
ACTION A GENCIES
$
S(a)(1)
5(a) (2)
5(b) (1)
tb
(A)
EPA
EPA
EPA
-------
TABLE 4-1 (Cont’d)
PROVISIONS OF THE NOISE CONTROL ACT OF 1972,
WITH IMPLEMENTING ACTIONS AND ACTION-AGENCY IDENTIFICATIONS
6(a) (1) (C)
(ii)
6(a) (1) (C)
(iii)
6(a)(l)(C)
(iv)
NOISE EMISSION STANDARDS FOR
PRODUCFS DISTRIBUTED IN
COMMERCE
EPA Administrator to publish regulations
for each product
identified as major noise source (under
Section 5(b) (1), above); and
for which noise emission standards
feasible; and
in following categories:
Construction equipmeii
Any motor or engine ( including equip-
ment of which they are integral part)
EPA issued NPRM on Portable Au Compressors,*
October 15, l974,FederalRegisze, , Vol. 39, pp.
38186-38205, October 29, 1974
NPRM public hearings held in Arlington, Va. and
San Francisco, Cal., February 1975
EPA issued NPRM on Medium and Heavy Duty
Trucks, October 15, l9 4, FederalRegzs:er
Vol. 39 pp. 38338-38362
NPRM public hearings held in Arlington, Va. and
San Francisco, CaL February 1975.
Issued reports on technical and cost data developed
for individual sources (e.g. lawn mowers)
EPA
EPA and collaborating Federal
agencies and contractors
EPA
NCA SECTiON
COVERAGE
IMPLEMENTiNG ACTIONS
ACTION A GENCIES
6
6(a) (1)
6(a)(l)(A)
6(a) (1) (B)
6(a)(l)(C)
6(a)(l)(C)
(i)
Section 5 (b) (I), above
Studies underway
Transportation equipment (including
recreational vehicles and related
equipment)
EPA
EPA
Electrical and electronic equipment None to date
EPA
-------
TABLE 4-1 (Cont’d)
PROVISIONS OF THE NOISE CONTROL ACT OF 1972,
WITH IMPLEMENTING ACTIONS AND ACTION-AGENCY IDENTIFICATIONS
NCA SECTION
COVERAGE
IMPLEMENTING ACTIONS
ACTIONAGENCIES
7 AIRCRAFT NOISE STANDARDS
7 (a) EPA Administrator to study: EPA published Report to Congress on Aircraft! EPA
Airport Noise. July 27, 1973 in compliance with NCA
Section 7(a)
(1) adequacy of FAA flight and operational
noise controls
(2) adequacy of noise emission standards on
new and existing aircraft, together with
recommendations on the retrofitting and
phase-out of existing aircraft.
- (3) implications of identifying and achieving
JI levels of commulative noise exposure
around airports
(4) additional measures available to airport
operators and local governments to
control aircraft noise
7 (b) FAA retains authority under FAA Act of See Table 4-3 DOT/FAA
1958, Section 611, to prescribe aircraft
noise and sonic boom measurement and
emission regulations
7 (C) EPA to recommend (additional) regula- See Table 43 EPA
rions to FAA if considered necessary to
protect the public health and welfare
from noise and sonic boom
-------
TABLE 4-I (Cont’d)
PROVISIONS OF THE NOISE CONTROL ACT OF 1972,
WITH IMPLEMENTING ACTIONS AN!) ACTION-AGENCY IDENTIFICATIONS
LABELING
EPA Administrator shall by regulation
designate any product:
which emits noise capable of adienely
affecting the public health and welfare
which is sold on basis of effectiveness
in reducing noise
The Administrator shall require labeling
of such product as to noise emitted or
effectiveness in reducing noise
CPSC coordinating with EPA on development
of power lawn mower standard
EPA has issued ANPRM on labeling of Hearing Pro-
tectors (ONAC Docket No. 74-3, 11-27-74; 39 FR
42330).
Draft Memorandum of Understanding between the
CPSC and EPA submitted by EPA to CPSC 12-17-74
NOt SECTION 1 COVERAGE -
IMPLEMENTING ACTiONS
A CT1ON A GENCIES
8
8 (a)
8(a) (1)
8(a)(2)
8 0)
0
EPA and CPSC*
EPA
EPA and CPSC
*Con imer Product Safety Commission
-------
TABLE 4-1 (Cont’d)
PROVISIONS OF THE NOISE CONTROL ACT OF 1972,
WITh IMPLEMENT iNG ACFIONS AND ACTION-AGENCY IDENTIFICATIONS
IMPORTS
Secretary of Treasury, in consultation
with EPA Administrator, to issue regu-
lations to apply NCA for new products
imported or offered for importation
EPA Office of Enforcement, with EPA/ONAC
support developing recommendations for Treasury/
Customs Service procedures:
(I) labeling of new import products for ready
recognition of compliance
(2) proposed revision of present air/water
regulations compliance form (EPA Form
3520-1) to include noise regulations or
development of additional new form
9
NCA SECT/ON
CO VERA GE
IMPLEMENTING ACTIONS
ACTION AGENCiES
Treasury with EPA support
ti
-a
-------
TABLE 4-1 (Cont’d)
PROVISIONS OF THE NOISE CONTROL ACT OF 1972,
WITH IMPLEMENTING ACTIONS AND ACTION-AGENCY IDENTIFICATIONS
l0
10 (a)
10(a) (1)
and (2)
tO (a)(3)
and (4)
l0(a)(5)
10(a) (6)
PROHIBITED ACTS
Defines violations of:
Section 6
Section 8
Section 9
Sections 11, 13,17,18
ENFORCEMENT
Defines penalties and jurisd iction
for prosecution of NCA violations
EPA developing enforcement programs; enforce-
ment procedures in proposed Section 6 regulations
(q v.)
Facility for enforcing noise regulation compliance
proposed for EPA/OE
NCA SECT/ON
CO VERA GE
IMPLEMENTING ACTIONS
II
EPA/OE
a
do
EPA/OE
-------
TABLE 4-I (Cont’d)
PROVISIONS OF THE NOISE CONTROL ACT OF 1972,
WITH IMPLEMENTING ACTIONS AND ACTION-AGENCY IDENTIFICATIONS
JVCA SECTION
CO VERA GE
IMPLEMENTING ACTIONS
ACTION AGENCiES
15 DEVELOPMENT OF LOW-NOISE
EMISSION PRODUCTS
15(a) (3) Applies to products emitting notse sign if:- EPA has scheduled LNEP study tasks. LNEP Certifica- EPA
cantly below levels specified in Section 6 tion Procedures issued as Part 203, Title 40, U.S.C.
regulations at time of procurement. Federal Register. Vol. 39, p. 6670, February 2], 1974
15(c) (1) Federal Government am pay up to 125% Objective low-noise-emission criteria for regulated
of retail price of least expensive type of new products wit] be published subsequently.
comparable product to procure low noise
emission products (LNEP)
EPA participates in interagency Experimental Techno- EPA/ONAC, GSA/FSS
logical Incentives Program (ETW) established to develop DOC/NBS, etc.
and test Federal policies for stimulating technological
innovation. While not specifically tied to NCA Section
15, two ongoing ETIP projects (power lawn mower and
air conditioner procurement experiments) incorporate
noise considerations.
*Federal Supply Service
-------
TABLE 4-1 (Cont’d)
PROVISIONS OF THE NOISE CONTROL ACT OF 1972,
WITH IMPLEMENTING ACTIONS AND ACTION-AGENCY IDENTIFICATIONS
NCA SECTION
Co VERA GE
IMPLEMENTING ACTiONS
A CT/ON A GENCIES
RAILROAD NOISE EMISSION
STANDARDS
EPA Administrator to propose noise
emission regulations for surface carriers
engaged in interstate commerce by
railroad
Consult with DOT Secretary
DOT Secretary to promulgate regulations
and enforce compliance under Safety
Appliance, ICC and DOT Acts
MOTOR CARRIER NOISE EMISSION
STANDARDS
EPA Administrator to publish proposed
noise emission regulations for motor
airriers in interstate commerce
Consult with DOT Secretary
DOT Secretary to promulgate regulationa
and enforce compliance under ICC and
DOT Acts
Standard proposed: New Part 201,40 U.S . C. “Rail-
road Noise Emission Standards”, Federal Register,
Vol. 39, pp. 24580 — 24586, July 3, 1974.
NPRM public hearing held in Chicago, IlL, August 14,
1974; EPA published Doe. 550/9-74-005a,
Background Document/Environmental
Explanation for Proposed Interstate
Rail Carrier Noise Emission Regulations.
June 1974.
Consultation in progress
Standard proposed: Federal Register, Vol. 38, pp.
20101-20407, July 27, 1973. Final Regulations:
New Part 202,40 U.S.C. “Motor Carriers Engaged in
Interstate Commerce Noise Emission Standards,”
Federal Register, Vol. 39, pp. 38208-382 16, October
29, 1974. EPA published Document 550/9-74-017,
Background Document for interstate Motor
Carrier Noise Emission Regulations, October 1974
Consultation completed 1974
Compliance Procedures Proposed: FederalRegirter,
Vol. 40, pp. 8658-8666, February 28, 1975.
C
17
18
18(a) (1)
I8(a)(3)
18 (b)
EPA
DOT/OST
DOT/FRA, ICC
EPA
DOT/OST
DOT/FHWA (BMCS),
and ICC
-------
TABLE 4-2
IMPLEMENTATION OF THE NOiSE CONTROL ACT OF 1972,
BY U.S. GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENTS AND AGENCIES
US.
Government
Principal Regulatory
Related NCA
Departm
ents and Agencies
Departmental Elements
Issuances to Date
Sections
Consumer Product Safety Notice of Proceeding to develop
Commission power lawn mower standard 6, 8
Noise Emission standard for toy
guns and caps 6
Environmental Protection Office of Noise Abatement and Proposed noise emission standards
Agency Control for:
Portable air compressors 6
Heavy and medium duty trucks 6
Proposed noise emission standard
(operational) for surface carriers
engaged in interstate commerce by
rail 17
Noise emission standard (operation-
al)for motor carriers engaged in
interstate commerce 18
NPRM proposals submitted to
FAA or under development on
aviation noise in following areas: 7
— aircraft operations
— aircraft type certifications
— airport regulations
-------
TABLE 4-2 (Cont’d)
IMPLEMENTATION OF THE NOISE CONTROL ACT OF 1972,
BY U.S. GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENTS AND AGENCIES
U.S.
Depart in
Government
ents and Agencies
Departmental Elements
Principal Regulatory
issuances to Date
Related NCA
Sections
Environmental Protection Comments on OSHA noise standard
Agency (Cont’d) (see Dept. of Labor, below) 4
Federal Government programs
monitorship: 4
Noise abatement programs
Hearing conservation survey
OSHA standard application
is
Certification Procedures for
Low-Noise Emission Products 15
General Services Admin- Public Buildings Service *Nojse emission limits for equipment 4
istration (GSA) employed at government-building
construction sites
(Para 44.8 in Guide Specification
PBS 4-01100, October 1973
Housing and Urban Community Planning and t Circular 1390.2 4
Development Development Noise Control and Abatement
Interior Bureau of Mines *Appljcatjon of Waish-Healy Act 4
occupational noise exposure limits
to underground coal mines and
surface work areas
35 FR 5544, 37 FR 6368
(EPA recommends changes)
*Imp lementing actions based on statutory authority enacted prior to NCA
-------
TABLE 4-2 (Cont’d)
IMPLEMENTATION OF THE NOISE CONTROL ACT OF 1972,
BY U.S. GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENTS AND AGENCIES
US.
Government
Principal Regulatory
Related NCA
Departm
ents and Agencies
Department Elements
Issuances
to Date
Sections
Interior (Cont’d) Mining Enforcement and Safety Applies current OSHA standard as 4
Administration (MESA) mandatory for metal and non-
metallic open pit mines
39 FR 28433
(EPA recommends revisions)
Labor Occupational Safety and Health t ”Occupational Noise Exposure”, 4
Administration (OSHA) para 1910.95, OSHA Act,
36 FR 10518 (EPA believes regula-
tion not adequate to protect public
health and welfare).
Transportation Federal Aviation Administration *See advisory circulars, rule-making 7
(FAA) proposals, and Federal Mr Regula-
tions listed in Table 4-3
Federal Highway Administration *Noise standards for highway design: 4
(FHWA) PPM 90-2, noise standards and
procedures
FHWAI Bureau of Motor Carrier *vehicle interior noise levels 4, 18
Safety (Para 393.94 BMCS regulations)
(EPA recommends revision)
*lmplementing actions based on statutory authority enacted prior to NCA
-------
TABLE 4-2 (Cont’d)
IMPLEMENTATION OF THE NOISE CONTROL ACT OF 1972,
BY U.S. GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENTS AND AGENCIES
US.
Government
Principal Regulatory
Related NCA
Departm
ents and Agencies
Departmental Elements
Issuances
to Date
Sections
Transportation (Cont’d) Proposed compliance procedures 18
for EPA interstate motor carrier
noise emission standards
49 CFR Part 325
40 FR 8658
Veterans Administration *Manuai 26-2, Section VIII, Change 4
43, 9-24-69, for property near air-
ports; updated and revised by DVB
circular 26-74, 9-10-74
•Implemenfing actions based on statutory authority enacted prior to NCA
-------
• Major action sections of the NCA are receiving continuing attention (as in the
case of Sections 6 and 8, considering their evolutionary nature).
• Implementation of NCA Section 15 has been deferred until Section 6 standards
become operative.
• Implementation of NCA Section 7 is broad and requires reference to the func-
tional-areas summary in Table 4-3.
DEPARTMENTAL AND AGENCY ACTIVITIES
Table 4-2 lists the action agencies and action-agency components with the regulatory
steps they have taken pursuant to the mandates of the NCA and related legislation. It also
represents the list of principal agencies with which EPA must collaborate and interact to
effect the implementation of the NCA. The list represents only a small part of the Federal
Executive Branch, because only principal action agencies responsible for major noise con-
trol program portions are shown. The list also has been kept short by omitting separate
citations of all agencies that issue internal regulations such as departmental directives and
instructions implementing the Executive Order for hearing conservation programs at Federal
installations. However, the fact that the actions of the comparatively small number of
agencies shown in Table 4-2 have actually resulted in fairly broad initial coverage of noise
control problem areas is brought out subsequently in the functionally oriented summaries
of Table 4-3.
STATUS OF RULE-MAKING IN FUNCTIONAL AREAS
Table 4-3 groups agency regulatory issuances by functional areas. The functional
groups presented are:
• Aircraft noise
• Surface transportation noise
• Products that are major noise sources
• Noise control for housing
• Noise control for the work place.
Aircraft noise control addresses operational regulations, aircraft type certification,
and airport noise control. Surface transportation, in this table, delineates regulations
covering highway noise control (which will now also apply to instances in which highway
funds are to be used for mass transit projects), vehicles using the highways, railroads, and
other surface transportation.
The “Products” category includes the first construction equipment item to be regu-
lated as a major noise-source product (portable air compressors), although much construction
4-15
-------
equipment is mounted on vehicles for mobility and therefore could, with almost equal
logic, be grouped with the transportation equipment as a source of community noise.
The last two categories in Table 4-3, “Housing” and “Work Place Protection”, are
unique in that the regulations treated here set standards of acceptability of exposure to
noise. Protection from the actual noise exposure can be achieved by countermeasures
when the control of the noise source is not yet feasible or adequate.
The entire picture that emerges from the perusal of Table 4-3 is that of an impressively
broad and well-oriented initial attack on the problem of noise. The efficacy of that attack
will depend on the timing of, and compliance with, the full array of regulatory actions,
including the many listed as awaiting full application and implementation.
4-I 6
-------
TABLE 4-3
STATUS OF RULE MAKING: STANDARDS, REGULATIONS,
AND EXECUTIVE ORDERS
NOISE CONTROL AREA
ISSUING AGENCY
TYPE OFREGULA TOR Y ISSUANCE
TITLE AND BRIEF DESCRIPTION
Adiisory
Circl4lar*
Advance Notice
of Pro posed
Rule-Making
Notice of Pro posed
Rule-Making
.
Standard or
Regulatkrn
Aircraft Noise
2. Flight Procedures
(I) Takeoff DOT/FAA AC 91-39 Takeoff Procedures for Noise
1-18-74 Control. “Get-’em High Earlier”
takeoff procedure. initiated by
FAA and ATA 1972.
EPA NPRM proposal to Ta ke off Procedures for Noise
be submitted to Contro. Would extend benefits
FAA (EPA #1)** of AC 90-59 (see minimum alti-
tudes, below) by additional
takeoff procedures to alleviate
sideline noise and near and far
down-range noise.
(2) Approach and DOT/FAA ANPRM 74-12 Two Segment ILSNotseAbate-
Landing 3-26.74 ment Approach.
Would require use of a two-segment
approach to reduce noise footprint
of aircraft on landing approach.
Initial part of descent would be
steeper (6°) than conventional
glide slope angle. Final segment
would conform to glide slope angle
(3 ). Would apply at about 60 U.S.
airports.
*FAA Advisory (‘irculars inform the aviation pubic **Refers to item numbers of (revised) list of rules to be
of nonregulatory matcriil of interest. They are not proposed by EPA to FAA (See Notice of Public
binding as are regulations. Comment Period, 39 FR 6112, February 19, 1974).
-------
TABLE 4-3 (Cont’d.)
STATUS OF RULE MAKiNG: STANDARDS, REGULATiONS,
AND EXECUTIVE ORDERS
(3) Minimum
Altitudes
NPRM proposal to
be submitted to
FAA (EPA #2)
Proposed NPRM
submitted to FAA
I 2-6-74 (EPA #3)
FAA NPRM 74-40
40-FR 1072
1-6-75
Approach and Landing Procedures
for Noise Control.
EPA endorsed approach in ANPRM
74-12 but also will recommend
inclusion of use of reduced flap
settings.
Arrival and Departure Handling of
High Performance Aircraft.
“Keep- em High” procedure for
noise abatement. Requires minimum
altitudes for turbojet powered air-
planes of 5,000 feet for IFR operation
in the vicinity of airports, except as
dictated by safety or other opera-
tional requirements. Also encourage
VFR usage by these aircraft.
Noise Abatement Minimum Altitudes
Within Terminal Areas; Turbo/et
Powered Airplanes. Would require
all turbojet aircraft (both IFR and
VFR) to comply with the altitude
limitations and operational proced-
ures of Advisory Circular 90-59.
Would also restrict descent below
3,000 feet to rates consistent with
ILS glide slope.
NOISE CONTROL AREA
iSSUING AGENCY
TYPE OFREGULA TORY ISSUANCE
TITLE AND BRIEF DESCRIPTION
Ath’iwry
Circular*
A dvance Notice
of Proposed
Rule-Making
Notice of Proposed
Rule-Making
Standard or
Regulation
00
(2) Approach and EPA
Landing (Cont’d
DOT/FAA AC 90-59
EPA
•FAA Adv soiy Circulars inform the aviation public of
nonregulatory material of interest. They are not binding
as are regulations.
-------
TABLE 4-3 (Cont’d)
STATUS OF RULE MAKING: STANDARDS, REGULATIONS,
AND EXECUTIVE ORDERS
NOISE CONTROL AREA
ISSUING AGENCY
TYPE OF REGULATORY ISSUANCE
TiTLE AND BRIEF DESCRiPTION
Advisory
Circular*
Advance Notice
of Pro pa sed
Rule-Making
Notice of Pro posed
Rule-Making
Standard or
Regulat ion
(3) Minimum FAA AC 91-36 VRR Flight Near Noise-Sensitive
Altitudes 7-8-7 2 Areas. Pilots making VFR flights
(Cont’d.) near noise sensitive areas (schools.
nursing homes, hospitals, recreation
areas, wildlife areas) to fly not less
than 2,000 feet above the surface
although flights at lower levels may
be and in conformance in FAR
91.79 minimum safe altitude.
(4) Sonic Boom DOT/FAA NPRM 70-16 FAR Part CivilAireraft Sonic Boom.
4-10-70 91.55 Prohibits operation of a civil airciaft
4-27-73 at a true flight Mach number greater
than I over the United States and
its territorial waters unless author-
ized by the FAA. Proposed to pro-
hibit supersonic flights by civil
aircraft over the United States.
B. Type DOTJFAA FAR Part 36 Noise Standards: Aircraft Type
Certification certification. Sets noise level
(1 } Aircraft limits at three locations around a
Noise i - runway for type certification of
sions Stand- new aircraft designs. Effective
aids. Subsonic 12-1-69.
transport cate-
gory airplanes
and subsonic
turbojet pow-
ered airplanes.
-------
TABLE 4-3 (Cont’d)
STATUS OF RULE MAKING: STANDARDS, REGULATIONS,
AND EXECUTIVE ORDERS
NOISE CONTROL AREA
ISSUiNG AGENCY
TYPE OF REGULATORY ISSUANCE
TiTLE AND BRIEF DESCRIPTION
Ath?isory
Circular*
Adwince Notice
of Proposed
Rule-Making
Notice of Pro posed
Rule-Making
Standard or
Regulation
B. Type DOT/FAA NPRM 71-26 Amendment Noise Type Certification and
Certification 9-13-71 to FAR Part Acoustic Chenge Approvals.
(Cont’d .) 36 Detailed proposed changes for FAR
12-12-74 36 to improve certification procedure
and define more carefully what con-
stitutes an “acoustic change” for an
aircraft design so that new certi-
fication for noise is initiated.
Amendment effective 1-20-75.
DOTIFAA NPRM 72-19 FAR Part 36 Noise Standards for Newly Produced
7-7-72 10-26-73 Airplane of Older Type Designs.
New aircraft shall comply with the
noise level standards of FAR, Part
36. (a) after 12-1-73 for aircraft
weighing more than 75,000 Ibs,
except those powered by P&WA
JT&D engines; (b) after 12-31-74 for
all aircrafts.
EPA NPRM proposal to Modification to Federal Aviation
be submitted to Regulations (FAR 36)
FAA
(2) CIVIl Supersonic DOT/FAA ANPRM 70-33 Civil Supersonic Aircraft Noise Type
Aircraft 84-70 Certification Standards. Proposed to
establish standards for civil SSrs. No
further action on this Advance Notice
since 1970.
-------
TABLE 4-3 (Cont’d)
STATUS OF RULE MAKING: STANDARDS, REGULATIONS,
AND EXECUTIVE ORDERS
NOISE CONTROL AREA
ISSUING AGENCY
TYPE OFREGULA TORY ISSUANCE
TITLE AND BRIEF DESCRIPTION
Advisory
Circular*
Advance Notice
of Proposed
Rule-Making
Notice of Pro posed
Rule-Making
Standard or
Reguktk,n
(2) Civil Supersonic EPA NPRM proposal Aircraft Noise Requirement-Civil
Aircraft submitted to FAA Supersonic Airplanes. Recommends
(Cont’d.) 2-28-75 FAA issue two proposed rules for
(EPA #5) public comment.
— Proposed Regulation for Future
Types and Later Production Ver-
sions of Current Types of SSTs:
(applicable to foreign and domes-
tic air carriers)
• Applicant for type certificate
for civil supersonic airplane
required to show compliance
with noise requirements for
FAR Part 36 effective on date
of application of a type
certificate.
• Current type supersonic air-
planes except those upon which
substantive productive effort has
been commenced prior to the
date this regulation proposed,
must meet present FAR Part 36
(effective 1 December 1969)
noise requirements.
— Proposal cites 8 regulatory options
applicable to initial production
version of current SSTs. EPA
favors regulation based on Option
3 (Allow SST Operation at Desig-
nated Airports with Restriction)
but encourages full discussion
through public hearing process.
-------
TABLE 4-3 (Cont’d)
STATUS OF RULE MAKING: STANDARDS, REGULATIONS,
AND EXECUTIVE ORDERS
NOISE CONTROL AREA
iSSUING AGENCY
TYPE OFREGULA TORY ISSUANCE
TITLE AND BRiEF DESCRIPTION
Advisory
Circular
Advance Notice
of Proposed
Rule-Making
Notice of Pro posed
Rule-Making
Standard or
Regulation
(3) Retrofit Fleet DOT/FAA ANPRM 70-44 Civil Airplane Noise Reduction
Noise Level 10-30-70 Retrofit Requirements. Proposed
engineering modifications to older
design civil aircraft for noise reduc-
tion purposes.
DOT/FAA ANPRM 73-3 Civil Airplane Fleet Noise Level
1-24-73 (FNL) Requirements. Proposed
modifications for all civil transport
aircraft to civil transport aircraft
to meet FAR 36 noise levels, using
a fleet noise rule” to insure pro-
gressively lowered steps over
several years until complete com-
pliance by 7-1-78. Inactive.
DOT/FAA NPRM 74-14 Civil Aircraft Fleet Noise Require-
3-27-74 ments. Proposal to require all
civil subsonic jet aircraft weighing
over 75,000 pounds to comply with
FAR 36 after 6-30-78, with at least
one-half of the engine nacelles of
each air carrier fleet complying
after 6-30-76.
-------
TABLE 4-3 (Cont’d)
STATUS OF RULE MAKING: STANDARDS, REGULATIONS,
AND EXECUTIVE ORDERS
NOiSE CONTROL A REA
iSSUiNG AGENCY
TYPE OFREGULA TOR Y ISSUANCE
TITLE AND BRIEF DESCRIPTION
Adrisory
Circular
Advance Notice
of Proposed
Rule-Making
Notice of Proposed
Rule-Making
Standard or
Regulation
(3) Retrofit Fleet EPA NPRM proposal civil Subsonic Turbojet Engine-
Noise Level submitted to FAA Powered Airplanes. Noise Retrofit
(Cont’d.) (EPA #4) Requirements. Proposal to amend
(1-29-75) FAR Part 91 differs from FAA
NPRM 74-14 pnncipally in regard
(1) to its applicability and (2) the
required installation of engines!
nacelles listed by an operator.
(1) Requires all civil subsonic turbo-
jet engine-powered airplanes
regardless of weight to comply with
FAR 36 after 6-30-78.
(2) Requires scheduled installation
of each engine/nacelle on operational
airplanes of the operator, if he lists
such engines/nacelles as part of his
“on-the-shelf” inventory.
NPRM proposal Reet Noise Level Requirement.
submitted to FAA Proposal to amend FAR Parts 121
(EPA #4) and 129. Prescribes noise data and
(1-29-75) information reporting requirements f
for computation of Fleet Noise
Level (FNL) effective on and after
1-1-76 for operation within U.S. of
any civil subsonic or future subsonic
turbojet engine-powered airplane by
each certificate holder.
-------
TABLE 4-3 (Cont’d)
STATUS OF RULE MAKING: STANDARDS, REUULATIONS,
AND EXECUTWE ORDERS
NOISE CONTROL AREA
ISSUING AGENCY
TYPE OF REGULA TOR Y ISSUANCE
TITLE AND BRIEF DESCRIPTION
Advisory
Circular*
Advance Notice
of Pro posed
Rule-Making
Notice of Proposed
Rule-Making
Standard or
Regulation
(4) Small Aircraft DOT/FAA NPRM 73-26 Amendments Propeller-Driven Small Airplanes:
10-10-73 to CFR 14. Noise Standards. Prescribes noise
38 FR 23016 Chapter 1 standards: Propeller-driven air-
Parts 21 and craft weighing less than 12,500 lbs.,
36 for type certification requested on
40 FR 1029 or after 10-10-73 and for all types
1-6-75 manufactured after 1-1-80.
EPA NPRM proposal Noise Standards for Propeller-Driven
submitted to FAA Small Airplanes. Proposes noise
(EPA #7) standards for propeller-driven small
12-674 _______ airplanes applicable to new type
FAA NPRM designs, newly produced airplanes
74-39 of older type designs, and to the
40 FR 1061 prohibition of “acoustical changes”
1-6-75 in the type design of those air-
planes. Proposals contain differences
from FAA NPRM 73-26 in regard to
key elements of noise evaluation
measures, noise complaince levels,
performance correction, and flight
procedures.
(5) Short Haul DOT/FAA ANPRM 73-32 Noise Standards: Short Haul Air-
Aircraft 12-14-73 craft. Proposed to consider noise
(VIR/STOL) standards for STOL, RTOL, and
V1’OL aircraft and invited sugges-
tions regarding certification con-
cepts and noise evaluation units.
EPA NPRM proposal to Short Haul Aircraft
be submitted to
FAA (EPA #8)
-------
TABLE 4-3 (Cont’d)
STATUS OF RULE MAKING: STANDARDS, REGULATIONS,
AND EXECUTNE ORDERS
NOISE CONTROL AREA
ISSIJINGAGENCY
TYPE OFREGULA TORY ISSUANCE
TITLE AND BR1EFDESCR!PTION
Advisory
Circular*
Advance Notice
of Proposed
Rule-Making
Notice of Proposed
Rule-Making
Standard or
Regulation
C. Airport Noise EPA Proposed regulation EPA has study in progress; work on
package to he sub- regulation started in September
mitted to FAA 1973
(EPA #9)
-------
TABLE 4-3 (Cont’d)
STATUS OF RULE MAKING: STANDARDS, REGULATIONS,
AND EXECUTIVE ORDERS
NO /SE CONTROL AREA
ISSUING AGENCY
TYPE OFREGULA TOR Y ISSUANCE
TITLE AND BRIEF DESCRJPTI ON
A dvi sory
Circular*
Advance Notice
of Proposed
Rule-Making
Notice of Pro po sed
Rule-Making
Standard or
Regulation
2. Surface Transpor-
tation Noise
A. Highways DOT/Fl-I WA PPM 90-2 Noise Standards and Procedures.
2.8-73 Specifles design noise levels (LIO)
and land-use relationships:
Category LIO Land use
A 60 dBA Trucks where
t .) serenity and
quiet are of
extraordinary
importance
B 70 dBA Residences,
(ext.) Motels, Hos-
pitals, Parks
C 75 dBA Developed
(ext.) areas not in
A or B
D (special
treat-
ment)
E 55 dBA as for category
(mt.) B
NOTE: EPA has requested FHWA
to accept converstion to
LJn/Leq system.
-------
TABLE 4-3 (Cont’d)
STATUS OR RULE MAKING: STANDARDS, REGULATIONS,
AND EXECUTIVE ORDERS
NOISE (‘ONTROL AREA
ISSUING AGENCY
TYPE OFREGULA TORY ISSUANCE
TITLE AND BRIEF DESCRIPTION
Adi’isory
Cire ular*
Adi’ance Notice
of Proposed
Rule-Making
Notice of Proposed
Rule-Making
Standard or
Regulation
DOT/FEIWA NPRM Docket No. Noise Standards and Procedures.
74-6 Formally proposes incorporation of
39 FR 32618 PPM 90-2 specifications as Chapter
9-10-74 1, Title 23 CFR, Part 772, sections
772-1-12; design noise levels given
in both Leg and Lb.
3. Motor (‘.irriers EPA NPRM Final Reg. Motor Carriers Engaged in Inter-
(Interstate) 7-27-73 10-29-74 state commerce: Noise Emission
38 FR 20101 39 FR 38208 Standards. 86 dBA at 35 mph or
Note: see also less; 90 dBA at more than 35 mph;
3. Commercial stationary test: 88 dRA
Products
B. Transportation DOT/FHWA NPRM Proposed Compliance Procedures
Equipment 2-28-75 Proposes regulations establishing
(Heavy and mcd- 40 FR 8658 methodologies for determining
iLII1 duty whether commercial motor vehicles
Inicks), below conform to EPA Interstate Motor
Carrier Noise Emission Standards.
-------
TABLE 4-3 (Cont’d)
STATUS OR RULE MAKING: STANDARDS, REGULATIONS,
AND EXECUTIVE ORDERS
NOISE CONTROL AREA
ISSUINGAGENCY
TYPE OFREGULA TORY ISSUANCE
TiTLE AND BRIEF DESCRIPTION
Advisory
Circular*
Advance Notice
of Proposed
Rule-Making
Notice of Pro posed
Rule-Making
Standard or
Regulation
C. Railroad Noise EPA NPRM Railroad Noise Emission Standard.
Emissions 7-3-74 New Part 201 to Title 40 CRF
39 FR 24580 would apply noise controls to all
rail cars and all locomotives (except
steam locomotives) operated or con-
trolled by carriers in the Continental
U. S subject to the Interstate Com-
merce Act. Applies under both
stationary and moving conditions.
with near-term (270 days) and long-
term (4 years) deadline specifica-
tions for compliance.
-------
TABLE 4-3 (Con’t)
STATUS OR RULE MAKING: STANDARDS, REGULATIONS,
AND EXECUTIVE ORDERS
NO/SE CONTROL AREA
/SSU/NG AGENCY
TYPE OFREGULA TORY iSSUANCE
TITLE AND BRIEF DES CR LPTION
Advisory
Circulartm
Advance Notice
of P m posed
Rule-Making
Notice of Proposed
Rule-Making
Standard or
Regulation
3. Commercial
Products
A. Construction EPA NPRM Noise Emission Standards for Con-
Equipment 10-15-74 struction Equipment. Proposed
39 FR 38186 Portable Air Compressor Standards.
Effective one year from promulga-
tion new portable air compressors
shall be so designed, built and
equipped as not to produce during
life of product average sound level
in excess of 76 dBA.
GSA Par. 442 Noise Emission Limits for Construc-
Guide tion Equipmeni. Applicable to
Specification equipment employed at government-
PBS 4-01100 building construction sites.
October l9T
B. Transportation EPA NPRM Transportation Equipment Noise
Equipment 10-15-74 Emission Controls: Proposed
39 FR 38338 Standards for Medium and Heavy
Duty Trucks. Newly manufactured
vehicles shall be designed and
equipped so as not to exceed the
following low-speed sound emission
levels;83 dBA for 1977-i 980
models, 80 dBA for 1981 and 1982
models; 75 dBA for 1983 and subse-
quent model years.
-------
TABLE 4-3 (Con’t)
STATUS OR RULE MAKING: STANDARDS, REGULATIONS,
AND EXECUTIVE ORDERS
NOISE CONTROL AREA
ISSUING AGENCY
TYPE OFREG ULA TOR Y iSSUANCE
TITLE AND BRiEF DESCRIPTION
A dvisory
Circular*
Advance Notice
of Pro posed
Rule-Making
Notice of J’roposed
Rule-Making
Standard or
Regulation
C. Hearing Protectors EPA ANPRM Hearing Protectors.
11-27-74; Proposal to designate hearing
39 FR 42380 protectors as a product sold
12-5-74 wholly or in part on the basis
of their effectiveness in reducing
noise and to require labeling as to
their noise attenuation capability
(NCA Section 8).
Comment deadline 2-1-75.
0
-------
TABLE 4-3 (Con’t)
STATUS OR RULE MAKING: STANDARDS, REGULATIONS,
AND EXECUTIVE ORDERS
NOISE CONTROL AREA
ISSUING A GENCY
TYPE OF REGULATORY ISSUANfE
TITLE A ND BRIEF DES CR/PT/ON
Adr:sory
Ctrcular*
Advance Notice
of Proposed
Rule-Making
Notice of Ps-c posed
Rule-Making
Standard or
Regulation
D. Power Lawn Mower CPSC Notice of fl,nsumcr Products Safety Standard
Proceeding Jbr Power Lawn Mowers. Announce-
7/ 17 174 ment of plan to develop a safety
39 PR 26662 standard for power lawn mowers by
- June 19. 1975 to include prevention
of “potential for hearing loss and
non-auditory trauma from exposure
to excessive noise.” First CPSC
standard to include protection from
2± noise.
E. Toy Guns and CPSC Title 16. CPSC reissued HEW regulation under
Caps Chapter I i. Federal Hazardous Substances Act
Subchapter which bans sale of toy guns and
C. Part 1500 caps in violation of noise emission
9 (27 /73 standards.
F. Low-Noise-Emission EPA NPRM Low-Noise Emission Products (LATE?)
Products 5/2/73 Certification Procedures. Proposed
38 FR 1082 regulations to implement NCA
Section 15.
EPA Title 40. Low-Noise Emission Prod ucts (LNEP)
Chapter 1, Certification Procedures. Regulations
Subchapter to implement NCA Section IS.
G. Part 203,
2 / 13 / 74
-------
TABLE 4-3 (Con’t)
STATUS OR RULE MAKING: STANDARDS, REGULATIONS,
AND EXECUTIVE ORDERS
NOISE CONTROL AREA
ISSUiNG AGENCY
TYPE OFREGULA TOR Y ISSUANcE
TITLE AND BRiEF DESCRIPTION
Advisory
Circular*
Advance Notice
of Proposed
Rule-Making
Notice of Proposed
Rule-Making
Standard or
Regulation
4. Housing HUD Depart- Noise Abatement and Control:
Exterior/In- mental Departmental policy implementation
tenor Noise Circular responsibility and standards.
Standards 1390.2 Standards for new constructions.
General Exterior Exposure; not to
exceed 65 dBa for more than 8 out
of any 24 hours;
. Aircraft-Noise Exposure near
Airports: Composite Noise Rating
less than 100; Noise Exposure fore-
cast less than 30.
Interior Areas: Not to exceed
55 dBa for more than 60 minutes
in any 24-hour period; not to
exceed 45 dBa for more than 8
hours of any 24-hour period.
Sleeping Quarters: Not to exceed
45 dBa for 30 minutes during
I I pm to 7 am period.
NOTE: EPA has recommended
HUD adopt Leq/Ldn en-
vironmental noise de-
scnption.
-------
TABLE 4-3 (Con’t)
STATUS OR RULE MAKING: STANDARDS, REGULATIONS,
AND EXECUTIVE ORDERS
NOISE CONTROL AREA
iSSUING AGENCY
TYPE OFREGULA TOR I JSSUAN E
TITLE AND BRIEF DESCRIPTION
A dvisory
Circular
Advance Notice
of Proposed
Rule-Making
Notice of Proposed
Rule-Making
Standard or
Regulation
4. Housing VA Manual Appraisal of Residerillal Properties
(Cont’d) M 26-2 near Airpor!i Nationwide pre-
Change 43 determined formulas for measuring
9-24- 9 depreciation allowances due to air-
port proximity not considered
advisable or practical. Response
of residential communities to
composite noise ratings makes
properties exposed to noise from
takeoffs and landings in excess of
115 per day and runups in excess
of 95 per day unacceptable.
-------
TABLE 4-3 (Con’t)
STATUS OR RULE MAKING: STANDARDS, REGULATIONS,
AND EXECUTIVE ORDERS
NOISE CONTROL AREA
ISSUING AGENCY
TYPE OF REGULATORY ISSUANCE
T iTLE AND BR IEF DESCR1PT!ON
AdFisory
Circular
Advance Notice
of Proposed
Rule-Making
Notice of Pro posed
Rule-Making
Standard or
Regulation
5. Noise in Work
Ptace
A. Occupational DOLJOSHA OSHA para Occupational Noise Exposure. Speci-
Noise Expo- 1910.95 ties permissible noise exposures from
sure, General 36 FR 90 C IBA for eight hours per day to
10518 115 dBA for lJ4hourorlesL Expo-
5-29-71 sure to impulsive noise Iiniited to
t 140 dBA.
a EPA has advised DOL it considers
standard not adequately protective
of public health and welfare.
DOL/OS I - IA NPRN Occupational Noise Exposure. Re-
39 FR 37773 tains existing 9OdBA exposure limit
10/24/74 as an 8 hour time weighted average
and S dli time/intensity trading
ratio.
EPA believes proposed revision is
not adequately protective and
has requested a formal review of
proposal under procedures of NCA
Section 4 (c) (2).
-------
TABLE 4-3 (Con’t)
STATUS OR RULE MAKING: STANDARDS, REGULATIONS,
AND EXECUTIVE ORDERS
NOISE CONTROL AREA
ISSUING AGENCY
TYPE OF REGIJLA TOR Y ISSUANCE
TITLE AND BRiEF DESCRIPTION
Advisory
Circular
Advance Notice
of Proposed
Rule-Making
Notice of Proposed
Rule-Making
Standard or
Regulation
B. Special Appli-
cations
(1) Coal Mines, DOl/BuMines Title 30. Noise Standard for Underground
Underground Chapter I, Coal Mines: Occupational noise
Subpart 0, exposure shall comply effective
Part 70 6-30-70 with the standards of
4-1-70 the Walsh-Healy Public Contracts
35 FR 5544 Act, as amended, in effect on
4-3-70 10-21-69 for 90 dBA not to exceed
8 hotir exposure per day and expo-
sure to impulsive of impact noise
not to exceed 140 dBA peak sound
pressure level. EPA conceived on a
tentative basis due to non-availability
of (adequate) technology but re-
quired further study.
(2) Coal Mines, DOl/BuMines Title 30, Noise Standard for Surface Work
Surface Work Chapter 1, Area: Mandatory Health Standards.
Areas Subpart 0, Extends underground mine noise
Part 71 standard to surface work areas.
3-22-72
37 FR 6368
3-28-72
-------
TABLE 4-3 (Con’t)
STATUS OR RULE MAKING: STANDARDS, REGULATIONS,
AND EXECUTIVE ORDERS
NOISE CONTROL AREA
ISSUING AGENCY
TYPE OF REGULATORY iSSUANCE
TITLE AND BRIEF DESCRIPTION
Advisory
Circular*
Advance Notice
of Proposed
Rule-Making
Notice of Pro posed
Rule-Making
Standard or
Regulation
(3) Metal and DOl/MESA Part 55, Noise Control Standards.
Non-Metallic Title 30 Promultages current OSHA standard
Open Pit CFR, para as mandatory. EPA has concurred
Mines 55.5 subject to assurance that DO! will
(amended); promptly present to FMNMSAC
39 FR DOt’s recommendation to accept
28433-4, EPA recommendations (1) of lower
8-7-74 exposure levels and a complete hear-
ing conservation program and (2) the
current revision of the OSHA standard
under review by DOl.
-------
t
-J
TABLE 4-3 (Cont’d)
STATUS OR RULE MAKING: STANDARDS, REGULATIONS,
AND EXECUTIVE ORDERS
NOISE CONTROL AREA
ISSUING AGENCY
TYPE OF REGULATORY ISSUANCE
TITLE AND BRIEF DESCRIPTION
Advisory
Circular
Advance Notice
of Pro posed
Rule-Making
Novice of Proposed
Rule-Making
Standard or
Regulation
(3 ) Hearing
Protection in
Vehicles
DOT/FUWA
(BMCS)
ANPRM
10-28-70
35 FR 17194
NPRM
12-22-72
Title 49,
Chapter 111,
Subchapter
B, Part 393.
38 FR
30880
11-8-73
Vehicle Interior Noise Levels.
Effective 4-1-75, vehicles manufac-
tured on or after 10-1-74 when first
operated and vehicles manufactured
before 10-1-74 and operated subject
to the jurisdiction of BMCS must
conform to new para 393.94 of the
Motor Carrier Safety Regu. setting
interior sound level limit at drivers
seating position of a motor vehicle
not to exceed 90 dBA. EPA has
requested BMCS to consider lowering
of standard to reflect recomnienda-
(ions of EPA Levels Document.
-------
SECTION 5
NONREGULATORY NOISE CONTROL PROGRAMS
For the purposes of this section the term “nonregulatory noise control programs”
encompasses all Federal agency noise related activities, with the exception of research,
development, and demonstration (RD&D) programs discussed in Section 6 and the develop-
ment and implementation of standards and regulations covered in Section 4. The non-
regulatory noise control programs are presented in this Section in the following categories:
Hearing Conservation, Noise Abatement, and Technical Assistance.
• Hearing conservation programs are directly concerned with the prevention of
hearing loss, and most agencies operate such programs even though in some cases
noise exposure levels are well below the maximum levels specified by the Occupa-
tional Safety and Health Administration.
• Noise abatement programs are primarily activities undertaken by agencies to control
noise generated by their own facilities and operations to reduce noise impacts on
surrounding communities and to provide a quieter environment for their employees.
Several Federal agencies have noise abatement programs. However, DOD programs
are the most expensive, due to the relatively high noise levels associated with mili-
tary activities and the extent of DOD operations.
• Technical assistance programs are conducted by several agencies to augment the
effectiveness of noise programs by supporting activities of state and local levels
of government.
This section summarizes reported Federal agency nonregulatory noise control programs.
Detailed program descriptions, by agency, are provided in Appendix C. The primary sources
of information used were official agency responses prepared in accordance with informa-
tion guidelines developed by EPA and contained in Appendix A. Although these guidelines
incorporated requests for specific types of data, the format provided sufficient latitude to
allow agencies to properly characterize their noise control activities. In some instances, the
manner in which the agencies reported on their programs and the nature of the programs
themselves are not well suited to division into the three functional categories of hearing
conservation, noise abatement, and technical assistance programs. For example, engineering
control measures designed to reduce noise levels may be initiated both for hearing conser-
vation purposes and to minimize community impact. Therefore, in a few cases the
5-1
-------
distinction is not sharp as to whether a particular activity is “hearing conservation,”
“noise abatement,” or “technical assistance.” In most cases, however, the distinction
is clear.
HEARING CONSERVATION PROGRAMS
Occupational noise-induced hearing loss is a serious threat to the public health and
welfare, both in terms of the large numbers of workers exposed to potentially hazardous
noise levels and the severe social, vocational, and emotional problems resulting from hearing
loss. In industry, there are more people with occupational hearing loss than there are with
all other occupational diseases such as silicosis, emphysema, radium poisoning, and lead
poisoning combined. The Public Health Service has estimated that there are some 10 million
people with hearing loss in American industry, and it is probable that a large portion of these
losses are related to excessive noise exposure.
The magnitude of the problem, coupled with the fact that hearing loss produced by
exposure to excessive noise is presently irreversible, necessitates Federal action to eliminate
noise-induced occupational hearing loss. In addition to the psychological and social effects
of hearing loss, the compensatory aspects of occupational hearing loss add to the seriousness
and complexity of the overall problem. The number of claims that have been paid and
future claims may run into the hundreds of millions of dollars in direct costs. Estimates
obtained from the Office of Federal Employees’ Compensation (OPEC) within the Labor
Department indicate over 4,000 OPEC hearing loss cases for calendar year 1973. The
number of Federal employee hearing loss cases is expected to increase in future years, and
it has been estimated by OPEC that over 80 percent of claims filed result in awards.
Financial considerations aside, the Federal government is committed to set an example
to the private sector in protecting the safety and health of its employees. Noise-induced
occupational hearing loss is almost entirely preventable. Where feasible engineering and
administrative controls fail to reduce employee noise exposure to acceptable levels, insti-
tution and enforcement of effective hearing conservation programs are imperative , To
assure safe and healthful working conditions for their employees, and in response to regula-
lions and procedures promulgated under the Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970,
various Federal agencies have instituted hearing conservation measures.
As used in this report, the term hearing conservation includes those activities directly
concerned with the prevention of hearing loss among personnel—government and contractors
—whose occupation exposes them to potentially harmful levels of noise. All such programs
5-2
-------
involve periodic hearing testing (audiometry) and may include all or some of the following
activities:
• Noise surveys
• Reduction of noise at source
• Reduction of exposure through administrative controls (scheduling)
• Training programs of which hearing conservation is a part
• Use of hearing protection devices.
Excluded from this category are those activities involving research on the effects of noise
on the auditory system.
Authority for EPA Participation
The legal basis for EPA involvement in the area of occupational noise derives from
Section 4 of the Noise Control Act. Under Section 4 (C) (1) of the Act, EPA is required to
coordinate all Federal noise research and noise control programs, and under Section 4 (c) (2),
Federal agencies are directed to consult with EPA in prescribing noise standards or regula-
tions. No distinction is made in Section 4 between Federal programs relating to environ-
mental noise and those relating to occupational noise. The inclusion of Federal hearing
conservation programs is an integral part of any report on the status and progress of Federal
noise activities.
Existing Procedures and Regulations For Federal Agency Hearing Conservation Programs
Requirements for Federal civilian employee health service programs have been in
existence since 1948, and the military was first to establish occupational noise exposure
regulations. The present legislation governing occupational exposure t noise is the Occu-
pational Safety and Health Act of 1970, which authorizes the development and enforcement
of standards to assure safe and healthful working conditions for employees in the private
sector. Section 19 of the Act assigns each Federal agency head the responsibility for
establishing and maintaining an effective and comprehensive occupational safety and
health program, consistent with the standards promulgated by the Secretary of Labor for
businesses affecting interstate commerce. To implement this Section of the Act, Executive
Order 11612 was signed on July 28, 1971, which validated and extended previous policies
and generally specified the respective duties of Federal department and agency heads, the
Secretary of Labor, and the Federal Safety Advisory Council for the establishment and
maintenance of Federal occupational safety and health programs. The Order included a
requirement that each Federal department and agency head submit an annual report to the
5-3
-------
Secretary of Labor on the status and objectives of the program, and, in turn, the Secretary
of Labor was directed to submit an annual analysis of Federal safety programs to the
President.
An occupational noise exposure standard was promulgated by the Department of
Labor on May 29, 1971, and, in accordance with the provisions of E.O. 11612, Federal
occupational safety and health programs must be consistent with this standard. The OSHA
standard limits an employee’s exposure to 90 dBA as, an 8-hour time weighted average.
The standard provides that exposure intensity may be increased by 5dB for each halving
of exposure time, with a maximum sound level of 115 dBA for 15 minutes or less. The
standard recommends that exposure to impulsive or impact noise should not exceed 140 dB
peak sound pressure level. When employees are subjected to sound levels exceeding the
stipulated permissible noise exposures, the standard requires that feasible administrative or
engineering controls be utilized. If such controls fail to reduce sound levels within the
specified limits, personal protective equipment is to be provided and used. In all cases in
which the sound levels exceed the permissible values, effective hearing conservation pro-
grams are to be administered.
E.O. 11612 and the OSHA noise exposure standard, respectively, provide the presently
applicable policy directive and regulatory basis for Federal agency hearing conservation
programs. The results of an EPA pilot study and the summary descriptions of reported
Federal agency hearing conservation programs treated subsequently in this section should
be viewed in light of these procedures and regulations. Of particular importance is the
absence in the OSHA standard of detailed specifications for the operation of an effective
hearing conservation program, which may account for the observed wide variations among
Federal programs. In addition, several agencies have adopted more stringent noise exposure
standards as the basis for their programs, since the Occupational Safety and Health Act is
not preemptive in this respect.
Recent Developments
The recent issuance of Executive Order 11807 “Occupational Safety and Health
Programs for Federal Employees,” the Department of Labor promulgation of “Safety and
Health Provisions for Federal Employees,” and the proposed revision to the OSHA occu-
pational noise exposure standard should affect the future orientation and content of
Federal hearing conservation programs.
E.O. 11807, signed on September 28, 1974, reaffirms the Federal Government com-
mitment to set an example in the provision of a safe and healthful working environment
for employees. E.O. 11807 enumerates in greater detail and expands the responsibility of
5-4
-------
agency heads and the Secretary of Labor from that contained in E.O. 11612. The new
Order calls for increased requirements for agency record-keeping and reporting and a
significant expansion by DOL of detailed guidance and assistance to Federal agencies.
Finally, additional employee consultation is provided for, and a new requirement for
employee safety and health training is incorporated. The Department of Labor published
“Safety and Health Provisions for Federal Employees” on October 9, 1974, which specifies
regulations and guidelines for implementation of additional DOL responsibilities under the
new Executive Order. These two issuances, with their emphasis on structured guidance to
Federal agencies for conducting occupational safety and health programs, should result
in increased uniformity in Federal hearing conservation programs. The strengthened
reporting and recordkeeping provisions may provide a mechanism for evaluating the
efficacy of such programs.
On October 24, 1974, DOL published in the Federal Register the proposed revision
to the occupational noise exposure standard. The proposed standard retains the 90 dBA
limit for an 8-hour exposure as well as the present 5dB doubling rate for halving exposure
duration. While stating that “comparatively more workers will be at lower risk at 85 dBA
than at 90 dBA,” DOL “proposes to keep the level at 90 dBA until further empirical
data and information on the health risk, feasibility, and economic impact indicate the
practicality and necessity of an 85 dBA requirement.”
The DOL proposal requires establishment of a stringent hearing conservation program
beginning at 85 dBA, a requirement with which EPA concurs. The proposed standard
specifies an audiometric testing program that includes baseline and annual audiograms for
employees exposed to a workday average of 85 dBA and above and for all employees using
personal protective equipment. If an employee’s annual audiogram indicates a significant
threshold shift in either ear when compared to the baseline audiogram, a retest after 1 month
is required. The proposal instructs employers to notify workers of any significant shifts
in hearing level indicated in the testing. Sound level monitoring and maintenance of records
are explicitly required in the proposal, and, as in the case of audiometric testing, specifica-
tions for procedures and for calibration and accuracy of instrumentation are stipulated.
This proposal has important implications for the conduct of Federal agency hearing
conservation programs that are presently administered without the benefit of such explicit
DOL requirements. EPA views an effective hearing conservation program as a supplementary
measure to engineering and administrative controls rather than as a permanent solution to
controlling occupational noise exposure. EPA has included recommendations on such
programs as part of its critique of the proposed OSHA standard. Further explanation of
the EPA position is contained in Appendix C (Department of Labor).
5-5
-------
EPA Pilot Study of Federal Agency Heating Conservation Programs
As part of its responsibility to report on the status and progress of Federal noise
research and control activities, EPA conducted a pilot study to develop and field test a
questionnaire that may subsequently be used to determine if hearing conservation is being
satisfactorily implemented by Federal agencies and if such programs are succeeding in
preventing occupational hearing loss. In the future, the field tested questionnaire (contained
in Appendix B), accompanied by an Instruction and Definition Manual, may be distributed
to a representative sample of the approximately 20,000 Federal installations, of which
2000 to 2500 are estimated to account for the majority of noise exposure problems. The
survey results should provide a data base for a detailed assessment of Federal agency
hearing conservation programs.
Such a comprehensive assessment of the weaknesses and strengths of ongoing Federal
agency hearing conservation programs mightbe used to:
• Provide an estimate of how adequately Federal employees are being protected
against hearing loss.
• Furnish private industry with information and guidance to augment the effective-
ness of existing hearing conservation programs.
• Identify, through delineation of agency noise exposure problems and related incj
dences of hearing loss, needed areas of research with workplace applications.
Methodology of Pilot Study
In light of the Occupational Safety and Health Administration responsibilities under
E.O. 11612, and as reinforced in E.O. 11807, to evaluate data on Federal occupational
safety and health programs and to submit reports setting forth such evaluations to the
President, EPA has solicited OSHA advice and cooperation in collecting hearing conserva-
tion data for this report. A questionnaire, which was reviewed and found acceptable by
OSHA, was distributed to 12 installations representing five selected Federal agencies. The
facilities selected had both significant noise exposure problems and fully operational
hearing conservation programs.
To assess the questionnaire’s value as a general survey instrument at any Federal
installation, a team of experienced hearing conservation specialists visited the 12 locations.
By first hand observations and lengthy conferences with responsible individuals at each
site, these specialists were in a position to judge the usefulness of the questionnaire to
properly reflect the actual conditions observed.
5-6
-------
Observations and Recommendations
As a byproduct of the pilot study, the team of experts observed patterns and practices
that were common to the installations surveyed. Obviously, 12 site visits do not constitute
a sufficiently large sample from which broad inferences can be drawn applicable to all
Federal programs. However, those observations are cited to critically identify measures
that may have more widespread application in increasing program effectiveness. This is
particularly significant since costs for effective programs are relatively small and since, in
most instances, programs can be conducted for less than most installations visited are
currently spending (excluding the cost of physical noise control measures).
The experts who conducted the study had several observations, which are discussed
in the following paragraphs.
1. Overall administrative responsibility and authority for implementation and inte-
gration of all hearing conservation activities are almost unknown in all installa-
tions visited. Designation of an approved official (such as the Director, Occupa-
tional Health Services or other suitable functionary) sufficiently empowered to
direct the program is sorely needed at each facility.
2. Hearing conservation programs tend to be fragmented at the operating level into
components such as job site noise measurements or performance and filing of
routine employee audiograms. This fragmentation, with no overall administrative
direction, tends to obscure the basic objective of a hearing conservation program,
namely, to prevent hearing loss and to detect employees with hearing losses so
that further loss can be prevented.
3, Specific program funding for all contributing departments or divisions of a facility
is lacking. As a result, there is insufficient balance in staff personnel for the neces-
sary segments of the program.
4. Coordination between personnel in various departments is almost universally a
problem. For example, employee transfers from one department to another with
differing noise exposures are not known or recorded on audiograms, thereby pre-
venting adequate evaluation of test results.
5. Rarely is there any formal placement criteria for specific job descriptions relating
to allowable noise environments.
Functional Corn ponen ts of Hearing Conservation Programs
Observations in the conduct of the following elements of a hearing conservation pro-
gram were made: (1) Noise surveys, (2) Engineering controls, (3) Audiometric testing,
(4) Training and education, and (5) Use of hearing protectors.
1. Noise Surveys. Noise survey policies differ from one installation to another with
respect to comprehensiveness, frequency, and methodology. Walkthrough surveys
are the rule regarding typical noise-producers such as power plants, generator
5-7
-------
systems, and shredding equipment. In production or experimental areas, practices
vary from surveying upon supervisors’ request to SUrveying upon complaints from
employees. A practice frequently observed is the taking of readings in general
areas rather than surveying the sound pressure levels at the operator’s position.
Better cooperation between noise survey personnel and production engineering
is clearly needed to permit restudy when new equipment is installed or when
fundamental changes in processing occur. Recognition and surveying of work
areas with noise levels below 90 dRA is frequently lacking.
2. Engineering Controls. Noise abatement through engineering suffers from staff
deficiencies in many cases. Also, the use and enforcement of engineering controls
appear to have been assigned low priority.
3. Audiometric testing. Numerous weaknesses in the audiometric testing programs
were identified.
a. Facility-wide pre-employment or baseline audiograms are seldom performed.
b. Quiet periods (14 hours of non-exposure to noise) before audiometric testing
are not required or provided for in most installations. The probability of
recording temporary threshold shifts is increased, and technicians are often
required to repeat the audiometric tests.
c. It appears that the otological training or experience of program directors is
not always adequate to interpret audiograms. Proper interpretation of
audiograms for diagnostic and remedial purposes is a widespread problem.
d. In most instances, the audiometric testing procedures were adequate, although
not uniform in their specific techniques. Hearing conservation programs
would be improved if periodic refresher courses for personnel were provided.
e. Medical recordkeeping varies broadly, depending upon the agency involved.
A uniform, computerized Federal system would be beneficial. Medical
records ought to provide information on the relative success of hearing con-
servation programs and ought to point out areas where hearing loss is
occurring. It also appears that little use is made of audiometric records in
the processing of compensation claims.
4. Training and Education.
a. Employee educational programs are generally perfunctory and are not com-
prehensive or repeated with sufficient frequency.
b. Training programs for hearing conservation personnel should be more
thorough and more practical. Such practical training should include stan-
dardized recordkeeping and audiometric techniques, efficient scheduling
of tests with minimum lost time, and care and use of hearing protective
equipment.
5. Use of Hearing Protectors. Hearing protectors are frequently not worn as required,
and their use is not adequately supervised.
5-8
-------
Summary Descriptions of Federal Hearing Conservation Programs
A complementary view to the implementation of hearing conservation programs at the
12 installations surveyed is provided by a headquarters-tevel perspective, as reported by the
respective agencies, of each federal agency noise exposure problems and the hearing con-
servation efforts instituted to correct them.
Types and Limitation of Information Available to EPA
In describing Federal agency hearing conservation programs, the primary source of
data was the official agency submittals in response to EPA information guidelines. Both the
guidelines and the list of the 38 agencies from which information was requested are con-
tained in Appendix A of this report. The official submittals have been supplemented and
amplified to some extent by analysis of the provisions of agency policy directives, instruc-
tions, and noise survey reports as well as by data and insights available to EPA as a result of
prior coordination activities. Every attempt has been made, however, to retain the flavor
and orientation of the original submittal and to differentiate EPA observations from agency
statements.
No attempt was made to provide detailed assessments or comparisons of Federal
agency hearing conservation activities for this report. Any such analysis would have to
account for the following considerations:
• The primary determinant of the need for and extent of a hearing conservation pro-
gram is the seriousness of agency noise exposure problems. If an agency has mini-
mal noise exposure problems, limited preventive hearing conservation measures may
be sufficient. Conversely, an effective hearing conservation program is imperative
where severe noise exposure exists.
• Hearing conservation efforts as reported by an agency headquarters may differ from
the actual conduct of the program. Program activities may be either more or less
comprehensive than those described in the agency submittal.
• A similar qualification must be made between agency policy statements and direc-
tives and the degree to which this policy is implemented and enforced.
• In only a few instances was data provided on either the incidence of noise-induced
hearing loss or the number of hearing disability claims filed. This information, re-
ported in terms of increases or decreases over time, is an essential indicator of the
effectiveness of a hearing conservation program.
• The lack of national requirements for the conduct of a hearing conservation pro-
gram appears to result in highly variable practices among agencies and installations.
• In general, the costs of hearing conservation activities were either not reported or
are not available, since they are included as part of the costs of overall employee
health services programs.
5-9
-------
Table 5-1 presents a categorization of reported Federal hearing conservation activities
indicating the relative agency levels of involvement in such efforts. Although this table
covers each of the 38 agencies from which information was requested, several agencies sub-
mitted individual responses for their organizational subcomponents rather than a compre-
hensive statement covering the entire agency. Therefore, all organizational elements in
agencies adopting this approach may not be represented either because they do not con-
duct hearing conservation activities or because the applicable agency headquarters did not
obtain information from all the bureaus, services, or administrations under its jurisdiction.
Thus, as indicated in Table 5-1, where one organization element may have instituted limit-
ed preventive measures, others within the same agency may have established formal hear-
ing conservation programs in response to differing noise exposure problems.
Noteworthy Characteristics of Agency Programs
Even in the absence of statutory requirements specifying components and procedures
for the conduct of a hearing conservation program, many Federal agencies appear to have
devoted considerable effort to the development and implementation of comprehensive
programs that incorporate innovative techniques and that are based on the best scientific
information available. Significant policies and practices of specific agency programs having
implications for improving the effectiveness of hearing conservation programs are deliniated
in the following paragraphs by functional areas. These examples are not inclusive, are ex-
tracted from the department-level program descriptions submitted to EPA by various agen-
cies and are treated in greater detail under the applicable agency program descriptions con-
tained in Appendix C.
Extent of Administrative Direction
The degree of guidance provided to operating units or field installations responsible
for the actual implementation of hearing conservation programs varies widely among Fed-
eral agencies.
• Information from the Department of the Army suggests that extensive administra-
tion is provided by references to various aspects of a comprehensive hearing con-
servation program in over 50 Department of the Army regulations, circulats, tech-
nical bulletins, etc.
• The basic Air Force regulation on hazardous noise exposure includes information
on the scientific basis for hearing conservation program requirements, provides in-
depth specifications and procedures covering all phases of program conduct, and
incorporates such elements as detailed provisions governing the medical and admin-
istrative disposition of personnel who demonstrate hearing loss.
5-10
-------
TABLE 5-1
FEDERAL AGENCY LEVELS OF INVOLVEMENT
IN HEARING CONSERVATION ACTIVITIES
AGENCY/COMPONENT
No Hearing
Limited
Formal
.
Conservation
Measures
Preventive
Measures
Hearing
Reported
Instituted
Program
Department ofAgriculture (USDA)
Forest Service
Department of Commerce (DOC)
Department Headquarters
National Bureau of Standards
(NBS)
National Oceanic and Atmos-
pheric Administration (NOAA)
National Technical Information
Service (NTIS)
Patent Office x
Social and Economic Statistics
Administration (SESA)
Department of Defense (DOD)
Department of the Air Force x
Department of the Army
Department of the Navy
jjeaprtmen t of Health, Education, and
Welfare (HEW)
Alcohol, Drug Abuse, and Mental
Health Administration X
Food and Drug Administration
(FDA)
Health Resources Administration x
Health Services Administration X
National Institutes of Health (NIH)
National Institute for Occupational
Safety and Health (NIOSH)
Social Security Administration
(SSA) x
Department of Housing and Urban
Development (BUD)
Department of the Interior (DO I)
Alaska Power Administration (APA) x
Bonnevi l le Power Administration
(BPA)
5-l I
-------
TABLE 5-1 (Cont’d.)
FEDERAL AGENCY LEVELS OF INVOLVEMENT
IN HEARING CONSERVATION ACTIVITIES
A GENCY/COMPONENT
No Hearing
Conservation
Measures
Reported
Limited
Preventive
Measures
Instituted
Formal
Hearing
Conservation
Program
Department of the Interior (Con t’d.)
Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) X
Bureau of Land Management
(BLM) X
Bureau of Mines X
Bureau of Reclamation X
Geological Survey X
Mining Enforcement and Safety
Administration (MESA) x
National Park Service x
Department of Justice (DOJ)
Bureau of Prisons X
Department of Labor (DOL) X
Department of State X
Department of Transportation (DOT)
U.S. Coast Guard (USCG) X
Department of the Treasury
Bureau of Engraving and Printing X
Bureau of the Mint X
U.S. Customs Service x
Secret Service X
ACTION X
Atomic Energy Commission (AEC) X
Civil Aeronautics Board (CAB) X
Civil Service Commission (CSC) X
Counsel on Environmental Quality (CEA) X
Consumer Product Safety Commission
(CPSC) X
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) X
Federal Communications Commission
(FCC) X
Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation
(FDIC) X
Federal Maritime Commission x
Federal Power Commission (FPC) X
5-12
-------
TABLE 5-1 (Cont’d.)
FEDERAL AGENCY LEVELS OF INVOLVEMENT
IN HEARING CONSERVATION ACTIVITIES
AGENCY/COMPONENT
No Hearing
Limited
Formal
Conservation
Preventive
.
Measures
Reported
Measures
Instituted
Conservation
Program
Federal Trade Commission (FPC)
X
General Accounting Office (GAO)
X
General Services Administration (GSA)
X
X
Government Printing Office (GPO)
Interstate Commerce Commission (ICC)
X
Library of Congress
X
National Aeronautics and Space
X
Administration (NASA)
National Labor Relations Board
(NLRB)
X
National Science Foundation (NSF)
Office of Economic Opportunity (OEO)
X
Securities and Exchange Commission
(SEC)
X
Selective Service System
X
Small Business Administration (SBA)
X
X
Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA)
United States Postal Service
X
Veterans Administration (VA)
TOTAL BY CATEGORY
16
19
27
• While individual components within the Tennessee Valley Authority are given con-
siderable latitude in program implementation, the on-going TVA hearing conserva-
tion program has been incorporated as one element in the TVA comprehensive
hazard control plan designed to ensure that occupational safety and health becomes
an integral part of all operating activities.
• Both TVA and AEC impose hearing conservation requirements on their contractors.
Noise Exposure Standards.
Several Federal agencies have either adopted noise exposure standards or conduct vari-
ous aspects of their hearing conservation programs on the basis of criteria more stringent
than those of the Occupational Safety and Health Administration. These agency standards
or program applications are summarized in Table 5-2.
5-13
-------
TABLE 5 -2
SUMMARY OF FEDERAL AGENCY PROGRAMS UTILIZING NOISE EXPOSURE STANDARDS
OR PROGRAM APPLICATIONS MORE STRiNGENT THAN OSHA PROVISIONS
Agency/Component
Description of Noise Exposure Standards or Program Application’
U.S. Department of Agriculture
• Forest Service
Based on noise evaluation studies, appropriate types of hearing protectors
and conditions of use are recommended for Forest Service work situations
and equipment identified as noise hazards. Permissible exposure times
are stipulated for operation of off-road vehicles. In some instances, hear-
ing protection is recommended where not required by OSHA provisions.
Department of Commerce
• Agency-wide
(1) Department-wide instructions require operating units to identify
and document occupational noise exposure levels of 85 dBA and
above, and (2) operating units supplied with NBS hearing con-
servation program guide arid NIOSH recommendations for
occupational noise exposure standard as guidance in establishing
their hearing conservation program requirements.
• Departmental headquarters-
Draft administrative instruction developed which incorporates NBS
Office of Publications
provisions.
• National Bureau of
OSHA standard is basis for program; as a precautionary measure, em-
Standards
ployees subjected to sound levels in the 85-89 dBA range for periods of
4 or more hours per day are included in the audio metric testing program.
• National Oceanic and
Same provisions as NBS.
Atmospheric Administration
Department of Defense
• Army
Standard requires initiation of hearing conservation measures for ex-
posure to steady noise levels above 85 dBA regardless of duration of
exposure.
‘ Only those aspects of standards (e.g. 8-hour exposure limit, time/intensity trading ratio, steady state noise ceiling,
and/or impulse noise limit) which differ from OSHA requirements are specified.
-------
TABLE 5-2 (Cont’d.)
SUMMARY OF FEDERAL AGENCY PROGRAMS UTILIZING NOISE EXPOSURE STANDARDS
OR PROGRAM APPUCATIONS MORE STRINGENT THAN OSHA PROVISIONS
Agency/Component Description of Noise Exposure Standards or Program Application 1
• Air Force Standard, based on avoidance of damage to hearing organs, establishes
84 dBA limit for 8 hour exposure with a 4 dB time/intensity trading
ratio and ceiling of 115 dBA for exposure without adequate ear protec-
tion. Noise exposure limits based on maintenance of effective perfor-
mance and avoidance of damage or undesired responses of the whole
human body are also stipulated.
Department of Health, Education,
and Welfare
• National Institutes of Health Program based on damage-risk criterion for continuous noise of 85 decibels.
• Social Security Administration Operating and shop areas in which noise levels are at or about 85 dBA are
identified and surveillance records maintained.
Department of the Interior
• Bonneville Power Administration Program based on OSHA standards; however, corrective measure have
been taken to reduce noise levels between 80 and 87 dB found in print-
ing shops and in computer centers.
• Bureau of Reclamation Use 90 dBA limit for 8-hour exposure; however, a 3 dB time/intensity
trading ratio and a 5 dBA reduction in levels if pure tones are noticeable
are used. Impulse noise criterion is 130 dB peak sound pressure level.
Engineering controls, if feasible, are to be applied to all locations ex-
ceeding 85 dBA. If such controls are not practicable, personal protective
equipment is to used in such areas.
• Geological Survey An objective of the hearing conservation program is to establish hearing
baseline data for all employees exposed to levels above 85 dBA. OSHA
standards are followed with the inclusion of a 5 dBA reduction in steady
noise levels if pure tones are noticeable and a requirement that impulse
noise is not to exceed 130 dB peak sound pressure level.
Only those aspects of standards (e.g. 8-hour exposure limit, time/intensity trading ratio, steady state noise ceiling,
and/or impulse noise limit) which differ from OSHA requirements are specified.
-------
TABLE 5-2 (Cont’d.)
SUMMARY OF FEDERAL AGENCY PROGRAMS UTILIZING NOISE EXPOSURE STANDARDS
OR PROGRAM APPLICATIONS MORE STRINGENT THAN OSHA PROVISIONS
Agency/Component
Description of Noise Exposure Standards or Program Application’
Department of Transportation
• U.S. Coast Guard
Use Maximum Permissible Daily Exposures (MPDE’s) for various cate-
gories of hearing hazard environments calculated on the basis of noise
surveys and damage risk criteria for impulse and continuous (90 dBA)
noise. OSHA standard used for industrial operations.
Environmental Protection Agency
Efforts underway for adoption of 85 dBA limit for 8 hour exposure
with a 3 dB time/intensity trading ratio; presently noise surveys include
identification of areas above 85 dBA, and a mandatory audiometric
testing program will be established for any employee exposed to levels
of 85 dBA and above for significant periods.
National Aeronautics and Space
Administration
• Jet Propulsion Laboratory
Program based on 85 dBA noise limit for 8 hours; hearing protection is
required at noise levels above 85 dBA.
Postal Service
Overall objective is to provide employee work environment that does
not exceed 85 dBA; ear protective devices are made available to employees
exposed to sound levels exceeding 85 dBA, and their use is mandatory
when levels exceed 90 dBA.
Veterans Administration
Hearing conservation program to be instituted in all cases where exposure
exceeds 85 dBA for 8 hours.
Only those aspects of standards (e.g. 8-hour exposure limit, time/intensity trading ratio, steady state noise ceiling.
and/or impulse noise limit) which differ from OSHA requirements are specified.
0 \
-------
Noise Surveys
The manner in which noise surveys are conducted at various Federal installations are
noteworthy with respect to quantity and frequency of surveys, use of sophisticated equip-
ment and trained personnel, and utilization and analysis of data obtained from the surveys.
• Since 1968, over 5000 sound level or octaveband analysis readings have been made
at Bureau of Reclamation operations.
• Semiannually, the National Bureau of Standards conducts noise surveys with cali-
brated instruments, which supplement monthly walk-through inspections of
National Technical Information Service facilities.
• Noise surveys, conducted by trained personnel and including octave band analysis
and consideration of exposure time, are part of every facility inspection performed
annually at all Department of Labor organizations and facilities.
• The Bureau of Land Management under the Department of the Interior and the
Navy are among those agencies placing significant emphasis on the use of properly
trained personnel to conduct noise surveys.
• The Air Force uses sophisticated acoustic noise evaluations as the basis for the
establishment of specific area or operator exposure limits.
• TVA has attempted to estimate employee noise exposure for various occupational
categories partially on the basis of area noise surveys.
• NASA, Army, and the National Institutes of Health all provide expert services to
operating units which include recommendations for engineering and administrative
practices to corvect deficiencies observed in the course of periodic noise surveys.
• The Bureau of Land Management requires the retention of noise survey records
for the purpose of review and analysis.
• Information obtained from Army periodic noise surveys is entered in a computerized
noise data bank to provide profiles of noise sources and to assist in the identifica-
tion of remedial measures.
Engineering Controls
Noteable practices in this area include selective purchasing of equipment, inclusion of
noise specifications for purchasing new equipment, and reduction of noise at the source.
• Both the National Bureau of Standards and the Social and Economic Statistics
Administration under the Department of Commerce reported that noise emissions
were considered in purchasing equipment.
• The Army has developed noise limits for army material which are consistent with
department hearing conservation criteria.
• TVA’s hazard control plan provides for the development of noise emission specifi-
cations for new equipment as well as the incorporation of noise control techniques
in the design of new systems and plants.
5-17
-------
• The Federal Communications Commission, TVA, AEC, and Geological Survey have
all initiated significant engineering control measures designed to reduce noise ex-
posure problems.
Audiometry
Audiometric policies and procedures deserving mention relate to the extent of em-
ployees covered in audiometric testing programs, required training of personnel performing
audiometry, and evaluation and retention of audiograms.
1. Employees Covered
• TVA requires pre-employment and periodic audiometric testing for all em-
ployees.
• The National Science Foundation includes audiometric testing as part of per-
iodic employee physical examinations.
• The Bureau of the Mint provides audiometric testing for all new employees.
• Personnel who routinely enter areas where 84 dBA is exceeded are included
in the Air Force monitoring audiometry program.
• NASA gives audiometric examinations to all persons significantly exposed to
noise, and at most installations audiometric testing is given routinely to all
employees covered in periodic physical examination programs.
2. Training for Personnel Performing Audiometry
• The Navy reports its training goes beyond recognized professional societies’
requirements.
• The Bureau of Land Management requires that the services of a “recognized
audiologist” be obtained to administer tests and to review audiograms.
• Each regional office of the Bureau of Reclamation has a certified technician
to conduct audiometric examinations and has contracted for the services of
an audiologist or otologist as a hearing conservation consultant.
3. Evaluation and 1 etention of Audiograms
• TVA records percent binaural hearing impairment on employees’ medical
records and since 1967, on computer tape.
• The Army, in addition to its study of the prevalence of hearing loss in the
Army, has initiated a study for the establishment of a Hearing Conservation
Data Registry for the storage and analysis of audiometric evaluations.
Educational Programs
• TVA, NASA, the Bureau of Reclamation, and all three DOD military departments
reported health education programs on hearing conservation.
• The Army has developed a variety of audio-visual materials on various aspects of
hearing conservation, and conducts an annual course for personnel responsible
for the implementation of hearing conservation programs.
5-18
-------
• The Navy has an extensive educational program for all new personnel, and initial
training received is re-inforced at every opportunity.
• The Air Force provides initial and followup indoctrination designed to instill self-
discipline for individual protection whenevei’ and wherever hazardous noise in en-
countered.
Use of Hearing Protection Devices
• In view of the difficulties created by employee attitudes toward wearing ear pro-
tectors, the Division of Power Production of TVA and the Office of Publications
within the Department of Commerce both provide for the use of disciplinary action
for employee non-compliance.
• The military departments and the Coast Guard are among those placing emphasis on
the careful sizing and fitting of hearing protectors by trained personnel in order to
insure optimal use of the devices.
Recordkeeping Procedures
• The Air Force maintains medical, environmental, and administrative records in a
centralized location for each employee and workplace where potentially hazardous
noise exposure may occur to facilitate the evaluation of program progress.
• Army technical bulletin TB MED 251 outlines specific recordkeeping procedures
for hearing conservation programs.
Qualifications and Training of Program PersonneL
WA, the Army, and the Air Force all reported the involvement of highly specialized
personnel in their hearing conservation activities.
• TVA has recently established a multidisciplinary, interdivisional noise control en-
gineering team to develop processes and techniques to alleviate noise exposure
problems.
• The Army’s hearing conservation program is supported by military audiologists,
occupational medicine officers, safety engineers, otolaryngologists, occupational
health nurses, industrial hygienists, sanitary engineers, and environmental science
officers.
• The Air Force program is supported by more than 60 otolaryngologists and audio-
logists, directed by more than 130 Bioenvironmental Engineers at the installation
level, and supplemented by a pooi of 342 technicians who have received accredited
training in hearing conservation.
Utilization of Specialized Facilities
Several Federal agencies have supplemented their own in-house capabilities with expert
services in conducting their hearing conservation activities.
5-19
-------
• The Bureau of Prisons and the Bureau of the Mint are among those organizations
which have availed themselves of the National Institute of Occupational Safety and
Health extensive facilities, laboratories and expertise.
• Both the Bureau of Engraving and Printing and the Smithsonian have received assis-
tance from the Public Health Service in conducting their programs.
• The Air Force innovative hearing conservation program was developed in conjunc-
tion with the Committee on Hearing, Bioacoustics and Biomechanics (CHABA) of
the National Academy of Science.
Reported Problems
Although the activities and operations of Federal agencies vary widely, noise exposure
problems resulting from certain common sources were reported with some frequency. These
include noise from printing equipment and operations, computer operations, industrial
machinery and tools (e.g. woodworking, metalworking), power plants, construction and
grounds maintenance equipment, mobile vehicles, ordnance, and aircraft operations.
Problems which limit the effectiveness of hearing conservation efforts were cited by
the following agencies:
• Both the Bureau of Prisons and the National Institutes of Health reported that
employee attitudes towards ear protectors, either forgetting or refusing to wear
them, was a major problem.
• Funding constraints were reported by TVA and the Bureau of Land Management,
National Park Service, and Bureau of Reclamation all under the Department of
Interior. The high cost of audiologist services, and the need for and availability
of both trained personnel and monitoring equipment (directly related to funding
limitations) were mentioned.
• Both TVA and GPO stated that the unavailability of feasible noise control tech-
nology hampered their efforts. GPO pointed out that printing plant machinery
which utilizes the latest state of the art noise suppression equipment is not avail-
able from U.S. manufacturers from whom Federal agencies are required to purchase
such equipment.
NOISE ABATEMENT PROGRAMS
This discussion summarizes Federal agency noise abatement programs that, as used in
this report, encompass the following types of activities:
• Measures initiated to control noise generated by agency facilities and operations,
primarily for reducing noise impacts on surrounding communities. This type of
noise has been variously described as over-the-fence noise, environmental noise,
spill-over noise, or property line noise.
• Efforts designed to reduce nonhazardous noise levels at Federal installations, for
the improvement of working environments.
5-20
-------
• Use of noise control techniques (e.g., inclusion f noise emission limits in specifi-
cations and regulations) that are applicable not only to agency operations but to
activities falling under that agency’s jurisdiction. Examples of this type of activity
would be the General Services Administration procurement specifications for
Government equipment or the Department of Housing and Urban Development in-
clusion of noise criteria applicable to HUD assisted developments.
The primary category of Federal noise abatement programs involve those projects
designed to reduce over-the-fence noise. Many agencies have, in the past, initiated such
projects to minimize citizen complaints about their activities or to improve community-
facility relations. Executive Order 11752, “Prevention, Control, hd AFatement of Envi-
ronmental Pollution at Federal Facilities”, which was signed by the President on December
17, 1973, has given a significant impetus to Federal noise abatement actions. E. 0. 11752
directs the heads of Federal agencies to ensure that all facilities under their jurisdiction are
designed, constructed, managed, operated, and maintained so as to conform to Federal
noise emission standards for products adopted in accordance with provisions of the Noise
Control Act of 1972 and State, interstate, and local standards for control and abatement of
environmental noise. The provisions and implementation of E. 0. 11752 are discussed under
Section 3 of this report.
The information on Federal noise abatement activities for this report compiled from
official agency submittals and supplemented in some cases by the following two sources of
information:
1. On April 1, 1974 EPA requested that various Federal agencies provide an indica-
tion of their current and anticipated environmental noise problems to facilitate
EPA development of guidelines to assist Federal agencies in carrying out their
responsibilities under E. 0. 11752. This request was directed to all eleven Fed-
eral departments as well as AEC, CAB, FCC, FPC, GSA, NASA, NSF, TVA,
Postal Service, and VA. Relevant portions of responses to this request have been
incorporated into the description of the applicable agency noise abatement
programs.
2. In conjunction with E. 0. 11752, the Office of Management and Budget directed
Federal agencies to submit reports to EPA by August 1, 1974 on their on-going
and planned pollution abatement projects, including projects to abate over-the-
gence noise from their installations. The Department of the Navy submitted
program descriptions and fiscal data on 36 noise abatement projects, 21 of which
require FY76 funding, and the Air Force submitted data on one FY76 project.
This information has been incorporated into the descriptions of the Navy and
Air Force noise abatement programs.
5-21
-------
Federal agencies reporting no noise abatement activities were:
Department of Agriculture
Department of Justice
Department of Labor
ACTION
Civil Aeronautics Board
Consumer Product Safety Commission
Council of Environmental Quality
Environmental Protection Agency
Federal Communications Commission
Federal Maritime Commission
Federal Power Commission
Federal Trade Commission
General Accounting Office
Government Printing Office
Interstate Commerce Commission
Library of Congress
National Labor Relations Board
National Science Foundation
Office of Economic Opportunity
Securities and Exchange Commission
Small Business Administration
A brief summary of noise abatement activities and associated funding for those
agencies or agency organizational subcomponents that reported programs is provided in
Table 5-3. As indicated in this table, agency noise abatement programs vary widely, pri-
marily in response to differing noise problems, in both the nature of activities conducted
and the magnitude or scope of the program.
Another summary perspective of reported funding for Federal agency noise abatement
programs is contained in Table 5-4. In both Tables 5-3 and 5-4, fiscal data, when availabl;
has been rounded oft’ to the nearest thousand dollars. Funding information is not strictly
comparable among the various agencies due to variations in the fiscal years covered, cost
accountability, and in some instances, inadequate identification in the agency submittal of
what the figures actually represent.
In addition, the figures shown do not reflect the total resources allocated for Federal
noise abatement efforts, since several agencies did not submit fiscal data on reported
5-22
-------
TABLE 5-3
SUMMARY OF REPORTED FEDERAL AGENCY NOISE ABATEMENT PROGRAMS
A GENCYJCOMFONENT PROGRAM AREAS AND FUNDING
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
• National Technical Information Installation of acoustical bathers in general office areas to reduce employee
Service annoyance.
• National Bureau of Standards Responsible for implementation of the Experimental Technological Incen-
tives Program (ETIP). Two ongoing ETIP projects, the power lawn mower
and air conditioner procurement experiments, incorporate noise considera-
tions.
DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE
• Army U.S. Anny Environmental Hygiene Agency conducts environmental noise
pollution assessments of existing operations and programmed military
movements and activities and provides recommendations on corrective
‘a abatement measures. Projects include AICLJZ’ implementation, use of
acoustic materials in building construction, determination of baseline noise
levels for military vehicles, and modification of aircraft and regulation of
operating procedures. Funding: FY74 - $ 1,200K; FY75 - $2,570K; FY76 -
$2 0O0K(est.); FY77 - $3,000K (est.); FY78 - $2,000K (est.)
• Navy AICUZ 1 implementation including acquisition of restrictive easements and
program development; abatement of specific noise problems through en-
gineering controls at identified facilities; various studies to develop engineer-
ing control methods, design plans and specifications for sound suppression
systems and facilities with Navy-wide applications. Funding: FY73 -
$352K; FY74 - $ 1,913K; FY75 - $1 ,760K; FY76 - $23,960K; FY77 -
$32,400K; Post-FY77 - $ 527,500K. (These figures do not include all noise
abatement projects funded at less than $50,000.)
‘ Air Installation Compatible Use Zones Program which (i) is designed to ensure that the use of privately owned land
near military airports is compatible with both protection of the public and mission accomplishment and (ii) provides
for noise source control measures, cooperation with local governing bodies, and purchase of restrictive easements
over land.
-------
TABLE 5-3 (Cont’d.)
SUMMARY OF REPORTED FEDERAL AGENCY NOISE ABATEMENT PROGRAMS
AGENCY/COMPONENT PROGRAM AREAS AND FUNDING
DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE (Cont’d)
• Air Force Large program for acquisition of sound suppressors for maintenance runup
operations; AICUZ’implementation. Funding: FY68-72 - $23,143K; FY73 -
$ 5,400K; FY74 - $3,600K; FY75 - $4,000K; FY76 - $4,081 K; FY77 -
$4,000K. The Air Force only submitted fiscal data covering the program for
acquisition of sound suppressors for maintenance runup operations and one
project to reduce “over-the-fence” noise estimated at $81,000 in FY 76.
Unlike the Navy, AICUZ 1 program funds were not reported.
DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH,
EDUCATION, AND WELFARE
• Food and Drug Administration Corrective measures to reduce noise from FDA Data Processing Units.
Funding: FY72 - $2K; FY73 - $ 17K; FY74 - $6K.
DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND Foster noise responsive land use patterns by regulating HUI) assisted devel-
URBAN DEVELOPMENT opments and dissemination of HUD noise standards information and guide-
lines. Manpower costs for implementation of HLJD noise abatement policy:
$1 50K - $200K per fiscal year.
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
• Bonneville Power Administration Consideration of noise in design of BPA facilities and selection of sites to
reduce both over-the-fence and workplace noise; issuance of standard
specification for noise control in construction projects. Funding: Currently
$2,500K per fiscal year.
• Bureau of Reclamation Noise abatement incorporated in layout and design of new facilities as a
standard practice.
Air Installation Compatible Use Zones Program which (i) IS designed to ensure that the use of privately owned land
near military airports is compatible with both protection of the public and mission accomplishment and (ii) provides
for noise source control measures, cooperation with local governing bodies, and purchase of restrictive easements
over land.
-------
TABLE 5-3 (Cont’d.)
SUMMARY OF REPORTED FEDERAL AGENCY NOISE ABATEMENT PROGRAMS
AGENCY/COMPONENT
DEPARTMENT OF STATE
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
• U.S. Coast Guard
• Urban Mass Transportation
Administration
DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY
• Bureau of the Mint
• Consolidated Federal Law En-
forcement Training Center
• U.S. Customs Service
• Internal Revenue Service
AUTOMIC ENERGY COMMISSION
CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION
FEDERAL DEPOSIT INSURANCE
CORPORATION
GENERAL SERVICES ADMINISTRATION
NATIONAL AERONAUTICS AND
SPACE ADMINISTRATION
• Ames Research Center
Series of community noise surveys in environs of Philadelphia Mint.
Erection of board fence to deflect noise from gunfire at training area.
PROGRAM AREAS AND FUNDING
“1
Minimal program designed to identify potential noise problem areas.
Reduction of noise associated with operation of fog signalling equipment;
noise abatement incorporated in design and maintenance of USCG vessels.
Funding: FY73 - $ 183K; FY74 -$1 15K; FY75 - $50K.
Preparation of a Rapid Transit Noise Abatement Handbook
Efforts to resolve specific noise problem at border crossing.
Indirect consideration of noise in equipment selection and installation.
Eleven noise abatement engineering projects to improve working environ-
ments and comply with OSHA standards (total funding of $8 09K over sev-
eral years); noise monitoring and surveillance. Funding: FY73 - $1 10K;
FY74-$130K;FY75-$240K.
Installation of acoustical shields on noise-producing equipment; periodic
noise monitoring of selected sites.
Installation of sound-proofmg in a few cases.
Inclusion of noise controls or limits in GSA specifications and regulations.
Construction of sound absorbing structure around wind tunel. Funding:
FY73 $495
-------
TABLE 5-3 (Cont’d.)
SUMMARY OF REPORTED FEDERAL AGENCY NOISE ABATEMENT PROGRAMS
AGENCY/COMPONENT
PROGRAM AREAS AND FUNDING
NATIONAL AERONAUTICS AND
SPACE ADMINISTRATION (Cont’d.)
• Marchall Space Flight Center
Studies and analyses of noise imposed upon surrounding communities by
rocket test facilities and launch sites. Funding: FY72 - $50K; FY73 - $75K;
FY74 - $4 70K; FY75 - $45 5K.
SELECTIVE SERVICE SYSTEM
Acoustic conditioning an integral part of all alteration and renovation
planning. Funding: FY73 - $2 1K (represents corrective measures at com-
puter center only)
TENNESSEE VALLEY AUTHORITY
Conducts noise abatement surveillance, special studies, complaint investi-
gation, environmental monitoring, and noise control engineering in the
design of new plants. Funding: FY72 - $ 10K; FY73 - S24K; FY74 - $38K;
FY75-$50K.
U.S. POSTAL SERVICE
Contracted project to develop systems and equipment modification to
reduce noise levels of existing equipment ($210K over several years); noise
limits included in contract specifications for new equipment. Funding:
FY74 - $1 50K (reflects in-house effort only), future contracts estimated at
$50K per year.
VETERANS ADMINISTRATION
Consideration of noise in equipment procurement and preparation of
environmental impact statements.
t .)
0 \
-------
TABLE 54
SUMMARY OF REPORThD FEDERAL AGENCY NOISE ABATEMENT FUNDING
I Reported fiscal data is not always strictly comparable among agencies due to variations in fiscal years covered, cost accountability,
and in some cases, inadequate agency identification of what figures represent.
2 Does not include some noise abatement projects funded at less than SSO,000.
3 Unlike the Navy, does not include funding for the Air Installation Compatible Use Zones (AJCUZ) program.
4. Manpower Costs for implementation of HUD noise abatement policy.
t .)
AGENCY/COMPONENT
FUNDING ($ IN THOUSANDS)’
PRIOR YEARS
FY74
FY75
FUTURE YEARS
TOTAL
DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE
• Army
Not Reported
1,200
2,570
7,000
(FY7fl 78)
10,770
• Navy
3522
(J 73)
1,913?
1,7602
583,8602
587,8852
• Army
28.543
(FY6S-73)
3.600
4,000
8,08l
(FY76-77)
44,224
DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH.
EDUCAtiON. AND WELFARE
• Food & Drug Administration
19
(FY7 - 73)
6
—
—
25
DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND
URBAN DEVELOPMENT
I 50-200k
per fiscal year
l50-200
150-20O
Not Reported
450-600
(for 3 fiscal yrs.)
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
• Bonneville Power Admin.
Not Reported
2.500
2.500
Not Reported
5.000
(for 2 fiscal yrs.)
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
• U.S. Coast Guard
183
(FY73)
115
50
Not Reported
348
ATOMIC ENERGY COMMISSION
110
(FY73)
130
240
Not Reported
480
SUB-TOTAL
—
9,614-9,664
11,270-11,320
—
-------
TABLE 5-4 (Cont’d)
SUMMARY OF REPORTED FEDERAL AGENCY NOISE ABATEMENT FUNDING
AGENCY/COMPONENT
FUNDING (S K M THOUSANDS)’
PRiOR YEARS
FY74
FY73
FUTURE YEARS
TOTAL
SUB-TOTAL CARRIER FORWARD
NAflONAL AERONAUTICS AND
SPACE ADMINISTRATION
• AMES Research Center
• Marshall Space Flight Center
SELECTIVESERVICESYSTEM
TENNESSEE VALLEY AUTHORITY
U.S. POSTAL SERVICE
—
(FY73)
(FY72 73)
212
(FY72 73)
Not Separable 3
9,614-9,664
—
470
38
I so
11,270-11,320
—
455
—
50
Not Separable 3
—
—
Not Reported
—
Not Reported
Not Separable 3
—
“
1,050
212
122
I so
TOTAL
—
10,272-10,322
11,775-11,825
—
—
I Reported fiscal data is not always strictly comparable among agencies due to variations in fiscal years covered, cost accountability,
and in some cases, inadequate agency identification of what figures represent.
2 Represents corrective measuies at computer center only.
3 Reflects in-house effort only, on-going contracted effort funded at 5210K over several years with future contracts estimated at
50K per year.
00
-------
programs. However, the FY74 total of over $10 million and FY75 funding that approaches
$12 million may be considered as lower bounds of Federal funding for noise abatement
efforts.
The fiscal data reported also provides another indication of the wide divergence among
agency noise abatement programs. Expenditures range from the Air Force FY75 funding
of $4 million, which does not include Air Installation Compatible Use Zones (AICUZ)
implementation costs, and the Navy FY76 budget of $23.96 million and estimated
post-FY77 requirements of $527.5 million to substantially smaller efforts on the order of
$25,000 over a 3-year period or $21,000 covering engineering m sures to correct a spe-
cific noise problem.
Detailed descriptions of reported Federal agency noise abatement programs are
provided in Appendix C.
TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE
Federal agency technical assistance programs, as used here, encompass Federal guid-
ance and advice to state and local governments in the area of noise abatement and control.
Technical assistance includes such activities as model legislation, training programs, infor-
mation services, and guidance in the selection and use of noise instrumentation and moni-
toring systems. Similar Federal assistance directed to the industrial and private sectors is
not included, nor is that assistance provided by one Federal agency to another.
The information collected by EPA for this report was not sufficient to allow an in-
depth treatment of technical assistance programs. Although the guidelines provided by
EPA to the Federal agencies (shown as Appendix A) for submitting data did not explicitly
identify technical assistance programs, agencies were requested to submit general policy
and program information that would adequately characterize agency noise control activi-
ties. The level of detail and type of information provided was somewhat variable, with the
EPA program receiving greater coverage than those of other agencies. Table 5-5 summarizes
reported technical assistance activities and associated funding by individual agency.
Detailed descriptions of Federal technical assistance programs are provided in Appendix C.
As seen from Table 5-5, Federal technical assistance programs are designed to serve
one or both of the following functions:
• To encourage state and local action in noise control.
• To facilitate state and local participation in implementation of Federal regulations
and programs.
5-29
-------
TABLE 5-5
FEDERAL TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE PROGRAMS
AGENCY/COMPONENT
SUMMAR Y OF TECHNICAL
ASSISTANCEACTIVITIES
FUNDING ($ IN THOUSANDS)
FY 74
OTHER YEARS
Department of Defense
Successful implementation of AICUZ
program requires sustained consultation
and assistance of State and local
tovernments
Not reported
Not reported
Department of Health, Education
and Welfare
• National Institute for
Conducts short training courses and dis-
Not separable
Not separable
Occupational Safety and
seminates educational materials on occu-
Health
pational health problems — noise included
as prominant topic
Department of Housing and
Provides funds to state and local govern-
91
59 for FY71-73’
Urban Development
ments for noise-related planning studies;
develops and disseminates noise informa-
Department of Transportation
• Office of Noise Abatement
tion and guidance materials
Conducted series of training courses on
highway noise control regulations; pro-
vided noise instrumentation
None in 742
450 in FY73 2
‘Represents funding for “Handbook on Community Environmental Noise” only
2 Funds shown are estimates submitted to EPA in beginning FY75
0
-------
TABLE 5-5 (Cont’d)
,Jl
FEDERAL TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE PROGRAMS
‘Represents funding for “Handbook on Community Environmental Noise” only
2 Funds shown are estimates submitted to EPA in beginning FY 75
AGENCY/COMPONENT
SUMMARY OF TECHNICAL
A
%1k)i 1 )1 zLJV .L, E1 .J .1 r ii LI
FUNDING ($
IN THOUSANDS)
FY
OTHER YEARS
Department of Transportation
(Cont’d)
• Federal Highway
Conducted series of training courses in
Not separable
150 for 7 3-75
Administration
highway design for noise control; out-
fitted a mobile training van
for 74
Environmental Protection
Comprehensive program involving advice
934.7
48.6 in 73
Agency
to state and local governments on:
936.9 in 75
a) legislation development and
implementation
b) manpower assessment and
education
c) instrumentation and monitoring
systems
d) program identification and
assessment
-------
The first type, which is usually instituted in response to a legislative directive, has as
its goal the development of appropriate state and local noise control programs that comple-
ment those at the Federal level. The second may provide an incentive for state and local
participation needed to assure successful implementation of Federal policies.
The programs reported in the first category are the technical assistance activities of
EPA in the non-occupational noise area and of the HEW National Institute for Occupational
Safety and Health in occupational noise.
Technical assistance programs in the second category were reported by the Depart-
ment of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), the Department of Transportation (DOT),
and EPA. Although not specifically reported, the DOD AICUZ program, which is discussed
under noise abatement programs, also involves some technical assistance activities. Imple-
mentation by DOL of the provisions of the Occupational Safety and Health Act requires
technical assistance efforts. However, DOL did not provide information on these activities.
5-32
-------
SECTION 6
RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT, AND DEMONSTRATION PROGRAMS
RESEARCH AUTHORIZATIONS IN THE NCA
The Noise Control Act (NCA) of 1972 (PL 92-574) charges EPA with the principal
responsibility for implementing the policy of the Act. Section 2 of the Act. states the
policy intended by Congress and identifies coordination of Federal noise research as a pri-
mary means for implementation:
“The Congress declares that it is the policy of the United States to promote an envi-
ronment for all Americans free from noise that jeopardizes their health or welfare. To
that end, it is the purpose of this Act to establish a means for effective coordination
of Federal research and activities in noise control.
The specific authorization for EPA to establish interagency noise research coordina-
tion is in Section 4 (c) (1) Act, which reads:
“The Administrator shall coordinate the programs of all Federal agencies relating to
noise research and noise control. Each Federal agency shall, upon request, furnish to
the Administrator such information as he may reasonably require to determine the
nature, scope, and results of the noise-research and noise-control programs of the
agency.”
EPA envisions that such research coordination can provide a mechanism to aid in ful-
filling its responsibilities under Section 4 (c) (3) of the Act, which reads:
“On the basis of regular consultation with appropriate Federal agencies, the Adminis-
trator shall compile and publish, from time to time, a report on the status and pro-
gress of Federal activities relating to noise-research and noise-control. This report shall
describe the noise control programs of each Federal agency and assess the contribu-
tions of those programs to the Federal Government’s overall efforts to control noise.”
Research coordination is also the basis upon which EPA will establish the need for con-
ducting its own research programs. These programs should fulfill needs that are not being
met through ongoing or planned programs in other Federal agencies. Section 14 of the Act
reads, in part:
“in furtherance of his responsibilities under this Act and to complement, as necessary,
the noise-research programs of other Federal agencies, the Administrator is authorized
to:
6-1
-------
(I) Conduct research, and finance research by contract with any person, on the
effects, measurements, and control of noise, including but not limited
to. . .“
FEDERAL NOISE RESEARCH COORDINATION
It is clear from Section 14, the legislative history of the NCA, and the extent of the
funds* assigned for implementing the Act that Congress intends for EPA to utilize much of
the research and technology generated by other Federal agencies to fulfill the provisions
of the Act. Therefore, Federal noise research coordination is viewed as a major resource
whereby EPA will achieve much of its research, development, and demonstration require-
ments to support the regulatory and enforcement activities of the Agency.
Accordingly, EPA developed a plan to effectively coordinate Federally sponsored noise
research, development, and demonstration activities. The plan utilizes three interacting
bodies to affect interagency coordination.
1. An ad-hoc interagency noise research committee composed of high-level repre-
sentatives of agencies with major noise research programs.
2. Noise research panels for aircraft, surface vehicles, stationary machinery, and
noise effects.
3. Ad-hoc working groups to address specific problem areas.
These tools were selected to assure EPA a continuing interface with other agencies re-
garding noise RD&D programs and projects, technological and scientific level expertise, and
middle management and policy processes.
Early in 1974, EPA initiated Federal noise research coordination by holding a meet-
ing of the Interagency Noise Research Committee. This meeting was held to review and dis-
cuss the proposed coordination plan and to invite the agencies to designate representatives
of their scientific and technical management staff concerned with noise RD&D to serve as
members on the four noise research panels. The agencies represented on the panels are
shown in Table 6-1.
In addition to exchange of information, the general functions of the panels in their
respective areas are:
• Review and assessment of the current state of technology.
• Review and assessment of the status of research and technology development.
*Fy73 - $3,000,000
FY74 - $6,000,000
FY75 - $12,000,000
6-2
-------
TABLE 6-1
STRUCTURE OF RESEARCH PANELS
Noise Research Panel
Agency Membership
Aircraft
NASA, DOT, DOD, HUD, DOC, EPA
Surface Vehicles*
DOT, HUD, DOD, DOC/NBS, EPA
Machinery
HEW/NIOSH, DOI/Bureau of Mines, NSF,
DOD, DOC/NBS, DOL, EPA
Noise Effects
HEW, (NINDS, NIOSH, NIEHS), DOT, NSF,
HUD, NASA, DOD, DOL, DOC/NBS, DPA
*This panel is also charged with the responsibility for the Federal research support-
ing land use policies.
• Preparation of recommendations concerning ongoing research activities.
• Recommendation of noise research programs and projects, and methods for their
accomplishments.
• Prçparation of reports on the status of ongoing noise research activities.
• Receipt and review of pertinent scientific and programmatic advice from other
standing bodies.
During the calendar year 1974, the research panel efforts were directed primarily to
preparation of reports on the status of ongoing noise research activities (the four panel re-
ports are contained in Appendices D, E, F and G). In-depth analyses of the programs will
be initiated to determine the relevancy of the research underway to support near- and far-
term EPA goals to reduce environmental noise to acceptable levels and to determine the
requirements for additional research efforts. A summary of these reports on Federal noise
RD&D is presented in the following sections.
FEDERAL NOISE EFFECTS RESEARCH
There are nine Federal agencies conducting research on noise effects. Figure 6-1 is a
summary of the funding, by agency, for the FY73 through FY75. The total funding over
this period has increased by 68 percent. This is principally due to the large increase of ex-
penditures by HEW/NINDS and the steady increasing resource allocations by DOD and
NASA.
Table 6-2 identifies the noise effects research categories currently being addressed by
each of the participating Federal agencies. This table reflects several major points regarding
6-3
-------
FIGURE 6-1
NOISE EFFECTS RESEARCH FUNDING BY AGENCY
AGENCY
FY73
FY74
FY75*
HEW/NINDS
HEW/NIEHS
526
153
622
258
1,157
HEW/NIOSH
395
507
239
481
DOD
NASA
984
1,127
1,180
1,154
1,190
DOT
50
130
NSF
20
DOC/NBS
98
—
117
—
HUD
117
638
460
EPA
24
377
DOl/BUMINES
— 72
23
309
—
TOTALS
3,566
5,006
5,228
*DOD FY75 Estimated the Same as FY74
TOTAL REPORTED FY74 EXPENDITURES — 5,006,000
6-4
-------
TABLE 6-2
CURRENT AGENCY INVOLVEMENT IN RESEARCH CATEGORIES
Noise-Induced
Hearing Loss
Non-auditory
Health Effects
Individual Behavior
Effects
Noise Effects
on Sleep
Communication
Interference
Community or
Collective Response
Domestic Animals
and Wildlife
Measurement
Methodology and
Calibration
x
x
x
xxx
x x
x
x
x
x
x
x
the various agency programs. Within HEW, three separate institutes are involved in noise
effects research.
NINDS has major research efforts in the areas of noise-induced hearing loss and com-
munication interference. The NIEHS research is conducted mostly on animals. The major
part (83 percent) is directed toward noise-induced hearing loss, and the remainder is allo-
cated to the support of nonauditory health effects research.. NIOSH has a major research
R
Category
I
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x x
6-5
-------
effort in noise-induced hearing loss, which includes both epidemiological and experimental
activities, In addition, NIOSH currently is supporting research on nonauditory health ef-
fects and in measurement methodology and calibration.
DOD, like EPA, currently pursues a broad research effort that includes each of the
following categories: noise-induced hearing loss, nonauditory health effects, individual
behavior effects, communication interference, and measurement methodology and calibra-
tion. Efforts are also underway in community and collective response effects by DOD and
in sleep effects by EPA.
NASA has a major research effort in Community or collective response and, in addi-
tion to EPA, is the only agency involved in research on the effects of noise on sleep. HCJD
also has a major effort in community or collective response and devotes nearly 90 percent
of its funds to this area. DOT currently has the smallest active research program in noise
effects, but that agency directs all of its support toward community or collective response.
NBS directs all its noise effects research to individual behavior.
At this time, no agency has any on-going research activity on the effects of noise on
domestic animals and wildlife.
Table 6-3 is a summary of the funding as a function of noise effects research category
for the FY73 through FY75. There has been a steady increase in the funding for noise-in-
duced hearing loss, which, in FY75, received 38 percent of the total effects research re-
sources. A significant increase in funding for the community or collective response cate-
gory is shown for FY75, Except for the nonauditory health effects category, which shows
a decrease in effort for FY75, the funding has remained fairly constant for remaining
Categories.
FEDERAL AIRCRAFT NOISE RD&D
Federally sponsored aircraft noise RD&D is classified by noise source categories and
by categories that have broad applications. Aircraft noise sources being considered in the
Federal RD&D include:
• Subsonic conventional takeoff and landing aircraft (CTOL).
• Powered life aircraft including short takeoff and landing aircraft (STOL) and reduced
takeoff and landing (RTOL) aircraft.
• Rotorcraft and vertical takeoff and landing aircraft (VTOL),
• Supersonic cruise aircraft.
• General aviation aircraft.
6-6
-------
TABLE 6-3
NOISE EFFECTS RESEARCH FUNDING BY CATEGORY
CATEGORY
FY73
FY74
FY75*
Noise-Induced Hearing Loss
1,084
1,366
1,979
Non-Auditory Health Effects
126
294
61
Individual Behavior Effects
381
361
443
Noise Effects on Sleep
217
254
159
Communication Interference
275
316
296
Community or Collective Response
410
821
1,114
Domestic Animals and Wildlife
—
—
Measurement Methodology and
Calibration
1,073
1,594
1,176
—
TOTALS
3,566
5,006
5,228
*DOD FY75 Estimated the Same as FY74
Table 6-4 summarizes the Federal agency resource allocations for FY73 through
FY76 for all aircraft noise RD&D categories.
Funding for basic research and technology programs shows only minor fluctuations in
this period. Programs in this category have broad application and apply to all aircraft noise
source types. Funds for noise portions of systems studies to define air transportation needs
and the means to meet these needs are relatively low. There is a significant increase in fund-
ing for general aviation aircraft noise. The projected FY76 funding for general aviation is
over ten times the amount of FY73. Noise related programs applied to supersonic cruise
aircraft are about the same in FY73 and FY74 and FY75 and FY76. Funding for noise re-
lated to powered lift and rotorcraftfVTOL levels off in FY74 and is fairly constant through
FY76. Noise programs in the CTOL category apply mostly to the existing commercial air-
craft fleet. Funding in this category shows significant decreases in FY74, FY75, and FY76.
The major factor in the decreases is the pre-planned completion during this period of two
demonstration programs leading to certifiable hardware suitable for retrofit of existing
aircraft — the FAA Sound Absorbent Material (SAM) nacelle program and NASA JTSD
REFAN program.
Figure 6-2 shows funding by agency for all aircraft noise RD&D categories for the
FY73 through FY76. NASA plays the dominant role in all categories of aircraft noise
6-7
-------
TABLE 6-4
SUMMARY OF FEDERAL AIRCRAFT NOISE
RD&D ACTIVITIES AND RESOURCE ALLOCATIONS
Fiscal Year Funding ($1,000)
Sponsoring
Technical Area
Agency
1973
1974
1975
1976
Subsonic Conventional
NASA
25,204
6,017
2,703
Aircraft
DOT
Total
8,175
35,880
1,899
27,103
900
6,917
—
2,703
Powered Lift Aircraft
NASA
DOT
Total
4,405(1)
241
4,647
2,082
—
2,082
2,977
—
2,977
2,952
-
2,952
Rotorcraft/VTOL
NASA
DOD
Total
267
267
1,774
534
2,308
2,284
675
2,959
2,294
275
2,569
Supersonic Cruise
NASA
DOT
Total
2,070 ’
316
2,386
2,086
299
2,385
1,490
100
1,590
1,730
—
1,730
.
General Aviation
NASA
80 ’
355
448
996
Air Transportation
NASA
255
428
248
227
Systems
EPA
— (4)
404
—
—
Total
255
832
248
227
Basic Research and
NASA
10,765
14,149
13,840
14,269
Technology
DOT
DOD
Total
2,830
1,784
15,379
785
1,752
16,686
1,282
793
15,915
1,760
1,112
17,141
GRAND TOTAL
58,894
51,751
31,054
28,318
1. The NASA funding data included in this table for FY73 are based on information
supplied to EPA by NASA in December, 1973. The content of the breakouts by re-
search area is not exactly the same as those for other fiscal years listed.
2. FY73 funding included in Powered Lift Aircraft Noise Technology.
3. Some program activity included here that is listed under Basic Research and Tech-
nology for other fiscal years.
4. EPA FY74 total includes some funds committed in FY73.
5. For FY73, S 1090K of the funds listed were for subsonic engine and nacelle technology-
Quiet Engine I.
6-8
-------
FIGURE 6-2
SUMMARY OF FEDERAL AGENCIES RESOURCE ALLOCATIONS
FOR AIRCRAFT NOISE RD&D
AGENCY
Fiscal YearResources_($1,000)
FY73
FY74
FY75
FY76
NASA
DOT
DOD
EPA
TOTALS
45,280
11,563
2,051
(1)
58,894
46,078
2,983
2,286
404
51,751
27,304
2,282
J ,468
—
31,054
25,171
1,760
1,387
—
28,318
TOTAL REPORTED FY74 EXPENDITURES — $51,751,000
i EPA FY74 Total includes some funds committed in FY73.
EPA 0.8%
6-9
-------
RD&D, especially as total funding drops in FY75 and FY76 with the completion of the
REFAN and the retrofit feasibility program of DOT/FAA. The decrease in DOT funding
is consistent with the decision by FAA to recommend the SAM retrofit alternative, which
limits the necessity for applying major noise RD&D funding to existing commercial fleet
noise reduction. Most of the DOT funds in FY75 and FY76 are in the category of basic
research and technology and are applicable to technology needs for future aircraft noise
regulations. The DOD program shows a steady decrease in resource allocations during the
FY73 to FY76.time period. However, most DOD resources are committed to basic research
and technology and will also be applicable to support future aircraft noise regulations.
Overall, there has been a steady decline in aircraft noise RD&D expenditures during
the period FY74 to FY75, as shown in Table 6-4.
FEDERAL SURFACE VEHICLE NOISE RD&D
The Federal agencies known to sponsor surface vehicle noise RD&D activities are
DOT, DOD, EPA, USDA, and NSF. The total funding by these agencies for FY73 through
FY75 is provided in Figure 6-3. DOT and DOD allocated the major portion of the Federal
resources during this period. However, the total funding peaked in FY74 at $3,374,000.00,
and the projected funding by all of the agencies decreased abruptly in FY75. Some of this
decrease relates to incomplete reporting of estimated FY75 expenditures and to completion
of the expensive portions of major DOT and DOD technology demonstration programs.
Table 6-5 is a summary of the major surface vehicle noise RD&D programs being spon-
sored by the Federal agencies. DOT is the principal Federal agency sponsoring surface ve-
hicle noise RD&D. These activities are primarily concerned with transportation systems and
are associated with three major programs. Highway Noise Reduction Program, Urban Trans-
portation System Noise Reduction Program, and Conventional Railroad and Intercity High
Speed Systems Program. With emphasis on control of highway noise, the major efforts have
been concentrated on the control of heavy duty truck and bus noise. Future research efforts
emphasize truck tire and engine mechanical and combustion noise.
Although the DOT resource allocations to reduce noise from urban transportation and
conventional and high speed railway transportation systems are not specifically identifiable
within total development funding, significant noise RD&D efforts are underway in these
non-noise dedicated programs. The emphasis is in the development of future mass trans-
portation systems. As such, noise is only one of many factors being considered and is often
addressed as a design specification.
6-10
-------
FIGURE 6-3
SUMMARY OF FEDERAL EXPENDITURES BY AGENCY
FOR SURFACE VEHICLE NOISE RD&D PROGRAMS
AGENCY
Fiscal Year Funding ($1,000)
1973
1974
1975
DOT
DOD/ARMY
EPA
NSF
USDA
TOTALS
2,154
684
369
—
4
3,211
2,156
665
178
302
73
3,374
1,135
160
—
—
39
1,334
TOTAL REPORTED FY74 EXPENDITURES — $3,374,000
6-11
-------
TABLE 6-5
SUMMARY OF THE FEDERAL SURFACE VEHICLE NOISE RD&D PROGRAMS
SPONSORING
FISCAL YEAR
FUNDiNG ($1,000)
PRIOR
1974
1975
AGENCY
DESCRIPTIVE TiTLE OF PROGRAM
TO 1973
1973
(EST)
(2)
DOT
Highway Noise Reduction
Urban Transportation System Noise Reduction Program
Conventional Railroad & Intercity High Speed Systems
TOTAL DOT
2,066
(1)
(1)
2,066
1,798
356
(1)
2,154
1,429
577
150
2,156
935
(1)
200
1,135
DOD/ARMY
Conformance with Regulatory Requirements
Vehicular Signature Reduction
Noise Reduction Program for U.S. Army Construction
Vehicles
TOTAL DOD/ARMY
100
100
215
100
369
684
-
270
95
300
665
160
160
EPA
Interstate Motors Carriers
Interstate Rail Camers
New Medium & Heavy Duty Trucks
TOTAL EPA
170
199
369
178
178
USDA
Reduction of Vehicle (snowmobile) and Equipment
Noise Levels
The Use of Trees and Shrubs in Noise Abatement
Noise & Vibration of Off-Road Equipment
TOTAL USDA
4
4
25
20
28
73
39
39
NSF
Effects of Building and Other Boundaries on Motor
Vehicle Noise
Noise and Vibration from Transportation Vehicles and
Other Machinery
TOTAL NSF
30
272
302
TOTAL FEDERAL EFFORT
$2,166
$3,211
$3,374
$1,334
(1) Resources for inhouse research and noise portions of advanced transportation systems development are not included.
(2) FY-75 estimates are known to be incomplete.
L J
-------
DOD/Army has three RD&D programs concerned with surface vehicle noise control:
The Conformance with Regulatory Requirements, Vehicle Signature Reduction Program,
and Noise Reduction Program for U.S. Army Construction Equipment. These programs are
funded by the U.S. Army Tank Automotive Command (TACOM) and the U.S. Army Mo-
bility Equipment Research and Development Center (MERDC). They address highway and
off-highway military vehicles. The TACOM Conformance with Regulatory Requirements
program is directed toward reducing interior and exterior noise levels of all tactical type
military vehicles to meet military and commercial noise standards. The MERDC Noise Re-
duction Program for U.S. Army Construction Equipment was initiated as a result of the low
noise exposure level requirements established by the Army SurgeQn General and is con-
cerned with the control of noise from both stationary and vehicular construction equipment.
The TACOM Vehicle Signature Reduction program is concerned with reducing the noise
signature detectability of military vehicles in combat. Portions of this program are classified.
Although no other DOD surface vehicle research programs were identified, there is evidence
that other pertinent noise reduction programs are being sponsored by DOD, particularly
by the Navy on watercraft. DOD plans to continue a similar effort during the FY75 through
FY78 period.
The EPA identified three surface transportation research programs sponsored in FY73
and FY74 to support the Interstate Motor Carrier, Interstate Rail Carrier, and New Medium
and Heavy Duty Trucks Regulations. These studies generally involved the determination
of the population impacted by the noise source to be regulated, best available noise control
technology, costs for compliance with the proposed regulations, and measurement methods
for enforcing the regulations.
The I.EDA sponsors surface vehicle noise research through the Forest Service and the
Cooperative State Research Service. These programs are concerned with control of off-road
vehicle noise and the use of trees and shrubs to abate noise. Only the off-road vehicle noise
control research activities of the Forest Service are planned to continue into the future. The
Cooperative State Research Service will continue to support noise research proposed by in-
dividual scientists and engineers.
NSF sponsors noise research based upon the merits of unsolicited proposals. Currently,
there are two NSF research grants specific to surface vehicle_noise: The Effects of Building
and Other Boundaries on Motor Vehicle Noise and Noise and Vibration from Transportation
Vehicles and Other Machinery. A third grant entifled, Basic and Applied Studies of Noise,
has a minor portion of the study addressing sound generation by automotive tire designs.
6-13
-------
FEDERAL MACHINERY NOISE RD&D
Figure 6-4 shows the Federal agency allocations for machinery noise RD&D during
the FY73 through FY75 time period. A total of eight Federal agencies, including two com-
ponents of DOD, are sponsoring machinery noise RD&D. The Navy program is the largest,
committing about $1 million per year. However, the output of this effort is classified. In
FY74, the other agencies together spent a total of more than $2 million on machinery
noise RD&D. The total Federal effort has been in the range of $2 to $3 million per year for
the FY73 through FY75 time period and appeared to peak in FY74.
The cuffent Federal machinery noise RD&D programs address a number of specific
sources of machinery noise, undertake work in building and structural transmission of
noise, and work toward better definition of the machinery noise problem through develop-
ment of more accurate, standardized measurement methodology. The general funding in
these areas is presented in Table 6-6. The majority of funds are spent on control technology.
This observation is further supported by the Navy’s $1 million a year program, most of
which goes for source control technology. It also appears that the funds for machinery
noise RD&D peaked in FY 74. This may not be actual, however, due to the uncertainty
of the FY75 data.
The agencies cuffent involvement in the three categories of machinery noise RD&D is
shown in Table 6-7. USDA and CPSC currently are involved only in measurement or mea-
surement methodology; NSF, DOD, and NIOSH are supporting research in all three areas,
while Bureau of Mines, NBS, and EPA are involved in two categories.
6-14
-------
FIGURE 6-4
SUMMARY OF FEDERAL EXPENDITURES BY AGENCY
FOR MACHINERY NOISE R\D&D PROGRAMS
AGENCY
Fiscal Year Funding ($1,000)
1973
1974
1975
DOI/BUMINES
DOD/USA 1
DOC/NBS
NSF
EPA
HEW/NIOSH
USDA
CPSC
TOTALS
337
178
138
243
60
16
—
—
972
528
490
264
356
251
226
20
70
2,205
730 (Projected)
245
265
—
100
138
92
—
1,570
TOTAL REPORTED FY74 EXPENDITURES — $2,205,000
1 Navy funding for specific RD&D activities in Machinery Noise cannot be reported for
security reasons. However, the total effort in this area is about $1 million each year.
6-15
-------
TABLE 6-6
SUMMARY BY AREA OF MACHINERY NOISE RD&D
RD&D Area
Fiscal Year Funding ($1,000)
1973
1974
1975
Source Noise Control
Building and Structural Noise
Transmission and Control
Measurements and Measurement
Methodologies
TOTALS
529
162
280
971
1,307
370
507
2,184
1,168
145
257
1,570
6-16
-------
TABLE 6-7
CURRENT AGENCY INVOLVEMENT IN AREAS OF MACHINERY NOISE RD&D
Research Area
BuMines
NIOSH
NSF
DOD
NBS
EPA
CPSC
USDA
Source Noise Control
x
x
x
x
x
Building and Structural
Noise Transmission
and Control
x
x
x
x
Measurements and
Measurement
Methodologies
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
6-17
-------
APPENDIX A
GUIDELINES FOR REPORTING FEDERAL
PROGRAM INFORMATION
This appendix consists of (1) the guidelines that EPA distributed to Federal agencies
to obtain information on their noise related activities,* (2) a list of agencies to which the
guidelines were sent, and (3) a glossary of agency acronyms.
*The Department of Defense did not use this format to submit information on DOD
noise related activities.
A -i
-------
GUIDELINES TO FEDERAL AGENCIES FOR SUBMITTAL OF
INFORMATION ON HEARING CONSERVATION PROGRANS* TO EPA
1. In general, the information provided should provide a headquarters——
level view of what the agency’s hearing conservation program consists
of. It should represent the Administrator’s understanding of his
agency’s hearing conservation problems and of his program to meet
the problems.
2. General description of hearing conservation In the agency, including
if available, such Items as:
o Description of the noise exposure problems associated with the
agency’ s operations
o Incidence of hearing loss s which have the audiologic characteristics
of noise induced hearing loss.** Indicate whether your records
distinguish between possible noise induced hearing loss and other
causative factors; Number of hearing disability claims, over
whatever time periods for which such data are available.
o General programmatic informat1 on pertaining to hearing conservation
Including
— policy statements
— goals and objectives
— plans and programs
3. Copies of any recent hearing conservation studies conducted by the agencj 8
4. Problems that limit the effectiveness of hearing conservation programs, e.g.
— shortages of trained personnel
— technological
—. funding
— mission requirements
5. Copies of internal regulations, instructions, etc., which define and gove
the hearing conservation program of the agency,.
A-2
-------
*The term “hearing conservation t ’ includes those activities directly
concerned with the prevention of hearing loss among personnel —
government and contractors whose duties expose them to potentially
harmful levels of noise. Such programs normally include all or
some of the following activities:
1. noise surveys
2. reduction of noise at the source
3. reduction of exposure via reduction of
engineering solutions or management actions
4. periodic hearing testing (audiometry)
5. training programs of which hearing
conservation is a part
6. use of hearing protection devices
Excluded from this category are those activities involving basic research
on the effects of noise on the auditory system.
**This refers to the number of persons found to have a hearing loss of 25 dB or
greater in one or both ears for audiometric frequencies of 2000Hz and above.
A-3
-------
GUIDELINES FOR SUBMITTAL OF INFORMATION
ON
NOISE ABATEMENT PROGRAMS
1. These are primarily projects to reduce “over—the—fence” noise, (Executive
Order 11752) but also projects to improve working environments at
Federal installations which are noisy but not hazardous to hearing.
2. Provide any documentation that is available to indicate the extent of
“over—the—fence” noise problems at agency field installations, such as
citizen complaints and community noise surveys.
3. Provide brief descriptions of each noise abatement program and project,
including funding.
4. Include plans for future programs and projects and their funding
requirements.
5. Provide any information of a general nature regarding noise abatement
programs including:
— policy
— goals and objectives
6. Include copies of any agency instructions, procurement specifications,
etc., pertaining to noise abatement.
A-4
-------
FISCAL DATA
1. A breakout of funding for noise related work by fiscal year. Actual expendi-
tures for several previous years (1972—74) and anticipated expenditures for
future years. Breakout dollars in whatever way is most meaningful for the
àpecific agency but, to the extent practicable, in the three areas (i) research,
development, and demonstration; (ii) noise abatement (“over the fence”) projects’
and, if possible, (iii) hearing conservation programs. Qualify the data as
appropriate to make clear any areas of uncertainty in cost accounting, or in
any other way that will enable the infonnation be correctly interpreted.
Also, to the extent practicable separately identify funding and expenditure
data according to whether it represents in—house or contracted resources.
2. Accompany the fiscal data with a brief discussion of the agency’s overall
objectives and activities in the noise field. This information should be
at a level of detail that would ordinarily be considered appropriate for
submittal to 0MB.
A-S
-------
GUIDELINES TO FEDERAL AGENCIES FOR
SUBMITTAL OF INFORMATION ON RESEARCH,
DEVELOPMENT, AND DEMONSTRATION PROGR jt
This information should include data of the following kind:
o Citation of legislative authority for RD & D programs.
o Description of RD & D programs
— as they relate to general or broad agency missions
and objectives
— program goals, schedules and funding by fiscal
year (as applicable)
o Descriptions of specific projects within programs and
of the relationship of project objectives to program
objectives; funding by fiscal year; requirements for
special facilities and equipment; major accomplishments
to date, and copies of published papers, reports, etc.
o Long range plans for RD & D
-------
FEDERAL AGENCIES FROM WHICH
INFORNA TION WAS REQUESTED BY EPA
United States Department of Agriculture
United States Department of Commerce
United States Department of Defense
United States Department of Health,Education, and Welfare
United States Department of Housing and Urban Development
United States Department of the Interior
United States Department of Justice
United States Department of Labor
United States Department of State
United States Department of Transportation
United States Department of the Treasury
ACTION
Atomic Energy Commission *
Civil Aeronautics Board
Civil Service Commission
Consumer Product Safety Commission
Counsel of Environmental Quality
Environmental Protection Agency
Federal Coinmunica tions Commission
Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation
Federal Maritime Commission
Federal Power Commission
Federal Trade Commission
General Accounting Office
* Information for this report was su itted by AEC prior to reorganization
and establishment of ERDA and NRC.
A-7
-------
General Services Administration
Government Printing Office
Interstate Commerce Commission
Library of Congress
Nationa-l Aeronautics and Space Administration
National Labor Relations Board
National Science Foundation
Office of Economic. Opportunity
Securities and Exchange Commission
Selective Service System
Small Business Administration
Tennessee Valley Authority
United States Postal Service
Veterans Administration
A-8
-------
GLOSSARY OF AGENCY ACRONYMS
SYMBOLS AGENCIES / COMPONENT S
USDA Department of Agriculture
DOC Department of Commerce
NBS National Bureau of Standards
NOAA National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration
NTIS National Technical Information Service
SESA Social and Economic Statistics Administration
DOD Department of Defense
USAF Department of the Air Force
USM Department of the Navy
HEW Department of Health, Education and Welfare
Alcohol, Drug Abuse, and Mental
Health Administration
FDA Food and Drug Aministration
Health Resources Administration
HSA Health Services Administration
NIH National Institutes of Health
NIOSH National Institute for Occupational
Safety and Health
SSA Social Security Administration
MUD D artment of Housing and Urban Development
DOl Department of the Interior
APA Alaska Power Administration
BPA Bonneville Power Administration
BIA Bureau of Indian Affairs
BLN Bureau of Land Management
BR Bureau of Reclamation
MESA Mining Enforcement and Safety Administration
A- 9
-------
GLOSSARY OF AGENCY ACRONYMS
(CONTINUED)
SYMBOLS AGENCIES/COMYONENTS
DOJ Department of Justice
DOL Department of Labor
osu Occupational Safety and Health Administration
DOT Department of Transporation
FAA Federal Aviation Administration
FHWA Federal Highway Administration
BMCS Bureau of Motor Carrier Safety
FRA Federal Railroad Administration
UMTA Urban Mass Transportation Administration
USCG U.S. Coast Guard
AEC Atomic Energy Commission
CAB Civil Aeronautics Board
CSC Civil Service Commission
CEQ Counsel on Environmental Quality
CPSC Consumer Product Safety Commission
EPA Environmental Protection Agency
ONAC Office of Noise Abatement and Control
FCC Federal Communications Commission
FDIC Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation
FPC Federal Power Commission
FTC Federal Trade Commission
GAO General Accounting Office
GSA General Services Administration
FSS Federal Supply Service
GPO Government Printing Office
ICC Interstate Commerce Commission
NASA National Aeronautics and Space Administration
NLRB National Labor Relations Board
NSF National Science Foundation
OEO Office of Economic Opportunity
SEC Securities and Exchange Commission
SBA Small Business Administration
TVA Tennessee Valley Authority
VA Veterans Administration
A - 10
-------
APPENDIX B
HEARING SURVEY QUESTIONNAIRE
This appendix contains a questionnaire developed to survey hearing conservation
programs in the Federal Government. The questionnaire was developed by a team of
experienced hearing conservation specialists.
13-1
-------
EPA QUESTIONNAIRE ON HEARING CONSERVATION
DATE ________
Name of Federal Facility________________________________
Address _Telephone
Department of
Person Cs) Preparing Questionnaire
Title
GENERAL CONSIDERATIONS
1) For how many years has your facility performed the following?
a) NOISE Surveys _________________
b). NOISE Control & Abatement _________________
c) Audiometer Testing _________________
d) Audiogram evaluations __________________
e) Provided }rearing Protectors
2) Who actively directs your overall hearing conservation program?
a) TITLE___________________________ FULL TIME: YES NO
If direction is split, state responsibLlity of each and show hours per
week allotted:
Eours
b) Physician __________________________________________________
c) Nurse
d) Engix eer —
a) Hygienist —
1) Technician
g) Other
3) Where and when did any of the above receive training in hearing
conservation?
a) ________________________
b) ______________________
c)_
d) _______________________
e) _______________________
f) ________________________
g) ______________________
B—2
-------
4) Number of Employees at Your Installation?
Annual % Turnover
a) Civilian
b) Military
c) Outside Contractor
TOTAL __________________
5) Can you approximately state how many of your total employees
have in excess of 25 dB (ANSI, ISO) average threshold level over
500, 1000, 2000 Hz in both ears?
Yes ; No ; Number_________
6) How many compensation claims for hearing loss have been filed in
your installation during the past three’ years?
a) Three years ago
b) Two years ago
c) This year
d) Total ________________
7) Rave you had an OSHA inspection ? Yes No__________
a) What noise problems were mentioned?
NOISE MEASUREMENT P ND ABATEMENT
8) Who does your noise surveys and what is his (their) training?
a)
(Please enclose three separate noise survey copies ‘of recent date)
a) Row long are noise surveys kept in your fi1es? — years.
9) How many personnel daily are working in areas with noise levels
as follows?
a) Less than 85 dBA for eight hours
b At 85 dBA for eight hours
c) At 90 dBA for eight hours
d At 92 dBA for six hours
e) At 95 dBA for fours hours
f) At 97 dBA for three hours
g) At 100 dBA for two hours
I ) At 102 dBA for one and one half
hours
i) At 105 dBA for one hour
B—3
-------
j) Other (explain)
Total employees (should agree with 4 above) _______________
10) Do any of these shown below determine where noise surveys are made
and how often?
Departzttental Supervisor
Employee
Industrial Hygienist
Engineer
Saftey Engineer
Other (explain)
a) All production areas
b) All experimental areas
c) All storage areas
ci) All office areas
e) Other (explain)
Freguency
Frequency
Frequency
Frequency
Frequency_____
12) Are noisy areas requiring the use of hearing protectors clearly POste
Yes
No
13) Do you have noisy areas that cannot be reduced to acceptable levels?
90 ciBA arid higher:
Between 85 ciBA and 90 ciBA
Why?
Téc1u ologically unfeasible
Economically unfeasible
Insufficient engineering staff
Other (explain)- ______________
14) Have you introduced any physical noise control measures in the last
eighteen months? Yes___________
No
(Please attach any significant report explaining one of the measures)
15) Were these measures successful due to:
a) New machinery ____________________________________
b) New parts ___________________________________
c) Revised mountings _________________________________
a)
b)
c)
ci)
e)
f)
YES NO
11) Are the following areas surveyed for noise levels?
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
No
No
No
No
a)
b)
c)
i)
ii)
iii)
iiii)
yes___________ No___________
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
No -
No
B—4
-------
d) Baffling or shielding
e) Insulation absorption
f) Isolation
g) Other (explain)
16) How many months elapse between Noise Measurement inside your
audiornetric test booth or testing area? No. _________________
(Please attach a copy of the most recent)
17) Does your Purchasing Department or other procurement source
specify maximum noise levels for new equipment ordered?
Yes_- No _ -—
NEARING TESTING
18) Considering total employment, check the applicable space for
types and number of hearing tests given: (If partial—show %
of total employment given)
a) Baseline at program start All ; None ; % of Total
b) Pre-employmerit or pre-placetnent All ; None ; % of. Total_
c) Termination of Employment All ; None ; % of Total
d) Periodic retesting A].]. ; None ; % of Total_
e) Total audiograms performed per year _______________________
in House or by outsiders.
19) If all employees are not given hearing test in a), b) and d) above,
how are selections made for those actually tested? (Check appropriat
a) Those working in noisy areas only ___________of more than____ d
b) Specified job classifjcations _____________
a) Request by supervisor ____________
4) I .equest—by -employee _____________
e) Request by medical director ____________
f) Other (explain) ________________________________________________
20) Do you use an outside consultant for hearing tests? Yes_______ No_
a) If yes,
1) What number of the total in 19) e) does he do?
2) Are his tests’ given at his office _____
at your site _____
in a mobile van ______
combination of sites ______
B—5
-------
3) Does he return original audiograms to you?
4) Does he return computerized print out?
5) If his testing is performed in a mobile van
at your site, or via your in-house facilities,
how many days per year are utilized?
6) What is the annual cost of the service?
b) Name andaddressof consultant:
c) Where and when did he receive his traThing?
21) If your hearing testing is done in house, show the number
participating by function and where and when trained.
a) Audiologist No. Where When
b) Nurse No. Where
c} Technician No. Where
c i) Engineer No. Where_______________
e) Physician No. Where
f) Other No. Where_______________
g) What number of the above have taken refresher course —...
(If available, please enclose list of curriculum subjects of training
course (s) and hours of duration)
22) How many audiometers do you have in use by types below?
a) Manual
b) Self recording _____________
23) How frequently do you do biological calibration checks on your audio..
meter?
a) Daily _____________
b) Weekly -
c) Monthly _____________
ci) After ______________ audiograms performed.
24) Is hearing testing performed:
a) in an audiornetric booth
b) in ah open room
c) To exclude temporary threshold shift (TTS) (14 hours after
exposure) Yes NO • Is this
B-6
-------
exclusion accomplished by: wearing of hearing protectors __________
physical removal from noise area ___________
other (explain)
25) Are audiograrns
a) Filed in medical folders? Yes_ No_ _Kept how long______
b) Filed separately Yes No Kept how long______
c) Discussed with employee when significant change occurs?
Yes No_______
26) considering test for new employees and retesting schedules for
existing employees, is your overal aud iometriC testing program
YES NO
a) Currently up to date?
b) If no —- How far behind are you in months
C) If no —— Why? (Check appropriate response)
11 Scheduling problems
2) Understaffed testing personnel
3) Poor coordination with personnel $,ection
4) Other (explain)
27) Who interprets your audiograins?
a) No one ________________
b) In house physician
c) Audiologist in house _______________
d) Outside consultant ________________
e) Technician _______________
f) Otologist
g) Other (explain)
28) J .re the interpretation findings recorded?
a) On the audiogram
b) On an accompanying letter or report
c) Not recorded at all
d) Other (explain)
-------
(Please enclose a sample copy of an audiogram and your type of
information chart or record from any employee)
29) Do you have hearing level criteria established?
a) For any new employee hired Yes_ No
b) For certain job classes or departments Yes No
c) If yes — who determines this? (Please check)
1) ‘In house physician ________________
2) Supervisor
3) Outside consultant
4) In house technician
5) Other explain
30) How many employees were referred out for otologic attention during
the past twelve months?
a) To employee’s own physician: No ___________
b) To your facility’s otologic consultant No _____________
c) How many otological reports were returned to you No
d) None were referred
e) Don’t have records of this.
31) Do you conduct or provide audiometric tests other than air
conduction studies? Yes No
a) Yes-bywhoma
1) In house physician
2) Audiologist
3) Outside consultant or otologist _____________________
4) Other (explain)
PERSONAL HEARING PROTECTORS
32) Do you provide protectors for employees Yes No
- —
33) What types are used?
a) Nuffs
b) Plugs ____________________
c) Custom molded
d) Nalleable ______________________
e) Other (explain) ___________________
34) How many protectors are issued per year?
B-8
-------
a) To how many employees_______________
35) Who issues protectors and instructs in their use?
a) Nurse _______________
b) Medical personnel
c) Technician ______________
d) Audiologist ______________
e) Other (explain)
36) Are employees charged for replacement protectors? Yes No_____
37) Do you have motivational and educational programs for employees
and supervision? Yes No____________
a) If yes — is this done prior to issue of protectors Yes _No_
b) If yes — is this program:
1) Presented once
2) Repeated periodically
c) If yes — who presents the program?
1) Hygienist
2) Safety Engineer
3) Medical Department staff ________________
4) Departmental supervisor
5) Audiologist or technicians ________________
6) Other (explain)
38) Of the number of employees annually issued protectors (as in 34 a)
above), approximately what percentage use the protectors all the
time ______________________________
39) Who monitors and enforces their wearing?
a) Supervisors
b) Hygienist
c) Safety Engineering
d) Other (explain)
40) Do you have an announced policy of enforcement? Yes No____
a) If yes — is it actually applied without exception? ‘ t No —
b) If yes — does it acheive its objective? Yes No:
B-9
-------
APPENDIX C
DESCRIPTION OF FEDERAL NOISE CONTROL PROGRAMS
BY AGENCY
This appendix provides descriptions of reported Federal agency regulatory and non-
regulatory noise control programs summarized, respectively, in Sections 4 and 5 of this
report. The descriptions are primarily based on the official agency responses to the EPA
information guidelines contained in Appendix A and are organized in alphabetical order by
agency, with the Federal Departments presented first. The treatment of each agency noise
related activity (except for RD&D programs, which are discussed in Appendices D, E, F,
and G) are organized in four categories where applicable:
I. Standards and regulations,
2. Hearing conservation,
3. Noise abatement, and
4. Technical assistance.
The EPA information guidelines were distributed to 38 Federal agencies, of which
seven reported no involvement in either regulatory or nonregulatory noise control programs.
The seven agencies are:
Civil Aeronautics Board
Council on Environmental Quality
Federal Maritime Commission
Federal Trade Commission
General Accounting Office
Interstate Commerce Commission
Office of Economic Opportunity
This appendix concludes with a summary of the United States participation in activities
of international organizations concerned with noise research and regulatory development.
C-I
-------
DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTup (USDA)
USDA reported solely on hearing conservation measures instituted by the Forest
Service.
Hearing Conservation
The Forest Service reported that efforts to control hazardous noise encompass reduc-
tion of noise at the source, quieting specialized forestry equipment, and developing other
aspects of a hearing conservation program including periodic examinations of all Forest
Service employees exposed to hazardous noise to determine the extent of any hearing
impairment. Additionally, personal hearing protectors approved for forestry operations are
now available throughout the Forest Service.
The Forest Service submitted a copy of its publication “Protect Your Hearing!” (July
1974) designed for Forest Service employees. This brochure lists many commonly available
hearing protectors, together with an effectiveness score calculated from data obtained from
manufacturers or from independent laboratories and confirmed in some cases by Forest
Service tests. The publication also reports the results of noise evaluation studies on the
basis of which appropriate types of hearing protectors and conditions of use are recom-
mended for Forest Service work situations and equipment identified as noise hazards. Per-
missible exposure times are stipulated for the operation of off-road vehicles. In some
instances, hearing protection is recommended when not required by OSHA provisions.
No information on personnel or funding levels for hearing conservation activities was
provided.
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE (DOC)
Reported DOC activities may be divided into hearing conservation and noise abatement.
Hearing Conservation
Information regarding hearing conservation activities was obtained from headquart 5
and a number of offices, bureaus, and services that are organizational subcomponen of the
Department of Commerce.
The establishment of hearing conservation programs for Commerce employees is part
of the in-house Occupational Safety and Health Program established by Department Admin-
istrative Order 209-4. DAO 209-4 vests direct responsibility for compliance with the OSHA
safety and health standards in the heads of primary operating units. While the OSHA
C-2
-------
“Occupational Noise Exposure” Standard 1910.95 is the basis for DOC hearing conservation
activities, several DOC components, notably the National Bureau of Standards, utilize more
stringent noise exposure levels for portions of their’hearing conservation programs. Use of
criteria other than OSHA requirements is discussed under applicable organizational compo-
nents.
To assist operating units in complying with OSHA Standard 1910.95, the DOC safety
staff has provided guidance material and instructions to designated primary operating unit
safety managers for use in establishing individual programs, maintaining records, and pur-
chasing hearing protective equipment. Department-wide instructions require that operating
units identify and document occupational noise exposures at levels of 85 dBA and above as
requested by the Office of Federal Employees’ Compensation (OFEC), DOL so that OFEC
may properly adjudicate compensation claims from Federal employees for work-connected
hearing loss. In the absence of a DOC Program Guide on hearing conservation, operating
units have been supplied with the National Bureau of Standards hearing conservation pro-
gram guide and the NIOSH recommendations for an occupational noise exposure standard
for use in establishing program requirements.
Safety managers of office-type activities have reported no hazardous, job-related, noise
exposures to necessitate the establishment of formal hearing conservation programs.
Industrial-type operations, such as the National Bureau of Standards and National Oceanic
and Atmospheric Administration, do have established programs that are discussed in the
following paragraphs.
No information on department-wide personnel or funding levels for hearing conserva-
tion programs was provided.
Department Headquarters
As a result of an NBS noise survey, a hearing conservation effort has been instituted
to cover employees of the printing plant in the Office of Publications. Draft administrative
instructions have been developed that parallel the NBS hearing conservation program guide
with the addition of provisions for posting warning signs in high noise areas and the use of
disciplinary action for employee noncompliance in wearing ear protectors. An audiometric
testing facility was purchased for the Medical Division at a cost of $1,130, and a program
for initial and periodic testing of employees was established. To date, 56 employees of the
Office of Publications have been given initial audiograms by the Health Unit.
C-3
-------
National Bureau of Standards (NBS)
The National Bureau of Standards’ hearing conservation program is outlined in the NBS
Safety Program Guide No. 4, “Hearing Conservation Program”, dated September 1970, as
amended. The general NBS policy is to keep noise levels as low as practicable through engi-
neering control and selective purchasing of equipment. While the OSHA noise exposure
standard is the basis for the NBS hearing conservation program, as a precautionary measure,
employees who are occupationally subjected to sound levels in the 85 to 89 dBA range for
periods of four or more hours per day are included in the audiometric testing program.
The NBS program provides for the review and measurement of occupational noise
exposures; periodic audiometric examinations of employees exposed to potentially hazardous
occupational noise; and personal protective equipment when engineering/administrative
controls are not feasible or economically practicable.
The Safety and Fire Protection Section conducts sound surveys using a calibrated
sound level meter. More sophisticated sound level measurement equipment is available if
needed.
Audiometric examinations, using equipment meeting American National Standards
Institute specifications, are given to employees exposed to potentially hazardous noise prior
to the initial exposure, annually thereafter, and upon termination of exposure or employ-
ment. Employees exposed to levels exceeding permissable limits are required to wear
approved ear protective devices as a condition of employment. The Health Unit fits
employees with ear plugs and provides instruction on their use.
There has been one case of occupational noise-induced hearing loss at NBS for which
a hearing disability claim was awarded. Exposure to high noise levels in wind tunnels, during
the period 1955 to 1959, ultimately resulted in a 15 percent permanent partial binaural
hearing loss for which an employee received compensation of $6,321.60.
Many noise exposures at NBS are intermittent as opposed to continuous exposures
one could expect in a production facility. Examples of potentially hazardous noise expos-
ures at NBS include but are not necessarily limited to:
Activity Exposure
Aerodynamics Wind Tunnel
Fibrous Systems Paper Machinery
Computer Services Computers/ADP Equipment
Power Plant Steam & Chilled Water Generation
- Equipment
Special Services Printing Machinery
Electrical Shop High Voltage Equipment
Construction Shop Woodworking Machinery
Grounds Maintenance Grounds Maintenance Equipment
and Jackhammers
C-4
-------
NBS estimates that the cost of its hearing conservation programs totals $3,100 per
year for FY72 to 74 and is expected to remain constant in the future. These expenditures
are broken down as surveys—$ 1,000; ear protectors—$200; audiometric testing—$ 1,500;
and miscellaneous costs—$400. No information was provided on personnel levels for
hearing conservation.
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA)
A copy of Chapter 64-2 7, “Hearing Conservation Program”, of the NOAA Directives
Manual was submitted, but no information on the actual implementation of the directive
nor data on associated personnel or funding levels were provided.
The NOAA general policy, as in the case of NBS, is to keep noise levels as low as
practicable through engineering control and selective purchasing of equipment. When use
of engineering controls is impractical, approved personal protective equipment is to be used
by all employees subjected to occupational noise levels exceeding the OSHA standard. For
noise exposures in excess of 120 dB, both ear plugs and ear muffs are to be used. As a
further precautionary measure, employees exposed to sound levels in the 85 to 89 dBA
range for periods of four or more hours per day are included in the audiometric testing
program, which requires audiograms prior to the initial exposure, annually thereafter, and
upon termination of exposure or employment. Supervisory personnel are responsible for
the implementation of these hearing conservation measures upon identification by NOAA
safety staff of areas or operations where noise levels are potentially damaging.
National Technical Information Service (NTIS)
The National Technical Information Service hearing conservation program is part of a
general safety program and encompasses noise surveys, periodic hearing examinations con-
ducted by the Public Health Service, and provision of ear plugs or head sets upon employee
request. Monthly inspections are conducted, particularly in the printing press area and the
warehouse mailing operation. Semiannually, NBS conducts noise surveys with calibrated
instruments. NTIS reported no incidents of hearing loss.
Patent Office
A noise survey of all Patent Office facilities indicated that the carpenter shop was the
only area with noise levels exceeding OSHA requirements. The one employee exposed to
excessive noise was given an audiometric examination that showed that no noise-induced
hearing loss had occurred. The employee has been provided with hearing protectors and
will be given annual audiometric examinations.
C-5
-------
Social and Economic Statistics Administration (SESA)
The SESA hearing conservation program consists of a limited hearing examination
program, noise surveys, engineering controls, and consideration of noise in purchasing and
renting data and tabulating equipment. Noise exposure problems at the SESA center almost
exclusively around computer operations and various terminal rooms located throughout the
agency. Efforts are made to reduce sound levels by surrounding terminals with sound
absorbing partitions and by placing acoustical tiles on walls and ceilings. Within the last
two years, a noise survey was conducted in one computer operation where the sound level
exceeded 90 dBA in a few areas due to the use of older model high speed printers that have
since been replaced. The SESA Health Unit has begun periodic hearing tests on employees
who work predominantly in the computer area. Only one of the 16 employees tested in
both 1972 and 1973 showed any evidence of hearing loss. SESA reported no hearing
disability claims within the last several years.
Noise Abatement
The only reported noise abatement activity at the Department of Commerce Concerned
the NTIS installation of acoustical barriers in general office areas where the noise level is
annoying but not necessarily hazardous.
Although not reported by DOC, NBS is the organization responsible for the implemen-
tation of the Experimental Technological Incentives Program (ETIP). ETIP was established
to develop and test Federal policies for stimulating technological innovation for the social
and economic welfare of the Nation. ETIP focuses primarily on the utilization of the
Federal Government power as a buyer, policymaker, and supplier of funds. Two Ongoing
ETIP projects, the power lawn mower and air conditioner procurement experiments,
incorporate noise considerations.
The primary purpose of the power lawn mower experiment is to test if procurement
of commercial products geared to performance specifications (in this case noise criteria) is
a valid technology incentive mechanism. The Federal Supply Service (FSS) of GSA is the
lead procurement agency, with participation by EPA, CPSC, OSHA, and, of course, NBS.
The initial phase of the project has not been totally successful, since manufacturer proposals
for the first procurement cycle have not been completely responsive. Plans for the second
procurement cycle are now underway.
One purpose of the air conditioner procurement experiment is to test if application of
performance factors in Federal bid evaluations is a viable technology incentive mechanism.
The Federal Supply Service of GSA is the lead procurement agency with participation by
C-6
-------
NBS, EPA and DOD. The primary technological innovation sought relates to improved
energy efficiency, with noise reduction a secondary consideration. However, proposals
received led FSS to delete the noise requirements fo the first of the three procurement
cycles of the project. Consideration is currently being given to including noise requirements
in the second procurement phase.
DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE (DOD)
DOD conducts hearing conservation, noise abatement, and technical assistance activities.
Hearing Conservation
The Department submitted individual responses for the Army, Navy, and Air Force,
each of which conducts an extensive hearing conservation program.
Department of the Army
The overall objective of the Army hearing conservation program is the prevention of
noise-induced hearing loss among military and civilian personnel. Reference to, and the
authority for, the various aspects of a comprehensive hearing conservation program appear
in over 50 Department of the Army regulations, circulars, technical bulletins, etc. Of par-
ticular importance are DA Circular 40-9, “Command Emphasis on Hearing Conservation
Programs”, and AR 385-10, “Army Safety Program”. AR 385-10 establishes the Army
Safety Program, of which the control of occupational noise is a major element, and delegates
responsibility for conducting the safety program to various Department components. The
Inspector General and Auditor General (Army Director of Safety) under the Deputy Chief
of Staff for Personnel is responsible for overall supervision of the Army hearing conservation
program and for assuring compliance with OSHA requirements. The Surgeon General is
assigned responsibility for
1. Establishing health standards and monitoring compliance and
2. Providing assistance to commanders by conducting field investigations and special
studies to evaluate potential health hazards and compliance with existing
standards.
These functions are carried out by the U. S. Army Environmental Hygiene Agency (USAEHA)
under the Office of the Surgeon General. Finally, Department of the Army Staff elements
are responsible for implementation of effective safety programs within their agencies.
While Chapter IV of AR 40-5, “Health and Environment”, generally outlines the com-
ponents of a hearing conservation program and establishes minimum standards for noise
C-7
-------
exposure, the Army standards now in use are published in Technical Bulletin, TB-MED 251,
“Noise and Conservation of Hearing”. TB-MED 251 was first published in 1956 and later
revised in 1965, 1972, and is currently under revision again. This Technical Bulletin outlines
requirements for hearing conservation programs and establishes maximum recommended
noise exposure levels that are more protective than the OSHA standard. At this time, the
Department of the Army employs a hearing conservation criterion based on an 85 dBA
exposure to steady noise regardless of duration of exposure. The specified criterion for
unprotected exposure to impulsive noise is 140 dB peak. Since all small arms used in the
military produce impulsive noise above this level, TB-MED 25 1 states that, “hearing conser-
vation measures should be instituted and enforced when firing any weapon during training”.
USAEHA worked with the Human Engineering Laboratories to develop noise limits
for Army materiel, which have now been published as a Department-wide Military Standard
(MIL-STD-1474). This document is now consistent with the hearing conservation criteria
contained in TB-MED 251.
The increased emphasis on hearing conservation and the orientation of the Army pro-
gram appear to EPA to have been influenced by the findings of a study, published in
December 1971, which was conducted by Army staff of Walter Reed General Hospital
under the sponsorship of the U. S. Army Medical Research and Development Command.
The purpose of the study was to survey the incidence of noise-induced hearing loss among
U. S. Army troops, Accurate hearing threshold data were obtained from a heterogenous
sample of 2,726 men representing different branches and length of time of active duty.
The study provided evidence suggesting that noise-induced hearing loss is the number one
hazard to the health of Army personnel. The magnitude of the problem among career Army
personnel with over 10 years on active duty is reflected in the following summary data:
• Infantry — 23.0% had hearing loss severe enough to require mandatory duty limita-.
tions (H3 profiles), and an additional 4.0% did not even meet minimum standards
for retention on active duty (H4 profiles).
• Artillery — 29.8% had H3 profiles, and 3.2% had 114 profiles.
• Armor — 40.9% had H3 profiles, and 2.3% had H4 profiles.
The significance of this data is highlighted by the fact that no H3 or H4 profiles were
observed among the sample of new inductees that were tested. The authors of the report,
on the basis of their findings, stressed the obvious need for
• An Army-wide hearing conservation program
• The development and utilization of effective nearing protection devices
• A long-term prospective study of the incidence of hearing loss among Army
personnel.
C-8
-------
While the Army did not submit updated information on the incidence of hearing loss
among personnel nor the number of hearing disability claims files, the Department stated
that a study on the prevalence of hearing loss in the Army is currently underway.
Major sources of undesirable occupational noise produced by Army facilities and
activities include industrial plants, firing ranges, airfields, demolition training sites, heavy
construction equipment training areas, power generation plants, jet engine test cells, and
mobile equipment. These sources and control techniques are discussed in greater detail
under noise abatement since they are also sources of environmental noise.
The essentials of the Army hearing conservation program as outlined in TB-MED 251
include noise surveys, engineering controls, audiometry, use of hearing protective devices,
and training and educational programs.
Periodic noise surveys, which are used to identify all personnel working in hazardous
noise areas and to maintain an inventory of such areas, are one element in comprehensive
hearing conservation surveys of installations with such programs. Thirty-eight surveys were
conducted by USAEHA personnel in 1973. These surveys constitute a comprehensive
evaluation of the medical, acoustical engineering, administrative, and education elements
of the hearing conservation programs, while at the same time advice and consultation in
these areas are provided. Information from the surveys is assembled, coded, and stored in
a computerized noise data bank developed by USAEHA. This noise reference library will
contain profiles of noise sources encountered throughout the Army and will assist in
identifying remedial measures for other or similar sources.
The Army requires that acoustical engineering noise control measures be instituted to
minimize or eliminate hazardous noise exposure. TB-MED 251 provides general guidance
on the types of engineering controls available ranging from improved maintenance to
operator isolation.
TB-MED 251 provides for the administration of baseline and subsequent periodic
audiograms at least annually for all personnel identified as working in noise hazardous areas
(i.e., above 85 dBA). The Bulletin also prescribes testing procedures, calibration techniques,
and equipment specifications meeting accepted national and international standards.
USAEFIA is presently conducting a technical study designed to establish a Hearing Conser-
vation Data Registry for the storage and analysis of audiometric evaluations. This will per-
mit an analysis of the disposition of personnel demonstrating abnormal audiograms and will
enable the Surgeon General to objectively evaluate the effectiveness of the overall hearing
conservation program.
C-9
-------
Use of hearing protective devices is required for all personnel and visitors exposed to
hazardous noise. Personnel are fitted with devices under medical supervision, and informa-
tion on the attenuation characteristics, fitting, care and use of personal hearing protective
devices is contained in TB-MED 251 and Army educational materials. In addition, USAEHA
is currently evaluating communication abilities with hearing protective devices on a close
combat course.
The Army conducts hearing conservation education with particular emphasis given to
the dissemination of technical and health information to personnel at the installation level.
Health education materials have been developed including 10 series of posters describing the
proper use and care of hearing protective devices and illustrating noise-induced hearing loss
and its effect. These training aids are made available with a magnetic tape recording depict-
ing three conditions of filtered speech that correspond to the degree of hearing loss illus-
trated on the posters. Also, four technical guides, films, records, and slides dealing with
hearing conservation have been developed or procured and are sent to any post, camp, or
station upon request. An annual hearing conservation course, designed to provide informa-
tion to personnel responsible for the implementation and maintenance of such programs,
has been offered by USAEHA for the last six years.
Specialized personnel participate in the Army hearing conservation program at both
Headquarters and installation levels. A Bio-Acoustics Division was established at the USAEHA
in the latter part of 1969. In 1972, a field-grade Medical Corps Officer was assigned as
chief of the division, which numbers 17 and includes masters and PhD level audiologists,
acoustical engineers, environmental noise scientists, as well as a PhD psychologist working
in the area of psycho-acoustics. In 1971, 58 positions were approved for Medical Service
Corps officer audiologists to be located at various installations throughout the world, and
there are currently 55 such military audiologists serving in this capacity. These officers
serve a dual purpose both as clinical audiologists assigned to a U. S. Army medical installa-
tion and as audiology assistants within the Health and Environment Service. Each officer
is required to spend at least 50 percent of his time in the latter role, which includes respon-
sibility for monitoring and implementing the local hearing conservation program.
The Army did not submit information on costs or budgeting for Department hearing
conservation activities.
Department of the Navy
The basic objective of the Navy hearing conservation program is to prevent hearing
loss in personnel assigned to areas of high intensity noise. The Bureau of Medicine and
C-lU
-------
Surgery has responsibility for directing and coordinating the Navy program. The first, for-
mal comprehensive Navy hearing conservation program was initiated in 1955, and the basic
instruction outlining program requirements has been’revised several times. The current
directive, BUMEDINST 6260.6B, was issued on March 5, 1970, and is directed at all U. S.
Naval Commands, ashore and afloat, and applies to both civilian and military personnel.
Commanding officers are assigned responsibility for overseeing the daily implementation of
the program and, if required to submit a quarterly Occupational Health Report, must
include information on the progress of hearing conservation efforts.
BUMEDINST 6260.6B specifies use of the OSHA permissable noise exposure levels
based on a damage risk criterion level of 90 dBA. When the noise level exceeds 90 dBA, the
Navy requires mandatory institution of a hearing conservation program. BUMEDINST
6260.6B does not establish a criterion for exposure to impacts or impulse noise. However,
it is mandatory that all Navy personnel exposed to gunfire in training or test situations wear
ear protective devices, regardless of the length of exposure. In addition, all personnel
exposed to artillery fire under any circumstances are required to wear ear protectors.
The Navy did not submit information on noise exposure problems generated by its
activities. However, BUMEDINST 6260.6B does cite gunfire, rockets, jet and propeller-
driven aircraft, marine engines, and industrial equipment as sources generating noise that
may cause hearing loss. No data was provided on the incidence of hearing loss or number
of hearing disability claims for the Navy personnel.
The Navy hearing conservation program encompasses five functional areas —
1. Noise measurement and analysis
2. Engineering control
3. Audiometry
4. Education
5. Personal protective measures.
Noise Measurement and Analysis
Industrial hygienists and other medical personnel trained in noise measurement pro-
cedures conduct noise surveys ashore and afloat to identify potentially hazardous noise
environments. Instrumentation used in such surveys meet ANSI standards. Areas, equip-
ment, machinery, and tools found to exceed 90 dBA are identified and posted in accordance
with specified procedures, and use of personal hearing protection is required. Each hazard-
ous noise area, piece of equipment, or machine is conspicuously posted with a standardized
decal, and each tool is conspicuously labeled.
C-Il
-------
Engineering Control
A variety of approaches are recommended and used in attempting to attenuate noise
to acceptable levels. These include attenuation of noise at its source by engineering design,
maintenance, substitution of processes (e.g., welding for riveting), isolation to a remote area,
acoustical treatment of rooms, resilient mounting, source enclosure, use of ground mufflers
on jet aircraft, use of sound-proof operator booths, and use of noise level specifications
when ordering new equipment.
Audiometry
The Navy reported on their audiometric testing program in terms of instrumentation,
training of personnel, and frequency and monitoring of audiograms.
Audiometers and audiometric testing rooms utilized by the Navy meet ANSI standards.
Both self-recording and manual audiometers are used in determining pure-tone, air-conduc-
tion hearing thresholds. Physical calibration of audiometers as well as preventive mainte-
nance and repair are performed annually. Technicians are required to check the audiometer
against their own hearing each day or before beginning testing. Audiometric testing rooms
are certified every two years. A standard audiometric procedure, as specified by the Inter-
Society Council for Accreditation in Occupational Hearing Conservation, is followed, and
approved recordkeeping is required.
Personnel performing audiometry receive training that goes beyond that specified by
the Inter-Society Council. The Navy has assigned a Navy Enlisted Classification to identify
those hospital corpsmen having completed this course, and personnel are eligible for certifi-
cation by the Council.
Threshold measurement by air-conduction is performed at audiometric test frequencies
of 500, 1000, 2000, 3000, 4000, and 6000 hertz. All personnel exposed to hazardous
noise receive a reference audiogram, which becomes a permanent part of the person’s
medical records, and is used as a baseline to compare changes in audiotory sensitivity occur-
ring at a later date. Monitoring audiograms are conducted after three months’ work in a
hazardous noise environment. Thereafter, if there are no subjective complaints or if the
difference is less than 10 dB at 200 hertz and below, or less than 15 dB at 300 hertz and
above, monitoring audiograms are obtained annually.
I3UMEDINST 6260.68 states that all military and civilian personnel should, to the
extent feasible, receive audiometric examinations upon both entry and termination of
service. The instruction also outlines procedures for the disposition of personnel whose
C-12
-------
audiograms indicate hearing impairment. However, the Navy did not submit any informa-
tion on the actual implementation of these two provisions.
Education
Hearing conservation education, which is designed to convince both management and
workers of the risks involved in noise exposure, is an important element of the Navy pro-
gram. Primary responsibility for this educational process rests with medical officers assisted
by industrial hygienists, nurses, aviation physiologists, hospital corpsmen, and safety per-
sonnel. An initial educational program has been implemented for. ,all new personnel, which
is supplemented by a continuing health education program utilizing handouts, films, brief
talks, posters, and labels and decals denoting hazardous noise areas and equipment. Infor-
mation provided in these formal educational programs is reinforced by medical department
personnel at every opportunity (e.g., when personnel report for ear plug fitting, audiometry,
and during visits to shops by industrial hygiene personnel).
Personal Protective Measures
In addition to educational programs, every attempt is made to make use of hearing
protective devices as easy and comfortable as possible to ensure their optimal use. The
Navy inventory includes insert type earplugs, semi-insert type of earcaps, the circumural or
ear muffs, and the helmet. Ear plugs and ear muffs are sometimes used in combination.
The selection of a hearing protective device depends on user acceptance, efficiency of atten-
uation of the device, the noise environment, and the job being done. Trained personnel
perform careful sizing and fitting and provide instruction in the care, use, cleaning, and
storage of hearing protectors. When reporting for hearing testing, personnel are required to
bring their hearing protective devices for inspection.
Although the magnitude of the Navy program necessitates involvment of a relatively
large number of personnel, no specific information on personnel levels or percentage of
time allocated to hearing conservation activities was reported. In addition, the Navy did
not submit data on program costs or budgeting.
Department of the Air Force (USAF)
The primary purpose of the Air Force hearing conservation program is to conserve the
hearing of all personnel who are routinely subjected to potentially hazardous noise and to
thus ensure continued retention and utilization of skilled and valuable personnel. The Air
Force program covers more than 210,000 occupationally exposed employees. Since the
c-i 3
-------
majority of individuals entering the Air Force and potentially hazardous noise career fields
possess hearing acuity that is consistently better than the normative non-noise exposed
population of comparable age, it is imperative that stringent noise control and hearing con-
servation measures be initiated and enforced. The philosophy of the USAF hearing conser-
vation program is based on the concept of continuous monitoring of the hearing acuity of
personnel exposed to potentially hazardous noise, to detect temporary noise-induced hear-
ing loss before permanent hearing damage develops.
The Air Force hearing conservation program, originally established as part of AFR
160-3, “Hazardous Noise Exposure”, was introduced by the Air Force in 1956 and updated
in 1960 on the basis of the best scientific information then available. It was prepared in
close cooperation with the National Academy of Sciences — National Research Council
(Committee on Hearing, BioacoustiCS, and Biomechanics). Air Force Regulation 161-35,
dated July 27, 1973, which establishes requirements that either comply with or are more
stringent than those promulgated by OSHA, has superseded AFT 160-3 as the basis for the
USAF hearing conservation program. This regulation establishes policies, assigns responsi-
bilities, provides noise exposure standards, establishes a monitoring audiometry program,
and directs effective coordination of Air Force activities regarding control of noise effects.
AFR 161-35 provides detailed guidance for the conduct of all phases of the hearing conser-
vation program. This guidance includes information on the scientific basis for program
requirements, detailed specifications for acceptable types and use techniques for noise
measurement and audiometric testing equipment, and in-depth treatment of procedural
and reporting requirements. AFR 161-35 is supplemented by other Air Force directives
that deal with specific noise situations such as sonic boom and siting of noise producing
operations or that require annual surveys of all industrial areas suspected of being hazardous
noise environments.
Air Force policy emphasizes that its hearing conservation program is not to be con-
sidered a substitute for the preferred method of using best practical technology to reduce
or eliminate potentially hazardous noise. Utilization of specialized facilities and skills
available in the service (e.g., USAF School of Aerospace Medicine) is a prominant feature
in the USAF program, which consists of seven interrelated elements discussed in the follow-
ing paragraphs.
Establishment of Noise Exposure Limits or Standards
AFR 161-35 specifies limiting values for total daily noise exposure, which are based
on the prevention of damage to the hearing organs, maintenance of effective performance,
C-l4
-------
and avoidance of damage or undesired responses of the whole human body. An 84 dl3A
limit for an 8-hour exposure is used to avoid damage to the hearing organs with a 4-dB time!
intensity trading ratio and a ceiling of 115 dBA fo exposure without adequate ear protec-
tion. The basic criterion for exposure of unprotected personnel to impulsive or impact
noise is a sound pressure in excess of 140 dB peak. However, criteria are provided for im-
pulse noise exposure for three different sets of operating conditions (i.e., sound fields con-
sist of (1) many combined impulses, (2) repeated impulses without reflections, and (3) slowly
repeated impulses with reflection of the sound wave). Due lo the potential for damage,
use of effective ear protective devices is required for all personnel involved in the firing of
weapons.
AFR 161-35 also prescribes noise exposure limits that are applicable to differing work
environments and that are directed solely toward the maintenance of effective job perfor-
mance. Finally, an overall A-weighted sound level limit of 150 dB with exposure not to
exceed a total of 20 minutes each workday, together with limiting values for sounds in the
two frequency ranges 1-80 Hz and 12,500-40,000 Hz, are specified to avoid damage or
undesired responses of the whole human body.
As stated in AFR 161-35, Air Force policy provides that exposures above these limit-
ing values will only occur for reasons of unique military requirements and only in consulta-
tion with the USAF Hearing Conservation Data Registry. AFR 161-35 also identifies those
primary occupational groups in which exposures to high noise levels may occur. These
include aircraft maintenance, missile maintenance, armament systems maintenance and
operation, munitions and weapons maintenance, metal working, marine, civil engineering,
fire protection, fuel services, printing, and security police.
Indoctrination and Education
The Air Force education program is designed to instill strong elements of persuasion
and understanding so that the individual becomes self-disciplined to protect himself when-
ever and wherever he encounters potentially hazardous noise. All personnel whose duties
routinely entail exposure to hazardous noise receive initial and followup indoctrination con-
cerning undesirable auditory and nonauditory effects of noise, use of personal ear protection
devices, and methods and techniques used to effectively limit or control undesirable
exposures.
c-is
-------
Identification of Potentially Hazardous Noise Areas
General base surveys are conducted to identify those areas requiring more detailed and
sophisticated acoustic noise evaluations. These latter evaluations, in addition to providing
data for other elements of the program, are the basis for the establishment of specific expo-
sure limits for areas and duties where hazardous noise exists and for the posting of noise-
hazard areas.
Personal Ear Pro tective Devices
Such devices are provided to each individual who must work in potentially hazardous
noise areas. AFR 161-35 provides extensive data on the performance and attenuation
characteristics of various devices and requires that molded earplugs be carefully fitted by
trained personnel.
Monitoring A udiometry
Pure-tone audiometric thresholds are obtained that represent a pre-exposure baseline,
and audiometrjc examinations are periodically repeated on all personnel who routinely enter
areas in which 84 dBA is exceeded and on those requiring Flying Class I, IA, II, or III
examinations. There are approximately 17,000 pure-tone air-conduction threshold audio-
grams per month conducted in direct support of the hearing conservation program.
AFR 161-35 specifies in great detail the types of audiometric equipment and facilities
to be used, frequency of, and procedures for, instrument calibration, and types, frequency,
and evaluation procedures for performing audiograms. Monitoring audiometry is the single
most important element of the hearing conservation program, which serves to identify
employees for whom special personnel action must be considered.
Recordkeeping System
Medical, environmental, and administrative records are maintained for each employee
and workplace where potentially hazardous noise exposure may occur. These records,
which are maintained in the Environmental Health Section of Aerospace Medicine, must be
used to evaluate program progress and to monitor the hearing status of exposed employees.
Personnel Disposition and Management Procedures
Supervisors and personnel managers are guided by competent medical advice relative
to the medical control and administrative management of employees who demonstrate
C-I 6
-------
hearing loss, whether directly due to noise or not. Such procedures are necessary to ensure
that individuals who exhibit noise-induced hearing loss do not acquire further auditory im-
pairment as a result of continued exposures to occupational noise. Approximately 150
individuals per month are identified through monitoring audiometry as requiring further
administrative or medical management. No information was submitted on the incidence of
hearing loss or number of hearing disability claims for Air Force personnel.
The Air Force program is supported, in part, by more than 60 otolaryngologists and
audiologists and directed by more than 130 Bioenvironmental Engineers at the installation
level. As of 30 June 1974, 342 technicians had received training’performed by accredited
instructors and meeting professional society requirements, leading to certification as an
Air Force Hearing Conservationist.
No funding information on program costs or budgeting was submitted.
Noise Abatement
The Department of Defense submitted individual responses for the Army, Navy and
Air Force, each of which conducts extensive noise abatement programs. However, as all
three military departments participate in the Air Installation Compatible Use Zones (AICUZ)
program within the framework established by the Department of Defense, the general poli-
cies and procedures of this program are discussed in the following paragraphs.
The increasing frequency of community encroachment, especially residential develop-
ment, on privately owned lands abutting military air installations has led to the establishment
of the AICUZ program. The purpose of AICUZ is to prevent incompatible development in
high noise exposure areas, to minimize public exposure to potential safety hazards associ-
ated with aircraft operations, and to protect the operational capability of the air installation.
DOD Instruction 4165.57 published on July 30, 1973 with the concurretice of the
Federal Property Council and the Office of Management and Budget, describes the proce-
dures by which compatible use zones may be defined and provides policy on the extent of
Government interest in real property within these zones. This Instruction, which applies to
air installations of the military departments located within the United States, its territories,
trusts, and possessions, requires that as a first priority step, all reasonable, economical, and
practical noise source control measures be taken. Typical measures normally include siting
of engine test and runup facilities in remote areas if practical and provision of sound sup-
pression equipment where necessary and may include adjustment of traffic patterns to
avoid built-up areas where such can be accomplished safely and without significant
impairment of operational effectiveness.
C-17
-------
After all reasonable noise source control measures have been taken, there will usually
remain significant land areas in which the total noise exposure is incompatible with certain
types of land development. In these situations, DOD Instruction 4165.57 provides that
attempts should be made to work with local governing bodies, planning commissions, zoning
boards and similar bodies to alleviate problems by zoning or similar local measures. Where
practical and advisable, necessary rights in land within the AICUZ may be obtained through
land exchange, purchase, donation, or other methods, or retained for the protection of the
operational capability of air installations. Such restrictive easements may include the right
to make low and frequent flights over land or the right to restrict the use of the area for
human habitation and construction of dwellings, except as to pre-existing dwellings. The
Instruction also establishes general criteria under which acquisition or disposition of interests
should be carried out and requires the Secretaries of the Military Departments to
1. Develop and implement a plan to investigate and study all air installations in
necessary order of priority to develop an AICUZ program for each.
2. Prepare recommendations for individual installations on AICUZ programs based
on the results of such studies.
3. Take action to assure
a. Sustained cooperation with local authorities and public awareness of DOD
efforts
b. First priority is given to the use of noise source control measures.
Reported implementation of these requirements is treated under the descriptions of
the three military departments’ noise abatement programs which follow.
The AICUZ program is designed to be evolutionary in nature and to be responsive to
differing State and local conditions. In addition, DOD has worked with other agencies
(e.g., HUD, EPA) involved in land use planning and community noise control as is evidenced
by a recent DOD internal memorandum requiring that the Leq/Ldn methodology, used in
the EPA “Levels Document” as the uniform environmental noise descriptor, be incorporated
into the AICUZ program.
Department of the Army
The Army noise abatement program is one of two phases of a reportedly comprehen-
sive program, still in its early stages of formulation. The program has been stimulated by an
increased awareness of the impact of undesired noise produced by Army activities. The
purpose of the program is to protect the health and welfare of members of the military
services and the public adjacent to Army installations.
C-18
-------
The Army reported the following summary of funding for noise pollution control:
FY Dollars (in thousands)
74 1,200
75 2,570
76 2,000 (est.)
77 3,000 (est.)
78 2,000 (est.)
As a result of the Noise Control Act of 1972 and the National Environmental Policy
Act of 1969, the Army has undertaken environmental noise pollution assessments of exist-
ing operations and has programmed military movements and activities in accordance with
DOD and Army Directives. Installation commanders are provided consultative services in
quantifying noise problems and identifying abatement measures by the Bio-Acoustics
Division, U. S. Army Environmental Hygiene Agency. Since FY71, 10 comprehensive
environmental noise pollution assessments of aircraft operations, artillery ranges, vehicles,
and stationary noise sources have been completed. In addition, the Army has published
AR-200- 1, an environmental protection and enhancement regulation, Chapter 7 of which
deals entirely with noise abatement. Specific Army noise abatement efforts are directed at
both fixed facilities and mobile sources.
The major sources of undesirable ambient noise produced by Army fixed facilities and
activities include industrial plants, firing ranges, airfields, demolition training sites, heavy
construction training areas, power generation plants, and jet engine test cells.
Attention is being focused on various noise sources as indicated by the following list-
ing of noise surveys and special studies conducted by the U. S. Army Environmental Hygiene
Agency since FY71:
Environmental Noise Assessments 20
Acoustical Engineering Studies 36
Hearing Conservation Surveys 113
Particular attention has recently been directed towards making noise assessments of
Army airfields. Fourteen such studies were conducted in the last two years. These resulted
in changes in flight scheduling, modification of flight patterns, maintenance of standard
flying altitudes and reductions in training flights.
Corrective measures for noise problems are taken either at the source, path, or receptor.
Presently, the corrective measures applied to the noise source have been limited primarily to
the regulation of operating hours. For example, the operation of certain airfields and firing
C-19
-------
ranges is confined largely to daylight hours and limited to essential activities on weekends.
In addition, increased attention is being given to reducing noise levels at receptors on an
installation by using modern acoustic materials in building construction. Contract specifica-
tions require such materials to be utilized in new hospitals as well as in academic and
administrative facilities.
Interest in the control of noise from mobile sources, such as trucks, helicopters, and
tracked vehicles, is twofold, since noise abatement measures will also make the equipment
less readily detectable in tactical situations. Much of the work on vehicles and aircraft is
also related to signature reduction, particularly important in a combat environment. In
addition, the Army design standard, MIL-STD-1474 (Ml), Noise Limits of Army Materiel,
attempts to control noise levels before equipment reaches the field.
The Army reported that significant progress was made in 1973 in the Army program to
determine the noise levels for military vehicles. Tests were completed on the ¼ ton truck
(Jeep), 2½ ton and 5 ton trucks, “Gamma Goat”, and the M-746 Heavy Equipment Trans-
porter to determine noise levels produced by various components of each vehicle; e.g., fan,
exhaust system, and engine shrouds. Sound absorbent materials are being designed for the
cab areas. Special studies were also initiated to better define the noise produced by tires
and the track systems used by tanks and personnel carriers. Driver education, with empha-
sis placed on proper vehicle operation and maintenance, together with routing trips to avoid
noise-sensitive areas, is an important facet of the Army vehicle noise reduction effort.
The increased numbers of helicopters in tactical units and the continuing requirement
to maintain flying proficiency of pilots have given rise to citizen complaints about helicopter
noise in off-post areas. Abatement measures have been taken that include modification of
the aircraft and adjustments to flight procedures. A program, costing approximately $2
million over a 7-year period, has resulted in significant reduction in rotor blade and jet
engine noise levels. However, most effective in reducing complaints has been the imposition
of operational changes such as restricted flight patterns, specifying flying altitudes, and
curtailing night and weekend flying when necessary.
No information was provided on the number of personnel involved in or percentage of
their time allotted to Army noise abatement activities.
Department of the Navy
The Navy submitted the following summary financial data for on-going noise abate-
ment projects and future planned activities in this area.
C-20
-------
FY Dollars (in thousands)
73 352
74 1,913
75 1,760
76 23,960
77 32,400
Post-77 527,500
Total 587,88 .5
This data includes all identified over-the-fence noise abatement projects requiring capi-
tal expenditures in excess of $50,000 as well as some projects for less than $50,000. How-
ever, not all projects for less than $50,000 are included in the financial summary, since
considerable noise abatement work is carried out by local commanding officers utilizing
funds available to them for small projects. In response to Executive Order 11752, the Navy
has provided EPA with its 5-year noise control plan contained in the “Noise Pollution Con-
trol Report”, dated June 30, 1974. This special report describes noise abatement projects
at specific Navy installations and fiscal breakouts for these projects, the overall totals for
which were just shown.
The Navy AICUZ implementation program costs represent a substantial proportion of
the total noise abatement funding. Total AICUZ funding is as follows:
FY Dollars (in thousands) % of Total Navy Noise
Abatement Funding
73 251 71%
74 575 30%
75 800 45%
76 18,100 76%
77 20,400 63%
Post-77 403,500 76%
Total 443,626 75%
These figures include both estimated costs for the acquisition of restrictive easements
at various locations together with funding for AICUZ planning studies and project develop-
ment. In accordance with the requirements of DOD Instruction 4165.57, the Secretary of
the Navy has provided commanding officers with guidance and assistance in carrying out
interim measures prior to the completion of the AICUZ study and the development of a
specific strategy for each Naval air station.
C-21
-------
In addition to the AICUZ program, the Navy “Noise Pollution Control Report” identi-
fies both noise abatement projects designed to alleviate specific noise problems through
engineering controls, together with programs which are broader in scope and have more
widespread applications: Specific projects at identified locations for the FY 1973-1976
period include:
• Procurement and installation of acoustical enclosures for aircraft runup facility for
F-14 and other aircraft at Miramar Naval Air Station — $ 2,300K (FY76).
• Replacement of acoustical baffling on jet engine test cells at Alameda Naval Air
Station — $ 125K (FY76).
• Procurement and installation of an acoustical enclosure aircraft runup facility for
F-14 and other aircraft at El Toro Marine Corps Air Station — $2,000K (FY76).
• Installation of sound suppressors on steam pressure reducing stations at San Diego
Navy Public Works Center — $3 1K (FY76).
• Relocation of rocket testing and test firing of pyrotechnics facility to remote site
at Seal Beach Naval Weapons Station $50K (FY76).
• Rehabilitation of test cell for BQM-34A supersonic aerial target at North Island
Naval Air Station — $30K (FY76).
• Provision of GCA/TACAN equipment, maintenance, and operating facilities to allow
operation of new equipment located on east-west runway at North Island Naval Air
Station — $47K (FY76).
• Provision of sound reduction doors for jet engine test cells at Naval Air Rework
Facility — $1 K (FY73) and $1 8K (FY76).
• Installation and/or construction of noise suppression devices, systems, and facilities
to correct specific noise problems at nine locations — $1OK (FY73), $28K (FY74),
$1 59K (FY76).
The following on-going or proposed noise abatement activities are more general in
scope and application than those projects designed to rectify individual noise problems
mentioned above:
• Studies to develop cost-effective engineering control methods, feasible alternatives,
design criteria and special designs for the control of noise from various sources —
$1OK (FY74), $300K (FY76), $300K (FY77), $300K (Post FY77).
• Preparation of technical training and operational manuals relating to the Navy noise
pollution control program — $200K (FY76), $200K (FY77), and $ lOOK (FY77).
• Construction of modern noise suppression systems and facilities for use in controlling
noise from industrial facilities, construction, vehicles, and aircraft operations —
$1 million (FY77) and $1 million (Post-FY77).
• Development of plans and specifications for noise pollution control systems and
facilities — $1 00K each for FY76, FY77 and Post-FY77.
• Jet engine noise study for aircraft acoustical enclosure at Naval Facilities Engineering
Command — $260K (FY75).
C-22
-------
• Study to develop, test and evaluate noise suppression systems for aircraft runup and
engine testing — $90K (FY73), $1.3 milliqn (FY74), $700K (FY75), and $500K
(FY76). This project is funded with Research, Development, Test and Evaluation
monies.
Department of the Air Force
The Air Force reported on two types of noise abatement activities: sound suppression
at the source and participation in the AICUZ program.
The Air Force conducts an active program for the acquisition of sound suppressors for
maintenance runup operations, which has the following objectives:
• Protect maintenance personnel performing test and trim operations from sound
intensities of over 135 decibels.
• Eliminate the hearing damage risk for personnel without ear protection working up
to eight hours a day at 250 feet or more from power check pad or jet engine test
stands.
• Provide a communication environment inside a frame building, with windows and
doors partly open, equivalent to that normally experienced in shop areas with
moderately noisy machinery or in hangars used for routine aircraft maintenance
when operated at 500 feet from such a building.
• Provide sufficient suppression so that essentially no complaints would be expected
from a residential community 2500 feet from the power check pad or jet engine
test stand while making up to five single runs per day of more than five minutes’
duration between the hours of 0700 and 2200.
• Allow continuous around-the-clock operations one mile from a residential community.
• Ground runup sound suppressors have been and continue to be acquired for fighter
type aircraft and fighter trainer aircraft.
Funding levels for this program are:
FY Dollars (in thousands)
68-72 23,143
73 5,400
74 3,600
75 4,000
76 4,000
77 4,000
To comply with the provisions of Executive Order 11752 and a proposed Toledo,
Ohio noise ordinance, the Air Force has identified a specific noise abatement project at
Air Force Plant 27, Teledyne CAE, in Toledo. The project, which is estimated to cost
C-2 3
-------
$81,000 during FY76, calls for the installation of new silencers on a vacuum pump exhaust
and installation of a muffling device on the altitude bleed pipe in order to reduce the noise
of test facilities which contributes to sound levels of 80 to 85 dBA at the plant boundary.
Coincident with the development of the Air Force Air Installation Compatible Use
Zone (AICUZ) program, a multidisciplinary Environmental Planning Division composed of
city planners, engineers, architects, and landscape architects was established within the
Directorate of Civil Engineering. Among their environmental planning responsibilities is
the AICUZ program, which will be applied to all installations with active flying missions.
Their job is to develop the broad base of (1) tools (maps, and noise/safety data), (2) plan-
fling systems, and (3) policies consistent with federal land use and environmental protection
legislation necessary to support commanders seeking compatible land use planning in con-
cert with local civic planners and officials.
AICUZ guidance for the revised program was issued in the following phases to corre-
spond with the continuing refinement of the AICUZ methodology, the availability of
technical procedures, and the development of land use compatibility criteria:
• Phase I: AICUZ Implementation Team formation and data collection.
• Phase II: Review and refinement of Phase I results.
• Phase III: Preparation of Day-Night Average Sound Level (Ldn) maps based on the
results of Phase I and II.
• Phase IV: Preparation of AICUZ maps and land use compatibility recommendations.
• Phase V: Presentation of AICUZ for the implementation by local governments.
• Phase VI: Maintenance of the AICUZ.
Air Force policy is to encourage achievement of compatibility between air installations
and neighboring civil communities by means of a compatible land use planning and control
process conducted by the local community. The systems for identifying and assessing land
use compatibility is derived from the AICUZ concept. This concept embodies a process of
projecting, mapping, and defining aircraft noise and accident potential areas within the air
base environs. Land use compatibility guidelines are applied to these areas and serve as the
basis for Air Force recommendations to the communities for use in their land use planning
and control process.
Air Force commanders at major command and base level establish and maintain active
programs to achieve the maximum feasible land use compatibility between air installations
and neighboring communities. The program requires that all appropriate governmental
bodies and citizens are fully informed whenever AICUZ or other planning matters affecting
the installation are under consideration. This includes positive and continuous programs
designed to:
C-24
-------
1. Provide information, criteria and guidelines to federal, state, regional and local
planning bodies, civil associations and similar groups.
2. Inform such groups of the requirements of the flying activity, noise exposure,
aircraft accident potential and AICUZ plans.
3. Describe the noise reduction measures which are being used.
All reasonable, economical, and practical measures are taken to reduce or control the
impact of noise-producing activities. These measures include such considerations as proper
location of engine test facilities, provision of sound suppressors where necessary, and adjust-
ment of flight patterns and techniques to minimize the noise impact on populated areas.
This is done without jeopardizing safety or operational effectiv ess.
The Air Force reported that the complexity of the AICUZ program as well as the wide
distribution of resources applied to the program prevent an accurate estimate of its funding
without the expenditures of significant resources.
Technical Assistance
A fundamental element in achieving the objectives of the AICUZ program described
above is sustained cooperation with local governing bodies and zoning boards in order to
alleviate noise problems through means other than Federal acquisition of land interests.
The Army, Navy, and Air Force, charged with implementation of the AICUZ program, did
not provide specific information on consultation measures initiated or planned to facilitate
local authority participation in the program. However, the following desired practices,
specified in DOD Instruction 4165.57 emphasize the requirement for DOD technical
assistance efforts:
1. Whenever zoning is selected as the method of land control, which is desirable in
that land is not removed from tax rolls and Federal involvement is minimized,
responsible installation commanders must assure that constant attention is given
to the action of local zoning authorities. In addition, positive and continuous
informational programs are to be established and maintained for local governing
bodies, civic associations, and similar groups in order that the citizenry may be
advised whenever matters affecting the air installation are under consideration.
Local ordinances requiring that persons contemplating purchase, rent, or lease in
high noise areas be fully informed of such noise are encouraged.
2. Agreements with local governing bodies affording the Federal Government the
opportunity to meet with them whenever any proposed actions affecting land
within the AICUZ are under consideration, should be sought, and testimony
should be presented in open hearings. Where statutes allow, comprehensive plans
developed by local planning/zoning officials with the cooperation of the Federal
Government are encouraged.
C-25
-------
3. Since effective state land use legislation could prove more permanent than local
zoning authority actions, it is to be considered highly desirable.
DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH, EDUCATION, AND WELFARE (HEW)
HEW reported hearing conservation, noise abatement, and technical assistance activities.*
Hearing Conservation
The Department submitted information on six Public Health Service Agencies and the
Social Security Adminstration. Of the six Public Health Service Agencies, only three (Na-
tional Institutes of Health (NIH), National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health
(NIOSH), and the Food and Drug Administration (FDA)) indicated any involvement in
hearing conservation. Both NIOSH and FDA reported no serious noise exposure problems
and have instituted limited preventive measures rather than formal hearing conservation
programs. NIH has a fully operational hearing conservation program which, while comply-
ing with OSHA requirements, utilizes a more stringent 85 dBA standard. The Alcohol,
Drug Abuse, and Mental Health Administration, the Health Resources Administration, and
the Health Services Administration reported no involvement in hearing conservation
activities.
Food and Drug Administration (FDA)
In conformance with OSHA standards, noise surveys are conducted in areas of poten-
tial exposure, and protective equipment (ear muffs, plugs) is provided when OSHA limits
are approached. FDA noise problems are minimal, and no exposures in excess of the OSHA
limits have been documented.
National Institutes of Health (NIH)
The overall goal of the NIH hearing conservation program is to prevent noise-induced
hearing losses among its employees and to provide for acceptable noise levels in the work
environment of all employees. All NIH components involved in the hearing conservation
program are required to comply with OSHA standards and related Federal regulations and
laws governing noise control and prevention. However, NIH adheres to the NIOSH recom-
mendations that an 85 cIBA, 8-hour exposure level be applicable to all newly designed
*The role of the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) relative
to noise regulations promulgated under the Occupational Safety and Health Act is treated
under the Department of Labor discussion.
C-26
-------
occupational exposure environments after six months from the effective date of the standard.
The NIH hearing conservation program is activated when the 85 dBA level is reached and
encompasses noise source reduction, use of hearing rotectors, periodic audiometric testing,
and processing and review of hearing disability claims. These functions are carried out by
the Environmental Service Branch (ESB) of the Division of Research Services, the Employee
Health Service (EHS), and the Safety Management Program.
The Environmental Services Branch has one engineer and one technician who either
routinely or upon request conduct noise surveys of areas with potentially harmful levels of
noise and who make engineering or administrative recommendations to reduce the noise to
a safe level. The surveyed areas are revisited and tested to insure that implementation of the
recommendations has alleviated the problem. ESB also conducts training programs on the
proper use of hearing protection and the importance of hearing conservation.
The Employee Health Service conducts an audiometric test, administered by a nurse
and reviewed by an M.D., on all new employees assigned to areas having potentially harmful
levels of noise. Other new employees, because of their personal medical history, may be
given an audiometric test. In the future, it is planned to give all new employees a hearing
test. New employees assigned to noisy areas are fitted with ear plugs and are instructed in
their use and care. These employees are periodically re-tested (approximately 180 employees
a year), and Federal Employees’ Compensation Act (FECA) criteria are used to determine
if any noise-induced hearing loss has occurred. If more extensive testing is required, em-
ployees are sent to a DHEW specialist.
The Safety Management Program coordinates the NIH safety program and interprets
Federal regulations on hearing loss claims. The number of claims filed with the Office of
Employees’ Compensation, DOL, since 1971 is 35 (1 denial, 4 awards, and 30 pending
action). Most claims filed are by employees working in areas of potentially harmful levels
of noise.
NIH identified noise exposure problems in the power plant, incinerator, printing shop,
carpenter shop, and animal cage washing operations. The major problem limiting the effec-
tiveness of the program is the employee attitudes towards ear protectors — either forgetting
or refusing to wear ear plugs.
No specific figures were reported for either personnel or funding levels for hearing
conservation programs.
C-27
-------
National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH)
Since serious workplace noise problems within NIOSH were reported to be almost non-
existent, no comprehensive internal hearing conservation program exists. However, the
extensive facilities, laboratories, and expertise of the Institute’s noise program are available
as needed, and their use is discussed under Section 3 of this report. The one employee (a
carpenter) who is occasionally subjected to borderline noise exposure has been provided
with personal protective equipment and instructed in its use.
Social Security Administration (SSA)
The Social Security Administration appears to EPA to be integrating and refining on-
going hearing conservation efforts into a comprehensive program. The SSA is developing
management directives that will spell out responsibilities and detail a program to control
exposure to hazardous noise levels. These directives will provide for:
• Keeping noisy work areas under surveillance including the institution of engineering
controls.
• Orienting personnel in the undesirable effects of noise.
• Issuing personal protective devices and instructions for their use.
• Minimizing exposure of personnel to intense noise in work areas where engineering
controls are not feasible or sufficient.
• Monitoring audiometry.
The recently created Occupational Health and Safety Management Staff within the
Office of Administration is now responsible for hearing conservation programming. The
Employee Health Service provides the clinical services necessary to periodically test the
hearing of the 210 employees involved in the monitoring audiometry program.
The SSA has pinpointed operating and shop areas in which noise levels are at or about
85 dBA. Surveillance records are maintained in such areas as the print shop, carpenter
shop, mailrooms, and the computer and data processing ins talIations as well as in other
areas in which teletype machines, paper bursting equipment, and other noise producing
equipment are used. Ninety-five percent of this program is being conducted within the
SSA headquarters, with the remaining five percent in their nationwide field operations.
The SSA does not have personnel assigned full-time to the hearing conservation pro-
gram. These activities are jointly conducted by the various staff functions and the profes-
sional personnel working for the Office of Administration. Since the noise activities are on
an as-needed basis, there is no breakdown of salaries or resources allocated for corrective
measures. Expenditures and allocations are on a day-to-day basis and include audiometric
C-28
-------
testing equipment, sound level meters both area and personal, and noise attenuation efforts
in the areas of greatest noise level exposures.
Noise Abatement
The only reported noise abatement activity was that of the Food and Drug Adminis-
tration, which is discussed subsequently. In response to an EPA request for an indication
of noise problems at Federal facilities in conjunction with Executive Order 11752, the
HEW Office of the Secretary identified potential over-the-fence and work area noise prob-
lems at the Agency hopsital and laboratory facilities. Potential -sources of community noise
include power plant equipment and operations; air-operated, combustion-engine powered,
and ground maintenance equipment used in construction activities; alarms, sirens and other
alerting devices; and snowmobiles and outboard motorboats used for travel in Alaska.
Potential work area noise problems include ventilating fans, pumps, compressors, alerting
devices, and equipment used in maintenance shops, laundries, laboratories, kitchens, offices
and machine rooms. The Agency reported no citation or warnings for noncompliance with
applicable noise regulations nor any known uncorrected noise problems.
Food and Drug Administration (FDA)
FDA reported no over-the-fence or community noise problems. Internally, however,
noise abatement has been applied to Data Processing units in the various components of
FDA. Isolation, acoustical tile, and carpeting are the techniques used to reduce noise levels
in these units. Funding is available through Maintenance, Alteration, Repair projects.
FDA estimates the cost of noise-related work as $2,000 for FY72, $17,000 for FY73
and $6,000 for FY74. These funds were primarily contractual funds for noise abatement
of data processing units.
Technical Assistance
The only reported technical assistance activity in HEW was a training program con-
ducted by the Division of Training of the National Institute for Occupational Safety and
Health (NIOSH).’ Under the authority of the Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970,
NIOSH conducts short training courses in methodology for combating occupational health
problems, including occupational noise, and disseminates educational materials related to
all phases of occupational health. Although specialized courses in noise were offered in the
past, these have been discontinued due to the availability of such training from the private
sector. Occupational noise is included as a prominent topic within industrial hygiene courses
C-29
-------
offered in FY74 and FY75. State employees, along with those of Federal agencies and
private industry, attend the courses. Although fees are charged to cover operating expenses,
fiscal information for training could not be reported due to budgetary procedures.
Although not strictly a technical assistance activity as defined in this report, assistance
on occupational hazards or health problems in response to requests from Federal agencies,
is provided by the Division of Technical Services of NIOSH. NIOSH technical services
usually take the form of a survey of the identified hazard and any other hazards or occupa-
tional health problems that might be present in the working environment and include
recommendations on possible hazard control measures. During the last two years the
Division of Technical Services has performed noise surveys in approximately 25 factories
and worksites of which about half were Federal government installations. However, in only
one of these cases was noise the only problem that prompted the survey. This total does
not include numerous informal noise surveys that are performed by personnel from the
NIOSH regional offices throughout the country.
DEPARThfENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT (HUD)
A major mandate from the Housing and Urban Development Act of 1949 is the goal
of a “suitable living environment for American families”. This mandate was reenforced in
the Department of Housing and Urban Development Act of 1965 (P1. 89-174). The latter
Act sets forth as a matter of national purpose, the sound development of the Nation’s
communities and metropolitan areas.
Noise is a major source of environmental pollution that represents a threat to the
serenity and quality of life in population centers. It is an objective of HUD, therefore, to
encourage the control of noise through land utilization patterns that will separate uncon-
trollable noise sources from residential and other noise-sensitive areas. The HUD program
is designed to foster noise responsive land use patterns by regulating HUD assisted develop-
ments although these constitute only a small percentage of total housing and community
development activity. Direct control over development is supplemented by providing HUD
standards, information and guidelines for use by other agencies and groups. HUD noise
related activities combine research, standards, and echnica1 assistance elements to imple-
ment this general policy.
Standards and Regulations
HUD Circular 1390.2, Noise Abatement and Control: Departmental Policy, Imple-
mentation Responsibilities and Standards, of August 1971 established the policy for the
C-30
-------
conduct of the departmental noise control activities. The policy promulgated minimum
standards. HUD seeks to foster the creation of controls and standards for community noise
abatement and control by general purpose agencies of state and local governments. The
mechanisms used to implement this general policy are discussed under noise abatement.
Additionally, the HUD general policy is to promulgate minimum standards and guidelines
with respect to noise abatement and control, to utilize these as a uniform national policy to
guide HUD program decisions, and to support existing state and local policies and standards.
The HUD circular establishes interim standards for new construction in three categories:
1. External noise exposures
2. Interior noise exposures
3. Insulation between dwelling units.
HUD external noise exposure standards for new construction sites are specified for
both general areas and airport environs and are shown in Table C-I. For airport environs,
the Composite Noise Rating (CNR) and Noise Exposure Forecast (NEF) measurement
methodologies are used.
The interim HUD performance standards for interior noise exposures (for new and
rehabilitated residential construction) are applicable to sleeping quarters. The circular
specifies that existing and projected noise exposure for sleeping quarters is “acceptable” if
interior noise levels
• Do not exceed 55 dBA for more than an accumulation of 60 minutes in any
24-hour period.
• Do not exceed 45 dBA for more than 30 minutes during night time sleeping hours
from 11 p.m. to 7 a.m.
• Do not exceed 45 dBA for more than an accumulation of eight hours in any
24-hour day.
For insulation between dwelling units, the HUD circular stipulates that for multifamily
structures, including attached single family units, floors and dividing walls between dwelling
units having Sound Transmission Class (STC) of less than 45 are always unacceptable.
In applying the above standards, the circular directs that HUD personnel are to be
guided by “a desire to prevent noise problems from coming into being and by an overall
philosophy of encouraging the control of noise at its source.” HUD personnel are to
encourage use of the A-95 notification and review processes to detect potential noise
problems as early as possible.
C-3 I
-------
TABLE C-i
HUD EXTERNAL NOISE EXPOSURE STANDARDS FOR NEW CONSTRUCTION SITES*
General External Exposures Airport Environs
dBA
CNR Zone
NEF Zone
Unacceptable
Exceeds 80 dBA 60 minutes
per 24 hours 3 C
Exceeds 75 dBA 8 hours
per 24 hours
(Exceptions are strongly discouraged and require a 102 (2) C environmental
statement and the Secretary’s approval)
Discretionary — Normally Unacceptable
Exceeds 65 dBA 8 hours
per 24 hours 2 B
Loud repetitive sounds on site
(Approvals require noise attenuation measures, the Regional Administrator’s
concurrence and a 102 (2) C environmental statement)
Discretionary — Normally Acceptable
Does not exceed 65 dBA more than
8 hours per 24 hours
Acceptable
Does not exceed 45 dBA more than
30 minutes per 24 hours
1
A
*Measurements and projections of noise exposures are to be made at appropriate heights above
site boundaries.
C-3 2
-------
Noise Abatement
The responsibility for implementing the HUD noise program rests with the Office of
Environmental Quality, under the Assistant Secretary for Community Planning and Develop-
ment. The Office of Environmental Quality is responsible for the implementation of all
MUD environmental policies, including those under the National Environmental Policy Act
(NEPA). Research support for this effort is the responsibility of the Office of Research
and Development under the Assistant Secretary for Policy Development and Research.
Day-to-day implementing responsibility for the noise program rests with the 10 HUD re-
gional offices and 77 area and insuring offices.
Major HUD noise abatement activities are:
• New Construction and Substantial Rehabilitation. MUD assistance is not granted
for housing projects with unacceptable noise exposure, and when granted in mar-
ginal cases, noise attenuation measures are required. This policy also covers assis-
tance to college housing, group practice facilities, non-profit hospitals and nursing
homes. Acceptability is determined in accordance with MUD exterior and interior
noise standards contained in HUD Circular 1390.2, the provisions of which are
delineated under Standards and Regulations.
• Existing Construction. Environmental noise exposure is a factor in determining
the amounts of insurance and other assistance. Within cost limitations, HUD en-
courages the use of funds for modernization of buildings in noisy environments
when such efforts will improve the noise exposure level.
• Acoustical Privacy in Multifamily Dwellings. MUD encourages the use of building
design and acoustical treatment to afford acoustical privacy in multifamily dwell-
ings, by establishing minimum requirements for all MUD assisted projects, and by
providing information and manuals to private and public bodies.
• Planning Assistance. HUD requires that noise exposure be given adequate considera-
tion in all planning activity receiving HUD assistance. This provides assurance that
new housing, and other noise sensitive accommodations will not be planned for
areas whose current or projected noise levels exceed MUD standards. HUD places
particular emphasis on compatible land use planning in relation to airports and
other sources of high-noise; HUD allows the use of planning funds to explore appro-
priate methods of reducing noise, for reconnaissance studies and studies in depth
of specific noise control problems. Specific examples of such planning assistance
projects are discussed under technical assistance.
• Information and Guidance. MUD maintains an active program designed to provide
up-to-date information and manuals on noise abatement techniques to public and
private bodies. Tt also provides information and manuals on improved methods for
anticipating the encroachment of higher noise levels and the means to deal with
this encroachment. Through these, HUD attempts to foster a better understanding
of the consequences of noise. The approximate yearly man-hour cost for implementing HUID
noise abatement policy at headquarters and regional area and insuring offices is between
$150,000 and $200,000.
C-33
-------
Technical Assistance
The two primary mechanisms (regulation of HUD assisted projects through HUD
standards and provision of information and guidelines to other governmental agencies and
organizations) used to implement HUD noise policy incorporate technical assistance projects.
HUD requires that noise exposure be given adequate consideration in all planning ac-
tivity receiving HUD assistance. In addition, HUD planning funds have been used for noise
related land use planning studies, in one such study conducted by the Tn-State Planning
Commission, noise contours were established around selected airports in the Tn-State
region and served as the basis for planning activity. The Metropolitan Washington Council
of Governments has recently announced the initiation of a comprehensive areawide environ-
mental noise study designed to assist local governments in identifying and controlling noise.
The $22,500 first phase is being funded by HUD and local government contributions, The
principal objective of the initial effort is to evaluate and recommend noise standards, for
sources and environments not preempted by state or Federal regulations.
HUD reported that its standards, as well as information and guidance manuals issued
by HUD, have received wide acceptance, and their influence has been pervasive. It is an
established position at HUD that noise can be described in terms understandable and useable
by nontechnical persons in all levels of government and by the general citizenry. HUD tech-
niques for noise assessment, noise attenuation, and general guidelines for planning develop-
ments around noise generators have been extensively used by other agencies and groups.
For example, over 15,000 copies of the HUD Noise Assessment Guidelines have been sold
by the Government Printing Office. HUD is currently developing an informational docu-
ment entitled “Handbook on Community Environmental Noise” for which $59,000 was
spent in FY71 to 73 and approximately $9,000 for FY74.
DEPARThIENT OF THE INTERIOR (DOl)
This Department’s activities fall into the categories of standards and regulations,
hearing conservation, and noise abatement.
Standards and Regulations
In the Department of the Interior, the Bureau of Mines had amended in 1970 the
regulations of the Federal Coal Mine Health and Safety Act of 1969 to include the OSHA
noise standard prescribed under the Walsh-Healy Public Contracts Act.* A new Part 70
*For the OSHA standard and the EPA position on that standard, see the discussion under
Department of Labor
C-34
-------
to Title 30 CFR, Chapter 1, Subchapter 0, to the Act incorporates in paragraph 70.500 the
OSHA standard as applicable to each coal mine and each operator of such mine for compli-
ance effective June 30, 1970. In 1972, the same noise’ tandard was promulgated for surface
work areas of underground coal mines and for surface coal mines by a new Part 71 for the
aforementioned Federal Coal Mine Health and Safety Act. The latter provision became
effective within 90 days after its promulgation on March 22, 1972.
Both of the above actions (for underground coal mines and surface work areas) were
taken before passage of the NCA and before completion of the EPA research programs
expanded by, or begun under, the new directives and authorizations of the NCA. This was
particularly true for protection against noise in the work place and in regard to hearing
conservation programs. Then EPA developed specific new positions on modifications in
the OSHA noise standard as promulgated by the Department of Labor. Thereafter, when
other agencies have proposed regulations that incorporate the OSHA occupational noise
exposure standard, EPA has utilized its coordination authority to assure that its concerns
and recommended modifications are adequately addressed.
For mine safety, the DO! position came under scrutiny with release by the Bureau of
Mines of an NPRM of August 29, 1973 (38 FR 23383-88) for adoption of the OSHA noise
control standard as mandatory for metal and non-metallic open-pit mines; sand, gravel,
and crushed stone operations; and metal and non-metallic underground mines. There was
an extensive interagency review of the proposed standard. EPA expressed the desire that
the new standards conform more closely with
1. Current EPA noise exposure recommendations, including lower exposure levels
and a complete hearing conservation program.
2. The current revision of the Occupational Safety and Health Administration Noise
Standard being considered by the Department of Labor.
Since a noise standard did not yet exist for the metal and non-metal mining industries,
and rather than delay promulgation of the mandatory new standards altogether, EPA con-
curred in the promulgation and enforcement of the standards as proposed subject to assur-
ance that the Department would promptly present to the Federal Metal and Non-Metal
Mine Safety Advisory Committee the revisions proposed by EPA under Section 4 of the
NCA. With the latter provision duly noted by publication in the Federal Register, the metal
and non-metal mine noise standard was issued by the Department on August 2, 1974, to
take effect on August 7, 1974 as paragraphs 55.5, 56.5, and 57.5, respectively, of Subchap-
ter N, Chapter I, Title 30 CFR (39 FR 28433-4, August 7, 1974).
C-35
-------
Hearing Conservation
Hearing conservation programs have been reported by nine components in the Depart-
ment:
Bureau of Mines
Geological Survey
Mining Enforcement and Safety Administration
Bureau of Land Management
National Park Service
Bonneville Power Administration
Alaska Power Administration
Bureau of Reclamation
Bureau of Indian Affairs.
The programs vary considerably due to differences in the nature of noise exposure problems
arising from the operations engaged in by the respective bureaus and offices. The Bureau of
Reclamation and the Bonneville Power Administration both conduct extensive hearing con-
servation programs. The others are smaller in scope. A Department-wide safety handbook
is in preparation. When completed it will provide a basis for standardization of hearing con-
servation programs throughout the Department.
The following paragraphs provide a summary of the descriptions provided to EPA of
hearing conservation programs in the Department.
Bureau of Mines
The Bureau of Mines reportedly does not have any serious noise exposure problems.
There have been no hearing disability claims submitted by Bureau employees. Emphasis is
on the audiometric screening of employees and a continuing program of noise surveys to
ensure compliance with OSHA standards. The primary sources of noise are those encoun-
tered in the research and testing of methods for improved production methods.
Mining Enforcement and Safety Administration (MESA)
MESA was recently created from several former components of the Bureau of Mines,
including the Division of Coal Mine Health and Safety. MESA therefore has acquired respon-
sibility for the enforcement of the occupational noise exposure standards discussed above
under Standards and Regulations (including noise standards for underground coal mines,
promulgated July 7, 1971 in accordance with the provisions of section 206 of the Federal
C-36
-------
Coal Mine Health and Safety Act of 1969 and those for metal and nonmetallic mines promul-
gated August 7, 1974.
The enforcement of standards requires more than 1,000 field inspectors. Part of their
inspection duties is to investigate and evaluate the miners’ exposure to noise. These duties
therefore result in the exposure to noise of the inspectors themselves. Due to its recent
formation MESA is still following the policies and regulations pertaining to noise as set forth
in the Bureau of Mines manuals.
Geological Survey
The hearing conservation program at Geological Survey has been in effect for one year.
Immediate objectives are
1. To establish hearing baseline data for all employees exposed to levels above
85 dBA
2. To establish noise reduction programs for specific equipment.
Primary sources of noise include printing equipment, helicopters, computers, and shop
operations. No data is available on hearing loss claims. Audiometry equipment has been
acquired and will facilitate the testing of employee hearing. A study has been made of
noise levels associated with offshore oil and gas production platforms. High noise levels up
to 105 dB are found in the operation of various equipment. Noise abatement methods in-
clude the use of engine mufflers, sound-absorbing enclosures, insulation of crew quarters,
and the use of personal protection. USGS reported a FY74 expenditure of $8,000 for
hearing conservation programs: approximately $3,000 for audiometric testing equipment
and $5,000 for acoustical material to quiet the computer room. It is planned that an addi-
tional $78,000 will be expended in the next two years for the quieting of shop areas.
Bureau of Land Management (BLM)
The BLM hearing conservation program is monitored by Bureau headquarters, and the
responsibility for implementation of the program rests with the directors of the various field
activities (e.g., state directors). Management policy and guidance regarding hearing con-
servation is provided via appropriate directives. Three features of particular significance in
the program directive are:
1. The emphasis placed upon the use of properly trained personnel in the conduct
of noise surveys
2. The requirement to retain records of noise surveys for the purpose of review and
analysis
C-37
-------
3. The requirement to obtain the services of “a recognized audiologist” to administer
audiometric testing and to review audiograms.
Noise exposure in the BLM occurs in connection with the operation of heavy equip-
ment (graders, caterpillars), fire fighting pumps, chain saws, aircraft operations and some
small machine tool or woodworking equipment.
Problems tending to limit effectiveness of the program include: unavailability of mon-
itoring equipment, lack of trained personnel to conduct surveys, the high cost of audiologist
services, and the assignment of responsibility for the implementation of the hearing conserva-
tion program to individuals with other primary duties. Thus, it would appear that, due
primarily to funding limitations, the program may not be as effective as it could be with
adequate resources.
In response to a headquarters directive requiring review by field activities of the need
for personal protective equipment, the following items were obtained with respect to hear-
ing protection.
• State Director, Alaska, reported that they have only recently acquired the capa-
bility to measure noise levels. In the meantime hearing protectors are used in noisy
areas.
• Several locations reported the need for additional ear protectors.
• In general, noise meters seem to be in short supply at state and district offices.
One state reported that no noise survey has been made.
National Park Service
Employees of the National Park Service are exposed to noise from a variety of sources:
power plants, aircraft, boats, trucks, blasting, motor vehicle, air compressors, heavy equip-
ment, power tools, machines, motors, and firearms. A management directive, consistent
with OSHA standards, has been issued identifying maximum permissible exposures to noise.
Noise surveys have not yet been conducted, but an organization-wide survey is planned for
the near future to identify all areas that require attention. Hearing conservation activities
are limited by manpower shortages and funding constraints.
Bonneville Power Administration (BPA)
Noise associated with the BPA program can be divided into two basic categories —
noise from construction and maintenance equipment, and noise from transmission facilities.
Most noise exposure problems are associated with construction operation. The noise associ-
ated with power transmission is not high enough to constitute a hazard to hearing, consisting
C-38
-------
of the low-level hum from substation equipment and the corona noise of high voltage trans-
mission lines. However, in the case of a (very infrequent) circuit failure, operation of the
power circuit breakers can produce a noise pulse of up to 100 dB at the substation property
line.
The most prevalent source of construction noise is that from earth-moving equipment
— excavating machinery (backlioes, bulldozers, etc.) and road building equipment (compac-
tors, scrapers, graders, etc.). Both BPA and its contractors adhere to OSHA standards.
BPA operations create working environments in excess of OSHA standards except chipper
operations for clearing of right-of-way for transmission lines. Hearing protectors are manda-
tory around such operations. Levels between 80 and 87 dB were found in printing shops
and in the computer center. Corrective action was taken to reduce these noise levels. Noise
surveys have been conducted for all jobs and noise producing facilities throughout BPA.
An audiometric testing program was instituted in August 1974. The objective is to
establish baseline hearing levels of employees to be followed by annual tests. Therefore,
records on the incidence of hearing loss have not been available in the past but will be in
the future. The records will be used for various purposes, including
• The identification of work areas in which hearing losses are being sustained.
• Use as a reference for determining if accident potential is associated with hearing
deficiencies.
• Use as a guide for management in making administrative decisions regarding exposure.
Expenditures for hearing conservation programs are estimated at $1,200 in FY74 and
$4,000 in FY75.
Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA)
Although the BIA does not operate a formal hearing conservation program it has infor-
mally encouraged hearing conservation for more than ten years. Noise surveys have been
taken and instruction provided on the use of ear protection devices. Major sources of noise
encountered in BIA activities include heavy construction equipment, shop tools, chain saws,
and, in the Forestry Branch, snowmobiles. Audiometric testing is not done and there are
no records on hearing disabilities.
Alaska Power Administration (APA)
The main source of noise in APA operations is that stemming from the hydroelectric
generating process (interaction of water and turbines). Sound level measuring equipment
C-39
-------
is being procured so that hazardous areas may be identified. An audiometric testing pro-
gram is being planned. Presently, personnel are required to wear ear muffs in areas deemed
“noisy.”
Bureau of Reclamation
The hearing conservation program at Reclamation is fully operational and is managed
by the regional offices with overall supervision by the Chief Safety Engineer. Technical
assistance is provided by the Engineering and Research Center. Since 1968 over 5,000 sound
level or octaveband analysis readings have been made in Bureau-operated facilities on Bureau-
administered construction projects, and on or near contractor and Bureau heavy equipment.
Each Region has obtained sound level and octave band noise analyzing equipment,
audiometric examination and calibration equipment, and certified technicians to conduct
audiometric examinations and noise surveys. They have also contracted for the services
of an audiologist or an otologist as a hearing conservation consultant, identified and posted
locations with proper signs where high-noise levels are generated, obtained hearing protec-
tion equipment, developed educational use programs, and started to obtain baseline audio-
grams on all employees exposed to noise levels exceeding the recommended levels. In
addition, employees found to have a significant hearing loss are being referred to their pri-
vate physicians for consultation and additional examinations. Should followup or annual
audiograms on referred employees indicate further losses, personnel actions are requested.
To date, excluding heavy equipment, 288 locations exceeding the 85 dBA limit have
been identified. Upon identification of such areas, employees are informed of the hazard,
and proper protective measures are initiated until further analysis can determine if sound
level reductions can be obtained. Studies have indicated that most operators of heavy
equipment are exposed to noise levels in excess of the threshold limit values, and personal
protective devices should be worn during operational periods.
Table C-2 provides a list of locations where equipment exceeds 85 dBA. Generally,
employees in the locations shown or adjacent to or on the equipment listed were exposed
to noise levels above 85 cIBA. No attempt was made to show actual noise levels as they
varied considerably depending on type of work involved, number of pieces of equipment
operating, and distance between employee and equipment. Also, there are other unlisted
specific operations or locations in which the noise levels exceeded 85 dBA during short
intervals with no employee exposure. Since 1968 there have been 14 claims of hearing
loss, 13 from sustained noise exposure and one from concussion.
C-40
-------
TABLE C-2
BUREAU OF RECLAMATION GENERAL LOCATION AND EQUIPMENT
EXCEEDING 85 dBA NOISE LEVELS
Location
Powerplan ts
Turbine pits Shop areas (near grinders’
Turbine rooms workbenches)
Generator rooms or floors Heat pumps
Penstock galleries Oil filter rooms
Pipe galleries Unwatering galleries
Pumping Plants
Control floors
Operating floors
Dredges
Adjacent to: Discharge pumps
Generators
Grinding wheels
Air compressors
Auxiliary engines
Light plants
Construction Sites
Underground: Tunneling — conventional
Tunneling — Rapid excavation machine
Concrete lining operations
Grouting or shotcrete operations
Diesel engines
Ventilation fans
Drilling
Above ground: Drilling
Vibrating and compacting
Compressor houses
Borrow and fill areas
Heavy Construction Equipment
Crawler tractors Industrial-type tractors
Road graders Gradalls
Self-propelled scrapers Draglines
Compactors Front-end loaders
Miscellaneous Construction and Maintenance Equipment
Aiy drills, jackhammers Arc-air welding
Power saws Grinding
C-41
-------
BR has identified the need for additional trained personnel to conduct sound surveys
and audiometric exams. This shortage is directly attributable to a lack of funds.
The program is operational throughout the Reclamation area with hundreds of persons
involved. Approximately 25 are professionals and the remainder sub-professionals.
Noise Abatement
Major noise abatement activities were reported by both the Bonneville Power Admin-
istration (BPA) and the Bureau of Reclamation (BR). The National Park Service also
reported a requirement for mufflers on snowmobiles and motor vehicles which are operated
within park areas.
Bonneville Power Administration (BPA)
BPA is concerned with over-the-fence noise in its design, engineering, and operations
activities and in its construction projects. It also endeavors to reduce workplace noise.
For example, audio noise generated by communications facilities can be distracting to
power systems operations and maintenance personnel. Such distractions pose serious
problems for operations requiring strict attention. Accordingly, design specifications have
been issued to limit audio noise. Noise is an important consideration in the design of BPA
facilities and in the selection of sites, limited only by technical and economic feasibility.
Established BPA practice is to meet or exceed industry standards on acceptable levels of
noise (National Electrical Manufacturer’s Association Standards). With respect to construc-
tion noise, BPA contracts specify, as necessary, the kinds of noise abatement measures that
are to be implemented. Standard specifications for noise control in construction projects
have been issued.
BPA locates its new substations so as to minimize noise impact on neighboring areas.
That is, adequate space is provided between the substation and existing residential, com-
mercial, and industrial buildings to reduce ambient noise levels. Transformers (a major
source of substation noise) are purchased which are the quietest available, and they exceed
industry standards with respect to noise emissions.
In addition, BPA is currently designing many of its 500-Ky transmission lines with
triple bunting conductors. In at least one instance BPA has reconductored a line with
triple bunting conductors specifically to reduce noise. This design modification greatly
reduces audible noise and increases line carrying capacity, all at a significant increase in
cost over single conductor lines.
C-42
-------
Funding for noise abatement programs is included as part of the annual budget. The
costs directly attributable to noise abatement are currently about $2.5 million per year and
are expected to rise in proportion to the general budget increases. It is important to note
that the cost of noise abatement is ultimately borne by BPA customers.
BPA also is developing an environmental training program for its personnel. Among
the topics to be covered are the problems of noise and noise abatement. Total funding
required for the program is $150,000.
Bureau of Reclamation
The Bureau of Reclamation report on their noise abatement activities indicates that
they have a well organized and aggressive effort to control both their inhouse and over-the-
fence noise problems. Noise abatement activity is considered to be one of their regular
design, planning, and operating functions. Although personnel are not organizationally
assigned to the noise control function (with the exception of one staff acoustical engineer),
a number of the Bureau’s personnel have received special noise control training and are
available to work on noise problems as they arise. Responsibility for noise control programs
rests with Regional Directors. Technical assistance is provided by the Engineering and
Research Center.
The Bureau has for some time recognized that specific noise control measures can be
incorporated in the project design stage. This is now routinely handled by designers in the
15-man Structural and Architectural Branch of the Engineering and Research Center at
Denver, Colorado. Because noise is inherent in some equipment, reduction of its effect is
now incorporated in the layout and designs of new facilities. Previously, other considera-
tions distorted facility design and resulted in high-noise environments. For example, at one
power plant a study revealed a cost saving if the turbine runner could be removed from
below the turbine distributor rather than up through the generator. This arrangement pre-
cluded encasement of the turbine draft tube cone and required large open passageways
from the draft tube area to other areas of the plant, resulting in considerably more noise
in the plant than from the usual installation. Future cost studies for installations include
provisions for noise abatement to alleviate problems such as this.
The following are some of the noise alleviating design solutions being used by the
Bureau.
• Isolating objectionable noise-producing equipment by distance, if practicable, or
by sound retarding barriers. An example is locating the air compressors in a room
C-43
-------
some distance away from where personnel are normally stationed and, where possible,
setting compressors on foundation slabs rather than intermediate floor slabs.
• Avoiding straight open corridors from sources of noise to areas normally occupied
by personnel. For example, in power plants where the control room is on the same
level as the access to the turbine pits, the access passages are oriented to direct noise
away from the control room. At unattended facilities, plant operation is controlled
from a remote station by supervisory control equipment. This type of operation
reduces the noise problem to a sound-retarded communication booth.
• Providing for future additional measures at minimum cost, if found necessary. A
practice now in use is to size openings to permit a future installation of standard
size sound-retarding doors.
• Substituting concrete bearing wall enclosures for beam and column construction.
• Completely encasing turbine spiral cases in installations where partial encasement
has been used in the past. Complete encasement is somewhat more costly in that
additional plant height is required and more concrete is used.
• Isolation of pumping units where pump encasement is not possible. Isolation can
be affected by utilization of sound-retarding walls and doors between pumping
units. Isolation is also indicated for impulse wheels.
DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE (DOJ)
This Department reported conducting hearing conservation activities.
Hearing Conservation
The Department of Justice reported on hearing conservation activities within certain
institutions under the jurisdiction of the Bureau of Prisons. The Bureau has general super-
vision over the operation of more than 30 Federal correctional institutions. Hearing con-
servation programs, including audiometric testing, have been established in four institutions
where the highest noise levels exist. In addition, noise surveys have been conducted in
other facilities to assess the need for hearing conservation programs.
The four institutions with established hearing conservation programs are the U.S.
penitentiaries at Atlanta, Georgia; Terre Haute, Indiana; Lewisburg, Pennsylvania; and
Leavenworth, Kansas. The programs include audiometric testing of all inmates presently
assigned to high noise level areas and of all inmates prior to assigning them to an industrial
program. The Bureau plans that this program will be used to test all inmates and civil
service personnel as part of their entrance physicals to establish hearing baselines. Audio-
metric testing equipment and sound level meters have been purchased at an approximate
C-44
-------
cost of $6,000 per institution. The hearing conservation programs, which are under the
direction of the Safety Officer and Medical Department of each facility, encompass noise
surveys to identify problem areas, engineering corrective measures, and use of hearing
protection in areas where engineering measures cannot lower the noise to an acceptable
level and where it has been determined that the area be designated a 100-percent hearing
protection area. The Bureau recognizes that in the past, employee and inmate attitudes
towards ear protectors have limited the effectiveness of the programs. The Bureau has
instituted administrative procedures to strengthen the enforcement of mandatory hearing
protection.
The Department of Justice reported that almost all bureau facilities had been surveyed
to identify noise exposure problems; these surveys were conducted by NIOSH, OSHA,
state health departments, or Bureau Safety personnel. Noise survey reports of six facilities
were submitted. Noise levels significantly above 90 dBA were measured in five of the six
facilities, only one of which (U.S. Penitentiary at Terre Haute, Indiana) has an established
hearing conservation program. The Bureau stated, however, that corrective measures have
been taken or the individuals exposed to excessive noise in these facilities have been pro-
vided with hearing protection.
The primary noise generating operations in the Bureau of Prisons are textile mills,
metal factories, wood furniture manufacturing, carpenter shops, and power plants, The
Bureau stated that most, if not all, areas in excess of 90 dB have been identified and engi-
neering controls, supplemented by mandatory hearing protection, have been instituted.
In addition to the equipment mentioned above, the Bureau has purchased a sound level
meter, and at least two other facilities have sound level meters. Bureau employees have
attended National Safety Council courses on industrial noise and audiometric testing.
Two disability claims for hearing loss were reported. The first was a civil service,
power plant engineer who sustained a 61-percent hearing loss and was awarded $28,731.
The other was an inmate who was assigned to a drilling and dynamite blasting crew on a
road project,
Information was not provided to indicate total funding or personnel involved in
hearing conservation programs.
DEPARTME T OF LABOR (DOL)
Reported activities may be divided into standards and regulations and hearing
conservation.
C-45
-------
Standards and Regulations
Federal efforts to effectively regulate occupational noise in the United States were
begun about 1955. Under the Waish-Healey Public Contracts Act of 1936, as amended,
safety and health standards were issued that contained references to excessive noise, but
they prescribed neither exposure limits nor acknowledged the problem of noise-induced
occupational hearing loss. A regulation (41 CFR 50-204.10) promulgated in 1969 under
this act, stipulated noise limits for occupational exposure for hearing conservation pur-
poses. These limits were only applicable to those firms having supply contracts with the
Federal government in excess of $10,000. Under the Service Contract Act, similar limits
were made applicable to work under Federal Service contracts of $2,500 or more.
The present legislation governing occupational noise exposure is the Occupational
Safety and Health Act of 1970, which authorizes the Secretary of Labor to set mandatory
occupational safety and health standards applicable to businesses affecting interstate com-
merce. Section 19 of the Act extends this protection to Federal employees. The Act
established the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) in the
Department of Health, Education and Welfare which was charged with developing criteria,
on the basis of available evidence, for harmful physical agents that describe exposure levels
safe for various periods of employment. An occupational noise exposure standard was
promulgated by the Department of Labor on May 29, 1971, and on August 14, 1972,
NIOSH submitted to the Department of Labor criteria for a recommended occupational
noise exposure standard. In addition, on October 24, 1974, DOL published in the Federal
Register the proposed revision to its standard.
The Occupational Safety and Health Act requires that the Department of Labor in
promulgating a standard “. . . shall set the standard which most adequately assures, to the
extent feasible, on the basis of the best available evidence, that no employee will suffer
material impairment of health or functional capacity. . .“. EPA, having a primary obliga-
tion under the Noise Control Act is to protect the public health and welfare from the
adverse effects of noise and, empowered under Section 4(c)(2) of the Act to review Federal
noise standards and regulations, believes that the proposed DOL standard does not fulfill
the stipulated requirements of the Occupational Safety and Health Act and that it does
not protect the public health and welfare to the extent required and feasible. The basis for
the EPA assessment that the proposed standard is inadequate and for EPA’s recom-
mendations for a more protective standard is the data on the effects of noise published in
the EPA “Levels Document”. EPA has identified a yearly equivalent sound level of 70 dBA
averaged over a 24-hour period as the safe level for protection against hearing loss. The
C-46
-------
70 dBA level would be compatible with an 8-hour exposure level of 75 dBA, so long as the
exposure level over the remaining 16 hours is sufficiently low to result in a negligible con-
tribution to the 24-hour average. Although the identified safe level is not a standard but
rather a long-range public health goal, it provides a basis for judgment in the setting of
standards.
Table C-3 summarizes those provisions of the existing DOL occupational noise exposure
standard, its proposed revision, and those recommended by NIOSH and EPA which form the
primary areas of disagreement between DOL and EPA.
In advocating a more stringent 85 dBA, 8-hour exposure limit, EPA has recommended
that this limit become effective within 3 years with a commitment to reduce to lower levels
at a later date when such a reduction is shown to be feasible. EPA has made several addi-
tional suggestions aimed at ameliorating the economic impact of a more protective standard
as part of EPA efforts to work with DOL in the development of the standard. In the EPA
view, its concerns and recommendations have not been adequately addressed by DOL.
Therefore, EPA has resorted to the procedures of Section 4(c)(2) of the Noise Control Act
by publishing in the Federal Register on December 18, 1974, a request for a formal review
and report on the proposed standard. In view of the severity and immediacy of the problem
of noise-induced occupational hearing loss, EPA believes that an occupational noise exposure
standard based on’ the best available evidence of the effects of noise and protective of the
public health and welfare is essential.
TABLE C-3
SUMMARY OF SIGNIFICANT PROVISIONS OF OCCUPATIONAL
NOISE EXPOSURE STANDARDS
PrOviSiOn
Existing
DOL
Proposed
DOL
NIOSH
Recommended
EPA
Recommended
8-Hour Exposure Limit
to Steady State
Noise (dBA)
90
90
85
85
Time/Intensity Trading
Ratio (dB)
5
3
Steady State Noise
Ceiling (dBA)
115
115
115
100
C-47
-------
The Occupational Safety and Health Act incorporates a mechanism by which the
primary responsibility for the administration and enforcement of occupational safety and
health regulations may be transferred to the states. The Act includes a grant provision to
encourage states to assume this responsibility. Even after the approval and operation of a
state plan, the Secretary of Labor retains Jurisdiction over elements of the program and is
required to undertake a continuing monitoring function.
As of September 1974, 25 states had OSHA-approved plans (including the noise-
exposure limitation provision) and 19 state plans were undergoing review by the U.S.
Department of Labor. All but four of the latter were plans developed by states under
general constitutional authority rather than pursuant to specific enabling legislation. It
may be inferred that the absence of such specific legislation may require careful determina-
tion to assure that the (administrative) implementation of the proposed plan will not be
legislatively challenged and be supported by adequate appropriations. Five states and the
trust territories have not yet submitted plans to OSHA; five states have withdrawn plans
previously submitted for OSHA review and approval, and one state plan has been rejected
by OSHA.
Hearing Conservation
The Department of Labor hearing Conservation program is incorporated into the
Department-wide Employee Safety and Health Program which is now under internal review
and is expected to be strengthened and expanded considerably in the future. Chapter 5-
300 of the Manual of Administration spells out the organization, program components,
and assignments or responsibility for the Employee Safety and Health Program which is
consistent with Section 19 of the Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970 and
Executive Order 11612. A prime objective is employee accident prevention. Essential
program features include an extensive accident reporting and recording system, promotion
of, and training for, improved employee safety and health habits, and establishment of,
and participation on, various safety councils and committees. The administrative manual
sets out a tiered system of interlocking responsibilities for program development and imple..
mentation. This ranges from responsibility for overall direction of the program, which is
vested in the Assistant Secretary for Administration and Management and which is carried
out by a designated Department Employee Safety and Health Director, to day-to-day pro-
gram implementation by managers and supervisors.
An internal DOL directive on the Occupational Health Program establishes procedures
and guidance applicable to the DOL hearing conservation progr Im. Noise exposure criteria
C-48
-------
used are consistent with OSHA requirements; noise levels considered potentially hazardous
are 90 dBA for steady state noise and instantaneous peak value in excess of 140 decibels
for impulse noise. The directive provides general guidance for noise surveys, engineering
controls, audiometry, and use of hearing protective devices.
Noise Surveys
The directive emphasizes that noise surveys including octave band analyses and con-
sideration of exposure time, and conducted by trained personnel, are essential for deter-
mination of potentially hazardous noise exposure. Noise surveys are a part of every facility
inspection and program evaluation conducted annually at all DOL organizations and facili-
ties. The Department stated that the printing shop, graphic arts shop, and warehouse were
industrial operations with high noise levels. In addition, DOL compliance officers in the
course of their duties may be exposed to hazardous noise levels.
Engineering Controls
The directive states that whenever operations permit, exposures to potentially hazard-
ous noise will be eliminated or reduced to the maximum extent possible by engineering or
operational controls.
Audiometry
Prior to job placement or transfer to work assignments involving exposure to poten-
tially hazardous noise levels, employees are to receive baseline audiometric tests which will
be made a permanent part of health records. Data on the incidence of hearing losses or
number of hearing disability claims are presently unavailable as the program was not estab-
lished until January 1, 1974, and followup examinations will not be scheduled to start
until 1975.
Use of Personal Protective Devices
Heads of agencies and regions are to ensure that personal protective equipment is
w 6 rn whenever personnel are exposed to potentially hazardous noise levels and that a
combination of ear plugs and ear muffs are worn for exposure to steady state noise of 120
decibels or more, if electronic communication systems are not involved. Trained personnel
are required to identify areas where ear protectors are to be worn and to provide instruction
in their use.
C-49
-------
The Department indicated that no significant problems had arisen in connection with
the program. Although the hearing conservation program is budgeted annually, no informa-
tion on funding or personnel levels was provided.
DEPARTMENT OF STATE
This agency reported involvement in noise abatement activities.
Noise Abatement
The Department of State noise abatement efforts have been incorporated into its
safety operations. This program consists primarily of maintaining liaison with operational
units, the building manager, and the General Services Administration. The only reported
activity was periodic checks of potential noise problem areas.
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION (DOT)
This department reported activities in all four categories.
Standards and Regulations
The Department of Transportation Act of 1966 (40 U.S.C. 1653) directed the
Secretary of Transportation to promote research and development relating to all aspects
of transportation, including noise abatement with particular attention to aircraft noise.
The Federal-Aid Highway Act of 1970 directed the Secretary of Transportation to promul-
gate environmental standards, including noise levels compatible with different land uses.
Federal Aviation Administration
The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) addressed aircraft noise as early as 1960.
After its transfer into the Department of Transportation, FAA was formally assigned con-
trol of aircraft noise and sonic boom by P.L. 90-411 in 1968, in Section 611, which amended
the Federal Aviation Act of 1958. Further, the Airport and Airways Development Act of
1970 directed the FAA to abate airport noise in order to protect and enhance the natural
resources and protect the quality of the environment.
The control and abatement of noise emissions from aircraft and of noise created by
aircraft operations at and near (civilian) airports and the control of sonic boom are man-
dated by the provisions of NCA Section 7. NCA Section 3(3)(A) specifically excepted
from the categories of “products” for which EPA was to develop noise standards
C-50
-------
“any aircraft, aircraft engine, propeller, or appliance, as such terms
are defined in Section 101 of the Federal Aviation Act of 1958”.
NCA Section 7(b) revised Section 611 of the Federal Aviation Act of 1958 (49 U.s.c.
1431) so as to leave FAA responsible for promulgation of actual regulations to control
aircraft noise. However, the revision also specified the arrangements for the future interac-
tion between EPA and FAA in defining and formulating aircraft noise abatement standards.
Regulations for aircraft and airport noise control prior to the NCA were specifically
continued by the NCA revision of Section 611 of the Federal Aviation Act of 1958.
To date, the FAA has issued the following regulations dealing with aircraft noise and
sonic boom:
1. Federal Aviation Regulations, Part 36, “Noise Standards: Aircraft Type Certifica-
tion,” effective December 1, 1969.
2. Amendment to FAR, Parts 21 and 36, “Noise Standards for Newly Produced
Airplanes of Older Type Designs,” October 19, 1973.
3. Amendment to FAR, Part 36, “Noise Type Certification and Acoustical Change
Approvals,” issued December 12, 1974.
4. Amendment to FAR, Parts 21 and 36, “Noise Standards for Propeller-Driven
Small Airplanes,” issued December 31, 1974.
5. Amendment to FAR, Part 91, “General Operating and Flight Rules Covering
Civil Aircraft Sonic Boom,” issued March 23, 1973.
To date, the FAA has also issued the following Advance Notices or Notices of Pro-
posed Rule Making dealing with aircraft noise:
1. Approach and Landing: ANPRM 74-12;
2. Retrofit/Fleet Noise Level: ANPRM 70-44, 73-3, NPRM 74-14;
3. Supersonic Civil Aircraft: ANPRM 70-33;
4. Modifications to FAR, Part 36: NPRM 7 1-26;
5. Propeller-Driven Small Airplanes: NPRM 74-39;
6. Short-Haul Aircraft: ANPRM 73-32; and
7. Minimum Altitudes: NPRM 74-40.
Although not regulatory in nature, the FAA has also issued the following Advisory
Circulars and FAA Orders dealing with aircraft noise control:
1. FAA Order 711 0.22A, “Arrival and Departure Handling of High Performance
Aircraft,” issued February 28, 1972.
C-5 1
-------
2. Advisory Circular 90-59, “Arrival and Departure Handling of High Performance
Aircraft,” issued February 28, 1972.
3. Advisory Circular 91-36, “VFR Flight Near Noise-Sensitive Areas,” issued
August 7, 1972.
4. Advisory Circular 9 1-39, “Recommended Noise Abatement Takeoff and Depar-
ture Procedures for Civil Turbojet Powered Airplanes,” issued January 18, 1974.
5. Advisory Circular 91-36A, “VFR Flight Near Noise-Sensitive Areas (Revised),”
issued July 9, 1974.
The EPA submissions of alternative rulemaking proposals to FAA are discussed subse-
quently. The relationships among the differing proposals advanced by the two agencies are
shown in Table 4-3 in Section 4 of this report.
Federal Highway Administration
The Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), another constituent administration
of DOT, has issued standards and procedures to control highway noise. The design of noise
levels for Federally financed highways were specified in DOT/FHWA PPM 90-2, “Noise
Standards and Procedures,” which was issued first on April 26, 1972, and reissued on
February 8, 1973, with clarifications and revisions. Projects that received location approval
prior to July 1, 1972, are not required to adhere to the design standards provided design
approval was obtained prior to July 1, 1974, although FHWA encourages application of
the standards to such projects whenever possible. Location approval requests after Decem-
ber 31, 1972, require full compliance with the noise standards. Up to December 31, 1972,
an analysis and report on noise was not required.
PPM 90-2 recognizes five land use categories, ranging from Category A with a 60 dI3A
exterior design Noise Level (Li 0) for land where “serenity and quiet are of extraordinary
significance and serve an important public need” (including parks and amphitheaters) through
Category B with an exterior design noise level of 70 dBA for residences, hotels, public
institutions, and active sports areas, to Category C for lands, properties and activities not
included in A and B and capable of sustaining a 75 dBA noise level. Category D is essen-
tially for handling land that is undeveloped at the time of approval and Category E is for
locations of residences, hotels, hospitals and auditoriums in which an interior design noise
level of 55 dBA can be achieved through appropriate protective and acoustical measures.
A component of the Federal Highway Administration, the Bureau of Motor Carrier
Safety, promulgated in October 1974 a noise-exposure standard related to the type of
work-place protection otherwise provided for in the previously cited OSHA noise control
C-52
-------
standard. The new paragraph 393.95 of the Motor Carrier Safety Regulations, established
a maximum interior sound level for exposure of individuals in the cabs of commercial trucks
and inside buses operated in interstate or foreign commerce of 88 dBA generated by the
vehicle in a stationary test for any 10-hour period. The primary purpose of the regulation
is to protect the hearing of drivers; it does not restrict the operation of the vehicle per se,
but only brings the noise exposure of the driver into the levels and duration limits of the
OSHA standard.
When the BMCS first proposed this regulation on January 4, 1973, EPA objected that
the standard was inadequate since it represented, in effect, merely an extrapolation of the
8-hour/90 dBA levels to 10 hours of the OSHA standard to which EPA has objected as
being inadequate. The EPA stand was based on
• The recommendation of several researchers that the OSHA limits should be set
at 80 to 85 dBA for 8 hours’ exposure.
• The possible additive effects from other stresses, such as vibration.
The EPA recommendation to BMCS in 1973 was a maximum in-cab noise level of 83
dBA over 10 hours. This was based on the extrapolation to 10 hours of an 8-hour/85 dBA
noise level. EPA believes that the 85-dBA level would be a reasonable maximum in light of
the criticism of the 90-dBA level and the possible vibration effects. Thus, although the
83-dBA maximum was based on health and welfare considerations, it was considered that
there is reason to believe that stressors such as vibration and eye fatigue may combine with
noise levels to slow reactions to light and sound stimuli, thereby reducing highway safety
as well.
In September 1974, EPA again called the attention of BMCS to the effort to have
OSHA lower the (work-place) exposure standard to 85 dBA. In fact, EPA suggested in the
“Levels Document” to lower the level to 75 dBA for eight hours as adequate hearing pro-
tection. But this recommendation did not take into account considerations of cost and
feasibility. Thus, on September 23, 1974, EPA requested, under the “review and report”
authority of NCA Section 4, that BCMS enter into formal discussion with the EPA Office
of Noise Abatement and Control to review the technology and feasibility to consider lower-
ing the permissible in-cab level to 83 dBA for 10 hours. EPA linked this request to the
proposal of a noise source standard for medium and heavy duty trucks that was formally
issued on October 15, 1974, under Section 6 of the NCA. The new truck standard, EPA
stated, would probably compel truck manufacturers to make basic design modifications
in order to achieve the external noise level standards. This, it was held, would also make
available the technological capability to ensure quieter in-cab levels. EPA called on BMCS
C-53
-------
to modify the in-cab standard so as to prescribe a lower level for the new trucks subject to
the (proposed) EPA regulation.
U. S. Coast Guard
Unique but persistent sources of noise are the signal devices operated for mariners by
the U.S. Coast Guard. Special Coast Guard instructions seek to provide for land-use meas-
ures to prevent harmful or annoying exposure of the public to the sound emission levels
of the signals. Commandant Notice 11011, issued by DOT/USCG in August 1974 and
effective through June 1, 1975, amends the USCG Real Property Management Manual
(CG-262) to comply with NCA Section 4(a) to provide that measures are taken for protec-
tion from both “hearing damage” and “annoyance” by Coast Guard-operated sound signals.
The Coast Guard regulation provides for land-use disposition of Federally controlled proper-
ty and for collaboration with state and local planning and zoning authorities for property
near Coast Guard-operated sound signals so as to minimize exposure or annoyance. The
Coast Guard notice uses 60 dBA as its hearing conservation guideline for land-use planning.
Sound Pressure Level (SPL) changes of 3 dBA are used as the criterion for “annoyance”
since lower SPLs are not readily perceived by the human ear under non-laboratory conditions.
Hearing Conservation
The only reported hearing conservation program in DOT was that conducted by the
U.S. Coast Guard (USCG).
USCG Safety Manual, CG-405, consolidates Agency safety policies with a specific
chapter devoted to the hearing conservation program. All aspects of a fully operational
program are specified, including an extensive audiometric testing program using trained
personnel and certified equipment, both sound level and octaveband analysis noise surveys
to identify and verify hazardous noise areas, employee education, and fitting and use of
authorized hearing protection devices.
The health effects basis for the Coast Guard hearing conservation program are stipu-
lated “Maximum Permissable Daily Exposures” (MPDEs) for various categories of Coast
Guard hearing hazard environments. MPDEs were calculated on the basis of noise surveys
coupled with damage risk criteria for impulse and continuous noises prepared for the Coast
Guard by an expert committee under the auspices of the National Academy of Sciences.
The damage risk criterion for continuous noise is 90 cIBA.
C-54
-------
Typical Coast Guard hearing hazard environments are classified as:
• Small boats of 46 feet and less
• Engine rooms of larger vessels
• Aircraft
• Ordnance
• Sound signals
• Industrial.
In the first three categories, propulsion engines are the primary sources of noise.
Ordnance firing environments include vessels as well as indoor and outdoor small arms
firing ranges. Industrial environments encompass, primarily, the Coast Guard Yard.
Safety Manual CG405 , prescribes maximum permissible daily exposures for each of these
environment categories. For continuous noise, MPDEs are expressed in hours and minutes,
both without hearing protectors and with authorized types of hearing protectors. For
gunfire, MPDE is expressed in rounds, or in the case of machine guns, in bursts. Industrial
noise environments utilize the OSHA noise exposure standard.
No information was submitted on the actual implementation of this program nor
data on funding or personnel levels for the hearing conservation program as these are not
separately identifiable.
Noise Abatement
Noise related programs in DOT are primarily activities directed towards the develop-
ment of techniques for reducing the noise environment in which the transportation media
operates or which is developed by transportation systems and as such are discussed under
RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT, AND DEMONSTRATION PROGRAMS contained in the
Appendices D, E, F, and G of this report. However, two DOT components, the U.S. Coast
Guard and the Urban Mass Transportation Administration, conduct noise abatement
activities.
U.S. Coast Guard (USCG)
The Ocean Engineering Division of the USCG is involved in a long-term project to
reduce the noise associated with the operation of sound (fog) signals through the control,
relocation, redirection, or multiple operation of these signals. Sound signal pollution
affects all Federal waterways except those free of fog; e.g., Southern Florida, Puerto Rico,
C-55
-------
Hawaii. Efforts to reduce this type of noise Pollution include
• Control — Procurement of fog detection devices to restrict operation of signals
to periods of low visibility
• Relocation — Use of buoy sound signals, thereby removing the sound signal from
shore areas
• Redirection — Determination of suitable baffles to attenuate nonseaward radiation
• Use of arrays to focus sound.
An outgrowth of this program is development of a previously discussed USCG policy
directive regarding land use in the vicinity of fog signals, to avoid disposal of land that is
subject to undesirable noise levels and to influence the development of adjacent non-
Federally controlled areas.
The Naval Engineering Division of the USCG is concerned with noise abatement aboard
ships and boats. Noise abatement aboard ship presents special problems due to weight,
environmental, and fire retardant requirements. The Division’s responsibility for the design
and maintenance of USCG vessels includes noise abatement for both hearing impedance
avoidance and habitability. Due to a lack of consolidated information specifically oriented
toward shipboard noise control, the USCG entered into a contract for the development of
a Noise Abatement Handbook, a design engineering manual for surface ships. The Naval
Ship Engineering Center joined the USCG in this project, expanded its scope to suit Navy
needs, and contributed to the funding so that the final contract was for $71,900. The
Handbook has been completed but not published at this time.
The USCG noise program funding for FY73 included $3,500 for personnel expenses
plus $18,000 for procurement of detectors to limit the operation of fog horns to periods
of low visibility only. Estimated expenses for FY74 and FY75 are $1 15,000 and $50,000,
respectively.
Urban Mass Transportation Administration (UMTA)
UMTA has undertaken preparation of a Rapid Transit Noise Abatement Handbook
in an effort to make both current and future rapid transit systems as quiet as practicable
for passenger/community acceptance. To achieve this goal, UMTA has initiated research
studies which are discussed under Research, Development and Demonstration Programs.
C-56
-------
Technical Assistance
The office of Noise Abatement in the Office of the Secretary and the Federal Highway
Administration, each conducted a series of training courses during 1973 and 1974 for state
and local officials.
The Office of Noise Abatement sponsored six 4-day courses for state law enforcement
officers in methods for enacting and enforcing highway noise control regulations. This
series of courses was one element in the larger DOT program to demonstrate quieted tech-
nology and reduce highway noise levels. Approximately 250 i dividuals from 47 states,
the District of Columbia, DOT, and EPA attended the courses, which were conducted by
the California Highway Patrol. A Type-2 sound level meter was provided to each state law
enforcement officer, and a graphic level recorder was furnished to each state. Course
materials, including an audio-visual slide presentation developed from the courses, are
available for loan from the Office of Noise Abatement. Estimated FY73 funding for the
courses, course material, equipment and travel expenses amounted to $450,000.
The Federal Highway Administration conducted a series of one-week courses in
highway design for noise control. The courses were designed to train state highway depart-
ment and FHWA personnel in the use of FHWA highway noise design standards and in the
design factors which affect noise levels on adjacent land areas. Instruction material
developed for the courses has been published. To augment these courses, the FHWA has
outfitted a mobile training van, which is currently traveling throughout the nation to
provide noise measurement and noise control training for FHWA field personnel and state
highway department personnel. Estimated FY73 through 75 funding for equipment,
salaries, and travel was approximately $150,000.
DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY
This Department conducts activities in the categories of standards and regulations,
hearing conservation, and noise abatement.
Standards and Regulations
Section 9 of the NCA Delegates to the Secretary of the Treasury the authority to
issue regulations (after consultation with the EPA Administrator) to govern the importation
of new products identified under Section 6 (major noise source products) and 8 (“labeled”
new products) so as to meet the domestic noise emission standards and regulations.
Implementation of NCA Section 9 will benefit from the experience of applying EPA
C-57
-------
clean-air regulations to present motor-vehicle imports. While imports of only two Section
6 items, portable air compressors and medium and heavy duty trucks, initially will have
to be regulated when such regulations become effective, the import regulation program
must be flexible enough to deal eventually with a large variety of items potentially subject
to noise standards such as chain saws, motorcycles, automobiles, electric motors, and
snowmobiles.
The actual impact of regulations under Section 9 on the import trade will differ with
each port of entry because of the geographical preferences of importers. Motorcycles
from Japanese manufacturers will constitute a large volume of processing work on the
West Coast while a large percentage of the heavy duty trucks entering the United States
will do so through such small Canadian border points as Oroville, Washington.
Commercial importers will likely determine which products are importable and
under what conditions. But, similar to the clean air regulations, individuals importing
products for personal. use may be a problem; a well-paced publicity program to keep the
general public informed as new products are added to the controlled lists can hold item-
by-item inspections and bonding arrangements pending product compliance to a minimum.
While NCA Section 9 provides for close collaboration between EPA and Treasury in
handling imports, EPA retains full responsibility under the NCA for preventing violations
of the import regulations. Any new product imported in violation of regulations promul-
gated by Treasury in consultation with EPA under Section 9 is also, ipso facto, one of the
acts prohibited under NCA Section 10(a) (5). NCA Section 11(a) specifies that such
willful violations are punishable by criminal penalties of up to $25,000 per day of violation
in fines or by imprisonment for not more than one year, or by both.
Enforcement of import regulations will have to cover both Section 6 (major noise
source) products and the “labeled” products of Section 8. If markings are used to identify
compliance with import regulations for products defined in both Sections 6 and 8, then
the import compliance markings would have to be affixed in addition to any (domestic)
compliance label for new products.
At this point, customs procedures remain to be worked out for noise-control regula-
tion enforcement. This will also include a decision on whether a new noise-control import
declaration is to be developed or whether the present blue EPA Form 3520-1 will be
revised to include noise-control coverage and to be made applicable also to nonvehicular
products.
C-58
-------
The NCA Section 10(a) (5) prohibits importation into the United States “of any new
product in violation of a regulation prescribed under Section 9 which is applicable to such
product.” Thus, temporary deferrals of enforceme it in regulations issued under the NCA
or provisions for individual exemptions or bonding arrangements can be effected by
Treasury issuing of modifying regulations.
Hearing Conservation
Information concerning hearing conservation was obtained from a number of the
bureaus and services of the Treasury Department. Although it appears that general admin-
istrative direction on hearing conservation is provided by the Office of the Assistant
Secretary of Administration, functional implementation of hearing conservation programs
is carried out at the bureau and service level. The Department indicated that it follows
OSHA policies and regulations and has not issued a Departmental directive on hearing
conservation. Reported noise exposure problems included industrial machine noise and
gunfire noise inside firing ranges. No information was provided on Department-wide
funding and personnel levels associated with hearing conservation.
Reported Bureau and Service hearing conservation activities encompass one on-going
formal program (Bureau of the Mint), one recently instituted formal program (Bureau of
Engraving and Printing), and two efforts involving preventive measures affecting selected
personnel (Customs Service and Secret Service).
Bureau of Engraving and Printing
The Bureau periodically requests the Public Health Service to conduct industrial
hygiene surveys (including noise level measurements) intended to insure the safety of
Bureau employees. As standard engineering practice, acoustical materials are used in those
areas where the noise level is a consideration. The Bureau buildings encompass three iso-
lated areas in which the noise level is high. Personnel who work in these areas are required
to use ear protection devices. The Bureau has initiated a formal hearing conservation pro-
gram requiring periodic audiometric examinations conducted by Public Health Service
personnel, beginning in mid-November 1974. Approximately $5,000 will be spent to
implement this program.
Bureau of the Mint
A mandatory hearing conservation program exists throughout the Bureau. Audio-
metric testing is given to all new employees and continues periodically throughout their
service. Personal protective equipment is provided against the effects of noise.
C-59
-------
At the request of the Bureau, the Industrial Hygiene Services Branch of NIOSH con-
ducted hazard evaluation studies at industrially oriented Mint facilities. Among the hazards
evaluated, noise was one of the predominant features in all the facilities. The noise levels
ranged from a low of 75 dBA to a high of 112 dBA, especially in the roiling areas and press
rooms. It was indicated that in the future, more emphasis will be given to conducting
engineering and administrative noise abatement studies throughout the Bureau and to
seeking corrective measures.
U.S. Customs Service
The Customs Service hearing conservation orientation is outlined in their Circular,
FAC-1 1-FSB, “Facilities, Protecting Hearing Against Excessive Noise,” dated December 19,
1972. This directive circular provides that personal protective equipment shall be provided
and used in high noise level areas (airports, truck crossings, and seaports) and authorizes
Customs’ personnel to wear a hearing protective device of a type suitable to the user. No
information was provided on the implementation of this directive nor data on associated
funding.
Secret Service
The Secret Service advised that their primary area of concern is their firing ranges,
where steps have been taken to provide the maximum in acoustical treatment and to fur-
nish employees with protective devices. Personnel assigned to the ranges are given periodic
audiometric tests.
Noise Abatement
The noise abatement efforts of the Department of Treasury are directed by the Assis-
tant Secretary for Administration and are addressed as integral parts of a number of on-
going administrative programs including environmental quality, safety, and real property
management. At the bureau level, managers and supervisors whose operations may be
noise producing (such as building or facility managers or operational supervisors) routinely
review and correct objectionable activities. Activities found not to be amenable to correc-
tion or abatement are reported to the Office of Administrative Programs, Office of the
Assistant Secretary for Administration.
The Office of Administrative Programs has no separate departmental issuance regarding
noise abatement and instead, follows existing Federal policy such as that incorporated in
the Federal Property Management Regulations. The Office of Administrative Programs
C-60
-------
has no separate line items in its budget for departmental noise abatement activities. It
appears that the Department does not have anyone assigned specifically to noise abatement.
The need for separate noise abatement planning within the Department was reported to
not yet have reached a point at which it is deemed necessary to develop a full-scale program.
Information was obtained from our organizations within the Department on their
noise abatement activities.
Bureau of the Mint
The only reported noise abatement activity was a series of community noise surveys
conducted by personnel of the Philadelphia Department of Public Health in the environs
of the U.S. Mint in Philadelphia during the period June 16, 1972, to July 19, 1972. The
preliminary results of the surveys did not show any significant difference in noise levels
for conditions when the plant was in normal operation compared to when it was shut down.
No followup studies or actions were reported.
Internal Revenue Service (IRS)
The Internal Revenue Service involvement in noise abatement is limited to indirect
consideration for equipment selection and installation.
Consolidated Federal Law Enforcement Training Center (CFLETC)
Construction of this proposed facility in Beltsville, Maryland, has been delayed, but
as part of the environmental impact statement process, a series of noise surveys were per-
formed to evaluate the potential over-the-fence noise impact of the facilities. In 1972
construction had begun on a dignitary protective training area, and a board fence was
erected between the training area and the Baltimore-Washington Parkway. The primary
purpose of this fence is visual screening, with a secondary purpose to buffer and deflect
the noise reflecting from the occasional shots fired in this area.
U.S. Customs Service
The Service identified a specific noise abatement problem at the Blue Water Bridge
border crossing at Port Huron, Michigan, involving high noise levels in inspection booths
from reverberation of road noises. This location is under the control of the Michigan
State Highway Commission, and representatives of Customs and the Immigration and
Naturalization Service continue to meet with Highway Commission officials in an attempt
to resolve the noise problem at this site.
C-61
-------
ACTION
The only reported activity concerned hearing conservation.
Hearing Conservation
ACTION does not presently have a formal hearing conservation program. However,
ACTION is currently working with representatives of the Occupational Safety and Health
Administration to conduct a joint inspection of the ACTION Washington facilities in order
to identify problem areas and to develop an effective OSHA program.
ATOMIC ENERGY COMMISSION (AEC)*
AEC reported both hearing conservation and noise abatement activities.
Hearing Conservation
The Atomic Energy Commission management policy concerning hearing conservation
is reflected in management policy directives called “AEC Manual Chapters.” Specific con-
tract requirements make these chapters mandatory for all AEC prime contractors to follow.
In general, the requirements of the Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970 and the
recommendations of the American Conference of Governmental Industrial Hygienists are
followed for occupational noise exposure.
Following enactment of the Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970, the AEC
required all of its contractors to inspect their facilities and to identify all areas or items of
noncompliance. Engineering projects scheduled for completion as a result of these inspec-
tions are discussed under noise abatement since they are designed to improve working
environments as well as to bring them into compliance with established occupational noise
exposure standards to reduce the need for ear protective devices.
Noise-induced hearing loss was reported not to be a major problem in AEC or AEC
contractor facilities as reflected in workman’s compensation cases and the reports of occupa-
tional injury and disease experience, which are reported periodically by all AEC contractors.
Audiometric testing is performed as a part of the physical examination requirements out-
lined in the AEC manual chapter dealing with occupational health.
*Informatjon for this report was submitted by AEC prior to the establishment of the
Energy Research and Development Administration (ERDA) and the Nuclear Regulatory
Commission (NRC).
C-62
-------
The operating costs for the hearing conservation programs are not separately identifi-
able from the overall costs of the occupational health and safety programs maintained at
AEC and contractor-operated facilities.
Noise Abatement
The noise abatement activities of the Atomic Energy Commission are primarily directed
toward the control of their in-house noise problems. As a result of inspections of AEC
and contractor-operated facilities in response to the Occupational Safety and Health Act
of 1970, 11 noise abatement projects involving eight Government-owned facilities and
totaling $809,000 have been identified and scheduled for completion by the end of FY77.
None of these projects are designed primarily to reduce over-the-fence noise. In general,
they are engineering projects to improve working environments and to bring them into
compliance with established occupational noise exposure standards.
AEC reported that there are no substantive over-the-fence noise problems at AEC
facilities due to the nature of AEC activities, which are conducted, for the most part,
within large Government-owned sites. However, the environmental policies and require-
ments of Executive Order 11752 are enforced upon contractors operating AEC facilities
by a standard contract clause.
AEC estimated identifiable environmental noise funding at AEC sites for FY73 through
FY75 as $1 10,000 in FY73, $130,000 in FY74, and $240,000 in FY75. These expendi-
tures are primarily for monitoring and surveillance, including meteorological measurements
necessary for predicting noise propagation from high explosive shots.
CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION (CSC)
Reported activities fall into hearing conservation and noise abatement categories.
Hearing Conservation
The Civil Service Commission reported that it does not have a formal hearing con-
servation program as its employees are not exposed to noise levels exceeding the OSHA
standard. However, the Commission has taken preventive measures which include conduct-
ing periodic hearing tests and providing ear protective devices to employees regularly ex-
posed to noise-producing equipment. An audiometer was recently purchased for employee
hearing tests.
C-63
-------
Noise Abatement
To ensure that no employee is exposed to hazardous noise levels, the Civil Service
Commission has acoustical shields installed on noise-producing equipment such as auto-
matic typewriters. In addition, periodic monitoring of selected work areas is conducted.
CONSUMER PRODUCT SAFETY COMMISSION (CPSC)
CPSC involvement in noise control is in the area of standards and regulations.
Standards and Regulations
The Consumer Product Safety Act (P.L. 92-573) was signed by the President on the
same day as the NCA, October 27, 1972. The Act created the Consumer Product Safety
Commission (CPSC) and authorized it to establish safety standards for consumer products.
Paragraph 7(a) of the Act defmes a consumer product as:
“any article or a component part thereof produced or distributed
(i) for sale to a consumer for use in or around a permanent or
temporary household or residence, a school, in recreation, or
otherwise, or (ii) for the personal use, consumption, or enjoyment
of a consumer in or around a permanent or temporary household
or residence, a school, in recreation, or otherwise.”
CPSC standards may be requirements concerning performance, composition, content,
design, construction, finish, packaging or labeling (para 7(a) (1) and (2)). Any requirement
promulgated under this authority must be to reduce an unreasonable risk of injury associ-
ated with (use of) the product and preferably should be expressed in terms of a performance
standard (paras 7(a) and 9(c) (2)).
The regulation of product safety is accomplished chiefly by appropriate disclosure
and labeling of products. The Consumer Product Safety Act contained important im-
plementing provisions for new consumer product descriptions (Section 13) and for the
certification and labeling of new products (Section 14).
The authors of the Consumer Product Safety Act were aware that Commission
authority would overlap that of other agencies. In the definition of “consumer product,”
certain items were excluded, therefore, that were regulated by other specified legislation:
The National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966
The Federal Insecticide, Fungicide and Rodenticide Act
The Federal Aviation Act
C-64
-------
The Federal Boat Safety Act of 1971
The Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act
The Poultry Products Inspection Act
The Federal Meat Inspection Act
The Egg Products Inspection Act.
Both CPSC and EPA have been given responsibility to deal with noise products. CPSC
is authorized to regulate and label products with noise emissions that represent “an unrea-
sonable risk of injury” under the aforementioned Section 7 of the CPS Act. In the first
action under Section 7 that included noise control as a product safety element, the CPSC
published a Notice of Proceeding for development of a consumer product safety standard
applicable to power lawn mowers (39 FederaiRegister, No. 141, July 22, 1974, pp.
26662-4). The Notice cited potential for hearing loss and nonauditory trauma for exposure
to excessive noise as one of the hazards associated with power lawn mowers that present
unreasonable risk of injury, and invited any person to submit one or more existing standards
or an offer to develop one or more proposed standards. In October 1974, CPSC published
in the Federal Register its acceptance of the offer of Consumers Union of United States,
Inc., to develop a standard that would include provision to eliminate or reduce the hazard
associated with excessive noise generated by power lawn mowers.
Section 30(a) of the Consumer Product Safety Act transferred from HEW to CPSC
functions under the Federal Hazardous Substance Act. In September 1973, CPSC published
in the Federal Register revisions and reissuances of regulations promulgated under that Act,
including one that banned from sale toy guns and caps producing an impulse peak pressure
greater than 138 dB. The regulation provides for exemption from the ban for caps producing
greater than 138 dB but not greater than 158 dB, although the package for exempt caps
must carry a warning label.
EPA has consulted with CPSC on these actions and prospective further commission
a tions to control noisy products. On December 17, 1974, EPA submitted to CPSC a Draft
Memorandum of Understanding to advance the arrangements for cooperation and coordina-
tion between the two agencies. This careful delineation is needed because EPA, in addition
to its responsibilities for coordinating and reporting on all Federal noise control programs
(under NCA Section 4), is also required to identify and regulate products that are major
noise sources (NCA Section 6). EPA is also to effect the disclosure by labelling and other
means of information on noise emissions of noisy products and on the effectiveness of
products designed to protect the user from injurious noise (NCA Section 8).
C-65
-------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY (EPA)
EPA activities encompass the areas of standards and regulations, hearing conservation
and technical assistance. (EPA Federal coordination activities are treated elsewhere.)
Standards and Regulations
The National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA), which established the
Council on Environmental Quality, gave to the Federal Government broad responsibility
for protecting the environment. However, NEPA did not cite noise as a pollutant. This gap
was filled in formal fashion by the Clean Air Act the following year (1970) when, under
Title IV of that Act, an Office of Noise Abatement and Control was established in EPA*.
EPA, officially created on December 2, 1970, under Presidential Reorganization Plan No. 3,
received, in Section 309, broad authority to review, and comment on, “the environmental
impact of any matter relating to duties and responsibilities granted pursuant to this Act”,
including “proposed regulations published by any department or agency of the Federal
Government.” In 1972 the NCA reaffirmed and strengthened this charge regarding noise
abatement and control in Section 4 of the Act.
The NCA further assigned to EPA the development of an analytical base with criteria
and concepts that would be applicable to all Federal noise control programs (NCA Section
5). Based on these criteria and concepts, the NCA assigned to EPA specific subjects for
regulatory action (NCA Sections 6, 8, 9, 15, 17, 18) and defined the procedural arrange-
ments for implementing such action (NCA Sections 10 - 14).
Aircraft noise received special treatment in the NCA, which recognized the dimensions
of the problem and the need to achieve noise control without diminution of safety and
within technological and economic feasibilities. NCA Section 3, stipulates four general
exclusions (including civil aircraft and military weapons or combat equipment) from the
term “product” and therefore from EPA regulatory authority under Sections 6 and 8.
NCA Section 7 (incorporating the language of the Federal Aviation Act of 1958 as
amended) assigns regulatory authority to control noise from civil aircraft to FAA. Section 7
also authorizes and directs EPA to propose alternative regulations to FAA if FAA regulations
are considered insufficient to protect the public health and welfare. This authority and
duty to propose measures to control aircraft noise clearly goes beyond the functions
assigned to EPA under NCA Section 4.
*Sectjon 401 states that Title IV “may be cited as the ‘Noise Pollution and Abatement
Act of 1970’.”
C-66
-------
The overall process by which EPA develops regulations to control noise emissions from
new products has been described and illustrated (in Figure 4-1) in Section 4 of this report.
NCA Section 5 directed EPA to develop the anal tical tools to be used in setting noise
emission control standards. Subsection 5(a) (1) directed EPA to develop criteria to reflect
the effect of noise on the public health and welfare. EPA published the required document
on Public Health and Welfare Criteria for Noise on July 27, 1973.
Subsection 5(a) (2) of the NCA then directed EPA to publish information on levels of
environmental noise that must be attained in defined areas under various conditions to
protect the public health and welfare. In response, EPA published in March 1974 the
“Levels Document”.
The importance of the “Levels Document” to the EPA regulatory program for noise
control cannot be overemphasized. EPA had to have some measure of merit to determine
what constitutes a major source of noise, and within the classification of major sources,
what order of importance should be ascribed to them in terms of human impact. Without
such a measure, considering the multiplicity of sources with identical or near identical
acoustical energy emission characteristics, the problem is formidable. Moreover, given the
requirement in the law that the “process of identification” sets in motion a legal “time
clock” on each product identified, the Agency is faced with difficulties in setting forth a
priority scheme for dealing with the problems, unless it does have some sort of accumulative
noise level goals or statements of environmental quality to use in the judgment process.
This requirement was recognized as being fundamental to the regulatory process in the
expert testimony of Administration witnesses before the Congress while the NCA was being
considered. Also, without some such measure, the balance of cost and economic impact
and technological feasibility and of public views and attitudes with respect to health and
welfare requirements cannot be logically addressed. The benefits of proposed source
emission regulations arrived at in this manner are quantified in terms of the expected change
in the population impacted by the particular source of noise. EPA is continuing to develop
and refine its data base and the methods for the estimation of population impacts.
Most important for a coordinated Federal regulatory effort to control noise is that all
Federal agencies adopt and use a common descriptor for environmental noise and a common
methodology in evolving standards and regulations. EPA provided such a common descrip-
tor — Leq/Ldn — and common methodology in the “Levels Document” and has been urging
their adoption by all Federal agencies. EPA use of the Leq/Ldn methodology in coordinating
Federal noise research and control activities is discussed in greater detail in Section 3 of this
report.
C-67
-------
Following publication of the “Levels Document” in March 1974, EPA moved ahead
to apply technology and cost data in regulatory action. Notices of Proposed Rule-Making
for the first of the new product regulations on new trucks and portable air compressors,
described further subsequently, were published in the Federal Register the last week of
October 1974. An intensive effort is under way to initiate succeeding cycles of regulation
preparation.
The “Levels Document” benchmarks are also vital to the aircraft and airport regula-
tions proposals EPA has been developing for submission to the FAA in accordance with
Section 7 of the Noise Control Act. Over the past 18 months, EPA has produced a series
of project reports on aviation noise control regulations to be proposed, as indicated by EPA
in its July 1973 Report on Aircraft Noise to the Congress, to the Federal Aviation Adminis-
tration. These project reports have been widely distributed for comment as part of the
public participation process in EPA rulemaking. Among the major criticisms received from
that review process were those relating to the health and welfare benefit assessment. EPA
found that the “Levels Document” base was needed for this task. But, in spite of the fact
that sufficient time had not yet lapsed to develop adequately precise refinements in this
area, sufficient information was nevertheless assembled to move ahead. Accordingly, EPA
is now in the process of finalizing the proposals for submission to the Federal Aviation
Administration.
One area in which the need for the “Levels Document” was not apparent is that relat-
ing to surface transportation interstate carrier requirements. The statutory provisions call
for a noise regulation on surface transportation at a level basically aimed at facilitating
commerce rather than at protecting health. Specifically, unlike other provisions of the Act,
the interstate motor carrier and rail carrier provisions call for standards based on “best
available technology taking into account the cost of compliance”, without any stipulations
as to health and welfare requirements. Further, these regulations preempt state and local
actions. Substantial questions as to the economic implications of these regulations,
especially as to their impact on railroads, in and of themselves created difficulties in arriving
at appropriate judgments that could withstand the test of litigation in courts.
Although health and welfare were not specified in the statute, each Federal agency,
including EPA, is required under NCA Section 4 to further the policies established in NCA
Section 2; that is “to promote an environment free from noise that jeopardizes health and
welfare.” Thus there is an obvious relationship of the baselines of the “Levels Document”
to the process of arriving at a balance between available technology and cost of compliance.
While much of the delay in meeting the statutory dates of these regulations was attributable
C-68
-------
to situations relating to the technical and economic base, once the “Levels Document” was
published it did facilitate resolution of those issues. It paved the way for publication of a
proposed interstate rail regulation in July 1974 and promulgation of motor carrier regulations
in October 1974.
In Subsection 5(b) of the NCA, 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.
In identifying the first group of products, EPA gave priority to sources that contribute
significantly to community noise; i.e., noise experienced by the community as a whole
rather than noise experienced chiefly by individual users of the product. Using a two-step
approach, EPA identified residential areas in which a large number of people are exposed
to high day-night sound levels. The number of people exposed to these levels (Ldn) was
published in the following table:
TABLE C-4
EXPOSURE TO OUTDOOR NOISE LEVELS:
US POPULATION EXPOSED, BY TYPES OF NOISE
(in millions)
Outdoor Ldn Level
Urban Traffic
Noise
Aircraft
Noise
Construction
Site Noise
Freeway
Noise
70 dB+
65dB+
6OdB+
4-12
15-38
40-70
4-7
8-15
16-32
1-3
3-6
7-15
1-4
2-5
3-6
NOTE: Estimated number of people in residential areas subjected to noise of different
kinds at or above specified day-night sound levels (outdoors)
Next, EPA identified the major contributors to the cumulative day-night sound levels
and specified 9 categories of transportation vehicles and 13 categories of construction
equipment as candidates for emission-standard development. Table C-S shows the typical
sound level for each of the categories in dBA at 50 feet and the related estimated total
sound energy emitted by all existing models of each product category per day.
C-69
-------
TABLE C-S
EPA IDENTIFICATION OF MAJOR NOISE-SOURCE CATEGORIES OF PRODUCTS
.
Transportation vehicles
Typical
sound level
dBA at
50 ft.
Estimated
total sound
energy
kWh/day
1. Trucks (medium and heavy
over 10,000 No. GVWR)
2. Automobiles (sports, compacts)
3. Automobiles (passenger)
4. Trucks (light, pickup)
5. Motorcycles (highway)
6. Buses (city and school)
7. Buses (highway)
8. Snowmobiles
9. Motorcycle (off-road)
84
75
66
72
82
73
82
85
85
.
5,800
1,150
800
570
325
20
12
500
100
Construction equipment
1. Dump truck
2. Portable air compressors
3. Concrete mixer (truck)
4. Jackhammer
5. Scraper
6. Dozer
7. Paver
8. Generator
9. Piledriver
10. Drill
11. Pump
12. Pneumatic tools
13. Backhoe
86
81
85
88
88
87
89
76
101
98
76
85
85
206
147
111
84
79
78
75
65
62
53
47
36
33
These data were issued by the EPA Administrator on June 19, 1974 (39 FR 22297-9,
June 21, 1974).
C-70
-------
EPA has adopted a pattern of procedural steps for developing noise emission standards
for new products and for the labeling of products. The pattern is shown in the diagram of
Figure c-i. The pattern involves the identificatibn of major sources of noise, the assessment
of available technology and cost data, followed by a judgmental decision as to whether
controls are feasible. Depending upon that judgment, either regulations are developed to
protect the public health and welfare or a requirement is established to label products for
which regulatory controls are not feasible. The diagram shows the investigative and
preliminary decision processes established in Section 5 of the NCA that then result either
in the regulatory sequence defined in NCA Section 6 or the consideration of a labeling
regulation under NCA Section 8.
Section 6(a) (1) (C) of the NCA sets out the four categories of products to be regulated
by the EPA Administrator for noise emissions:
1. Construction equipment
2. Transportation equipment (including recreational vehicles and related equipment)
3. Any motor or engine (including any equipment of which an engine or motor is
an integral part)
4. Electrical or electronic equipment
Section 6(b) states that regulations may also be prescribed for products other than those
indicated in Section 6(a) other than for civilian aircraft, military weapons and equipment,
and NASA and other Federal experimental equipments as pointed out previously.
As the first item for the construction equipment category, EPA selected portable air
compressors. Portable air compressors were identified as a major source of sound energy and
the most widely used product among pieces of construction equipment contributing to
construction site noise. With application of the criteria and measurements of Section 5(b)
of the Noise Control Act, portable air compressors rated above 75 cubic feet per minute
(CFM) were specified as a major source of noise. In construction equipment, pile drivers
and rock drills have been perceived as the loudest pieces of construction equipment when
they are operating, but measurements indicate that these products do not contribute as
much sound energy to the environment as other products operating on construction sites.
The fact that dump trucks, portable air compressors and concrete mixers (trucks) have
sound levels equal to, or lower than, other construction equipment, and higher total sound
energy emissions means that these are the most widely used pieces of construction
equipment.
On February 22, 1974, EPA issued the Advance Notice of Proposed Rule-Making
(ANPRM) on new portable air compressors soliciting information to feed into the regulatory
process. A Notice of Proposed Rule-Making (NPRM) was issued on October 15, 1974, which
C-7l
-------
ANALYSIS AND IDENTIFICATION
1 REGULATORY DEVELOPMENT
18 MONTHS
Figure C-i. Noise Control Act of 1972;
Regulatory Action Matrix for Sections 5, 6, and 8
INITIAL DECISION CONTROL NOT
PROCESS (SECTION 5) FEASIBLE
6 MONTHS
PROPOSAL
LABELING REGULATION
(SECTION 8)
CONTROL FEASIBLE
EMISSION CONTROL REGULATION
(SECTION 6)
PUBLIC”
PARTICIPATION
PROPOSAL FINAL
-------
included a proposed noise emission standard providing that effective one year from the
date of promulgation of the final regulation, newly manufactured portable air compressors
shall not produce an average sound level in excess of 76 dBA when measured at a distance
of seven meters (23 feet) from surfaces of the portable air compressor.
The regulation is expected to eliminate the portable air compressor as a major source
of noise, particularly, as a major source of construction site noise. This will occur in time as
the current population of portable air compressors is replaced by newly manufactured units
complying with the proposed regulation.
The total first year capital cost increase to manufacture compressors that comply with
the regulation is not expected to exceed $21 million.
Enforcement by EPA will include product verification testing, warranty labeling require-
ments, selective enforcement auditing procedures, and antitampering requirements. No state
or political subdivision thereof may adopt or enforce any law or regulation that sets a limit
on noise emissions from newly manufactured portable air compressors that is not identical
to the Federal regulation. However, states or their political subdivisions are not denied the
right to establish and enforce controls of environmental noise through the licensing, regula-
tion, or restriction of use, operation, or movement of portable air compressors or combination
of products that includes portable air compressors.
In the transportation equipment category, the control technology report prepared for
EPA on dump trucks and concrete mixers indicated that their contribution to construction
site noise is largely engine-related and will be controlled when these trucks meet the standards
proposed for medium and heavy duty trucks. The ANPRM soliciting information on new
medium and heavy duty trucks was issued by EPA on February 22, 1974 (docket Number
74-2), and the proposed regulation incorporating a noise emission standard was published
on October 15, 1974.
The proposed standard applies to any truck with a vehicle weight rating (GVWR) in
excess of 10,000 pounds. The specifications of the vehicle emission standard are as follows:
• Low Speed Sound Emission Standard:
1. Sound emissions from 1977 through 1980 model year vehicles shall not
exceed 83 dBA.
2. Sound emissions for 1981 through 1982 model year vehicles shall not
exceed 80 dBA.
3. Sound emissions from 1983 and subsequent model year vehicles shall not
exceed 75 dBA.
C-73
-------
The 1972 population of medium- and heavy-duty trucks to which the proposed regula-
tions are applicable is estimated to be about 3.5 million vehicles, of which approximately
65 percent are gasoline powered and 35 percent diesel powered. Based on current trends,
this population is estimated to increase to about 5.5 million in 1990, with a greater portion
of diesel powered trucks being present.
Based on 1973 technology, the first year increased capital costs for user/trucks pur-
chasing industries are estimated to be $34 million in 1977 for 83 dBA, $132 million in 1981
for 80 dBA, and $318 million in 1983 for 75 dBA. The costs actually incurred in 1983 are
expected, in fact, to be less than those cited here, since it is fully anticipated that technology
of noise control will advance substantially over the ten year period before the 75 dBA
standard becomes effective.
Various economic impact considerations were assessed to evaluate potential price and
operating costs resulting from the proposed standard. Upper bound cost values were used
to provide worst case estimates. The following economic impacts are envisioned:
• Because of the basically strong position of the truck manufacturing industry, the
volume changes brought about by noise control regulations will have little overall
impact on most firms.
• The impact of noise abatement upon all classes of truck users (i.e., line haul,
contract, and private) will be small, since the cost of noise abatement represents
an increase in less than one percent in the annual cost of owning and operating a
large diesel truck.
It is anticipated that the implementation of a standard not to exceed 75 dBA will reduce
noise from new medium and heavy trucks to a point at which it will not longer be a substantial
cause of annoyance to the population. Some time will be required for the older (noisier)
trucks now in use to be retired and replaced by new quiet trucks. After this occurs, an
estimated 35 million people directly and continually impacted by the noise from such
trucks will have the benefit of significant noise reduction in their environment. The benefits
will accrue, however, to all Americans who experience annoyance from the noise of such
vehicles.
The enforcement arrangements for, and preemptive position of, the standard for trucks
are the same as those previously stated for the portable air compressor regulation.
Under NCA Section 7(a) the EPA Administrator was to conduct a study of:
1. Adequacy of Federal Aviation Administration flight and operational noise controls.
2. Adequacy of noise emission standards on new and existing aircraft, together with
recommendations on the retrofitting and phaseout of existing aircraft.
C-74
-------
3. Implications of identifying and achieving levels of cumulative noise exposure
around airports.
4. Additional measures available to airport opçrators and local governments to
control aircraft noise.
The report on the results of this study submitted to the Committee on Interstate and
Foreign Commerce of the House of Representatives and the Committees on Commerce and
Public Works of the Senate within the mandated nine months from the enactment of the
NCA was published as the EPA Report to the Congress on Aircraft/Airport Noise, July 1973
(116 pp.). Under Section 611 of the Federal Aviation Act, as amended by the NCA, EPA
was also required, not earlier than the date of submission of the report to the Congress, to
submit to the Federal Aviation Administration proposed regulations to provide such control
and abatement of aircraft noise and sonic boom (including control and abatement through
the exercise of any of FAA regulatory authority over air commerce or transportation or
over aircraft or airport operations) as the Administrator of the EPA determines is necessary
to protect the public health and welfare.
In accordance with this latter requirement, EPA published in the Federal Register, on
February 19, 1974, a “Notice of Public Comment Period” containing a synopsis of the
proposed rules it was considering to achieve a satisfactory level of aircraft noise control and
abatement for the protection of the public health and welfare.
The proposed rules and the type of control that each rule would implement were
listed as follows:
• Flight procedures noise control
1. Takeoff procedures
2. Approach procedures
3. Minimum altitudes
• Source noise control
4. Retrofit/fleet noise level
5. Supersonic civil aircraft noise
6. Modifications to Part 36 of the Federal Aviation Regulations
7. Propeller driven small airplanes
8. Short haul aircraft
• Airport operations noise control
9. Airport goals, mechanisms and processes by which noise exposure of com-
munities around airports can be limited to levels consistent with public
health and welfare requirements.
C-7 S
-------
The re lationship of these EPA proposals to the extant and proposed FAA regulations
has been noted in Table 4-3. On December 6, 1974, EPA transmitted to FAA as Rulemaking
Proposals recommendations for Noise Abatement Minimum Altitudes with Terminal Areas:
Turbojet Powered Airplanes (item 3 on the EPA proposed schedule) and Noise Standards
for Propeller Driven Small Airplanes (item 7 on the EPA schedule), with supporting documen-
tation and justification. On January 29, 1975, EPA submitted to FAA NPRM proposals for
Civil Subsonic Turbojet Engine-Powered Airplanes: Noise Retrofit Requirements and Fleet
Noise Level Requirements (both item 4 on the EPA schedule). The NPRM proposal for
Aircraft Noise Requirements: Civil Supersonic Airplanes (EPA item 5) was submitted to
FAA on February 28, 1975.
In addition to designating, and controlling sound emissions from, products that are
major noise sources, EPA is required, under Section 8 of the NCA, to designate products
that emit noise that adversely affect the public health and welfare or that are sold on the
basis of their effectiveness in reducing noise. EPA is directed to assure, by labeling or
comparable means, disclosure and dissemination of adequate information on such products
to the ultimate purchaser and user of the products.
Subsection (a) of Section 8 directs EPA to require by regulation for each designated
product or class of products that notice be given to the prospective user as to the level of
the noise the product emits or on its effectiveness in reducing noise, as the case may be.
The regulation must specify whether the notice is to be affixed to the product or to the
outside of the container, or to both, at the time of its sale to the ultimate purchaser or
whether such notice shall be given to the prospective user in some other manner. The EPA
regulation also must specify the form of notice and the methods and units of measurement
to be used to determine effective noise attenuation.
In the first rulemaking under NCA Section 8, the agency announced that it was plan-
ning “to designate hearing protectors as a product sold wholly or in part on the basis of
their effectiveness in reducing noise and to require that such products be labeled according
to their noise attenuation capability.” The Advance Notice points out that for persons
located in environments in which noise emission controls (at the source or along the propa-
gation path) are not feasible or adequate, hearing protectors represent the only practicable
means of controlling the amount of noise received. Users therefore must know whether
the products selected to protect hearing have adequate noise attenuation capabilities. The
proposed regulation will require that this information be provided on labels affixed to all
hearing protectors offered for sale wholly or in part on the basis of their effectiveness in
reducing noise. The Advance Notice solicits, with a deadline of February 1, 1975,
C. 76
-------
information on models of hearing protectors, the manner in which information on such
protectors is now conveyed, classification of hearing protectors, information on their use
and hazards associated with improper use, suggestions for the form of labels to be used, and
the manufacturers and distributors affected.
It is anticipated that this labeling regulation will greatly assist the hearing conservation
programs in government and industry by providing specific, uniform, and conveniently
accessible information on the effectiveness of hearing protectors where these provide the
essential means of protection from harmful noise. Labeling of hearing protectors is an
essential first step in the warning and protective procedures for labeling of hazardous
products. Without information as to the type of protection available and its efficacy, the
hazard warning in many instances offers little or no choice as to use or nonuse of the product.
NCA Section 15 establishes the process by which the Federal Government will give
preference in its purchasing to products with noise emissions significantly lower than those
required by the Federal noise emission standards promulgated pursuant to NCA Section 6.
In February, 1974, EPA published the Low Noise Emission Product (LNEP) certification
procedures in the Federal Register. The process involves three steps:
1. EPA will determine upon receipt of a properly filed certification application
whether a class or model of product is a low-noise-emission product.
2. EPA will decide whether the low-noise-emission product is suitable for use as a
substitute for a type of product at that time in use by agencies of the Federal
Government. If the product is found suitable, the Administrator will issue a
certificate for that product, effective for a period of one year from the date of
issuance.
3. The Administrator of the General Services Administration will determine whether
the certified product has procurement costs that are no more than 125 percent of
the retail price of the least expensive type of product for which they are certified
substitutes. if the low-noise-emission product meets this final requirement, it
should be acquired by purchase or lease by the Federal Government for use by
the Federal Government instead of the products for which it is a suitable
substitute.
In making judgments of suitable substitutes, EPA will consult with the appropriate Federal
agencies before making decisions. The procedure requires that the LNEP product comply
with the labeling provision of Section 8 of the NCA and be subject also to post-certification
testing. The LNEP will be certified for one year but upon application a recertification can
be issued for another year.
Since, the Section 15 authorization applies only to new products for which standards
have been promulgated under NCA Section 6, implementation of the LNEP provision must
C-77
-------
be deferred until Section 6 standards become operative. The certification procedures do not
contain the objective low-noise-emission criteria for regulated new products nor do they con-
tam the specific data requirements for deciding whether the product is a “suitable substitute”.
These will be published subsequently.
Interstate Carriers
NCA Sections 17 and 18 direct the EPA Administrator to issue noise standards for
carriers engaged in interstate commerce by rail and motor carrier:
Interstate Rail Carrier Noise Emission Standards (NCA Section 17)
EPA moved to implement Section 17 of the NCA when it proposed on June 24, 1974,
to establish a new Part 201 of Title 40 CFR containing noise emission regulations for surface
carriers engaged in interstate commerce by railroad.
The proposed regulation will establish standards for noise emissions resulting from the
operation of locomotives and railroad cars of surface carriers engaged in interstate commerce
by railroad. The proposed standard specified sound-levels measured at a distance of 30
meters (100 feet) from the centerline of the track on which the locomotive or railroad car
being measured is located and is specified in decibels on the A-weighted scale, using fast
meter response.
The EPA proposed regulation specifies the following standards for locomotives:
“A. Locomotive Standard: All locomotives to which this regulation is applicable are
to meet the following noise emission standards under stationary test conditions:
1. Effective 270 days from the date of promulgation of the regulation loco-
motives tested singly shall not exceed 93 dBA at any throttle setting and
73 dBA at idle when measured at 30 meters (100 feet) over any surface.
2. Effective four years from the date of promulgation of the regulation loco-
motives tested singly shall not exceed 87 dBA at any throttle setting and
67 UBA at idle when measured at 30 meters (100 feet) over any surface.”
Similarly, all locomotives or combination of locomotives to which this regulation is
applicable, are to meet the following noise emission standards under moving conditions:
“1. Effective 270 days from the date of promulgation of the regulation, 96 dBA
when moving at any time under any condition of grade, load, acceleration,
or deceleration as measured over any surface at 30 meters (100 feet).
2. Effective four years from the date of promulgation of the regulations, 90 dBA
when moving at any time under any condition of grade, load, acceleration, or
deceleration as measured over any surface at 30 meters (100 feet).”
C-78
-------
For railroad cars, the proposed EPA standard is as follows:
“B. Railroad Car Standard: Effective 270 days from the date of promulgation of
these regulations, all railroad cars or combination of railroad cars operated by
surface carriers engaged in interstate cdmmerce by railroad are to meet a noise
emission standard of 88 dBA at speeds up to and including 72 km/hr (45 mph)
and 93 dBA at speeds greater than 72 km/hr (45 mph) when measured at 30
meters (100 feet) over any surface.”
After the final interstate rail carrier noise emission standards have been promulgated
by EPA and after consultation with the Administrator of EPA, the Secretary of Transporta-
tion is responsible for promulgating regulations to insure compliance with the EPA standards.
In compliance with Section 18 of the NCA, EPA proposed on July 27, 1973, standards
to control noise emissions from motor vehicles operated in interstate commerce and weigh-
ing over 10,000 lb. GVWR. The final regulation was issued on October 21, 1974. The
standards provide
• A maximum of 90 dBA at 50 feet in speed limits greater than 35 mph.
• A maximum of 86 dBA at 50 feet in speed limits equal to or less than 35 mph.
• A maximum of 88 dBA at 50 feet under stationary runup test.
• Visual exhaust system inspection.
• Visual tire inspection.
This regulations is the first significant Federal step in a series of actions to reduce high-
way noise by October 1975. This standard, applicable to in-use vehicles operated by interstate
carriers, will have an impact within one year on reducing highway traffic noise. In conjunction
with the more stringent, new medium and heavy-duty truck noise control regulations cited
earlier, further traffic noise reduction will be accomplished in a systematic time-phased
manner to permit application of available technology at a reasonable cost.
As new control retrofit technology is developed and can be applied at reasonable cost,
the interstate motor carrier regulations will be revised accordingly. Further revision of the
interstate motor regulations, will be made to assure that new trucks manufactured in accor-
dance with the more stringent new product noise control standards will not be degraded
acoustically during inservice operation by interstate carriers.
It is anticipated that seven percent (70,000) of the one million motor vehicles to which
the regulations apply will require some degree of retrofit to comply with the regulations.
Usually, a muffler or different tires will suffice. In some cases, the cooling fan will require
modification. The average expected cost per vehicle needing retrofit treatment is $135;
total costs to the industry are not expected to exceed $10 million.
C-79
-------
Section 2 of the Noise Control Act says that state and local governments have the
primary responsibility for noise abatement and control. However, it was recognized that
Federal action is needed to deal effectively with major noise sources engaged in interstate
commerce and which, therefore, require uniform national treatment to facilitate such
commerce.
State and local jurisdictions may not adopt or enforce noise control regulations of the
noise sources covered by the interstate rail and motor carrier regulations unless such state or
local regulations are identical to the Federal regulations. Federal preemption for interstate
rail and motor carrier noise control regulations (Sections 17 and 18 of the NCA, 1972) is
significantly different from the preemptive Federal authority for newly manufactured
trucks (Section 6 of the NCA, 1972), which leaves to state and local jurisdictions the
authority to establish and enforce controls on levels of noise emission resulting from the
operations of such new trucks. However, state and localities are strongly urged to adopt
regulations that may be necessary to meet special local needs as long as the action is deter-
mined not to be in conflict with the Federal regulations. In these cases, application shall
be made to the EPA Administrator for such determination.
Under the law, the Secretary of Transportation, after consulting with the Administrator
of EPA, is responsible for assuring compliance with the interstate motor carrier noise emission
standards. State and local jurisdictions employing identical standards, are encouraged to act
as independent enforcement agencies.
Hearing Conservation
Although noise is not presently a significant problem within EPA, and therefore, no
formal hearing conservation program has been established, evaluation of operational areas
in which noise hazards might develop is undertaken, and limited preventive measures have
been instituted. These efforts are incorporated as part of the Agency safety program, which
is under the overall direction of the Deputy Assistant Administrator for Administration and
implemented by the Safety Management Staff. EPA Order 1000.11, dated April 4, 1973,
establishes Agency policy concerning safety and health at Agency facilities and in Agency
operations. OSHA standards were adopted as internal EPA Safety Standards, but action
has been initiated to reduce the permissable 8-hour exposure limit to 85 dBA. Presently,
EPA Form 1440-1, “Supervisor’s Report of Accident” which is included in the Agency
Safety Management Manual has several spaces provided for documentation of noise related
problems. During 1975, the Safety Management Staff plans to develop a Manual chapter on
noise that will impose requirements for Regional and National Environmental Research Center
C-80
-------
sound surveys to be conducted as part of the semiannual safety survey of each facility
presently required.
In 1972, two sound level meters were purchased, which have been used to measure
noise levels in various Headquarters offices. In no instance, has noise exposure been identi-
fied exceeding 85 dBA for an 8-hour duration. As part of a comprehensive OSHA safety
survey of all EPA permanent facilities, performed under contract, noise measurements were
taken in areas in which noise problems were suspected. The EPA/DC Pilot Plant at Blue
Plains was the only location where a noise level approaching 85 dBA was identified. The
Safety Management Staff believes that noise problems may exist iii. many EPA remote field
sampling operations. Sound surveys have not as yet been performed on such equipment as
motorboats, helicopters, and fixed wing aircraft. An industrial hygienist is being recruited
whose duties will include performance of noise surveys to identify areas where potentially
hazardous noise may exist. The EPA Office of Noise Abatement and Control plans to pro-
vide technical assistance for such surveys.
The Personnel Management Division conducts audiometric testing of Headquarters
personnel on a voluntary basis. During 1973, 100 Headquarters personnel were tested in
addition to the 389 employees receiving audiometric tests as part of their regular physical
examinations. In the EPA regional offices, 513 employees were tested during 1973. Upon
identification of employee exposure to levels of 85 dBA or more for an extended period of
time, a mandatory testing program will be established for the employee. There have not
been any incidents of employee hearing loss as a direct or indirect result of occupational
noise exposure.
Technical Assistance
Section 14 (2) of the Noise Control Act authorizes EPA to provide technical assistance
to state and local governments to facilitate their development and enforcement of ambient
noise standards, including but not limited to
• Advice on training of noise control personnel and on selection and operation of
noise abatement equipment.
• Preparation of model state or local legislation for noise control.
Responsibility for implementing this section of the Act is vested in 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 ten Regional Offices. EPA noise technical assistance funding totalled $48,600 in FY73,
$934,700 in FY74, (the large scale increase over FY73 is attributable to the passage of the
C-8 1
-------
Noise Control Act in the second quarter of FY73) and $936,900 in FY75. Although funds
allocated to the technical assistance program increased from FY74 to FY75, the proportion
of technical assistance resources to total ONAC resources decreased over this period. This
reflects the present ONAC emphasis on the development of noise emission standards and
regulations mandated by the Noise Control Act.
ONAC has utilized a variety of mechanisms to augment and complement the technical
skills available in its permanent work force. These include the use of intermittent consultants
with specialized expertise, Interagency Agreements, and staffing under the Intergovernmental
Personnel Act (IPA) of 1970, which 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 invo1ved The use of IPA
personnel has been extremely beneficial to the regional noise programs, where continuity and
level of staffing difficulties have been pronounced. To augment regional capabilities, ONAC
is developing noise training courses for EPA regional personnel. EPA has also initiated steps
to enter into Basic Ordering Agreements to provide technical acoustical services to the regions
and to ONAC, for which $120,000 has been allocated during FY75.
Given scarce resources and extensive requests for technical assistance from state and
local governments, the EPA technical assistance program is primarily designed to develop
and disseminate standardized guidelines and information. Thirty States and 89 municipalities
specifically requested technical assistance from EPA in responding to a survey conducted in
January, 1974. This survey was directed to all 50 States and to approximately 240 cities
with populations over 75,000. The number of technical assistance requests obtained in the
survey are believed to represent only a third of the total need. EPA is currently evaluating
the survey data to assess the needs of state and local governments for Federal assistance and
plans to report on its findings by the end of FY75. Consideration will be given to developing
legislative proposals for an assistance program to state and local governments.
Based on the survey data, EPA has developed a matrix (Table C-6) indicating the popu-
lation impacted by various types of state and local noise legislation over the period FY74 to
76. The figures shown for FY75 and FY76 are projections based on those reported for
FY74. It is estimated that for FY76 30 States and 200 municipalities (with populations of
75,000 and over) will have enacted enabling legislation for noise control with respective
population coverages of 168 million and 77 million. The FY76 figures represent a doubling
over FY74 of the number of state and local governments that will institute preliminary steps
towards noise control programs. The magnitude of this projected increase over a relatively
short period has significant implications for EPA technical assistance efforts.
C-82
-------
TABLE C-6
POPULATION IMPACTED BY VARIOUS TYPES OF
STATE AND LOCAL NOISE LEGISLATION
ENABLING
STANDARDS
LAND
USE
MOTOR
VEHICLES
CONSTRUC-
TION EQ UIP-
MENT
RECREA-
TIONAL
VEHICLES
S
L
S
L
S
L
S
L
S
L
NO. PIECESOF
LEGISLATION
FY74
POPULATION
IMPACTED*
13
87M
100
46M
9
50M
29
16M
0
OM
14
14M
14
75M
10
5M
4
41M
54
25M
NO. PIECES OF
LEGISLATION
FY75
POPULATION
IMPACTED*
21
124M
150
56M
13
73M
38
19M
6
49M
21
16M
21
11 IM
18
7M
13
104M
81
30M
NO. PIECES OF
LEGISLATION
FY76
POPULATION
LMPACTED*
30
168M
200
77M
20
1 1OM
61
24M
11
79M
25
17M
26
129M
21
8M
19
135M
83
32M
S - STATES
L - LOCALITIES WITH POPULATIONS OF 75,000 OR MORE
* - POPULATIONS IMPACTED GIVEN IN MILLION OF PEOPLE
00
-------
The EPA technical assistance program may be divided into four areas:
1. Legislation development and implementation
2. Manpower assessment and education
3. Advice on instrumentation and monitoring systems
4. Problem identification and assessment.
Specific EPA projects in each of these areas are discussed subsequently. Contractual and
Interagency Agreement funds for specific projects are identified where applicable.
Legislation Development and Implementation
EPA seeks to channel the intense interest in noise control among state and local govern-
ments into their adoption of quantitative legislation that is technically sound and legally
enforceable. EPA efforts in this area include model legislation, reports and guidelines, and
in-depth assistance to individual states and cities.
Model Legislation
In 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. EPA is in the final stages of drafting model
urban noise legislation, which is scheduled to be submitted to the National Institute of
Municipal Law Officers (NIMLO) within the next several months for sponsorship as recom-
mended legislation. The law will include both nuisance and performance provisions and
will cover station ry and mobile noise sources, together with land use planning. EPA has
initiated a literature search and critical assessment of building codes as the first step towards
development of a comprehensive model building code incorporating noise specifications.
When completed, EPA plans to seek adoption of the model building code by both the
Council of State Governments and NIMLO.
Reports and Guidelines
To increase the utility of model legislation to local governments, EPA has under develop-
ment a Community Noise Workbook containing guidelines for local noise control programs.
The Workbook, which is scheduled for publication during CY75, will include the model
urban noise legislation now being drafted amplified by alternative provisions and discussion
sections to enable communities to select those most appropriate to their noise problems.
C-84
-------
Designed for the nontechnical layman, the Workbook describes the legal basis for community
action, noise effects on health and welfare, and procedures to establish and maintain a local
noise control program.
EPA is currently updating the technical document “State and Municipal Non-
Occupational Noise Programs” and has printed a revised edition of “Noise Source Regula-
tion in State and Local Noise Ordinances”. These reports are based on information collected
from the survey of state and local noise programs conducted in January, 1974. EPA has
taken preliminary steps to gather data on the noise programs of communities with popula-
tions under 75,000 and oounty governments, two areas not covered in the original survey.
EPA has earmarked $20,000 of FY75 funds to establish a computerized system for the
storage of all state and local noise program data. This computer bank will be used to shape
the EPA technical assistance program and to identify types of noise problems peculiar to a
specific area. The data will feed into the EPA standards setting process in two ways:
1. Aid in the identification of major noise sources for future regulation.
2. Provide baseline data for ongoing EPA regulatory activities.
In-depth Assistance to Targeted States and Communities
EPA, both at the headquarters and regional levels, directly assists various state and local
governments in the technical and legal review of proposed noise legislation. Based in part on
the survey results, EPA has identified those state and local governments most amenable to
establishing noise abatement programs and will provide in-depth assistance to encourage
adoption of EPA model legislation.
Manpower Assessment and Education
One of the greatest difficulties encountered by state and local governments in imple-
menting noise control programs is the lack of trained manpower in this recent environmental
field. The primary EPA activity in this area is sponsoring regional noise workshops and
seminars for state and local government officials. Initiated by a 2-day national pilot work-
shop held in September 1972 in Kansas City, EPA has conducted 21 additional workshops
at various locations throughout the country as of September, 1974. The educational work-
shops held during 1972 and 1973 were aimed at stimulating awareness of the noise problem
through presentations on health effects, measurement and instrumentation, and the EPA
role. The program has now moved into its second phase, that of disseminating specific data
on the formulation and enforcement of noise legislation. These seminars are more technically
oriented and include laboratory measurement exercises, field trips to monitor specific noise
sources, and enforcement techniques.
C-85
-------
Guidelines for a training course in noise survey techniques has been developed for EPA
by the National Academy of Science Committee on Hearing, Bioacoustics, and Biomechanics.
ONAC also participates in the EPA Office of Education and Manpower Planning strategy
studies and projects to ensure that noise control needs are addressed in Agency manpower
development programs.
Advice on Instrumentation and Monitoring Programs
In addition to responding to specific requests from state and local governments for
technical advice on the quality and uses of noise instrumentation, EPA has undertaken two
projects that will assist states and localities in this area:
1. The development of a low-cost sound level meter
2. The pilot monitoring project.
Development of Low-Cost Sound Level Meter
This project, which was initiated in February 1972 and is scheduled for completion in
mid-1975, is designed to stimulate the availability of low cost instrumentation. The price of
commercially marketed sound level meters that conform to ANSI standards proved prohibi-
tive to some state and local governments. By absorbing the development, prototype fabrica-
tion, and testing costs, EPA is attempting to remove this obstacle to state and local enforce-
ment programs. The Air Force Academy developed the concept and specifications under an
Interagency Agreement funded at $10,000 during FY72 to 74. An FY75 competitive
contract for $25,000 will be let for fabrication of 15 prototype sound level meters and 35
kits that may be assembled by the purchaser.
Pilot Monitoring Project
This project, which was initiated in May 1973 and is scheduled for completion during
FY75, is the first phase of a long-term environmental monitoring program. Four EPA
regional offices are participating in the pilot monitoring project, which is designed to field
test instrumentation and alternative monitoring strategies while at the same time collecting
baseline data from
• Selected sites useful for regulation development
• Communities
• Specialized land useage areas.
C-86
-------
FY74 funding for the project totalled $72,000, which was used to purchase noise instru-
mentation. The budgeted funding for FY75 is $141,000 broken down as follows:
• Methodology — $20,000;
• Instrumentation — $41,000;
• Data processing — $30,000;
• Interagency Agreement with the Department of the Army/Construction Engineering
Research Laboratory for technical assistance for monitoring systems development
and field survey capability — $50,000.
EPA anticipates that the environmental monitoring program will assist state and local govern-
ments in four areas:
1. Prescribing several acceptable monitoring systems.
2. Enabling state and local governments to identify specific noise problems through
surveys.
3. Providing background data for legislation development.
4. Aiding community assessment of the success of established noise control programs.
Problem Identification and Assessment
States and localities have access to EPA reports and findings on measurement methodol-
ogy, cost and technology studies, etc., generated by the standards setting process. In addition
to this data, which states and municipalities may use for noise problem identification and
assessment, four other programs provide assistance in this area.
Study of Interior Noise Levels for Transportation Systems
A literature survey of data on the interior noise levels of aircraft, trains, trucks, buses,
rapid transit systems and automobiles has been completed on the basis of which program
recommendations are presently being formulated. EPA anticipates that the study results
will assist state and local agencies to set noise specifications for the purchase of transporta-
tion equipment. Data developed in this study will be one element in assessing the impact
of communitY noise on individuals over a 24-hour period.
Noise Surveys of Selected Sites
To test measurement methodology 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 example was the extensive community noise survey conducted in Puerto Rico
in August 1972 in response to a request by the Puerto Rican Government. Another was an
C-87
-------
assessment of environmental noise levels in the Waco, Texas metropolitan area. ONAC
funded this FY74 study and its accompanying report for $25,000. The Waco study demon-
strated that the least sophisticated sound measuring equipment and untrained personnel are
sufficient to successfully conduct a community survey to assist local planners.
Instruction Manual for “Levels Document”
The environmental noise levels specified in the “Levels Document” may be used by
states and communities as guidelines to determine the objectives of their noise abatement
programs. The “Levels Document” contains a highly sophisticated treatment of the health
ahd welfare effects of sound. EPA is developing an instructional manual to increase the
utility of the document by interpreting in simplified terms those features which provide a
foundation for the formulation of noise regulations and by including basic concepts in
noise measurement.
Information Services
EPA has established a library of technical infonnation, which has been given an impor-
tant assist through the introduction of a computerized information retrieval system contain-
ing abstracted noise data. This data bank, with terminals at headquarters and regional
offices, is used in part to reply to state and local information requirements. Required inputs
to the data management system, based on EPA program priorities, include information on
specified noise sources, control technology, and other abatement techniques available or
under development, measurement methodologies, and noise laws and regulations. These
acquisitions, which average 65 per week, are used not only to assist state and local govern-
ments, but also for the standard-setting process and to keep current the criteria document
and environmental noise report required by Section 5 of the Noise Control Act. System
outputs include a biweekly listing of acquisitions, a biweekly noise current events bulletin,
and special compilations such as demand bibliographies and literature surveys. Funding for
the information retrieval system was $444,000 in FY74 and budgeted at $225,000 in FY75.
Since the system is used by all elements of ONAC, the technical assistance portion of these
funds is not separable.
In addition to the technical assistance projects just mentioned, EPA is developing a
Cooperative Noise Reduction Program designed to encourage early and voluntary compliance
with the Interstate Motor Carrier Noise Regulations. Although resource requirements have
not been fmally approved, the present plan provides for training state and local enforcers,
the use of state weighing and inspection stations for noise level tests, and development and
C-88
-------
distribution of promotional material. One anticipated benefit of the program is increased
state and local awareness of their role in noise reduction.
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION (FCC)
This agency reported activities only in the area of hearing conservation.
Hearing Conservation
At present, the Federal Communications Commission has n . organized or coordinated
hearing conservation program. Ad hoc measures are taken to reduce noise levels and provide
hearing protection devices in isolated instances in which employees are exposed to excessive
noise. For example, electronic equipment is tested in the Commission laboratory, including
ultrasonic cleaners that produce noise levels on the order of 100 to 120 dB. Employees are
engaged in such work intermittently and are furnished with ear muffs similar to those used
at rifle ranges. A new laboratory is under construction that will be equipped with sound
absorbing containers for testing such equipment. Another example is the duplicating staff
exposure to a relatively high level of background noise. Print shop noise levels have been
reduced with the purchase of quieter, replacement equipment and installation of sound
suppressing ceilings.
Periodic hearing tests conducted by the Washington Hearing Society are available to
employees through the Health Unit. These are simple screening tests and do not distinguish
between noise and other causes of hearing loss. No disability claims based on hearing loss
have been submitted over at least the last ten years, nor have there been any complaints or
other indication of a noise problem at any installation.
No funds for noise or related problems have been appropriated to or committed by
the Commission.
FEDERAL DEPOSIT INSURANCE CORPORATION (FDIC)
FDIC reported limited activities in both hearing conservation and noise abatement.
Hearing Conservation
The Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation does not have a formal hearing conservation
program as noise exposure problems were reported to be almost nonexistent. The FDIC
makes available annual hearing tests to employees.
C-89
-------
Noise Abatement
The Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation reported no significant noise problems.
Sound-proofing was installed in a few instances to reduce noise levels.
FEDERAL POWER COMMISSION (FPC)
This agency reported an involvement only in the area of hearing conservation.
Hearing Conservation
The Federal Power Commission reported that its employees are exposed to few, if any,
potentially hazardous noise sources as its activities are administrativerather than industrial
in nature. Commission facilities were inspected by Department of Labor staff on September
17-20, 1972 for compliance with the provisions of the Occupational Safety and Health Act
and Executive Order 11612. No noise levels exceeding OSHA requirements were identified.
The Commission has obtained a sound level meter and calibrator and now has the capability
to conduct noise surveys to ensure safe working conditions for employees.
GENERAL SERVICES ADMINISTRATION (GSA)
GSA noise related activities may be categorized as standards and regulations and noise
abatement.
Standards and Regulations
The General Services Administration has implemented noise control requirements for
government construction sites and for procurements by the Federal Supply Service.
GSA procurement specifications which have been revised to include noise emission
limitations cover the following items:
• Portable pneumatic drills
• Pneumatic grinder
• Pneumatic impact wrench
• 21-inch rotary gasoline-powered lawn mower
• 24-inch through 60-inch rotary gasoline engine powered lawn mowers
• Rotary wheel gasoline engine powered lawn mower.
GSA has specified that equipment employed at government-building construction sites
shall not be permitted to exceed the limits in dBA shown in Table C-7 at a distance of 50
feet from the equipment under test. As indicated in Table C-7, the limits, which have been
C-90
-------
TABLE C-7
GSA CONSTRUCTION EQUIPMEN T NOISE EMISSION LIMITS
Equipment Types
Noise
Emission Limits (in dBA)
Effective July 1, 1972
Effective July 1, J975*
Earthmoving
front loader 79 75
backhoes 85 75
dozers 80 75
tractors 80 75
scrapers 88 80
graders 85 75
truck 91 75
paver 89 80
Materials Handling
concrete mixer 85 75
concrete pump 82 75
crane 83 75
derrick 88 75
Stationary
pumps 76 75
generators 78 75
compressors 81 75
Impact
pile drivers 101 95
jack hammers 88 75
rock drills 98 80
pneumatic tools 86 80
Other
saws 78 75
vibrator 76 75
*Extended from January 1, 1975, by internal GSA notice.
C-91
-------
in effect since July 1, 1972, have been extended until July 1, 1975. GSA is considering a
wide range of alternatives for revising the regulation. The advantages of a property line
regulation are being re-examined as well as those of an individual equipment regulation.
EPA has informed GSA that many of the equipment limits initially scheduled to become
effective January 1, 1975 were in EPA’s opinion too stringent. EPA continues to meet with
GSA to provide assistance in the development of a revised regulation.
Noise Abatement
The primary General Services Administration effort toward the establishment of limita-
tions on noise emission has been by the inclusion of appropriate controls or limits in the
specifications and regulations for which it is responsible. Specifically, the Public Buildings
Service of GSA has taken steps to reduce noise levels in the following areas.
Construction Equipment Sound Levels
GSA has established maximum permissable sound levels for construction equipment.
The sound levels are published in the Special Conditions section of GSA specifications and
are described above.
Enforcement of Construction Equipment Sound Level Standards
All Regional Administrators were advised to purchase portable sound level meters and
to monitor construction sites on both a scheduled and an ad hoc basis.
Operating Mechanical Equipment Sound and Vibration
Limitations on sound and vibration of building systems equipment have been issued in
the Vibration Isolation section of GSA specifications. Enforcement of this criteria is within
the precinct of the Contracting Officer, and material not complying is to be rejected.
Acoustical Privacy in Open OffIce Space
GSA has issued requirements in the Integrated Ceiling and Background section of the
specification for sound attenuation and generation in order to provide speech privacy.
GSA did not provide information concerning the other subordinate activities under its
jurisdiction. The GSA does not have personnel assigned exclusively to noise programs, and
no estimates were made as to the number of individuals or the percentage of their time spent
on noise activities. Information was not provided regarding costs or budgeting.
C-92
-------
GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE (GPO)
The only reported activities agency were in the area of hearing conservation.
Hearing Conservation
The overall objective of the GPO hearing conservation program is to assure that noise
levels are kept within those set by OSHA. However, much of the industrial equipment
presently in use by the GPO was procured before noise control was made part of the pur-
chase consideration. Therefore, some equipment presently in use exceeds currently accept-
able noise levels. The GPO is using available engineering discipline and technologies to
reduce these to acceptable standards wherever feasible, supplemented by use of hearing
protectors. The effectiveness of the GPO hearing conservation program is limited by the
lack of availability of printing plant machinery manufactured in the U. S. that utilizes the
latest state of the art noise suppression equipment.
GPO Instruction 670.5, Hearing Protection Program, dated December 31, 1971,
delineates the responsibilities and duties of the Safety Officer, Director of Engineering
Services, Medical Officer, Supervisors, and all GPO employees in carrying out the hearing
conservation program. The program encompasses:
• Periodic surveys to identify areas of excessive noise.
• Identification of excessive noise areas with obvious markings.
• Use of engineering practices to reduce sound levels below authorized limits.
• Audiometric tests.
• Provision of hearing protectors and instructing employees in their proper use.
The Agency has had only one claim for noise induced hearing loss. At present, a
determination of the validity of this claim has not been made. Funding for the hearing
conservation program is not separately identifiable.
LIBRARY OF CONGRESS
This agency reported limited involvement in the area of hearing conservation.
Hearing Conservation
The Library of Congress reported that its operations do not produce excessive noise
exposure, and a formal hearing conservation program is not conducted. However, the
Library of Congress is considering the establishment of a hearing conservation program to
improve employee morale and efficiency.
C-93
-------
NATIONAL AERONAUTICS AND SPACE ADMINISTRATION (NASA)
This agency conducts extensive activities in both hearing conservation and noise abate-
ment.
Hearing Conservation
All NASA Centers have hearing conservation programs. The programs vary somewhat
among the Centers but do include the general features: noise measurement, evaluation of
exposure, recommendation of controls (engineering, personal protective, administrative),
and audiometrjc examinations. OSHA standards are followed, with the exception of a more
stringent 85 dBA standard at the Jet Propulsion Laboratory. General environmental health
policy guidance is provided in a policy directive, and specific guidelines for the conduct of
hearing conservation programs is contained in a handbook (“A Guide to Hearing Conserva-
tion in Noise Exposure”). These instructions are supplemented by applicable directives at
each Center.
The overall goal of hearing conservation programs in NASA is to protect the hearing
of employees. To ensure that exposures do not exceed the OSHA standard, considerable
attention is given to the identification of potential noise exposure areas. Such areas are
identified by walkthrough surveys; investigation of complaints; involvement in planning;
and review of purchase requests, contracts, engineering drawings, and health and safety
plans of contractors.
When potential noise exposure operations or areas are identified, noise intensities are
determined by the use of sound level meters and/or octave band analyzers. In some cases,
noise dosixneters are also utilized. Duration of exposure is compared with noise intensities
measured to determine where over-exposures exist. When over-exposures or exposures
approaching the OSHA standard are found, engineering controls are recommended to
contain or otherwise control the noise at its source of generation. When this is not possible,
administrative control and ear protective devices are utilized.
Audiometric examinations are given to all persons significantly exposed to noise and,
at most installations, they are also given routinely to all employees covered in periodic
physical examination programs.
Various types of ear protective devices are provided for use by personnel occupationally
exposed to noise. These devices are fitted as necessary, and the wearer is instructed in their
proper use. More inclusive training is also given on the broad subject of noise hazards and
control.
C-94
-------
Noise emanates from various types of operations and equipment at NASA installations.
Some of the more common noise sources are listed below.
Wind Tunnels TraffiS
Aircraft Office Machines
Aircraft/Rocket Engine Testing Ventilation Equipment
Noise and Vibration Tests Launch Activities
Electric Power Generation Plasma Arcs
Compressors and Vacuum Pumps Fabrication Activities
Environmental Chambers Machine Shops
Construction Activities Hydraulic Gear
Computer Equipment Ultrasonic Cleaning
Noise Research Activities Testing of Relief Valves and Disks
High Pressure Gas Venting Heating and Refrigeration Equipment
In response to an EPA request for data on the incidence of hearing loss, NASA reported
that there have been 12 hearing disability claims made in the past ten years, most of which
were made in the past two years. Analysis of 105 records at one center (Ames Research
Center) produced the following results:
• 41% had little or no loss (less than a 25 dB loss at any frequency)
• 43% had slight loss (more than 25 dB at 3000 Hz or above)
• 16% had substantial hearing loss
It was noted by NASA that the average age of NASA employees is around 45, and that
the above statistics include the effects of presbycusis. It is significant that such data are being
collected and analyzed as part of the hearing conservation program at Ames.
NASA reported on a number of noise surveys and other projects aimed at reducing noise
in the workplace. These include:
• A noise survey at the Goddard Space Flight Center. Ambient measurements were
taken at various locations over a four-month period. Maximum values of 110 dBA
were recorded at one location. Data were also taken from personal audiodosimetels
carried by personnel in several exposure categories. Recommendations included:
strict enforcement of the requirement for wearing hearing protectors in specified
work areas; rotation of workers; isolation of certain major equipments and the use
of remote controls; the procurement of additional hearing protectors and increased
training in their proper use; a recommended program for maintenance and sanitiza-
tion of hearing protectors.
• Two surveys at the Flight Research Center (FRC). One survey was conducted in the
main office building. Office spaces having annoying levels of noise were identified,
and recommendations were made to utilize noise attenuating materials such as
carpeting in these areas. It also was recommended that a noisy machine be quieted
via a suitable enclosure. The second survey at FRC was conducted in the industrial,
shop, and laboratory areas. No areas were identified which would violate OSHA
C-95
-------
standards. It was noted, however, that the primary source of noise — aircraft noise —
was not present on the days when the survey was made. The machine shop was found
having sound levels marginally lower than the allowable maximum. Use of heavy pro-
tection was recommended in this area.
• A survey of computer room noise at Wallops Island. One area was identified in excess
of 90 dB. Recommendation was made to ensure that workers are stationed in quieter
locations (when a choice was possible), and otherwise hearing protectors should be
worn or the exposure time administratively reduced.
• A survey of radar data acquisition facility at Wallops Island. One location was identi-
fled at 102 dBA. Recommended use of warning signs and ear defenders.
• Several studies at Kennedy Space Center, including (1) the evaluation of improved
mufflers for mowers, (2) evaluation of noise from construction equipment (caterpillars,
etc.) at the Space Shuttle launch site, and (3) a survey of certain office equipment
(typewriter/printers). More effective mufflers and/or relocation of the mufflers were
recommended for the caterpillars, along with installation of a partial cab for the
operator, and ear protectors. Available mufflers for mowers were found to be inade-
quate, and exposure limits for unprotected personnel were set in accordance with
OSHA standards. The survey of office equipment found that the associated noise
levels did not constitute hazards to hearing but that they were unacceptable for
office environments. Recommendations included (I) the installation of a noise
attenuating cover on the typewriter Printer; (2) the installation of sound absorbent
matting under each unit; and (3) installation of sound absorbent panels between the
units and the surrounding office area.
Noise Abatement
NASA has internally established general policy regarding environmental quality and
control (NASA Policy Directive 8800.6B). Pursuant to this general policy, NASA is presently
evolving procedures and standards to consolidate practices at NASA installations with respect
to the prevention, control, and abatement of noise.
NASA noise abatement projects can be considered in two categories. The first is those
activities which involve the construction, rehabilitation, or modification of major facilities
in such a way that the noise imposed upon the surrounding community (“over-the-fence”)
is reduced or eliminated. There are no projects of this nature presently funded nor are any
planned for the immediate future. The only such project funded in prior years was for the
construction of a sound-absorbing structure around a wind tunnel at the Ames Research
Center. This project was funded in FY73 at a cost of $495,000.
The second category of noise abatement projects is that consisting of supporting studies
and analyses related to the noise imposed upon the surrounding communities by rocket test
facilities and launch sites. Although some of the work reported in this category could be
considered as research it has been included as noise abatement because its intent is to reduce
C-96
-------
the noise impact of ongoing and planned NASA activities. All of the projects, summarized
below, are being conducted at the Marshall Space Flight Center and are in connection with
the large launch vehicle programs of NASA. Funding for these projects is as follows: FY72 -
$50,000; FY73 - $75,000; FY74 - $470,000; FY75 - $455,000.
Industrial Noise Generation and Control
Various projects, internal to MSFC, are done as required in connection with new test
and developmental facilities, for the prevention of undesirable noise levels at work stations
adjacent to these facilities. Early prediction of the noise environments is desirable in order
to alter facility or operational design if required. Model tests or other methods usually aid
in definition of the environments and to suggest ways to reduce the noise from system
operation. Recommendations usually take the form of sound source modifications or the
use of suitable attenuation schemes.
Acoustic Environmental Assessments and Environmental Statements Concerning
Community Noise Exposure
These projects are done in-house as part of the planning for launch sites and for static
rocket tests. Their purpose is to ensure that the acoustic environment during operations
minimizes community impact. Acoustic environmental assessments require accounting for
numerous factors, including: the sound source, acoustic power, spectral characteristics of
the sound, directivity patterns, atmospheric and ground cover absorption, propagation
effects in alleviating focusing of the acoustic energy, exhaust deflector type and cooling
methods, community locations, population densities, and socio-economic factors.
Planning for Test Operations Which Generate Noise
These are in-house efforts and are also part of the planning efforts for large rocket
engine tests. Included are: engine test site evaluations, test stand selections based on
directional orientation, and advisory test scheduling using meteorological control in reduc-
ing farfield environments. Community response is periodically surveyed in connection with
test firings in order to evaluate the community impact of test operations.
Sonic Boom Environmental Assessments and Shuttle Launch Azimuth Constraints
Definition of the sonic boom overpressure level characteristics developed during Shuttle
launch is essential in order to establish an accurate description of the environmental assess-
ment and subsequent community response. During ascent of the Space Shuttle, a sonic boom
C-97
-------
focal zone region is developed at the ocean surface. This focal region, which contains very
high localized overpressure levels extends to approximately 45 nautical miles on both sides
of the ground track. These regions must be identified and measures must be taken to ensure
that the outer edges of these focal zones do not occur on the highly populated land mass
surrounding the Shuttle launch sites. Consequently, launch azimuth constraints have to
be imposed for all Shuttle flights. Efforts are currently in progress, both in-house and
contractually, to provide for this environmental defmition.
Space Shuttle Hot Model Tests
A 6.4% mQdel of the Space Shuttle Vehicle and launch facility have been built and are
now being tested at the Acoustic Model Test Facility (AMTF) at MSFC. The basic objectives
are to provide a dynamically scaled flow model, in which case the environments on the model
are equal in amplitude to the full-scale environments with only a spectral shift in the noise
spectra. A minimum of data scaling is required and accuracy in defining the environments
for the full-scale vehicle and surrounding areas is more nearly guaranteed in a dynamically
scaled test. Such tests involve use of combustible solid propellant and liquid propellant
model engines, with exact flow conditions specified, and scaled launch facilities to determine
the interface effects. The exhaust trenches and deflectors are also scaled as is the mobile
launcher (ML) structure, which carries the prototype vehicle from the assembly area to the
launch pad at KSC. The exhaust impingement on the ML is influential in generating the
noise environments and will be evaluated and studies as a factor in launch simulations
involving 24 firings from elevations up to almost 300 feet full scale. Some 60 acoustic mea-
surements will be made on each test to aid the definition of the vehicle environment and
crew exposure along with the farfield acoustic conditions induced in surrounding areas.
This data will be used to update, if necessary, the E IS for both the Eastern Test Range
and Western Test Range on-pad and launch case.
The latter portion of this program will utilize two sound suppression techniques that
are to be selected with the aid of the results from the cold flow model test efforts. The
objective is to verify, with the hot flow model, the sound suppression effects that are noted
from methods from the more economical cold flow tests. Some seven hot test firings will
be made with a scaled launch facility in order to determine the reductions in acoustic environ-
ments for the vehicle and surrounding areas, including community areas adjacent to ETR and
WTR launch sites. The project is being conducted in-house and has been funded for $350,000
in FY74 and $355,000 in FY75.
C-98
-------
Space Shuttle Noise Suppression
The objective of this project is to perform an analytical and experimental study of
possible noise suppression techniques for the SpaceShuttle propulsion system. The Space
Shuttle propulsion system presents a unique problem in terms of launch facility design
requirements. The two separate exhaust ducting arrangements are of special concern to
launch facility design personnel and are important in determining the farfield conditions.
The two solid motor exhausts flow in one direction with the orbiter’s exhaust in an opposite
direction, i.e., 1800 from the other. Of particular concern is the assurance that modIfica-
tions of the existing launch complex 39 facility can be made so that the exhaust products
can be adequately discharged from the launch facility. It is mandatory that each exhaust
trench or duct be designed so that it does not restrict the exhaust flow which will in turn
result in pressure buildings within the duct and at the base of the Space Shuttle and induce
degradation in the performance of the Space Shuttle system. Adequate design of the
exhaust deflector trench or duct system can only be accomplished by testing. Several
liftoff positions (elevations to approximately one vehicle length) will be utilized to
determine the acoustic environment changes due to exhaust impingement effects on the
ML. Acoustic data from the vehicle areas are also obtained. Direct verification of these
results will be acquired using the hot flow SSV model.
Funding for this project contracted to Chrysler Corporation, was $75,000 in FY73
and $70,000 in FY74.
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD (NLRB)
This agency reported involvement in the area of heaiing conservation.
Hearing Conservation
Although the NLRB has only recently identified a noise exposure problem produced
by its operations, the agency is planning to develop a hearing conservation program designed
to curtail similar problems and to control noise on a systematic basis. A noise survey of a
headquarters printing facility indicated noise levels only slightly below the OSHA 90 dBA
limit. Subsequent audiometric testing of 16 employees indicated that one had a 23 percent
hearing loss (primarily due to previous medical problems), four employees had either one
or two percent hearing loss, and the remaining employee’s tests were negative. The NLRB
consequently issued all Print Shop employees with personal protective devices. Periodic
audiometric testing will be performed on all Print Shop employees, and baseline audiograms
taken on all new employees.
C-99
-------
NATIONAL SCIENCE FOUNDATION (NSF)
NSF reported limited involvement in hearing conservation.
Hearing Conservation
The National Science Foundation reported that its operations include no activities that
create noise levels sufficient to constitute a health hazard, and, therefore, no formal hearing
conservation program has been established.
As part of an overall preventive medicine program, the Agency’s Health Service conducts
periodic employee health maintenance examinations which, since 1969, have included an
audiometric examination. Significant hearing deficiencies are reported to the employee and
recommendations made for further evaluation and treatment as indicated. In all instances,
hearing losses found during the examination antedate the employee’s entrance on duty with
the Agency.
SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION (SEC)
SEC activities relate to the area of hearing conservation.
Hearing Conservation
The Securities and Exchange Commission does not have a formal hearing conservation
program. The Commission identified no significant noise exposure problems, although
expressing interest in a noise survey of its print shop and computer facilities.
Periodically, the Health Unit conducts a hearing loss detection program. No work-
related hearing loss has been reported.
SELECTIVE SERVICE SYSTEM
Reported activities fall into the noise abatement category.
Noise Abatement
The Selective Service System reported no significant noise problems. However, sound
conditioning is an integral part of all alteration and renovation planning within the Selective
Service System. Standard acoustic conditioning includes full carpeting of work areas where
possible, sound insulating and absorption draperies on windows where required, acoustic
covers for teletypewriters and automatic typewriters, and acoustic wall treatments for high
noise areas. In FY73, GSA conducted a noise survey of a Selective Service System computer
C-lOO
-------
center and recommended installation of sound absorptive materials at an estimated cost of
$21,500. Separate accounts for noise abatement activities are not maintained as compara-
tively little work is undertaken in this area.
SMALL BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION (SBA)
SBA reported involvement in the area of standards and regulations.
Standards and Regulations
The economic effects of complying with standards for thg. abatement and control of
noise were recognized early. The potentially heavy economic burden, particularly on small
businesses, received particular attention. Thus, Section 28 of the aforementioned OSHA
Act amended Section 7(b) of the Small Business Act (15 U.S.C. 636) to permit assistance
to any small business in altering equipment, facilities, or methods of operation so as to
comply with OSHA standards. And on January 2, 1972, P.L. 93-23 7 (the Bible Amendment)
further broadened, by Section 2(a), the provisions of Section 7 of the Small Business Act to
permit financial assistance within the established loan limits to small firms seeking to comply
with any Federal law, any State law enacted in conformity therewith, or any regulation or
order of a duly authorized, Federal, state, regional or local agency issued in conformity with
such Federal law if the Administrator (of the SBA) determines that “such course is likely to
suffer substantial economic injury without assistance under this paragraph”.
TENNESSEE VALLEY AUTHORITY (TVA)
TVA conducts extensive activities in both the hearing conservation and noise abatement
categories.
Hearing Conservation
A hearing conservation program was initiated in the Tennessee Valley Authority in
March 1955. The TVA program has as its goal the prevention of occupation-related hearing
loss among its 20,000 to 25,000 employees, many of whom work in industrial environments
where a real potential exists for excessive noise exposure.
The Agency program consists of four major efforts: environmental planning and hazard
control guidance, medical surveillance, production level implementation and enforcement,
and incorporation of noise control principles in the design and planning of new plants.
These four functional areas are directed respectively by the Division of Environmental
Planning, the Division of Medical Services, operating divisions within TVA, and the Division
C- 101
-------
of Engineering Design. The program encompasses preemployment and periodic audiometric
testing and related physical examination of all employees, surveillance of noise levels in
operating environments, the provision by TVA of personal hearing protectors to employees,
and implementation of engineering and administrative noise controls. Approximately 14,000
employee audiograms and about 80 sound level surveys plus numerous special investigations
are performed annually.
The ongoing hearing conservation program has been incorporated as one element in the
TVA comprehensive hazard control plan, the implementing strategy for which was published
on January 16, 1974. The plan is designed to ensure that occupational safety and health
becomes an integral part of all operating activities. TVA hazard control efforts are to be
consistent with Federal occupational and health standards, and where no such standards are
available, TVA will develop its own. TVA requires that contractors who perform services
for TVA comply with applicable TVA and Federal hazard control standards and present a
related plan of action satisfactory to TVA.
Under the plan standards and criteria will be developed to reduce noise exposure by
engineering, administrative, and personal protective means. Design criteria for noise control
and noise emission specifications for new equipment will become a part of this plan when
developed. Currently, an effort is in progress to establish reasonable noise emission speci-
fications for heavy construction equipment.
Operating divisions within TVA may issue specific instructions on hazard control under
the plan. The Division of Power Production has implemented an instruction on hearing con-
servation which is applicable to electric generating plants and which supplements the general
TVA standard on hearing protection. This instruction establishes a comprehensive hearing
conservation program which includes indentification and marking of high-noise level areas
(defined as work environments containing 90 dBA or more of continuous noise), periodic
noise surveys, audiometric examinations and safety brie fmgs to employees, and mandatory
use in high-noise level areas of approved hearing protectors enforced by disciplinary action.
TVA activities include the operation of thermal electric generating plants, dams and
hydroelectric plants, a fertilizer plant, laboratories, and construction projects. Surveys
have been conducted to identify potentially hannful noise levels in these activities, and four
reports on in-depth noise surveys were submitted by the TVA. Of particular concern are the
thermal electric generating plants which, due to the nature of current technology, are quite
noisy. All personnel are provided effective personal hearing protectors which they are re-
quired to wear in marked areas where operational noise normally exceeds 90 dBA. In
addition, acoustical booths have been installed in four plants.
C-l02
-------
Workers with fixed work locations, e.g., control room operators, shop workers, and
administrative personnel, are provided environments which normally meet permissable
exposure limits. Most plant workers, however, do not have fixed work stations and move
through various areas of the plant with varying operational noise levels. TVA has attempted
to estimate noise exposures based on area noise surveys and estimates of the workers stay
times in different areas. Results indicate that of 3020 workers in 10 steam-electric generating
plants, 989 had an 8-hour exposure greater than 85 dBA and 286 greater than 90 dBA. All
of the workers with exposures over 90 dBA were employed as auxiliaiy operators and
trainees, boilermakers, welders and blacksmiths, conveyer-car dumper operators or heavy
equipment operators.
TVA converts hearing loss measured in dB to percent binaural hearing impairment using
American Medical Association criteria. The value is recorded in the employee’s medical
record and, since 1967, on computer tape. Beginning July 1, 1974, in addition to percent
binaural hearing impairment, actual dB loss measured in each ear at 500,1000,2000,3000,
4000, and 6,000 Hz are recorded. TVA submitted the following data on impairment among
Division of Power Production personnel.
Employees with Binaural Hearing Impairment (ALL CAUSES )
Percent Binaural Impairment*
Location 0.1 - 9.9 10.0 -24.9 25.0 - 99.9
Steam Plants (9)
Number(%) of employees 478 (14) 96(3) 45(1)
Hydro Plants (19)
Number (%) of employees 37 (12) 7 (2) 2 (1)
Steam plant data as of June 1973 on approximately 3,505 employees.
Hydro plant data as of June 1974 on approximately 300 employees.
*AMA/AAOO 1958 criteria
Exact information is not available on the number of hearing disability claims, although a
rough estimate is from 1 to 2 per year.
The greatest barrier to program effectiveness is limited feasible noise control technology.
Low noise-emission equipment is too often not available or available only at unreasonable
costs. The availability of trained personnel, particularly in the areas of analysis and control,
and limited funding have also hampered hearing conservation efforts.
TVA has recently established a multidisciplinary, interdivisional noise control engineer-
team consisting of a noise specialist, operations engineer, and a design engineer supplemented
c-I 03
-------
by professional assistance from an industrial hygienist. This team’s approach is to identify
the specific process systems most responsible for excessive employee noise exposure, deter-
mine the noise generating mechanisms, test and select possible control techniques, implement
successful and feasible control techniques in other operating systems, and incorporate suc-
cessful and feasible techniques in the design of new systems and plants.
Although the hearing conservation program utilizes medical, environmental, design,
and operations personnel, no estimates were reported on the numbers of individuals or
percentages of their time spent on hearing conservation. Specific budgetary information
was not provided due to TVA accounting procedures.
Noise Abatement
The TVA objective in community noise control is to prevent the generation of noise
from TVA facilities which will produce unacceptable noise levels in nearby community
environments. There have been few complaints from the public about excessive noise from
TVA facilities. This is probably the result of the remote location of most plants from popu-
lation centers and the generous buffer areas between plant and boundaries. Some complaints
have been registered over the years and include noise from blasting, coal car shake-outs,
pressure relief valves, and pumps. Every complaint is promptly investigated and corrective
measures taken. TVA has identified potential over-the-fence noise problems related to the
operation of electric generating plants and power transmission systems, the use of heavy
construction equipment, blasting, and miscellaneous sources such as trucks, aircraft, trains,
and boats.
For new facilities, the Division of Engineering Design incorporates noise control engi-
neerin , in the design of new plants. Noise specifications are used where feasible in prepara-
tion of purchase specifications for new equipment. Evaluation of noise impact is included
in environmental statements prepared on TVA projects, and noise surveys conducted at
major construction sites for EIS purposes. Gas turbine facility sites have been surveyed
before and after installation of the turbines.
Future TVA noise abatement plans, although not yet approved or funded, call for
programs including the following elements:
• Identification and classification of potential community noise sources throughout
TVA
• Evaluation of community impacts from existing facilities
• Establishment of noise models for various types of operations
• Evaluation, selection, and implementation of control measures including use of noise
criteria in equipment purchase, engineering design and engineering modification to
existing.
c-I 04
-------
No information was submitted on personnel involved in noise abatement activities.
Approximate expenditures for noise abatement surveillance, special studies, complaint
investigation, environmental monitoring, and design work were FY72 - $10,500, FY73 -
$ 24,500, FY74 - $38,400 and estimated FY75 - $50,000.
UNITED STATES POSTAL SERVICE
The Postal Service reported activities in both hearing conservation and noise abate-
ment.
Hearing Conservation
Although the Postal Service reported that generally it does not have a noise exposure
problem, guidelines and procedures have been established for a service-wide hearing con-
servation program to comply with the requirements of the Occupational Safety and Health
Act of 1970. To ensure compliance, safety personnel take noise measurements during
their routine inspection of all Postal installations. The Postal Service reported that, to
their knowledge, all installations are in compliance with OSHA’s occupational noise expo-
sure standard.
The Postal Service’s Supervisor’s Safety Handbook establishes procedures for request-
ing noise measurements in potential problem areas, provides for noise engineering control
measures, and stipulates that personal ear protection devices be made available to employees
exposed to sound levels exceeding 85 dBA and be mandatory when levels exceed 90 dBA.
The Employee Relations Department has also provided guidance to regional offices on
audiometric technician training and audiometric equipment.
In some of the Postal Service’s large, highly mechanized installations, limited audio-
metric testing programs have been recently initiated. For example, the Bulk Mail Centers
are required to have audiometric testing equipment and to conduct employee tests at the
time of employment and annually thereafter.
The Office of Workers’ Compensation recently adjudicated two hearing loss cases in
favor of Postal Service employees. In neither of these cases were the employees exposed to
noise levels exceeding 90 cIBA. In one case, 83 dBA was the maximum level of exposure
for the employee.
The overall noise exposure objective of the Postal Service is to provide a work environ-
ment that does not exceed 85 dBA. Steps taken to achieve this objective are discussed
below under noise abatement. InfOrmation on hearing conservation funding was not
submitted.
C-i 05
-------
Noise Abatement
The Buildings Analysis and Design Office is responsible for coordinating the efforts of
numerous Postal Service organization elements that include noise abatement as one of their
major concerns. The overall program objective is to maintain the lowest noise levels feasible.
The Postal Service is attempting to define an optimum noise level that balances the cost of
noise suppression against employee environment. At the present time, it appears that 80
dBA at operators’ positions is a feasible goal. The program encompasses reduction of noise
emissions from both existing and new equipment.
The Postal Service reports that currently installed equipment and operating procedures
meet OSHA requirements. Surveys to establish existing noise levels in postal facilities
throughout the nation together with initial noise standards and measurement techniques
were provided through the Postal Service Research Department. The Postal Service
“Working Conditions Improvement Program”, which establishes guidelines for upgrading
environmental working conditions, deals with occupational noise exposure. Noise abate-
ment is to be provided so that employee exposure for an 8-hour period does not exceed
85 dBA; maximum levels for specified areas are stipulated ranging from 50 dBA for window
service areas to 78 dBA measured at 10 feet from the nearest equipment for workroom
areas.
The Postal Service has a contracted project entitled “Sound and Vibration Control in
Post Office Facilities” which involves the development of systems and equipment modifica-
tion to reduce noise levels. This effort applies to existing equipment only. Recommended
solutions will be tested to assure efficacy and acceptability for nationwide application.
Followon programs to retrofit postal equipment will depend largely on the cost-benefits of
the retrofits developed.
The program for new equipment consists of including a noise limit in contract speci-
fications. Many contract specifications now stipulate 80 dBA as the maximum acceptable
level. Upon procurement, equipment is joined with other equipment to form mail handling
systems tailored to the requirements of individual post offices. The additive noise effect of
equipment joined in systems has not been a problem because of ample spacing between
system components.
The Postal Service indicated that its facilities did not generate any significant over-the-
fence noise. The only sources that might be identifiable at the property lines are electric
power transformation and distribution stations, postal vehicles, and direct expansion
centrifugal compressors used in facility air conditioning systems.
C- 106
-------
The Postal Service has ten professional engineers engaged in noise related efforts.
They are supported by 487 safety specialists who are trained in the basic problems of
noise abatement and sound measurement techniques.
The contract effort to develop noise control techniques for existing postal equipment
totals $210 thousand over several years. The approximate cost of in-house personnel
involved in noise abatement for FY74 is $100,000. In addition, travel expenses and instru-
mentation prorated against noise control is $50,000 per year. Future contracts to assist in
establishing noise criteria and correcting noisy installations are estimated at $50,000 per
year.
VETERANS ADMINISTRATION (VA)
Reported VA activities include standards and regulations, hearing conservation, and
noise abatement programs.
Standards and Regulations
In the past, the FHA and its successor, HUD, have usually collaborated closely with
the VA in applying planning and rating criteria for subdivision developments and individual
dwelling design. However, the VA has restricted its advice to buyers of existing (VA-financed)
housing to information normally not readily available to individual buyers. This has been
interpreted by the VA to restrict their activities to compel disclosure of exposure of residen-
tial properties to noise from nearby airport operations. Section VIII of Manual M26-2
Change 43 (September 24, 1969) provides that “In the absence of mandatory planning
and/or zoning for non-residential use, the VA must recognize the possible unsuitability for
residential use and the probable adverse effect on livability and/or value of homes in the
vicinity of major airports”. Among the adverse effects the VA lists conditions generated by
“existing or potential hazards of low-flying aircraft, the nuisance of turbulence, bright
lights, dust, varying degrees of noise intensity and in the absence of zoning the possibility
of the use of adjacent property for detrimental, non-residential purposes” (Section 2.47).
Instead of imposing “national predetermined formulas” for measuring depreciation
allowances for properties near airports, VA directs each field office to “consider each case
individually”, taking into account the “effect of airport development upon the value of
neighboring property” and “the reaction of the typical purchaser” (Section 2.48).
For residential development approvals of sites near airports with less than 100 daily
takeoffs and landings and less than 80 runups, noise should not be a factor (the so-called
Zone 1). Where airports with 100-115 takeoffs and landings and 80-95 runups are concerned
C- 107
-------
(Zone 2), counter-measures for noise such as acoustical treatment acceptable to the market
(e.g., sound-proofing and year-round air-conditioning) may permit development of property
acceptable for GI loans. Natural or artificial barriers may also be used to obtain the same
effect. Where the number of takeoffs and landings exceeds 115 and the number of runups
exceeds 95 (Zone 3) the locations normally are not acceptable for residential development
in FAA practice. But, the VA instruction continues, “properties otherwise acceptable are
not to be rejected because of airport influence if there is evidence of acceptance by a fully
informed veteran.” The VA position is, the instruction continues, “that since the dwellings
are in use and are expected to continue so in the foreseeable future, their marketability
should be the strongest indicator of their acceptability.” (Section 2.50).
VA regional offices are instructed to maintain a separate fIle on each airport in their
area, including maps showing Composite Noise Rating zones and any areas of objection
applicable to the airport (Section 2.53).
On September 10, 1974, the VA Administrator issued DVB Circular 26-74 which
directs compliance with NEPA requirements and contains specifications for EIS preparation,
including the Subdivision Feasibility Report (ASP-3) for the A-95 Clearinghouse review
(39 FR 33614-5, September 18, 1974).
EPA has requested that VA adopt the Leq/Ldn descriptor.
Hearing Conservation
The Veterans Administration is implementing a hearing conservation program which
encompasses audiometric testing and noise monitoring. VA has adopted a Safety, Occupa-
tion Health and Fire Protection Standard on Noise, dated January 18, 1974, which
established permissable noise exposure levels more stringent than OSHA requirements. The
standard requires use of feasible administrative or engineering controls, provision of hearing
protective equipment, and institution of a continuing effective hearing conservation program
in all cases where exposure exceeds 85 dBA for eight hours.
An audiological examination of boiler and utility plant operators (both preemployment
and annual) has been in effect since March 30, 1973. VA headquarters has recently hired a
senior industrial hygienist who will refine the audiological testing program in addition to
performing other noise-related activities.
An on-going industrial hygiene monitoring program is VA policy and has been estab-
lished at all VA facilities to detect and evaluate potential health hazards from harmful
noise levels.
C-l08
-------
VA did not provide information on either personnel levels or funding for hearing
conservation.
Noise Abatement
VA noise abatement activities include the consideration of noise in conjunction with
equipment procurement and preparation of environmental impact statements.
VA plans to develop noise limiting procurement specifications for certain equipment
used in VA facilities. Potential noise impact in the construction and operation of VA
hospitals is considered in the preparation of environmental impact statements for new
construction.
INTERNATIONAL ASPECTS OF NOISE-CONTROL RESEARCH AND REGULATORY
DEVELOPMENT
The following is a brief summary of United States participation in recent activities of
international organizations concerned with noise-control research and regulatory standards.
The timing for this report did not pennit the fuller treatment intended for future reports.
The abatement and control of noise and the conservation of hearing is a concern
shared by all nations. For the highly industrialized nations, the wide use of machinery
and powered transportation equipment has brought with it the generation of noise to
levels often highly injurious to public health and welfare. With the increase of noise in
the environment, inquiry and research have been pursued in many countries to develop
ways to control noise and protect hearing. At the beginning of the comprehensive Federal
noise-control program coordination now assigned to the Environmental Protection Agency,
a survey was made of the status of noise control and noise abatement research in other
countries. *
Since the efforts to control noise sought to advance and share the fruits of research,
it was only natural that particularly the functional international organizations should
address the problem. Further, in such areas as air transportation the advancement of
technology exposed the inhabited areas of many nations to new types of noise hazards
that could be controlled and lessened only by common agreement on equipment and
operational standards.
*Title IV report, Chapter 6 and the source document cited there.
C-109
-------
The United States has been a leading participant in international functional organiza-
tions. The following resume of the noise control activities of several of these international
organizations is not only important for the cooperation it reflects. This cooperation may
also be important for the commonality in standards and practices it can provide so that
environmental protection will achieve uniform levels and differences in standards will not
engender controversy.
The International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO)
The International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO), created by the Chicago Conven-
tion of 1944 and with a current membership of 123 countries, began to address the problem
of aircraft noise control in the 1960’s.
ICAO developed aircraft noise standards pursuant to Convention Article 37 after
formal considerations at the International Conference on the Reduction of Noise and
Disturbance Caused by Aircraft (The “London Noise Conference”) of November 1966,
the Fifth Air Navigation Conference of ICAO in Montreal of November 1967, and the
Special Meeting on Aircraft Noise in the Vicinity of Aerodromes held in Montreal in
November and December 1969. The proposed standards were formally adopted by the
ICAO Council on April 2, 1971, as Annex 16 on International Standards and Recommended
Practices with Respect to Aircraft Noise to the ICAO Convention, and made applicable to
member states on January 6, 1972.
The most recent (fourth) meeting of the ICAO Committee on Aircraft Noise (CAN IV)
took place in Montreal, Canada, from January 27, 1975, through February 6, 1975. Posi-
tions taken by the United States member are coordinated through the Interagency Group
for International Aviation (IGIA) and approved by the Department of State. CAN IV
recommended that Annex 16 noise limits be lowered by 4dB during approach and takeoff
and 6dB on the sideline measurement. A closer measurement point was also recommended
to reduce further the maximum permissible noise. Other changes in flights test procedures,
tradeoff provisions, and atmospheric-condition corrections made ICAO Annex 16 technical
provisions essentially identical with the FAR-36 regulations of the United States (see
DOT/FAA, above). Acoustic change provisions would restrict the amount of growth in
noise in derivative or stretched versions of aircraft. But the revised levels did not take full
advantage of available technology to achieve lower levels and provided few incentives for
continued development of future acoustic technology.
CAN IV recommended that retrofit of current aircraft that do not meet Annex 16
standards be accomplished at the earliest date. On supersonic aircraft, CAN IV relaxed the
C-il 0
-------
CAN III determination that future SST’s must meet the same noise levels as are in effect
for supersonic aircraft at the time application is made for a type certificate. (EPA’s recom-
mendation to FAA for the NPRM on Aircraft Noi e Requirements for Civil Supersonic
Airplanes of February 28, 1975, is similar to the CAN III position.) For propeller-driven
airplanes CAN IV would upgrade recommended practices to make Annex 16 essentially
identical with FAR-36.
OECD Addresses Urban Traffic Noise Control
The Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD), created by
the Paris Convention of December 14, 1960, has addressed the complexity of problems
faced by modem society as a result of rapid economic growth, expanding population and
accelerating urbanization. With noise identified as a major intrusion on urban life and a
source of annoyance and discomfort to large numbers of city dwellers, the OECD Consulta-
tive Group on Transportation Research undertook studies to assess the scope and magnitude
of the urban traffic noise problem, to review the state-of-the-art of the technology of noise
abatement, and to recommend practical and realistic measures for the control and reduction
of traffic noise levels. This work resulted in a report entitled Urban Traffic Noise: Strategy
for An Improved Environment, which received the endorsement by the Committee for
Research Co-operation (since replaced by The Environment Committee) and was approved
for publication by the OECD Council on January 27, 1971.
EPA, along with HUD, has participated in the activities of the Urban Sector Group of
the Environment Committee of OECD as they relate to international aspects of noise
control. As a result of the 3-year analysis of noise as a problem affecting urban environ-
ments, OECD has approved the establishment of an ad-hoc group to carry forward work
leading to recommendations on regulations for noise control from various emission sources,
and for the establishment of international agreements, in conjunction with ICAO, relating
to airport noise control. To a large degree, international interests and concerns parallel
those underlying the Noise Control Act of 1972. It is anticipated that the OECD mechanism
will afford a means for developing uniform and consistent international regulations and
standards.
The Cooperative Environmental Program of the United States and the Council of the
European Communities (CEC)
The CEC has established a Commission on Environmental Matters that included in its
activities an exchange of information on various environmental topics with the United States
C-li!
-------
and of concern both to this country and European nations. From September 30 through
October 2, 1974, a meeting of United States and CEC member representatives was held in
Ispra, Italy. At the Ispra meeting, the problems confronting all of the represented countries
were found to be quite similar. Transportation noise sources of primary concern were iden-
tified as including aircraft, trucks, motorcycles, and buses. But while in the United States
the truck has been identified as a major noise source, the bus seems to present the greater
problem in European countries due to its greater proportionate use in European transporta-
tion systems.
The next technical environmental meeting of the United States and CEC representatives
is to be held in April 1975 in Washington, D.C.
United Nations Economic Commission for Europe (ECE)
Noise abatement and control within the ECE framework are addressed by the Noise
Task Force of the Senior Advisors to ECE Governments on Environmental Problems. The
next Task Force meeting is scheduled for April 29, 1975. Establishment of a noise task
force was originally proposed at the fourth session of the ECE Working Party on Air Pollu-
tion Problems, held in Geneva, January 7-1 1, 1974. The task force was subsequently
approved to function under the Senior Advisors. The goals of the task force are:
• To identify major problem areas in the control of noise injurious to health and
welfare.
• To identify research, development, and demonstration needs in these major
problem areas.
A two-phase wotk program is being implemented by the Task Force. The first phase con-
centrates on the collection of information from participating countries on identification
and quantification of the effects of noise (hearing loss) and methods and techniques for
controlling major noise sources. The second phase consists of evaluation of the information
received, identification of major areas for further research on noise control, and demonstra-
tion of control measures. Workshops, central data collection and organization, and seminars
are included in this task force work program. The task force program is to be reviewed at
a November 1975 meeting and the final report on both work phases is to be ready for
distribution in September 1976.
Discrepancies Among National Noise Control Standards Have Potentially Serious Economic
Consequences
The protection of the environment has by now become a major international coopera-
tive effort extending to the control and elimination of all major pollutants. The control
C-i 12
-------
and abatement of noise has not only become a concern particularly in the major industrial-
ized nations, but is being addressed in the various international organizations in which these
nations participate. This cooperation is not only desirable for the exchange of technical
knowledge and experience and to achieve coa erted action, but it may also help in avoiding
possible economic and political controversy.
It is one thing to develop and specify means of noise control and quite another to
implement such findings in the form of national standards and regulations. Standards to
control noise emissions affect the design and price of equipments and installations. When
such equipments enter international trade, discrepancies in national regulations governing
design and operation can present serious obstacles and disadvantages particularly when
international standards have not been developed and adopted. Thus, it is conceivable that
noise-emission control may become an issue in automotive imports into the United States
at least as much as that previously created by the clean-air regulations. Conversely,
advances in noise-control technology applications to printing presses produced in Japan
and Germany (where strong industrial noise-control requirements are in force) may bring
serious competitive pressure upon the procurement of such equipments for major United
States installations. This may even apply to Federal installations where preferential treat-
ment of American producers would normally obtain if such installations are under equal
pressure to achieve early implementation of the OSI-IA standards for limitation of noise
in the work place.
EPA is still in the process of developing with the Bureau of Customs the regulations
to be applied to imports of commodities subject to noise control standards, to be promul-
gated by the Secretary of the Treasury in compliance with Article 9 of the Noise Control
Act of 1972.
State Department Role in International Environmental Affairs
Although the technical preparation for, and expert (advisory) staffing of delegations
to, international public conferences also in the noise field involves participation of many
federal agencies, the leadership of such participation forms an integral part of the total
continuous process of foreign policy formation and conduct. In environmental affairs in
general and for the noise program in particular, this continuity is provided by the Bureau
of Oceans and Environmental and Scientific Affairs of the Department of State.
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE: 191S—582.423 :2U
C-1l3
-------
BIBLIOGRAPHIC DATA 1. Re, ort No. 2.
SHEET EvA 550/9-75-023
3. 4 ecipient’s Accession No.
.
4. Title and Subtitle
FIRST REPORT ON STATUS AND PROGRESS OF NOISE RESEARCH
AND CONTROL PROGRAMS IN THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT
5. Report Date
June 1975
6.
7. Author(s)
8. Performing Organization Rept.
No.
9. Performing Organization Name and Address
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Noise Abatement and Control
Crystal Mall #2
Washington,_D.C._20460
10. Project/Task/Work Unit No.
11. Contract/Grant No.
12. Sponsoring Organization Name and Address
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Noise Abatement and Control
Crystal Mall #2
Washington,_D._C._20460
13. Type of Report & Period
Covered
Final
14.
15. Supplementary Notes Based on a preliminary report prepared by the General Electric
Company, Informat ion Systems Programs, 1400 Wilson Blvd. ,Arl.,Va. under EPA
Contr + Nr L .fl1..2 7fl
16. Ab tracts
Issued in compliance with Section 4(c)(3) of the Noise Control Act of 1972 (PL 92-574),
this report describes Federal noise control and research activities and establishes a
baseline of agency program information that may be used in subsequent years to assess
progress in the Federal Government’s noise control efforts. Thirty-nine Federal agencie
were requested to submit information on their noise related activities to EPA. Volume I
of the report contains a summary and assessment of reported activities which are des-
cribed both by agency and by the following functional areas: noise standards and regu-
lations, noise abatement, hearing conservation, technical assistance, and research.
Volume II consists of four reports describing Federal agency noise research, development
and demonstration programs in the areas of surface vehicle noise, aviation noise, noise
effects, and machinery noise. The reports include project descriptions and fiscal data
and were prepared jointly by the membership of four interagency research panels, formed
in 1974 by EPA.
17. Key Words and Document Analysis. 17o. Descriptors
Standards and Regulations
Hearing Conservation Programs
Noise Abatement Programs
Technical Assistance
Research, Development, and Demonstration Programs
Federal Noise Research Coordination
Machinery Noise
Aircraft Noise
Surface Vehicle Noise
Noise Effects
U.S. Government Agencies
17b. Identifiers /Open-Ended Terms
17c. COSATI Field/Group
18. Availability Statement
UNLIMITED
FORM NTIS-35 (REV. 3-72)
THIS FORM MAY BE REPRODUCED
------- |